Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Now Making Missile-Ready Nuclear Weapons, US Analysts Say (washingtonpost.com)
schwit1 shares a report from The Washington Post: North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment. The new analysis completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country's atomic arsenal. The U.S. calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts believe the number of bombs is much smaller. "The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles," the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. "It is not yet known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially last year claimed to have done so," reports The Washington Post.
We have fire and fury!. None of that wimpy old 'shock and awe' here
We'll give them a war they won't believe - President Rambo
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No proof of any of this.
NK has a track record of making bold claims ... that turn out to be true. They said they were going to build a nuke. They did. They said they were going to build missiles that could reach Japan. They did. They said they would build an ICBM that could reach America. They did (Hawaii and Alaska so far). Now they say they have built a compact warhead that will fit on a missile. Do be so quick to dismiss their boast.
NK isn't going to launch an attack on anyone, as it would be utter mass suicide and they know it. These weapons are a deterrent, in the hopes that the USA will no longer think of attacking their country without the risk of proper retaliation.
How about normalising relations with them? Or are they too good as this month's bogeyman?
The elephant in the room is that they have been enabled, if not actively assisted, by China for decades. Sure is a good thing the US wasn't dumb enough to outsource a huge chunk of our manufacturing to the totalitarian country silently backing these guys and their nuclear ambitions for the sake of next quarter's corporate profits, huh?
I'm sure glad we've got a level-headed leader with years of experience in international diplomacy!
When the rapture comes, I'm taking your car.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't think it's really fair that you refer to our president in that way.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They said they would build an ICBM that could reach America. They did (Hawaii and Alaska so far).
Have they? I see these map graphs with range circles associated with certain missiles - which have not flow that far...
Saying something is capable - if they can figure out how to design the missile to withstand reentry, or the missile is capable - if they can perfect complex gyros and navigational hardware / software so the missile can hit a target, or the missile is capable - if they can figure out how to insure it does not explode on launch or break up in flight...
These things are the same as saying that the North Koreans *are not* capable of these things.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Actually, we have seismic confirmation of North Korea's five nuclear tests, the most recent of which was last September. We can even estimate the yield of each test; last September's test was about 25kt, about 2/3 greater than the Hiroshima bomb.
It was North Korea itself that claimed the warhead from last September was missile launchable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
a madman straight out of an Austin Powers movie.
There is nothing "mad" about NK's behavior. The Kim dynasty has been extremely successful at staying in power. Even more than the Castro dynasty in Cuba, which started later and has yet to manage a generational transition.
Let's look at the track record for "giving up nukes", the supposedly "sensible" action:
1. Saddam Hussein gave up his nukes in 1991
Result: Overthrown by America and executed.
2. Muammar Gaddafi shutdown his nuke program in 2003
Result: Overthrown and murdered by forces backed by America.
3. Ukraine gave up their nukes after being given an American guarantee of their borders and sovereignty.
Result: Invaded by Russia, while America did little.
Given America's track record of betrayal, NK would be nuts to give up their deterrent.
You're right. Dr Evil was funny.
— President Donald Trump, 2017 Aug 8
— Mr. Donald Trump, 2013 Aug 13
A pertinent message from a time traveler:
https://twitter.com/realDonald...
You are welcome on my lawn.
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Worked out so well when we went into Iraq a second time with proof of WMDs.
The public absolutely needs to be shown proof before the country goes to war.
We haven't had an actual reason to go to actual war since WWII.
Why would Trump nuke California ?
Isn't that one of the states that love him, bigly ?
On the flip side, the rest of the world will be watching to see how the US handles this, NK , a country that can not only shoot back but WILL shoot back. Worse though is that if the US shoots first, China may join in the shooting back.
I am not so sure that:
Trump is capable of accepting he is only the president, not god
The US is capable of accepting it is NOT in charge.
The problem is that, for the moment, Japan has no nukes, and its military power, by and large, is defensive in nature (due to the confines of the post-war constitution). Japan, and to a lesser extent South Korea, both rely upon the United States to serve as their primary guarantor of security.
Now there's certainly a growing movement in Japan towards amending the constitution, and some view a nuclear-armed Japan as a possibility, and this is why it has long been in the US's interest to act as Japan's primary defense, so as to prevent nuclear proliferation.
If North Korea is allowed to continue its nuclear program, then it makes the possibility of other Asian states, in particular Japan and South Korea, becoming nuclear armed states more likely. Thus Pyongyang's program is likely to lead nuclear proliferation in the Asia-Pacific. This certainly doesn't serve China's interests, and for many in the region, a nuclear-capable Japan is going to raise some rather longstanding concerns over Japanese militarism.
The real problem here isn't whether NK should be allowed to continue working towards functional ICBMs. As the unity of purpose in the Security Council demonstrates, the one thing that everyone can agree on, even if they can't agree on anything else, is that North Korea gaining ICBM delivery of nuclear warheads. The problem is what to do about it. China seems prepared to back up its displeasure with sanctions, but NK is a master of evading sanctions. Further, it is a regime that seems to have no problem allowing large numbers of its citizens to suffer, so in the short, and possibly the medium term, I doubt the sanctions will impact its weapons program at all.
But a military attack against NK is going to have significant ramifications. Even with its conventional weapons, NK has spent six decades arming its border with SK to the teeth. While there is some debate over how much damage it could do to South Korea, there's no doubt that the regime, even as a death spasm, could cause tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths. It could even do damage to Japan as well. Such an event would create heavy casualties, not to mention the significant blow to the global economy; South Korea and Japan are among the most economically important nations in the world.
