Slashdot Mirror


US: North Korean Missile Launch a 'Catastrophic' Failure (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: North Korea failed to launch an intermediate-range missile on Friday, multiple news outlets, citing American and South Korean military officials, are reporting. The failure, The Washington Post reports, caused the regime an embarrassing blow on the most important day of the year on the North Korean calendar. For those unaware, North Korea had planned -- and tried -- to launch a missile to mark the 104th anniversary of the birthday of the country's 'eternal president,' Kim Il Sung.ABC further reports: "It was a fiery, catastrophic attempt at a launch that was unsuccessful," Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday. U.S. officials are still assessing, but it was likely a road-mobile missile, given that it was launched from a location not usually used for ballistic missile launches, on the country's east coast, he said. The UN Security Council issued a statement saying its members "strongly condemned" the North's firing of a ballistic missile, which it said constituted a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions although the launch was a failure. "We strongly condemn North Korea's missile test in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, which explicitly prohibit North Korea's use of ballistic missile technology," the official said.

120 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. space-based lasers by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    are now operational

  2. In North Korean Headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spectacular Fireworks To Celebrate Anniversary Of Glorious Leader Kim il Sung Birthday Huge Success!

    1. Re:In North Korean Headlines by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      In other news, NK' chief engineer Wernher Jeong -Ban will be visiting Hoeryong concentration camp very soon.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:In North Korean Headlines by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hamas Space Program Needs Your Help!

      Gaza's space agency, Hamas Glory to the Stars, needs funding to help its rockets reach orbit. So far they have been falling short, usually landing in Israel.

      They keep experimenting with new fuels and rocket designs, but so far they still can't reach orbit, landing in Israeli neighborhoods. They are now asking for outside donations to help them purchase better rocket parts.

      - weaklytimes.blogspot.com

  3. Bluffing by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

    They don't actually have much in the ways of nukes or missiles. They know they would be decimated in any war, so they detonate every single nuke and launch every missile they have to ensure that people don't bother them.

    1. Re:Bluffing by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They don't have real nukes or ballistic missiles, yes, as that needs tech. They do have, though, an enormous number of 1950-era pieces of conventional artillery that would kill millions in northern parts of South Korea. This includes Seoul which is close to the border and whose metro area makes up roughly half of South Korea's population.

      And that artillery is well dug-in in mountainous terrain so even nuking them wouldn't stop the carnage.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Bluffing by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And that artillery is well dug-in in mountainous terrain so even nuking them wouldn't stop the carnage.

      Nuking within 50 miles of Seoul would be counterproductive if your goal were to avoid deaths in South Korea, but I wouldn't be too sure about the above claim. 1950s-era artillery typically requires manual operation - killing the soldiers near it will prevent it from firing. Even if it's dug in, fuel-air bombs that either burn them out or make the air unbreathable would likely remove the threat, though it may not be politically feasible to kill that many people.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Bluffing by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are anti-gun radar that can pinpoint the location of the gun accurately. The gun fires two or three shells to estimate the range, it waits for the shell to land, get the feedback to adjust the firing angle, azimuth and elevation. But before it could fire the next shell, it would be receiving counter strikes, anti gun radar and other technology has become that good. So dug in artillery pieces are sitting ducks. Shoot and scoot can fire a few shells randomly and run, but it could not strike with accuracy.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Bluffing by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even if it's dug in, fuel-air bombs that either burn them out or make the air unbreathable would likely remove the threat, though it may not be politically feasible to kill that many people.

      Unless they're protected well enough that isn't going to get them all. I'm of the view that the North Korean artillery position is based on use of nukes by their foes. That means they're hardened against worse than fuel-air bombs.

    5. Re:Bluffing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Artillery emplacements generally require a hole to shoot out of.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Bluffing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's well dug in and been there for 50 years. That means the locations are zeroed. It would be carnage, but wouldn't last nearly as long as the north Koreans hope. The south would have the air from second 1 of the 'war'.

      Fuel air is a nasty new thing against fortifications. Hardened against nukes is not enough. Shockwave reflecting berms do nothing. Also cluster bombs.

      A friend stationed on the DMZ in the early 90s was of the opinion that they were there to keep the south from going north as much as anything. N Korean military is huge, but the South's military is bad ass and armed with the latest American goodies. Even then, they had every North Korean position zeroed and were ready to go.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Bluffing by khallow · · Score: 1

      Open a hatch, fire, and close it. There only needs to be a hole at the moment of shooting.

    8. Re:Bluffing by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      That means they're hardened against worse than fuel-air bombs.

      As it happens, the effect on personnel of a FAE in foxholes, tunnels and bunkers is considerably more drastic than it is to people in the open because the pressure wave is far more concentrated in confined spaces. Unless the NK positions are completely airtight at the time of the blast (which would render them temporarily unusable) you could easily end up with undamaged artillery that's out of action because all of the gun crews are dead. And, even if they survived, there's a good chance that the side effects of the experience would have rendered them unable to work the guns, as happened to the crews of some of the German gun emplacements defending the beaches on D-Day.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Bluffing by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "N Korean military is huge"

      Mainly because it's the only way of ensuring you and your family get fed.

      It's been said that most of the battalions facing SK have no bullets for their weapons because in the event of hostilities commencing the first shots fired would be through the head of the local commanding officers.

