Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

N. Korea Launches Ballistic Missile

Posted by timothy on from the were-the-proclaimers-aboard? dept.

The BBC reports that North Korea's military today launched a ballistic missile from that country's east coast; the missile fell into the water after a flight of about 500 miles. Reuters adds some more details, and names a different launching point. From their report: South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the missile was likely a medium-range Rodong-missile. ... The missile was launched from an area near the west coast north of the capital, Pyongyang, flying across the [peninsula] and into the sea off the east coast early Friday morning, the South's Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. CNN adds a sobering graphic indicating the projected range of North Korea's missile arsenal.

123 comments

  1. Interesting by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    The missile was launched from an area near the west coast north of the capital, Pyongyang, flying across the peninsular and into the sea off the east coast early Friday morning.

    It would be funny if we later found out that wasn't the intended flight plan.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Interesting by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be funny if we later found out that wasn't the intended flight plan.

      I'm guessing that the intended flight plan is about detailed as those of my bottle rockets on New Year's Eve. Stick it in the bottle. Light the fuse. Hope that it will land somewhere that will scare the Japanese.

      When North Korea starts placing nukes on these missiles, with no idea where they will land . . . well, that's time to upgrade your tinfoil hat to a lead hat.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Interesting by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Given that this is a missile capable of hitting nearly anywhere in about 50% of the world, I highly doubt that it's low-tech enough that they don't know which direction it's going to go in.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The intended path of all North Korean ballistic missiles lead to Seoul." - an ancient proverb from the times of nation states, before the World Order.

    4. Re:Interesting by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      This also makes the CNN range plot pretty nonsensical. Firstly, the chance of any North Korean missile making it anywhere near a fraction of that distance is pretty close to zero. Secondly, the throw weight of their missiles is pathetic, so even if they could manage to get their Golfball of Doom to the projected distance, you run into the third problem which you've already pointed out, guidance is essentially "we want it over there somewhere".

      So if you're North Korean and you want to drop a Golfball of Doom somewhere into the middle of the pacific ocean, you're fine. Try and get anything reasonable to a target and you'll have to resort to Fedex.

    5. Re:Interesting by delt0r · · Score: 2

      One reason ICBMs worked was because with nuke you don't need to be very accurate. Fortunately so far they have failed in making said nuke. But is 2016, it is a lot easier to make a nuke than in '45. Over all there is no reason to think they can't do it. Probably. Eventually. Also the low end small n. bomb is probably around 10-30kgs depending how you slice it.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:Interesting by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      That's for a country like the US or USSR/Russia. The North Koreans are still working with close to 1945 technology, and given how impoverished they are there's no sign they'll get better any time soon. So you're looking at huge, heavy physics packages that need to be lofted using souped-up V2s that aren't anywhere near capable of it, the only thing that they've got any hope of getting right is the guidance via GPS' they've bought off Aliexpress, and even then I can't imagine them getting terminal guidance working effectively using the crude systems they're working with and the operating environment they'll be subject to.

    7. Re:Interesting by delt0r · · Score: 2

      This is just not true. Sure the peasant working in the farm may not have access to the modern trappings of technology and development. But you bet your arse the nuclear bomb department has it all. They will have all the microprocessors and accelerometers and gyros they want. After all if you can get uranium, getting the other stuff is just not going to be difficult.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. Oops... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Look, it's not 1953 any more. If they actually pull out of the cease-fire, Seoul will be destroyed in a matter of minutes. If they start a war by lobbing nukes at the US, North Korea will be reduced to a sheet of glass in a matter of days, and damn the nuclear winter.

    1. Re:Oops... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      >>>reduced to a sheet of glass in a matter of days, and damn the nuclear winter.

      Nice word play, Etherwalk.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Oops... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Still, better to shoot down the missile in flight. How did it become an Accepted Truth of the left that missile defense was a bad thing? Because Reagan first proposed it? I'll take a system with a 50% chance of working (as does any cop wearing a bullet-"proof" vest). Hell, I'll take a system with a 20% chance of working over nothing, if it can be improved over time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      wrong, there were no "experts" in a field that didn't exist.

      Anti-missile tech is making amazing achievements right now

    4. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is time for the US & South Korea to sign a peace treaty with NK and officially end the war?

    5. Re:Oops... by meglon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because idiots keep saying every penny we spend on the military is a good thing, even when it's trillions of dollars wasted for shit. The "lefts" tolerance for idiots, and lies, is slightly less than the gullible cowards of the "right."

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

      Hell, I'll take a system with a 20% chance of working over nothing, if it can be improved over time.

      From the article:

      Despite years of tinkering and vows to fix technical shortcomings, the system's performance has gotten worse, not better, since testing began in 1999. Of the eight tests held since GMD became operational in 2004, five have been failures.

