Pride vs Safety

[Something Amyss]

It was false equivalence.

Your position has been utterly demolished by multiple posters at this point. Hardly time to make a victory lap while failing to address my counterpoint.

Howabout you make a counterpoint before complaining I haven't addressed it.

How about instead of declaring other people's positions "demolished" you actually come up with something relevant to use as a counterpoint?

In fairness, actually making a cogent case is much harder than declaring yourself the winner.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

To be fair, everyone says they should just stay the course and ignore the threats since NK can't really pose much risk to America. But if even a single person died from an attack then every man and their dog would absolutely crucify Sony for ignoring the threats.
Everyone on the internet is Captain Hindsight, and as much as i hate seeing them bend, I can't really blame Sony for not wanting to risk being sued to hell and back by people who should be on their side.

 

[Namehere]

There is no safety or surprise. Who seriously believes that North Korea is going to arrange terrorist attacks on NATO allied soil over a comedy? Who seriously doesn't see these theatres caving to such an insane threat as a real win for NK and a step on the slippery slope of 'justified censorship.' As in: 'there's a time and a place for it, kids. Safety first!' Many people suggested that Mr. Rogan deserved this for mocking NK's glorious leader. After all, whose Mr. Rogan to go around mocking and bullying Kim Jung Un? Yea...

So safety? No. First of all, if you want to kill someone - especially when you're a 'nation state' - you're gonna find a way. It'll happen. That said of course, there would be serious consequences should North Korea even be suspected of an attempted assassination or act of terrorism in a NATO country, never mind found to be the culprit of either. I suspect at that point the support from China that North Korea's leadership has enjoyed would be almost immediately withdrawn and surely a coup would follow in short order, possibly even while under air attack from NATO powers.

As it stands it looks to me like China's cyber forces temporarily strapped on some NK arm bands to test their gear out on substantive but not overly hardened targets. NK looked to grab a PR stunt and China to test its techniques and tools. Everyone is happy with the results it seems.

NK pushed it over the line though. The threat of physical acts of terrorism and Sony's backing down are going to demand actions. China will understand - saving face is big in the far East and it's just what the US and Sony have to do now. I don't think we'll hear a great deal more about this outside of some BS punitive cyber raid from the CIA or NSA. After all, the US can't hit China directly and that's principally - if I'm not mistaken - where the fighting machines are. So... Pyongyang can expect a week of black out or some such nonsense.

Frankly, we can't have Kim Jung Un dictating what sorts of films are made and or viewed outside of North Korea, or we might as well live under his rules and laws. Probably in the next week or so there will be a huge and successful push to get The Interview out and it will be hailed as a great act of resistance from Hollywood. They might time it with whatever punitive BS the NSA/CIA can come up with for NK.

I will say that China will do anything to keep Korea a divided state, they'd gladly slip Kim under the buss if need be and replace him with a less antagonistic general or political figure. So this probably won't become a huge issue either way.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

NK has always been more bluster than bite. A few friends who've served at the DMZ have more than confirmed how they operate. They'll do anything to provoke someone to making the first move on them, military-wise but they stop short of actually making it themselves. They're cowards at heart more interested in being noticed than actually doing anything worthwhile, probably because even if their glorious leader (and the one before him) is a pompous windbag moron, the guys who'd actually have to do the fighting know they'd collectively get stomped and their playground probably yanked away from them by whoever they actually do manage to piss off. They make lots of noise, like a little yappy dog but have the equivalent bite of said yappy dog. It could do some minor damage to your ankle if it bites, but in the long run the dogs neck could be crushed.
Norks aren't a threat in any sense of the word and taking them seriously on their threats only gives them more bluster to add to their already laughable machismo. Sony may have backed down because of a threat but I'd think some idiot not from NK but probably a homegrown lunatic with no ties other than opportunity is more credible to have potentially harmed people at said movies (now non-existent) release.
Yes folks I am saying the US has more to fear from some, possibly a few, jackass(es) here taking advantage of a windbag threat from a minor military power known for being unable and unwilling to back up any of its previous threats (of which they've made many) to cause some havoc stateside. Hell the dude who thought he was Joker didn't need any provocation except the release of Dark Knight Rises to do shoot up a theater.
North Korea actually following through on a threat? I seriously doubt it would happen unless they had the full backing of a major power like China and I doubt they had such.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Difference being that Sony and the mainstream press have a skewed idea of what hackers do.

Sony had terrible security measures in place, so an attack was bound to happen. Nonetheless, having your own privacy invaded is scary. Amplify that to the size of a company, it becomes downright terrifying.

