N. Korea Launches Ballistic Missile

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.

Comments

Re:Interesting

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:Oops...

[Crashmarik]

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.

wouldn't that be closer to 5%?

[raymorris]

> 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.

Re:wouldn't that be closer to 5%?

[Pseudonym]

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

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

Re:Oops...

[meglon]

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.