Slashdot Mirror


What Debris From North Korea's Rocket Launch Shows

Lasrick writes "David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists analyzes the debris from North Korea's December 11th Unha-3 launch. From the article: 'According to press reports, traces on the inner walls of the tank show that the first-stage oxidizer is a form of nitric acid called "red-fuming nitric acid," which is the standard oxidizer used in Scud-type missiles. There had been some speculation that this stage might instead use a more advanced fuel with nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) as the oxidizer. Since the Nodong engines believed to power the first stage are scaled-up Scud engines, the use of RNFA is not a surprise. There have also been claims that the stage uses a more advanced fuel called UDMH, but it appears instead to be the kerosene-based fuel used in Scuds. In his recent RAND study, Markus Schiller noted that a test Iraq performed using UDMH in a Scud engine gave poor performance, and that burning UDMH gives a transparent flame. The North Korean video of the launch instead shows an orange flame characteristic of Scud fuels (Figure 3 is an image from 12:44 into the video). These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology.'"

223 comments

  1. whats the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knew these were nothing more than scaled up Scuds, it's been reported on for months.

    1. Re:whats the big deal by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All the ballistic missiles and rockets are German V2 scaled ups by your logic.

      N.K is now the 11th launch capable country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite ) and they deserve the credit. No analysis and humiliation could change the fact that a small country which has been under severe embargoes has succeeded in its technical (possibly military) ambitions.

      I was not expecting them to be able to put such a heavy satellite in 500km orbit. Iran has only been able to put a sub 50km satellite in a lower orbit.

    2. Re:whats the big deal by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:whats the big deal by TTL0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      RIght. It's not like it's rocket science or anything...

      --
      Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
    4. Re:whats the big deal by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone knew these were nothing more than scaled up Scuds, it's been reported on for months.

      The big deal is that what everyone suspected (not knew) has now been confirmed by physical evidence.

    5. Re:whats the big deal by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They "deserve the credit"? they've got half their country starving to death behind barbed wire, the other half starving in their crumbling capitol, they're spending all their money on BALLISTIC missle technology, and they... "deserve the credit". Well step forward and claim that prize, Best Korea.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    6. Re:whats the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Iran has only been able to put a sub 50km satellite in a lower orbit.

      That's a pretty big satellite...

    7. Re:whats the big deal by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Iran is putting 50km objects in orbit?

      Better prep those mass driver shelters.

    8. Re:whats the big deal by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Our people tend to have life expectancies in the very late 70s, and have the ability to leave the country whensoever we want. Check out the situation in N Korea, you might find that its slightly different.

    9. Re:whats the big deal by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Iranian and North Korean governments are a bunch of nutbags with or without the ability to rain down destruction on the rest of the planet. Not every space shot induces panic. Not every country is as stupid or as evil as the worst example you can find.

      It's also important to note that the original space race was far from benign. Sputnik was a side venture of the Soviet ICBM program and the main American efforts were also military in nature.

      The people that are the most hysterical probably have a properly grounded historical perspective.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:whats the big deal by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Our people tend to have life expectancies in the very late 70s

      Only if you tend to be upper middle class to wealthy. Lifespans are actually shrinking for the poor.

    11. Re:whats the big deal by dragisha · · Score: 1

      Of course their first steps are primitive, and their rockets too. But rocket
      engine is only a part of a space launch. Lots and lots of items of the space
      launch checklist are done for NK, and they will make non-perfect items
      better in future. It is great for them and great for lots of other countries
      as they have shown to everybody what is attainable with resolve and normal
      amounts of money. All of that under embargo of any kind imagineable.

      Prices of space launch are most probably inflated beyond recognition because
      of small to nonexistent competition. With more space launch capable nations
      (even NK is a plus), and companies later on, more nations and companies will
      be able to exploit space and we will all profit from that. From cheaper
      communications to more data about our planet (more invasions of privacy as
      side effect, too), real development of space technologies is probably coming
      - at last. $200,000 per ticket space tourism is not a development, it is
      - just one more entertainment venue for super rich.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    12. Re:whats the big deal by poity · · Score: 1

      You mean a group of scientists and engineers whose funding has been diverted from resources that could have been used to feed people has succeeded in its ambitions. How many tons of food aid did they have to sell on the black market to achieve this? It's not a victory for North Korea, its a victory for the rulers. On slashdot, we're critical of even democratic countries in their degree of representation, and of the disparities between the will of the people and the will of the government, yet I often see this willingness to present totalitarian rulers, their people, and the concept of nationhood as a singular indivisible entity (especially on the concept of "sovereignty", but that's for another thread...).

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    13. Re:whats the big deal by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Comparing the US to N. Korea is stupid. You deserve ridicule.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    14. Re:whats the big deal by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And the V2 is simply Goddard's designs scaled up. :)

      And as to being embargoed, they are not. USSR used to trade heavily with them, and Russia likely still does.
      In addition, it has been shown that China is very active in trading with NK. Basically, NK has a similar relationship to China that USA, UK, and Canada have (though we are more equals, while China tells NK and others what to do).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:whats the big deal by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd be with the Iranians and praying to Allah if they managed that. There's not many shelters that would save you from what is happening if a 50km object impacted anywhere on the planet.

    16. Re:whats the big deal by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be honest, if the resources of the US were treated in the same way that NK treats it's own people, we'd probably be setting up a colony on Mars right now.

      Most of the reason we are not on Mars right now is that people compare the costs of doing that with maintaining standard of living. In NK, there is no health care debate. Everyone there gets free health care, to a maximum of a band aid and a Kim Jong Un lollipop when they have cancer. In essence, you'd almost be better off living on the streets in the US than to be an NK peasant most days.

      However, yes, their prestige project of rocket science is moving along, and it will eventually progress. That's what happens when a country focuses itself, even imperfectly, on a narrow set of goals, and treats everything else at a bare minimum level. That focus is part arrogance of their elite class, and partly a need for Kim Jong Un to shore up his power base by keeping his military happy with him.

      You could do the same thing in the US too. I assure you, if you did only the minimum you needed to hold down your job, and instead lived in cheap rat infested tenements and ate ramen noodles for your one daily meal, despite the fact that you make more than enough to live in a nice home, you could have a decent nest egg built up. People in the US used to go live in houses they build out of sod so that they could get their hands on some land and make something of themselves. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting that we all sell our houses and go live in shacks to afford good health care, for instance, but a lot of people don't realize that we do actually have a lot of resources at our disposal even if they are limited. It is what we do with those limited resources which makes the difference.

      North Korea has chosen its space program over its people, and the space program is progressing because of it.

    17. Re:whats the big deal by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      I can assure you, Labour government was and LibCon goverment is doing everything what US tells them...

    18. Re:whats the big deal by j35ter · · Score: 1

      the majority of the worlds population would consider the US government nutshit crazy too....

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    19. Re:whats the big deal by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The Iranian and North Korean governments are a bunch of nutbags with or without the ability to rain down destruction on the rest of the planet. Not every space shot induces panic. Not every country is as stupid or as evil as the worst example you can find.

      It's also important to note that the original space race was far from benign. Sputnik was a side venture of the Soviet ICBM program and the main American efforts were also military in nature.

      The people that are the most hysterical probably have a properly grounded historical perspective.

      ===
      Whats the big deal. If you were president for life, had access to all the best of the best, from toys to women to power, why would you open your doors to helping your population? Most leaders are not charitable, they are egoists. They believe that Nice guys finish last.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    20. Re:whats the big deal by lsatenstein · · Score: 0

      To be honest, if the resources of the US were treated in the same way that NK treats it's own people, we'd probably be setting up a colony on Mars right now.

      Most of the reason we are not on Mars right now is that people compare the costs of doing that with maintaining standard of living. In NK, there is no health care debate. Everyone there gets free health care, to a maximum of a band aid and a Kim Jong Un lollipop when they have cancer. In essence, you'd almost be better off living on the streets in the US than to be an NK peasant most days.

      However, yes, their prestige project of rocket science is moving along, and it will eventually progress. That's what happens when a country focuses itself, even imperfectly, on a narrow set of goals, and treats everything else at a bare minimum level. That focus is part arrogance of their elite class, and partly a need for Kim Jong Un to shore up his power base by keeping his military happy with him.

      You could do the same thing in the US too. I assure you, if you did only the minimum you needed to hold down your job, and instead lived in cheap rat infested tenements and ate ramen noodles for your one daily meal, despite the fact that you make more than enough to live in a nice home, you could have a decent nest egg built up. People in the US used to go live in houses they build out of sod so that they could get their hands on some land and make something of themselves. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting that we all sell our houses and go live in shacks to afford good health care, for instance, but a lot of people don't realize that we do actually have a lot of resources at our disposal even if they are limited. It is what we do with those limited resources which makes the difference.

      North Korea has chosen its space program over its people, and the space program is progressing because of it.

      ===
      So where does that put Cuba? Cubans healthcare system puts that of the USA to shame. Russian health care system puts the USA's to shame.
      My son took ill in Russia (he was a tourist). He was admitted to hospital, diagnosed with kidney stones. Had ultrasound to break up the stones, had free prescription drugs, and all at absolutely no cost. And he was a visitor. And he was invited to return after they passed to make certain there were no damages.

      True people live less affluent, but they have other benefits, such as warmth of relationships, caring and sharing, and really, lifelong friendships

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    21. Re:whats the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post makes absolutely no sense. Basically you assert we can interchange the fundamentals of human existence to some how technically jump up in the world?
      And for what need? Who the hell wants to set up a colony on Mars? That is the most stupid idea ever in existence for at least the remaining life of the Sun

      I think you should really live in North Korea and then you can dream about moving to Mars of any way to get out of the immediate shit hole you find yourself in.

  2. why wouldn't it be? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

    I mean, it was the test of an MRBM/IRBM platform, it really is no surprise that it is only a technological hair away from its SRBM/MRBM ancestor...

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  3. North Korea by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much longer this festering little hell hole will last.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They now have an ICBM. Now they just need to miniaturize their nukes to fit on it. Next they will need submarines with nuclear missiles to protect them against a first strike. Then the only thing that will take them down will be internal strife. Considering that they are a batshit crazy country, China will prop them up as long as possible. So actually this hellhole might last pretty far into the future.

      The secret to North Korea's longevity is that nobody wants to go in an clean up their mess. This is ten times more important when they have a reasonable delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

    2. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much longer this festering little hell hole will last.

      And I wonder what things would be like if that "hero" MacArthur put his ego aside and followed President Truman's orders during the Korean War.

      That SOB should have been court-martialed and shot.

    3. Re:North Korea by penix1 · · Score: 1

      That SOB should have been court-martialed and shot.

      "Old soldiers never die. They simply fade away..."

