North Korea: why bother with a test?
 

North Korea is capable of hitting the United States with a missile.

This could become Cold War II. I just don't know if KDR has the political pull that the Soviets had, so if Kim Jong-Il thinks he can hold whatever part of the continental US he can hit from North Korea hostage, he might want to rethink his strategy.

Heh, Alaska. Go ahead, dudes.

Too bad all of our troops are holed up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Too bad our government is 100% committed to Iran as our next target and not a country that actually has the capability to do something and a crazy-ass dictator who would.

I'm interested in how long it'd take to get to Alaska. A missile from N.Korea reach Tokyo in like a matter of 30 minutes or some ridiculously short number that would make evacuations impossible.

Why would Kim nuke the United States? I mean, he is not completely retarded. He probably knows that his country would be "away from keyboard" a couple of hours after the attack.

Also, don't you guys have those awesome missile-defense systems?

The US does, but it's still experimental. Though I'm usually not a supporter of the US missile defense system in its current form, this is essentially the kind of situation where such a system could actually be useful. Any real war where nuclear weapons will be involved will either involve too many to shoot down, or missiles launched from submarines which are a completely different kind of situation. A lone, relatively low-tech ballistic missile like that could provide a way to actually test the system, not to mention it would probably make the DPRK shut the fuck up for a while. As a bonus, it might produce more of that awesome stalinist propaganda you just can't get anywhere but from the KCNA (North Korea's "News" agency).

Perhaps even a new hall of fame entry at NK News explaining why their missile simply disappeared.

Well, they say it's experimental. My guess is they would be ready like what if it happened. The material, that is. Dunno about the people, since it basically was mankind that fucked up on 9/11, not the defense systems.

So what are you actually suggesting? If Bush, say, pulled all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reorganized our military forces to launch a strike on North Korea and neutralize its nuclear capabilities (and ultimately, its ability to project military force outward), would you be supportive? Or is this just simply you talking out of your ass, because if Bush actually did this, would you be like 'Bush is crazy, he's started war with North Korea!'?

US military is strong enough to deal with Iran and North Korea at the same time. Have a look at North Korea's military - it's basically a joke. Sure, they have millions of soldiers, but equipment-wise, you can compare them to Middle Age knights. Nobody says it would be easy, but the USA don't have to cover before anyone.

Don't forget the idea of Communist-unity (Community? :D); China probably wouldn't be pleased with the USA counter-attacking NK.

Well then they will be attacked as well.

Let's not forget one simple fact - When it comes to simple army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force the United States shits on the rest of the world.

The only card these countries hold is that they have nuclear weapons, which means that in order to truly be effective, they'll have to basically commit suicide, because I want you all to just realistically think of just what would be the American reaction if a nuclear weapon from a foreign power went off in any American city or took out a carrier battle group.

Americans from coast to coast would be screaming for blood. You saw the kind of leeway we gave Bush for the deaths of 3,000 people. Just imagine the kind of havoc we would wreak if we lost hundreds of thousands of people.

People said the beast was unleashed with 9/11, but realistically, we just been playing around, intentionally handcuffing ourselves. If someone pops off with that nuclear shit, America is going to obliterate whoever is responsible.

Yes, yes...the ethical ramifications of nuclear warfare go out the window if Americans die! :rolleyes:

Just like being in a relationship with someone and you KNOW sex is going happen eventually, you might as well just stop talking about it, do it and get it over with.

That's major bullshit right here. Nobody knows whether they have those nukes. Kim could be just bullshitting us. Ahmadinejad is too dense to have them. And even if they had nukes, our missile defense systems would kick any fuckin nukes ass, so don't act as if we had anything to worry about.

I agree with you. I couldnt really see N. Korea as a real threat as well. Contrary to Iran, N. Korea stated openly if they already have a nuclear weapon and they didnt cover it by bunch of energy generator project. I think the purpose entirely to make an empty threat to the State. They havent done any nuclear test, so it may safe to say DPRK doesnt have nuclear at all.

Well N. Korea economy is worse compared to S. Korea in any way. Sometime I'm wondering how they financed the nuclear bomb project since they isolated themselves extremely (compared to Myanmmar I guess).

1.) A mid-range weapon like the one they're testing *wouldn't* be able to hit America with a nuke. To hit the West Coast, they'd have to trade off the weight of an atomic warhead for a lighter ballistic weapon due to the amount of fuel it would take to give the missile it's best range. It's a simple issue of weight.

Yes, they could hit America - but if they did, it would not be able to be an atomic warhead of any type.

2.) What Kim may have is a hydrogen bomb - like the one we dropped over Hiroshima. Yes, thats bad - but you'd need about 3-5 of them to destroy a modern city, and apparently Kim doesn't have all that many to begin with.

