Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Parades Hybrid 'Frankenmissile', Then Fails Yet Another Missile Launch Test (cnn.com)

First, an anonymous reader quotes Inverse: On Saturday, the North Korean military paraded an unprecedented array of weapons through Kim Il-sung Square in the center of Pyongyang... "We're totally floored right now," Dave Schmerler of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, tells the Wall Street Journal. "I was not expecting to see this many new missile designs." Schmerler tells The Journal that the large missiles -- the "frankenmissiles," as he calls them -- in the parade appear to be hybrids of the North Korean KN-08 and KN-14 missiles, both of which are ICBMs.
But at least one arms control expert noted that while the parade included ICBM-sized canisters, "what's inside is anyone's guess" -- and there's still mixed results for the country's missile program. "An attempted missile launch by North Korea on Sunday failed, US and South Korean defense officials told CNN... At this point, US military officials don't believe the missile had intercontinental capabilities, a US defense official told CNN." The official said there was limited data -- because the missile blew up so quickly -- prompting CNN.com to run the story under the headline "Show of Strength a Flop."

Update: Slashdot reader Dan Drollette is a science writer/editor and foreign correspondent for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and contacted us earlier today to share his recently-published analysis "to delve into what has been happening lately...and to discredit some common tropes in the media, such as the idea that 'North Korea is about to collapse,' 'China has a lot of influence over North Korea,' 'North Korea can credibly threaten the United States right now,' 'North Korea has no reason to feel threatened,' or 'The North can be completely denuclearized.'"

11 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Re:NK *is* a credible threat by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

    If they want to wait several million more years for the southern part of the Pacific plate to wander over somewhere in the general vicinity of NK;

    The North Korean navy is considered a brown water navy and operates mainly within the 50 kilometer exclusion zone. The fleet consists of east and west coast squadrons, which cannot support each other in the event of war with South Korea. The limited range of most of the vessels means that, even in peacetime, it is virtually impossible for a ship on one coast to visit the other coast.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    But then they'd only get to annoy Mexico.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it's not quite that cut and dry; subs move, make noise, wakes, create magnetic anomalies in motion (and image subtraction can trivially find one of those consequent to continuous MA observation of any area where the sub is, assuming the monitoring capability is available), and while no one tries to track each jetliner using sufficient resources to never lose sight of it, there's good reason to think that we would be keeping track, as best we can with the resources we have available, any NK asset that presented a potential nuclear threat.

    That said, even if we're on them at any one point, it doesn't mean we can't lose track of them, either. Even a hardware failure of a tracking resource could put this kind of thing into play where one might ordinarily assume it wasn't. This stuff is devilishly complex. Lots of ways for tracking to fail.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  3. Re:Who cares by dbIII · · Score: 1, Informative

    Worse than that.
    Seoul is in range of North Korean artillery emplacements.
    They do not have to rely on possibly ineffective missiles to reduce Seoul to rubble within a very short time of being given the order.

  4. Re:NK *is* a credible threat by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, they say they will nuke us. They're the only country in the world to develop the tech and say that, but it is what it is.

  5. Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Informative

    A crashed airliner is stationary, dead and cold in over 2 miles of water. A moving sub is live, and hot, in less than 200 meters of water. The NK diesels have to come to snorkel depth, maybe 30 meters. Not so hard to find

  6. Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not so hard to find if you are looking in exactly the correct place and they are not running on batteries.

    They're diesel boats. They can run on batteries during the hours of daylight if necessary, but they can't run on batteries long enough to cross the Pacific (realistically, they can't run on batteries long enough to go 100km). Most of the time, they'll be running on diesels, and can be heard by anyone within a 100 km or so.

    And they can't outrun a nuke boat. Not even sounding like a freight train (diesel boat running at max).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. Re:Sound waves in water not so simple by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're probably thinking of things like near-field synthetic aperture sonar. You can get images as clear as this, which gives the impression that water is no obstacle. Distance, however, changes what one can do, and there's quite a difference between passive monitoring and active monitoring as well.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  8. Re:Ps US misplaced 8 of our own nukes by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US should also be able to keep track of North Korean subs. But ...

    Nukes don't make noise. Subs do. We have sonar emplacements which do this job. We don't even need submarines to handle NK submarines, because they are such ancient technology. We can handle them with the sonar warning net and a torpedo boat.

    If you want to talk about Russkies who can presumably still afford a decent sub now and then, that's reasonable. They might be able to get close. NK, though? That is just not a credible threat. They couldn't get here without being allowed to get here.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:NK *is* a credible threat by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Our boomer and attack subs are decades more modern than the junk that North Korea has. Their ocean-going subs are all old Russian Romeo, Whisky, and Hotel class subs. They have a few midget subs but they could not reach the US.
    In other words, you also do not know what you are talking about if you compare the subs of NK with US.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Re:Nonsense by whodunit · · Score: 3, Informative

    This claim has been debunked for years: http://nautilus.org/napsnet/na...

    North Korea in no way has the capability to "destroy" Seoul with conventional artillery.

  11. Re:NK *is* a credible threat by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case you missed my reply to another of your posts about Pyongyang's threat to Seoul, here it is again.

    Short story - destructive potential of entrenched NK's "massive artillery" to South Korea's capital is massively overblown.

    http://www.popularmechanics.co...

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body