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    4. Re:North Korea by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure America would consider going in if China weren't actively protecting them.

    5. Re:North Korea by CptPicard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not all that certain that China will unconditionally prop them up. They already have quite a problem on their hands with NK that they are no longer ideologically interested, and that China's real interests in international trade and so on are just hurt by any overt support of NK.

      What China is interested in is that their border region with NK doesn't get flooded with refugees if NK suddenly implodes. So I'd say that China might be our best bet at encouraging internal changes inside NK.

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    6. Re:North Korea by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, SK would have already wiped them out if America wasn't protecting NK by maintaining a huge military presence in SK.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:North Korea by ValentineMSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      China wasn't really that interested in saving Kim Il Sung's hiney back in the '50's. China got involved in the Korean war because 1) they felt they needed a buffer zone between a US-sponsored South Korea and their borders, and, perhaps more to the point, 2) Mao Zedong didn't just hold grudges. He cherished them, and he was still nine kinds of annoyed at the US for backing Chiang Kai-shek during the Chinese Civil War. Yeah, Koreans fought during the Chinese Civil War, but Mao was never one to be grateful enough for someone to do something against his interest in thanks.

      --
      Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
    8. Re:North Korea by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No fucking way. The DPRK has artillerie that can hit Seoul. Nor do the leaders of South Korea really relish the thought of paying the huge costs of unification and bringing the North up to the standards of the South. Look at the fall of the DDR and the cost to Germany during unification. This would be worse, far worse.

    9. Re:North Korea by gtall · · Score: 1

      Nope, China is the one supporting N. Korea, they don't want half of N. Korea fleeing to N. China. South Korea knows a bunch of born fuck ups when they see them, they want no part of N. Korea. The U.S. is merely a trip wire to prevent the batshit crazies up North from coming down South...after destroying it first with artillery and guided missiles. They then send their 1 million man starving army South so they get some proper meals before they shit in that nest as well.

    10. Re:North Korea by steelfood · · Score: 1

      They don't need to miniaturize nukes. A conventional warhead on an ICBM will do quite a bit of damage. Manufacture them in sufficient quantities and it's practically the same as a nuke. Sure, cities might not be wiped off the face of the map in one strike, but the damage will be significant.

      Their ultimate goal is not the U.S. but U.S. interests: South Korea and Japan. And if they hit Japan, nobody in Asia is going to be terribly vocal about the fact. The U.S. is making a lot of noise only because of this. They're not terribly afraid of NK missiles hitting San Fran or Seattle (though that's a consideration). They're scared they'll lose their bases in Asia, which will open the door to Chinese dominance in the area. And as Japan holds quite a bit of the national debt, the U.S. is afraid they'll lose a big buyer of their Treasury securities.

      China on the other hand, is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, China needs to keep up NK propped up. Otherwise, there'll be a few million refugees swarming across the border, and the northern provinces will be overwhelmed. There's already a lot people crossing over as is, enough that Korean might as well be a second language to Chinese up near the border. On the other hand, NK is going to destabilize the region, and that's bad for business. China's infrastructure is not quite where it needs to be where they can go toe to toe with Europe and North America (U.S. primarily). Until then, they don't want someone making a mess of the place and opening up the area for anyone to grab, like what happened at the end of WWII.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    11. Re:North Korea by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, name one country upset enough at China to hurt it economically over their support of N. Korea? And any change in N. Korea means the regime there must go bye-bye...and that would open the flood gates where most of the N. Koreans decide they'd like to live in China.

      China is stuck. They have to support that little sawed off runt and his generals and their army.

      No one will help the N. Korean people because no one cares enough to risk a hot war to lance that boil. It's easier watching them starve and die for the next generation instead of spending a lot of money and lives now to fix it...and probably a lot of S. Korean lives if not their whole economy. And there's no telling what China would do if the West did anything. Japan had their dicks cut off after WWII and they won't be growing new ones any time soon, and their Asian neighbors like it that way. The U.S. won't do anything after having shot their wad in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe those nice Iranians will help.

    12. Re:North Korea by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      My claim here is that the calculus is such that as NK just doesn't matter ideologically anymore to China, so they have no motivation to "support" it in any meaningful way, regional stability concerns aside. International diplomacy is often a matter of trading concerns, so if I were China I would just hope the NK crazies went away and I didn't have to "take their side" when I have much more important issues to defend (trade, Taiwan...)

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    13. Re:North Korea by jafiwam · · Score: 0

      No fucking way. The DPRK has artillerie that can hit Seoul. Nor do the leaders of South Korea really relish the thought of paying the huge costs of unification and bringing the North up to the standards of the South. Look at the fall of the DDR and the cost to Germany during unification. This would be worse, far worse.

      No they don't. That "information" is very old and not credible considering their infrastructure.

      Fire up Google Earth and go take a fucking look yourself. There ain't shit there. Do you really think Google erased evidence of their massive numbers of artillery batteries? Or, is it more likely that it's propaganda or internal lying (Nork on Nork lies to make the leader think they have that stuff, just like Iraq) saying they have it.

      Nothing larger than an oxcart moves in large portions of that country. They aren't feeding and supplying and manning large artillery batteries on any part of the border that I can see.

      That said, go look yourself.

    14. Re:North Korea by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      It is stored in caves and wheeled out when needed. It is about the only thing they can keep running.

      They have kept them stored there for ages, who knows if they work but they are there.

      Even if they did not costs of reunification are so high no one wants to touch it.

    15. Re:North Korea by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      North Korea is known to have built up a significant level of hardened and hidden shelters for their equipment. I assure you, their equipment is obsolete and would not stand up to any sort of real slugging match with the South, let alone the US, but they do have the capability to seriously damage Seoul with conventional artillery.

      Don't think for a second that just because you don't see deployed artillery batteries on hill tops it means they aren't there. It doesn't take long for even towed artillery to move into preplanned firing positions from their shelters. NK has a significant number of tube artillery in place that is low tech, but easy to maintain and very cheap to operate and store. Short of finishing their ICBM dreams, they don't have a prayer of touching the US, but SK is definitely a different matter.

    16. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No fucking way. The DPRK has artillerie that can hit Seoul. Nor do the leaders of South Korea really relish the thought of paying the huge costs of unification and bringing the North up to the standards of the South. Look at the fall of the DDR and the cost to Germany during unification. This would be worse, far worse.

      Why on earth would they have to bring the North up to the standards of the South? The germans tried, it was expensive. A mistake to avoid. Just make their lives slightly better, and they will like it. Then, let them do the work to improve their own conditions.

    17. Re:North Korea by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right about MacArthur screwing up the potential for victory.

      On the other hand, what would have happened if that SOB hadn't been there to push and execute the Inchon invasion?

      Individual roads have this way of always seeming to eventually come together in cities, events will tend to follow the same sort of logic. MacArthur may have screwed up our victory, but the only reason he got to fuck it up was that he was the one who managed to turn defeat around so we even had that choice to begin with.

    18. Re:North Korea by cusco · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure American corporations would consider going in if China weren't actively protecting them.

      FTFY. With all the fuss about Foxconn's working conditions and Mexican complaints about the maquiadoras I'm sure Corporate America would love to find a hellhole where they could get workers for $1/day with no worker's comp or environmental concerns. South Korean and Taiwanese mega-corps would be right behind them, and the Middle Eastern principalities need a new source of quasi-slaves now that Malaysian and Filipino 'guest workers' have exposed the horrible conditions they're kept in. Foxconn doesn't need the competition, so it's not likely to happen soon.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    19. Re:North Korea by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Because it is the right thing to do?
      They can't do the work to improve their own conditions, when you lack roads to transport bricks or food or plumbing.

    20. Re:North Korea by jonadab · · Score: 1

      The current government of North Korea, you mean?

      I believe it will last at least one more generation for sure, likely two generations, but beyond that point all bets are off.

      My reasons for believing this have almost nothing to do with anything internal to North Korea. Rather, I am basing my assertion on the assumption that the current generation of Chinese leadership is not ready to stop propping up the government of North Korea, and it is somewhat doubtful that the next generation will be either. Beyond that is much harder to predict.

      China is such a major political power that nobody can make them back down on this until they are ready. (Among other things, China has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, complete with veto power, so no resolutions can be passed that they do not allow.)

      North Korea as it exists today has no *practical* value to China (or to anyone), but practical value is only one of several major considerations in Chinese politics, and it is not the one held in highest esteem. Politically, maintaining the situation in North Korea is important.

      First, the current government in North Korea is a Communist government, and while China is in practice no longer the same kind of blindly-anti-capitalist regime that we think of in the West when we hear the word "Communist", the government of China still holds very strongly to the *word* "Communist" as an important political position. This will gradually fade with time, but currently it remains essentially a third rail political issue in China, because a large percentage of the current leadership actually grew up under Mao's regime. I won't bore you with all the details here, but if you are genuinely interested, see the following Wikipedia article:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadership
      The upshot of all that is, right now it is still dangerous in China to speak out against any of Mao's stated principles. Now, the Chinese government has very much moved away from what Mao *would have wanted*, especially in economic terms. That's all well and good, because what Mao *would have wanted* is, in the absence of official statements, a matter of opinion and speculation and interpretation. Moving away from what he actually *said* is more dangerous, for now, because everyone currently in a major position of leadership actually remembers him. Mao's importance in Chinese politics cannot increase; it can only decrease over time -- but that decrease in import is only going to happen rather gradually, as other important figures find their way into the limelight.

      Second, North Korea's major neighbors are all enemies of China, at least on paper. The nation that has the most of all to gain from a change in the North Korean government is South Korea, and the other major ones are Japan and Russia. South Korea and Japan are both fairly open, representative-government countries with notions like freedom of speech and so forth, allied with the US and Western Europe. Regarding Russia, see the Wikipedia article on the Sino-Soviet Split; the rift is only partially healed, and China definitely does not _trust_ Russia. Thus, propping up the North Korean government provides a buffer -- a dead zone if you will -- between China and some nations that they're not too keen on. The importance of this issue is very gradually fading, because as China's economic interests become more and more integrated into the global free-trade community and interdependent with various first-world nations, it is gradually becoming clear that outright conflict between China and the various Western powers is a rather unlikely eventuality. (We put diplomatic pressure on one another over various issues, because we'd like to talk one another into things, but nobody gets hurt.) This change however is happening very *gradually*, in part because China's economic development has been very gradual in nature (because the PROC government planned it that way -- no sudden shocks, just keep moving slowly in the desired direction and eve

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    21. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? "The right thing to do (tm)"? are you some kind of batshit crazy christain? Fuck you and all moralising wankers of your ilk. It's not anybody elses job to fix your problems and vice versa. The NK govt are a bunch of fuckwits of course, but making (the generic) us responsible for fixing their fuckups is just reverse slavery. Why should you, I or anyone else be forced to pay (ultimately in taxes) for some bunch of cunts who can't even run a country right? The people of NK have gotten the govt they deserve. Sucks to be them but hey, lions don't care about zebras feelings much...thats reality...they made their collective bed, now let them lie in it.

