North Korea's Satellite Tumbling In Orbit

schwit1 writes: U.S. Defense officials stated Tuesday that the satellite that North Korea launched on Sunday is now tumbling in orbit and is useless. Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit. From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth. They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately, but if you want to ignite an atomic bomb somewhere, you don't have to be very accurate.

Comments

dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

dmbasso likes to look at pictures of children being sexually abused. He is a danger to all children around him.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

Drawings are not children; You're an idiot.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

You obviously lack the ability to make contextual connections. Manga imagery is a widely discussed topic because it brings up some important points about the Western judicial system. It's a philosophical question above all, and the premise behind the conviction can be applied to other fictitious depictions of crime too.

I know you're not being dead-serious and you just like to harass individual posters, but I also know that ultra-literate people like you exist in real life too. And that is the problem in our society today. People want to understand everything wrong and it's become a competition about who's the most offended. You can't make a talk about "sensitive issues" without explicitly distancing your personal stance using strong adjectives to condemn the very thing you're talking about so that your views are in line with the majority of people.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[stealth_finger]

Drawings are not children; You're an idiot.

Not this again?!

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

And I suppose someone who enjoys watching Saw likes personally torturing people to death whom they deem unworthy of living?

Or perhaps, unlike you, they are making the same leap my 6 year old can make. That what's animated or on screen is generally not actually happening and thus separates entertainment from fact where such a judgement call is obvious (unless you live in a world where cartoon people with big eyes are running around, in which case, watch for papercuts, please).

Kind of sad to see someone who didn't manage to get past 6 years old in judgement.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Rei]

Note to the new owners of Slashdot: this here conversation is precisely the sort of rare case where you should actually get involved (where the person or people involved don't care if they get modded down to zero and will just keep popping back up with more angry, offtopic rants in whatever thread they feel like)

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know hat you are so butthurt over, but this shit is starting to get really old

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to grow up and get a job.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

...unless you live in a world where cartoon people with big eyes are running around, in which case, watch for papercuts, please...

You mean something like this?

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

Your angry rant is useless moron. Now get off my lawn.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

did anybody click on the flag button and report the post? That's what it is supposed be used for.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you care? browse at +3 or something... fucking whiners.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[thegarbz]

Involved in what way? The people are modded down and I wouldn't have even seen the post if it weren't for curiosity on what you were talking about.

How would a policy of censorship or content deletion improve this situation without causing a negative issue at the same time? Lot of things on Slashdot could be changed for the better but quite frankly the moderation and lack of censorship have withstood the test of time.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[Rakarra]

I think it's a just a good reason why a lot of reasonable people don't want to browse the site below the threshold of 1 (or 0). Too many dickweeds who think their trolling says something.

Though I'd love a setting where replies to -1 threads get filtered out as well. I've seen, over the decades, that trolls can be easy to ignore. A less-easily-solved problem is the people who feed them and keep their trolling efforts alive.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[RockDoctor]

How would a policy of censorship or content deletion improve this situation

Because in some jurisdictions (e.g. the one I'm reading from), publishing libel is almost impossible to defend, and very expensive to even try to defend. So rationally, the lawyers of the new owners (sorry, in deference to long tradition, "our New Overlords") need to at least be aware of the threat profile of their new acquisition. What they then choose to do about it is then their choice, but they should at least be aware of the threat.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[thegarbz]

It's not the board owner's responsibility to administer censorship or determine what is legally libel or not. Only to do what is required to hold the poster to account. I.e. they can be served with requests to delete the content and to identify the IP address, but this is no different to me going down to the local train station and spray painting "RockDoctor likes little girls" on the wall. You can't sue the train operator for libel.

This is not black and white, and quite the opposite. Having a policy of enforcing censorship implies that the site is actually taking ownership of the content. If anything that could INCREASE their liability for such comments.

Re:dmbasso is a pedophile

[RockDoctor]

This is not black and white, and quite the opposite.

Which part of "some jurisdictions" wasn't clear. It is possible (because I don't know American law) that in American law the obligations on a publisher are as you describe. But that does not matter. Even if "our New Overlords" are based in America (something I don't know), then if I am reading material on their website in the UK, then the libel laws of the UK apply to the people who publish that material in the UK. The text is rendered into a legible form in the UK, and that is what counts, under UK law.

It is rational for the lawyers of our New Overlords to understand the threat profile that they are exposed to. That may include deciding that I don't know UK libel law adequately - entirely possible, as there have been changes in the last few years, and I don't know if there is precedent on the changes - or it may involve geo-blocking to refuse service requests from the UK.

Even if we both agree that it is insane to have such variation in laws between nations, I really doubt that the USA is going to agree to come under the jurisdiction of international law over this matter, considering the lack of interest that the USA traditionally show to obeying international laws in other respects (e.g. torture of prisoners). (Incidentally, I think the changes I mentioned in UK libel laws were at least in part to bring the UK's laws into line with European libel laws. But IANAL, thankfully.)

Tumble dry

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not dryclean

I have a request...

[Anonymous Coward]

In theme of the story, could someone photoshop a picture of Kim Jong-un on the Moon?

Re:I have a request...

[Rei]

Is this good enough?

After all, he has the motive...

Re:I have a request...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking along the lines of Apollo 11 on the Moon.

So planting a North Korean flag on the Moon without the space suit. Because even vacuums adore him.

Woo

[Anonymous Coward]

Scary summary, better clickbait

Let's get real

[vtcodger]

Now and for decades to come, North Korea would be very unlikely to use an ICBM/IRBM to launch a nuclear bomb. The missile might not work and neither might the payload after being subjected to the stresses of lift-off and re-entry. Assuming they wanted to blow up Washington, DC, I should think that they would simply smuggle the warhead into the US using the same routes used by smugglers to import carload lots of Cannabis then deliver it using an elderly Toyota purchased on credit . (Be a bit difficult to repossess THAT one when the payments stop).

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell. A ground burst also limits the damage. The slow nature of deploying it would make it offensive only - if they were attacked it would be too late to use it. They need the opposite, something that could be launched within a few hours in response to an attack. Something that would sting just enough to make the US decide not to invade.

Actual use would mean suicide, so it's not meant to be used.

Re:Let's get real

[jeffb (2.718)]

I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell.

If that's so, it seems to support GP's point. 10 tons is greater than the throw weight of the largest ICBM in history (8800 kg). The Taepodong-2 vehicle's payload capacity at maximum range (which would only reach the western US, btw) is estimated to be 500 kg or less.

If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.

Disclaimer: this is not my field. I'm probably missing a lot of things.

Re:Let's get real

[arglebargle_xiv]

Now and for decades to come, North Korea would be very unlikely to use an ICBM/IRBM to launch a nuclear bomb.

Well, not unless they've invented a Golfball of Doom. The throw weight on an Unha is pretty pathetic, and in any case it's not suitable in its current config as an ICBM.

Re:Let's get real

[c]

Now and for decades to come, North Korea would be very unlikely to use an ICBM/IRBM to launch a nuclear bomb.

North Korea has demonstrated that it can launch garbage into orbit. If it used that capability strategically it could make a real mess of things up there.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

A low-yield device can trigger an EMP at around 200 miles altitude. Doesn't need to be big or accurate.

In this day and age we have to take rhetoric from absolute nuts seriously. Navy SEALS that invaded Afghanistan found posters of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes that were Photoshopped together BEFORE the attacks around the time they were busy telling us what they were going to do and we were busy ignoring them. When dedicated nuts are up to something, take them at their word.

Re:Let's get real

[vtcodger]

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up vtcodger, we have fear to monger, and you're getting in the way.

Be afraid, America, be very afraid.

Then buy up all sorts of stuff.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Ground burst also spreads fallout like no one's business. Set off a nuke in LA harbor and watch the prevailing winds make the entire city uninhabitable. You don't even have to get through customs.

Re:Let's get real

[s.petry]

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero use outside of that. Time to set up, maintenance of the munitions, handling of the munition, and protecting the munition are complex and costly activities. A tiny warhead mishandled or sabotaged in a base destroys the base and everyone in it.

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". China and Russia like them because the west military build up means they can justify their own investments in military power. The recent fear of the H-Bomb is just to convince people that the DPRK can now use small nukes (which it can't), and the fear mongering because of their current missiles, which are SCUD missiles, which can't even launch a tiny satellite... laughable.

Re:Let's get real

[swb]

I think in terms of total probability, the US is more likely to launch a nuclear strike on DPRK than it is to invade and fight a ground war there.

DPRK is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons and has had 60 years to dig in deep, making a conventional ground assault extremely painful. Not that the US couldn't *win* such a fight should it choose to dedicate the resources, but it would be extremely resource and manpower intensive.

And for what possible gain? No appreciable natural resources, a civilian refugee crisis of epic proportions, a diplomatic shitshow with China and Russia, both of which would use a US commitment to pursue every bit of mischief they are capable of and a price tag in the trillions. Not to mention the global economic ding from the likely destruction Seoul and the disruption to a not-insignificant part of the global supply chain.

Kim's nuclear ambitions are equally ridiculous. They're decades away from any kind of reliable and effective long-range nuclear weapons program and even when they get to the point where they have a half-assed accurate ICBM that can deliver a half-assed effective nuclear weapon, what are they going to do? Any serious *attempt* at using it or even believably threatening to use it, faces the existential threat of a US retaliation that would annihilate them, something that not even the USSR at its peak could avoid, either.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

And a dirty bomb is simple simple simple; you don't even need clean fissile material, just radioactive junk ground up small.

Worry about THAT a lot more than North Korean nukes from space.

Re:Let's get real

[Martin Blank]

North Korea is more rational than most people tend to believe, but not rational to the level that, say, Iran is (and they're far more rational than people tend to believe). They do believe the world is out to get them, but they also know enough not to pull the trigger themselves unless there's no other choice--though that may include taking the nation down with them if someone tries a coup.

Absent an enlightened successor to Kim Jong-Un in about 30 years, any shift in that impoverished country is likely to be bloody, violent, and involve a lot of carnage outside its borders.

Re:Let's get real

[Crowd Computing]

When dedicated nuts are up to something, take them at their word.

Big difference between a nutcase that's ruling over a functional government and a nutcase who's still trying to establish one. Kim has a lot to lose if he decides to wage a hot war against the most powerful military in the world. Bin Laden had nothing to lose except his life, which he probably thought of as merely a barrier to the blissful afterlife. Maybe we should be thankful that Kim still loves basketball and Disneyland and the sensual pleasures of the here and now.

Re:Let's get real

[vtcodger]

> Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability,

I didn't say that nuclear artillery is a good idea. (In fact it strikes me as anything but ... "You expect me to do what? Screw that, I'm going to go find an enemy and surrender") But I don't see how the artillery round can weigh much more than a few hundred kg and the system still be mobile. ie. within limits, shrinking a nuclear warhead once you have one that works probably is not anywhere near as difficult as building one in the first place.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

The slow nature of deploying it would make it offensive only
 
  Actual use would mean suicide
 
Given everything else we know about this nation I wouldn't put it past them. They seem like a Jonestown cult just looking for an opportunity to drink some kool aide.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.

That's an excellent point. But my comment about the timeliness of launch still stands. An eventual car bomb attack that may or may not work is a lot less of a deterrent than a couple of dozen ICBMs.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh.... no.

You need a relatively big two-stage to get any EMP of worth.

And... then your second paragraph is just loony-bin territory.

Re:Let's get real

[Jeremi]

If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.

Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.

If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the nuke aboard a ship and detonate it in a harbor somewhere; at least then they'd have some fig leaf of plausible deniability. An ICBM launch showing up on every nation's satellites/radar wouldn't leave any room for doubt at all.

Re:Let's get real

[AmiMoJo]

They want an ICBM for the same reason that the US and all other nuclear ICBM equipped powers do: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Okay, in their case they couldn't destroy the US, but the threat of possibly having a major city destroyed is probably enough to prevent a US president from risking an attack.

