this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
89 points (96.8% liked)

World News

2243 readers
125 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ithorian@hexbear.net 56 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Lol that's a great fear mongering title until you remember Google takes pictures of the white house every single day.

[–] dRLY@lemmygrad.ml 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

True, but being fair to the DPRK, Google hasn't had the most powerful nation in the world literally blocking almost all trade with them or all the sanctions. Google has been allowed to make mad money and do whatever they want more or less (at least as long as the US gov can still tap into the info), and it really isn't shocking they have what they have at this point. The DPRK was able to do this basically completely on their own despite everything. Even the US had to start with one satellite at one point. So a "fuck you" to the US is a win for the DPRK no matter how small it is when compared to rich companies.

[–] alcoholicorn@hexbear.net 5 points 10 months ago

Google doesn't launch satallites, they buy images taken from aircraft mostly.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Google is part of the military intelligence apparatus of the Five Eyes. Th fact that DPRK can do this after being one of the top 3 most bombed countries in the history of the world is quite impressive. Consider the state of the space program in similarly bombed countries (Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia) and you'll see why this is actually a big deal.

Also of note, the DPRK has a GDP of around $40B. Alphabet (parent of Google) reported $218B in expenditures in 2022.

DPRK having spy satellites is a marvel given those numbers

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Vietnam and Laos have had no need to build a rocket industry and nuclear power.

Space technology is in large part a byproduct of ICBM technology. Why would any of those countries spend money investing into that?

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They require a deterrent against invasion in the case that China will not defend them.

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and many other countries do not face a similar threat.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do they not face similar threats? The US obliterated those countries.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In what realm will the US ever realistically step foot in Vietnam again.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The US deployed 60% of its naval assets to the Pacific undet Obama. It's building up power all over the region. If you think it's impossible the USA will fuck with Vietnam et al, I think you might be assuming too much.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Where in the pacific? You’re leaving out key information. Those assets were sent to Korea, Guam, and Japan. To encircle China. Vietnam is not a strategic or tactical target.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think your absolute statements of unknowable facts belie an overconfidence that is unjustified by history.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You try to justify your beliefs no matter the facts of the situation, with nothing mattering except the information that confirms what you want to hear.

Again, I ask you, if you’re so correct, then why have the Vietnamese leadership made no forays towards nuclear technology despite massive advancements in science and technology?

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 10 months ago

You want me to explain why Vietnam made different choices than Korea using my vast understanding of Vietnamese politics and their distinct perspective on US military strategy?

What beliefs do you think I am trying to justify despite facts, exactly?

That Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia might, in the future, become victims of overt US military action? What facts, exactly, do you believe completely eliminates this possibility? Why do you think I am trying to cherry pick facts to justify something as simple as countries that were attacked once might be attacked again? Exactly how many facts are needed to support such a simple and non-controversial conjecture?

Each nation makes choices based on their ruling class's understanding of the world, how it works, and their understanding of their own place in that world and their objectives. I don't know exactly which differences in these things led to Korea developing ICBMs while Vietnam did not. Perhaps it was merely physical proximity to the USSR, perhaps it was a specific understanding of their respective geostrategic locations, perhaps it was the result of their respective wars with the USA. I have not done a multi-decade comparative analysis of the native publications of the Vietnamese leadership and Korean leadership to answer your question.

What I am aware of is the history of US military interventions in the region, contemporary US military actions, and the current trends of geopolitics. This leads me to the very lightly held simple conclusion that the US could deploy military assets to the region and in fact take military actions if it determines it would serve a purpose.

Your position is that this is literally impossible. My position is merely that it is possible, not that it's inevitable. I would propose that your postion is the one that require extraordinary evidence to support, and I would welcome such a well researched and peer reviewed set of papers about the literal impossibility of future US military intervention in Vietnam.

[–] Ithorian@hexbear.net 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying it isn't an impressive accomplishment for NK just that it isn't remotely scary.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 10 months ago

It's a net new military intelligence capability in the hands of an opponent. This fundamentally changes the theater, as any net new capability would. This has been understood since Sun Tzu. It's not "nuclear armageddon" scary, it's a demonstration that the USA is failing to maintain its oppressive chokehold on the world.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, this is just a test, if they actually had decent spy satellites watching the US, they'd be watching military bases instead, and they wouldn't announce them like this. This is just standard DPRK fearmongering.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Since the late 50’s, almost all military bases in Russia and the US (and I would assume in China and other Western countries as well) have been constructed and upgraded with “satellite cover”, meaning that pretty much anything important happens underground, in massive uniform warehouses, massive covered hangers, discrete buildings that are oftentimes featureless and identical, and in covered train terminals (many of which are also underground).

Military bases often use lots of foliage and trees to cover roads, walking paths, and doorways.

Spy satellites have already been countered in the way you are thinking.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Oh, of course! Thanks for letting me know something that I probably should've figured out ages ago. They've been doing stuff like that since WW2, so there's no reason to think they'd stop.