      Remember what happened in Iraq in 1991. At least 1/4 of the army simply dropped their weapons and tried to surrender as soon as the americans showed up. The Republican Guard was a different matter but a conscript army has no will to get itself killed and would quite likely see an invasion as an opportunity to save both themselves and their families.

    10. Re:Bluffing by khallow · · Score: 1

      Unless the NK positions are completely airtight at the time of the blast

      Ok. I bet NK has done that already as part of their preparations for nuclear attack.

      And, even if they survived, there's a good chance that the side effects of the experience would have rendered them unable to work the guns, as happened to the crews of some of the German gun emplacements defending the beaches on D-Day.

      They seem to have a lot of artillery and a lot of people.

      My view on this is that once again, this is a situation where the effectiveness of an air platform weapon is exaggerated while the survivability of ground locations against the air platform have been understated. There's plenty of evidence that hardened military positions can survive substantial bombardment from the worst including nuclear and fuel-air weapons.

  4. Somebody's gonna get dead... by moosehooey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I feel bad for the rocket scientists who are gonna be executed in some horrible way...

    1. Re:Somebody's gonna get dead... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Not even 'Lil Kim is that stupid. After all, this is rocket science. And rapid unscheduled disassembly is part and parcel of rocket science.

      "If it doesn't blow, it doesn't go'.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Somebody's gonna get dead... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm guessing that they will be the guest passengers of honor on the next missile launch . . .

      An interesting side note . . . I watched a documentary about the early years of the Soviet Union's space program. After a launch test exploded, the general in charge asked one of the chief designers, I believe it was Sergey Korolev, "Who was responsible for this failure!" In other words, who should be sent to Siberia. Korolev stood behind his engineers, and answered, "I am responsible."

      We could use a few more engineering executive like that these days.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Somebody's gonna get dead... by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt that. The rocket scientists are probably some of the only people in NK who are able to feel reasonably safe, as long as they stay out of politics.

      Even in the Kim dynasty ends in a coup by some other faction, the next dictator is still going to want to have those rockets.

    4. Re:Somebody's gonna get dead... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not even 'Lil Kim is that stupid.

      Oh yes he is :
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:Somebody's gonna get dead... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      He's absolutely this stupid. Public failure of a technology demonstration in North Korea, on Kim Jon Il's birthday? Some rocket scientists are getting tossed into Kim Jon Un's Sarlacc pit as we write.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    6. Re: Somebody's gonna get dead... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Some rocket scientists are getting tossed into Kim Jon Un's Sarlacc pit as we write.

      They're going to be required to pleasure their Leader by fisting him??

  5. It was not a failure! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Dear leader just decided that the people of North Korea should see first hand what kind of punishment he has in store for the imperialist pigs, so they know why they do not want to live there.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was pretty much thinking this. Why does it matter what Li'l Kim does? Did he change his last name to Kadashian or why does anyone care?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Kim Jong-Un be singin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Cause what you see you might not get
    And we can bet so don't you get souped yet
    You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage
    I'm trying to tell you now it's sabotage
    Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
    Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
    Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
    Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage

  8. Kim Jong Un by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Kim Jong Un, using his Cartman voice: "I meant to do that!"

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Kim Jong Un by Livius · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if he did. An "unsuccessful" test achieves the ideal balance between creating anxiety that will lead to concessions and hand-outs, without actually being dangerous and sparking an unpleasant intervention.

    2. Re:Kim Jong Un by gtall · · Score: 1

      Stop watching TV, it is bad for you.

    3. Re:Kim Jong Un by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Ah, the SG-1 approach. The 'dud' rocket that will take years to get working. Very nice.

  9. DUH by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Obviously everyone has it wrong. This was just a very, very large firecracker.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  10. I'm confused? by Diac · · Score: 1

    Has all long range missile testing been banned for everyone or just for north korea?

  11. Re:Nork Watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While they haven't proven themselves capable of attacking far away cities like Seattle and San Francisco yet, they are capable of bombing the crap out of South Korea and/or Japan. So that's kind of a big deal.

    They also (maybe) have nuclear weapons, which are always an issue.

    If other countries like the US and China stop giving North Korea food, they will certainly attack the countries they hate as their last hurrah. They won't completely starve to death, and they won't up and surrender because the top officials would be treated like high ranked Nazis.

  12. Your friend by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your "friend" visited the heavily scripted tourist areas of North Korea. It's not an accurate comparison.

    1. Re:Your friend by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Not a dramatic difference, you say?
      While satellite imagery is nice, it's only a proxy. Try reading some of the stories told by people who used to live in NK and have fled the country.

      People used to use your line when talking about the Soviet Union. Guess what? The wall fell, the USSR collapsed and the situation turned out to have been as bad as we'd been led to believe by "propaganda", if not worse.

    2. Re:Your friend by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Try reading some of the stories told by people who used to live in NK and have fled the country.

      Why should we believe them? Anybody who wants to leave NK must be a capitalist running-dog and a lackey of the round-eyed yankee scum!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Your friend by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Google 'korea night satellite picture' you halfwit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Your friend by khallow · · Score: 1

      SK is definitely better off, but the difference is not as dramatic as you have been led to believe.

      Here's an example of the difference. I think it shows just how false your assertion is.

    5. Re:Your friend by khallow · · Score: 1

      Here's an even better satellite photo comparison. What makes it particularly relevant is that it's images of the Korean peninsula in 1992 and 2008 at night. One can see clearly that both South Korea and China to the north grew considerably brighter in these images while North Korea did not. So even if the difference between South and North Korea were "not as dramatic as I've been led to believe", it's a difference which is growing!