There simply appears to be no good answer to this problem. An out and out attack could destroy the regime, but the costs would be very high. Allowing NK to pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions, which I view anything but absolute economic isolation enforced by a blockade (which is really a declaration of war anyways), is not going to stop those ambitions. We've been on this course for over a decade. NK has made no secret of its ambitions, and now doesn't even seem to want to use it as a pretext for aid from South Korea and the US, and fear over the consequences of outright military intervention has stayed the US's hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I doubt very much that China is going to defend NK if it comes down to it. It's been a useful regime for preventing US dominance over the Korean Peninsula, but even China over the last year or so has been making some show of public annoyance with Pyongyang. China's chief concern at this point is likely the serious regional destabilization of North Korean collapse, in particular the likelihood of millions of North Korean refugees trying to get into China.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have they? I see these map graphs with range circles associated with certain missiles
NK's launch last month reached an altitude of 2700 km. That means it had enough velocity to reach either Anchorage or Oahu if it was in a flatter trajectory. They kept it in a near vertical trajectory to make it easier to monitor.
if they can figure out how to design the missile to withstand reentry
The missile doesn't have to reenter, only the warhead does. They can accomplish that by wrapping in a bundle of asbestos ... or they could skip the reentry and do an EMP burst 200 km above Honolulu / Pearl Harbor.
if they can perfect complex gyros and navigational hardware / software
They kept it in a clean vertical trajectory for 2700 km, so they have already accomplished all of this. Btw, there is a 3 axis "complex gyro" chip in your cellphone. This isn't the 1950s.
if they can figure out how to insure it does not explode on launch or break up in flight...
They have already done this repeatedly.
which have not flow that far...
Yet.
These things are the same as saying that the North Koreans *are not* capable of these things.
Are you basing that off conjecture or facts? None of the things you mention, withstanding reentry, perfecting nav hardware/software, withstanding flight, are new things. They have all been done since the 60s. Willing to bet that NK hasn't figured those out in the last 50 years?
So explain me again, why would the USA intelligence be lying about this?
The largest American intelligence agency is not the CIA, but the DIA, which gets its funding from and answers to the DoD. They have a vested interest in inflating threats to ensure generous funding of their parent organization.
I am not accusing them of exaggerating, I am just pointing out that they have a clear incentive to do so.
That or I would have thought we'd have infiltrated, sabotaged or blown up some important places covertly making it look like an accident by now.
I guess our intelligence agencies are too busy spying inland on the citizens these days?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Which one?
I had a sucky sig.
I don't think any one disagrees that NK has the capability for making WMD but now they can put in a missile. So, now they have delivery of that WMD. I think the evidence to suggest as much is much more concrete than the 2nd Iraq war.
a madman straight out of an Austin Powers movie.
There is nothing "mad" about NK's behavior. The Kim dynasty has been...
Is it weird that I legitimately thought he was referring to Trump? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is a tech website. What are some tech related ways in which we could respond ? Aside from spreading viruses to their centrifuges, maybe we could drop 1000s of satellite communicators down to the NK people, sure some would get lost, others fall into government hands, but if only a few fall into the hands of an internal "resistance" it could help gather intelligence or spread western news.
They would not have to be high bandwidth, I'm thinking something like 2-way twitter (but keep it away from POTUS !)
Nullius in verba
Well, I guess we can say aloha to Hawaii (the goodbye one)
A plaza full of stunted Koreans marching around with 50 year old weapons. Very admirable.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Jokes on you, my account was actually purchased and is operated by a group of indolent unemployed barbers who own a gas station in Topeka.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sure. But how is it that we (the U.S.) or ANYONE ELSE on this planet should put up with them waving their nuclear dick around and demanding things? It's not like they're 'horribly misunderstood' or anything, they're complete and utter assholes and nobody actually likes them, not even China.
Isn't that one of the states that love him, bigly ?
You're very obviously not a U.S. citizen. California is a Blue state (Democrat).
NK's launch last month reached an altitude of 2700 km. That means it had enough velocity to reach either Anchorage or Oahu if it was in a flatter trajectory. They kept it in a near vertical trajectory to make it easier to monitor.
Where did you get that, your favorite news anchor? ICBMs use a "high apogee" trajectory because it's the most energy efficient. If you flatten the trajectory, you won't get anywhere near the range you seem to think you will.
if they can perfect complex gyros and navigational hardware / software
They kept it in a clean vertical trajectory for 2700 km, so they have already accomplished all of this. Btw, there is a 3 axis "complex gyro" chip in your cellphone. This isn't the 1950s.
Making it go straight means they have pretty good control software; you don't need great gyros for that. But navigation is a different animal. If you think you can guide a ballistic missile along a 4,600 mile trajectory (NK - Hawaii for example) and come within 100 miles of your target using inertial sensors that are even 3 or 4 orders of magnitude better than the ones in your cellphone, you're probably also deluded enough to think you can make effective use of GPS aiding on an ICBM.
There is no great wisdom in debating whether a madman brandishing a pistol has bothered to load the weapon. But this whole business just seems odd.
Is it weird that I legitimately thought he was referring to Trump?
That, sir, is a sign of my linguistic genius at the art of Rorschach wording. :-)
Sadly some moderators (probably on both sides) seem to have an equal sense of humor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Uhhh, GPS chips are required by law to disable for altitudes and velocities common for missiles.
http://gizmodo.com/5824905/you...
The GPS system is also controlled by... the USA. Which can be shut off or reduced accuracy for an area. Which in fact, they actually did for years and only somewhat recently was "military-grade precision" actually given to consumers. Bill Clinton ended it in 2000. It's called "Selective Availability." But they can re-enable it at any time should some dumbasses in North Korea decide to use GPS.