They are a long way from that point though. They don't have solid fuel rockets, so they can't keep weapons in a state of readiness for very long. Still, the weapon doesn't need to be 100% reliable or practical, just enough of a threat to prevent the US attacking first.

Re:Let's get real

[bobbied]

North Korea is more rational than most people tend to believe, but not rational to the level that, say, Iran is (and they're far more rational than people tend to believe). They do believe the world is out to get them, but they also know enough not to pull the trigger themselves unless there's no other choice--though that may include taking the nation down with them if someone tries a coup.

Absent an enlightened successor to Kim Jong-Un in about 30 years, any shift in that impoverished country is likely to be bloody, violent, and involve a lot of carnage outside its borders.

Where I'm not inclined to disagree much... It's obvious that an overthrow of the Kim dynasty will be bloody, I'm inclined to believe that if it happens it will be quick and the violence will be fairly localized and unlikely to flow over the border that much. What WILL be an issue is if the conflict lasts very long and the population starts flooding over the borders as refugees, mostly into China.

The question that should be going through everybody's minds though should be what will trigger such events... Lit'l Kim spends lots of time thinking about this and is actively trying to keep it from happening. When any of the powerful in the government and military have even a hint of disloyalty, it's off to the concentration camps for your family and death to you. Think of it as a bureaucratic cottage industry in NK. The quickest way to advance is to give states evidence on your superiors for what ever reason you can. Kim uses this to stay in control, but eventually the truth will get out, that the rest of the world isn't starving and tiny NK isn't the huge military power, shining country on a hill that everybody want's to be a part of. That the Kim's are just self serving egomaniacs who have ruled with iron fists, forcing the people to suffer while living in luxury unimaginable to the common folk.

All this ICBM and nuclear weapons garbage is just a rouse to keep the Kim in power anyway. He has to keep showing progress, keep showing is people that he is still potent "Large and In Charge" supreme commander of the military the world fears most. This whole thing is designed to appeal INTERNALLY to the people of NK, who generally believe what they are told. Kim is being forced to produce better and higher demonstrations of NK's military power, to keep the dream alive that NK is the world's lone superpower, able to beat the USA back and keep it at bay. Once that image cracks, Lit's Un will be reduced to a skid mark on the runway of history.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

They shouldn't launch it at DC. They should launch it at South Africa with a trajectory over the US, then detonate it over Kansas. The EMP will cover the entire contiguous states. That'll do more damage than a nuke hitting DC, and no aim is involved. Off by 100 miles would still be a direct hit, unlike DC.

And the US defense system has no protection from a low-orbit-ish ICBM passing over the US. And no plans for anything that would protect against it.

Re:Let's get real

[s.petry]

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

Did you forget the Tim drove up a truck with a huge bomb-looking bomb in the back and parked it in the loading zone of a federal building and nobody noticed? It wouldn't be hard to put it in the smallest truck that'd hold it, and drive the 10 ton bomb that looks like a bomb down 15th St NW, or Constitution Ave and detonate it within sight of the White House and Congress. Sure, it wouldn't leave all of DC a crater, but it would make a point, and probably take out the President and Congress (if done without warning and during a session of Congress while the president is in DC).

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea is more rational than most people tend to believe, but not rational to the level that, say, Iran is (and they're far more rational than people tend to believe). They do believe the world is out to get them, but they also know enough not to pull the trigger themselves unless there's no other choice--though that may include taking the nation down with them if someone tries a coup.

Absent an enlightened successor to Kim Jong-Un in about 30 years, any shift in that impoverished country is likely to be bloody, violent, and involve a lot of carnage outside its borders.

Where I'm not inclined to disagree much... It's obvious that an overthrow of the Kim dynasty will be bloody, I'm inclined to believe that if it happens it will be quick and the violence will be fairly localized and unlikely to flow over the border that much. What WILL be an issue is if the conflict lasts very long and the population starts flooding over the borders as refugees, mostly into China.

The question that should be going through everybody's minds though should be what will trigger such events... Lit'l Kim spends lots of time thinking about this and is actively trying to keep it from happening. When any of the powerful in the government and military have even a hint of disloyalty, it's off to the concentration camps for your family and death to you. Think of it as a bureaucratic cottage industry in NK. The quickest way to advance is to give states evidence on your superiors for what ever reason you can. Kim uses this to stay in control, but eventually the truth will get out, that the rest of the world isn't starving and tiny NK isn't the huge military power, shining country on a hill that everybody want's to be a part of. That the Kim's are just self serving egomaniacs who have ruled with iron fists, forcing the people to suffer while living in luxury unimaginable to the common folk.

All this ICBM and nuclear weapons garbage is just a rouse to keep the Kim in power anyway. He has to keep showing progress, keep showing is people that he is still potent "Large and In Charge" supreme commander of the military the world fears most. This whole thing is designed to appeal INTERNALLY to the people of NK, who generally believe what they are told. Kim is being forced to produce better and higher demonstrations of NK's military power, to keep the dream alive that NK is the world's lone superpower, able to beat the USA back and keep it at bay. Once that image cracks, Lit's Un will be reduced to a skid mark on the runway of history.

Yea, Kim Jung Un doesn't pee or poop either.. except of course when he is staring down the barrel of US ordinance.

Re:Let's get real

[amicusNYCL]

Man, so people in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska wouldn't be able to use electronic devices? Would anyone notice?

Re:Let's get real

[Jawnn]

If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.

Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.

If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the nuke aboard a ship and detonate it in a harbor somewhere; at least then they'd have some fig leaf of plausible deniability.

Yeah, not so much. Not that the Norks wouldn't try that dodge, but fingerprinting nuclear weapons is a thing. Within hours of it's use, we'll know whose it was, or at least who built it.

Re:Let's get real

[BCGlorfindel]

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability. Sure, they can barely feed their people. 20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world. Refining and improving that is well within their ability, they just need the time. I can only interpret your level of meaningful to mean that they can't reasonably develop a large enough arsenal to match existing nuclear powers. Given how brutal, cruel and tyrannical the Godkings inheriting North Korea are, that's small comfort.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago. All the hand wringing is watching a very nasty family growing more and more powerful while we fear the cost of their removal too much to contemplate it.

Re:Let's get real

[Blaskowicz]

The Taepodong-2 was not an ICBM. It's the space launch vehicle and Taepodong-1 was an earlier, clearly failed attempt. I believe someone made the Taepodong names up, and a decade or more ago we all assumed these were long range missiles rather than something to launch a satellite from.

True the line between space launch and ICBM seems really thin but this is really a rocket that needs weeks of launch preparation, can be fired from a single place and would only be usable as a really weak single shot, suicide first-strike.
Thus the immediate military value is zero. What works and is what US and Russia did is the other way around : you can use an ICBM for space launches.

Re:Let's get real

[phantomfive]

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime.

This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.

That is not a situation anybody wants, including you.

Re:Let's get real

[zmooc]

Why would the want to do that? They might already have a nuclear warhead in orbit right now. All they have to do is press the button when it is over the USA and the EMP will blow the USA back to the 1800s.

Re:Let's get real

[budgenator]

A ground burst also limits the damage.

A ground burst, which includes a burst close enough to the ground for the fire-ball to touch the ground, draws up a metric-boatload of soil to neutron-activate and mix with radioactive un-fissioned fuel, depleted U234 reflectors and daughter nucleotides. That mess makes a lot of really dirty fallout. Even a nuclear weapon that fails to initiate makes a hell of a mess when the detonaters blow it to hell and back.

Re:Let's get real

[BCGlorfindel]

I think in terms of total probability, the US is more likely to launch a nuclear strike on DPRK than it is to invade and fight a ground war there.

DPRK is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons and has had 60 years to dig in deep, making a conventional ground assault extremely painful. Not that the US couldn't *win* such a fight should it choose to dedicate the resources, but it would be extremely resource and manpower intensive.

And for what possible gain? No appreciable natural resources, a civilian refugee crisis of epic proportions, a diplomatic shitshow with China and Russia, both of which would use a US commitment to pursue every bit of mischief they are capable of and a price tag in the trillions. Not to mention the global economic ding from the likely destruction Seoul and the disruption to a not-insignificant part of the global supply chain.

Kim's nuclear ambitions are equally ridiculous. They're decades away from any kind of reliable and effective long-range nuclear weapons program and even when they get to the point where they have a half-assed accurate ICBM that can deliver a half-assed effective nuclear weapon, what are they going to do? Any serious *attempt* at using it or even believably threatening to use it, faces the existential threat of a US retaliation that would annihilate them, something that not even the USSR at its peak could avoid, either.

Which is all a great and pretty accurate assessment of why all of us should selfishly leave the North Korean state alone. The humanitarian plight of North Korean
civilians is just so much collateral damage that we will accept, and more importantly not talk about. The multi-generational dictatorship run as a slave state will continue to leave about 25 million people living under a crime family that runs things like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Complete with worshipping the past, present and future rulers as deities. the only meaningful difference is that instead of a national effort to build pyramids, they are being driven to build nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver them globally. Ignoring the humanitarian catastrophe for the last decades has just made it worse, the future will too.

Re:Let's get real

[KGIII]

I am not arguing with you but I do want to point out that you're assuming responsible actors. That's the same reason that a "pure" political ideology or economics model can not work. (Like pure capitalism and pure democracy or anarchy.)

Re:Let's get real

[Xest]

"The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". "

This is nonsense, it's a completely US centric view. No one outside the US inside NATO really gives the slightest fuck about North Korea because North Korea is both completely out of range as a threat and because we're just not in North Korea's gunsights anyway. When it comes to talks about North Korea in contrast to talks about, say, Iran's nuclear programme, Europe is rarely even around the table other than perhaps to just stay in the loop and find out what's going on.

Given that I'm not sure how NK can be used for fear mongering in the UK or NATO (except the US) because there's nothing scary to us about it. I understand why some people in the US might be concerned, because the US is regularly the target of North Korea's rhetoric, but I really can't remember the last time NK threatened the UK and even if it did the threat would be entirely hollow because there's literally nothing it could do to touch us right now even if it wanted to. The same is true for the rest of Europe - NK just isn't on our threat radar over here, so it can't possibly be used for fear mongering, whatever you wish to theorise about that possibility.

NK only has limited military assets, even if it can weaponise a nuke (rather than just blow one up underground after months of preparation) it's just not going to waste one on any European nation no matter what happens so the whole "Western World Fear Mongering (tm)" conspiracy theory that lazily gets pulled out every time someone even loosely related to the Western world complains about a foreign state just makes absolutely no sense outside the US in this particular case.

I assure you, if Europe is worried about anything right now it's Russia, because Russia actually has invaded, annexed, and de-facto annexed the sovereign territory of a number of European nations in recent years (e.g. Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova). If anyone's going to fear monger the UK and other NATO states they're at least going to do it with the one country that's proven itself to be a genuine threat where there is actually something to potentially fear.

North Korea is pretty much entirely a South Korean/American/Japanese/Chinese problem. The rest of us just don't care enough for it to be possible to use it for fear mongering.

Re:Let's get real

[budgenator]

I don't know the mass, but I have heard that once a cannon has fired a nuclear round it's done, unserviceable, the amount of charge required to get the round down range enlarges the bore and over-stresses the metal.

Re:Let's get real

[budgenator]

Unless his sheltered and privileged life has made him narcissistic enough to believe the shit he says.

Re:Let's get real

[budgenator]

Comms would go down, Electric distribution would be knocked out, possibly for years. Replacement transformer of the sub-station size have to be built, you can't keep too many pieces of equipment the size of a house in the warehouse.

Re:Let's get real

[Blaskowicz]

Sure, for example while I'm arguing the rocket is not an ICBM it is still an unsubtle means to acquire flight and engineering experience with a multi-stage rocket.

Re:Let's get real

[Rakarra]

This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.

I like to think that the US has been paying very close attention to the situation in Israel, not just for the obvious reasons, but as a testbed for the practicality of a "shield" system capable of destroying incoming rockets. Conventional wisdom 15 years ago was that at the time such systems just weren't functional, but the Iron Dome has been pretty successful in the last five years. Expect to see something similar on the Korean border, capable to taking out any nuclear-armed missile. Seoul can only be a smoldering hole if the payload can actually get there.

