What will we do when:

[jj]

Kim Il lobs his one dirty nuke at Seattle? That's all that NK is said to possess, and he can't get far enough down the coast to hit San Francisco.

He's nuts.
He's broke.
His country is disintegrating.

When, and what?

[Aoidoi]

Assuming the NK rocket hits Seattle- I rather strongly suspect that Bush would order us to annihilate NK via ICBMs with hydrogen bombs. His black/white perception of the world would seem to require it. He may pause a moment to tell Russia, China and Europe what he's going to do so that it doesn't escalate, but I give that sort of thinking about a 50/50 chance of happening.

Funny thing is, I'm not sure that I disagree with my assessment. Nuclear deterrence only works if it is perceived that you are willing to strike back.

It is interesting to wonder what the aftermath would be like, though.

[jj]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Assuming the NK rocket hits Seattle- I rather strongly suspect that Bush would order us to annihilate NK via ICBMs with hydrogen bombs. His black/white perception of the world would seem to require it. He may pause a moment to tell Russia, China and Europe what he's going to do so that it doesn't escalate, but I give that sort of thinking about a 50/50 chance of happening.

Funny thing is, I'm not sure that I disagree with my assessment. Nuclear deterrence only works if it is perceived that you are willing to strike back.

It is interesting to wonder what the aftermath would be like, though.

Well, it's a hard question, I suppose, but why isn't the goverment as a whole working more toward making sure it can't happen?

And, yes, 'assuming it hits' is a strong assumption, I gather their guidance isn't so cool....

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj
Kim Il lobs his one dirty nuke at Seattle? That's all that NK is said to possess, and he can't get far enough down the coast to hit San Francisco.

He's nuts.
He's broke.
His country is disintegrating.

When, and what?

The primary concern with NK is not the US, but South Korea and Japan.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj
Kim Il lobs his one dirty nuke at Seattle? That's all that NK is said to possess, and he can't get far enough down the coast to hit San Francisco.

He's nuts.
He's broke.
His country is disintegrating.

When, and what?

Buy shares in RedHat?

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The primary concern with NK is not the US, but South Korea and Japan.

Agreed, none the less, you, of all people, might have something to say about that puppet state that the USSR and PRC created a long time ago.

It's their responsibility, not ours, how come they aren't fixing it?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Buy shares in RedHat? LMAO. I wonder if the open source community might be interested in helping with the guidance... :D

And yes, I'd think the likelihood of SK or Japan being targeted is far higher than them going for the long shot. No idea what happens if the manage to nuke Seoul or Tokyo. I'm still leaning towards a nuclear retaliation from Bush as he seems to only believe in friends and enemies, but I might be a bit biased due to GWB's now well known tendency to take military solutions.

I suspect NK would not attack the south, though... it would ruin the whole "reunite Korea" bit. Attacking China would be ideologically unsound, not to mention suicidal. Japan is probably the most likely target as they can still claim justification from WW2.

Overall, though, I don't think NK would actually attack with nuclear weapons... their strategy has been to threaten development and get bought off, once they attack they have to deal with either international condemnation or annihilation or both... which seems a losing move. Of course, if they believe their press then such rational distinctions are moot. They might nuke Atlantis at that point. :)

[Landis]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
LMAO

Overall, though, I don't think NK would actually attack with nuclear weapons... their strategy has been to threaten development and get bought off, once they attack they have to deal with either international condemnation or annihilation or both... which seems a losing move. )

No doubt money is one of the prime motives here, but don't forget one of NK chief sources of income is exporting medium range missiles to whoever comes up with the cash. Imagine how much they can get for a Nuclear Warhead mounted on a medium range missile!!! In the absence of the US stepping in and bribing them to stop production, they will go full speed ahead to develop the nukes. So GW has limited choices, 1. negotiate some kind of face saving deal to give NK billions of dollars in return for halting the nuke program, 2. Sit back and do nothing and try and intercept the nukes on the high seas if sold to another country, or 3. stage a pre-emptive strategic attack on the nuke facilities. I'm betting on number 3 as it fits GW's pattern of behaviour. He'll strike first and worry about the consequences (an all out war with NK) later.