      So the difference is... people on the right want to piss away large amounts of money on useless things to help them from being scared of their own shadow, while people on the left want something that actually works. Must be hell going through life as a coward.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      destroyed with what? The nuclear devices they've tested can't be put on missile. This is good time to preemptively strike NK, would be very wise move

    7. Re:Oops... by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Nobody wants to start another nuclear arms race, that's why. With nobody having any real missile defense, the major powers are on a relatively equal footing - MAD.

      Developing missile defense technology would *increase* the chance of nuclear war, since someone might think they have a temporary advantage, or worse, think they're going to soon be at a disadvantage.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:Oops... by christurkel · · Score: 1

      I think it was the cost compared to the benefit IF the technology was there and there was no guarantee it was (or would be). I am on the left and I'm not against the idea per se, I just have to be convinced it's both feasible and effective.

      --

      CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    9. Re:Oops... by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Informative

      Theater Missile Defense

      http://www.britannica.com/topi...

      Your thing of the day.

      Remember THAAD is your friend

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/...

      If you would like bonus points, remember all the people who were taking a crap on president Reagan because they said this was pointless.

    10. Re:Oops... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      destroyed with what? The nuclear devices they've tested can't be put on missile. This is good time to preemptively strike NK, would be very wise move

      Conventional arms. North Korea has more than enough conventional arms aimed at Seoul to level the city.

    11. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nah, that's N. Korea "negotiator" blow-hard talk, turning Seoul into "sea of fire". except reality would be very different, and N. K. on the fag end of the deal and they know it

    12. Re:Oops... by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yup.

      We might as well just get promises to leave us alone like Chamberlain did for England back in the day. We can go and party like it was the roaring 20s as if history couldn't teach us anything at all.

      Yup, That is what we need to do. Ignore history and save money while calling others paying attention a coward.

    13. Re:Oops... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So maybe that particular program sucks. Sounds like we need to get it right, not abandon the concept. As far as the money we spend on defense, you do realize we spend less than either Medicare or Social Security, right?

      I think some believe that no time ever again in our entire future will anyone ever launch a ballistic missile at us. Wishing doesn't make it so. (and our days as the sole hyperpower have already passed).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Oops... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree there. I think there's too much tolerance for boondoggles, and too little "figure out how to do it cost-effectively, and we'll buy a bunch of it". It sure seems like an easier problem than a self-driving car, especially for ballistic targets, if we don't insist on perfect detection before starting. The Navy has solved this problem fairly well vs anti-ship missiles.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most tense borders on the planet for what, 60 years? And you don't think the South and the US don't have a plan to deal with some artillery?

    16. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Achievements so amazing that you were rendered unable to name any apparently.

    17. Re:Oops... by meglon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See, it's idiots like you i'm talking about. You have to show how much of a fucking idiot you are by conflating an attempt to negotiate with an egotistical sociopath (which in general will never work out well) to wasting trillions of dollars on COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS SHIT just so cowards can feel safer than they actually are. I mean, seriously.. you can't be that fucking stupid really... can you?

      The only thing that could make your comment even more fucking stupid would be if you were one of those idiots who constantly complain about government spending.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    18. Re:Oops... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      BMD is a very fucking hard problem. You've got objects that are moving at hypersonic speeds, if you don't catch them during the initial boost. It's like trying to shoot a .50 bullet out of air with a .22. And the best thing about it is even if you can solve it the other side can simply shoot more "bullets" then you have guns to shoot them down.

      This is also the reason I think trying to use hyper-sonic missiles against moving targets (such as ships) is such a joke. The missile is moving so fast it can't really steer, it's going to stay on the trajectory it was fired with and absolutely forget trying to avoid incoming objects as you couldn't steer fast enough to avoid anything.

      But I'll tell you one thing BMD is good for, that is throwing billions of dollars of tax payer money to defense contractors. That's the slush fund to end all slush funds because there is no way in hell the military would ever admit it doesn't work.

    19. Re:Oops... by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Straight defense spending is about the same as social security being the program WITH A DEDICATED TAX THAT FUNDS IT PAID FOR BY WORKERS. Medicare also has THAT DEDICATED TAX SYSTEM. That defense spending is just what's in the defense budget, and doesn't include veterans, the nuclear arsenal, and interest on the debt made up of past military/war expenditures. All told, our "defense" spending purely on military oriented items is ~1 trillion a year.

      BUT, here's the difference. social security are DEDICATED taxes. They are paid for by a tax that is collected ONLY because SS and Medicare exist. And i'll be honest, i think providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX, and 65 million elderly and disabled medical services WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX, to be a hell of a lot better use of money than giving billions to companies that produce weapons systems THAT DO NOT WORK.

      I do think "idiot" is a good term for anyone who would rather piss away money on something THAT DOES NOT WORK rather than helping tens of millions of people with something that does, especially when THEY PAID FOR IT WITH A DEDICATED TAX.