Re:Let's get real

[s.petry]

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability.

Proof is needed, not speculation. Understating according to who? The local populace? South Korea? Maybe.. but that is not because the DPRK has enough military power to win a war, it's because they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage to Seoul and a few other Norther areas if a war started. They lack air and naval power to win anything.

20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world.

Ahh, nothing like the old red herring line of shit. I did not state that scientific accomplishments were impossible, I said it was expensive and they could not afford it. Expensive in terms of both man power and money, and man power when you don't trust anyone is certainly a pretty huge hurdle to cross. Care to guess at how many scientists are killed annually in the DPRK? Percentage wise, it's higher than many other jobs because scientists tend to think and question more. Tyrannies have always had this problem with keeping scientific minds, read some history books.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

Horse shit! The number 1 reason that people claim to ignore the DPRK is "China", not the geographical location in relation to South Korea.

You keep on spreading FUD though.. it works on the masses who don't question or contemplate what they get told.

Re:Let's get real

[phantomfive]

Rockets are one thing, but ballistic shells are completely different. I don't think iron dome would be able to stop the artillery that North Korea has. (eventually, of course, modern weaponry would take it out, but not before massive damage is inflicted).

Re: Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa man, we got nothing else here but our electronics. Take away our only entertainment and a million pissed off farmers will go take out nk with torches and pitchforks.

Besides, kansas is where a good portion of America's nukes are stored. If we detected their launch early enough, it might get taken out by the icbm equivalent of a shotgun blast.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

The EMP would reach 100% of the lower 48. It'd take down NASDAQ and NYSE, as well as many of the planes flying over the fly over states, reset/lock up every computer in the 48, and probably blow out most long-distance transmission lines, and the transformers attached to them.

Re:Let's get real

[MachineShedFred]

You've got it basically backwards.

Making a nuclear weapon is basically about doing some math, and having the materials of enough purity. Making a thermonuclear weapons takes a whole lot more work, and a whole lot more effort and time. And then you end up with something the size of a building, which is only good for vaporizing the island that the building is sitting on.

Then, after spending an ungodly amount of money and supercomputing time, can you then shrink your warhead down to something that is what in the US arsenal is referred to as "modern".

Yes, you're right, the first fission detonation was in 1945. But in 1965 the US Air Force's main ICBM was the Titan II missile, which was optionally used to launch a Gemini capsule with two people in it into orbit, because the US nuclear missile force still required something that could put 8200 pounds into a 10,000 km suborbital trajectory. The Titan-II was still in use as an operational ICBM until Ronald Reagan retired it in 1981, and used a W53 warhead / Mark-6 reentry vehicle weighing in just under that.

The smaller warheads available to the US Military which enabled the idea of MIRV was brought about by a few different things: massive increases in computing power, the idea that big-dick multi-megaton bombs just didn't do as much destruction as a few smaller, more reliable warheads, guided by new inertial guidance systems that didn't exist in the early days of nuclear missiles.

But it still took untold billions for the US to finally arrive at the W88 warhead which "probably" weighs less than 800 pounds, and still carrying a yield estimated at 475kt.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they don't need to land it on the US. In fact it will do FAR more damage if detonated in orbit. That way, they can let it float around until its in the right region and it doesn't matter how crap their technology is so long as they can lift a big enough nuke into orbit. There is a lot of nasty research about the effects of a low orbit EMP on the united states. Google it.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that would sting just enough to make the US decide not to invade.

Like leveling Tokyo.
They can launch a nuke at Tokyo with ease, that's their deterrence strategy.

Re:Let's get real

[Stuarticus]

Maybe you want to look into the history of Korea, you seem to miss a few cogent points.

Re: Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

We (the US) currently employ radar systems that can accurately detect incoming artillery fire and accurately determine the position of its origin. Turn around time to precisely fire back is only moments. (can't give specifics, it's secret) Any gun battery in NK would be destroyed shortly after firing their first round. The suggestion that SK is in any serious danger is a joke. Not to mention NK can barely afford to feed their soldiers, much less properly equip and - most importantly - train them. I would be surprised if they could actually hit anything with their artillery. It actually takes some knowledge to calculate the internal and external ballistics of artillery fire to actually hit what you're aiming at. Not to mention you need consistent projectiles and temperature stable powder for your maths to be meaningful. Your typical field artillery battalion in the US fires thousands of rounds a year in training to ensure everything operates smoothly. FA is easily the most complex area of ground warfare and without regular training, all the guns in the world are useless. No, NK is no threat to anyone, and they don't intend to be - this is just pseudo saber rattling to keep the status quo as the boy dictator needs the constant threat of war to maintain power ala 1984. The only reason NK still exists is because China doesn't want to share a boarder with SK.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

But again, the timeliness isn't there. And the result is less certain. Could it work as a terrorist attack? Certainly. As a strategic deterrence? I don't think so.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

Uninhabitable, as bad as that is, is still preferable to vaporized.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

I think it has a lot more to do with China.

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

I think it has a lot more to do with China.

Well, both, and Russia too for that matter.

Re:Let's get real

[Martin Blank]

I think the accumulation of power and loyalty required to make for a quick coup that doesn't spill over is the kind of thing that leads to executions (like what apparently just happened to Ri Yong Gil). If it's made clear that the elite are going to fall, they might take as much with them as they can. The orders may be internal, but it will almost certainly spill over, especially if someone decides that it's a South Korean/US plot to overthrow the government.

It could remain contained, but I'm not hopeful.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

The car-bomb nuke is not any good for MAD, but not so bad for a first-strike.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

Agreed. But it would be impossible to take out the US submarine (and probably ballistic missile) capability with car bombs - even if you had an unlimited number of them with no danger of discovery. Thus, your country would still be destroyed completely. North Korea, of course, does not have unlimited numbers of these bombs and if they did, more bombs means more likelihood of discovery. So while a car bomb nuke is enough to cause quite a bit of terror and carnage, it would certainly not win a war.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

Russia certainly has some political strings to pull, but millions of Chinese streaming over the Korean border is the most immediate problem - as it was for Douglas MacArthur in 1950.

Re:Let's get real

[cwsumner]

... the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships ...

Interesting thought... that Mutual Assured Destruction may have saved the world several times!

Re:Let's get real

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in OK, and believe me you, people would notice. You'd have Texas to deal with as well, and Iowa, Missouri, Colorado etc...

You think the rednecks would be upset, wait till the potheads in CO can't grow their own weed indoors with their sunlamps... lol

You'd have rednecks, hillbillies, techies, potheads, and a bunch of pissed off obese midwesterners without internet access to browse Facebook and Pintrest gearing up for war lol

Re:Let's get real

[torkus]

Yep, just enough chance. A 1% chance that a major west coast city would be hit with a nuclear bomb is more than sufficient. Considering that LA individually has a GDP ~50x higher than all of DPRK the risk/return is staggering.

The reason it's newsworth but not war-worthy is they're liquid fueled rockets. Front standby, the launch cycle for a modern liquid fueled rocket is on the order of days, while solid rocket launch cycle is a matter of minutes.

You can bet there's plenty of attention being paid. If they pair a potential nuclear weapon with a "peaceful satellite launch platform" we'll have a cruise missile on target as soon before they're even close to a launch. If they start developing solid rockets in bunkers similar to the minuteman nuclear platforms in the US...you can bet they will be on the receiving end of some high explosives.

Re:Let's get real

[torkus]

About 200 pounds to orbit which, if memory serves, would be a higher trajectory than you want/need for attacking with an ICMB. Thus, I expect you could substantially increase that by going suborbital.

They're unlikely to have the tech but 200 pounds is in the neighborhood for a semi-modern reentry vehicle (the W76 at 100kT yield is 376 pounds, manufactured starting in 1978).

Unlikely they're there yet but that tech is 40 years old and they have a lot of advantages that didn't exist in the 70's during the original development.

Re:Let's get real

[torkus]

I think you might want to research the inverse square law.

Re:Let's get real

[arglebargle_xiv]

That's a modern US warhead. The Unha is an updated mix of Rodong/Nodong rockets which are scaled-up Scuds which are basically V2s, so they're not exactly using the most modern technology. I would imagine their warhead technology is at about the same level, some WWII-era gun-type assembly or something. Given their yields (a couple of kT, when they don't fizzle), it seems unlikely it's even something as, uh, "sophisticated" as boosted fission. All speculation obviously, but my guess is they have some 1940s-vintage monster of a device that's not even remotely suited for delivery by air. Stick it on a freighter and sail it into San Francisco bay would be a better option.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

I never said the effects in Kansas would be the same or worse than NYC. Just that the damaging range of the EMP would reach all 48 states. How does that violate the inverse square law?

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

There is no scenario where DPRK can win a war of any kind with anyone. So putting that down as a condition seems silly. They'll never first-strike to win, but as more an only-strike. Fly the bomb in on a private jet going to Kansas, and it'll get over the border without too much trouble. Then throw it in a truck, and drive to DC. It's theoretically possible that the radiation detectors around DC could get hits, but if you are suicide bombing, you'd get to the location and have 30 seconds to go boom before anyone responds, if you come in outside rush hour. If you come in during rush hour, the traffic will be so slow, it's possible that the sensors will be triggered, and you'll be intercepted before you can get in a position to do anything other than scare people and kill those in the cars next to you.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

Again, I don't argue that it would be useful as a tool of terror - but to what end? N. Korea would be a smoking ruin afterwards. And we'd be without DC. Win-win.

Re:Let's get real

[AK Marc]

How would DPRK be a smoking ruin? They already have MAD. Conventional bombing/shelling of South Korea would effectively leave South Korea a smoking ruin. They get to poke the bear, and maybe live.

Re:Let's get real

[MightyYar]

Do you really think the US would give a hoot about Seoul if an atomic device were detonated in an American city? North Korea would face immediate nuclear retaliation, or possibly it would be spared if China allowed a direct invasion.

Re:Let's get real

[beastofburdon]

There is only one reason that countries are currently trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that is to protect themselves from us by having a devastating deterrent. Likewise, there is only one reason that countries with nuclear weapons are afraid of other countries developing them, it means that they can no longer abuse them in any way that they like anymore.

Tumbling it may be

[rmdingler]

The fact that this gentleman has the ability to deliver a payload into orbit is hardly useless, though.

I hope we soon inhabit a world where the leading nations can work together to deter threats like this.

If we don't, there will not long be a human overpopulation problem.

How do we tolerate this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we justify our regime-changing foreign policy for the sake of global security, while letting NK set off nukes, build ICBM's all the while openly claim that nuking the US as their primary goal?

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[Feyshtey]

It cant be justified. But there are so many brain-damaged Americans thoroughly enthralled by our cult of personality that they can do damn near anything and all we'll hear is that Obama is a visionary.

Despite all the hoopla about the Iran arms deal, Iran just tested a ballistic missile. It barely made the news despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the deal. Sanctions? Roll-back on the treaty? A stern talking to? No, nothing.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[gtall]

Easy, no one wants to feed the S. Koreans into a very nasty war which the little sawed off runt of the Norks might just start. S. Korea would eventually win, but before that happens, China will jump in to defend The Runt and any suggestion that China would allow a competent country on their borders making China's toy dictatorship look precarious.

So, in true Western fashion, the can is kicked down the road a bit further in the hopes that the can will spontaneously fail to exist at some point whereupon the problem could be declared solved and Victory with Honor promoted throughout the halls of the U.N.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing YET you idiot. You understand that 90% of what happens at that high level goes on behinds the scenes, yes? Or are you so naive and amateurish to think everything gets done out in the open?

If you've been following N Korean history at ALL, you'd know that the Chinese are about at wit's end with those fools. Last year, China cut trade by 14% to N. Korea because they were angry at N Korean antics. N Korea responded by continuing to act like reckless, petulant children, so China has lost face in the international community (which they don't like). With this latest N Korean folly (political and technical), China now has more incentive to work with the west to wrangle the N Korean fools into submission.