Technically, they said "they would never use SA again." But does anyone really believe that? ONE area where the USA just says "Screw it. We'll tap everyone's phones but we wouldn't dare shut off this gigantic array of satellites WE build, run, and support, if someone was using them to nuke us."
Now, perhaps they might try using the Russian equivalent, GLONASS, system. But Russia knows how to leverage itself. If they knew NK was using GLONASS, they would USE that leverage to bargin. But they (and China) wouldn't just let NK start World War 3. It's about letting assholes get away with "as much as possible" to gain leverage but never letting them "actually do something bad" because then the leverage disappears and the entire political climate changes. (That is, Russia and China don't want WW3 unless they know they can win it and not be crippled for a hundred years afterward.)
Yes, NK has nukes it can put on ICBMs. But that's not all that is needed to "shoot back", as you call it. Their missiles are anything but accurate. There's no telling where they will land. Plus, getting an ICBM up is easy; getting it to come down without burning up is a little harder. They haven't shown that they can do that yet. So, in a nuclear exchange, NK is on the short end. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
The only deterrent they have is being able to strike South Korea with thousands of conventional artillery pieces. Seoul is close enough to the border that it would be devastated by such a barrage.
There is a legitimate worry about what other countries would do if the US attacked NK. Other countries could react or not depending on how they perceive the outcome. My bet is that they do nothing in the interest of self-preservation. The US president is totally unpredictable, so you don't want to react the wrong way or you may be next.
A much, much better strategy for the US is putting nukes in South Korea and Japan. THAT would get China's attention for sure, and it might be enough for them to cage their rabid dog in NK.
Awww. Did some neckbeard on the spectrum get upset that the /r/iamsosmart manifesto was poorly received? Poor baby.
So what's your solution? How many South Koreans are you prepared to sacrifice?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You are forgetting that the world is a sphere. The flight paths from NK to the US pass over Canada. We actually had an article in the papers here pointing this out and raising questions about how safe Canada would be if the US starts shooting down nuclear missiles over us. I believe the Seattle is closest but, looking at the map they had there did not seem to be a huge difference in distance between Los Angeles and Chicago.
And that's pretty much what the Obama Administration was working towards; Containment.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But how is it that we (the U.S.) or ANYONE ELSE on this planet should put up with them
What's the alternative? War? California may not be nuked, but NK can probably deliver a warhead to downtown Seoul, a city of 10 million people.
Canada gave up its Nukes (US provided, dual-key arrangement) in 1984, and things have generally worked out pretty well. Canada has also decided not to persue its own program, despite having the nuclear capabilities and infrastructure required to do so.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
It's called "Selective Availability." But they can re-enable it at any time should some dumbasses in North Korea decide to use GPS.
Actually, they can't. The current block of satellites do not have the capability to enable SA. What they can do is turn the service off for a selected region either through nulling the antennas on the satellite, or outright shutting down the unencrypted signal in various areas.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
If Herr Hitler had had nukes, that may have been the ultimate deal. That is precisely what happened during the Cold War; the West had to accept Soviet control of the Warsaw Pact countries, even when the people of Czechoslovakia rose up to try to toss out the Communists (the Prague Spring).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But but but but he won North Hampshire too.
When is England going to send in Bond to take care of this?
Why would Trump nuke California ?
Vandenberg Airforce Base.
Strike that, read it as Kim not Trump
Have they? I see these map graphs with range circles associated with certain missiles - which have not flow that far
You know, it really doesn't matter if they have or they haven't. What they have proven is they are determined to build a nuke. We have valid data that they have did this.
Given all that I would say we have to go on the notion that they have and react with that assumption till otherwise.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The best thing about the whole north/south Korea tension, is the possibility of a modern contemporary MASH 2 TV series. That would be awesome.
South Africa gave up their nuke program that actually produced six weapons, and they're doing just fine. No invasions or anything!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There's no good way to "refine" plutonium once you have it. Just because you have large amounts of plutonium doesn't mean that you have the right isotope mix to build a functional nuclear weapon. It's virtually impossible to enrich Plutonium the same way that you can with Uranium. Most of what Japan has will be reactor grade Plutonium, which is far too reactive to use in a warhead; it's simply impossible to assemble the critical mass fast enough to produce anything other than a fizzle.
I wouldn't doubt, though, that Japan is "Nuclear Capable". If they had the desire, they could initiate a crash program and build a basic warhead in pretty quick order. However, it's not just Japan that could do so. Canada, and pretty much any other country with an indigenous nuclear industry and research capability could do so.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Uhhh, GPS chips are required by law to disable for altitudes and velocities common for missiles.
GPS receivers and accelerometers are two different things. Many cellphones have both.
Also most steering of an ICBM occurs during the boost phase.
Or maybe NK will disregard the law requiring them to disable the chip, since they have their own fabs.
NK final farewell may just be launch all.
What about when a test go off course and hits something?
What happens when there is a coup or a collapse??
Now North Korea has the WMD that missed Iraq to avoid being invaded, we will see if their leader is just rationale (he is safe and can calm down) or really mad (he seeks more nuclear-related provocations).
Not worried at all.
Much more worried about cheetos going wack.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The problem of making an atmospheric reenter vehicle for the warhead is trivial in comparison to making a multi-stage rocket. Or the nuclear device itself.
But they don't need to declare war. The Korean War (WWIII) never actually ended. There was only a cease-fire.
They can accomplish that by wrapping in a bundle of asbestos
Devious. If the warhead fails to go off, the two people the missile hit will die 40 years later from cancer!