    6. Re:Your friend by Megol · · Score: 2

      I don't see how wasting of energy on non-essential things (most of the light you see at night is from deserted buildings, advertising etc.) is a positive trait. But maybe I misunderstood the point of your post?

    7. Re:Your friend by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Your "friend" visited the heavily scripted tourist areas of North Korea. It's not an accurate comparison.

      ... and you know this because your government's propaganda told you to believe it.

      Learn to think for yourself. Go to Google maps, and pan across the DMZ. Compare random areas of north and south. SK is definitely better off, but the difference is not as dramatic as you have been led to believe.

      No, I know this because I have friends who have visited North Korea, had "minders" with them whenever they went anywhere, and know you can't go outside of certain tourist areas.

    8. Re:Your friend by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because clearly artificial light is wasting energy on non-essential things.

      Signed,
      the 18th century.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. Re:Nork Watch by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a friend that just returned from a trip to Asia. He visited both Koreas. His take, same thing with different propaganda.

    South Korea has some significant things that NK doesn't, like food and electricity,

    Look up one of those NASA composites of night shots of Earth from the ISS. What's that brilliantly lit island between Japan and China, you wonder? But look closer: it's really a peninsula.

  14. Hardly by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    Unless you have an endless supply of rocket scientists this is a bad idea.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Hardly by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He might just have a near endless supply of rocket scientists. The problem being that they're not particularly *good* rocket scientists.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Real Consequences For Their Actions! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Better watch out, North Korea! If you keep this up, the UN might write you a sternly worded letter! You'll wither before the might of their disapproving frown! If you really piss them off, they might even submit a motion to consider a vote on a non-binding resolution, at a later date!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Real Consequences For Their Actions! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As soon as NK actually manages to launch a missile that might hit something other than the ocean or the launch site, the members of the UNSC will get arsed to actually care. Stern words are sufficient protection from these rockets.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Real Consequences For Their Actions! by gtall · · Score: 1

      It is worse than that, the U.S. might send John Kerry to talk at them....a very low blow.

  16. Re:Nork Watch by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Why does it matter what Li'l Kim does?

    These stories are to distract us from even worse enemies (depending on your POV of course)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. Re:Nork Watch by Ilarih · · Score: 1

    Your "friend" did not noticed anything different. Like all people in North Korea are slim, because they are on permanet diet, because they do not have extra food. And maybe he do not noticed propaganda. Or was asked about filming and given some guidance. But I have heard that even if you take part in White house toured guidance, you will face somekind of propaganda. But North Korea is a very different land. In fact that makes it intresting for a tourist

  18. Re: Nork Watch by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    they are capable of bombing the crap out of South Korea

    As they've been for over half a century; tell me, what objectives would be fulfilled by doing this?? (Yeah, I didn't think so; nice try though.)

    ...and/or Japan.

    What, with all their stealth bombers?! Shut the fuck up, already.

  19. Mocking someone on the ground? by burni2 · · Score: 1

    I don't "favour" NK because its a fascist regime where human rights have no significance at all.

    But, why should we pay attentition to the failures of the NK rocket program, when we should focus more on the successes of this program, and the nuclear program. Because the successes tend to be much more dangerous than the failures.

    Citation: "It was a fiery, catastrophic attempt at a launch that was unsuccessful,"

    Should we now call every exploded - and most importantly unmanned - U.S. military or commercial launch failiure also a fiery catastrophic attempt?

    But no, because it would be propaganda. Yes, not only does NK propaganda, everybody does it.

    It should be called what it was:
    1.) a hefty and repeated violation of an U.N. resolution - that will mostly go unpunished because there is not really anything more to sanction, even China had put NK on a strict diet.

    2.) an attempt to have good propaganda

    3.) a failed missile launch

    4.) death by firing squad for the person in charge

    And nothing more, to try to taunt NK or Kim Jong Un is just that kind of slimy and stinking propaganda everybody knows from NK - it stinks and just replaying this propaganda is like getting down on the same level with the NK regime.

    Civilised press should not relay propaganda of any kind especially not uncommented.

    1. Re:Mocking someone on the ground? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why should we pay attentition to the failures of the NK rocket program

      Because the rocket program has far more significance than the nuclear program. All the nukes in the world don't mean a thing if you can't deliver them. NK may be trying to fuck up Japan and China (the South has kinda learned to live with this shit) so they might ease up on the sanctions and/or take them seriously as a regional power.

      But NK's rockets and nukes are more posturing than tactical. To mean anything, they would have to have the capability to mass-produce these devices (turn them out like sausages, to paraphrase Kruschev back in the day), which NK will never be able to do with their economy. That leaves them with a capacity to, at worst, blow their wad one time, then sit defenseless and receive a crushing retaliation from whatever country their wayward missile fell upon (be a real thing if a missile flew by to mistake China).