      So we're again back to, it takes a special kind of coward to waste money on FAILED military programs just to keep them from being scared of their shadow.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    20. Re: Oops... by slazzy · · Score: 1

      At least the nuclear winter will put an end to global warming!

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    21. Re:Oops... by chadenright · · Score: 2

      I've seen claims between 30% and 95% effectiveness for the US missile defense network. Even given a cost of 39 billion dollars and a 30% effectiveness ratio, it is still cheaper to have the defense network than to not have it.

    22. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Patriot, Arrow. Probably some others whose names are classified.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    23. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      They tried to ease the tensions. This is the result. There was an joint north-south office park where business from both countries could work. North has not used this as an opportunity to expand ties. It now effectively closed the park and increased its military posturing.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    24. Re: Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might want to get that shift key fixed, dude. It's pretty annoying.

      And can the tiresome preachy angst.

    25. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Seoul is within reach of conventional artillery. So it can be reduced to rubble within minutes without a single plane. It is roughly 20 miles away from the closest NK's border point. Katyusha's max range is 25miles. Modern artillery can reach much further. Pyongyang is ~75miles from the border with South Korea. But that doesn't really matter. If South Korea were destroyed, US would almost certainly carpet bomb the North because it now has a reason to fear it enough to justify a preemptive strike.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    26. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ronald Reagan played the same game that North Korea is attempting to play right now. He overstated the capabilities of his Star Wars missile defense system knowing that it would never be completed or deployed. At this point North Korean nuclear tests give off seismic signatures that could be faked with a sufficient amount of conventional high explosives. Until China decides to neuter the rabid lap dog that is DPRK we have to put up with them peeing all over the carpet and barking incessantly.

    27. Re:Oops... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So the difference is... people on the right want to piss away large amounts of money on useless things to help them from being scared of their own shadow, while people on the left want something that actually works. Must be hell going through life as a coward.

      Yea, thats right ... pretend that its a left vs right thing and that your side is right ... thats helpful.

      When you break down your argument to 'left' vs 'right', you've already lost and are just too stupid to realize it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    28. Re:Oops... by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      i think providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX

      You might want to consider learning about transfer entitlement taxes and spending before you go on another of your phony, pedantic, condescending lectures aimed at other people whose priorities are different than yours.

      Nobody paid for the Social Security money they later collects. Other people do. When you're working and being taxed for SS, that money is being transferred that year to recipients of that program's entitlements. As defined by congress for that year. It's not going "into your account" or anything even vaguely like that. When you retire, and start filing to collect that program's entitlements for yourself, it's going to be money that's being taxed against the income of other people who will then be working and paying to give you that money. That's why the language on those Social Security statements you see explicitly say that benefits described are only estimates, and that there is no guarantee that you will receive any benefits. Because whether you get it, and how much, is a recurring matter for the legislature, not a function of you having set money aside through that program.

      Of course you probably know this, but are using the misleading language you use in order to distract from the real situation while hoping to score rhetorical points for the occasional viewer here who doesn't know how entitlement programs work.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:Oops... by meglon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, it's called "basic accounting." I do realize there's a lot of people who know nothing about "basic accounting" or even "bookkeeping," but i can't help it if they would prefer to remain ignorant.

      There is a specific, dedicated, social security tax. That tax money goes into a pooled account which is later used to pay out when people qualify. It ain't rocket science. There's nothing misleading about the language i use; people are not as stupid as you think. And my post wasn't to be condescending, it was to point out YET AGAIN, how some people (usually those who hate the government) mislead with bullshit.... just like you're trying to do. Conservatives and projection... they go hand in hand.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    30. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand... military spending = pork barrel spending, wars = pork barrel spending. No one cares about 'the country'.

    31. Re: Oops... by phorm · · Score: 1

      And if they're talking preemptive strike, how much of the artillery (or even the military) would be left to launch?

    32. Re:Oops... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The analogy with shooting a .50cal bullet out of the air with a .22 would only be correct if the .22 bullets were made out of some nano particle magic Pt and cost a Million per shot. Then you get an idea of the cost asymmetry. It is *always* far cheaper for the attacker than the defender. This is not a new idea. MAD was the result of this number crunching at the dawn of the nuclear age.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    33. Re:Oops... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      They have simply not tested this enough to give these kind of figures. Also you really can't hide these sort of tests from the public. So it is doubtful it is based on "secret tests"

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    34. Re:Oops... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      And slightly worse. Democrat vs Republican (no it is not quite the same as left vrs right). Many Americans seem to think there is exactly 2 side and only 2 side to every single issue or problem in the world combined.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    35. Re:Oops... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Pal, i was agreeing with you. Ok too think we should put our heads in the sand and sit on our hands while ignoring potential threats in the world. Chamberlain secured peace for parts of Europe doing the same along with a little talking to threats of the time so why can't we? I don't know why you are calling me a coward. I am in agreement. If we ignore them, they will ignore us. Those exceptions in history are just outliers.