3.) Fallout is bullshit. Nuke weapons clean up fairly quickly. This isn't to say there'd be no radiation poisoning but it wouldn't be the end of the West Cost by a long shot.

Well, economically there is alot to worry about. A medium range missile could do alot of damage to japan or South korea, sending the world economy into the toilet. Our commitment to defend these countries still stands, thus causing us to commit troops and money to the fray. The ripple effects through China could have disatrous effects. This is not to say that the combined U.S., Japanese and South Korean militaries couldn't demolish the North koreans, but at what price. Whether or not Kim is bullshitting, who wants to take that chance?

And what do the North koreans have to lose by testing the missile anyway? After their last test which buzzed japan, they were ostracized in the U.N. and then a few years later they launched a diplomatic offensive and normalized relations with many of the same nations who were chastizing them earlier.

I would urge you all to keep your eyes on the news over the next week. My ship and its crew are probably going to be a hot topic this week, you'll see why if we do make headlines. It relates directly to the growing anxiety over vulnerability to North Korean nuclear attack.

The DPRK does have long enough range delivery systems, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the means to maintain those systems over the long-term. It's really expensive to maintain a long range nuclear arsenal. One of the main reasons we started dismantling ours, after the Cold War. Which leads me to believe that whatever the DPRK is planning, whether it's political pressure/manhandling or an actual attack it'll probably happen relatively soon.

No, it doesn't. A Taepodong-2 type missile is midrange. A long-range delivery system would be able to hit well within America's midwest if launched from Korea. Also, the fuel/payload ratio is completely different - a true long-range missile would have the capacity to hit America with a nuke.

This situation is no different than the Cuban Missile crisis - down to the range of the missiles.

Personally, I think countering by launching an unarmed ICBM right into the middle of Pyongyang would be an appropriate response. Doesn't do any real harm, but gets the point across quite effectively.

I hope to God you're kidding.

I don't think you understand the level of destruction a single ICBM can cause, warhead or not.

Likely, North Korea would aim their missiles at Japan more than the US since they're closer, and well, it's essentially taking hostage the second largest economy in the world, so they could likely get something out of it. After all, their main purpose here is blackmail and nothing else.

There's still much unknown about the Taep'o-dong 2 missile. Estimates for the range vary somewhat, from 3500 to 6000 km, even more in a few estimates. Add to that the fact that from what I've read the missile appears to able to be used in a 2 stage or 3 stage configuration, the latter perhaps resulting in a range increase, but most importantly in a payload weight increase, from somewhere below half a metric tonne, to somewhere aroung 800kg, perhaps more. Essentially, it means that if they do manage to make a missile capable of hitting America, which I doubt is possible for now, it's likely they'll be able to use a nuclear warhead.

What the hell are you smoking? The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-trigger type, highly enriched uranium fission bomb. There was no such thing as hydrogen, or lithium or whatever else you might find into other bomb designs. Any bomb using hydrogen is a thermonuclear weapon, using a first stage fission bomb as a way to start the fusion reaction for the second stage, usually through radiation implosion. And those are in the megaton range, many time the power of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs. The only design that I know of which is not a true thermonuclear weapon but uses hydrogen in the Soviet "Alarm Clock" design, which is more of a boosted fission bomb and can reach a few hundred kilotons in term of power. Though I'm not sure why North Korea would use that.

Besides, they have plutonium, it's already been established. It's not (was not?) in a usable form yet, being part of nuclear waste, but North Korea has a reprocessing plant, so they essentially have access to plutonium. From there, it's true that they have a bit of work to do, plutonium can only be used in implosion-trigger type fission bombs, unlike highly enriched uranium which can be used to build simple gun-trigger type bombs. And implosion bombs are harder to design and absolutely have to be tested.

What we'd need to know is, can they make the bomb small enough so it fits in their missiles. This is actually difficult to estimate. The hardest parts if you want to make an implosion-trigger type bomb are acquiring the plutonium and designing the bombs. They have plutonium. When it comes to the design, the theory behind nuclear weapons is essentially available in many easily obtainable physics textbooks, but not in a ready-to-be-used form, it takes some engineering. While the first bombs where really large, it was mostly due to the fact that the theory behind them was not as well-developped as it is today, and the fact is that it wasn't really necessary to make them smaller anyway, they were delivered with bombers. If North Korea decided to design a bomb, it's obvious they've done so with the goal of making it small enough to fit on a missile, unless they want what would amount to a large paperweight. It's longer and harder, but it gives you a much more useful bomb. From what I've seen, they've got a large number of people working on their nuclear projects, I think Yongbyon alone has a few thousand people in scientific personnel alone. So it's definitely possible for them to actually get a nuke, though how long it'll take, I have no idea.