      Where I live (NZ) we have metric shitloads of South Koreans living here because they all think SK is a shit place to live and that NK is batshit crazy. I ask every immigrant I meet why they left their homeland and emmigrate to NZ.

      Get PSY up to NK and he can Gangnam Style them to world peace.

    22. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anybody in Asia hits Japan with anything, I can guarantee you that the Japanese people would launch and all out convential offensive against the offender, at least if history is anything to go by. Army recruiting is virulent in Japan at the moment as they re-arm themselves after the conditions applied by the USA after ww2 wear off. They are also re-arming with state of the art stuff from the USA. That missile the USA launched to shoot down a satellite was launched from a Japanese destroyer.

    23. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow are you a dipshit. Permanent or semi-permanent artillery batteries will be camouflaged from over head reconnaissance. You will not see them with the imagery provided by Google Earth.

    24. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. That "information" is very old and not credible considering their infrastructure.

      Fire up Google Earth and go take a fucking look yourself. There ain't shit there. Do you really think Google erased evidence of their massive numbers of artillery batteries? Or, is it more likely that it's propaganda or internal lying (Nork on Nork lies to make the leader think they have that stuff, just like Iraq) saying they have it.

      Nothing larger than an oxcart moves in large portions of that country. They aren't feeding and supplying and manning large artillery batteries on any part of the border that I can see.

      You, sir need do not know of what you speak... Do you honestly believe that Google Earth is going to show you military targets? You also forget that most of NK's missiles are portable, truck mounted. I doubt they leave them out for spy satellites to see. The reality is they have had missiles that can reach Seoul since the Korean war. If they have a rocket that can hit orbit, they sure as hell can hit Seoul.

      I will agree with you about the part that the NK people are very poor, but that's only because "Cartman", just like his father, spends all of their money on the Military instead of feeding his people.

    25. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Korean War was supported mostly by Russia although the Chinese contributed the fighters. Mao did not even know war had broken out until he heard it on the news. He supported it reluctantly after being encouraged by Krushev. Equipment used was primarily Russian. This was a brief period of cooperation between the Russians and Chinese.

    26. Re:North Korea by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am not religious in anyway. Stop fucking sheep and putting up strawmen. The South Koreans should pay because the is what reunifying would mean. If you don't think they should reunify just say so.

    27. Re:North Korea by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because it is the right thing to do?

      If South Korea can't afford to do that, then it's not the "right thing to do". I have to agree, this is empty moralizing wanking.

      They can't do the work to improve their own conditions, when you lack roads to transport bricks or food or plumbing.

      It's worth noting here that civilization came from far more primitive conditions than anything found in North Korea. Merely not having roads can be rectified by building roads.

      The problem isn't that North Korea isn't capable of improving itself by itself all the way to cutting edge developed world standards. It is after all in a better position technologically and infrastructure-wise, than any developed world country was centuries ago and there are plenty of working examples of viable developed world societies to follow.

      But the problem is that North Korea is going in the wrong direction to build such a society.

    28. Re:North Korea by khallow · · Score: 1

      Look at the fall of the DDR and the cost to Germany during unification.

      Two things to note. First, much of that cost was spurious, just bad decisions and ineffective spending. Second, Germany has done quite well economically since reunification. Part of it is relative fiscal discipline, but part of it is also having a piece of your country which you can raise from poverty to relative prosperity.

    29. Re:North Korea by asaa00 · · Score: 1

      http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5?op=1

      A bit old, but it was the first result in my Google search.

      That said, go look yourself.

  4. Kerosene works well... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It got us to the moon several times. Dont discount the "primitive" kerosene as a rocket fuel.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Kerosene works well... by Woek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well technically H2/LOX got us to the moon, the RP1/LOX got us out of the atmosphere... And incidentally, using LOX is a lot less primitive than using RFNA.

    2. Re:Kerosene works well... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Well, if you REALLY want to be correct, hydrazine and N2O4 got us onto the moon (and back off of it again), as well as enabling us to enter (and leave) lunar orbit....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Kerosene works well... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      LOX is a PITA for military rockets compared with RFNA.

    4. Re:Kerosene works well... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It got us to the moon several times. Dont discount the "primitive" kerosene as a rocket fuel.

      And don't discount it in the first stage just because UDMH is "better" as a fuel. Perhaps it is, for some values of "better", but it is also highly toxic, lethal even in small concentrations, and manipulating the amounts you need for a first stage is nobody's idea of "fun". Not to mention the exhausts containing unburned traces of it around the ramp after launch and potential defects during launch.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Kerosene works well... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      All these safety concerns are a big deal...for people who care. Except I don't see NK giving a shit if they kill people in the process. The Soviet Union certainly didn't mind a fatal accident or two in the process of building their rockets. That's not to say that they make bad stuff, but they didn't bother all that much with the whole safety thing in the process of figuring out how to build good rockets.

  5. Laugh at the technology by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But does it really matter what "technology" it uses if it can launch a bomb across an ocean? I don't think the parameters for success include "spend X billion inventing a new technology". Just the fact that they have managed to scale it up where other countries decided not to implies some sort of innovation. It's either cheaper, or they figured out a way to do it cheaper.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A SCUD can't travel acrossed an ocean...I think that's the point. 330 milles or so is the longest range of a SCUD-D type.

      NK likes to make a lot of claims and show "citizens" exhulting in their acheivements when it's mostly staged BS that means nothing. Now the fact that their "citizens" are living in abject poverty and under the threat of death at the hands of their government if they speak "ill" of "IL"...well that's very real!

    2. Re:Laugh at the technology by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It matters: because only with the right technology you can actually launch a bomb across the ocean. Getting to orbit pretty much implies you can do it of course, the getting there part at least, analysing the technology further will let you know how well the thing was made (gives ideas on reliability and controllability), how much was imported and how much was their own work, etc. Being able to build such a rocket all by themselves means a greater threat than if everything is imported - imports can be blocked.

      Also it gives an idea on how advanced their technology really is, which in turn gives an idea on their overall capabilities. If they build advanced rockets, they likely build advanced versions of other weapons too. The article mentioned they used a light-weight titanium alloy for the tank, instead of steel - showing they have access to that alloy.

      The fuels used are also interesting. They use RFNA for oxidiser which can be stored at room temperature, making it not only easier to use as fuel in a rocket, it also makes it suitable as fuel for a missile which has to sit ready to launch for a long period of time. This may mean they are developing dual-use technology, it may also mean that they don't have the technology to use the more effient cryogenic fuels and have to simplify the design.

      Analysing their technology can also indicate how well they can control their rockets - important for both space launches and dropping bombs on target. It seems they manage control pretty well considering they actually got an object in orbit, which is quite a feat. The obvious next step would of course be an object that stays in orbit.

      No matter what, analysing the debris can tell you a lot. And that's why they're fishing up those debris parts now.

    3. Re:Laugh at the technology by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      This fuel combination doesn't have a significantly lower performance than LOX/Kerosene. The fact is you can easily make an ICBM using these propellants. Their problem is they probably can't get their dry mass fraction down and the engines are old tech.

    4. Re:Laugh at the technology by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      well yea, a nuke coming at you after being launched from a trebuchet is much less dangerous then one coming at you from an ICBM.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well yea, launching a nuke at you from a trebuchet is much more dangerous (to me) then launching one at you from an ICBM.

    6. Re:Laugh at the technology by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If it can get to orbit it can easily cross an ocean.

    7. Re:Laugh at the technology by Applekid · · Score: 2

      Anyone crazy enough to unleash nukes at this stage in the game is going to get nuked to oblivion, whether it's blowback from their hand-thrown nuke or launched from half of everyone else.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    8. Re:Laugh at the technology by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but can you drop it somewhere that counts?

      Lift capacity is one thing, but guidance systems are what make ballistic missiles worth even talking about.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:Laugh at the technology by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If they had a multi MT warhead that would be far less important. Close enough is close enough.

    10. Re:Laugh at the technology by demachina · · Score: 1

      Guidance is a lot easier now that there is this thing called GPS

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The obvious next step would of course be an object that stays in orbit."

      Not sure what you mean by that. Since this object is over 500 km in altitude it will stay in orbit a long time, even if it is "out of control".

    12. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPS satellites are owned and controlled by the US millitary. I think that they would have 'turned them off' for North Korea during this 'test', and all future 'tests'.

    13. Re:Laugh at the technology by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point. A deliverable nuclear weapon is a very saleable thing. Somebody will pay big bucks to own one. That psychopath neighbor of yours, for instance.

      Scud class missile technology is all over the Middle East (for instance). An IRBM based on Scud engines (and more importantly fuel and support equipment) with a low megaton range nuclear warhead that has some reasonable probability of exploding that is for sale, few questions asked, would allow NK to punch well above it's weight in the Big Game.

      Pretty heady stuff for a short, pudgy dictator.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Laugh at the technology by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and if they had an orbital antimatter weapon, they could simply take out American cities one by one.

      Given the mass constrictions of a rocket payload, you can only get multi-MT out of thermonuclear weapons, which NK seems very far from developing. The few nuclear tests they did are widely believed to be pure fission devices, and even those didn't function optimally. This would hint to a crude construction that would be far too heavy to put on top of a missile. At the rate they're advancing, it is far from sure the country will last long enough to ever build a properly functioning 10s-of-kT warhead that can be carried by a missile, leave alone a muti-MT thermonuclear device. They may succeed to develop the required re-entry technology and guidance systems faster (although it's also a difficult problem and they're going very slow on that front as well).

      A more credible threat would be for them to develop crude re-entry technology and deliver a very potent chemical or biological weapon to a generally densely populated area such as the northeast (or somehow slip the weapon onto a ship). Of course, given the US's well-known tendency to overreact on domestic terrorism by a factor 30, this would reduce NK to a series of glass craters, so they first have to get really suicidal.

    15. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the point. A deliverable nuclear weapon is a very saleable thing. Somebody will pay big bucks to own one. That psychopath neighbor of yours, for instance.

      I wonder if that would fall under the 2nd amendment?

    16. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guidance is a lot easier now that there is this thing called GPS

      GPS is controlled by the US. If they, or any small nation, launch an unspecified rocket in their direction, guess what happens. GPS turned off in that region? Or even manipulated so the rocket hit some other territory? A gps blackout is easy for the owner of the sattelites. Then there is glonass, but then there is jamming...