In that terror, the hackers made a threat. They capitalised on that chaos, and I can't blame Sony for acting this way, but it is irrational. Why? Because they decided to nigh-immediately give in without examining the situation properly first.

For one, they didn't know from where the hackers were based. Threatening someone with 'terrorist' attacks becomes less intimidating if it's on the other side of the world. For two, to plan and enact a terrorist act is something completely different from just hacking into a company's databases. In threatening someone, and a multi-million international media enterprise, you should be damn sure that you would do something when you threaten to cause chaos. Also, in pronouncing the act before enacting it, you are effecitvely giving the other party time enough to call the police and get the feds on you.

To put it simply, if people just kept their shit together, they would've realised that this is bullshit. Nothing more than a feint by North Korea because Sony disrupted their 'cult of personality' bullshit that they have for their tyrants in making The Interview.

So no, this isn't about safety. This isn't about pride either. This is showing solidarity and a cool head, not 'believing in a project despite personal safety', this is about showing that you won't be bullied into submission by something like hacking.

 

[PinkiePyro]

i simi agree with both I feel sony should not outright cancel the release rather postpone the release and wait while cia/fbi look into the situation

they also should not of canceled the team America screenings

 

[viscomica]

I'm sorry to say this, but it doesn't JUST come down to safety vs. pride.
What about freedom of speech? As a basic human right, I mean.
By taking a step back with the release of the film, Sony (and others) are jeopardizing one of the (if not the) most important right supposedly defended by democratic states.
Is it worth it considering international relations with North Korea? Maybe.
But by saying The Interview will never see the light of day you're completely erasing the question of freedom of speech and artistic license. That's not a suspension of right (accepted by the human rights treaties) it's much more and it can't (nor shouldn't) be accepted.
Remember a little movie called The Great Dictator? The one with Chaplin in it? It was banned when it was released in many countries. Some of them didn't release it until the 70s or so. Why was it not released? International relationships with Germany at the time.
Was it released later on? YES.
Is it one of the greatest satires in the history of film? In my opinion, yes, yes it is.
I rest my case.

 

[NiPah]

But then again it's North Korea, we know from history their threats are paper tigers.

This bears repeating. A lot of the fear-mongering is coming from people saying, "well, look what happened after their last threat" as if these were the only two threats North Korea has made. Idle threats come out of North Korea all the time.

True, but they have also carried out attacks as well, note worthy is the 1987 Korean Air Flight 858 bombing which killed 115.
They also reactivated their Yongbyon complex about a month ago.
Sure 99% of what North Korea threatens is bullshit, but they've carried out some pretty big attacks.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I'm a bit disappointed that Sony decided to cancel the movie completely. I had no intention of seeing it as it didn't appeal to me, but cancelling it does sort of send the wrong message. The whole slippery slope argument comes to mind. If this one gets cancelled because of a threat, what happens when someone doesn't like, say, the next Avengers movie and threatens that and that gets cancelled? You can't let things like this rule your life, otherwise what's the point of going outside?

On the flip side, I can understand why they did it. They didn't want to be wrong. You can bet that everyone (or at least a majority) at Sony was going, "There's no way N. Korea will do anything serious," but it probably came down to whether it was worth the risk. What if N.K. had come through on the threat? What if there had been a shooting, a bombing, or something else? Guess who would have got the blame for it? Not the attackers, not North Korea. It would have been Sony, for putting the movie out and taunting N.K. in the first place.

It really became a no-win situation as soon as the general public became aware of the situation. And so Sony probably chose the side of caution, taking the road that wouldn't cost actual human lives if something went wrong.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So safety? No. First of all, if you want to kill someone - especially when you're a 'nation state' - you're gonna find a way. It'll happen. That said of course, there would be serious consequences should North Korea even be suspected of an attempted assassination or act of terrorism in a NATO country, never mind found to be the culprit of either. I suspect at that point the support from China that North Korea's leadership has enjoyed would be almost immediately withdrawn and surely a coup would follow in short order, possibly even while under air attack from NATO powers.

NK is regularly implicated in the abduction of small numbers of citizens from NATO allies like Japan, though.

 

[Namehere]

So safety? No. First of all, if you want to kill someone - especially when you're a 'nation state' - you're gonna find a way. It'll happen. That said of course, there would be serious consequences should North Korea even be suspected of an attempted assassination or act of terrorism in a NATO country, never mind found to be the culprit of either. I suspect at that point the support from China that North Korea's leadership has enjoyed would be almost immediately withdrawn and surely a coup would follow in short order, possibly even while under air attack from NATO powers.