China also has a global positioning system called BeiDou-2.
Also it's not like a nuclear weapon needs to be extremely accurate. An inertial navigation system would be more than enough.
Saddam Hussein gave up his nukes in 1991
Saddam never had a nuclear weapon. What he did have was French support to build a nuclear plant not controlled by the IAEA in the early/mid 70s, as well as 72kg of 93% uranium. But, the Israelis bombed that plant in 1981 before it was completed. From the Germans, Saddam got several chemical weapons facilities built as well as over 1,000 tons of precursor chemicals for mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gas. He also got German equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin. Over half of his chemical weapons program was of German origin. From the Americans, he got samples of anthrax, West Nile, and botulism up through 1989. He selected one of our strains of anthrax for his biological weapons research program (many years later, Colin Powell would display a vial of anthrax in the UN as a justification for war with Iraq). From the British, Saddam got parts for his "supergun" weapons program, including nuclear triggers. The British government also financed a chlorine factory used to produce mustard gas. He never had a nuclear weapon, but his chemical attacks from 1983 to 1991 using mustard gas, tabun, nerve agents, and CS showed that his Western-provided chemical and biological weapon programs were coming along fine. That Israeli strike against the Osiraq reactor put his nuclear plans on hold though. I'm not sure how many parallels there are between Iraq and North Korea, unless Russia and China are playing the role that Western nations played in Iraq, in which case fine, let them go in and deal with the problem they created, like we did.
Muammar Gaddafi shutdown his nuke program in 2003
While you didn't claim that Gaddafi "gave up his nukes" like you did with Saddam, again Libya never had nuclear weapons. They did have a covert nuclear program, which they claimed was to counter the Israeli nuclear program. While after 2003 Libya was in the process of eliminating the remnants of their nuclear and chemical programs, it wasn't the US that brought Gaddafi down, it was his own people. He was an authoritarian dictator, and his people saw an opportunity to rise up and get rid of him. The only thing the US did was that we didn't stop them from doing that. If you want to draw a comparison with North Korea, Libya is a much better example than Iraq. Maybe Kim can look at Libya as a cautionary case-study and figure out that treating his people better instead of dumping money into nuclear weapons may end up with a better result for him. Nuclear weapons aren't going to save him if the North Korean people and military decide that they're better off without him. There are plenty of parallels between Kim and Gaddafi though, from being authoritarian dictators, to human rights abuses of their own people, to the personality cult, clandestine support for terrorist actions overseas, etc. But the lesson that Kim should take away from Gaddafi's tale should not be that nuclear weapons could have saved Gaddafi from his own people. There's no reason to think that.
Ukraine gave up their nukes after being given an American guarantee of their borders and sovereignty.
First off, Ukraine had a bunch of ICBMs with a range of 5,000 to 10,000 km. What were they going to do, threaten to nuke Vladivostok or Kamchatka if Moscow invaded? Those weapons were a threat to the US, not Russia. Not to mention the fact that Russia still maintained operational control of those weapons, similar to the American "nuclear codes". And even if they did use them to attack Russia, then they get met with Russia's 7,000 other nuclear weapons. Also, what's this "American guarantee of their borders and sovereignty" that you're talking about? Are you referring to the Budapest Memorandum? Go ahead and read the list of items there, find the one that says that America guarantees Ukranian borders. We accused Russi
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Right, black people like Elon Musk, Mark Shuttleworth, Charlize Theron, J. R. R. Tolkien, and other South Africans.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Given America's track record of betrayal, NK would be nuts to give up their deterrent.
This whole 'thing' about NK is a cover while the US deploy's Anti-Ballistic-Missile installations around the world, especially around China and Russia.
It's name is THAAD a system that enables first strike capability. American "leaders" must think that everything will be ok if they have first strike capability and can nuke the rest of the world.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
If the Baby God Dictator of the Norks really is crazy enough to attack an American city, he can do so by delivering it in a cargo container. I only hope that there are minions around him who understand that any use of a nuclear weapon will literally be the last thing that the Pyongyang regime ever does.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re "Is it just me or is this complete insanity?"
It will be a good test of the Swiss bunker idea.
Lots of 1950's shell fire from hidden bunkers. Ammo arrives, keep firing from the bunker.
No electronic networks to track as the range of fire has been set for decades. Just lots of bunkers for the US to find.
The US will have to roll out a system that keeps SK safe and can go deep into every bunker.
The real win is nice supply and restocking contract for most of Asia. Lots of buying and contractors selling new systems.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
North Korea's entire military strategy is the exposed position of Seoul.
The "puppet masters" are feeding the media publically establishing pretexts for action... like they did b4 Iraq.
I actually think that Donald Trump is more dangerous to America than Kim Jong-un. Yes, absolutely. Kim Jong-un is probably more dangerous to South Korea, and Japan and to North Korea, but Donald J. Trump presents a far greater danger to the well-being of the United States of America than Kim Jong-un does. So is he a "more dangerous leader"? I don't know how to measure that. The answer depends in great deal on where you happen to be, geographically.
Kim Jong-un isn't gonna do shit to the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The flight paths from NK to the US pass over Canada.
Although it's a pretty good reminder of what they could potentially effect, if NK is going to nuke anyone they are not going to go from Canada for sure, nor some small bean (pun intended) like Chicago.
No sir if NK were going to hit anything it would be a big flashy target like California. People have noted they can't really aim but why does anyone think that maters in the least? Even just turning a 20 square miles of CA to glass would be mission accomplished as far as NK is concerned. It's a much bigger psychological deal than blowing down a bunch of cornfields in Illinois or Iowa, and NK is all about the psyche warfare angle.