Bottom line is, implosion weapons have to be tested. So far, so good, there hasn't been any test. If there's one, though, then you should begin to worry if you live in Japan or the West Coast.

It wouldn't be the end of the west coast, but to say there is nearly no fallout is somewhat untrue. It all depends, quite frankly. It's difficult to estimate, it depends on the strength of the bomb, the material used, plutonium or uranium, and how well the bomb works, that is, its efficiency. Those are a few of the factors, but I don't know enough to actually be able to agree of disagree with you.

Are you suggeting an ICBM that doesn't contain explosives of any kind in it Monkey King? Like say you're just going to crash a large empty shell into the streets?

In the words of Scotty - "You can'na change the laws of physics!"

They have a missle that can hit America - but the weight of a nuke warhead PLUS the fuel needed to make it to our shores would render it too heavy to move. It's one or the other. They do not have another type of missile (as far as we know) that can reach farther than that and theres no modification that can undo or change the laws of gravity to get that missile any farther than it can.

If Korea had a warhead capible of hitting the midwest, it would be labeled an ICBM and the entire world would be shitting it's self over this.

You lost all sense of legitimacy here.

Apparently, all ballistic weapons around the world need your approval or something? Yes, I'm sure they do, generic internet jerk.

They have it - but they don't - but they have it! Make up your mind.

The truth is they have the ability to create enriched plutonium which could be used in a warhead, yes. But they lack the delivery system, as well as anything substantially viable as a detonation package, according to the reports. See, they could flip the switch and detonate the so-called enriched uranium - but it may not create the explosion that you'd expect given their limited technology with this stuff.

What we need to know is if they have access to better missile technology. See, they CAN put it into their missiles that we know of - what we have to worry about is them finding longer range materials.

It would take obscene amounts of nuclear strikes to cause a Hollywood style fallout. The Bikini Islands are (mostly) free from radiation - and look how many times we tested there?

Yeah, pretty much. The point isn't to blow anything up, just remind them of where we can put our missiles. The property damage just drives the point home.

Do the US and North Koreans even HAVE any relations to worsen, in a realistic sense?

There are, as a matter of fact, modifications which can add range or payload capacity to a rocket. It's called adding more stages to your rocket. If you can drop more dead weight more often, then you stop wasting your thrust accelerating what is essentially a useless metal hulk. It's not entirely difficult to prove with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. As I've said in my original post, the Taep'o-dong 2 exists in 2 or 3 stage configuration. The first stage remains the same for the Taep'o-dong 2, but this can make a significant difference.

I've already mentioned that the estimates for the missile's capabilities vary from source to source, and I'm not even sure the North Koreans themselves really know exactly what range they can get with the thing.

So far neither of us provided any actual quantitative evidence for our respective opinions, so I'll go ahead and do so, roughly. Take the W-50 thermonuclear warhead, once used on Pershings and for which manufacturing began in 1963. The W-50 weighted 410 pounds, less than a quarter of a metric tonne. To give ourselves a margin of safety, let's triple this number. We get less than 700kg. 700kg is at the lower boundary of the payload weight estimates I've seen for the Taep'o-dong 2 in its 3 stages version. When you consider that the same estimates place the missile's range around 6000km and sometime higher, can you still say that a Taep'o-dong 2 with a nuclear warhead won't be able to get off the ground with the same certainty?

It's a rough calculation, I'm aware of it. But estimates themselves vary quite a bit, so it's difficult to do better than that. As for the warhead specifications, it's also difficult to make estimates here, but I believe a relatively powerful warhead from more than 40 years ago, with its weight tripled, is likely something that a nation existing today can achieve if all it wants is a weapon it can aim at someone, and not an efficient, powerful bomb. I know that North Korea is a backward hellhole for most part, but when you pour 25% of your nation's GDP in the military, you can probably develop technology available 40 years ago even if your people are starving. The DPRK's GDP is 40 billions, so that's 10 billion for the military. Compare this to the estimated 310 million it cost South Africa to develop nuclear weapons, ramp up the number to 500 million, 1 billion even, just in case estimates are wrong, and ask yourself: I'm the dictator of the worst hellhole on the planet, do I want to spend one tenth of what I spend on my military each year to develop nuclear weapons? Oh, wait, you say I already have spent fuel and the reprocessing plant to extract plutonium from it? Likely your answer will be "Yes, I'd like that very much".