      OTOH, the regime needs regularly-scheduled holidays and ceremonies to keep all but its hungriest citizens busy and engaged in non-subversive activities. I offer this as an amusing, admittedly biased, but actual footage of a visit to NK and their weird cultish every-day required devotion to the founder and the great leader, particularly on their birthdays. They also need to maintain the narrative that they have the strongest army in the world, and that foreign invasion will happen at any time. Indeed, they have a million-man standing army to maintain each day from falling apart under its own weight. Thus, the dog-and-pony show of missiles and parades and nuke tests and two TV channels showing documentaries of how great their country is, until the power gets cut at nightfall.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:Mocking someone on the ground? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Citation: "It was a fiery, catastrophic attempt at a launch that was unsuccessful,"

      Should we now call every exploded - and most importantly unmanned - U.S. military or commercial launch failiure also a fiery catastrophic attempt?

      You must be new at this. Even the people who LAUNCHED the failed Antares that blew up at Wallops recently referred to it as a "castrophic" failure. It's a word people actually use to describe things like giant exploding rockets.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Mocking someone on the ground? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      In aerospace, a catastrophic failure is one that destroys the test article. Perhaps you're confusing it with "calamitous" or "apocalyptic".

  20. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dammit! They can't tell other countries what laws they may or may not pass! That's our job!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nobody who even remotely counts is starving in North Korea. Did you take a look at that fatso Kim lately? Yes, the peasants are starving, but who gives a shit about them?

    The very last thing Kim and his cronies are going to do is upset someone who could end their comfortable rule. They know exactly if they as much as sneezed into the direction of SKor or Japan the reply would be devastating, so they keep it at pretending to be big boys. The whole show is mostly directed at their own population to show just how mighty they are and how much they have to spend on defending against the imperialists who would immediately end their Juche paradise if they didn't.

    Read your 1984, it's well described therein.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:Nork Watch by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Oh, please! It doesn't stop there. The Ottoman Empire shall rise again!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  23. Re:Nork Watch by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Because the issue isn't that they crashed something. The issue is that they could have crashed something in another country. And it wouldn't matter whether they said it was a test or not.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  24. Re:threatened to nuke America by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now that's cute.

    Ok, allow me to clue you in on North Korea's biggest problem when it comes to ICBMs: They have nowhere to test them.

    ICBMs aren't easy to do. You not only have to get them up, you also have to get them down. Actually, the getting them up part is the easy one. Getting ICBMs, or rather, their payload, back down, preferably where it should go, and let that warhead go off the way it should, that's a feat and a half. There is a good reason why old ICBMs had insane yields, culminating the the Tsar Bomba with a hundred MTon: Until not so long ago, we couldn't really make sure that they reach their goal with pinpoint accuracy. So the idea was that with bigger yield, we have more leeway if it goes astray a few 100 miles.

    And that's just targeting. You also need to shield it against heat during reentry, you need to take precautions for the g forces acting on it during reentry (hint: WAY higher than anything any human could survive), and with all this every instrument in your warhead has to stay operational and accurate.

    I hope we can agree that this takes lots of testing, yes? It certainly did for the US, the USSR, China, France, India... but you might notice something all those countries have in common: Either unrestricted access to the sea or lots and lots of land mass.

    North Korea has neither.

    And that is a big problem when testing ICBMs. Your enemy can easily watch you test and see exactly just how far you got it nailed. And, bluntly, if they have troubles with the "up" part, we can go back to bed.

    Wake me when they get to the point where they could possibly start getting that "down" part right. Then we can talk about turning NKor into a glass wasteland.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Another detail that is often overlooked.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that North Korea's posturing helps both South Korea and Japan cover up their own embarassing internal mistakes and corruption drama by giving a more 'dangerous and immediate threat' for their people to be distracted by until investigations into their domestic activities are quietly shoved aside.

    The financial and political benefits of that should not be underestimated.

    1. Re:Another detail that is often overlooked.... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "North Korea's posturing helps both South Korea and Japan cover up their own embarassing internal mistakes"

      Of course, having a bogeyman to scare people with is highly effective at being able to keep them docile and not noticing their rights have been stripped away.

      Iran was the bogeyman for a long time, which suited Iran's leaders just fine as they could use the west as their own bogeyman to scare their locals.

      The best response to hysterical ranting isn't to up the military ante, but to point and laugh, whilst _quietly_ making sure you have a big enough baseball bat to ensure the bully can be effectively dealt with if/when he does turn into a raving psychopath. The power that FatboyKim has, is undermined if you can get the population to quietly ridicule him.

      It's just unfortunate in this case that Russia is hellbent on keeping NK running. The chinese put up with the antics as it gives a buffer between them and the USA but it's clear they've run out of patience on a few occasions (power and oil exports to NK cut off for four months at one point in the recent past). The sad part is that the people who suffered most when this happened were the general population. The kleptocracy at the top will stop at nothing to maintain their lifestyle.

  26. Re:Nork Watch by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    These stories are to distract us from even worse enemies

    Oh come on, Hillary Clinton isn't that bad.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:Nork Watch by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    the need to trash talk North Korea so hard

    "Catastrophic" does seem a little over the top. Although technically correct, it's the kinda thing the NK's would pronounce about us if something blew up. But the NK make everything so much about theater (founder's birthday and all), it's hard not to get sucked into it and take a jab at 'em.
    Objectively, though, each failure is a baby-step toward getting to something that works, so long as they don't shoot or hard-labor the failure engineers (to show the great leader's displeasure), and whenever they can black-market together the parts and funding to put another one together.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  28. Typical by KardashevHell · · Score: 1

    Man.. You'd think that they can land a man on the sun, but they can't even get a missile to work on Kim Il Sung's birthday.