    36. Re:Oops... by euroq · · Score: 1

      +1

      The OP is implicitly arguing that the money should be put in a bottle for 30 years and then taken out and given to the person that put it in. That's not the way it works and that's not the way it should work.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    37. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whilst I understand your frustration with corruption in the defence industry and their relationships with government your arguments seem to be filled with an awful lot of bile and not a lot of substance.

      You can't simply declare a system that does not work as a complete waste of money, even ignoring the inefficiency and the backhanders that such contracts involve there is still benefit to a country in engaging in them. Even if they do not work such systems require highly skilled people, people capable of engaging in cutting edge defence research and development. Even if they fail keeping these people's skills up, and allowing them to learn is incredibly important so that as technology catches up to their ambitions they can eventually produce a version of a solution that does work.

      Further, even if you are of the opinion that countries should not engage in military adventurism, the complete pacifist view that militaries are not needed at all has simply never shown to be a succesful strategy (apart from in edge cases, such as if you're small state protected by an outside benefactor). Simply having a large cutting edge programme and being able to pour money into defence in itself creates stability, because less wealthy countries that do have ambitions of military adventurism (i.e. Russia) will simply not dare challenge you directly because they know that they simply cannot win - the qualitative edge is not a myth, it's a real thing, and it's a winning formula for stability.

      Now I'm sure some smart arse will say "What stability - look at Syria!" but the fact is the world is still relatively stable right now. Russia is tinkering in ex-soviet states like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova et. al. but without the qualitative deterrent of potentially facing up against a strong NATO it's incredibly likely that Russia would also be dabbling in Estonia, Latvia, and perhaps even places like Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic destabilising them in the process. Another common argument by isolationists is "Why should we care? We're fine over here so it's not our problem" - maybe that's true, but the more stable independent nations there are, the more nations there are for you to trade with and sell your goods to. You cannot both be isolationist and expect to be consistently wealthy because your wealth, your economy are intricately linked to the number of neutral or friendly nations that are willing to trade with you - if you do not make any effort to stabilise or increase the number of nations in that pool, someone else will do it for their pool, and there'll be less for you, and so you'll end up losing wealth (and geopolitical power, which means things might start going against you, like the rest of the world voting to take over the internet or whatever the fuck they decide to come up with).

      Do I think corruption in the military industrial complex needs to be dealt with? fucking absolutely. Do I think projects are often poorly organised and planned? definitely. But am I convinced that that money would be spent any better elsewhere? No, not at all. All you'll do is move the corruption, and you'll have similar questions about "Why are we creating this pointless railway that wont serve any customers because no one wants to ride on that route!" and so on and so forth.

      The problem is, you're an idealist, and that's a somewhat noble thing to be (and that's why you talk with such passion on the issue), but declaring that your ideals must, should, and can become reality and that anyone else not agreeing is an "idiot" or "stupid" is going to inevitably lead to disappointment when you're faced with the bitter pragmatism of reality. Having and wanting to pursue ideals is a good thing, but talking down anyone that disagrees with you is the least effective way to get people to listen to them.

      So sure, you may have paid for a missile defence system that did not work, but you created jobs, and maintained an important skillset for continuing to have geopolitical importance. You learnt things that might let you get

    38. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iron Dome in Israel shoots down RPGs all the time...

    39. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do waste a lot on the military, but it's not entirely wasted. I can't remember the last time I got sick, so my immune system must be useless.

    40. Re:Oops... by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Social Security is a dedicated tax, but the money goes into a general fund and even the government has no idea exactly how much of it is really SS... Much less how they are going to take care of the baby boomers.

      What I don't understand is the shortsightedness in defense spending. Yes, some things don't work. The F-35 is a shining example of that, though it is now showing promise after going over budget and schedule. That is part of R&D, and part of DARPAs mission. Develop new technologies to solve advanced problems. Some are winners. Most are losers. That same defense spending also has yielded some great stuff that we use every day. Here's a few examples (sorry for the multiple page nonsense, they don't have a "print version" link).

      Fact of the matter is due to the financial accountability for every dollar spent, there's multiple layers of approvals for the simplest purchases. One hammer can require 4 signatures just to purchase it, to say nothing of all the arrangements made so the government can buy from that supplier in the first place. There's your $300 hammer.

    41. Re:Oops... by eumoria · · Score: 1

      you MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER typing like a normal person so people don't think YOU'RE A FUCKING MANIAC but screaming EVERY OTHER PHRASE

    42. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the person you replied to, but let me say this. Your original argument was that, to put it very simply, Social Security provides better utility than war/weapons spending.