I believe the Seattle is closest
Were I NK, I wouldn't want to send any dodgy electronics down through Seattle's endless layers of rain.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I did mean for the US, but neglected to say it.
Kim Jong-un isn't gonna do shit to the US.
Why do you think that?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
You didn't answer the question.
How many South Korean (and maybe even Japanese) lives are you prepared to sacrifice?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We've been getting threats from the Kim family forever. That's what they do. It's all internal politics to get North Koreans to forget about how shitty their lives are. In the same manner, Trump has always made threats, from lawsuits against people who don't like him to "fire and fury" against North Korea today. It's what he does. And in the same manner, it's to get people to forget how shitty he is.
Russia has literally thousands of ICBMs pointed at US targets, but anyone who points out their behavior, whether in Ukraine or in messing with US elections via propaganda. is painted as someone who has succumbed to the "Red Scare". Yet we have Kim, who we are told could someday have an ICBM pointed at Alaska and those same people will try to tell you he is an existential threat to the United States. Not long ago, Iran was the existential threat. Or China was the existential threat. Or refugees. Or Mexicans coming to pick vegetables. Or gay people getting married. Or transsexuals. Or college students. Or Obama coming to take yer guns away.
And all of it is theater to get people to forget shitty lives and/or shitty leaders.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uhhh, GPS chips are required by law to disable for altitudes and velocities common for missiles.
True, but it's straighforward to demodulate and calculate your 3D position without a canned GPS chip. Anyone building ballistic missile has the technical ability to easily work around these built-in cutoffs by simply doing their own signal processing and math.
If they did then Canadian Provences would be States and they would no longer have Universal Healthcare.
Actually, America might get UHC if they annexed Canada. In polls, the majority in every province but Alberta prefered Hillary over Donald. Canadian annexation would shift the American's political center-of-gravity significantly to the left.
I'm afraid the real madmen are the people in Washington that rule a pesky empire that's trying to bully NK into submission.
As long as that empire has nuclear capable ICBM's, NK has the right to develop the same in order to defend themselves against infractions by this empire of world bullies.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Another option: make peace with NK. They repeatedly offered them to the US, which have always rejected them.
If there's peace, less need for a vast NK army and more labor available to grow food.
By (finally) making peace we will help the people of NK gain a much better life.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
None of this answers the question. How many South Koreans are willing to sacrifice to take on North Korea?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Completely incorrect. THAAD is missile defense. It doesn't even carry a payload. You clearly didn't read your own link as it contradicts your other statements.
It doesn't need a payload, its kinetic energy destroys the missile as it is being launched. There is nothing contradictory about the US deploying an Anti Ballistic Missile system to garner a first strike capability. That is what THAAD is for and that is what the beat up about NK is all about, press cover as they deploy it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I do. They both are equally retarded. But trump has resources.
You mean the Korean Conflict.
The U. S. of A. has only declared war formally 5 times after the revolution.
The U. S. of A. has never declared war on Korea. That shitfest was all at the behest of the U.N., with Americans providing nearly all of the meat for the grinder.
. North Korea is the weak party in the conflict . This is not symmetrical. They have legitimate reasons to be concerned. In the US internal politics plays a larger role in this respect but they also have geostrategic concerns that are relevant.
The problem for the North Koreans is they don't have any real issues with South Korea that can't be resolved, but their deterrence has been mostly directed against Seoul, which is the wrong target.
This leads to an annoying situation which could be described the US in the role of Lord Farquaad, saying: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make." A deterrent aimed at the US changes that logic. It's still only that though, a deterrent.
The only deterrent they have is being able to strike South Korea with thousands of conventional artillery pieces. Seoul is close enough to the border that it would be devastated by such a barrage.
Everyone keeps saying that, but it's not really true. The outskirts of Soul are within range of their 170mm Koksan, but that's only if they fire Soviet-era rocket assisted projectiles from as close as the DMZ. And if the shit does hit the fan, good luck deploying them there. The gun itself is unwieldy and can only fire one to two rounds every five minutes.
Once they get the range up the continental United States makes a pretty big, hard to miss target. Doesn't matter if it ends up in some remote, unpopulated area. The threat is enough.
That's the point really. A mad man got control of nuclear weapons and a powerful army, but they had the foresight to develop defences that would assure mutual destruction. Remember that if the US were to use nuclear weapons, the Chinese would like do so too, and their's are much more advanced.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you have any idea how mountainous it is? Nukes don't go through mountains, so you'd have to drop a hell of a lot of them.
Just another day in Paradise
Maybe you'd like to read the https://www.un.org/disarmament...
But don't let the facts get in the way of you're bashing of the U.S.
Just another day in Paradise
Yeah, I know about the treaty, but the US is still creating new and better nuclear weapons instead of removing them all.. And the US is the only country in the world ever to have (unnecessary) used atomic weapons, so if there is one country that should not have anything to say about others, it's the US..
Oh, you mean like Obama telling Romney that he was wrong about the Russians just five years ago? Glad you guys have finally come around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just another day in Paradise
I'm glad someone here sees this...+1! There have been others, and while we all want justice against people like Assad and Kim, it might be best to offer them an all expenses paid tropical island in order for them to just go peacefully. With the fall of the U.S.S.R., examples like this probably kept others (Cuba?) from opening up the gates to freedom https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just another day in Paradise
IF you can believe the intel ( WMDs in Iraq anyone ? ) NK is led by a bat-shit crazy type who likes to tell the rest of the world about how they're going to be destroyed. Almost daily. :|
Since China and Russia can't be bothered to give a shit, a difficult choice has to be made. Bet they would change their tune in a hurry if Captain Bat-Shit was threatening THEM with nukes.