And won't it be funny if the cruise missiles that take out the N Korean launch site(s) are Chinese, launched by the Chinese. I would laugh very hard.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[dwillden]

We justify it by the fact that NK has so much artillery aimed at Seoul SK, that if we ever start anything millions will die in a matter of minutes. It's a pretty effective barrier to any offensive actions by the US or the ROK.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[bobbied]

Kicking the NK can down the road is likely the best option for all involved.

I don't see how beyond economic sanctions there is much more we can do. We SERIOUSLY don't want or need to deal with NK militarily. There is no point in rekindling the Korean war and turn this thing into direct combat again where a bunch of people die on both sides and nothing really changes.

What needs to happen here is the North Koreans need to revolt and overthrow the Kim government on their own, which will eventually happen if we let it go on long enough. So, we may keep kicking the can, but I see it as keeping watch, waiting for the people of North Korea to take care of this in their own time and in their own way, preserving the lives of our military by not feeding the little Un's propaganda machine.

BTW... This coming from a "Take no nonsense, kick the (blank) out of ISIS" kind of guy...Some stones are seriously best left unthrown...

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[Boronx]

The missile test was not a violation of the deal.

It was exactly such a deal that kept Plutonium in North Korea sealed for so many years, until George Bush in his infinite wisdom scuttled it. The broke the seals and had a working bomb in months.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It cant be justified. But there are so many brain-damaged Americans thoroughly enthralled by our cult of personality that they can do damn near anything and all we'll hear is that Obama is a visionary.

Despite all the hoopla about the Iran arms deal, Iran just tested a ballistic missile. It barely made the news despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the deal. Sanctions? Roll-back on the treaty? A stern talking to? No, nothing.

Your logic is so sound.. yes sure this is all Obama's fault so Trump/Palin for president 2016!

Moron!

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[KGIII]

People seem inclined to believe China will get involved. It's not the 1950s anymore and the 1970s were a long time ago. I tend to believe a modern China will accept, and believe, any nation that attacks N. Korea so long as they publicly state that they've no intention of going onto Chinese soil and, of course, also send the same message(s) through on the back-end diplomatic channels.

I've yet to figure out what they'll do to/with the refugees. I'm also not able to speculate if they'd offer material assistance (such as allowing aircraft refueling and flights over their soil) if their antics were bad enough so that this happened.

Thoughts?

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[bobbied]

I'm not so sure that a regime change in NK would involve a lot of hostilities over wide enough areas to generate much in terms of refugees. Now if somebody tries to cross the DMZ in mass numbers, the ground part of the war will drag on a bit and *some* might show up, but only if the conflict is disruptive and sustained will there be many. But I don't see anybody interested in invading NK and I don't see where it would serve the Un to launch an invasion of the south.

I'm hopeful that more moderate factions would take over from Kim and transition NK in a way that allows integration with the rest of the world fairly quickly. I don't see that needing to be necessarily a long and violent struggle as real power only really exists at the upper levels. If this is the case, there would be limited bloodshed as control of the military changed, with possibly some low level hold outs and military actions around the country, but they would not be long lasting or very disruptive. And if the new government where to immediately appeal to the international community (which they would need to do to establish their legitimacy) for help, I'm guessing that sanctions would lifted and foreign aid would be flowing fast enough to forestall any refugee migration of significant numbers.

But hey, I'm just a software engineer who is not trained in foreign relations and has never been on the same hemisphere as NK. What do I know..

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[KGIII]

By all accounts, especially from escapees, the average citizen is brainwashed and a true believer. It takes a lot to get people out of that stage. I imagine it's not entirely dissimilar to getting people away from a cult. I'm not sure that it wouldn't end up like Japan where they will, beyond a doubt, try to kill you with their dying breaths. Look at the casualty numbers with regards to the Japanese during WWII. Out of thousands, sometimes a mere handful would surrender - long after any hope should have been lost. Civilians chucked themselves off cliffs at Okinawa and Saipan. Look at how few surrendered at Tarawa. The list goes on.

The difference is, they were often on an island. The numbers were rather different when they had options besides being stuck on an island, some surrendered and others kept retreating - when the Russians stomped down and started moving into China at the end of the war is a good example as is when the UK stomped east across Burma, etc...

Here in NK they have a viable (maybe) option to cross the river if they're in the northern areas. By the time we get to there, on the ground, things will have had to be pretty rough - assuming a surrender/armistice isn't quick. I, too, have no idea what will happen but I'm thinking there will be hordes of non-combatants seeking refuge because they truly believe that any military invaders are going to be monsters who eat babies and chew on the eyeballs as a delicacy.

But, like you, what do I know? Oh, I served but it's not like they let me be in charge of anything important or gave me any insights. I have been in the area and have even applied for a tourist visa to NK but all three attempts were rejected. I do, however, quite agree with the sentiment that kicking the can down the road is probably the best option. It must suck to live there as a regular citizen but, as cold as this sounds, you're ruled by consent. If they fought for their own freedom then it would be a lot more precious and meaningful for them, I suspect.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[bobbied]

You are assuming that the new regime wouldn't try to ease everybody into this and that the international community wouldn't attempt to help them. I can see a regime change where the situation on the ground changed, the propaganda being fed to the NK's changed. You are also assuming that NK would suffer being invaded by foreign powers. That may not be true, it may be the country is liberated by their own military, without sustained conflict. It may be that the change from being ruled by the Un's doesn't impact the daily lives of anybody outside of the capital city.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it doesn't have to go like Japan. NK has attacked nobody, cannot be a serious threat to anybody but SK and then only for a short time. If NK was contained at or near the DMZ militarily, the regime changed, then your average NK may not have a need to run anywhere.

Maybe I have rose colored glasses on, but I hope for better than a solution than one that involves NK being invaded.

Re:How do we tolerate this?

[KGIII]

Assuming? No. Expecting, yes. There is a difference. ;-) I'd like to see it happen along the lines of what you're suggesting. History tells me that that seldom happens - but is not impossible. I do not have the requisite expertise to state, with any authority, that you're mistaken and I do hope you're right but I think that may not happen for a long time. I wonder what will happen if Un has a boy next. I'm sure he'd be favored over his daughter for succession. I'm not sure that either would mean better things.

One way or another, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. It'd be excellent if they did open up, relax, and work to ensure they gave their citizens some choice. I do worry that after that happens, no matter how it happens, that it will end up being multi-generational thing to get passed.

High altitude nuclear EMP

[Anonymous Coward]

While it seems like this satellite is harmless, I'm not sure the goal is a nuclear strike but a high altitude nuclear electromagnetic pulse. In that case, it need not be accurate at all, just close enough to do some serious damage. Our foreign policy is coming back to bite us in the ass. We had the ability to stop North Korea long before they became this dangerous. We were content to let them be and not try to incite a revolution or go to war to oust their leadership. Instead, we pissed away time and effort in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. Of course, after all those unnecessary wars, it's tough to sell people on something that really matters like this. One can only hope the North Korean regime values its survival enough to not actually follow through on any threats.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[gtall]

Even without those, there was no will in the U.S. or S. Korea to whip the Norks senseless. Even years ago the causalities on the S. Korean side would be horrendous.

Here's a hint, not every world problem is the U.S.'s fault.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[Immerman]

The problem is not North Korea - we could destroy what little threat they pose to anyone other than South Korea today in a matter of days, if that. And doing so would probably

The problem is that China would hardly sit quietly by while we decimate their ally, and *they* are a major threat. For China, the continued existence of North Korea is the best of a lot of bad options. While a land buffer has less military value than it used to, they still don't really want the US to have a stronghold right on their border. Plus they spent a lot of lives defending N.Korea from the US during The War, letting the US win now would dishonor that sacrifice. Neither do they want to lose cheap access to N.Korea's extensive mineral wealth Nor to absorb such a populous and dirt-poor region themselves.

So China is stuck in a similar can-kicking position - they keep propping up N.Korea while hoping that someone more tractable comes into power.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[JBMcB]

If the US, or South Korea, is attacked by North Korea, China would care less what we do to them. The only reason they support North Korea is they don't want a mob of refugees flooding into their country. China has a fenced-off, secured border with North Korea to keep them out.

Otherwise, North Korea is only nominally useful to China as an annoyance to the US. Once they are anything other than an annoyance, they have outlived their usefulness.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[Anonymous Coward]

We had the ability to stop North Korea long before they became this dangerous. We were content to let them be and not try to incite a revolution or go to war to oust their leadership.

North Korea has had Chinese backing for a long time. And China has been a major player for quite a while. How do you supposed we could have stopped North Korea without pissing of the slightly bigger neighbor?

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[Nidi62]

One can only hope the North Korean regime values its survival enough to not actually follow through on any threats.

Of course they do. This is literally how the country makes their living. They either make some crazy statement or do something stupid like shell an island or launch a rocket, get sanctioned, then promise to stop doing/never do again whatever they did in exchange for some kind of concession. Then a few months later they do it again. It feeds NK's propaganda machine and (to a much lesser extent) feeds it's population as well. The Kim regime can only maintain control by limiting access to the outside, so beyond limited trading partners such as China and South Korea (who I believe are suspending the shared manufacturing agreement that brought in much of NK's foreign currency). I believe they were also trading with Syria at one time, but obviously Syria isn't the best of trading partners at the moment for anything other than arms. So the whole sanction/concession game is really the only way they can get access to outside goods such as food and luxury items without onerous terms that would threaten regime stability.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[bobbied]

There is ZERO chance NK attacks the south. Lit'l Un knows that would be his undoing in a big way. First, he would NOT make it very far south, plus he'd suffer a huge number of causalities which he couldn't sustain. Second, it would set loose a (blank)storm of retaliation and air strikes in the north as we shut down his air defenses and communications faster than he can get is first tank beyond the DMZ. The first would devastate his ability to stay in power by force and the second would make it impossible for him to keep the secret that he was loosing by pushing out propaganda. He'd be out of power before he ran out of cheese for his crackers, likely in a bloody coop that resulted in his death. He knows this.

Re:High altitude nuclear EMP

[AK Marc]

China hates DPRK more than we do. China props them up for the sole reason of not wanting to take care of the refugees. There is a minor desire to keep them around to give the hateful Americans someone to hate who isn't them, as the US must always be at war. But China has no love for DPRK, and tolerates them more because at least they hold their refugees in-country, mostly.

If I ejaculate on my pet snail, will he die?

[Anonymous Coward]

his name is snuffy and he likes kisses and long walks on the beach.

Sputnik days are here again

[petes_PoV]

it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth

Almost 60 years ago, americans were scared of the USSR for exactly the same reasons. Same fears, different country. Nothing changes.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[Anonymous Coward]

Now countries get barred from flying into space because some paranoid military heads consider it as avenue to deliver nukes. Doesn't matter that already US and Russia can obliterate each other in a mere hour.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[gtall]

Yep, it is totally beyond the pale for the Norks to slip Daesh a nuke and claim Daesh stole it from the Russkies. That would never happen in your bunny world.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[IMightB]

Even if they did manage to do that, the entirety of N Korea would be quickly turned into a hot glass mess. For as much bluster and bullshit they turn out, even they know that they could not survive a nuclear war with the US.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[DarkOx]

And why exactly would Kim who fancies himself a god want to provide Daesh whose cause is to create an Islamic state with assistance in the form of a nuclear weapon?

I don't see many upsides for Kim or the DPRK in doing so. Everyone likes to paint Kim as a mad man. It might be true he does not always display what we consider to be sound judgement. Still he is self interested enough to hand a group that would turn on him as fast as he can blink a real actual WMD ( as opposed to the nasty but hardly massively destructive things we tend to use to justify drone strikes ). He isn't a lunatic.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[mvdwege]

The only thing missing in your conspiracy theory is postulating a link between North Korea and the Feminization of Western Society.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[dj245]

it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth

Almost 60 years ago, americans were scared of the USSR for exactly the same reasons. Same fears, different country. Nothing changes.