[Dancing David]

Sorry,
I am just not a big fan of anti ballistic missle thingies, while they look good on paper, they are notoriusly expensive to implement.

I think that the best strategy would be to practise engagement of some sort with NK, in an effort to get them hooked on our consumer economy.

I think that a nuclear weapon is more likely to enter our country by sea, or by semi trailer.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj


Agreed, none the less, you, of all people, might have something to say about that puppet state that the USSR and PRC created a long time ago.

It's their responsibility, not ours, how come they aren't fixing it?

I don't know. Plus, NK was never a puppet state of the USSR. NK didn't really get along with the Russians even prior to the Korean War and especially after.

Unfortunately Korea was never allowed the chance to counter attack Japan and get justice so they are carrying a grudge.

They should have just been allowed to reunite Korea and I bet they would not even be communist anymore. Then again, who knows. Obviously the way things have gone didn't work well. Unfortunately we prevented SK from building thier own nukes. Too bad, that would have been a good deterant.

[Pyrrho]

They don't call nukes strategic weapons for nothing. When you have only one nuke in your arsenal, you don't waste it on a futile attack that will only result in your own destruction. North Korea isn't that stupid.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
They don't call nukes strategic weapons for nothing. When you have only one nuke in your arsenal, you don't waste it on a futile attack that will only result in your own destruction. North Korea isn't that stupid. I have made this argument myself on a number of occasions. I'm not so certain. Kim Il Sung is pretty wacked. The most important point I believe is that Kim Il Sung craves survival. He is too important to himself to be suicidal.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have made this argument myself on a number of occasions. I'm not so certain. Kim Il Sung is pretty wacked. The most important point I believe is that Kim Il Sung craves survival. He is too important to himself to be suicidal.

Is he not? He can't hold, his country can't hold, and I fear he thinks he, personally, has jack squat to lose.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by jj
Is he not? He can't hold, his country can't hold, and I fear he thinks he, personally, has jack squat to lose.
He's not the only one who holds power there. His country seems to be holding just fine -- I mean his power structure. Right now he's using his nukes to his best advantage, and there is no profit in exploding them.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have made this argument myself on a number of occasions. I'm not so certain. Kim Il Sung is pretty wacked. The most important point I believe is that Kim Il Sung craves survival. He is too important to himself to be suicidal.

This is just rehashed mainstream media blather.

Look, the NKs have no intention of every using a nuke. Its a barganing chip, that's all it is.

The only thing they are likely to do is sell nukes, which is worse, but they are not going to launch them, unless perhaps if attacked, but I doubt even then.

They aren't total idiots and Kim Sung is a smart guy with just bad priorities. They want unification with SK and they want an outragous amount of aid and favorable trade agreements and they know they have little to offer.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Knowing how looney tunes Kim Il Jong is, I predict he will nuke NK and blame the US.

As for Kim bombing the US, good luck. He is under extreme scrutiny and I doubt if he could fart and get away with it.

Charlie (Kim, feed your people) Monoxide

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This is just rehashed mainstream media blather.

Really? Prove it.

Look, the NKs have no intention of every using a nuke. Its a barganing chip, that's all it is.

No, it's an extortionist chip, and such are only useful if and when you ARE willing to use it.

The only thing they are likely to do is sell nukes, which is worse, but they are not going to launch them, unless perhaps if attacked, but I doubt even then.

Or until Jong Kim Il thinks he has nothing to lose.

They aren't total idiots and Kim Sung is a smart guy with just bad priorities. They want unification with SK and they want an outragous amount of aid and favorable trade agreements and they know they have little to offer.
They have a great deal to offer BY JUST SURRENDERING, that way the threat is gone, the fear is gone, and the people get fed. That's the solution... That's what they can offer, and it's all they have to offer.

And why haven't the nations responsible, the USSR (well, it went bankrupt, too) and the PRC (who is abandoning communism to adopt a more functional economic method), done something?