Wait until he actually has the capability to follow through with his threats and watch millions die*, or deal with this beforehand in which case thousands may die.**
*Assuming a single missile can get through THAAD or any number of the Aegis based ABM interceptors in the area. Doubtful.
**Depending on how quickly we can neutralize all the conventional stuff pointed at SK. I would blanket the gun emplacements with submunition cruise missiles, but it would be near impossible to get them all.
And it ignores that a lot of their stockpiles are many decades old. The failure rate on their projectiles of any sort is likely to be very high. Compared to the US which has great expertise in armament design, tests everything regularly, and expends a lot of ammo in the middle east. We're on well-designed, tested, new ammo, and that means we would likely have very low failure rates.
That and the best surveillance that the world has ever seen means that we likely know where all the dangerous things along the border are, and probably have their coordinates already on a list, with people practicing dialing them in on a regular basis.
If the shooting starts, the NK guns are going to go quiet really, really quickly. And once a few strategic stockpiles and bridges are bombed, NK is going to have hundreds of thousands of poorly-equipped, hungry soldiers, with low morale milling around. It's not like NK has good food security in the best of times. Imagine what happens if we actually launch a decent strike against their infrastructure.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Guessing just a coincidence but this week the 72nd year since A-bombs dropped. Wonder if there was any consideration before escalating such antagonistic comments from POTUS toward N.Korea..
If you turned the tables and put USA's nuclear capability in the hands of NK, the USA would have been nuked already.
NK have the ability to level Seoul in less than a day without even crossing the border or using nuclear weapons.
Somehow that hasn't happened.
Why the fuck are you so paranoid that they would attack the US?
Stick to spy thrillers, and turn in your geek card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
As if the U.S. hasn't had first strike capability for decades. But don't let that interfere with your facts.
Just another day in Paradise
Yes, it's a blue state by popular vote. But, that's mostly concentrated in S.F., L.A., and S.D. Carve those out, and the state is mostly republican.
Just another day in Paradise
And it ignores that a lot of their stockpiles are many decades old.
That's right. When NK conducted a surprise attack on the island of Yeonpyeong in 2010, of the 170 rounds fired, only 80 hit the island -- and twenty of those failed to detonate. Where the 60 did detonate suggested NK had outdated maps, but that's a different problem.
While after 2003 Libya was in the process of eliminating the remnants of their nuclear and chemical programs, it wasn't the US that brought Gaddafi down, it was his own people. He was an authoritarian dictator, and his people saw an opportunity to rise up and get rid of him. The only thing the US did was that we didn't stop them from doing that.
While technically true, I think you underestimate the effectiveness of a well carried out clandestine operation.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
You mean it worked out pretty good for the Canadians to get free nuclear protection under the US nuclear umbrella.
A more equitable arrangement would involve sending the Canadians a bill.
Same thing with NATO.
Same thing with the UN.
What about ISIS? IF the US has nukes, then ISIS has a right to have them too right? What matters most is complete fairness to all the psychopathic murderers.
I'd love to see a not-so-clandestine operation to take out Kim. We've already admitted that we were watching him on the launchpad for an hour before one of their recent tests, that was a clear warning. Maybe the next time we see that we should take the opportunity to end the war before it begins. NK is a more difficult target for the "traditional" kind of covert op, unless we can recruit some defectors or South Koreans to somehow enter the country and get to Kim.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Trump won a 1/3 of California. A lot of people in (especially rural) California do love trump.
Almost 1/2 of texas voted against trump.
There are no red states or blue states. There are non-swing states that still contain large populations of both parties, that have clear (albeit slight) majorities. Our election system incentivizes winner take all systems for distributing state electors to presidential candidates.
The actual political divide is between rural and urban areas.
a madman straight out of an Austin Powers movie.
There is nothing "mad" about NK's behavior. The Kim dynasty has been extremely successful at staying in power. Even more than the Castro dynasty in Cuba, which started later and has yet to manage a generational transition.
Let's look at the track record for "giving up nukes", the supposedly "sensible" action:
1. Saddam Hussein gave up his nukes in 1991
Result: Overthrown by America and executed.
2. Muammar Gaddafi shutdown his nuke program in 2003
Result: Overthrown and murdered by forces backed by America.
3. Ukraine gave up their nukes after being given an American guarantee of their borders and sovereignty.
Result: Invaded by Russia, while America did little.
Given America's track record of betrayal, NK would be nuts to give up their deterrent.
You speak almost the full truth. The USA does not have long term consistancy. It changes every four years. I would not trust the USA with maintaining the American Dollar. Trump is letting it slide, which is bad for imports, but good for exports. Oh! besides Tropical Orange Juice and some Tomatoes, what does the USA export?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Your opinion on if they should or shouldn't have been used is debatable. My own study of history, and I've been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, disagrees.
Just another day in Paradise
Have you asked any South Koreans how they feel about this?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
We basically said the same thing.
You say that, but the definition problem with INS is dead reckoning. Error accumulates unless you have a known landmark to reference. Change your flight path one degree, and over the course of TENS OF MILES, how far off would you be? I don't have the trig out right now. But I can confidently tell you, it's a substantial number.
So while a nuke would certainly do damage to whatever it hits, we'd really need to pull out the math to see whether INS alone is enough to hit a city / state / country or it'll just falling into the ocean and nuke some dolphins. (Good, because I for one, don't welcome our potential finned overlords.)