  29. Re: Nork Watch by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    North Korea doesn't need an objective. They are better armed than alqueda, and their leadership goes through child like hissy fits if they are not given enough attention. Seriously go through news history. If you are paying attention nothing will get said about North Korea for months and then they do something like this.

    Actually now that I think about maybe Kim is related to Kim(kardshian)

    So you give them a little attention, pretend they are adults and let them screw it up. Unlike a child you can't displine a country, especially one that has a parent that forgives everything(China).

    Though even China is starting to get tired of it they have to save face and so the charade goes on for another generation

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  30. Re:Nork Watch by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    On the contrary! If I were in the business, I would hire her in a New York Second. She definitely left a mark..

    By comparison, North Korea stories can be posted in the Idle section. For some reason, I suspect they won't have a successful launch any time soon.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  31. Re:Nork Watch by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Your "friend" did not noticed anything different. Like all people in North Korea are slim, because they are on permanet diet, because they do not have extra food.

    They're smaller along other dimensions, too.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  32. How many will get shot? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I wonder how many people will get shot for that blunder?

  33. Re:threatened to nuke America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that's cute.

    Ok, allow me to clue you in on North Korea's biggest problem when it comes to ICBMs: They have nowhere to test them.

    ICBMs aren't easy to do. You not only have to get them up, you also have to get them down. Actually, the getting them up part is the easy one. Getting ICBMs, or rather, their payload, back down, preferably where it should go, and let that warhead go off the way it should, that's a feat and a half. (blah blah blah)

    Dead wrong, typical slashdotter.

    The down part is fucking easy. Isaac Newton takes care of that part. The trouble is actually getting the missile to the midpoint. From launch to there, any fuckup sends it in the wrong direction, and it misses entirely. If you draw a parabola from where it is launched, with the other end where you want it to go, accounting for the differences in circumference of the Earth at different latitudes, and of course the spin of the Earth while the missile is in flight, there is a maximum altitude, probably pretty close the the midpoint between where it started, and where it's going. If you get it to that midpoint, correct latitude and longitude, right as it crests its arc, (also of course accounting for atmospheric drag, so again, it's not the exact center,) with the right amount of velocity, it can hardly help coming down where you intended. The only real variable at that point is the wind, which could push it off far enough to matter.

    This is where a guidance system comes in handy, as it can correct on the fly, if the rocket knows its position, attitude, altitude, thrust, velocity, etc. The bad thing is, the typical throw-away 'smartphone' has far more than enough computer power to handle this.

    Of course, they'd have to know if they used them, they'd be fucking obliterated instantly. Trouble is, anyone retaliating and annihilating North Korea for attacking anyone, is throwing a lot of trouble in the direction of very close to Russia and China, which means someone else might also get obliterated, and this can all be touched off by having a moron or a madman in charge of any country involved.

    Problem is, we seem increasingly to have such people in charge. The more lunatic-assholes in charge of these things, the more likely a cataclysmic disaster is. Ping seems sane. Un might be just as much a psychotic jerk as his father. Putin is... well... he's Putin. Throw one more such person into the mix, and I hate to see the results, for humanity, esp. considering that when it comes right down to it, most of humanity has little problem with most of the rest of humanity, and most are going to suffer because of the actions of a few.

    Professor Falken might have been right, and the thing to do is make sure you live a short distance from a primary target, so that after a millisecond of blinding light, it's all over, and you don't have to be one of the ones who dies slowly, agonizingly, retching up your own radioactive, contaminated blood for days before the secondary effects kill you too.

    Ah, fuck it. Let's all party, smoke, fuck, drink and let it happen. Not like we can stop it anyway. The die is already cast--cannot stop it mid-flight. See y'all on the other side.

  34. Re:Nork Watch by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

    I have a friend that just returned from a trip to Asia. He visited both Koreas. His take, same thing with different propaganda.

    My God, one Korea is a healthy liberal democracy with successful global tech and cultural exports, and the other Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship that can't feed its people, can't provide them with electricity, and is threatening and provoking it's neighbors on a regular basis both with rhetoric and military exercises.

    Your friend is... okay, I'm not even sure how else to describe that sort of sheer, utter, willful ignorance. I've heard the same refrain from utterly naïve sympathizers my entire life, about how it wasn't as bad as we were led to believe, that it was just western propaganda, and so on. Every time one of those countries fell and became free, and the people living there were free to tell their story, we learned that it was, in fact, just as bad or even worse than we suspected. When will people learn?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  35. Re:threatened to nuke America by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Tsar Bomba was not an ICBM weapon, and was never intended to be delivered by an ICBM - it was always intended to be a bomber delivered weapon.

  36. Re:threatened to nuke America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    100 miles is overstating it by a lot.

    - The V2 had a CEP of about 4.5km.

    - Even the early LGM-118 from 1962 had a CEP of under 0.8 miles.

    - The earlier Atlas had a CEP of just under 1 mile (late 1950s).

  37. Re:threatened to nuke America by cavreader · · Score: 1

    NK would be completely and utterly destroyed if they started launching missiles towards the US. And how accurate do they really need to be with a nuclear missile? All they need to do is point it in the general direction of the US and push the red button. What is surprising is that China has not taken care of the NK problem all by themselves. China is being surrounded by missile defense batteries capable of degrading their own nuclear deterrent. NK threats are causing every country in SE Asia to upgrade their militaries and seek tighter alliances with the US. And to top it off the US has sent even more military assets to the region. China needs NK like a fish needs a bicycle.

