North Korea Missile Launch Fails 609
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launch by the North Koreans last night? You know, the one that went over Japan and supposedly put a 'communications satellite' into orbit. Well, according to the US Northern Command and NORAD it has been a complete and utter failure, with the second stage and payload 'falling in the Pacific.'"
Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be a great opportunity to see exactly how far advanced their missile/rocket program is, assuming we've got salvage vessels in place to pick up the pieces.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government and the popular media have been spouting this nonsense that it was a "failure."
BS.
I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure." Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. Since we don't know whether or what NK learned from this, calling the test a "failure" is pure speculation.
Failure in what sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.
If this was a test to see what the effective range was of the missile, then they absolutely determined that and there was no failure. While I dislike the way North Korea interacts with the rest of the world, I find the highly suggestive wording of the write-up to be misleading and inaccurate.
I think we all knew the 'satellite' story was BS, so we can't evaluate the launch in terms of whether they put something in orbit or not. That part is irrelevant.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree, the point was putting the rocket up. The sanctions were for attempting it, so they'll end up with sanctions, the missed the successful launch and they're missing the PR victory that a successful launch would have provided.
They may end up getting some PR by claiming that it was sabotaged or shot down, but I wouldn't count on getting anything from that. And they're not going to learn much without getting one into orbit. Which coincidentally will probably won't be possible with the increase in cooperation that this is likely to result in between the surrounding nations.
If they manage to salvage a little bit of information it's unlikely to be worth the problems.
north korea is a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
and like any troll, the only way to react to it is ignore it
trolls feed on attention, any attention, psotive or negative. currently, north korea is basking in the joy of the world condemning it. just like a troll basks in the glory of watching people lose their temper over a purposely vitriolic post of theirs. just like westboro baptist church enjoys the hatred as they picket funerals
it doesn't matter that it is being condemned. what matters is that it is the focus of attention. this is the essential psychopathology of their behavior
if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally be taken down like the rabid dog it is
not that any of this will happen though. all that will happen is it will continue to get way more attention than the basket case human suffering machine deserves
north korea can't feed its own people. but it can launch icbms. pathetic troll of a country
Third party verification? (Score:5, Insightful)
according to the US Northern Command and NORAD
Not to get all tinfoil-hat on everyone, but has anyone closer to a neutral third party got any information?
I don't doubt the NORAD report, but it might be nice to have a source without a vested interest make a report as well.
How long is this gonna go on? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the real goal was to prove that they can nuke Japan.
Re:north korea is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
> if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all
> calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally
> be taken down like the rabid dog it is
At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?
Re:Silly Koreans (Score:3, Insightful)
Both are correct. I prefer Inter-Continental Missiles, Ballistic. It makes document filing more practical when dealing with I-C Missiles, Vomit and I-C Missiles, +5 Arrows.
Re:Third party verification? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were going to lie wouldn't you expect them to say the test was a success so that they could get ABM funding?
In any case, I don't think that there is anyone with the resources to provide your verification that doesn't have a "vested interest".
rocket science (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if we get the launch, space is not something we have a lot of first hand experience with. Getting things to work in space is hard. The world is getting more experience now that we have an international space station, and more countries are getting experience operating in space. This can only help everyone long term as innovative solutions are developed.
One may fall to jingoistic and chauvinistic temptation when it comes to this, especially since we have been trained to fear those that are different from us, but I doubt that is useful here. From what I read, the trajectory was orbital, not intercontinental. As we have seen, there are much easier ways to deliver mass destruction than these vehicles. It could be that N. Korea wants to be in the space game, and have such things as communication satellites of their own.
And it would be good that the US does not get too cocky. We are stuck in LEO. To get back to the moon is going to require a learning curve after a generation of inactivity. At this point we may not want to fund it. People think we can magically make it Mars without any baby steps. If there is anything to fear it is that N. Korea is doing science while we are arguing over evolution.
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Might also be interesting to see what sort of "communications satellite" was heading for Tokyo and/or orbit.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I halfway agree with you. The fact that the missile made it over Japan was a success. However, be aware that in our own space program, whenever we had failures, we were often able to recover enough debris to determine precisely what the cause of the failure was. With the rocket splashed down somewhere in the Pacific, NK is only going to have pure speculation as to what the probable cause was. I can guarantee you that the US and her allies probably have a good idea where the upper stage and payload landed, and are probably planning on recovering it. After all, we need to know: 1) what the payload really was and 2) what the failure mode of the missile was in order to estimate how advanced their technology is.