Says the guy who called the Hiroshima bomb an hydrogen (original italics) bomb. The reason I've said "That I know of", was precisely because it's possible that there exists an obscure design using hydrogen that I've never heard of, but frankly, I'm fairly confident in my knowledge when it comes to nuclear weapons. And it'll remain that way until you show me that "hydrogen bomb" dropped on hiroshima, or, to a lesser degree, what design those North Korean "hydrogen bombs" might use along with a basic explanation of the bomb's operation. Until then you can shove your generic internet jerk comment where it came from.

The reason I've added that "(was not?)" in my original post, is simply that nobody knows if they really have started to extract plutonium or not from their spent fuel. They have plutonium, but the question is whether or not it's in usable form or mixed with a lot of other stuff. And we also know that they have a reprocessing plant capable of separating plutonium. It all comes down to them having decided to go through with this or not, but even if they haven't, they can change their mind, so for all intent and purpose we can just go ahead and say they have plutonium in usable form.

I'll go ahead and assume that when you said uranium in your above quote, you really did meant plutonium. If it were highly enriched uranium, they'd have no problem actually building a bomb. All they'd have to do is make a simple gun-trigger type bomb, the kind the scientists during the Manhattan project didn't even test before dropping it on Hiroshima. So assuming you meant plutonium, yes, you're right, but that's essentially what I've said before: implosion trigger-type devices have to be tested first. No country would be retarded enough not to do so. It's why I've said that as long as there isn't a nuclear test in NK, there's no need to worry ('cept for chemical weapons, but they're orders of magnitude less dangerous anyway).

The key issue here is the design. As I've said before, a bomb which is only deliverable through a bomber is useless to NK. This is precisely why they'll design their warhead small enough to fit on a missile from the start. And since it's suspected that they've been at it for some time now, and have invested significant resources, it's not so much a question of if, but rather, when.

True. But it's been some time since the last test. A few years may not be much for an atoll, but if it hits a large city, it's a serious economic setback. Not to mention that the safety regulations for what is safe to visit, and what is safe to live on, are different. But as I've said, it's really difficult to say as it depends on so much stuff, and it's not something I know too well anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/...a_missile_dc_2

So we've activated our missile defense system. I'm just hearing about this as I'm going to work. :(

What do you guys think about this? And just how effective is this system?

I guess we won't know how effective it is until it needs to be used.

HOLY HELL YeOlde... you really take this stuff seriously, did you study this stuff, or is it just internet-research-based knowledge?

Spoken like a true arrogant american. If you think equipment and funding makes an army you'd better go review your sources, last i checked an army with DVDs in tanks feels way less like an army than ones where you're forced to kill live animals with your teeth to survive, "oh hell i forgot my Mp3 player in the humvy, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE HERE!!".

No disrespect meant towards the US military, but ponder what i said while you exhaust your "we're the best military in the world" propaganda. This ain't a Muscle flexing competition, one thing's for sure though, you're one proud american. Congrats.
heh.
Love the bit about LeHah and the Hydrogen bomb . Generic internet jerk, eh?

Why use "jerk"? Can't we be civil?


To add any use to this post, and because i really think so, don't alot of you agree that no country is foolish enough to commit suicide by provoking the american war machine? I say it's impossible North Korea will do anything, except look real cool in WoW and DOTA tournaments. And have Nukes they'll never use.

And yet nothing you says discounts the fact that in a direct conflict, the United States military can defeat any other military in the world. That, is an irrefutable fact, my friend. It has nothing to do with arrogance.

I partly agree with what you said, equipment and funding does not make an army because the chief incalculable in war is the human dimension. However, as the means to wage war improves through technological development, so must the tactical and operational means to adapt to the improved capabilities. If the OPFOR is far behind us in terms of equipment and funding, he will inevitably be overcome by violent and rapid changes in which he cannot cope.

Oh, and your Mp3 example was just sheer stupidity.

Dude the Mp3 example was in no way meant to sound clever, your noting that is incredibly useless. If you didn't get it from its intentional stupidity then you're probably too stupid to cater to with such examples. Don't turn this into a little flame war. I take that back, you're not stupid, ok..?

I agree i didn't provide anything to counter the argument that the states is the most fearsome force on earth today, partly because i believe it IS.
BUT the way it was phrased was really arrogant, and apparently semper understood the main part of my argument, the human factor.

You're probably right though, phoenix, i'll admit that. Just the phrase is a bit provocative.

So your arguement is that Night Phoenix is too proud of the US Military?

Alright, yeah buddy, argue for no reason at all.

I'm tempted to tell you to shut the fuck up, but that would probably be trolling, besides, what use is your post if you're contrdicting it by stating a useless opinion?

I'd suggest you get back on topic and not state your useless opinion of my useless debate, i made my 'useless' point clear, this goes no further..At least by me..

I'd suggest you not try to member moderate.