  38. Re: Nork Watch by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    They are better armed than alqueda

    The Italian ice cream company?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  39. Re:threatened to nuke America by gtall · · Score: 1

    The problem with turning the Norks into glass is that radiation drifts on the wind, right over Japan, and the U.S. Oh, you were thinking something smaller so the Norks have time to use their vast missile arsenal on Japan and S. Korea. How many of them are you willing to sacrifice?

  40. Re:threatened to nuke America by gtall · · Score: 1

    The reason the U.S. is becoming more popular in East Asia is China, not the Norks. Those countries have always assumed the U.S. would protect them from the Norks. China is a different story since they are so integrated into the world's economy.

    China doesn't give a flying rats ass about the Norks or their refugees which are likely to head south, not north to China. What has the dirty little squits running China getting their panties in a knot is a vibrant reunited Korea showing the Chinese how to run a modern economy. It makes their weenies look small. It is the same reason they bluster on about Taiwan being part of China, Taiwan makes their weenies look even smaller since there are a lot of Chinese (non-natives) on Taiwan.

  41. Re:Nork Watch by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    South Korea has some significant things that NK doesn't, like food and electricity,

    And a conspicuous lack of prison labor camps with mass graves. And a lack of sinking other people's ships. And a lack of executing people who say anything even a wee bit critical of the government (and their families, too, for good measure). The South also has completely irrelevant things like uncensored communications with the outside world. Little pleasantries like that.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  42. Re:threatened to nuke America by baker_tony · · Score: 1

    Get back on the campaign trail, Trump, leave the commenting to people with half a brain.

  43. Re:threatened to nuke America by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Tsar Bomba was never a weapon, it was a spectacle, a device made to intimidate imagination but not to be a weapon against any enemy (except if the enemy is common sense). It could not be put onto an ICBM but also it could not be put into a normal aircraft. The Tu95 bomber used to drop it had to be modified, parts of fuselage removed and mid section fuel tanks removed. With the device weighing abo8ut 27 tons and with more than half of the fuel tanks gone the airplane could never make it from Russia to USA.

  44. Re:threatened to nuke America by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    Actually you need to be pretty accurate. There is a lot of pretty empty countryside on the west coast of the US. NK have only demonstrated an ability to build very small scale nukes. Nukes so small there has been questions about whether they actually went off properly. That results in relatively small blast areas.

    IF they managed to get it right into the middle of LA they might kill 50k with say another 50k seriously injured. But that would be the mother of all hail Mary shots for them. When you consider then that if they landed the nuke on Pepperdine University in Malibu, nuke maps estimates about 3k dead you can see the difference a relatively small accuracy difference will make. If they hit any of the mountains along highway 1 though we are probably only looking at injuries.

  45. Re:Nork Watch by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Check out the size of the door that she's climbing out of. That's some very heavily armored material.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  46. Re:threatened to nuke America by KGIII · · Score: 2

    Wait... You think we "increasingly have such people in charge?" Nah, the world has always been like this. There have always been lunatics in charge. You might even say we have fewer in-charge lunatics now than we've ever had. Can you imagine if Caligula had had nuclear weapons?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  47. Re:Nork Watch by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's no such thing in Cuba. You don't even need a tour guide. Source: Me. I've been to Cuba twice. I'm currently trying to go before I have to return home to Maine. I'm not sure why you'd state such a thing but it's not even remotely true. Yeah, it sucks to get caught in a lie but, you know, some of us actually travel and have traveled extensively.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  48. Re: Nork Watch by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that the ignorant and irrational fearmongering usually emanates from the ass of an AC...

  49. Re: threatened to nuke America by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    There is a good reason why old ICBMs had insane yields, culminating the the Tsar Bomba

    Incorrect; Tsar Bomba was not an ICBM warhead.

  50. Re:Eternal President by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    ...and letting ex-presidents retain the honorific doesn't bother me nearly so much as incumbent presidents (or anyone else) using the term "commander in chief" when they're not referring to military affairs.

  51. Re:Nork Watch by tsotha · · Score: 1

    "Slim" is really not the right word for people who are periodically cut to 700 calories a day.

  52. Re: Nork Watch by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    We are deeply honoured by the knowledge that the DPRK's propaganda ministry deem Slashdot worthy of attention.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  53. I wonder if we are helping those missile fail by jandjmh · · Score: 1

    Do we have anything that could take out a missile in the boost phase? Especially if we know when and where the launch is happening?

  54. Re:Nork Watch by dbIII · · Score: 1

    They know exactly if they as much as sneezed into the direction of SKor or Japan the reply would be devastating

    Sneezing maybe, but they've fired shells into SK and kidnapped Japanese in the past :(

  55. Re:threatened to nuke America by dbIII · · Score: 2

    or their refugees which are likely to head south, not north to China

    There are already a lot of NK refugees in China and they have been going there for many years. I've spoken to one. There's an entire "state" of people who speak Korean next to Russia and NK. When 1970's China is the promised land of plenty you know that the place they came from is well and truly horrible.

  56. Re:threatened to nuke America by cavreader · · Score: 1

    If they only managed to injure someone's dog they would still earn them a full retaliatory strike from the US who do have outstanding targeting capabilities and some fairly clean tactical nuclear war heads.