Yep. And unlike during the cold war, these North Korea fears are almost entirely without basis. North Korea does some odd things, but they aren't stupid or suicidal. A US invasion is a serious and genuine concern for them. They know they would be utterly devastated in any serious conflict. That's exactly why they are working on atomic bombs- to make any conflict so bad that the western powers will not attack them.

It's funny how we remember the events of history but forget the reasons why. Most nuclear weapons were constructed out of fear, not aggression. Having been to North Korea, I believe they are acting out of fear (and a bit of pride), just the same as all the other nuclear powers before them.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Won't happen. One word: China.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[Anonymous Coward]

Four words: why is China relevant?

More precisely, if the situation escalates to the extent that North Korea and United States have been involved in a nuclear conflict, do you think China would a) take North Korea's side, or b) do nothing?

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[cerberusti]

You... think China would just pile on the nuke war?

Something tells me they would prefer to sit that one out. I bet the US would decide to sit it out if Mexico ran for the bomb and hit China for some reason too, that is not the kind of trouble you borrow.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[Rakarra]

Won't happen. One word: China.

Why do you think China would care if the US counterattacks after a NK attack? China doesn't want NK refugees or any fallout entering China. That's pretty much what they care about. China and NK aren't exactly "friends."

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Actually, I think somebody would invade NK to shut them down. I think that the U.S. and China would reach an understanding about that plan first. I don't think we would be nuking NK. NK could be handled with more-conventional weapons by any neighbors that agree to be tired of their shit.

In your "Mexico" scenario, I think the same situation applies.

I think only crazy countries will be shooting nukes at other countries. I count NK as a crazy country, by the way.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Yes, and if the U.S. were to "glass" NK, then there WOULD be refugees and nuclear fallout. So, won't happen.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[cerberusti]

I think if they actually start lobbing effective ICBMs our way the response would be much more immediate than an invasion. The US is not going to sit around and wait to see if they can prep another for launch quickly or deliver it some other way after the first strike, and an invasion takes time.

We can mostly neutralize the threat within minutes, and that is exactly what we will do if they nuke us.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Sure, but do you think we need to use nukes to do that? I think a few well-placed drone bombs would get it done.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[Anonymous Coward]

If a nukes explodes in the US, somebody is getting their nation turned to glass. It matters not one iota what China wants/does/says/etc.

Nukes for the norks are invasion insurance. Nobody with nukes has ever been invaded.

If anything, the Chinese are over talking to the fat bastard telling him to chill the fuck out. China isn't going to have the norks back if they toss a nuke. Hell, they might just toss a few on Pyongyang just to be on our good side.

Re:Sputnik days are here again

[Anonymous Coward]

There would be no military need, but rather a perceived geopolitical need. A nuclear strike cannot be allowed without a response in kind, because the alternative for the US would be to risk appearing "weak" for the next unstable nuclear upstart, and perhaps unintentionally broadcasting to the other nuclear superpowers that the US might be unwilling to wield MAD. That's not to say that the nuclear counter-strike would be on the order of "hot glassy mess", or whatever phrasing other posters used - that was obvious hyperbole, or foolish chest thumping. It would be done because it would be perceived as being necessary. I hate the consequences of that rationale, but I understand it.

The only thing to prevent it would be an immediate, rapid, overwhelming Chinese invasion of NK before the US could redeploy nuclear submarines (the only part of the triad which would apply strategically to NK) within striking distance (one might be deployed within range, but perhaps that's not enough). The US would not risk Chinese troop casualties, and the Chinese would very much like to avoid the global and regional consequences of a US nuclear response to NK. Problem is (for China), AFAIK, there is not a sufficiently large buildup of Chinese conventional forces on the border with NK.

- T

"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Is the story writer a nuclear arms specialist or is this movie-knowledge?

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Immerman]

I'm going with movie-knowledge. A nuke blast is only large compared to conventional weapons. Anything more than a few miles away from the blast will be virtually unscathed, and even much closer to the blast you're mainly talking broken windows and a bit of radiation damage. And hitting a relatively small and valuable target like a city requires precision aiming.

The only really credible threat from a poorly aimed nuke is a high-altitude blast, which would knock out radio communications and spread the fallout over a large area. Messy and expensive, but not really something that lives up to the visceral "Eeek! Nukes!" response.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, I mean its not like ballistics is uses relatively simple equations or anything.....

oh wait.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[LesPeters]

it's in the trinity: close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Is the story writer a nuclear arms specialist or is this movie-knowledge?

He talked about "igniting" a nuclear weapon. This should be a clue.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Anonymous Coward]

And election results, if you are a democrat who can bring out the dead to vote...

Just kidding, lighten up!

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Etcetera]

Actually, for the US, you don't even have to hit anything.

A single nuclear explosion on the ground that hits an area of moderate importance would have tremendous geopolitical implications (to say the least), combined with probably a trillion dollar shock to the economy.

Three nuclear explosions somewhere 100 mi above the central US and West and East coasts would cause an EMP-triggered cascading failure of most consumer electrical devices for good, and most parts of the power infrastructure for months... if not years, considering the backlog of repair that would have to be coordinated and attempted without the use of power itself. In the meantime, countries not affected will use the effective absence of American involvement to promote their own agendas.

"Vaguely close, or in the right direction" is perfectly fine for nuclear effects.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[AK Marc]

There is no real fallout from a high altitude blast. The most damage DPRK could do would be to launch it on an ICBM at South Africa over the US, and detonate it as it's over Kansas.

Second in damage may be a truck-based ground blast in DC, between the White House and Congress. Should be able to take out both, they are under 2 miles apart. And the damage wouldn't even be much beyond that, leaving DC largely intact, aside from the fallout from a ground blast.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[SuiteSisterMary]

A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.

Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.

Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Immerman]

Nope. It's only ballistic while coasting outside the atmosphere, and if you're shooting from the other side of the world even minor imperfections in a ballistic path mean you miss entirely. And I understand accurate reentry tends to present a sizable challenge as well.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[Immerman]

Huh, it appears you may be correct. I didn't realize that the bulk of radioactive fallout material was actually vaporized material from the target that had been neutron-activated. Learn something new every day.

Of course you're still going to have neutron activated nitrogen, oxygen, etc. to deal with, but since they're at high altitude and won't fall out they should be diluted to safe levels before anyone on the ground is exposed, at least so long as we're only talking about a single explosion. There's probably also a lot less air within the neutron decay radius, and once the neutrons decay into hydrogen atoms they're relatively harmless.

Re:"you don't have to be very accurate"

[budgenator]

Not really to knock out a Minuteman III silo 50% of the time you'd have to detonate a 50KT warhead within 100 m of the silo, which at re-entry vehicle speeds takes some pretty fancy shooting. You can't group your shots too close together or the neutrons from one device will pre-initiate it's neighbours. Those mushroom clouds are full of crap, a re-entry vehicle can't fly through one without being destroyed but a slower launch vehicle can fly through. A nuclear war is a bit more involved than you'd think.

For all I know

[Anonymous Coward]

For all I know, the US can simply launch one of those smaller experimental shuttles and mess with other countries satellites, without the risk of even being detected.

Note to self, if I ever were to design or own a satellite, make sure to attacks a 360 camera and some kind of radar.

Re:For all I know

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm, I meant to write "make sure to attach a 360 camera". :|

Re:For all I know

[AK Marc]

Most likely it was a control failure. Satellites are inherently unstable. A tiny push, and they tumble. So you need a complex control system to keep them aligned. Those often did fail, and resulted in satellite loss. That DPRK suffers a satellite loss through the most common method of satellite loss doesn't even hint at foreign involvement.

"Impact any continent"

[dremon]

Any historical evidence over DPRK's worldwide military aggression (not counting the funny patriotic TV speeches)? I'd rather point my finger to another nation with quite a good record of not only "aiming the payloads" but in fact launching them.

Re:"Impact any continent"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good question. Especially when you consider that Americans helped wipe out 30% of the North Koreans during the war, after their allies murdered 100,000 suspected communists in one season.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre

Sounds like Americans are just afraid that North Koreans are going to get a tiny bit of deserved revenge.... but there's not even evidence for that.

What's the benefit?

[monkeyxpress]

I don't really see the benefit of them having ICBM capabilities. At the moment, for people in the USA and Europe, NK is just an annoying abstract threat. Nobody wants to go start anything there because they could probably take out Seoul and parts of Japan quite easily, so it is better to just monitor the situation and leave them alone. It would seem that they are getting some support from China as well, so doing something preemptive could end up getting messy very fast.

But if they get long range missile capabilities, we basically enter a new cold war standoff, and it is likely a lot more attention would be put on finding ways to shutdown the regime. Provoking the West into action just doesn't seem like it would be in their best interests. Having said that, the guy sounds like a complete crackpot, so maybe he is just bored.

Re-entry aiming

[MindStalker]

Re-entry aiming is actually quite difficult. Statistically they are more likely to land in the ocean or somewhere in the middle of Kansas than they are to hit DC. If they nuked the middle of the ocean it would be an interesting day. We likely wouldn't nuke them back (though we could I guess), We likely would just invade.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Scutter]

That's one of the classic blunders. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Rei]

It depends on how bad they are. The world's first ICBM had a high, 5km CEP. But still, plot a 5km circle on any major city, you're still going to hit a densely populated area.

That said, it's quite true that NK's nuclear weapons are (comparatively) quite weak, and (probably) heavy.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[petes_PoV]

Why bother with re-entry at all. Just pop it off as an exo-atmospheric detonation and let the EMP do its damage.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Hognoxious]

They weren't launched from an object spinning out of control. This thing is going to have a CEP of about 20,000 km.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Rei]

One obviously doesn't count failed launches toward CEPs. Anything involving "spinning out of control" is as failure, as far as deployment goes.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[swb]

We'd never invade DPRK. They are basically a giant warehouse of every infantry weapon system ever developed by the Russians or Chinese. It would be a monumental effort to invade them with infantry, even after a conventional bombing campaign of months.

I would wager a nuclear reprisal by the US is more likely following even a flawed launch that dropped a nuke into the ocean. The Republican congress would declare war and impeach the President the same day if he wouldn't sign onto it. Given our current level of political divisiveness, I wouldn't put a coup d'etat against a reluctant Democratic president outside the realm of possible.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[MindStalker]

I think it really depends upon how willing they are to fight back. Put South Koreans on the front line promising re-unification, and we likely could roll right through with very little bloodshed. The true cost will be the humanitarian aide after the current government fails. //I certainly wouldn't be willing to bet on this outcome, but its not out of the realm of probability.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not accurate. North Korea is a very formidable foe and an extremely difficult invasion proposition. Tokyo and Seoul would be incinerated in a matter of minutes, for but one complication.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[bobbied]

That's one of the classic blunders. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Or get into a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line... Yea, we know...

Re:Re-entry aiming

[bobbied]

Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told...You also need to get a pretty good nuclear explosion which I understand NK hasn't really mastered, nor do they have the ability to produce nuclear weapons small enough to get them off the ground in any rocket...

Re:Re-entry aiming

[AK Marc]

Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told..

The people who wrote the Wiki page on that disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Re-entry aiming

[Hognoxious]

Story I got was that the "satellite" might be a launcher.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[swb]

There's a very slim chance that there may be an extremely secret cabal of very high level DPRK leadership that have some kind of "we're gonna die anyway" plan for deposing Fearless Leader in the event he goes all the way off the reservation and starts a war with a major power like the US.

But...Kim Jong-Un executed a whole bunch of very senior guys not long after he took power, including guys who had been close to his father for decades and he also is fond of shuffling top generals from time to time. All of this is designed to put the "fear of Juche" into his senior leadership and make any kind of coup plan impossible to organize.

Plus it's such a shit-ass backwards place to live that you just know the good perks (like eating, heat in the winter, and other luxuries) are doled out to anyone willing to squeal anything remotely like a coup attempt and I'm sure they all squeal on each all the time in a desperate attempt to keep their positions and perks.