    17. Re:Laugh at the technology by cusco · · Score: 1

      The US military used to have a 'dial-a-yield' nuclear howitzer shell that the grunts called a 'suicide round', since those launching it would be well within the affected area at higher yields. In fact they made so many of them that they lost track of the count in the late '50s. Even today the production run is just noted as being "in the thousands".

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    18. Re:Laugh at the technology by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It would; your beef would be with FAA. ~

    19. Re:Laugh at the technology by demachina · · Score: 1

      I think you seriously overestimate the U.S. military. DID they turn off GPS during this launch, I doubt it. I pretty much doubt they would be able to shut off every GPS constellation in existence and planned in the near future for any event less than World War III.

      --
      @de_machina
    20. Re:Laugh at the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... They use RFNA for oxidiser which can be stored at room temperature, making it not only easier to use as fuel in a rocket, it also makes it suitable as fuel for a missile which has to sit ready to launch for a long period of time. This may mean they are developing dual-use technology, it may also mean that they don't have the technology to use the more effient cryogenic fuels and have to simplify the design.

      I would argue that the DPRK is developing the former. This would mirror the PRC's doctrine of ensuring an effective second strike capability by distributing IRBM / ICBM throughout their territory via off-road capable TELs. This doctrine, in turn, is derived from the difficulty encountered by the US and it's allies during the "first Gulf War" in locating the Scud TELs that Iraq was intermittently lobbing at Israel.

  6. Asia-Pacific Strategy by deanklear · · Score: 1

    The Administration recently announced that America would focus their projection of power to the Asian-Pacific region. My guess is that the claims of a long range NK missile are either the allowance of idiotic intelligence assessments to further propaganda goals, or the outright fabrication of assessments for the same purpose.

    China will squash NK like a gnat if they threaten regional stability in any real sense, but the if the United States allows that to happen, it will be a blow to perceived US power in that area. There has to be an open ended excuse for a strike or an invasion to avoid that possibility.

    1. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      China will squash NK like a gnat if they threaten regional stability...

      No, China will use NK to destabilize the region in order to "re-stabilize" it in a configuration more to China's liking. Unfortunately for the world, there is no such stable configuration.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      The false assumption that the US should have control the Asian-Pacific region is just as correct as the one that Russia, China or Japan should have control over the N-American region.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    3. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean: the OBAMA administration? It's funny when people hide this aspect.

    4. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      "Control" and "power" are not the same things. Really the most the US wants is leverage in developing situations in Asia. A lot of nations in East Asia are very interested in close-ish ties with the US as a counterbalance to Chinese influence/intimidation, and this has largely been successful in averting crises in the region and/or Chinese aggression in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Straight. (Though occasionally you'd have political players who didn't really get the dynamic like Chen Shui-bian who tried to use US support as a skirt to hide behind while he would repeatedly poke China with a metaphorical stick. Even though personally I'm pro-Taiwan independence and more or less pro-DPP, President Chen was really reckless and ultimately not productive.)

      Being in one or another major nation's sphere of influence has consequences (both good and bad) for their respective trade relationships. However these remain rational actors and as such believe they are making net positive (or least negative) gains in whatever relationships they are pursuing, so I'm not laying awake at night.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      That sounds a lot more reasonable compared to the "there has to be an open ended excuse for a strike or an invasion to avoid that possibility" I responded to :)

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    6. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      No, China will use NK to destabilize the region in order to "re-stabilize" it in a configuration more to China's liking. Unfortunately for the world, there is no such stable configuration.

      Sort of like how the U.S. has spent the last 10 years "reconfiguring" Southeast Asia by arming various nasty people and is now busy deploying troops and carrier fleets around the pacific?

    7. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Except that deanklear was largely correct. Post-Vietnam War East Asian geopolitics have been largely about maintaining the status quo at any cost. China needs DPRK to stay afloat because otherwise they're virtually guaranteed to clean up the mess and lose their buffer (a lot of Western pundits don't realize that Korea as a buffer for China is not a Cold War phenomenon, it's been the case since at least Ming/Chosun relations and the Imjin War in the late 16th century). The US wants the Korean peninsula situation to stay the same because they don't want NK to become a full-on Chinese protectorate/territory (ironically the same thing China wants, but for different reasons). Even though both countries want the status quo, they can't be seen to want it. Because both the US and China have been using SK and NK as proxies for over half a century, they must be seen to, at some level, continue to desire the original goals of the arrangement ('unified "free" Korea'). This has been mere theater for something like three decades, and actually both sides have more contingencies for preventing the "goal" than anything else.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Sort of like how the U.S. has spent the last 10 years "reconfiguring" Southeast Asia by arming various nasty people and is now busy deploying troops and carrier fleets around the pacific?

      Such as? I have not been following what is going on in Southeast Asia very closely, but my over all impression has been that the political configuration of the region as it existed in the 80s and 90s suited U.S. interests in the region. Which makes me skeptical of claims that the U.S. is attempting to destabilize the region, but feel free to enlighten me (I am well aware that some political figures in the U.S. act in ways that are not in what I perceive to be the best interests of the U.S., for that matter there have certainly been those who clearly did not act in the best interests of the U.S. in the past and there will be such in the future).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Asia-Pacific Strategy by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Such as? I have not been following what is going on in Southeast Asia very closely

      My other west. Southwest Asia, sorry.

  7. The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology.

    The sub-text being that it's not that great a technology. They underestimate the fact that the rocket/missile can still inflict damage if the North Koreans decided to.

    1. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not with out a reliable guidance system. They have old missiles they can't control.

      That is not insinuation just fact.

    2. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, getting a few nukes within a mile or two of Los Angeles would likely satisfy them just fine...

    3. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Marsoups · · Score: 2

      Not to mention carelessly adding to the space-junk in the atmosphere. Space needs to be co-ordinated on a global stage, not a country specific one IMHO.

    4. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Not to mention carelessly adding to the space-junk in the atmosphere.

      Which has the pesky habit of falling down.

    5. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Marsoups · · Score: 1

      I meant in space, I saw the mistake after, but yes, things could fall down anywhere with NK running the show! They have a space program and happen to be one of the only countries where there is active cannabalism and starving population... Something doesn't smell right.

    6. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Except that the only part of the US they can reach with current missiles is a portion of Alaska. The only two other likely targets are South Korea and Japan, all of which are entirely within range.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people who would draw that conclusion are people ignorant of the damage Scud missiles have caused.

    8. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on! Look at what the USA did in the early days of space exploration...
      Explode atomic bombs in space, send buckets full of small needles into orbit, etc.
      Talk about being stupid.

      And even today, the USA spends lots of money on the military while having trouble with healthcare and feeding the poor.
      So before condemning others, please rectify your own behaviour.

    9. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Coordination of space on a global stage is a fantastic idea, except that you have countries like North Korea that don't give a damn what the rest of the world wants, and does what they're going to do anyway.

      See: countless UN Security Council resolutions telling North Korea to knock it off with the ballistic missile tests and nuclear bombs already.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Except that the only part of the US they can reach with current missiles is a portion of Alaska. The only two other likely targets are South Korea and Japan, all of which are entirely within range.

      Is there anything stopping them from launching this from a boat?

    11. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by Nimey · · Score: 2

      I'd bet a considerable sum that any freighters (suspiciously modified or otherwise) stopping in North Korea are monitored, and they don't have any SLBM submarines. The closest thing their navy's got are some ancient (designed in the late '40s) ex-USSR Whiskey-class submarines that might be able to handle cruise missiles, which are very different beasts from that bastardized Scud the DPRK launched.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    12. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      We did rectify our own behavior. When the US launched buckets of needles into space or whatever, no one understood the problem clearly. Now everyone understands the problem and we aren't doing that any more.

      Please understand that just because people screw things up in the past, it doesn't give you the right to screw those things up now that everyone knows better.

      And I mean, does NK really need to do this to "protect" themselves? No one has fought with them in 60 years, and the last war they fought with us was one that they started to begin with!

      No, they don't get a pass for this. They know what they are doing and they know why they are doing it, and it has nothing to do with moving their country or the world forward. It is a purely political tactic to keep their own regime in power.

    13. Re:The typical West! They must insinuate...always! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It still matters. NK launching shit into space is still a lot better than the rest of the 180 countries, particularly the bigger ones with the space programs, launching their stuff at will. It does, unfortunately, lower the program's effectiveness, but not so much as to make it pointless.

  8. False Flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

    No it isn't. That's some paranoia you got going on there

    1. Re:False Flag? by deanklear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who claimed the NK didn't launch the weapon? You don't understand what a false flag operation is. I'd advise you to read about the Gulf of Tonkin affair, but you'd probably walk away wondering why we fought Vietnam over little toy trucks.

    2. Re:False Flag? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually there are some people claiming the sinking of that South Korean vessel was a false flag operation.

  9. So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this thing capable or not capable of reaching orbit?

    More importantly, is this thing capable or not capable of reaching targets half way around the globe? The fact is that it can very effectively reach targets on the other side of the globe.

    An elitist condescension towards towards the technology, in this case, is as sensible as that attitude towards bashing someone's head in with a hammer. 'Pfft, a hammer, how crude. We use guns." The crudity doesn't really matter, in the end you're dead.

    1. Re:So What? by neyla · · Score: 1

      No. No.

      Glad to clear that up for you.

      This thing is *also* not capable of hitting anything with reasonable precision, thus even if the answer to the previous two where "yes" it'd still not hit a barn without being lanuched inside it.

    2. Re:So What? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Actually, the answers are "yes" and "yes". Just because their first attempt resulted in an object not reaching a stable orbit doesn't mean the design is *incapable* of it.

      Also, you're inference of it being unable to hit a target "with reasonable precision" is kind of irrelevant. The Norks have nukes. You don't need pinpoint precision on a nuke unless you're trying to take out small, hardened targets like missile silos. Getting within 10-20 miles of your target is perfectly acceptable if you're lofting a nuke at something as large as a city. Or, with a slightly smaller error radius, a carrier battle group.

      Remember, the goal isn't necessarily to develop the capability to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear-armed enemy. The goal is to develop a weapon that gives you *political* leverage and credibility in whatever region you're aiming at. Without nukes and a nuclear delivery system, a carrier battle group is pretty invulnerable to someone like the Norks. Thus U.S. policy can be quite aggressive should we so choose. *With* nukes and a delivery system, the equation changes drastically. The Norks never have to fire a shot, yet they instantly change the game *in their favor* by vastly increasing the vulnerability of the conventional forces they would face in an armed conflict.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    3. Re:So What? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You need reasonable precision so that you don't end up nuking some relatively empty bit of desert or tundra or simply dumping your nuke in the ocean.