      Now, imagine for a second, if instead of using that trillion on defense and past war debt (assume the debt is paid off), if it were divided amongst the 300 million or so Americans (and permanent residents). I imagine having ~$250/person/month extra would benefit so many families and individuals.

    43. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you don't know much about artillery warfare, do you.

      reality would be artillery batteries very quickly destroyed

    44. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The systems named above are very, very different than trying to take out a ballistic missile. It's like saying that flying to Mars should be easy, because JetBlue flies from LA to New York every day...

    45. Re:Oops... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      China is right next to NK. I do not believe that we believe that China would not be concerned or that China would not retaliate in kind. Add in that Russia might join in, sensing an opportunity to be rid of an opponent. No, there would be no nuclear option, at least not to start.

      MacArthur did not believe the Chinese would get involved in the Korean "police action" when UN forces were getting close to the Chinese border, but they sure did. It would be Ground Forces and Conventional Air action. Possibly involving China after a period.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    46. Re:Oops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until China decides to neuter the rabid lap dog that is DPRK we have to put up with them peeing all over the carpet and barking incessantly.

      China is a shithole, my friend. People overestimate China's capabilities all the time. It is itself just a modern-ish North Korea. I repeat: a shithole.

    47. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Only if they are destroyed pre-emptively. Massive battery shelling with explosive charges against high-density targets would reduce the city to rubble within half hour. Even if a counter strike took them out within 10 minutes, the mount Seoul which would be destroyed would make it unlivable. High-density city are very interdependent. Think about how much damage destruction of two sky scrapers did in NYC. It caused massive outages of civilian services in the surrounding areas (electric, internet, etc.) for months after. Now think about a city of the same size which sees 1/3 of its buildings destroyed and most roads damaged. Artillery is easily suppressed in a battlefield because its rate of hitting sparsely-spaced targets is low. But if it's hitting high-density targets like a city, each shot would do massive damage without even aiming. It's an equivalent of carpet-bombing with the only exception that there is no need to fly back to reload. The shells are sitting next to the artillery itself. The proximity of Seoul to the border is a huuuge problem. Don't underestimate it.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    48. Re:Oops... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a dedicated, specific tax. And it is used to fund the CURRENT transfers to recipients. You DO NOT HAVE an "account" in to which anything has been deposited for your later use. Trying to convey that to people is you being either spectacularly ignorant or (much more likely) deliberately disingenuous. Deceitful. Essentially, you are lying and you know it (or should).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    49. Re:Oops... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I did not misunderstand his discussions about "accounts". I did not read any posts with people misunderstanding. Your repeated insistence about it seems to have the hallmarks of a strawman argument. Then you both went ad-hominem and it got boring.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    50. Re:Oops... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Boeing, is that you?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    51. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous. Seoul is 230+ square miles.

    52. Re:Oops... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I did not read any posts with people misunderstanding

      What? How can a phrase like "providing 40 million elderly a fixed income WHICH THEY PAID FOR WITH A DEDICATED TAX" represent anything other than a pure misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation? A given elderly person, if they're receiving SS entitlements, are getting money that is being taxed from people who are currently working. The money the elderly person is receiving is NOT money that they paid in taxes back when they. The SS taxes they themselves paid were used to fund SS recipients at the time they were taxed. There is no put-it-in-take-it-out-later going on. There is no "which they paid for" at all. There is only a transfer tax: money is taken from your paycheck today, and given to other people, today. Whether or to what degree that will be true when than same worker retires later is not driven by whether SS was paid or how much was during their working years. It's a real-time welfare style tax and distribution system, subject to continual adjustment by the legislature.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      How much are downtown + key infrastructure points (electric plants, sewage treatment, water purification)?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    54. Re:Oops... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's the way it works. Interestingly, it continues to work. Probably something to do with "continual adjustment by the legislature". Every few years one party or another makes it an election issue. Then it goes away for awhile, then we get news of adjustments that'll make it solvent for a while longer.

      My opinion is that there's a lot *not* to like the way it is done. And how the money is handled, etc. But the sky is not falling, irregardless the FUD dealers that have convinced many in the younger generations that "SS won't be there for you; it's a scam; it's a waste of money".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    55. Re:Oops... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      replied to my post instead of yours. sry

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    56. Re:Oops... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      portable versions of those exist for anything lost in the fraction of an hour before the N.K. artillery batties are annihilated. the USN will deliver any that S. Korea itself is lacking. Also large ships themselves can even help. On related note, let Jong Un bomb or shell one of Uncle Sam's big boats that is helping and see what he gets

    57. Re:Oops... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      North Korea would enter the fight with the full knowledge that they would lose. It would be a MAD (mutually assured destruction) fight. They would be reaching for the largest body count they can reach before having their military completely disabled. They are posing this threat because they believe the survival of the regime is at stake. So threat is that if the regime is destabilized by any means (military or not), they will cause havoc while going down. It would be all the logic of a suicide bomber living without hope for the future and only seeking to destroy as much as he can before his own death. After the key infrastructure is destroyed, the Korean military would have its hands full maintaining order and attempting to provide life-sustaining operations in the city. This would give the North Korea more time to continue shelling. Unlike the city of Seoul, they would be shooting from sparsely-spaced targets. So it would take longer to take them out.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  3. Not concerning by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    If nk preempts the Chinese won't do a damn thing. Other countries won't preempt due to having no reason to.