It may be debatable how long the DPRK army is able and willing to fight. Fuel shortages could be a problem and their army is hardly positively motivated to stay in the fight, especially if they had to face something like sustained heavy air campaigns involving carpet, thermobaric or firebombing. Cut supply lines, morale, etc. may cause them to collapse early. Or given the last 50 years available, they may be so deeply dug in that they are able to ride it out for months.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[bobbied]

Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told..

The people who wrote the Wiki page on that disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Quite the opposite. Nuclear explosions outside the earth's atmosphere are not going to generate all that much EMP on the surface, and a nuclear blast at ground level, while it does create EMP it only really affects the small surface area within the line of sight. You need to hit the "sweet spot" which is within the earth's atmosphere to get a big pulse yet high enough to cause wide spread EMP damage within the line of sight.

You see, the EMP is caused by a quick pulse of electromagnetic energy which is emitted by both the bomb materials and the air around it as it goes off. You need a lot of mass absorbing the energy from the blast and then releasing it as an EMP. Therefore you want it deep in the atmosphere to get a big pulse, but high enough that you have a large amount of the surface within the line of sight of the blast.

Re:Re-entry aiming

[AK Marc]

Quite the opposite. Nuclear explosions outside the earth's atmosphere are not going to generate all that much EMP on the surface,

Then go edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia's claims directly contradict you. Don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out the cites prove you wrong. Go argue with the cites or reality.

stupid claim, schwit1

[rubycodez]

for nuclear weapons with than ten kilotons yield of course extreme accuracy is needed if targeting something a third the world a way, what a stupid thing to write. Do you get your ideas about a nuclear weapon can do from entertainment media?

Re:stupid claim, schwit1

[nicoleb_x]

Absolutely right, with humans only populating about 1% of the surface of the earth accuracy is not to be ignored.

The recent meteorite that exploded above Chelyabinsk is estimated to be a 500 kiloton equivalent and that didn't bring the region to its knees.

Mr Tumble

[stealth_finger]

Touch your finger to your nose, blink three times and away it goes.

CNN lol

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN is always behind....get a better source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-orbit-idUSKCN0VI1XN

North Korea's recently launched satellite has achieved stable orbit but is not believed to have transmitted data back to Earth, U.S. sources said of a launch that has so far failed to convince experts that Pyongyang has significantly advanced its rocket technology.

Sunday's launch of what North Korea said was an earth observation satellite angered the country's neighbors and the United States, which called it a missile test. It followed Pyongyang's fourth nuclear test in January.

"It's in a stable orbit now. They got the tumbling under control," a U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Re:CNN lol

[Verdatum]

Ugh, I had to go this far down in comments to find someone who knew this information is over 12 hours out of date? And of course, it's presently only got a score of 1. I'm not just using selective memory to long for the Good-old-days. The user base of /. used to be way better than this.

Re:CNN lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange wording... Strictly speaking, tumbling doesn't affect the orbit at all.

"Tumbling under control"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reuters is reporting that the tumbling has stopped.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-orbit-idUSKCN0VI1XN

Re:"Tumbling under control"

[Solandri]

And now the Pentagon is saying it's tumbling again.

Tumbling refers to a very specific behavior in rotational dynamics. A body is only stable in rotation when it rotates around its minimum or maximum moments of inertia (inertia is a 3x3 matrix, not a single number of even a vector like they teach you in high school). When a body tries to spin around any other axis, it ends up gyrating wildly. What's happening is the spin axis is trying to align with a stable spin axis, but overshoots and passes right through it, over and over. Like a marble that tries to reach the bottom of a bowl (stable point) but keeps overshooting and rolling back and forth.

It's very difficult to recover from because the axis of spin is changing dynamically, so by the time you fire a thruster to counteract the spin, the axis may have changed and the thruster may have little to no effect, or even make things worse. I've been trying to get one of the ISS crew to shoot some video demonstrating it because it's very difficult to demonstrate on Earth. But you can sort of see it by rubber banding a textbook closed (pick one whose three lengths are very different). Spin it as you throw it into the air. Spinning it so the axis is normal to the front/back is stable. So is spinning it so the axis is normal to the top/bottom (assuming the book is taller than it is wide). But spin around the axis through the spine will result in tumbling.

Rotationally-stabilized spacecraft and satellites are carefully designed so the intended spin axis aligns with a minimum or maximum moment of inertia. Someone on the design team has a great big spreadsheet full of the inertia tensors and exact position of every single part that went into the spacecraft, so s/he can calculate its aggregate inertia tensor. If it doesn't quite line up, they have to either add/remove some weight or move some items around until it does.

Re:"Tumbling under control"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is quite interesting. I'd always thought that spinning on more than one axis was a bullshit concept, ever since I was 14 years old and heard "it was spinning on one axis but now it's spinning on all three" in a movie and, movies being a frequent source of bullshit, tried to imagine how this might happen and, being unable to, concluded that things can only spin on one axis. So I've spent the last 20 years believing that to be true.

Even the video you linked to failed to convince me, as it wasn't clear what portion of the movement was due to firing of thrusters, and it seemed easy to imagine the inertia of the gimbals themselves being the source of the ever-changing motion rather than inertia itself allowing for rotation on more than a single axis. It's hard to imagine anything rotating on more than a single axis, and much easier to assume that, if one attempted to induce such motion, the actual result would simply be the axis of rotation changing, but that there would continue to be a single axis of rotation. So I looked for another video, hoping to find an animation (as I'm more likely to believe someone implemented their simulation correctly than I am to believe that the gimbals themselves aren't the cause of the multi-axis rotation) with some explanation of how rotation on multiple axes works, but I found nothing.

So I was left with your idea about tossing a book in the air. Not wanting to do that (books are heavy and I don't want to damage anything), I found a cardboard box which was significantly different in size on all three dimensions. First I tossed it rotating on the long axis, which went quite smoothly. Then I tossed it rotating on the short axis, which went just as well. Then I tossed it rotating on its middle-length axis, and the thing behaved as if it had a mind of its own. I tired again and again, to rule out the possibility that I just fudged the throw, but as you say, it just isn't a stable rotation.

> I've been trying to get one of the ISS crew to shoot some video demonstrating it because it's very difficult to demonstrate on Earth.

At least this AC believes that's one of the most educational videos that might come from the ISS. (When I think of space videos, I think of fun stuff like "let's make a floating ball of water and suck it up with a straw" which doesn't really teach anything.) Inertia is a basic thing, so much so that it's something that everyone should have a reasonable understanding of, yet this was hole in my understanding that I had no idea was there.

...and if they could make a video of the twin paradox, then I could stop believing that relativity is bullshit too.

China is the reason NK exists

[sjbe]

At the moment, for people in the USA and Europe, NK is just an annoying abstract threat. Nobody wants to go start anything there because they could probably take out Seoul and parts of Japan quite easily, so it is better to just monitor the situation and leave them alone.

The main reason they get left alone is because of China. China protects NK even when they get completely out of pocket for reasons that are only vaguely comprehensible to us. Honestly if China wasn't involved I think NK would have been curb stomped by either the US or one of their neighbors some time ago. China props up the NK regime apparently primarily because they don't want to deal with the humanitarian crisis that would follow if the regime toppled. They also apparently don't want a unified and modern Korea with a border on China for strategic reasons.

Having said that, the guy sounds like a complete crackpot, so maybe he is just bored.

North Korea is on their third generation of crackpot absolute dictator. Hell, technically the Korean War never actually ended. There was an armistice but never an actual peace treaty.

Re:China is the reason NK exists

[mvdwege]

China protects NK even when they get completely out of pocket for reasons that are only vaguely comprehensible to us.

China prefers North Korea on its border like the United States preferred a corrupt fascist like Batista on Cuba. NK may be bastards, but they are China's bastards.

Re:China is the reason NK exists

[painandgreed]

The main reason they get left alone is because of China. China protects NK even when they get completely out of pocket for reasons that are only vaguely comprehensible to us. Honestly if China wasn't involved I think NK would have been curb stomped by either the US or one of their neighbors some time ago.

It's very comprehensible to us. It's that any post-regime verison of North Korea is pretty much worse for China than the current situation, even if they don't like how things are currently. If NK goes to SK, then they have somebody outside of their control on their border with the US right there also. Even if it goes with China, NK, is generally worse off than China and they don't want to be saddled with that loadstone, and once again, SK and the USA are on their borders. Their only real option is to stick it out and hope that eventually one of the new leaders of NK will be more favorable to their advise (which has been to become more like China in opening up their economy even if they do control it). And yes, if it wasn't for China, this would have all be solved years ago during the Korean War.

Re:China is the reason NK exists

[AK Marc]

China doesn't like DPRK. China would be happy if, tomorrow DPRK was destroyed. China doesn't want DPRK hurt. China shares an unprotected land border with them. And China doesn't want millions of refugees wandering over. That's about the only thing that China cares about. If the US offered to secure the border, and ship every refugee to South Korea, China would probably agree to any military attack of DPRK that the US would dream up. The conventional destruction of Seoul from DPRK is the MAD that keeps DPRK safe for now. There's no way to take out the DRPK before Seoul is destroyed.

North Korean diplomacy Slashdot can understand

[Anonymous Coward]

NK: First satellite!
US: YOU FAIL IT!
NK: Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of nuclear weapons striking your country?
US: Please don't feed the trolls.
NK: IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!
Russia: IN SOVIET RUSSIA... MY ASS KICKS YOU!
NK: Next time, Americans... ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

Let's get really real

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea (DPRK) is very unlikely to use any kind of method of delivery to launch a nuclear attack against the U.S., because it is not in it's interest to launch such an attack. The US and South Korea and constantly making threats of aggression (in words and in action) against North Korea, which is probably the main reason for its desperation to have an effective deterrent. If I were North Korean I would probably completely disagree Nuclear is the way to go, but it's not a ridiculous/unjustifiable strategy in itself. So, I hope people stop suggesting that North Korea is out to get them.

As anyone who's played Civ will know...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit. From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth

You forgot to add, "as anyone who's played Civ will know."

Re:As anyone who's played Civ will know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your nuclear tests are alarming! We urge you, as one civilized nation to another, to destroy these terrible weapons before they destroy us all!

Re:As anyone who's played Civ will know...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" -- M. Gandhi, ruler of the Indians. Dot, not feather.

who needs re-entry?

[dlt074]

unless you don't need to re-enter or hit a specific target. let's say you just want to get something high over the continental US and detonate it.

something that creates a nice EMP.

Re:who needs re-entry?

[jafiwam]

unless you don't need to re-enter or hit a specific target. let's say you just want to get something high over the continental US and detonate it.

something that creates a nice EMP.

They have a ways to go before they can create an EMP-capable nuclear weapon.

And, EMP threat is not what fiction tells you it is.

Re:who needs re-entry?

[AK Marc]

DPRK claims a functional H-bomb. That's sufficient for an EMP. Sized correctly, an ICBM carried nuclear warhead can make an EMP large enough to cover the contiguous US. Yes, it won't fry all electronics in the blast radius for all time, but it'll do enough damage to kill more than if they had targeted a city.

Re:who needs re-entry?

[Anonymous Coward]

DPRK claims a functional H-bomb.

So far, there's roughly zero evidence to back those claims. If radionuclides are detected from the most recent NK test, then maybe they have a partially successful implosion test, perhaps even tritium-boosted. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Right now, the US might as well concern itself about whether there is a basselope gap with NK.

- T

Now Stable, not tumbling

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally, the US reported it was tumbling; now they are saying that it is "stable" and they have the tumbling under control -- but not transmitting.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-satellite-idUKKCN0VJ04O

No Longer Tumbling

[bengoerz]

According to multiple sources, the satellite is no longer tumbling.

Re:No Longer Tumbling

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the purpose of the satellite is orbital bombardment by making it fall on Washington, DC?

Re:No Longer Tumbling

[Anonymous Coward]

I dislike how quickly the "tumbling" story was released. The satellite may or may not be junk. It may or may not be a threat. Tumbling, as it turns out, is not the end of the story. Without widely verifiable proof, immediately telling the population how to feel about the launch amounts to propaganda. Let's do better, people.