      It will be a very long time before they can field enough weapons that are reliable enough to actually do some damage before their own palaces are turned into glass.

      All this does is raise the stakes and give better armed enemies the pretense to clean house for good.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:So What? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Just because their first attempt resulted in an object not reaching a stable orbit doesn't mean the design is *incapable* of it.

      The orbit of the satellite seems rather stable so far. The spacecraft itself may or may not have a functional attitude control system, but that's another story. Of course, as often, the slashdot article about it was rather misleading.

  10. where the analysis comes from by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was wondering whether the analysis was just based on video frames (since they talked about the colors of the flames and such) in the "AllThingsNuclear.org" article. The article itself says that the analysis is based upon four pieces of the first stage of the Unha-3 rocket recovered by South Korea. The author of the article, David Wright, surmises that all four pieces came from the first stage because they "were found in the same area".
    .
    The four parts found were:
    1 -- oxidizer tank (made of an aluminum-magnesium alloy)
    with a cool picture (fig 4) of the inside of the tank showing hoops and stringers supporting the wall
    2 -- two bottles that make the "turbo pumps" to maintain pressure in the oxidizer tank as the fuel flow continues during launch
    3 -- another part of the fuel tank (with the number "3" painted on the outside which is visible on the launch video)
    4 -- what appears to be a support ring from the first stage body
    .
    There's also a comment at the end about using "room temperature fuels" such as RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) allowing the use of a simplified design as compared to using cryogenic fuels which require a more complex design. Someone wrote in pointing out that RFNA is also used in the Russian Kosmos 3M space launch vehicle which is also derived from a ballistic missile. In fact, even the fins and the profile of the Kosmos looks like the fins on and the profile of the North Korean launch rocket. Pretty cool analysis, and I like that the author puts really links to the sources of the pictures he has in the article.

    1. Re:where the analysis comes from by dadelbunts · · Score: 2

      I hope they build a copy of the Buran.

  11. NK, open up your space/missile programme by Quick+Reply · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine all of the PR points you could win just by letting us space nerds in on what you're doing. We'll work most of it out anyway, but take us through all the technical gore. What you are doing seems like the closest thing to launching a fully fledged rocket from your backyard using nothing but spare parts lying around, so we can definitely relate with you here.

    1. Re:NK, open up your space/missile programme by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      And there it gets tricky. The problem is that under international sanctions NK is not allowed to develop missile technology (and the key difference between a rocket and a missile boils down to the payload).

      It indeed would be interesting to see how far they really are, but I do suspect that they have not much really to brag about as in developed by themselves. They took existing designs, scaled them up (I wouldn't be surprised if that is with outside help), made some improvements, and tried them out. Some failed, now finally one worked. A significant feat nonetheless.

    2. Re:NK, open up your space/missile programme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"What you are doing seems like the closest thing to launching a fully fledged rocket from your backyard using nothing but spare parts lying around"
      Does this mean North Korea is taking the Kerbal Space Program approach to their rocketry? :P

  12. Is this comment some kind of a joke? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, you can tell a LOT from this particular data point.

    That aside, what are you insinuating? That a group widely and routinely chastised as espousing a "liberal" and/or "leftist" agenda by conservatives, opposed the now-cancelled US Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and is opposed to nuclear weapons in general, is executing a propaganda campaign to make North Korea look more primitive than it really is when it comes to its rocket programs?

    Are you serious?

    After a veritable comedy of errors, North Korea finally has a successful launch, can't even get or keep the satellite launched from it into a stable orbit, and now an anti-nuclear advocacy group is really a secret US propaganda campaign to inappropriately embarrass the North Koreans, who are really more advanced in rocketry than all of their misadventures would indicate? The same North Koreans who just announced they have uncovered a unicorn lair?

    Really? I mean...really?

    Please â" I would love to hear how this is "propaganda", and how the DPRK is really a capable member of the space and nuclear clubs. To what possible end? Even IF it were true, why/how would that be a good thing?

    Or is this one of those topsy-turvy bizarro-world lines of reasoning where anything and everything that is in ANY way opposed to anything related to any US or Western interest is automatically true and pure, but anything that originates from the US or West, in any way, shape, or form is always "propaganda"?

    1. Re:Is this comment some kind of a joke? by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      I would point out the irony in everything you've just said but I'm afraid that distance it would go over your head would just add to the crowding in LEO.

    2. Re:Is this comment some kind of a joke? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      While I strongly agree with the "clouded judgment" and confirmation bias part, I don't think NK is a very good example at all. Literally all data we have on NK paint a dismal picture. And this shouldn't even be a surprise given all the embargos combined with the fact that the regime is doing its best at shooting itself in the foot at every step.

      Also, there's bias in the other direction as well. There's a large and powerful political force in the US that thinks it's in its best interest to keep the population fearful, and that will do everything to paint NK as a direct threat to the US, which it really isn't.

    3. Re:Is this comment some kind of a joke? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Ahahahaha! What a funny guy! 'Less you need me to tell you a story about a person who wants to be presented as stupid and unrefined...

      Many Americans view their nation as one in decline, and are disappointed in their technological progress. Thinking of NK as primitive (which it is, in many ways unrelated to their ICBM chase), might help them not worry so much, but it has little to do with that imagined, homogenized worldview.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Is this comment some kind of a joke? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The very fact that you made your point by using your own sweeping generalization is actually pretty funny. Bravo, sir!

      You were joking, right?

  13. Re:More propaganda crap. by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2

    Actually, if you read the article, it points out that you can infer the use of a low pressure room temperature (non-cryogenic) fuel from (1) the relatively thin wall-thickness of the tank, and from (2) the bottles used in the turbo-pumps to maintain pressure in the fuel tank during launch. It points out (3) that while the Scud uses steel for the body of the first stage rocket, the North Korean one uses a more-lightweight aluminum magnesium alloy.
    .
    I do agree with you that the article uses a lot of condescension in tone and uses the word "primitive" a lot to imply poor design, so there probably is a bit of propagandizing going on in order to denigrate the launch vehicle. But in my humble (and not very schooled) opinion, the analysis at least clearly lays out where it makes its inferences from and what the source of the imagery is. It doesn't seems like "pure ... BS" to me, but hey maybe I'm being taken in?

  14. Time to Crush NoKo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have felt for some years that it's time to crush the North Korean dictatorship. The longer we let them develop, the more dangerous they will be.

    The problem with that idea is China-- and it may be that since NoKo's technological progress is far slower than ours (Scuds is all they can do!?) waiting as long as possible is indeed a better strategy.

    But I'm debating whether we want to let them develop first strike capability.

    1. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by CdBee · · Score: 1

      Most of the countries that have been brought out of some sort of vaguely self-imposed darkness did a lot themselves to start the process: Soviets & their colonies worked hard to produce the sort of consumer goods that the West had and to maintain a standard of living in their own bizarre way - phone lines, cars, washing machines - they might have been crude, they might have been expensive, but they were available. China's going even further in terms of introducing Western methods and their benefits

      Are we in the West resourceful enough to take on stewarding a population for whom (and I invent this example as a guess, not as an insult) stainless steel blades for their scythes might be an undreamed of technical advance? Even South Korea, a population that is ethnically near as dammit identical, is so different that refugees from the North apparently suffer extreme shock and inability to cope. And what would we steward and assist them towards?.

      NK is the last feudal agrarian society, in large. I would not also be surprised if it didnt prove to be deeply conservative in the way that agrarian communities often prove to be - afraid of change and unaware of alternatives. I really feel in NK we need to wait for change, or even blackmail or bribe the power structure in a way to bring it around. Simply knocking out the top echelon and leaving the other problems would be unconscionable: taking them on is a responsibility for which we may not be fit.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I'm debating whether we want to let them develop first strike capability.

      Yeah, I was just thinking, "Wouldn't another war be nice?" And this whole pre-emptive strike thing has been working out so well!

      You are afraid that letting them develop longer will lead to them being more dangerous. Isn't it possible that letting them develop might lead to them being less dangerous? Maybe there will be a popular uprising? Maybe with increased wealth and education will come preasure from the populace to increase freedoms? Why should popular opinion in the US be the decider and enforcer of what North Korea does? Why not let North Korea's neighbors (South Korea, China, Japan, Russia along with many, many others that are much closer) take the lead? Have we learned nothing from the mistakes in Iraq? Why are you so eager for our country to squander what wealth we have by blowing up people half a world away?

      As a programmer just the inefficiencies of war (spending billions of dollars buildings things to blow up people and infrastructure) makes me weap let alone the cost in human life. I also strong suspect that all of these wars are going to make things much more dangerous for America down the road.

    3. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible that letting them develop might lead to them being less dangerous?

      Right now, N Korea has no real potential to hurt the US. At best they can hit our remote bases in Korea and Japan.

      And you're asking if giving them the capability to launch nukes into the US will make them less dangerous? That would take them from not being able to hurt America, to being able to hurt America. How exactly does that make them less dangerous?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The stakes here are much higher. If Los Angeles and Seattle were to get nuked, it would make *all* the Middle East wars look like a pillow fight.

    5. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the problem is there isn't increased wealth and education in North Korea. There is increased hunger and starvation while the ruling few place the national resources into a game of nuclear blackmail.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Time to Crush NoKo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus weapt.

  15. I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by Thagg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, nobody mentions that the Gemini missions used storable propellants not unlike what the North Koreans are using. Now, it's true that Gemini was launched with Titan rockets, and Titans were originally designed as ICBMs, but they were used for civilian purposes as well.

    The more interesting part is that we recovered the missile parts. According to everything I read, the exact timing of the launch was somewhat of a surprise (maybe this isn't true) but nevertheless we managed to track the debris and fish it out of the ocean immediately. This tells the North Koreans that not only do they have no secrets, they never will have any.

    To me, the North Korean rocket looks a lot more like a satellite launcher than an ICBM. The first nuclear weapons that North Korea will deploy will be very heavy, and this rocket (as tapered as it is, and with such a small, low-powered third stage) just will not carry it. ICBMs are also designed to burn quickly, as they are vulnerable as long as they are in the atmosphere and burning. This rocket burns for many minutes, as satellite launchers do.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, nuclear weapons are just heavy satellites that have an orbit that intersects with the Earth at a pre-determined point. If they are developing lift capacity, it's only a matter of time until they can strap whatever crude nuke they have on the front of it, and lob it somewhere.

      Yes, they need better guidance systems, better lift, better everything. But getting something to orbital altitude is the first step, which the US and the USSR proved in the late 50s with Mercury / Redstone and Sputnik.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      The recovery isn't too much of a problem. Even if the launch was 100% secret, as soon as the bird pops off the ground, she'll appear on the SK radar screens and they'll track it along with whoever else is watching the region.