  57. Re: Nork Watch by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

    As a non-usian (British, Northern Irish) I don't hate the US. I think they usually try to do the right thing at first but then their internal politics gets in the way and fucks things up. They also allow their corporations to much leeway, but that's not something limited to the US.
    I'd rather have someone like the US at least trying to do the right thing than someone like Putin who is just using his power to prop up his only ally in the middle east while pretending to fight the real enemy.
    Note, I still feel that there is a lot of "better the devil you know" when it comes to foreign policy, both in the US and the rest of the world. As evidenced by the Arab Spring, this can be valid in some cases.

  58. Re:threatened to nuke America by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    You realise that the US was not the only target during the cold war, right?

  59. Re:threatened to nuke America by Alioth · · Score: 1

    Even so, the modified bomber was so lumbering it wouldn't have made it very far across the Soviet border before being shot down.

  60. Re:Nork Watch by KGIII · · Score: 2

    Sure do. Here, have a look here:
    https://www.google.com/search?...

    Pick a link, any link. You do not need a guide in Cuba and I know of nothing other than military areas and government buildings/property that is restricted access. My first trip to Cuba was with a tour group. My second was on my own and I meandered about at will and never encountered anywhere that they didn't let me in - and that included a few government buildings.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  61. Re:Nork Watch by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Well, for one thing, the US is still at war with North Korea. We've just been in a nice long cease-fire. No treaty has ever been signed.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  62. Re:Nork Watch by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Not really surprising that a head of state would ride around in a car with armored windows.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  63. Re:Eternal President by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    "Amerika" has now replaced "Hooray for Hollywood" as part of my zeitgeist.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  64. Re:threatened to nuke America by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    It was never intended to be delivered anywhere except the island they obliterated with it. It was the USSR doing a major dick wagging effort at a time that the United States was building smaller weapons, because they make more strategic sense.

    There's a reason why the US never made a weapon capable of more than 10Mt, and then started working smaller - the launchers and maintenance of such a thing are stupendously costly, and the inverse-cube law shows that you get far less bang than you would if you put 3 450kt warheads in the same general vicinity from a far cheaper, smaller (read: easier to move, hide, or harden), and more reliable weapon.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  65. Re:threatened to nuke America by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if they lobbed a nuclear device anywhere inside the territory of the United States, there would still be a massive retaliatory strike from one of the Ohio-class submarines that you know is somewhere in the Pacific. Even if they landed one in a subsistence crater from where we nuked ourselves in the 1940s and 1950s at the Nevada Test Site, they still shot a nuclear weapon at us. You don't get to do that, and there's no handicap or 'aww shucks' mentality in that game.

    They might not be able to hit us in an optimal way, but we sure as shit can put one with 10x the yield through Lil' Kim's bedroom window in far less flight time. And he knows it.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  66. Re:Nork Watch by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    North Korea could have those things too (Food, Electricity) if they didn't spend their national energy on pissing off the rest of the world. But they do, so they don't.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  67. Re:Nork Watch by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Not "all" people in North Korea are slim. Their 'dear leader' is pretty fat, actually.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  68. Re: Nork Watch by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because there's absolutely nothing to worry about when another government says that they are going to preemptively strike you or your allies with nuclear weapons on a weekly basis.

    There's no place in the world today for that kind of bullshit, and even China is acting against them at the UN. I have no idea what the hell is with people defending North Korea's behavior here.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  69. Re:Nork Watch by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "Did you take a look at that fatso Kim lately?"

    Of course. He eats peasants and their babies.

  70. Re:threatened to nuke America by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    The Tsar Bomba TEST yielded 50MT. That was because it was missing it's outer uranium boost blanket that would've made it dirty as sin but a full 100MT.

    I quote:

    The initial three-stage design was capable of yielding approximately 100 Mt, but it would have caused too much nuclear fallout and the plane delivering the bomb would not have enough time to escape the explosion. To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper ...

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  71. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That is actually worse than it looks at face value. At face value, she merely didn't intervene when someone sued someone else. That would be fine. Actually, if she did intervene it would be grounds to complain because she is the head of the legislative, and as such she should not meddle with the justice system. Simply because of the separation of power. That would have been a GOOD thing.

    Things aren't that easy, though.

    The law concerned here is paragraph 103 of the German criminal code, which explicitly disallows slander against foreign heads of state. It was introduced when people protested and made rather disrespectful remarks towards the Shah of Persia (that was in the 1970s), a dictator equally liked by the German government and hated by the German people as Erdogan is today. And just so not any dictator could complain about slander (because back then a lot of dictators ruled over Eastern Europe and were routinely slandered by the right wing press), paragraph 104 was tacked onto it: Prosecution only happens when the German government greenlights it.

    That shitstain of a law is now being used. So Angela did not NOT interfere with justice as it is presented in this article. She actually ENABLED Erdogan to sue on grounds of a law that was created to protect a dictator from being made fun of.

    How fitting.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  72. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I doubt that he could get that fat from peasants alone, there's very little meat in them.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  73. Re:threatened to nuke America by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Could you please at least design and launch an ICBM in a game before you post such nonsense? You sure are one of those guys that think the Minuteman comes down completely as it went up, boosters and rockets and all, right?