  4. 800km vs 9000km by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    800km is a pretty far cry from the 9000km range on the graphic. And scaling up isn't all that easy to do, much less include a payload of significant mass.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:800km vs 9000km by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      that's for the longer range missiles that have to date spectacularly failed for various reasons. So yes it's laughable until N. Korea works out the bugs in the Taipodong-2

    2. Re:800km vs 9000km by meglon · · Score: 1

      There's 4 things a successful strike needs... a launch, flight, targeting, and detonation. We've seen they can launch, they're so-so at best on flight, their targeting is so bad about the only thing they can hit at the moment is the ocean (and usually no where near where they wanted). Detonation... well, i suppose it depends on if those nuclear bomb tests that ended up not being nuclear were actually supposed to be or not. Either way, they can complete the easiest step, and it goes downhill fast for the harder things.

      The best they could legitimately do is claim their test was successful because that's where they meant to hit the ocean. That doesn't mean their politicians won't try to scare people, and some of our politicians won't start running around with their heads up their ass being cowards.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:800km vs 9000km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Type-O-Dong 2? Which type of dong was the 1?

    4. Re: 800km vs 9000km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We went into Iraq on far less...

    5. Re: 800km vs 9000km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can actually manage to strike a populated area anywhere in allied territory, either purposefully or by accident, that means they can start WW3. Enough of a reason to be weary, I dare say.

    6. Re:800km vs 9000km by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong Dong, it went off like a firework.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    7. Re: 800km vs 9000km by meglon · · Score: 2

      They can strike "allied" territory any time they want.... Seoul is within range of who knows how many NK arty batteries. If NK escalates their rhetorical bullshit into a hot incident, it will most likely be an arty barrage on the SK civilian population coinciding with an armored push into the DMZ. This entire missile thing is simple bluster, like the war parades of the old Soviet Union.

      It won't be WW3 though. When we went into Iraq in 1990, the Iraqi military at that time was the 4th largest in the world. It was mostly current, and 1-gen back Soviet military hardware. It showed in the first few days to be completely inferior to ours. NK, at this time, is still using 1-gen back Soviet gear... 1-gen back as of 1951. Admittedly, they do have some current Soviet hardware...well, again, current as of 1951. We were still flying several prop driven WWII fighter aircraft against them at the time.

      Don't get me wrong, their arty may be from the 50's, but if you lob a shell downrange and it explodes....well, that will delay Christmas for who ever is in the area of effect... but their armor most likely can be compromised with single LAW strikes, and we won't need to fly into their airspace (and their SAM coverage) to hit them with some very precision cruise missiles.

      On top of that, they really don't have much in the way of allies. Hell, even China would rather they just shut up now days (which is you remember history, China was the reason NK wasn't overrun by the UN in short order the first time around). If they started a hot war, it would be a brutal few days if you live within 30-40 miles south of the DMZ, and then it would be much much worse if you lives north of the DMZ.... with no real end in sight.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:800km vs 9000km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kind ur mom sucks.

    9. Re: 800km vs 9000km by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction...

    10. Re: 800km vs 9000km by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know I would say for vast majority of the population north of the DMZ, there is a good chance the result would be much much better as the result of Kim Jong-un and his cronies starting a hot war.

    11. Re: 800km vs 9000km by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I'm amused at everyone that thinks South Korea would sit while 233 square miles of Seoul leveled over hours of artillery barrage. Sorry muh niggahs, that not how it would go down. They would START an artillery barrage and then the artillery quickly taken out.

    12. Re:800km vs 9000km by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They have no problem generating nuclear blasts. What they claim they have done, but have not been able to do is fusion blasts, or hydrogen bombs (same thing, different name).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re: 800km vs 9000km by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that NK actually has any of those batteries manned, and it is entirely possible they don't even have the ammo for them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Bit of a typo in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    flying across the peninsular

  6. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently they can't reach anywhere near where I live with this outdated missiles.

  7. well, Kim Dumb-Ass by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    said his NK had mini-me nukes. maybe the payload would fly that far.

    1. Re:well, Kim Dumb-Ass by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      NK claimed to have nukes small enough to fit on a missile. That is not mini-me nukes, that's volkswagon bug sized nukes. A modern nuclear weapon is pretty good sized, even though they are relatively compact they are not light weight.