      Spooling a destroyer or two to recover the wreckage from where it landed shouldn't take more than a day or two once you know where it went down.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    3. Re:I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Even easier - you have two (or more) submarines or surface ships who are listening for the splashes. You assemble the data and you have accurate coordinates of the splashdown. Run a sensitive metal detector around the area and drag up fun things.

      I would imagine between the US, SK and Japan, given the interest we have in the NKs behavior, we have lots of assets in the area waiting for exactly this sort of thing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:I always enjoy the unsaid parts of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the goal is to highlight the north koreans developing this technology for military purposes, then it's obvious why it keeps referring to scud missile level fuels

  16. Nodong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

  17. It shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That many cities in the US will be smoking nuclear wastelands cause N Korea still considers itself to be in a state of war with the US. Geostratigicaly aligned with China, Iran, Pakistan.

    1. Re:It shows... by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      Well, they are kind of correct in that the Korean War ended with an armistice and not a peace treaty. Armistice: temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement between the opponents.

  18. RNFA != RFNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not just "chemistry" it's freakin' rocket fuel chemistry and acronyms matter lest ye blow up!

    Red Fuming Nitric Acid

    RFNA is some nasty stuff. Worse liquid propellant oxider ever? Chlorine TriFloride (ClF3). Eats and/or combusts with everything and anything , including service & test engineers.

    1. Re:RNFA != RFNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase Henry Spencer, "come now, we can do much worse than that."

      ClF5 is a somewhat nastier oxidizer than ClF3. Ignites on contact with, among other things, glass, Teflon, sand, dirt, skin, most fire-fighting chemicals. The material data handling sheet might as well suggest prayer and a fast pair of heels as suitable countermeasures for a spill.

      Liquid ozone as oxidizer is quite nasty in some subtle ways; the absolute worst might be the Ozone-14 isotope. It has a half-life of two minutes, after which it decays to nitrogen and forms NO2, which is hypergolic with the remaining ozone.

      RFNA is not bad as oxidizers go. They are, after all, intended to react energetically with something.

  19. On the appropriateness of names by CdBee · · Score: 1

    "...the Nodong engines..."

    The whole insecurity of NK is so freudian it could only be put down to having no dong..

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  20. Nodong, but it's still a giant phallus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nodong, but it's still a giant phallus

  21. Re:More propaganda crap. by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    The problem is that "primitive design" is often read as "poor design" by non-technical people. Primitive designs may be pretty good in themselves, and work quite well, but have become obsoleted by more advanced designs. Now in how far the NK rocket design is obsolete I don't know, the article mentions at least the Russians use the same fuels to launch stuff into orbit.

    And of course it's being played down. Many people don't want to see up to the fact that this country managed to put an object in orbit (didn't stay there long though), which places them in a quite short list of countries that did so too.

    That said I'd much rather they'd put that much effort in actually feeding their own population. For example by getting their farming going again, instead of having to rely heavily on outside supplies.

  22. ..and there's more by maroberts · · Score: 1

    The fact that the rocket is based on old technology is "Scud" news for South Korea. /tish

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:..and there's more by CdBee · · Score: 1

      James Bond's theme tune for his next, North Korean, mission: Mr Kiss Kiss Gang Nam

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  23. Idiocy? by mha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology."

    Says who, a so-called "scientist" from the nation that just put the space shuttle into the scrapyard (where it belongs) - and has NOTHING to even do the same job as that old piece of junk?

    As compared to what, the anti-gravity drive used by the latest US spaceships? Last time I checked EVERYONE still uses good old rockets. Oh sure - they now (occasionally) have a camera looking backwards for nice launch videos. And possibly they use fuel Y instead of fuel X - excuse me guys, you celebrate marginal, tiny advances as being far ahead of the stone-age North Koreans?

    As far as getting into space, we ALL are at "stone-age" (1960s) level (i.e. rockets, huge flames, HUGE noise, lots of explosives). But today, progress is measured in micrometers, not in miles, so sure, let's celebrate how much more advanced we (the West) is compared to the most backward nation on earth.

    1. Re:Idiocy? by jon3k · · Score: 1
      The summary seems to try to draw it's own conclusion, the original article doesn't really leave the same impression. Example, from the original article:

      There have also been questions about what material was used to build the body of the first stage. The body of the Scud, and likely the Nodong, is made of steel, but reports say that the tank recovered is made from a lightweight aluminum-magnesium alloy, which is typically used for aircraft. This saves a significant amount of weight, which is important to allow its relatively low-thrust engines to get the launcher up to speed.

  24. Still amateur hour in NK by johnjaydk · · Score: 1

    NK's deterrent is still only conventional, their nuclear capability is a joke.

    • Their physics package is still very crude. They need to miniaturize it in order to have something deliverable. The results also needs to be confirmed with successful tests, so before we register more NK tests, this hasn't happened.
    • Their lifting capacity is a joke, particular when they needs to carry a first generation warhead. They need a big ass rocket to drag such a contraption over long distances, so wake me up when we see them using MON and UH25 or Aerozine 50 etc.
    • Don't even mention guidance. Their satellite shot was less than impressive. The yield of their warhead is going to be modest until they do some more development, so accuracy really matters. We need to see some test-range shoots where they develop this accuracy.
    • Deterrence requires volume. Even if NK had a single perfect ICBM, it wouldn't really matter. It would be a tragedy for the casualties but any use of that ICBM would cause a retaliation that would blast NK straight into orbit. Heck, China would have to put their dog down themselves in order to prevent the whole world from coming down hard on NK.

    In short NK have made a career of being a nuisance and all their antics are little more than creating bargaining chips. NK only exists because China wants a satellite state that acts as a buffer. Let them handle the mess.

    --
    TCAP-Abort
    1. Re:Still amateur hour in NK by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You're not kidding about anything you posted.

      There is declassified YouTube video of a Minuteman-III test launch from Vandenberg AFB in California to hit a 55-gallon drum on an island in the South Pacific, and the launch crew is rated by how many feet they miss it by with the tungsten slug that is standing in for a warhead. I'd link it, but the proxy here blocks YouTube.

      If you have a sub-100 Kt nuke and want it to be effective, you need to actually put it where you want it to be with guidance systems. Aiming for North America and turning the launch key isn't going to do anything but reduce your country into a glassy parking lot, because the US can put one 5x as powerful through your bedroom window, while you did a great job adding to the background radiation count in Nevada when you meant to hit Los Angeles.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  25. It must be mocked by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Didn't you get the memo? A totally hostile regime armed with nukes and ICBM capabilities that we cannot attack because it holds Seoul hostage of its artillery must be mocked as often as possible in the media.

    Forget Iran, forget Syria. North Korea is a Damn Serious threat that will be very difficult to solve.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  26. I forgot... by mha · · Score: 1

    I forgot to add that if they manage to have the potential to get a nuclear war head to the US (territory) it does not freaking matter if they use a ballista, a rocket or beam it across space. Same outcome. I've no idea what all this "analysis" telling us how bad and backwards everything North Korean is (which I don't doubt at all) is supposed to tell the (western) public? It sounds sooooo stupid.

    1. Re:I forgot... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I doubt the "public" cares at all. for tech nerds it matters though.

      though it would be interesting if these design approaches have some effect on maximum possible payload and navigation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:I forgot... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Upset because you didn't get your working scale model of the Enterprise-D for Christmas?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  27. Advanced Missiles by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    Ah, memories! RFNA and UDMH were what we used in Lance Missiles in the 70's/80's. These were aimed visually with hand cranks, a theodolite and a mirror. (a little more to the left) Interesting to see this called "advanced" in 2012.

    1. Re:Advanced Missiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet bizarrely, in 2012 there are things that weren't kicking around in the 70's and 80's, such as centimeter-accurate cross-planet coordinate accuracy, gigabytes of data transfer in a matter of seconds, and a multitude of materials that are stronger and lighter than back then.

      But no, let's laugh at the gas they dumped in the tank. Ignore the fact that this is comparable the difference of an AMC Gremlin and a Ford Fusion both taking gasoline. CHECK IT OUT, THAT FORD FUSION USES GAS, what kind of backwards retards are these?

  28. ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

    Don't even try to compare the US to North Korea. Nothing is perfect, but NK is as close to hell as you will ever find on Earth at any point in history (maybe slightly exceeded by Khmer Rouge era Cambodia).

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:ROFLMAO! by Marxdot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then you must have never even heard of Liberia, DR Congo, Rwanda, and so on...

      Anyway, what's your justification for that extreme claim with religious undertones? Is it that you can't imagine worse horrors than what has been documented of NK? Believe me, worse horrors exist.

    2. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Troll

      Don't even try to compare the US to North Korea.

      The logic is the same - "how can you say xyz country is great when their people are suffering from abc". But yes, different scales - so shouldn't it be more embarrassing for the U.S. that it has 50 million+ people regularly going without health care? Half of it's children going on food stamps at least one point in their lives?

    3. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What irks people is that some countries are compared to a standard of perfection, e.g. "The US is imperfect, and anything that isn't optimal can be criticized", while others are compared to a kind of standard of imperfection, e.g. "There are worse places than North Korea, who are you to judge them?"

    4. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      50 million without healthcare, or without insurance? Big difference. I went without insurance for a year because I was a healthy 18 yr old male, and the cost of insurance wasn't worth it. Not that it was too expensive, but all insurance and warranties are based on the fact that you're buying the losing end of a statistic. If you weren't, the companies wouldn't make money.

      Would I have been 1 of those 50 million? Because I made a logical choice to voluntarily not buy insurance?

      Not that I'll have that option once the new healthcare bill kicks in.

    5. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

      I've more than heard of them, but that's a whole other story. NK is pretty bad, and it goes on and on decade after decade with no sign of letting up. As for "religious undertones" whatever. First you are probably grossly in error in whatever assumptions you are making about my system of beliefs, and even if you aren't it is irrelevant to the discussion so why bring it up?

      I believe my own eyes and the direct reports I've gotten from people that were in these various places about what is worse than what. The list you mention are all places that have been bad, nightmarish, etc. Only NK continues on that way with no changes at all. Believe me, its bad.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    6. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there's a huge difference in quality between NK and US which makes any such comparison ludicrous and false. NK is an absolute totalitarian state in which the very CONCEPTS of individual dignity, human rights, and personal autonomy are not acknowledged at all and are never exercised by individuals. Even the most trivial deviations from rigidly defined acceptable behavior is met with arbitrary and disproportionate force from an elite class of people who answer to no-one and have absolute power. Millions starve to death routinely, there is no economic progress of any kind, and whatever wealth exists is completely controlled by a tiny elite.