NK is regularly implicated in the abduction of small numbers of citizens from NATO allies like Japan, though.

Sure. Abducting a soldier, or even a South Korean national or anyone in NK's back yard in general is a far cry from bombing a theatre in New York. Think about that ugly bit of logic and tell me how wrong I am again. Yea. Do you think you get 9/11 over someone blowing up a building in Turkey? No. So there is a significant difference between abduction and assassinations and terrorist attacks on, presumably, US soil. Lets be frank; nobody expects NK to take out a theatre in Germany showing the movie, or even Canada for that matter, do we? No. Hell they try to abduct and or kill US soldiers working the border. The stories aren't 'common' but if you've followed you've heard them. That's all a far cry from hostile acts against the United States on its own soil. And I suspect the DOD, DOJ and State Departments would all say the same. Besides, doing things in Asia - from a US perspective - is far away and ignorable. Blowing up - even threatening to blow up or damage - infrastructure in the US is public and in your face. You can't pretend it never happened which means, face saving operations are now required. It's ugly and grim but that's reality for ya.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So safety? No. First of all, if you want to kill someone - especially when you're a 'nation state' - you're gonna find a way. It'll happen. That said of course, there would be serious consequences should North Korea even be suspected of an attempted assassination or act of terrorism in a NATO country, never mind found to be the culprit of either. I suspect at that point the support from China that North Korea's leadership has enjoyed would be almost immediately withdrawn and surely a coup would follow in short order, possibly even while under air attack from NATO powers.

NK is regularly implicated in the abduction of small numbers of citizens from NATO allies like Japan, though.

Sure. Abducting a soldier, or even a South Korean national or anyone in NK's back yard in general is a far cry from bombing a theatre in New York. Think about that ugly bit of logic and tell me how wrong I am again. Yea. Do you think you get 9/11 over someone blowing up a building in Turkey? No. So there is a significant difference between abduction and assassinations and terrorist attacks on, presumably, US soil. Lets be frank; nobody expects NK to take out a theatre in Germany showing the movie, or even Canada for that matter, do we? No. Hell they try to abduct and or kill US soldiers working the border. The stories aren't 'common' but if you've followed you've heard them. That's all a far cry from hostile acts against the United States on its own soil. And I suspect the DOD, DOJ and State Departments would all say the same. Besides, doing things in Asia - from a US perspective - is far away and ignorable. Blowing up - even threatening to blow up or damage - infrastructure in the US is public and in your face. You can't pretend it never happened which means, face saving operations are now required. It's ugly and grim but that's reality for ya.

Sure, I don't expect them to blow something up in the US.

However, they might well go and abduct or kill someone in Japan and get away with it. People in the US are unlikely to care. Sony happens to be a Japanese company, and might view the situation a bit differently though.

 

[loa]

You don't show weakness and don't negotiate with terrorists because they'll take a mile if you give them an inch.
It empowers them.
This has nothing to do with "pride". Pride is useless.

As for "safety", just look how the patriot act turned out where you traded your freedom for "safety".

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hopefully we can actually respond accurately, and not get the ridiculous ADD like with 9-11 that somehow ended us up in iraq.

That is very far from a given, though. Still dealing with the consequences of that one, another disaster might be pushing it a bit.

I mean at this point, i think the only thing keeping the world from collectively bombing the place to the ground is the fact that north korea has big daddy china to protect it, but we'll see how long that good faith with china lasts if they keep pulling shit like this.

Well, that and the fact that NK has a powerful military of its own. Not powerful as in would "win", but powerful enough to be better left alone. People like having Seoul intact. Not to mention, what would you do with NK afterwards? Having them pull stunts like this ever so often might be better than kicking the place to pieces and seeing what the fragments do.

However, one wonders what the situation would be if the US hadn't just ended(ish) two long wars in 'stan and Iraq. If the US hadn't gotten war weary and was looking for someone to invade, things with NK might well be very different.

 

[Namehere]

So safety? No. First of all, if you want to kill someone - especially when you're a 'nation state' - you're gonna find a way. It'll happen. That said of course, there would be serious consequences should North Korea even be suspected of an attempted assassination or act of terrorism in a NATO country, never mind found to be the culprit of either. I suspect at that point the support from China that North Korea's leadership has enjoyed would be almost immediately withdrawn and surely a coup would follow in short order, possibly even while under air attack from NATO powers.

NK is regularly implicated in the abduction of small numbers of citizens from NATO allies like Japan, though.