Plus, there's other advantages to having a splashdown in our backyard: We can prevent them from recovering the rocket and learning about their own failures except through further trial and error. Will NK eventually solve these problems? Probably. However, our best bet is to delay them.
Remember, early in our space program, test failures were what happened when the rocket blew up on the launch pad. We could learn from that. No doubt NK did the same thing. However, whenever we had launch failures where a rocket came down a significant distance from the launch point, few things beat examining the wreckage for probable problems. Yes, we had extensive telemetry during flight, too, and maybe NK has that; but until the wreckage is recovered--hopefully by us--there's no telling how it failed. We stand to learn a lot from their failure, too, as I've mentioned before.
One other poster below made the point about this being successful if the intent were to test the range of the rocket. I find that to be much more likely. As far as the story goes, however, the rocket itself was most likely a failure.
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).
I don't think so. The remaining pieces of the rocket might be able to tell us quite a lot.
It could be the case that the North Koreans are bumping up against some of the same problems that we did 60 years ago, when we were developing our own rocket program. If we know what made it fail, we'll know what they'll have to change to make it work, and exactly what technological advancements NK will need for future rockets to be successful. We can target our intelligence/diplomatic/military energies on those precise technologies.
Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.
More knowledge is always better than less.
Re:Third party verification? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone going to spend the money for a global missile tracking system unless they have some sort of "vested interest"? I don't think so.
Re:Failure in what sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
As I mentioned in reply to another poster, this is still technically a failure--though, I suppose you're right, as it depends on what their intent was. If in fact the initial report from the US and Japan is correct (and I think it is) that there was a failure in stage separation, the launch was most certainly a failure. For the developed world, the best course of action we have is to recover the debris and determine precisely what that failure was. One, we stand to learn more about their technology, how progressed they are, and how they've corrected previous engineering mistakes and oversights. Two, we can learn more about the payload, if in fact it was a satellite, or if it wasn't, what they were attempting to launch. We can probably also learn more about their telemetry, if any, and what sort of instrumentation they had installed. This is valuable information in its own right, because we can determine what they probably learned from their own launch. (My gut feel is that they didn't have much in the way of telemetry; if they were intent on developing a serious weapon system, they wouldn't make quite so much noise. This is a political ploy as much as a test--maybe more so.)
To be honest, I have a feeling that this is more along the lines of what other posters have mentioned. The launch is an attempt to get attention from the developed world, drag the US back into six party talks, and possibly seek aid from Washington (or bargain for lesser sanctions so they can work on more nefarious programs). Of course, there's the other side of the coin: Kim Jung Il could be a raving lunatic who honestly doesn't understand that dropping a nuke on Japan, US, or Australia would imply that his regime would suddenly disappear overnight. Still, I think it's a test of the Obama administration, and sabre-rattling.
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because that would be a great idea on their part.
Seriously, when are we going to stop believing our governments' attempts to keep us scared of one bogey man after another?
What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.
Japan poses no threat to the DPRK. The DPRK's aggressive stance is a response to the isolation and aggressive rhetoric aimed at it by the US, an attitude which is just a holdover from the cold war when North Korea was a USSR satellite state.
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated? US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war, and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect the government of the DPRK to behave about as rationally as the US government [youtube.com]...
Actually I think they gave the government too much credit in that video.
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny as it may be you think he knows it was a failure? You think they don't lie to him either? I'm sure they would lie to him as well. You want to tell him it failed, can you imagine how long you would live if you did?
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PROPAGANDA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Same reason they might start a war they couldn't possibly win -- because their leader is an unpredictable nutjob.
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
bottom line, is the world doesn't trust countries run by crackpot dictators, and rightly so.
Re:Woo (Score:3, Insightful)
You think Koreans are Japanese?
Koreans can pronounce 'r' just fine.
Usually, Koreans can only pronounce an 'R' if it comes at the beginning of a syllable.
eg. they can say "rock" just fine, but 'hear' usually comes out like 'heal', so when Koreans use English words ending in an 'er' sound, it is usually replaced with an 'aw' sound. eg. 'com-pu-taw' 'key-baw-d'
Disclaimer: I lived in Korea.
Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. Like the condescnding tone, though, nothing like ignorance to foster arrogance.
There would be all sorts of people who knew about it. The boost is a huge IR source for a duration of minutes, there would be 10 different things tracking it from 10 seconds after launch. It would show on ATC radar for the entire time like a gigantic flare (since the ionized exhaust is a fantastic radar target). If nothing else, the NASA Debris monitoring fence would catch it in about one rev, then everyone would know about it and we could all get TLE's to watch it.
Brett
North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons. So please be quiet about them nuking everything.
Secondly, it would make no sense at all for NK to shoot anything. They are isolated, NK might make poor decisions but they won't choose to get every cubic meter of NK bombed.
We also know Kim is full of himself. If he lived 5000years ago we would have people building him giant pyramids as monuments to his greatness. At the moment, the greatest achievement a country can make is space travel. Sure the US did it first so what? Right now china, japan and india have space programs and hope to stick a man on the moon. Space Race Asian Edition. Many countries think NK is a crazy backwards land that can't do anything since they are under a horrible tyrannical rule. If anyone felt that way about you wouldn't you want to prove them wrong? Show them how awesome and advanced you are by making it into space.
NK is a bit nutty and isolated from the world. Clearly they must be assholes. But lets look at both sides. The korean war 'ended' poorly sure. Remember the end of WW1 where the global community basically fucked Germany in the ass after winning? Which lead to the bitchiness allowing/causing WW2. A mistake we did not repeat after WW2. So we decide to not trade with NK. Even put up trade barriers/embargoes internationally. Many thousands of people starve in North Korea while the world at large says, give up tyranny and we'll help you eat. (how well does that work?). North Korea is stuck on an island with enemies to the south. Enemies that are much better funded and better armed. They are also probably jealous of the fact and maybe a little pissed that their neighbors are doing so well. They need a bargaining chip. NK starts developing nuclear technology in the early 90s. Out of fear the US promises to provide electricity and normalized trade in exchange NK would disassemble their nuclear plants and join the NNPT. Korea agrees! They take apart their factories. The US changes to the republican party. They do not provide electricity, they do not normalize trade, they spit in NKs face. Bush calls NK part of the axis of evil and lists them as elligable for preemptive nuclear strikes. How the fuck the north koreans are the badguys in this one is beyond me. They were willing to normalize international relations given the chance and it was thrown in their face. So of course they will begin work on nuclear weapons again, they need a bargaining chip.
Clearly NK does not have a good human rights record. Clearly it is terrible that people are starving. But the US policy of Good vs Evil is NOT helpful. Isolating a country, not letting them trade with you, threatening them, hating them does not help. I don't understand the idea that we can fix the problem by giving them an ultimatum they cannot possibly accept then never talking. It is like the 'hard on crime' laws that never seem to help either. Maybe if we offered a hand to NK that we dont use to stab them with they'll be a bit more trusting. Maybe with more money and education, a link to the rest of the world they can join us. A country cannot be evil it isn't a demon or even a person. If we keep going as we have how can you EVER expect countries like North Korea and Cuba to rejoin the rest of us, or maybe the truth is you don't really care.
(man this went longer than I intended, sorry
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy it. They have a pretty solid dictatorship going with heavy communistic leanings. This displeases a lot of governments besides the US. If they wanted to be the world's friend, they could just not act aggressively (it's not like South Korea is really waiting for their chance to strike, they are fine letting North Korea just do their thing.) So, why the attitude? Let's look at Cuba, they learned the hard way that a missile "defense" strategy is a good way to lose friends, but for the few decades since, they have been going along fine with no militaristic tendencies and they haven't been overthrown by Turks n' Caicos or one of the many other nations drooling at the chance to storm Havana.
So is North Korea really a bogeyman? I think they give themselves a lot more headache than anyone else tries to pin on them. Why not just set up a "cute dictatorship" by declaring Kim Jong Il "familial monarch" (britain I am looking at you) or "prime minister" (russia I am looking at you) and then hold an election to find a "president" to give things an air of democracy. That way you can at least say you are trying, even if you still do things like invading peaceful neighbors (russia, again.)