  8. wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > Given that this is a missile capable of hitting nearly anywhere in about 50% of the world,

    It says 500 miles for this launch, and it's believed they can go a bit further, maybe 800 miles.

    Last I checked, the earth is roughly about 24,000 miles around. Ballistic missiles, unlike cruise missiles, also can't hit just anywhere within their max range. If max range is 800 miles, minimum might be 400 miles.

    1. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Funny

      As everyone who played Dune 2 knows, you can send a single infantry guy against a mobile rocket launcher and the rocket launcher vehicle will hopelessly fire rockets than land damn anywhere at their minimum range ; meanwhile the infantry guy slowly fires bullet after bullet until the vehicle is set on fire. It's dangerous still : the enemy supreme commander may order the rocket vehicle to move a bit, which crushes the infantry guy.

    2. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Funny

      As everyone who played Dune 2 knows, [...]

      President Trump is going to need a defense secretary. Mind if we put your name forward?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      President Trump is going to need a defense secretary.

      That's God Emperor Trump to you, heretic.

    4. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      God Emperor Trump

      So, I googled "God Emperor Trump" and laughed. Then I became afraid, very afraid.,

    5. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      baron Donald Harkonnen? :)

    6. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in Starcraft II, taking drugs makes your infantry outrun aircraft. What's your point? Video game logic isn't representative of the physical universe. Shooting vehicles doesn't make them explode. Running over people with poorly maneuverable military vehicles is easily foiled by the masterful military strategy known as "stepping to the side".

    7. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In the real world, the installation or vehicle has infantry assets to protect it from ground attacks. They do not just send out rocket launchers without protection - even if they're behind the lines. Even the artillery of today, even the US' artillery that runs and guns from behind the lines, has protection from local attacks to-hand just to prevent just such a thing. Tanks will even often have an attachment of infantry to keep them protected, though that's marginally less of a problem than it traditionally was in large conflicts.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Those are some great pictures.

      I think it is funny to see the Democratic supporters going crazy over Trump, the same people who thought Obama was the second coming.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Trump is going to need a defense secretary. Mind if we put your name forward?

      I think @blaskowicz would be over qualified for that job.

    10. Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, must be fun. Wait 'til Trump makes a left turn after the primary. The Show Must Go On.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  9. nyah nyah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nyah Nyah you missed. You silly fools with your silly rockets. We fart in your general direction while mooning you with our naked derrieres.

  10. What's the angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I must be missing something. Iraq got invaded for far less, and it was later shown they didn't actually have shit.

    What is Kim thinking? He just showed he has a slingshot to a bunch of older and more experienced guys that have guns. He's trying to appear dangerous and crazy, and he's only succeeding at the latter. He can't really think he will last longer than a few hours if he makes one wrong move - shit, I bet China would take him out first if he gets much more uppity. They don't want some dumb retard ruining world peace (ahem, trade and $$$) any more than anyone else does.

    I ask you /., what's really going on here?

    1. Re:What's the angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's he thinking? That Obama doesn't have the balls to do what George W. did, and the next president isn't likely to have the stones either. Nobody else is going to do anything if the US doesn't hold their hands across the street. So Kim's got a good 5 years before he really has to worry about anything from the West.

    2. Re:What's the angle here? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      I must be missing something. Iraq got invaded for far less, and it was later shown they didn't actually have shit.

      That's precisely the reason they are developing weapons. Dubya's "War to Avenge Daddy" showed dictators that if they cooperate and disarm, then they are going to end up like Saddam did, dead. Of the "axis of evil" countries, Iraq had by far the weakest military and the fewest weapons, and guess which one got invaded? The man child has fucked up the world for generations to come, and any dipshit who voted for him and supported his attempts to play army man have to take responsibility for the current situation in the middle east and North Korea.

      --
      Monstar L
    3. Re:What's the angle here? by chadenright · · Score: 1

      If Trump gets elected what do you bet North Korea starts playing nice before he's finished the Oath of Office? The man is crazy and evil, and has made a career out of burning to the ground the businesses he's put in charge of, so there won't be much of a US left after he's done with it, but he is just the man to scare North Korea into thinking there is someone bigger, meaner, and more crazy than them in the dog park.

    4. Re:What's the angle here? by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The West wont touch NK because of China, China doesn't want to deal with NK because it doesn't want to deal with millions of desperate migrants out of NK, nor does it want a likely Western oriented nation (United Korea) directly on it's doorstep.

      The calculus will change if and when North Korea becomes a bigger problem to have on your doorstep than a Western friendly nation would and the cost of refugees ends up being lower than the cost of a madman. China doesn't want to have to occupy North Korea because it's already got enough restive regions on it's plate to deal with such as Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang province etc. without having to add yet another one. Contrary to China's big strong image it's a fragile divided nation only one arab-spring type event away from seeing a pandemic of breakaway states. It doesn't need another one of those on it's plate if it can help it.