I was under the impression that the border was mountainous enough in places that we know there's artillery there, we just don't know where it is.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Stand by while I attempt to locate The Point for you. Initial indications are that it massively overshot the planned landing area.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Such an idiotic response. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. Do you understand what 'kinetic' energy is and why explosives aren't needed. Every time you respond you demonstrate your ignorants, so don't talk to me about kool-aid pal, it's what mockingbirds drink.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As if the U.S. hasn't had first strike capability for decades.
What has that got to do with deploying that capability? ABM/THAAD is being deployed around the world, that is the point.
But don't let that interfere with your facts.
and which ones are you basing your 'opinions' on? Apply some simple logic to what you are saying, where are the deployments supposed to be, how will that be achieved. Don't be rude just because what I say challenges your assumptions especially when the only thing you have to defend your assumptions is another assumption.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Maybe, but I'd find that a little hard to believe. If they move it often, there needs to be a road infrastructure for it, and that really helps narrow down where it might be at any one time. If they don't, they still need to supply the troops manning it. And that means they're making regular deliveries to the same location over years. I can't believe that with the wealth of spy tech we have now that we haven't pinned that down. Did you catch the piece here this week about the spy plane circling Seattle? If they don't have the same tech or better on the NK border, I'd be pretty shocked.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
"What has that got to do with deploying that capability? ABM/THAAD is being deployed around the world, that is the point."
It has everything to do with the earlier bullshit you claimed: "It's name is THAAD [wikipedia.org] a system that enables first strike capability."
"Apply some simple logic "
Back at ya.
"Don't be rude just because what I say challenges your assumptions"
I haven't made any assumptions. Your statement was factually incorrect, and now that I've pointed it out to you twice, you want to whine that I've been rude, or made assumptions? "American "leaders" must think..." Talk about assumptions.
Just another day in Paradise
I guess it depends on how much infrastructure they have there - if it's one huge tunnel complex, or even multiple small tunnel complexes, deliveries could be made to fewer locations than there are gun batteries. I'm sure the locations of quite a few of them are known, and if they start firing then the rest would get taken care of fairly quickly, but maybe not quickly enough unless you can evacuate Seoul or get them to shelters somehow.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
In places where travel is heavily restricted and the citizens spy on themselves, it is hard to insert a spy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yeah right, what Saddam (allegedly!) did to his people was a justification for 'the West' to destroy the whole country and its infrastructure and heavily pollute it with radioactive dust and debris from uranium shellings.
1 Million people died, many of them innocent young children, countless babies are born with severe deformities, but "it was worth it".
And also based on a big lie.
Talking about stupid...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
ISIS isn't a country. But if they can create them then why shouldn't they be able to have them.. (mind you, it doesn't mean I think they should have them, NOBODY should have nuclear weapons).
Erm...THAAD provides a first-strike capability by destabilising Mutual Assured Destruction. If the US have the ability to destroy incoming nukes from Russia/China then they can perform a nuclear strike at any time without fear of retribution.
Unless the parent was being deliberately obtuse and I'm a victim of some weird second-cousin of Poe's Law...
Nice try, Obama is history.
The US now have Bozo the demented clown in charge for at least 4 years on the playground that is given by history.
What Obama/ GWB / Clinton/ Nixon did or didn't is _completely_ irrelevant in theory of "guilt".
It is _only_ relevant if it helps understanding and forecasting the behaviour of the current players involved.
See METK's comment above - Seoul doesn't need to be evacuated. The northern suburbs may need that, but most of the city is safe. NK just doesn't have the range to hit most of Seoul with most of their weapons. And yes, they do have bomb shelters in Seoul. They have always had them.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
How sure are we that they haven't gotten or developed better artillery since then? It's not totally implausible that they've made something better, or gotten it from the Chinese.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
My guess would be pretty sure. Because if they did, they'd need to train on it. And with sub-meter satellite imagery, I'm guessing that it would be hard to hide the sort of large-scale artillery practice that would be needed in order for the troops to learn to fire them. If you look at US Army training, it's massive. The supply lines you need for artillery are pretty large, and if you want to practice shooting them, you need a lot of space for that. You can't learn to dial in a gun if your shots are falling into the jungle, and you don't know where. This is what we're talking about. And one gun won't do it - you would want dozens and dozens to hit Seoul. And for those, you need trained crews, and likely several of them so you can rotate them on and off. For cannon crewmen, we require 7 weeks of training, including simulated combat and live fire. If NK is doing that, I think we'd notice. If they're not, then no matter what they're getting or making for weapons, they're not going to be terribly effective.
That said, that's all speculation. I hope we find out the truth after a peace, rather than through a flare-up of the war.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
According to ISIS they are a country (i.e. an islamic state). We don't recognize their statehood, but it seems a little too convenient to deny a country's right to nuclear weapons by simply refusing to recognize their statehood.
Sure nobody should have nuclear weapons. But as long as the US has them, you support ISIS also having them? I don't think they have the technology to create them, but they can just buy them, from north korea perhaps.
Ah, those are good points. Thanks for the info! Agreed, hopefully we don't have to learn this the hard way.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
It is _only_ relevant if it helps understanding and forecasting the behaviour of the current players involved.
No, it becomes relevant to show the disingenuous nature of the argument. The left claimed Russia was our friend up until very recently, while nearly everyone else (except Trump) disagreed. You can't have it both ways w/o being a hypocrite. Which is exactly what the GP was doing by bringing up history, and yet you're claiming I should be able to respond to it because it's irrelevant.