[Malachi151]

I'm not sure why you say that Russia is responsible. The USSR no longer exists, and they have rejected thier old ways.

You don't want to call the US responsible for Iran and Iraq, even though we still persue the same ideology and methods, yet you want to call Russia now responsible for agreements that Stalin made?

China has been helping, the US is the one pushing all the buttons though.

Take this for example though:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/korea000625.html

On the 50th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, North Korea and South Korea each downplayed military aspects of the day’s commemorations, reflecting the new mood of hope which emerged from the June 13-15 summit between the nation’s two leaders.
But the war anniversary and the new hope that South Korea may finally reconcile with the communist North and ease tensions along the Cold War’s last flashpoint, has also served to fuel anti-U.S. protests.
Today 2,500 demonstrators marched in Seoul calling for the United States to withdraw its 37,000 troops from South Korea and another 200 activists demonstrated near the U.S. Embassy. This follows several other very large demonstrations against the U.S. presence in recent weeks. The protesters, mostly students and activists, say Washington is turning South Korea into its colony. Their views run parallel to those of communist North Korea

Speaking to thousands of military veterans today, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said South Korea must maintain its security measures despite moves to reconcile with North Korea.
“We cannot afford to relax” until reunification and permanent peace between the Koreas is achieved, Kim told his audience during a ceremony at the War Memorial Museum.
“Firm security should be sustained; peace can be guaranteed only through tight defense posture,” said the 74-year-old president, whose recent summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il caused euphoria in the South.
In keeping with the new mood of hope, South Korea has cancelled a military parade and a battlefield re-enactment of one of the most famous battles of the Korea War — General Douglas MacArthur’s amphibious landing at Inchon, which turned the tide of a bloody and brutal conflict.
Instead activists from several civic groups today sailed on a large “peace raft” down the Han River, which bisects Seoul, to its mouth on the Yellow Sea to promote reunification.


The problem we are dealing with here is that both the North and the South don't like the US. The South Koreans elected a leader who's platform is re-unification of Korea. The Koreans, both North and South, are agitated at US interferance.

The South is facilitating the North at this point, they are both really against the US.

Japan is really the most likely target of anyone, they both hate the Japanese, and they have no desire to nuke thier own people and both the North and the South see each other as their own people, there are families split on both sides afterall.

China doesn't really care that much,they know that they are not a target, and they know that the US is dependant on China for trade, but they have tried to deescilate teh situation. Then, with thier efforts they get crapped on by Bush, so they probably have said screw it, if Bush is going to be a jerk then why bother.

We didn't cooperate with China on Iraq, why should they cooperate with us on NK? That's how it goes, and why Bush is an idiot.

Let's face it, people hate the US so much that they just aren't really willing to help us.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by jj
Kim Il lobs his one dirty nuke at Seattle? That's all that NK is said to possess, and he can't get far enough down the coast to hit San Francisco.

He's nuts.
He's broke.
His country is disintegrating.

When, and what?

Destroy him via the destruction of his country.

[Malachi151]

http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0205kimjongil_body.html

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il seems to have been born with a natural charisma. To the constant amazement of the outside world, he has been winning the hearts of foreign visitors who meet him face to face, from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung to conservative South Korean lawmaker Park Geun-hye.

His meeting with Ms. Park, in particular, brought much attention. The daughter of former South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee, long a thorn in the side of North Korean President Kim Il-sung, she developed her own negative opinion of the junior Kim. She also vehemently opposed the government's move to revise the National Security Law in November 1999. Ms. Park argued that the naval clash with the North in the Yellow Sea earlier the same year was proof that confrontation was not a thing of the past. When the National Assembly wanted to send 600,000 metric tons of rice to North Korea in October 1999 it was she who protested; saying Seoul should not waste the taxpayers' money; she demanded that a procedure for verifying how the rice was distributed be established first.

But after meeting Mr. Kim in person she changed her perspective. Upon returning to Seoul, she described the North's strongman as a very open-hearted and outspoken person capable of honest conversation.