Excuse my treading on your ground.. It wasn't intentional..

All i was trying to do was to stop it from going in the flaming back and forth direction, in which case i'd probably be a reason for it, i felt obliged to say something since i was almost gonna start that.

Nearly every test of this has failed, only a handful have passed, although, if I am remembering correctly, most of the problems were known to be correctable errors. There hasn't been a lot of news about it lately, I don't think there have been many tests recently (a good portion of the system is made here in Tucson).

Based on what I've heard, we shouldn't rely on this system quite yet.

This is bullshit. Why does everything have to be aimed at the West Coast? I'm moving to Ohio. No one gives to shits about Ohio. Maybe not even one shit.

Either way, I don't believe that our missile defense system will be anything short of a failure. Like previously stated in this thread; they have done tests and it failed numerous amounts of times. The way I figure it as well, if there's technology to counter missile attacks, wouldn't there be technology to counter the system that counters the missile attacks?

If I can recall correctly - the NMD system has roughly a 50/50 success ratio based on the tests. Everytime there is a failure, the next text is a success because they fix the problems that caused the previous test to fail.

I consider the whole system to be a testbed for technology that will only truly be effective 20 years from now.

That's what I mean, in 20 years from now, wouldn't they have also made a little chip that allows missiles to creep through the missile defense system, undetected?

PS: Jesus Christ I need a new sig and ava, this is ridiculous. I can't even take MYSELF seriously.

Well, the North Koreans are typically not outpacing anyone in technology, so when you say "wouldn't they have", if by they you mean the US, then US. And the US can test its own technology against its own defense.

Well, I meant anyone that decided to test the system, besides the US, of course.

Though you raised a good point. They're (North Korea) is not exactly the head of the game right now. How's the south doing? =p

You don't inspire much confidence. The French were ready to effectively fight World War I on the eve of World War II. That worked out great for them.

The Russians probably already have. They didn't have that much of a fit when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. To the contrary of what the media thought at the time, there was only a mild protest.

Well, it is hard to hit a bullet with a bullet.

Barring rapid development of directed energy weaponry and the ability to deploy it effectively on multiple platforms, you'll never be able to defeat a full scale ballistic missile attack.

Well, we are working on something called a smart bullet that is meant to save lives. There's a computer that basically puts up a dome of safety around something that needs to be protected. When the computer detects munitions, it fires a bullet that explodes near the incoming round and veers it off course. I most likely saw this on the History or Military channel, but it is definitely interesting technology we should continue to develop. I'm pretty sure we can do the same with missiles, just bigger ordinance to knock it out.

In other news, you got two former Clinton Administration officials saying we should launch a crippling strike against the NK missle:

Good idea or bad idea?

I say good idea. The course of war is shaped by decisions and non-decisions. If anything, we should go for a pre-emptive strike of that missile because any decision at this point is better than no decision. As the article said, a successful launch of the missile would only stiffen North Korea's resolve to develop bigger, badder missiles that can truly wreak some damage on the world. Stop it now before it escalates.

I actually kind of agree with that article. At this point, destroying the missile on the launch pad might very well be the best course of action. The main goal here for North Korea is to get a weapon useful for blackmail (or "negociations", if you like euphemisms). Right now that one missile doesn't really pose a threat because, one, it's untested, and two, there doesn't seem to be too many ready, which makes sense as you usually do not start full scale production until you've done some real testing. It'll either won't make it to its intended target, or have a chance of being intercepted too high to risk using it for real. The former can be solved with testing, the latter by having more than one missile ready. So North Korea needs to complete that test, then make modifications and repeat until they get something that works. Then it's all a matter of making more of those missiles.

Another consequence this would have is that a number of other states would likely get access to this technology. North Korea is known to sell ballistic missiles to other nations. But the real problem is that they also sell ballistic missile technology to other countries, meaning that if they test a long range missile, perfect it, and THEN get wiped off the map, or even merely lose their test and production facilities, other states will be able to build similar weapons. If this were to happen, then its likely those countries would put whatever missiles they produced out of the reach, or at least hidden, from cruise missiles or airstrikes. Not to mention it likely wouldn't be easy to strike at all the sites that would pretty much come up at the same time. Speaking of which...

It's likely no coincidence that this new missile test from North Korea pretty much happened to coincide with the current trouble over Iran's nuclear program. Iran is easily one of North Korea's best customer when it comes to ballistic missiles. It's even suspected that both countries cooperate on ballistic missile development. In fact, Iran's Shahab-5 is widely believed to be close to a direct copy of North Korea's Taep'o-dong 2, with good reasons if you consider the estimated specifications and the use of the exact same fuel and oxidizer, in both cases a mix of gasoline and kerosene and a mix of nitrogen tetroxide and nitric acid, respectively. Iran and North Korea might not have actually planned this together, but North Korea is likely doing this since it knows it won't get a good opportunity to test its missile very often. Iran might not currently be drawing enough attention away from North Korea for Kim's taste, but North Korea certainly is drawing attention away from Iran, so even if that missile explodes on the launch pad, it'll likely have done some good for Iran-North Korea.