Sure. Abducting a soldier, or even a South Korean national or anyone in NK's back yard in general is a far cry from bombing a theatre in New York. Think about that ugly bit of logic and tell me how wrong I am again. Yea. Do you think you get 9/11 over someone blowing up a building in Turkey? No. So there is a significant difference between abduction and assassinations and terrorist attacks on, presumably, US soil. Lets be frank; nobody expects NK to take out a theatre in Germany showing the movie, or even Canada for that matter, do we? No. Hell they try to abduct and or kill US soldiers working the border. The stories aren't 'common' but if you've followed you've heard them. That's all a far cry from hostile acts against the United States on its own soil. And I suspect the DOD, DOJ and State Departments would all say the same. Besides, doing things in Asia - from a US perspective - is far away and ignorable. Blowing up - even threatening to blow up or damage - infrastructure in the US is public and in your face. You can't pretend it never happened which means, face saving operations are now required. It's ugly and grim but that's reality for ya.

Sure, I don't expect them to blow something up in the US.

However, they might well go and abduct or kill someone in Japan and get away with it. People in the US are unlikely to care. Sony happens to be a Japanese company, and might view the situation a bit differently though.

Oh they might indeed, but that isn't really a face saving issue for either the US government or Sony. And I think you'll find Sony under a rather high security blanket after this, if only to assure major businesses the US has they're back. After all Sony manufactures more then play stations.

I said NATO to be polite - politically sensitive if you will - but I was specifically referencing an attack on US soil or a large quantity of US citizens. You know, air plane from an American carrier, an embassy school, something along those lines. This won't impact the long term or overall relationship between the US and NK provided that sort of thing doesn't go on. If it does though, I see China slipping Kim under the buss in hopes of keeping a divided Korea. A unified Korea would be both an economic and strategic threat, but divided it makes a wonderful proxy state among other things. Grim...

 

[Kolby Jack]

Pride is stupid. Always stupid. Defying North Korea shouldn't be about pride, it should be about freedom of expression. I can understand why Sony wouldn't want to risk people's lives just to release a frat boy comedy though. I don't blame them, but I still think they should find a way to release the film.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Powerful enough to be left along for enough time that they pose an even greater threat to the world, yes.

I'm not seeing them posing any sort of real threat. People just seem to be ignoring them in the hopes they'll collapse by themselves.

As for what to do with it after? Good question. If it were me i'd just let south korea have dominion over the land to do with as they please, Just be one Korea, but hey, that's just my largely uninformed opinion on the matter, so take it for what it is.

I don't see SK wanting to have them, they'd get stuck policing the place and trying to make a real country out of it. Not fun for the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.

How would things be different if the US hadn't ended the wars though? I'm not really following your train of thought there. Would it somehow change the actions of North Korea?

I meant, if the US hadn't gone to war at all with Iraq of Afghanistan, at least not this century. Then you'd have a US with a military not stretched by ongoing conflict, a generation not so disillusioned with war, an economy that hadn't had to pay for two long wars. It seems to me (hardly an expert, of course), that if that was the case, the US might be much more willing to play rough with NK, and NK would likely know that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ah, i see what you mean, you make a good point. If the USA, and hell, even the world, wasn't so tired of US intervention in world affairs, a response by the US wouldn't look so bad.

Still, you gotta kinda ask the question, how much are we going to let NK get away with, and what the hell do we do when they cross that line.

Well, there's little more that can be done short of war. So, NK can safely do anything they want, as long as it is less painful than a war. Unless a war because politically useful or something.

There's always various countries up to things we think they shouldn't be, very few of them provoke a response because it's not in many people's interest to respond. Somalian pirates, for example, they cause all sorts of problems, but it's easier not to do much about it. Again, not an expert, but I'd imagine that at least nominal support of a host nation would make actions against Somali pirates a lot easier, cheaper and more effective than stopping the NK government doing what the NK government wants.

 

[Namehere]

Well in fairness, this was quicker then the week I anticipated.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/north-korea-internet-shutdown-could-be-cyberattack-or-power-failure-experts-1.2882208

Too bad they couldn't time the movie's release with it. lol

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'd like to see if even half the people that are smugly going on about 'pride' would be willing to jeopardize their own safety in the face of a similar threat.

I actually would, but then, I'm not 'smugly going on about' it either. It just sets a horrifically poor precedent and gives the absolutely wrong sort of people power, real or perceived, that they really, really, really shouldn't have over individuals, let alone an entire entertainment medium.

I'm not even interested in the movie and I'd go see it just as some small middle finger to those sorts of people.

Honestly, may as well potentially die for a principle I'd be willing to fight for, right?