      Now, we can complain about inequality, hunger, a political system which favors an elite, etc. However you are not subjected to anything like the sort of state power and restrictions on your freedom that you would be in NK. Nor are people routinely punished or killed in horrible ways without any recourse, etc. Is half the population of the US grossly malnurished? No. Is there no right at all to private property or even basic privacy? No. You cannot say there is any meaningful equivalence between NK and the US, thus my original comment stands.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    7. Re:ROFLMAO! by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      It's almost pointless to respond to people who have so little experience of reality as to consider North Korea is comparable at all to the US or any Western Democracy.

      The fact of the matter is that in North Korea, you would not be having this conversation, because you wouldn't have an Internet, but if you did happen to have Internet access, you'd be arrested and sent to a prison camp a short time after expressing that.

      The fact that countries still have unemployed and starving people is nothing new, but there are some countries that actually work to address it, if imperfectly, and are not so badly off that they have to fear even the facts of the debate being truthfully presented.

      Whether or not the 50 million number is actually of people that compare to the level of starvation that exists in NK is almost not relevant. In NK, 95% of the population could be starving and you'd be arrested and possibly tortured for merely asserting that starvation even existed at all, let alone how many people were suffering from it.

    8. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      Since you falsely and ludicrously skipped over it the first time, here's the point again:

      The logic is the same - "how can you say xyz country is great when their people are suffering from abc". That the scales and variables are different does nothing to change the core formula.

      Now, we can complain about inequality, hunger, a political system which favors an elite, etc.

      Which is why it's more embarrassing for a first world democracy, not under an international embargo, that happens to be the richest nation on the planet when it fails so spectacularly for so many of it's citizens.

    9. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were only a 51%-48% margin away from achieving "arbitrary and disproportionate force from an elite class of people who answer to no-one and have absolute power".

    10. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anybody is going to seriously compare NK to the US.

      Here in the US we acknowledge free speech, unless you're politically unpopular with the upper class, like OWS or Ron Paul in which case you'll be ignored or insulted by the corporate media. We respect private property, unless you're relatively poor and carrying cash on you during a traffic stop, in which case you will be presumed a drug dealer by forfeiture hungry cops. We don't quite literally have millions starving, but we do make it so cheap crappy food of no nutritional value is all a huge percentage of our population can afford. (Actually, we don't really know how many starving people we have because nobody seems to want to find out, but I digress) We absolutely have basic privacy, unless you're using a computer to do anything because law enforcement thinks all your electronic bases are belong to them.

      We do have a couple of comparables though, relatively speaking. Our elites own a huge percentage of the country's wealth and use it to bring corruption and plutocracy to all. Also, our social and economic mobility is just about as frozen as theirs is by now, though I believe the elites have a little more work to do to totally catch up on that one. It is, of course, not actually illegal to be socially mobile in the US--it is just not really possible to do so. We have a lot of stuff like that, it seems.

      See, every country has problems, and North Korea's are pretty epic. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending the propaganda they fed you in grade school about the American Dream has any basis in reality for most of us any more.

    11. Re:ROFLMAO! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      No, it's not more embarrassing. The USA makes an effort to provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Doesn't succeed, but makes an effort. North Korea treats its "citizens" as slave labor.

    12. Re:ROFLMAO! by j35ter · · Score: 0

      your own CNN or FOX news eyes? I have been to the US, China and Myanmar lately, and honestly, the US population has no real conception of the outside world. OTOH those great freedoms you keep talking about, just do not exist in the US. Face it, you are being given a similar treatment the Soviet population has been given decades ago: The external enemy is lurking behind the corner...and he is reeeealllyyy eeeeevil :-)

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    13. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      50 million without healthcare, or without insurance? Big difference.

      No, there isn't a big difference for the working poor. Thanks Obama's health insurance mandate (that he ran against), people who would have been able to pay for basic bills or with flex benefits will now have $5000 of their income sucked into junk insurance. Obamabots like to talk about all the people that will now be covered - what they don't like to talk about is how many will actually be denied care because what little income they have will now be sent to the insurance companies.

    14. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

      Just so that you understand, most people in NK would risk death to come to the US, in fact many of them do so every day just to go to China... It is not even just ludicrous to compare the US and NK, it is actively insulting to the people in NK who endure such horrible privations and violations of their basic rights.

      Yes, there are some imperfections in the US, but currently we are the most fortunate and well-treated population of human beings in the history of mankind overall. It would be a good idea to keep that in mind. Of course it is fine to strive for a better and more inclusive society, but lets not lose perspective on where we are here.

      In other words can the "insulting everyone's intelligence" rhetoric. It is repugnant. You're coddled, so get off that horse. ;)

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    15. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but this is just offensive bullshit. The people of NK would almost to a person kill or risk death to have a chance to live in the US. You wouldn't last a week living under the conditions they endure. While the US is of course not perfect and I'm no apologist for our shortcomings for you to even imagine you can compare the two countries on some quantitative scale in this way is as I just said ludicrous and offensive.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    16. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I'm not "the US Population" thank you ;), nor have I watched CNN or FOX news in living memory. I haven't (yet at least) been to China, Myanmar, or certainly not NK, but I've been around. If you think you know what not having freedom is about and that is the condition in the US then you didn't look around very carefully when you were in China. Did you leave the hotel? lol. The US is far from perfect, but anyone comparing it to NK or even China are not living in the real world.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    17. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent several months in smaller towns in Fujian, living and eating with locals.
      I also spent a year in the US, mostly in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas...also eating and drinking with fhe natives there ;)

      All in all, the privileges some US citizens enjoy are cute, but not so far off what the Chinese have. Also, I percieved the US police to be far more menacing and threatening than the Chinese police ...the average Chinese policeman yells and waves his stick, where a US trooper would already have tased and peppered you for the same offence.

    18. Re:ROFLMAO! by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      ... many will actually be denied care because what little income they have will now be sent to the insurance companies.

      Wow, only one sentence, but a huge pile of bovine fertiliser.

      • These poor people pay premiums for health insurance, so they're now covered. So they do get healthcare.
      • Obamacare forces the insurance companies to accept people with preconditions, and not deny coverage for some kind of nonsense reason.
      • Obamacare forces the insurance companies to actually spend the money they collect on care for their customers, or else they have to return the excess money to their customers.
      • If people cannot afford the insurance premiums, they get a subsidy.

      I'm sure Obamacare is flawed, but if you argue against it at least argue with the facts, rather than making up things.

    19. Re:ROFLMAO! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Then you must have never even heard of Liberia, DR Congo, Rwanda, and so on...

      We're talking about N. Korea...?

      Anyway, what's your justification for that extreme claim with religious undertones?

      What>????? RELIGIOUS UNDERTONES? Are you an idiot???

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    20. Re:ROFLMAO! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      1/2 the population in the US aren't living in concentration camps subject to unilateral execution, to that I can testify.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    21. Re:ROFLMAO! by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody is going to seriously compare NK to the US.

      Here in the US we acknowledge free speech, unless you're politically unpopular with the upper class, like OWS or Ron Paul in which case you'll be ignored or insulted by the corporate media.

      Being ignored outright or insulted by corporate media is not an infringement of anyone's free speech.

    22. Re:ROFLMAO! by Marxdot · · Score: 1

      Liberia also doesn't change, or perhaps it is getting worse as time goes on.

      Oh well, North Korea is a shite autocratic neo-Stalinist dictatorship. There is no disagreeing with that. But it is not "The worst place on earth!!!".

    23. Re:ROFLMAO! by Marxdot · · Score: 1

      We're talking about "the closest thing you can get to 'hell on earth'".

    24. Re:ROFLMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such simple equivalencies such as this are the product of simple minds.

    25. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's just American exceptionalism bullshit. Since you skipped it the first two times:

      The logic is the same - "how can you say xyz country is great when their people are suffering from abc". That the scales and variables are different does nothing to change the core formula.

      The people of NK would almost to a person kill or risk death to have a chance to live in the US.

      Batshit irrelevant. That deflection crap was old when Bushies were using it to defend Cheney's torture regime - "what, you think you'd have it better in Syria?" Of course things are worse in Syria. That's not the fucking point, dumbass. If North Korea, a third world dictatorship, cannot be praised until they start taking better care of their people, then the United States, a first world democracy, cannot be praised until it takes better care of it's poor, stops bombing the shit out of other countries, and stops treating the Bill of Rights as a list of suggestions instead of a list of requirements. That's not saying that the U.S. == N.K.

      ludicrous and offensive.

      So fucking what.

    26. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's almost pointless to respond to people who have so little experience of reality as to consider North Korea is comparable at all to the US or any Western Democracy.

      It's almost pointless to respond to people so willfully obtuse as to be attacking a straw man, but here it goes:

      The point isn't to say the U.S. == N.K., dumbass. It's that you shouldn't throw "xyz country cannot be praised until it stops mistreating abc" stones if you live in a glass house.

      The fact of the matter is that in North Korea, you would not be having this conversation, because you wouldn't have an Internet, but if you did happen to have Internet access, you'd be arrested and sent to a prison camp a short time after expressing that.

      Utterly irrelevant to the point. Bushies liked to deflect from anyone questioning the Bushco torture program by asking if people thought it was better in Syria or under Saddam. Except, that's not the fucking point, and anyone who pretends that's the case is being willfully obtuse to derail the conversation.

    27. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Wow, only one sentence, but a huge pile of bovine fertiliser.

      Whoa, Slick. You might want to slow down before you make a fool out of yourself. Whoops, too late.

      These poor people pay premiums for health insurance, so they're now covered. So they do get healthcare.

      Health insurance is not health care. Deductibles. Co-pays. Heard of them? Before the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act:

      Working poor can chose not to fork over $5000+ a year to the insurance companies, and pay for their health care bills directly. If they have a full time job, they could take $5000 in flex benefits for greater savings.

      After the HIPPA:

      Working poor are mandated to buy junk insurance. That $5000 goes first into the pockets of the insurance industry. And even after they make their monthly insurance payment, the person still has the further costs of deductibles and co-pays. Or does a $1000 annual deductible, $50 office visit co-pay + 20% treatment co-pay not count in dumbass math?

    28. Re:ROFLMAO! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No, it's not more embarrassing.

      Yeah. It is more embarrassing when you decry other countries for their lack of freedom, while re-affirming endless military detention of American citizens and warrantless wiretapping in direct violation of your own Constitution. It is more embarrassing when you have more prisoners in both raw numbers and as a percentage of your population, when most are locked up for petty Prohibition offenses. It is more embarrassing when you're fighting corrupt theocratic governments because they give their suspects too many rights.

      The USA makes an effort to provide a decent standard of living for everyone.