      Kim exists as he does because he's convenient to the Chinese now - having a buffer nation to retain extremely poor North Koreans so that you don't have to deal with them yourself, and to separate you physically from a Western facing nation like South Korea is extremely convenient for China. As soon as he becomes much more inconvenient he and his state will cease to exist as they do now - if Kim keeps people poor the number of people trying to escape to China will only increase and so China will suffer the refugee influx regardless. If he keeps acting in a manner that forces a greater Western military buildup in the seas around the area then the relevance of that buffer zone between them and the West will start to erode also.

      Kim can push, but only so far, and if he crosses a line he'll no longer be useful.

    5. Re:What's the angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nor does it want a likely Western oriented nation (United Korea) directly on it's doorstep.

      Sure. Like there's no South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and the Philippines at heir doorstep.

    6. Re:What's the angle here? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Three of those are part of China already, the other three aren't physically attached to China. North Korea is physically attached.

  11. Remember that crazy Bernie Sanders? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Remember when crazy Bernie Sanders said the country we need to be most concerned about was North Korea? So dumb. Smart and sensible Clinton knew it was Iran. That's why she's made a Libya such a great place.

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    1. Re: Remember that crazy Bernie Sanders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can make Hillary the first woman on a half dollar if we're lucky.

    2. Re:Remember that crazy Bernie Sanders? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why is talking accurately about Hillary Clinton's abject uselessness as Secretary of State somehow "panicking" from your perspective? Isn't the whole point of the election season to examine each candidate's skills, achievements, and general sensibilities and to weigh them against what you want to see in office? Her many years as a proven serial liar make her fundamentally unfit for that office. It's not "panicking" to point that out.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Remember that crazy Bernie Sanders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* partisan partisan partisan partisan blablabla it never ends.

      There are more than Republicans who hate that racist Clinton.

    4. Re:Remember that crazy Bernie Sanders? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      Hasn't occurred to you that I'm actually a Sanders supporter? And I am actually bringing up a relevant fact. You Clinton supporters are so trollish and silly.

      --
      Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
  12. Meanwhile, in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump went ballistic today, launching spittle that flew 800 km. Upon hearing this, Putin phoned to challenge him to a spitting contest.

  13. CNN adds a sobering graphic by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should add a sobering graphic of North Korea's half-life should they ever launch an armed missile at anyone.

    1. Re:CNN adds a sobering graphic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be smaller than a pixel, so it would be a very boring graph

    2. Re:CNN adds a sobering graphic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half-life 3 is near! And this time its accepted uses include drunkenness.

  14. Kim Jong-un wants a pair of Nike Self-Lacing Shoes by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    10 free pairs of shoes per year, for life, and he will stop threatening to vaporise the rest of humanity.

  15. Crazy Kim Jong-un still in power while Gaddafi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crazy Kim Jong-un is still in power while Gaddafi and Saddam, who compromised with the West, are dead.

    What lesson is to be learned here? Crazy brinkmanship is the winning strategy because America offers no compromise.

  16. Roosters found each other by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Cockfighting never ends, because there is money in it.

  17. Not Exactly by pigwiggle · · Score: 1

    There is a specific, dedicated, social security tax. That tax money goes into a pooled account which is later used to pay out when people qualify.

    Except it doesn't really go into any traditional sort of "account". That pooled account doesn't represent actual money. It represents an *obligation*. That "specific, dedicated, social security tax" is, instead, used to fund a whole host of other things the federal government wants. And in turn they've promised to repay as needed. Which means additional taxes on top of that "dedicated" tax.

    Basic accounting. Hardly. Imagine if a bank were allowed to loan itself money and then call it an investment - and count it as an asset toward their balance.

    --
    46 & 2
  18. Why do they hate The Sea so much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, come on, how many missiles do they really have to fire at it?

    "We hate you, The Sea! You represent all the things we despise, like the freedom to lap at the shores of other lands, dolphins and, uh, ...water... Die, die, *die* from our glorious missiles of eternal sea-fightingness!"

    I suspect someone didn't learn to swim as a chubby awkward kid and didn't get invited to all the fun pool parties.

  19. Rodong?? by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    Like Rodan's penis?

  20. Re:Crazy Kim Jong-un still in power while Gaddafi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't share a border with China, if they did they might still be in power.

  21. Fishes now building up a nuclear arsenal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiroshima(Reuters) - Satellites have just picked up that fishes in the Yellow Sea are now building a nuclear arsenal with help from Russia to retaliate next time.

    The buildup include plans to procure 10 cheap submarines with hull breaches(because fish don't mind if their submarine leaks) to use as a launching platform according to a spokeperson for the fishes.