That being said, it is nice (as a US citizen) having an international jerk around, it makes the US not look so bad.
Re:Opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
And that anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice. Literature on the failures of anti-missile systems abound, from credible scientists, such as http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0102-02.htm [commondreams.org]. Much like North Korean missiles, US anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice and should not be relied on for actually stopping missiles. The major use of the 1980's "Star Wars" effort was to drive the Soviet Union to military bankruptcy, trying to keep up with crackpot schemes they didn't have the money or technical manpower to develop or even properly refute.
North Korea's potential nuclear arsenal, and the ability to deliver warheads, is extremely effective as a deterrent against the kind of "regime change" that was tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. And North Korea can sell the technologies to keep the US off-balance, especially since the sale of Pakistani nuclear technologies is being monitored much more closely now with so many US troops nearby and their previous nuclear secret sales revealed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece).
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
Okay.
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
This question is nonsensical. It's the kind of rhetorical fodder to feed those who are incapable of actually engaging in logical analysis and thinking for themselves. Anyone who does so would immediately note that a nation cannot want anything, as it is a non-physical abstraction incapable of independent thought. Possibly you mean, "why would the leader of a nation want..." or "why would the party leadership want..." or "why would the man on the street want...", but of course the answers to all these questions are likely to be different. Making the question nonsensical forces the reader to rationalize it in their own manner, and thus causes the largest number of readers to act as if this is a sensible question, and treat what you're saying with a "yeah, man, you're right" attitude even when you're not saying anything. This is why questions like this one you're asking here are so powerful tools against people who don't actually analyze very well, they even repeat them without noticing they are contentless rhetorical tools.
The real problem for you here is, if you actually make a sensible question out of this, no matter which way you go, it either has a sensible answer, or it's immediately obvious that it's not a relevant question. It's easy to come up with reasons why a dictator would want to isolate a country (and the DPRK is not the only example of this, see Burma, for example, or any number of isolationist regimes of many nations over the years). It's maybe not to easy to see why the man on the street would want it, but then it hardly matters what they want in a non-democratic country.
US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war,
...as is much of the current world power structure and even a number of nations, yes.
...and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.
...as did a large number of countries at one time or another, which are not similarly isolated. This would indicate that the reasons for the isolation are more complex than this rather facile treatment. Without even going into details, it's apparent from even a cursory bit of logical analysis that most of what you've said here is wrong, incomplete, or meaningless (indeed, I would say the majority of what you posted was, in fact, "not even wrong").
Reading and thinking analytically, it's actually pretty hard to form a rebuttal to what you said, since you in fact said almost nothing. You asked a bunch of questions that were mostly vague and nonsensical, but to the extent you did say or at least imply anything, it would appear to be poorly thought out or ill-informed.
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm...speaking of analytical thinking... Would you care to enumerate the number of nuclear weapons that were fired by Russia or the US at each other during the Cold War? I mean...the whole point is to NOT USE THE FUCKING THINGS. That is what Mutually Assured Destruction is all about. The notion that you could "win" a nuclear war was pretty much entirely abandoned a long time ago. The only people that really have any intention of USING them are psychotic. (See Iran declaring that Israel should be wiped off the map, or Dubya asking for "tactical" nuclear weapons to be developed). The whole point behind them is to join the ranks of countries that can bring a tremendous amount of hurt, because if you can't nuke someone you don't get taken seriously.
Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't - Invasion!
Iraq got stuck in a pretty bad situation. Admit to the world they don't have nuclear capabilities and aren't close to having them and face the wrath of the Iranians or Saudies as the world looked the other way, or pretend they did have the capabilities and hope to God that no one would invade.
NK is going to be very interested in demonstrating that it has nuclear capabilities and the ability to deliver them (even if at a rather limited range). It sends the message "fuck with us and we will murder millions". Now, I agree that there has been a great deal of overly aggressive rhetoric, but those NK folks aren't exactly the most friendly bunch to begin with. In fact their leadership tends to show quite a bit of psychotic behavior. There have been people defecting from NK for years telling the world that ol Kimmy thinks he can fight with the big dogs and win. The really disturbing ones are the people that escape to China and are shocked by how "free" they are there.