      You misspelled "socialist Europe", since the U.S. stopped pretending to do any such thing when Dems and Republicans got together to gut welfare back in the 90's. In other countries, the poor have the right to secondary education, housing, food and health care. Here, they have the right to purchase junk health insurance.

    29. Re:ROFLMAO! by stefpe · · Score: 1

      . Is half the population of the US grossly malnurished? No.

      Actually, yes. Just in a different way...

    30. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Liberia has VASTLY improved in the last 5 years. So have some of the other really bad West African states. Others haven't yet, but even then they are generally better places than NK, certain time periods aside. Its a fairly pointless argument anyway. ALL of them cannot be compared with the US in any reasonable way.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    31. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      OK, listen asshole, since I lack the power to drop you in the middle of Pyongyang and let you learn the monstrous insulting stupidity of the drivel that drips off your keyboard this discussion is pointless. When you cannot tell the difference between Kim Jung Un and Barak Obama you are FUCKED IN THE HEAD. OK?

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    32. Re:ROFLMAO! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Ever watched someone die of malnutrition? Didn't think so. Its completely not even faintly similar, sorry. Get off your coddled arse and go spend a year in Kibera for instance, then come talk to me about who's malnurished, K?

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  29. Who's to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's to say they didn't launch this rocket just to see what the rest of the world has to say about design flaws therefore doing all of the analysis work for them. Just because the the peasants can't access the real world doesn't mean the higher ups cant.

  30. Re:More propaganda crap. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    That said I'd much rather they'd put that much effort in actually feeding their own population.

    They can't. They have no sources of energy required for food production on the kind of land they have, and thanks to US-instigated economic blockade, have no way to obtain them.

    They are not stupid or crazy, just very poor, and the origin of their poverty is the same as in your nearest ghetto.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  31. Re:First by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

    First

    For once, a First Poster is actually right, North Korea beat South Korea into space. Making them the first!

  32. Re:More propaganda crap. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    So if I'll find hydrazine on anything launched by US, I should claim that they are probably using WWII-time German designs, and go on and on how stupid are Americans for using engines that require single-component, self-igniting fuel?

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  33. Re:More propaganda crap. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    BS.

    They're poor because their government insists on keeping them that way. If we undid the economic blockade, the "party members" would be rich, and everyone else would still be poor.

    NK could do any number of things to end the economic blockade, because no one cares about ruling that country, they've only ever worried about a possibly batshit crazy leader with nuclear weapons. The cold war is long over and communism is dead.

  34. Re:More propaganda crap. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

    BS.

    They're poor because their government insists on keeping them that way. If we undid the economic blockade, the "party members" would be rich, and everyone else would still be poor.

    NK could do any number of things to end the economic blockade, because no one cares about ruling that country, they've only ever worried about a possibly batshit crazy leader with nuclear weapons. The cold war is long over and communism is dead.

    Do you have anything at all, other than words ot US propaganda workers, as the base for all those bold statements? Have you even seen any kind of Communist in your whole life, leave alone, a North Korean official? Studied economy of the region collecting information from actual sources? Did any comparisons between North Korean and Chinese leaders' actions over recent half a century of their history? And if not, please shut up and never talk about those things again.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  35. Re:More propaganda crap. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    BS.

    They're poor because their government insists on keeping them that way. If we undid the economic blockade, the "party members" would be rich, and everyone else would still be poor.

    NK could do any number of things to end the economic blockade, because no one cares about ruling that country, they've only ever worried about a possibly batshit crazy leader with nuclear weapons. The cold war is long over and communism is dead.

    Do you have anything at all, other than words ot US propaganda workers, as the base for all those bold statements? Have you even seen any kind of Communist in your whole life, leave alone, a North Korean official? Studied economy of the region collecting information from actual sources? Did any comparisons between North Korean and Chinese leaders' actions over recent half a century of their history? And if not, please shut up and never talk about those things again.

    Wow. Your deeply reasoned post sighting even a shred of real-world evidence has swayed me!

    Do you similarly have any facts to back up your grandiose claims that this is "all the US's fault"? No? Then shut up and never talk about the issue again.

    North Korea's problems are North Korea's to solve. Their people have invented a de facto capitalist society, and the only one suppressing it is their own government. The only reason they have sanctions is because their own government repeatedly acts to threaten surrounding nations, and there's no reason to think that any kind of free trade wouldn't have the immediate consequence of the attempted importation of weapons and weapons technology for said government, and of course the attendant wealth-boosting of the few upper-members of the government.

    Yes it might all work out in the long run, but it's not going to matter if Seoul has to deal with an actual practical North Korean nuclear weapon and not a hypothetical one (seeing as how it's unclear whether the one they built actually works at all). North Korea could easily obtain huge amounts of food and farming aid for it's citizens, since most of the world wants to give that to them - but of course, guess why they never take it.

  36. AC is right, it's RFNA not RNFA by calidoscope · · Score: 1

    Red Fuming Nitric Acid, not Red Nitric Fuming Acid. FWIW, the Vanguard first stage used IRFNA - Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid as an oxidizer.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  37. Suicide Satellites by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could close the MADD gap by launching satellites whose sole purpose are to (when they feel truly threatened) self-destruct in the most sensitive / busy orbits, causing a cascading demolition derby of satellite shrapnel.

    Not exactly nuclear winter, but having to cleanup the entire upper atmosphere before re-establishing satellite communication would put a hell of a crimp in the Western world for at least a decade.

  38. Re:More propaganda crap. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

    Wow. Your deeply reasoned post sighting even a shred of real-world evidence has swayed me!

    I am not reasoning with you, I announce your ignorance and inability to have any opinion on the subject that is worth discussing. Go away.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  39. Re:no comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare you to make less sense.

  40. Re:More propaganda crap. by schnell · · Score: 1

    Buddy, what is your deal? I have been reading your posts here and you seem to be on a singlehanded mission to convince the world that North Korea launching a busted-up old rocket is somehow the United States' fault. Your Occam's razor is dull and you may want to buy some more at the grocery store.

    It's OK if you want to hate Americans. Lots of people all around the world do, and there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike many of the activities of the US government.

    But please don't do it at the expense of trying to make North Korea look like saints or hapless victims of evil sanctions. The North Korean leadership is a nest of batshit crazy Stalinists, and evil to its people in a way that has not been seen on this planet since the Khmer Rouge. I know you will just claim that the National Geographic Society is just another mouthpiece of the CIA or whatever, but watch this and tell me honestly that the North Korean government gives a dead rat's ass about its citizens.

    Hating Americans - well, I think that's overgeneralizing and a bit silly to say "all Americans are this or that," but hey, go ahead and do it if it floats your boat. Propping up the North Koreans - that's an insult to all the innocent people who suffer under that regime every day.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  41. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unsurprising. North Korea is Best Korea.

    Looking forward to the Forward Progress of the Korean People's Worker Party under the leadership of the Dear Successor Comrade General Kim Jong Un!

    And stuff.

  42. Re:More propaganda crap. by SB9876 · · Score: 1

    Holy shit, you win the biggest moron I've seen on the internet all month award.

  43. Re:More propaganda crap. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    The problem is that "primitive design" is often read as "poor design" by non-technical people. Primitive designs may be pretty good in themselves, and work quite well, but have become obsoleted by more advanced designs

    Indeed. The current workhorse of the manned spacecraft industry is the Soyuz-class capsule. First launched in 1966. It's had significant upgrades since then but the Soyuz-A and the Soyuz TMA-07MM (launched December 17, 2012) look very similar.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  44. Mod parent and GP up by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    NK is no direct threat to the USA and anyone asserting otherwise is a fearmonger. The worse thing they can do is invade the South, which from a purely selfish US-centric point of view would only be a major inconvenience. Only in the hypothetical case that South Korea and its allies cannot repel the attack, it would become a major geopolitical setback.

    As a side note, I'd really like to see hard evidence about that 55-gallon drum claim; I don't see the driving force for optimizing the guidance system to that level of precision. I'm not saying it's wrong (I heard it before), just that I'd like to see the evidence.

  45. Re:no comment by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    You fool! Never say that!

  46. Re:More propaganda crap. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    All we need to know about NK is one simple fact.

    Before the division of the country, it was the more prospering part, by a significant amount. After the division, that prosperity gap only lasted for a decade or so - that despite the fact that in that period of time, NK was supplied by Soviets and Chinese, so there was no blockade. Several decades later, it came to such dire straits, economically, that its residents were eating grass.

    It doesn't have anything to do with NK being Communist (they aren't, by the way - they dropped all references to communism and Marxism-Leninism from their constitution 20 years ago; it's officially a cult of personality state now). It has everything to do with the fact that it's, essentially, a feudal totalitarian state which is owned by a single family, which owns luxury cars by dozens and sends its kids to study in European universities (blockade, eh?).

  47. Re:More propaganda crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check his post history, too. And the homepage/blog.

    The guy is a Soviet immigrant to America who went broke, and is now incessantly whining everywhere about how bad US is and how awesome USSR was. He's asshole for sure, but it is excusable in his case, since he is obviously mentally ill.

  48. Re: I hope they build a copy of the Buran by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Re: I hope they build a copy of the Buran
    .
    I'd buy a ticket for that ride! Much better than the roller coaster ever could be, eh? ! ! ;>)

  49. Maybe not as backwards as we thought... by Skip+Morris · · Score: 1

    Re: "These findings confirm that the stage is still Scud-level technology."

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. The artifact in figure 7 in the accompanying article looks an awful lot like a Stargate.

  50. NPR story on the unintended sociocultural change by crazybabydoc · · Score: 1

    There was an interesting story on NPR yesterday about the DPRK. It's a very paternalistic/chauvinistic society much like South Korea used to be. At some point in the past, leadership decided state jobs were too important to be occupied by women. So women were largely moved out of the labor force since there was no private enterprise. Well the collapse of the USSR (and China's reduced interest) decimated the state economy. As rations dwindled, the women had to get rolling for families to survive. Informal (unsanctioned) private markets were initially limited to elderly women but as the economic conditions worsened, the DPRK increasingly looked the other way as women of all ages scrambled to keep the family fed. In the meantime, the menfolk were busy going to work at jobs that didn't pay much. When I say didn't pay much, we're talking pennies a day. Every male is either in the military (~10 years) or working for the state. But since state jobs pay so little, women have become the dominant family breadwinners. The situation is so dire for men in that arse backwards country that some PAY not to go to their state job. You see you have to go to work at your state job even if there's nothing to do. You have to go to work at your state job even if you don't get paid. If you don't show for work, they coming looking for you. The only 'out' is an informal system where men pay NOT to go to work. Obviously, that money is coming either from remittances or the money the wife makes. The take home is that the DPRK is running a society-wide, generations-long sociocultural experiment that has far more significance than their rocket launch.