Re:No Longer Tumbling

[Tablizer]

According to multiple sources, the satellite is no longer tumbling.

NK simply switched it from neener-neener mode to mooning mode.

Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[clifwlkr]

I really, really doubt the leaders actually think it is worth dropping a single missile or two on the US, and expect that there would not be massive retaliation literally destroying their country. The US would not sit back after any kind of attack and reconsider, it would be full speed ahead.

Instead, what they want is the threat that they could let loose with several missiles if we were to invade them, and it would be difficult to stop them once in the air. That scares the US populace, and makes them think twice about coming and attacking them on the first place. That is why they make such a big show of it all, to make sure we know they have a weapon they could use against us. That, after all, is really the whole premise of nuclear weapons at this point.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[petes_PoV]

massive retaliation literally destroying their country

I assume you don't actually know where NK is. Look on a map. Bejing is less than 500miles away. NK shares a border with China. Japan is very close, too. There is no possibility that China would allow the USA to nuke one of its neighbours - not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region.

Luckily, your fears are completely unfounded. NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA. It is more concerned with South Korea and if it was to use a nuke, they already have a target painted large as Seoul is only 30 miles from the NK border - easily reachable by truck in less than an hour. That is their hostage, should anyone attack them. What is far more likely is that they are developing the technology to sell. The launches are just advertising for their capabilities and the people you should be worried about are the ones who hate you and have lots of money. Sadly, that list is quite long: just look at all the countries you've bombed back to the stone age in the past few decades.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Boronx]

Would let us? There's no "let". If China doesn't want us nuking North Korea, they have to make sure North Korea doesn't drop a nuke on us.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[magarity]

not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region

This isn't a real concern; Beijing's pollution already blows eastward over the Koreas and the Pacific to end up in California, not the other way around.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be Beijing that retaliates. They would wipe NK off the face of the map. Why would they do this?

1) It would finally rid them of an annoyance to their south
2) They could easily justify it as a way to actually avoid nuclear war with the US. "See, we are your allies, we took out NK for you. You don't need to retaliate."
3) They could then come in as the great savior of the people, helping to re-unite the Koreas, something the US has been unable to do. The US would also likely help in this effort, and yes, that would help foster good relations between China, the US, and the new united Korea, as the 3 parties shed off the horrible regime that is NK.

It would not surprise me one bit if Beijing hasn't already thought about this as a possible scenario, they aren't dumb.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Solandri]

Luckily, your fears are completely unfounded. NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA. It is more concerned with South Korea and if it was to use a nuke, they already have a target painted large as Seoul is only 30 miles from the NK border - easily reachable by truck in less than an hour. That is their hostage, should anyone attack them.

NK's entire educational indoctrination program is based on hatred of the U.S. You know how one of the best ways to unite a people is to confront them with an outside enemy? That's what NK does, using the U.S. as the outside bogeyman. You're colossally ignorant of what's going on in NK if you think they don't give a flying *** about the U.S.

40 years ago, at least most of the people in NK knew life before this political brainwashing began. But today most of the population there has grown up hearing and believing the U.S. is evil with no counterpoint argument for their entire lives. Nobody has ever done a massive social manipulation experiment of this scale for this duration, so nobody knows what the result will be, which makes NK incredibly unpredictable when it comes to anything which involves attacking the U.S.

And the ICBMs and nukes are for Japan, China, and the U.S. Holding Seoul hostage doesn't even require NK to cross the border - the city is and always has been within artillery range of North Korea.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Dins]

Wish I had mod points.

If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.

You can argue whether or not we SHOULD respond by obliterating NK, but if the continental US was nuked the US would be out for blood and nobody else in the world could stop us.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had mod points.

If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind.

Except for the fact that the local (as in near to NK) nuclear powers would *not* be happy about the expected fallout (literal or otherwise), and if our nukes put them at risk, they would consider it an act of war against *them*.

IOW: If we nuke North Korea, China will almost certainly consider the resulting fallout an act of war against China, and return the favor by nuking the US. If you think that wouldn't stop us from nuking North Korea, you're a damned fool.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[phantomfive]

NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA.

Then why do they make movies like this? Serious question.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The US would simply not need to nuke NK, they have many weapons at their disposal.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

There are alternatives to nuclear war

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anubis IV]

No, they could consider it an act of war and nuke the US in return, but China is smart enough that they would not do so.

Let's be honest: none of the nuclear powers want to use their nukes. They know that doing so against another nuclear power is the beginning of the end for their country, and quite possibly all of human civilization. Nobody wants that. As such, they'll go to great extremes to not use their nukes. Pretty much anything shy of a direct attack will be met with a sub-nuclear response. And even a direct attack is unlikely to be met with a nuclear response unless it's viewed as the only option.

But let's pretend that the US had just nuked North Korea in retaliation for a nuclear assault made on US soil. Dumb move, given that we have plenty of non-nuclear ways to erase them from existence, but understandable. Assuming there's fallout from the nukes (which isn't a guarantee, since modern nukes are significantly cleaner), China may not like it, but they'd respond via other means, because they understand that targeting US soil with nukes would be met in kind by the US, and by morning, both China and the US would lie under a few feet of ash. Possibly much of the rest of the world as well, depending on who decides to get involved.

You can bet that there'd be sanctions. There may even be war between the two countries. But escalating straight from some potential fallout (reminder: the US subjected its own citizens--including most of my mother's side of the family--to fallout from nuclear testing on dozens of occasions, generally with mild or no ill effects) to open nuclear war? They're not that dumb. And thank God for that.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[nytes]

Let's imagine that NK manages to launch a nuke and lands it in Los Angeles (not densely populated like San Francisco or New York, but a nice big target that wouldn't require as much precision to hit).

The US decides it is going to turn NK into a parking lot and launches a retaliatory strike.

The really big problem occurs when China and Russia detect multiple ICBM's being launched from the US and sees them heading in their general direction, and they start thinking "Ya' know, we'd better get something into the air because we don't really know what the targets are."

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Rakarra]

If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.

There will be retaliation, it just won't be nuclear. Whatever we might think of US military leadership, they're not that stupid, and firing nukes at NK would be a pretty stupid action.

The US is perfectly capable of taking out North Korea completely through conventional means. If NK launched a nuke, the US would probably be joined by China. Not responding with a nuke would give the US a high moral ground of the sort it hasn't had since World War II (or maybe Afghanistan). The US's allies in the region would hate the US dropping one on NK, since dropping a nuke is like peeing in a public pool; fallout won't just stop at the border. Nuclear weapons are flashy, but they're not exactly practical or desirable from the US's perspective.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[torkus]

That's a lot of guesswork coupled with a bad assumption.

Nuclear fallout from an airburst is greatly reduced compared to a groundburst. The idea that they'd horribly contaminate lots of China is completely incorrect. Consider there's a huge mall a few blocks from where the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. It's a thriving city. Lots of people live there.

There's also an enormous risk with NOT retaliating. You effectively remove your nuclear deterrent but showing the world it's possible to use a nuclear weapon without an immediate retaliation in kind. I'd say this is a bigger risk than blasting anything worthwhile in NK into ash and dealing with China's bitching...

Which really... If a major US city just got hit with a nuclear bomb, no one is going to give a damn about china crying about some minor fallout while the US dealt with 1M+ casualties and fallout of it's own.

I'd say about the ONLY conceivable option to avoid a retaliatory strike would be the immediate, complete, and total surrender by NK.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

massive retaliation literally destroying their country

I assume you don't actually know where NK is. Look on a map. Bejing is less than 500miles away. NK shares a border with China. Japan is very close, too. There is no possibility that China would allow the USA to nuke one of its neighbours - not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region.

Massive retaliation does not have to mean, and would not mean, "nuclear". The nuclear option is off the table for everybody for the foreseeable future, at least for anybody that wants to have a long term existence. The stronger nations in the world community will no longer tolerate use of this option.

In all likelihood, if NK was stupid enough to nuke anybody, ALL of the bordering nations (SK, Russia, China, Japan) plus a bunch of others (USA, Britain, France, Germany, etc) would ally in much the same fashion as happened in Desert Shield. Not even China could tolerate a rogue nation using nukes, especially not right next door. A large amount of death (primarily military deaths among the NK armed forces) would follow, until the remnants of the NK armed forces decided to surrender. NK's current government would be eliminated and replaced with something new (and acceptable to all the neighbors).

The country, in the sense of a particular government ruling a particular region, would be destroyed and replaced with something else. It would be massive retaliation, but it would not be nuclear.

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the US use ICBMs? That part of the triad doesn't apply to a barely nuclear power like NK. Given the distance from the US and proximity to China, bombers would probably be off the table, too. The US would use SLBMs.

Also, both Russia and China (and presumably the rest of the permanent UN security council) would get a courtesy notification immediately beforehand - just short enough notification that a relayed warning to Dear Leader would be moot. Russia might put bombers into the air, but they'd return to base long before the mushroom clouds over NK dissipate. Japan, China, SK, and a few others won't be happy about the response, but we're about as likely to ask permission as it was likely that we'd ask any neighbors for permission before invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

- T

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[Anonymous Coward]

But let's pretend that the US had just nuked North Korea in retaliation for a nuclear assault made on US soil. Dumb move, given that we have plenty of non-nuclear ways to erase them from existence, but understandable.

Sadly, it's all but guaranteed. Failing to respond in kind would be considered an invitation to the next unstable nuclear upstart. Even the most destructive conventional response would be considered insufficient and a display of "weakness". I can appreciate that rationale, but it's brutal.

Possibly much of the rest of the world as well, depending on who decides to get involved.

My understanding of US policy during the Soviet era was that if a nuclear exchange were to occur between the two nations, then the US would also launch against China. Why? Because the US would not accept a future where the only remaining superpower (obviously Europe would be fubar, too) would be China. The belief was that the Soviets had similar ideas, so Australia, NZ, and Canada were presumed to be toast as well. Again, I understand the rationale, but that would leave lots of nations desolate. I don't truly know if that was actually the case at the time, nor whether the US has adopted a slightly less destructive policy since the Soviet collapse.

- T

Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat

[toddestan]

Exactly. Most likely scenario for dealing with North Korea would be to gain air superiority and then level the country with conventional bombs. I don't see their Cold War era hardware putting up much a fight, and in a few days you'd have all the targets that you would have nuked taken out anyway. I don't think the US would want to escalate any situation more than it had to by using nuclear weapons. I'm sure China would not appreciate the US setting off nukes in a neighboring country, and Russia isn't that far away either.

The only reason I can see why the US would nuke North Korea is if we thought they were going to strike again immediately, and dropping a nuke on their launch site would be the fastest way to take it out. Even in that case, we'd hit only the launch site, and with a warhead just powerful enough to get the job done.

If a warhead tumbles, it is useless

[Geoffrey.landis]

If a nuclear missile tumbles after launch, it won't survive entry.

Stabilizing your payload is not optional for nuclear weapons, it's mandatory.

Re:If a warhead tumbles, it is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? I do find all of this fear-mongering surrounding a tiny, mentally unbalanced nation that can't even afford to feed and clothe its own population rather pointless. But assuming you had a small warhead (which they don't) and a reliable launcher (they MIGHT have that) and you didn't care much about accuracy you could simply slap the warhead in a spherical casing with an ablative heat shield. Even with that NK is extremely unlikely to actually let any of these things fly even if they can develop them in the first place given that the nuclear powers burnt significant portions of their GDPs developing theirs. NKs leaders may be crazy, though ours are rapidly trying to close the gap (see Trump), but even they have to realize that actually using these things would ensure their quick and bloody destruction.

Re:If a warhead tumbles, it is useless

[wasteoid]

Maybe not as important if you plan to detonate in the atmosphere to cause an EMP blast.

Re:If a warhead tumbles, it is useless

[Cochonou]

This just means that the satellite AOCS (if it has one) is not operating correctly. This does not mean that the launcher did not perform spin-stabilisation before orbital delivery. In fact, North Korea has already shown the ability to spin up payloads in previous launches.

Re:If a warhead tumbles, it is useless

[cerberusti]

Not really, you could design it such that it stabilized itself during entry.