Park is not entirely to blame. After all, the dear general gave in to every demand or suggestion she made. He agreed to install a liaison office for separated families, agreed to confirm the whereabouts of South Korean MIAs from the Korean War, and agreed to a joint inspection of the North's Geumgangsan dam and an inter-Korean soccer match to be played in Seoul. No wonder she melted.

"I went to North Korea to contribute what I can to reunification of the two Koreas, regardless of the size," Ms. Park said after returning to the South. "I have always grieved over the divided status of our country and I wholeheartedly wish for a day when the two Koreas come to prosper as one." Who needs special presidential envoy Lim Dong-won when Ms. Park brings home equally promising pledges from the North.

Which begs the question: What are those promises, any promises, made by the North Korean leader really worth? Most of the South Korean media would have you believe that North Korea is a highly controlled, highly centralized autocracy ruled from the top down by the Dear Leader. They would say that Mr. Kim's word carries greater weight than law, and he is never disobeyed.

But the reality is, the Dear Leader and his promises are a lot like the North Korean currency. The North's won has an official exchange rate of 2.15 won to $1. But in North Korea's black markets it reportedly trades at a rate closer to 200 won to $1. And so it goes with Mr. Kim's promises. There have been 23 inter-Korean state-level meetings since the June 2000 summit, six of them being ministerial talks. In those talks Mr. Kim or his representatives agreed to more than 20 provisions aimed at forging new relations between the two Koreas. He has kept his word on one of them, sort of. Separated families from North and South have met, but not as frequently or freely as expected in the South. The only other agreements of the 20 that were kept were done so by Seoul, which released long-term unconverted prisoners, former North Korean spies, and allowed them to return to the North. Seoul also allowed members of Chongryon, the pro-Pyongyang group of Korean residents in Japan, to visit South Korea. The remaining pledges, from Chairman Kim's return visit to Seoul for a second summit to connecting the Gyeongui railroad to opening East Sea (Sea of Japan) fisheries, were stopped short or never got underway.

The North's failure to follow through can be interpreted in two broad ways: either they are really unable to keep up their end of the bargain for some internal or external purpose, or they simply lied, dangling carrots in front of the Southerners in order to gain some leverage in future negotiations with Seoul. And there are a myriad of other possibilities that make determining why Pyongyang has not performed nearly impossible. It is most likely a combination of a number of factors.

What it boils down to is that we can no longer place much stock in the high-and-mighty words of the North Korean leader. Two years ago Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo were ready to take a chance on the seemingly awakening hermit regime. These days, no matter how impressive Mr. Kim's promises may be, diplomats just shake their heads get on with their routine.

My take is that he's not a crazy, irrational, madman, he's just simply not up to the task. The fact of the matter is that he can't be reiled on to do his share, so the other sides will have to simply do what it takes for a bit to get the regime to open up some. We are going to have to build trust with him, and give in to him for a few years, maybe 4 or 5 and then work towards a coup or work towards unification under the agreement that Kim has to step down from any kind of power.

That's how to go about it. You get the people of the North and the South both anticipating unification and then you say that it has to be under a democratically elected leader.

[Malachi151]

Here are soem high qulaity interviews on NK:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/them/hermit.html

What do the North Koreans want?


I think the regime in North Korea wants to survive. I think a coterie around Kim Jong Il has a plan or a hope for North Korea becoming a more normal country, perhaps making widgets instead of missiles, perhaps taking part in the economic integration of northeast Asia.

I think he is in thrall to the North Korean military, who feels threatened by a process of openness, which may endanger their preferred status. So the more they feel threatened by us, the more demands they place upon Kim Jong Il.


What do we know about North Korea? You've made some statements about your experience there as a CIA officer in the embassy in the '80s.

Well, I refer to North Korea as the longest-running intelligence failure in the history of U.S. espionage.


Why?

They were very difficult to recruit. I think the reason being that they came from a country that had a tradition of being the "hermit kingdom," trying to shut out the incursions of foreigners. They came from a Confucian tradition. Very tight family structure.