Now...to answer why would any nation want to be that isolated...well...because it allows their psychotic dictators to rule with an iron fist. Some of these freaks are content with ruling their little corner of the earth with absolute power rather than expanding their lands and making it harder to control with absolute power. Ol Kimmy fashions himself to be a God much like the Egyptian Pharohs...that kind of nonsense doesn't really work out well unless you keep the people isolated from the rest of the world, and what better way to do that then enlist the aid of the rest of the world.
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
Yeah, how about you do a little analytical thinking.
The GOVERNMENT of the DPRK isolates themselves so that they can stay in power. By being isolated, they have total control of their citizens and are able to prevent uprisings.
For North Korea, it's not about the welfare of the citizens, it's about maintaining the phat lifestyle of the people in charge. Having the potential to attack other countries (even if it is suicidal), helps ensure the North Korea will be left alone from international meddling and possibly even get some concessions for "giving up" nukes and ballistic missiles in the future.
Re:... lol. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PROPAGANDA (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know that's true if you're not reading the official North Kolea [blogspot.com] Blog?
Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the ability to sell nuclear weapons to groups of people that might like to have them.
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, when you're faced with annihilation (from, say, the few people of your country that are still able to move gathering and kicking you out of your cushy office), you might consider saying "gimme or I shoot".
Re:... lol. (Score:2, Insightful)
And you're aware the US does shit that makes no sense, right? Like sending submarines into the territory of sovereign nations, just to laugh at them? Or detaining Canadians, then sending them to Syria or Guantanamo Bay?
Also: Killing Canadian troops.
"friendly fire" - oops
My point? Bush didn't put the North Koreans up to anything, but your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country.
Either they're not as bad as they sound or your own country is way worse than you think.
Maybe every government is that screwed up, and we just don't realize it. Or maybe our governments select less noticeable types of propaganda.
Re:Such a simple thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:north korea is a troll (Score:1, Insightful)
At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?
Don't forget the thousands of American troops also stationed there.
Re:... lol. (Score:3, Insightful)
> The very *existence* of North Korea is, itself, a giant example of nuclear powers showing immense restraint
You mean that the fact that the US didn't invade a sovereign foreign country with no reasons means that it showed "immense restraint" ?
I don't think words have the same meaning to both of us, so don't bother replying.
rational = predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are predictable people just walk all over you. See Iraq for an example. If you appear insane they keep away.
Re:North Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
When you look at it, the same applies to most other "Axis of Evil" countries.
Iran? Now, what would you do in their situation? A country that does not like you at all attacks and invades the countries left and right of you (look it up on your map, Iraq and Afghanistan, and look what's wedged right in the middle). Imagine Iran invading and maintaining beachheads in Canada and Mexico. Also imagine you're a wee bit smaller. Would you be confident that they don't sweep you off the map next? Also, consider that you have one of the most important strategic resources of the planet.
Wouldn't you want to have something to discourage invading you? Keep in mind that your enemy has the army with the most conventional punch in the whole world. Not the largest, but certainly the one that can deal the most damage in the least time.
You do want bargaining power. If you want to see what happens to countries that have no strategic resources and that are "unwanted" by the power that is, look at Cuba and NK. If you want to see what happens with countries that have those strategic resources but no nukes, look at Iraq.
Re:... lol. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:... lol. (Score:2, Insightful)
Like sending submarines into the territory of sovereign nations, just to laugh at them
[citation needed]
detaining Canadians, then sending them to Syria or Guantanamo Bay
Are you fucking serious? Yeah we've detained a Canadian, we found him in Afghanistan shooting at US troops, frankly he's lucky to be alive at all.
Killing Canadian troops.
Shit happens in war, do you honestly think those friendly fire accidents were intentional?!
your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country
Honestly you are simply way off base.
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
You forgot
Pakistan - Known to be hiding the most wanted man in the world, [wikipedia.org] but is also known to have nukes [wikipedia.org] - No invasion.
What's your point? (Score:2, Insightful)
My point? Bush didn't put the North Koreans up to anything, but your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country.
Is that supposed to make me feel better about North Korea being one step closer to global nuclear capability?
Re:rational = predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not quite sure Saddam Hussein was considered "sane" by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact...if he had simply FULLY cooperated with the sanctions and inspections, and quit trying to appear he was hiding nuke asperations...he'd likely still be breathing, and in power.