And doing so, wouldn't that start a full on war? I'm assuming it wouldn't be much of a land war, either, given what we're dealing with to begin with.

I'm not looking forward to yet another war. We're already at war in almost three countries as it is. A full-scale war in another one... I don't think the US would be able to handle that without withdrawing troops from Iraq.

But then again, if they were to attack the US homeland, I don't believe that we'd have much trouble trying to recruit soldiers. I, for one, would definitely take that opportunity to enlist with the Marines. Hopefully the mentality of the rest of the nation is along the same lines.

WOOHOO! WE'RE IN THE NEWS!

The test today was a success, I know they've had 9 previous tests for this system. Some of them did, in fact, fail. But, with each failure comes new knowledge. The system is online now, and after what I saw today I'd say that it's a pretty solid counter-measure. I mean, nothing is perfect, but this is a lot better than not having anything.

Man, we've been out for almost a month now, waiting to do this shit. Tracking everything from cargo ships to civilian aircraft, we had a north korean ship trying to tail us for a few days. You have no idea how this feels as an accomplishment, considering that it means I can go home, now.

On one hand, I feel like I'm finally part of something big, and that's why I joined the Navy, but at the sametime, I can't help but think how all of this is really so unnecessary and how we (meaning mankind) could be speding our resources in a more productive manner. All of the E-5 and below on this ship could've gotten full-ride scholarships to almost any university they wanted, for the amount of money that the one SM-3 costs. It was all gone in a matter of seconds.

You're on the Shiloh?

Do you know, Duo, does the Navy use the interceptors made by Raytheon, or is that the, uh, Army maybe?

Yeah, I'm on the Shiloh (CG-67).

I'd have to admit ignorance, I know the designators are SM-2 Bloc 3A for sub-atmospheric engagements and the SM-3 for ballistic intercept.

Are you refering to the targeting system, or the missile itself?

I'm a CT, not an FC or a GM, so most of my involvment with the missile test was with overhead detection systems, not the actual engagement.

The U.S. can't sanction NK. We don't have any relations with them. At all. You can't take away nothing.

NK has done shit like this in the past. Usually it means one of two things: a) they are feeling ignored b) they want something. It's probably a bit of both in this case.

It's not like the U.S. has any military force to spare, we're busy in Iraq. And Japan doesn't really have a military to speak of at the moment. So if you're worried about a global war with nukes flyin', I'd say chill. NK is just clamoring for attention like a whining child.

While troubling, this isn't anything to shit your pants over.

With the Taep'o-dong 2's failure, I bet some heads are going to roll in the DPRK. And I don't necessarily mean that figuratively. It also seems that the KCNA still hasn't issued any statement on the events. Unfortunate, though they might just be taking their time in order to release something truly worth of NK News' hall of fame. I hope.

That aside, it's nice to see that the Taep'o-dong 2 failed that early, as it really limits whatever data they got out of that test. They were nowhere close to deploying the second stage, so even if they find what went wrong this time and fix it, plenty could go wrong and lead to another total failure next time.

What I'm not sure is why they launched those SCUDs and whatever other glorified V2s. Perhaps it wasn't a test, but a full scale attack on Japan and the West Coast, except all their missiles failed, so no one actually noticed. Or Kim really doesn't like the Sea of Japan.

You think he's going to take that aggressive of a posture without some kind of fallback plan? I'd hesitate to call it an attack, but Kim has been reported as a very shrewd and calculating man. It could be this really is a diversion to focus the U.S.'s attention away from some other, truly menacing project still under wraps.

A failure on this scale does a lot to instill a sense of security, which goes in N.K.'s favor if the missle wasn't what they were really worried about.

I was actually joking about the whole "attack-but-no-one-noticing" thing. Still, it is true that everyone is getting pretty relaxed now that he's done with what was essentially the equivalent of flinging feces in the general direction of the US. But I really can't see what sort of truly menacing project he could have under wrap. I mean, missiles with nuclear warheads are essentially the best the DPRK could hope for, and with the missile part failing as it did, then the nuclear part becomes useless. The one thing which could have happened is that they really did destroy the Taep'o-dong 2 in flight, and will launch another one from somewhere else now that people are less worried so it has a greater effect. But they'd have to be fairly sure that their missile will work as expected, not to mention that those missiles likely aren't being mass-produced yet, so each one fired is a very significant expense, mostly of time but perhaps resources depending on how exotic the raw materials, if they're machining and assembling the whole thing by hand.