And then there was the overlay of self-reliance and the overlay of the particularly virulent kind of Marxism which had been adopted in the North. They were just extremely difficult to get at. And then if you did get one to agree to help, it was almost impossible to do anything with him once he returned to North Korea. It's just always been an extraordinarily difficult nut to crack. I think our intelligence is better now. We certainly have much better satellite coverage ... and we fly U2's and so forth. But we still are not able to get inside their heads.


You made an observation to me when we first spoke on the phone about the demonization of Kim, the damage that that does, and that you had remembered that we had done that in history.

Right, with Ho Chi Minh. Yes. I think when we have an antagonist whom we don't understand, we have a very dangerous tendency to fill our gaps of ignorance with prejudice. We did that with Ho Chi Minh and we are doing that with Kim Jong Il -- a perfect example being a cover story on Newsweek calling him "Dr. Evil." ...


Well they could spend less on a nuclear weapons program, and more on feeding their people.

That's correct. I think the reason they don't is what I said at the beginning -- that the military feels threatened by a process of openness, and lays the demands on for a continuation of the very generous resource allocation to them.


Some people are going to listen to this, and say, "You know, Donald Gregg, conservative, former CIA, national security adviser to George Herbert Walker Bush -- where did you become a dove on North Korea? Where did you begin apologizing for the North Koreans?"

I don't [think] I am apologizing for North Korea. I think nothing I've done in the 25 years since I retired from CIA is so reminiscent to me of my CIA work. I always saw intelligence work as an attempt to cut behind appearance to reality, and I always felt that if you were going to be effective in dealing with a problem, you had to know what actually was going on, not what appeared to be going on.

Yes, there are people starving in North Korea. Yes, there is a misallocation of resources. But there is a group in North Korea that has a hope that North Korea can do better by establishing better relations with their neighbors, by, as I said, building widgets instead of nuclear weapons. I think that that plan ought to be encouraged, and by threatening them, by calling them a terrorist state, by calling them the other things that this administration has called them -- the axis of evil, pygmy, etc.

[By doing that] we make it much harder for them to change the allocation of resources. We make it much harder for them to become a normal nation. They are very proud people. They have said to me, and they have said to others, "Do not confuse us with Iraq. You're not going to be able to do to us what you probably are going to try to do to Iraq."

[Tmy]

WHo says hes insane???? Ever notice that every enemy of the state is always tagged as "crazy"?

Kim= insane, Saddan= insane, Gerealdo Reveira = insane.

Insane like a fox.


Im sure Bush is portrayed as a mentally disturbed cowboy in these other countries (I bet thats an easy sell.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
This is just rehashed mainstream media blather. Oh excuuuse me Mr. Expert I base my opinion on the book Kim Il Sung (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0231065736/qid=1061904645/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-9569009-0523950) which was written by and is NOT media blather. Where the hell did you get your demonstrably wrong information?

The fact that Kim Il Sung would rather see his people starve of mass starvation and let his infrastructure rot and kidnap people and hold their children hostage is rather telling of his pathology.

Look, the NKs have no intention of every using a nuke. Its a bargaining chip, that's all it is. I have argued that the dictator is more interested in survival so I am not arguing that he will use his nukes.

They aren't total idiots and Kim Sung is a smart guy with just bad priorities. You know nothing of Kim Il Sung. Why don't you find out the facts before you accuse someone of repeating media propaganda.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by RandFan
You know nothing of Kim Il Sung. Why don't you find out the facts before you accuse someone of repeating media propaganda.

I'm getting the feeling that neither you nor Malachi knows that much about the guy, since you both seem to refer to him in the present-tense as the dictator of North Korea.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I think the regime in North Korea wants to survive. This is and has been my argument.

Well they could spend less on a nuclear weapons program, and more on feeding their people. People are starving to death. Fathers and mothers are watching their children die in front of them. I'm sure this guy is correct in much of his analysis but this is just plain stupid. The country is almost entirely without power, there is no infrastructure, a severe lack of medicine. The country is simply not a country but a group of people who are dying and a government that would rather spend the vast majority of its resources on the military rather than feed its people.

