North Korea Loses All Internet Access

• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-12-22 21:01

  The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that's "North Korea" to the common man) has just four networks that connect to the world wide web -- and none of them are working today. "The situation now is they are totally offline," Doug Madory, director of internet analysis at Dyn Research told Bloomberg. After a weekend of spotty connections, the country's pipeline to the outside world reportedly went down this morning. "This isn't normal for them," Madory said. "Usually they are up solid. It is kind of out of the ordinary. This is not like anything I've seen before."

  
  
  Following statements from both the US Government and Anonymous that there would be payback for North Korea for the threats of attack/getting the movie cancelled, there are fingers being pointed in every direction.
  
  http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/22/north-korea-is-suffering-a-complete-internet-outage/?ncid=rss_truncated
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2014-12-22 21:14
  Finger pointing in all directions. Isn't that how World War I started :chin:
  
  I really hope humans aren't so stupid that they would repeat their past mistakes. Either way it'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. *grabs some popcorn*
• Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-12-22 21:25

  Quote from Kingofrunes;1258294:

  
  I really hope humans aren't so stupid that they would repeat their past mistakes.

  
  
  Well, they made more than 1 Twilight movie, so...
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-12-22 21:41
  A bird landed on the phone cable that provides their internet.
• SlurpTASTY wrote on 2014-12-22 21:45

  Quote from Space Pirate Nithiel;1258295:

  Well, they made more than 1 Twilight movie, so...

  
  
  OH THE GREAT MEMES *trollface*
  
  This is totally the beginning of WW3
• Compass wrote on 2014-12-22 21:52

  Quote from SlurpTASTY;1258300:

  OH THE GREAT MEMES *trollface*
  
  This is totally the beginning of WW3

  
  With all these world war 3 predictions I'm surprised we're not in World War 54
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-12-22 22:15
  As far as I'm concerned WWIII started in 2001 and is still on-going. War is just played out different now than back then.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2014-12-23 00:04
  I though for a world war to be considered one it need to involve atleast 70% of all the countries in military activity in each others country, at the same time
• k1nsoo wrote on 2014-12-23 00:35
  hide yo credit cards
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-12-23 00:43

  Quote from Chiyuri;1258321:

  I though for a world war to be considered one it need to involve atleast 70% of all the countries in military activity in each others country, at the same time

  
  
  Not really, here's the wiki definition:
  

  A world war is a war involving some of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters.

  
  
  You've got US, Canada, several European countries, many middle-eastern countries, military forces that are not officially members of any government, all fighting. Political and economic impacts are global.
  
  It doesn't have the same military scale as WWI and WWII, but it's affecting just as many if not more people in more ways than ever possible.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2014-12-23 02:41

  Quote from Osayidan;1258323:

  Not really, here's the wiki definition:
  
  You've got US, Canada, several European countries, many middle-eastern countries, military forces that are not officially members of any government, all fighting. Political and economic impacts are global.
  
  It doesn't have the same military scale as WWI and WWII, but it's affecting just as many if not more people in more ways than ever possible.

  
  
  We haven't actually been to war since WWII. The information era has done much to quell global tension.
  
  The United States has adopted a strategy of intrusive defense thanks to the containment theory. Modern battles take place in but a single theater; exterior counties may be involved but there's never any organized counter-offense.
• Splatulated wrote on 2014-12-23 06:55
  i just fear a nuke will be launched and south korea will be gone forever :c
• Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-12-23 12:50

  Quote from Kaeporo;1258328:

  We haven't actually been to war since WWII.

  
  Uhhhhhm. How do Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and twice Iraq not count? And that's just the ones off the top of my head, there are probably more.
  

  Quote from Splatulated;1258395:

  i just fear a nuke will be launched and south korea will be gone forever :c

  
  South Korea won't disitegrate, but Seoul sure would.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2014-12-23 13:42
  North Korea's nuke is big enough for only one district of Seoul.
• Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-12-23 18:58

  Quote from BobYoMeowMeow;1258418:

  North Korea's nuke is big enough for only one district of Seoul.

  
  Don't they (presunably) have a fuckton of missiles and artillery aimed at Seoul?
  
  Though then again...
  

  Barring the use of nuclear weapons or large-scale bombing runs, destroying a city requires an extended campaign of shelling and demolition, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WWII. When the Chechen capital of Grozny was all-but-destroyed by Russian forces in 1999, it was the result of months of artillery and missile bombardments, as well as air strikes. There's no doubt that North Korea's massive deployment of artillery, and potential deployment of roughly 300 ballistic missiles, could wreak havoc on Seoul and its population. What's clear, however, is that a sudden barrage of shells and missiles would only mark the beginning of a battle for the city, not an apocalyptic fait accomplit.
  
  And as Cordesman points out, flattening, levelling or otherwise destroying a city is an obsolete tactic. The firestorms of the past century have been replaced with surgical, precision-guided strikes, which can disable a city's communications, cut off its power and water supply, and pave the way for a ground invasion. "That's the real world," Cordesman says. "Not Dresden." The accuracy of North Korea's roughly 300 ballistic missiles is either classified or simply unknown, but nearly all are believed to rely on "strap-on" guidance, cobbled-together targeting systems that can't compete with modern smart bombs.