Still that's pretty far fetched I'd say. Or perhaps Kim is actually an evil genius and has developped an earthquake generator or some other doomsday device so he can ransom the world for "One... Hundred... Billion Dollars!". Or he'll unleash frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads.

Yeah, that's pretty much all I had in mind. :tpg:

Hey, who would have thought...

[Link removed]

Seems the link doesn't work anymore. Anyway, it basically said NK was preparing another Taep'o-dong 2 for launch, and though it wasn't on the launch pad yet, it was in final stages of assembly.

NK are starting to piss off even China now with all these shenanigans.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/kore.../20060705.aspx

Yeah, I've actually read about the train thing. It's probably intended for a full-size model railway in the basement of one of Kim's mansions.

I can just imagine the conversation between the crews of the trains and their superiors once back to China. "They've kept the train." "What? Who? Bandits?" "Well, I suppose you could call the North Koreans that..."

NK have gotta be careful because if they piss off China then they might as well call it a day.

(still waiting for Japan to produce a huge mech out of somewhere in the Sea of Japan to attack NK if the shit hits the fan)

Actually, train-related matters aside, China doesn't care much for North Korea. It's been that way for some time now, the main reason they don't want to be outright hostile towards North Korea is that it would give North Korea a reason to try the same shit they're doing with South Korea, Japan and the US, namely blackmail. Add the fact that a collapse of North Korea would send boatloads of people crossing the border into China, including a large number of starved, fanatical soldiers, and you can sort of understand why China is trying to keep their relations with North Korea as they are now.

China has no reason to improve those relations either. They've got nothing to gain from a stalinist hellhole with less than 30 million people. As for ideology, let's be frank here: China doesn't give a fuck about that anymore. The fact that China is essentially capitalist aside, China is much more interested in actually making tangible gains in industrial and financial power than to spread any kind of ideology, let alone one they're not even following anymore.

That's probably why China and Russia vetoed the sanctions on NK in the UN then. >_>

Russia, I'm not exactly too sure why. But in China's case, it's essentially what I've said, they don't want to appear outright hostile to North Korea.

EDIT: The KCNA finally released a statement about the tests! Sadly it's nowhere as hilarious as I'd expect, just the typical half-coherent stuff they usually publish. They didn't even speak of the Taep'o-dong 2 failure.

Here's the link for anyone interested: http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2006/200607/news07/07.htm#1

I have to confess, American confused me at times. People have the right to self defence, but nations do not?

The idea being that responsible nations, ones capable of acting in the best interestsof their people rather than their dictator-for-life, quite possibly can use nuclear weapons responsibly.

But whether for self-motivated reasons or selfless ones, Kim Il Jong seems like one of the persons who least needs a nucelar arsenal. If we were still talking about India/Pakistani relations I think you might be onto something, but as it is, N.K. is being completely subdued by a completely egotistical and overly ambitious man.

Still the hypocrisy shows through.

So the nut has The Bomb. And now he's got everybody's attention. Which is what his country needs.

I don't really see how there is any hypocrisy with the current situation. North Korea agreed to not pursue and kind of ballistic missile and or nuclear weapons in return for help from other countries. They fell back on their agreement and now they are going to be, ( or we hope ) will be punished for their mistakes. They are trying to blackmail the world into giving them stuff and I don't think that saying we have nukes and lots of guns pointed at the south is the best way to go about getting what you want.

What's hippocritical about American nuclear policy is how we turned a blind eye to India's nuclear tests and how it very blatantly violated the agreements involved in the Nuclear Club.

Hippocritical or not, though, there's no reason we shouldn't be up in arms over North Korea going nuclear. Give me one good reason why a ruthless dictator who is perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of his own people to perpetuate his power should be allowed to develop both the most powerful implement of destruction, and it's delivery system.

Unless you can come up with a damn good one, all you're doing is blowing hot air.

Stop missile launching, stop bad stuff, stop war. :( Why do N. Korea have to go launching missiles? (some were pathetic and landed in the Sea of Japan!)

Don't go firing at my country, damn northeners! the southies are cool tho ^^

Are you, uh, South Korean?

I'm guessing Japan, since he's sore about some missiles going into the Sea of Japan =(

Or he's from south of the Mason-Dixon. Damn yankees indeed! >8U

They said that the Taepodong was aimed in the general vicinity of Hawaii based on the angle of the nose cone and its height before it fell the fuck apart. So with a targeted distance of over 6,000 kilometers, it couldn't even stretch the 1,000 required to jump Japan.