[By doing that] we make it much harder for them to change the allocation of resources. We make it much harder for them to become a normal nation. They are very proud people. They have said to me, and they have said to others, "Do not confuse us with Iraq. You're not going to be able to do to us what you probably are going to try to do to Iraq." It is demonstrable that Kim Il Sung is paranoid. That he is a sociopath who does not care that his people are dying enmasse throughout his country.

I agree that our policies exasperate the situation. I further agree that the people support their leader even as he leads them into the breach. They are typical of a group that has been feed propaganda and starved and made to believe that their suffering is the result of others when it simply rests with one man.

There is sufficient resources in NK to feed the people and live a comfortable existince. It is sad that a sick and twisted mind could do so much harm to so many and there is little to nothing we can do but appease him to stop the suffering.

[Malachi151]

Well I'll put it this way. I pretty much agree with the accessment of the situation given by: The Former US Ambassador to NK, Jimmy Carter, Former National Security Adviser to Vice President George Bush (1982-89), former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea (1989-93), Madeleine Albright, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1993-1996).

I disagree with the accessment given by Fox News and spewed here all over the place.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm getting the feeling that neither you nor Malachi knows that much about the guy, since you both seem to refer to him in the present-tense as the dictator of North Korea.

MattJ

Yes, that was my mistake, I said the wrong name by accident. I meant Kim Jong Il, not Kim Il Sung.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm getting the feeling that neither you nor Malachi knows that much about the guy, since you both seem to refer to him in the present-tense as the dictator of North Korea.

MattJ You are right. It is Kim Jong Il that I am talking about and not his father Kim Il Sung.

Where is headscratcher when you need him?

[RandFan]

I've got to get to work folks. I'll bow out now and check in later.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tmy
WHo says hes insane???? Ever notice that every enemy of the state is always tagged as "crazy"?

Kim= insane, Saddan= insane, Gerealdo Reveira = insane.

Insane like a fox.


Im sure Bush is portrayed as a mentally disturbed cowboy in these other countries (I bet thats an easy sell.)

Kim says things that are so far divorced from reality that one must question either his wisdom or his sanity.

Your point about Bush may be well taken, given the things he says that are so far divorced from reality.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
You don't want to call the US responsible for Iran and Iraq, even though we still persue the same ideology and methods, yet you want to call Russia now responsible for agreements that Stalin made?


Exactly through what illogical or deliberately convoluted, illicit kind of logic do you claim that I hold that position or anything like it.

I think we have proof here that you are a badly prejudiced idealogue who simply lumps everyone who disagrees with him into a single simpleminded bucket.

If you think I've advocated that we're not responsible for Iran and Iraq (although perhaps not as responsible as you, in your insensate hatred may wish for), you are suffering from a delusion, sir, and one of your own making.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Aoidoi

It is interesting to wonder what the aftermath would be like, though.

I don't think "interesting" is the right word. It would be like lower Manhattan the evening of 9/11/01. Multiplied by at least 10,000.
If it remained "limited" that is. :(

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I don't think "interesting" is the right word. It would be like lower Manhattan the evening of 9/11/01. Multiplied by at least 10,000.
If it remained "limited" that is. :(

-z

I for one live there and I have ZERO interest in seeing the results.

Agree with Rik on this one, entirely.

Armies are necessary, as are weapons. One hopes not to use them (but must be willing if need be), but the better one's army and weapons are, the less likely one may need them, I think.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I don't think "interesting" is the right word. It would be like lower Manhattan the evening of 9/11/01. Multiplied by at least 10,000.
If it remained "limited" that is. :(

-z Er, my point was intended from a geopolitical stance, not the results of the actual bombing. That is, I have a fair idea of the effects of a hydrogen bomb and have no interest in seeing it. My interest was in how the world would react to a limited nuclear exchange. How would China view the US afterwards, would it harm US relationships with the rest of the world, or would countries maintain the status quo, or be intimidated into doing what the US wishes, or some of each, or what?

My "interest" was in the global after effects of such action, not in the actual results of the weapons. I'm out of touch with reality, not sadistic. :p