    Is there any chance you could at least watch a video about an ICBM-test or at least read a wikipedia article on ICBMs? Please? It would be less painful to read your post if you did, because you sure wouldn't write such nonsense about a "midpoint". Hint: Reenty is really a bitch, both to calculate and to survive. And only since the 80 we were really capable of reentry maneuvering. This is anything but trivial, mind you, and it took us a LONG time to get this right. It took a LOT of tests because there are a few tidbits you can't divine by simply "looking at things" and "using common sense".

    ICBMs are rocket science. Actually, they're worse. Getting up is rocket science. And that's, bluntly, easy as fuck. Coming down where you want to, and in once piece, with all your components in working condition, that's the art form.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  74. Re:threatened to nuke America by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And he is right, the Tsar Bomba was a bad example. Though we could build rocket-deliverable 100MT yield payload by now. Today we're just much better at aiming and the surplus weight is rather used for chaff and other technology aimed to counter defense systems.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  75. Re:threatened to nuke America by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You point out a lot of compelling reasons for the US to NOT rub out NK.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  76. Re:Nork Watch by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hey! Juche doctrine forbids reliance on foreign powers! North Korea is very capable of fucking things up without any foreign interference!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  77. Re:threatened to nuke America by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    He also mentioned a parabola, which is the correct curve if the direction of gravity doesn't change. I'd imagine that using it for an ICBM would cause it to miss very badly. The correct curve is the ellipse, since the ICBM (the B stands for Ballistic) is essentially in an orbit that hits the planet.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  78. New insights into North Korea via Photo Journalist by partofthepuzzle · · Score: 1

    This is a snippet from a book published (and translated directly from Korean to English) in North Korea that was purchased in Pyongyang from the Foreign Languages Bookshop. The book was named; “Kim Jong-Il – The Great Man”:

    As to a successful nuclear test in the DPRK, the fellow countrymen in South Korea said with pride, "Great the great north Korea! The pride of our nation! The nuclear test is the exercise of great self-defense right of the north as a sovereign state with Juche character. Isn't it stately and above board national defence, not subservient and cowardly to any outside forces? Chairman Kim Jong Il of the National Defence Commission is really a man of gut. I congratulate north Korea on possessing nuclear weapon. How wonderful it is for the north, though small in territory to live with dignity, fighting squarely against the US, not losing national pride and sovereignty. Chairman Kim Jong Il0 had done really well. Great north Korea! Brace up! And win! I hope you will do what others cannot. It is the most thrilling, monumental deed since King Tangun founded Korea,"

    This is part of a great series of photo essays by by an American travelling North Korea:

    http://www.earthnutshell.com/1...
    http://www.earthnutshell.com/1...
    http://www.earthnutshell.com/n...

  79. Re:threatened to nuke America by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    I actually really hope you are wrong. No question that the US has the capability of targetting Kim in his toilet, but if they ever did manage to land a single nuke on US soil I really really really hope the response is not 20+ massive bombs heading the other way.

    Kill him, and his regime. But please don't spread nuclear fallout over a highly populated region which includes countries that have true ICBM nuclear capabilities. What would China do if its sensors picked up incoming nuclear missiles that could easily be diverted to their territory? That would make the cuban missile crisis look like a happy dinner party.

  80. MIRV by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Tsar Bomba is a bad example. It was a bomb in the traditional sense (hence the name) and was dropped by a bomber. It was simply a publicity stunt more than anything else, and including strategic issues had tactical ones like getting the bomber out of the blast area fast enough...

    No the true example of the inaccuracy of ICBM's were the development of MIRV variants. I think it stands for Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles.

    The accuracy was so poor, particularly on older ICBM's that even with large nuclear payloads, and aiming at city sized objects there was still a pretty good chance you would miss entirely, and just really annihilate some adjacent farmland and some poor cows. This is why on both sides of the cold war you had redundancy of important targets with multiple ICBM's targeted, and also why both had stockpiles so large as to be ridiculous. MIRV's fixed the issue by having many small bombs showering a much larger area, ensuring a hit. Also the larger the yield has diminishing returns... It is much more effective to user several smaller yield devices spread out over a uniform area than one big one.

  81. Re: Nork Watch by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I don't know, I'd watch his wife or sister...

    Do you actually watch porn to see the guy?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  82. Re:threatened to nuke America by cavreader · · Score: 1

    The real danger with NK having a nuclear arsenal is they would not hesitate to sell their nukes to every terrorist and authoritarian government on the planet. NK knows that if they were to launch a nuclear weapon on anybody they would be committing suicide. If a nuclear weapon was used by a 3rd party they would still committing suicide because. It's not the US who should handle NK it is China. They are the ones that actually created NK. In 1953 the UN military forces had driven the NK army to the Chinese border. Then China sent 700,000 conscripted soldiers to retake NK using human wave attacks.

  83. Re:threatened to nuke America by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, not even an ellipse. It's more a flattened ellipse since due to reentry energy loss the lateral movement is reduced on the way down. Unless of course you go on a highly elliptical trajectory which is unfeasible, first because of fuel concerns and second because in reentry you would have to deal with insane g-forces and the payload would most likely still just burn up.

    That was actually considered to use such trajectories to attack heavily defended targets, to minimize time the enemy would have to react, but the payload simply disintegrated long before it could be brought to detonation for effect. But this and other little tidbits of knowledge depend on tests. Tests and NKor so far didn't even begin to do and can't sensibly do without half the world knowing about it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  84. Re:threatened to nuke America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'What is surprising is that China has not taken care of the NK problem all by themselves.'

    How do you know they haven't? NK is great deniability.