Yeah, but one launch failure doesn't really mean that much. I mean, the Vanguard rocket which put the first US satellite in orbit exploded on the launch pad the first time it was used. The second time didn't work either, but eventually they did manage to put a satellite in orbit with that same rocket. North Korea just being unlucky this time shouldn't be discarded.

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that their missile isn't a piece of shit either. But waiting for, at the very least, the second test is probably a good idea before laughing at them.

From what I've read, the Taepodong2 failed within a minute of being launched. And the folks afraid of seeing this used to launch nukes should realize that it would have to be a petite-sized nuke that NK lacks the technology to create. A nuke would weigh several thousand kilograms but the Taepo2's payload would need to weigh half a thousand kilos to reach its maximum range. You can't just scale up a few figures proportionally with weight. Lots of things change as you alter the size of these missiles. Plus, NK has yet to even get close to sustaining a reliable re-entry of their missiles.

Just like the USA and its allies blackmail the world into letting them keep WMD and nobody else.

Because it works for the Son Of A Bush.

Sure thing pal. We'll see how you'd feel about American Imperialism when your European goods are raided by pirates. ARRR!
I'm seriously not joking

Brady, you seem to forget about Consumerism. And Corporations running everything. Sitting in their warm offices, looking all Coporationy. :(

I hate corporations! How dare they make money! >=(

Yeah, they're obviously responsible for all the evils in the world. If only there was a country willing to get rid of those greedy capitalist dogs and enact an economic policy based on self-reliance, it'd probably turn into a paradise, no less!

Oh...

I don't think Bush should be excused for his behaviour just because America is generally a good country.

Nobody's really excusing anything, I think you're just drawing straws at problems that don't exist.

I'm no fan of el presidente, but that's all sort of irrelevant when Kim thinks he can blackmail us into compliance with his own firecracker.

And how's that different to what the U.S. does to Iran, might I ask?
There's no good sides here, just a clash of powers. Your view on this might be slightly biased because you live in the U.S., and thus your patriotism takes over.

It's either our patriotism, or our survival instinct. You be the judge.

I dunno, how is that different? Or do you forget that Iran is headed by Militant Islamists and has a force of over 8 million suicide troops? The reason we supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war was because the Iranians might have won, and were posed to march all over the Middle East.

Even calling this a clash of powers, though, is laughable, since North Korea has no real power. We don't even need troops in South Korea anymore. They have a standing army of 700,000 with modern weapons and equipment, 5 million reservists, and a defense budget that's equal to the total national product of their northern neighbors. Compare that to North Korea's 1 million strong army which uses outdated Soviet hardware, is malnourished, has no air power, and is spread across the entirety of North Korea to keep refugees in, protect sea landing zones, fend off air cav, put down possible coups, and garrison the DMZ.

A nuke is the only way the North Koreans will ever acquire any semblance of power, and I think it's Kim Jong's bid to blackmail the US into non-interference, and cow the South Koreans into unification. It could work. Probably won't.

A lot of people say that Bush's inept diplomacy is the cause for Kim even trying to strike US interests with an atomic weapon, but North Korea isn't worth invading. As I said before, it offers no military threat, has no resources, no industry, no economy, nothing worth seizing or destroying. It's basically a giant hole in the ground that nobody wants to touch.

That's mostly true. I'm not sure about the whole "keep the US out and force the unification of Korea" thing, though. If anything, the reason Kim wants a nuke is to be able to make sure no one's actually going to invade so he can keep watching porn and drink expensive booze. He might also want to use it as a way to bargain external aid when too many of his people are starving or if he happens to need something else. The worst he might do, for the outside world, is sell nuclear devices in exchange for hard currency, something they already do with ballistic missiles. That could be a problem.

As for saying it has nothing worth seizing or destroying, it might not be entirely true either. There are a few facilities which could prove dangerous in the long run, mostly related to nuclear research. The Yongbyon complex is at the top of the list. Even if North Korea fails in making a bomb, they still have the ability to extract plutonium. In fact, the so-called "Radiochemistry Laboratory" at Yongbyon can reprocess 100KG of plutonium annually, and I'm sure a number of other states would be extremely interested in by-passing what is essentially the hardest thing to conceal when attempting to build an implosion device.

Links to my sources:
Info on the Yongbyon Radiochemistry lab
Useful clickable map of the Yongbyon complex
Various WMD related maps of North Korea
Note that some entries aren't entirely up to date.

Great. Then we bring Kim to the table, tell him that he needs to back down from his missile and nuke program or we'll destroy what little facilities he has. If he tries nuking Japan or shelling Seoul, then it'll be the South Koreans that force re-unification.