If you have enough pressure to cause serious heating, you have enough pressure that it will naturally want to point the heavier side prograde, and present a minimal profile to the air it is punching through.

Mr. Kim's

[Anonymous Coward]

dancing satellite, Gangnam style!

Deja Vuuuuuuuuuu

[14erCleaner]

58 years ago, people were saying the same scary things about Sputnik. Should we start teaching our kids to duck and cover? Or, maybe, keep up the deterrence approach that ended the Cold War? You bomb us, we bomb you, we're hurt but you cease to exist. No two-bit dictator is that crazy.

Re:Deja Vuuuuuuuuuu

[Notorious G]

You bomb us, we bomb you, we're hurt but you cease to exist. No two-bit dictator is that crazy.

What you really mean is that you *hope* no two-bit dictator is crazy enough to think we will not retaliate and that you hope there is someone that is believably willing to retaliate. Good luck with that.

Re:Deja Vuuuuuuuuuu

[Anonymous Coward]

What you really mean is that you *hope* no two-bit dictator is crazy enough to think we will not retaliate and that you hope there is someone that is believably willing to retaliate. Good luck with that.

I'm pretty sure plans have been in place for a long time in many countries.

The issue isn't the fear of retaliation by these dictators, it's the risk of suicidal actions, possibly linked to some ideologies.

So in other words...

[damn_registrars]

If we take this claim together with the claim that the satellite passed over Levi's Stadium just after the Super Bowl ended, the North Koreans are close to accomplishing Rudy Giuliani's goal of nuking Beyonce.

Re:So in other words...

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

We could get lucky. They could miss Beyonce, and hit Justin Bieber.

Heavy???

[GWBasic]

Uhhh, I don't know a lot about atomic bombs and rocketry; but I thought an atomic bomb was too heavy to put into orbit? The phrase "From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth" just comes across as scare-mongering to me.

Re:Heavy???

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you are correct that you don't know a lot about atomic bombs and rocketry. The US has tested bombs weighing less than 1,000 pounds that had yields of hundreds of kilotons. This satellite weighed about 440 pounds and made it to orbit. This means they can likely put a 1,000-pound payload several hundred to a couple of thousand miles downrange with their current capability. If they can hit their target weight of 1,100 pounds for the bomb and increase their booster performance just a little, they'll probably be capable of hitting the US mainland. I don't know what their accuracy would be like, but would it really matter if they missed San Francisco and instead hit San Jose? Or even fell short and set off a nuke fifty miles offshore?

When we went through this with Sputnik, we at least believed that our opponents were sane and rational and PROBABLY wouldn't start something that would be a loss for everyone. The current North Korean leadership, like ISIS, seems capable of anything, no matter how stupid in the long run.

Re:Heavy???

[SuiteSisterMary]

In this context, think of 'a reasonably stable orbit' as 'an over-enthusiastic ballistic launch.' Or, think of a ballistic launch intended to land on a continent on the other side of the planet as 'something with a really short orbital period.' In other words, if they can get something that high, they can put it slightly less high, and have it come back down.

Re:Heavy???

[Anonymous Coward]

Collectively and officially we have detonated over 2300 nukes since they were created roughly 70 years ago, so we got to improve them and their efficiency, you can get several hundred kilotons of yield for several hundred kg/s these days compared to the little boy which was 4.7 tons with 64 kg of "active material".

For a more in depth overview check out http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/12/23/kilotons-per-kilogram/

Re:Heavy???

[bobbied]

I know Lit'l Un seems crazy to us, but I assure you he's not. If you understand a bit of Korean culture and how the Kim's came to power and keep it, it's pretty clear that he knows what he's doing. It's also clear that despite his repeated taunts and minor infractions of the cease fire, he's not that interested in a full frontal assault with anybody because it won't keep him in power to do so. He needs to keep inventing ways to feed the propaganda machine moral and tactical victories (real or invented) but he clearly cannot afford ANY losses in the process. So, he's not crazy, he just has to preserve appearances to stay in power.

Now where things will really get crazy is when he realizes that he's lost his grip. THEN he will be desperate to find ANY way to demonstrate his power. However, if it comes to that, I'm betting he will be dead before he realizes the game is over..

You Ain't Kiddin

[Anonymous Coward]

On its first orbit, NK's satellite passed over the Super Bowl.

Fearmongering

[Anonymous Coward]

More state sponsored fear-mongering over some little man in North Korea. Yawn.

8===D~~

[Anonymous Coward]

8===D~~

Suck it, bitch!! That's why the mod system was developed.

Don't encourage censorship.

you don't have to be very accurate???

[GodelEscherBlecch]

They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately

In orbital mechanics 'not very accurate', means 'possibly the sun, maybe the ocean, otherwise some sort of land...assuming it does not burn up in entry'.

Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit

I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it. I'd appreciate it if you could also provide me with the appropriate emotional cue for Trump's victory, because I have no idea how to feel about that.

From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth.

'Any' continent is right. Hey guess what: I just put a hand grenade in a rubber raft and set it adrift in the Pacific Ocean. BE VERY AFRAID - IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR YOU!

Re:you don't have to be very accurate???

[mrego]

North Korea should be afraid too, because they could theoretically get nuked by their own nuke if it would just be randomly falling.

Re:you don't have to be very accurate???

[thinkwaitfast]

I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it.

Came only to make the same comment. Slashdot is trying to go mainstream.

Indeed.

[Frosty Piss]

According to multiple sources, the satellite is no longer tumbling.

Interestingly, this was reported in news almost a day before the Slashdot story was posted, I assume Timmy doesn't read the news nor, you know, verify the up-to-date accuracy of "current events"...

What about Warhead re-entry?

[Catmeat]

Have they done re-entry? That was a major stumbling block for the US and Soviet ICBM programmes in the mid 50's. Especially as re-entry needs to be accurate. Unlike the idiotic summary, accuracy is vitally important. A five mile error that results in the obliteration of some countryside and suburbs, rather than a city centre is an outcome no lunatic dictator wants.

And can they make their physics package, re-entry system, and guidance system light enough for their booster to lift. That was something the Soviets couldn't do in the early days so they needed to build giant ICMBs to lift their warheads - the availability of these ironically put them ahead in the earliest days of the space race.

Unclench Your Buttcheeks

[Your Anus]

Assuming Noth Korea turns this into an ICBM, they still don't have a nuclear payload for it. All of their nuclear test pieces are way too heavy.

Be careful what you wish for . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . you just might get it.

Where will they get atomic bomb?

[Anonymous Coward]

America has always been barking at wrong tree. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea etc. Your real enemy is Pakistan. India informed USA in 70's about Pakistan developing nuclear bomb but USA looked other way around since Pakistan was its partner in cold war and India was not. Today, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea (and may be Saudi Arabia) have nuclear know how from Pakistan which has amassed hundreds of bombs and it is exchanging those for missiles from North Korea. The combination of two puts creates most dangerous scenario for west. Much worse than either Russia and China as they are far more responsible than Pakistan and North Korea.

NK can send a storm of artillery rounds to seoul

[Joe_Dragon]

NK can send a storm of artillery rounds to seoul.

hilarious

[micahraleigh]

I'll get a big laugh that their projectile can't point in a single direction as the payload explodes and obliterates half the continent.

Because ... what a faux paux that is!

Hang on tight

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope.

No...

[doug141]

One tumbling EMP nuke detonated above the atmosphere over the center of the US would plunge most of the country into darkness for months, if not years. It would interrupt the production and delivery of food, medicine and clean water. The number of US casualties, after a few months, could be worse than all past attacks and wars combined.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Show your working.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no it wouldn't. You think you can say "EMP" and like magic, anything can happen? All nukes deliver an EMP. but all the nukes tested in CONUS never knocked out the electrical system of even the nearest town... ONE nuke that could deliver an EMP to knock out 'most of the country" would have to be orders of magnitude larger than Tsar Bomba.

Please, if you are ignorant of facts, educate yourself. DO not spread more FUD.

Re:No...

[doug141]

The tests you mention were not tests of how the compton effect (EMP amplification that only occurs with high altitude detonations) would damage infrastructure which is now controlled by modern computer chips (which are 5 magnitudes more sensitive to EMP than the transistors that were commonplace at the times of those tests).

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop believing Hollywood science.
A single EMP will do moderate damage to powerlines over a moderate area, which can be repaired in days-to-weeks, and minor damage to consumer electronics over a very small area. To be able to do even that much, you are looking at tens of megatons explosions required.

A solar storm is far more dangerous. Hell, even a major thunderstorm is more dangerous to the US, and those happen several times a year.

Ignite

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"...ignite an atomic bomb..."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Homefront predicted it all in 2011

[Cito]

Home front: Future History the controversial trailer which was originally edited and showed as "breaking news" on YouTube that caused a lot of complaints.

But in 2011 they did predict the future. The story was written by famed author John Milius, who also wrote Apocalypse Now, Red Dawn, first 2 Dirty Harry movies...

https://youtu.be/MQeQWWKKvq4

The atom bomb test to the satellite launch.

Now we wait for the EMP

Old News?

[aphelion_rock]

This report of the tumbling satellite is from Tuesday, here is a report from 4 hours ago stating the satellite is in a stable orbit:


North Korea satellite in stable orbit but not seen transmitting: U.S. sources
http://www.reuters.com/article...

Ted Cruz Alert Ted Cruz Alert ( Score: +10,Studid)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted "My Daddy Rapfael Says Obama Is A Muslim" Cruz says North Korea could nuke the Superbowl.

Memo

To: Ted Cruz

You loze !!!!

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout

An orbital detonation does a lot of damage anyway.

[dsmatthews9379]

You don't need to perfect re-entry technology, you just need to detonate the weapon over the target to cause a massive amount of economic damage.

This development increase the chances of NK getting hit and hit hard in a pre-emptive strike, but without boosting their chances of successfully mounting a retaliation. It offers them absolutely no protection.

i.e. They have simply given themselves the nation state equivalent of the terrorist's suicide bomb. Because if they are sneaky they could use it, once, and then get vaporised, therefore their aim is to intimidate and terrorise other nations. Their nuclear program is not for peaceful or even practical defensive purposes.

Your move China, either put a muzzle on your lap dog or have missile systems on your doorstep. I can see why they are afraid that the US missiles in SK could carry nuclear weapons and be used against them, because there is no technical reason why they can't, yet another good reason for China to put an end to the NK experiment.

Nuclear Weapon Size

[Tenebrousedge]

There are limits to how much you can miniaturize a nuclear weapon. The term "critical mass" is key: you need a certain amount of fissionable material in order to sustain the chain reaction. This varies for different isotopes, and can be influenced by the level of explosive compression that you are able to achieve. This paper puts a lower bound for U235 and Pu at 6.5kg and 2kg respectively and discusses some of the compression methods. The smallest warhead made (W54) weighed about 23kg.

It's time..

[gubble5]

I guess we might see more of these articles in the near future which will inevitably prompt US to deploy McDonald's in North Korea.

Don't be stupid OP

[DirkDaring]

The very moment North Korea sets off a nuke of any time ends their regime. It is literally a death sentence for Kim and his entire crew. They know this.

Off topic fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get back on topic. No one gives a fuck about the bickering.

I believe North Korea is late on the whole nukes in space gig. It's been done for years. Tumbling or not, there's a good chance the US Navy will eventually shoot it down like that one time.

Detonate, ...

[martinfb]

...not Ignite! One IGNITES a flare. One DETONATES a bomb. Shhheesh! I know a good use for that particular atomic bomb: Gather all the idiots that are too careless and/or lazy in grammar to ensure that an accurate point is made (or those with twisted realities) - onto a remote desert location and DETONATE an atomic bomb over them.The world might benefit from a little gene pool purging! Well, not really actually kill anyone. The point is, if you must open your mouth in public, PLEASE deeply consider what you mean to say, and make an effort to ensure accuracy in your words! You never know when another mentally challenged person might be listening, and get the wrong idea; and then start a silly movement!

oh shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

damn.