Just another day in Paradise
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"Consider millions of these devices airdropped into Iraq and Yugoslavia -- instead of more expensive cruise missiles! Anybody got $1 billion to spend on ensuring democracy with a true defense against tyranny in those places? (This is probably what the U.S. military's spends on gas/oil for a month cruising the area...) "
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"Apply some simple logic "
Back at ya.
Ah, I see where I have erred, my apologies, I am only human so thank you for the opportunity to clarify:
THAAD prevents retaliation to a US first strike from the geographic regions it is deployed.
"What has that got to do with deploying that capability? ABM/THAAD is being deployed around the world, that is the point."
It has everything to do with the earlier bullshit you claimed: "It's name is THAAD [wikipedia.org] a system that enables first strike capability."
Does the deployment of THAAD allow the US a first strike option with protection from retaliation. Yes it does.
Your statement was factually incorrect, and now that I've pointed it out to you twice, you want to whine that I've been rude, or made assumptions?
Yes it was, my statement didn't specify that with THAAD deployed the US is protected from retaliatory strikes from other nations if the US decided to use a first strike option. That is why the US is deploying THAAD around the world and NK is a press beat up to cover the operation to deploy THAAD around the world so that the US can engage in a first strike option without the fear of retaliation.
Does that make it clear enough? Or are you going to tell me the US already has some sort of 'star wars' program that already has been deployed and the US already can make a nuclear first strike and be protected from retaliation.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yes it was, my statement didn't specify that with THAAD deployed the US is protected from retaliatory strikes from other nations if the US decided to use a first strike option. That is why the US is deploying THAAD around the world and NK is a press beat up to cover the operation to deploy THAAD around the world so that the US can engage in a first strike option without the fear of retaliation.
Does that make it clear enough? Or are you going to tell me the US already has some sort of 'star wars' program that already has been deployed and the US already can make a nuclear first strike and be protected from retaliation.
You asserted that "This whole 'thing' about NK is a cover...", which I'm trying to get through your skull, isn't a logical conclusion. The U.S. doesn't need a "cover" if it wanted to make those deployments, and the entire premise is that we want to use them. Yeah, there are plenty of idiots who make asinine comments about turning NK (or some other place) to glass, but that's not going to happen w/o us being attacked first (though I'll grant that this is only my opinion as someone who's worked in and around the business for 40+ years). Our allies (South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Japan, UAE, Oman, etc.) have specifically made requests for missile defense products such as Patriot and THAAD. So, yeah, I'm sure it's just a big cover story to allow the U.S. to have a protected first strike ability, because that's what we're really trying to accomplish...duh.
Just another day in Paradise
You asserted that "This whole 'thing' about NK is a cover...", which I'm trying to get through your skull, isn't a logical conclusion.
Politics isn't a logical business.
The U.S. doesn't need a "cover" if it wanted to make those deployments, and the entire premise is that we want to use them.
Yes, as a tool to prevent retaliation to a preemptive US first strike, and the reality is you have people in control of your weapons systems who advocate this. Are you going to lie and say that isn't the case.
Who the fuck is going to attempt a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US? A. No-one, they would be evaporated 5 minutes later. ergo THAAD, ABM, Star Wars is a psychological weapon to tell the world the US can launch a pre-emptive strike at will and there is fuck all the rest of the world can do about it.
Yeah, there are plenty of idiots who make asinine comments about turning NK (or some other place) to glass, but that's not going to happen w/o us being attacked first
Spare me the pontification, the US has started more wars/insurgencies/police action or whatever other weasel words you call them since the end of WWII than any other country. You have more military bases in more countries around the world. You spend as much as the rest of the world combined on your military budget, it's why your health care system is so fucked.
And be realistic, Iraq, Libya gave up there nuclear weapons and look what happened to them. As fucked as what is happening to the NK people under Kim jun wotevs I'm pretty sure he saw that and went "fuck! the US will invade you if you don't have nukes". So no, you guys create your enemies by enforcing your interests in the world and until the good people of the US start to own this behavior and take responsibility for it nothing will change.
George. WarTimePresident. Bush, revoked the crude oil shipment deal it make with NK after the US K.war, which was made so that NK wouldn't start playing with nukes. Surprise, soon after, NK started playing with nukes. Don't say 'Why do they hate us', you make em, it's you, get it.
(though I'll grant that this is only my opinion as someone who's worked in and around the business for 40+ years).
Great, your the guy making the policy decision about the strategic use of nuclear weapons. Reckon you could back off a bit and stop pushing the rest of the world around. If we were in a bar and I was your mate I'd be saying to you "hey man chill out a bit, you're being a dick". That's what I'm trying to get through your skull.
Our allies (South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Japan, UAE, Oman, etc.) have specifically made requests for missile defense products such as Patriot and THAAD.
Look mate, as an ally, we're not stupid, we can see what you are doing so stop lying to yourself. Of course they have asked for them, different horse for different courses. You think your own country has a linear approach to deployment of these assets and goes "Gee wiz Chuck, that country doesn't want us to deploy our military assets here, guess we should just go home". No, your US assets are deployed with US strategic interests as the number 1 consideration by any means necessary.
Answer this, don't avoid it: Would the US tolerate a Russian ABM system deployed to Cuba, Canada or Mexico? Seriously mate, be realistic.
So, yeah, I'm sure it's just a big cover story to allow the U.S. to have a protected first strike ability, because that's what we're really trying to accomplish...duh.
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what you have *always* been trying to do since the eighties. Power begets power and the US is the only superpower, of course the US seeks a protected first strike ability, don't be so naive. As an ally, I get it, as a friend I'm telling you the way the US conducts itself in the world isn't friendly.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
a madman straight out of an Austin Powers movie
I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.