Slashdot Mirror
After Two Months of Quiet, North Korea Launches Another Ballistic Missile (arstechnica.com)
South Korean and U.S. officials have confirmed that North Korea has launched another ballistic missile into the sea of Japan. The ballistic missile test -- launched just after 3am Wednesday local time from Sin-ni in South Pyongyang -- is the first since an intermediate-range missile test in September. Ars Technica reports: In a statement to the press, a spokesperson for South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "North Korea fired an unidentified ballistic missile early this morning from Pyongsong, South Pyongan [Province], to the east direction. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff is analyzing more details of the missile with the U.S. side." The U.S. Department of Defense and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have made an initial assessment that the missile was an ICBM, according to Office of the Secretary of Defense spokesperson Col. Robert Manning. The missile traveled 1,000 kilometers, flew over Japan, and landed in the sea east of Japan within its exclusive economic zone.
How many tests did India do before the U.S. dropped the sanctions?
Or what are the sanctions for?
... with NK.
It's Japan's jurisdiction.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... about sovereign airspace violation?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Sea of Japan, East of Japan
...only if we can give Japan some nukes of their own. Just like NK is getting rocket/nuke technology from others (they certainly didn't develop all of this on their own).
So in other words are we going to wait until it flies INTO Japan to do anything or is this all just for show and anyone that matters is in on it?
I know this is a complicated political mess but does Japan really need to put up with these Twitter flame wars when they're literally having hostile ICBMs flying over them?
I'm not calling for military action, this just seems overly strange/irresponsible from both sides.
Surely there's something I'm missing out of all this? Surely?!
I tend to rant.
Every missile launch by North Korea...
The US then informs South Korea that it will provide military aid for reclaiming any territory the US recognizes as theirs.
Due to gross incompetence by multiple administrations, NK will soon have thermonuclear missiles that could reach the USA.
So what, realistically, would the USA do if NK dropped a bomb off the coast of Tokyo. Nothing. Why risk an attack on the USA?
This should be made explicit. Pull out of South Korea and say that any nuclear wars in the area are none of the USA's business and it will not take any action.
That would frighten China into stopping NK.
Because South Korea and Japan (and possibly Tiawan!) would then need to look after their own security. Which means getting missiles of their own. Good quality (and expensive) American ones. The Chinese cannot complain, with NK having them. And most of the new missiles will be pointing at China, not NK.
China will have outsourced its nuclear policy to an idiot in NK. That would not last too long.
Amazing nobody has suggested this already.
Trump is doing a magnificent job. One of the all-time great brains. His tough talk has really put Kim Jong-un in his place.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This missile flight lasted 50 min but went only 600 miles... Nearly straight UP and straight DOWN. I point out that DPRK is obvious testing by lofting the missile way up and watching the reentry where they can see it. They are testing phases of fight other than assent, which means they have the booster they think they need.
Now think a little about what this means. They can fly a missile some 50 min... How far can they get this thing to go if they are not shooting it straight up? I'm guessing they can go far enough to threaten more than just Japan.
This is getting *really* dangerous folks. We either need to start building bomb shelters, deal with this threat or more likely both.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LX7WrHCaUA
"So what, realistically, would the USA do if NK dropped a bomb off the coast of Tokyo. Nothing. Why risk an attack on the USA?"
We would, and should, turn their whole country to dust. Attacking Japan or South Korea with a nuclear warhead would mandate an immediate nuclear response and we would have every moral and strategic obligation to do so.
This actually makes a ton of sense. GTFO of South Korea, sell them, Japan, and Taiwan nuke missiles with plenty of range to nail China. Also sell them the whatever it takes to get full radar coverage over China, so we know not only where every one of their F-16 copies and battleships go, but also their Cessnas. Then watch China shit their pants A) getting rid of the Nork problem; and B) negotiating to get all those missiles/radar systems dafuq away.
Lets be honest, the only reason lil' Kim can continue his nuke program is because of China. Diplomacy hasn't worked in getting China to stop lil' Kim, maybe flat out terror will.
Up up and away.... in my beautiful, my beautiful ka-boom!
Lots of folks like it. Especially The dropping bombs part. After Saddam and Gaddafi disarmed we invaded and bombed. You think North Korea learned nothing from that? We as a nation are not to be trusted.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
USAF Cobra Ball has gone airborne!
We would, and should, turn their whole country to dust.
That seems a little harsh on the people who are being held there by the army, which, it appears, is the entire civilian population.
Say, did you ever hear of Hassan I Sabbah? He had some interesting ideas with regards the moral superiority of assassination over warfare.
(Smug DBZA Vegeta voice) Just... saiyan.
would just shit themselves if Japan finally said " Fuck this " and started testing their own ballistic missiles by launching them over the North Korean peninsula and landing them in the South China Sea.
Hell, just to watch the drama unfold, I would even give them a dozen ICBM's to play with were I sitting on a stockpile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
...that Japan isn't retaliating after repeated WMD incursions of its sovereign airspace.
Can the Japanese even be sure just from the missile's trajectory that it isn't actually aimed at Japan? I mean the most effective way of using a nuke is actually not to hit the target but to detonate it in the atmosphere above the target.
It really makes me concerned about what would actually happen if the missile failed in flight and inadvertently landed on Japanese soil.
for the pro-war shills; we must protect ourselves from NK who can barely keep the lights on! oh no!
OK Then:
South Korea would be plunged into war with the North, the North would immediately fire it's conventional artillery missiles and pretty much level Seoul to the ground, killing it's population of 9.86 million and everyone else between it and the DMZ, within minutes. They'd never even get the chance to use the missiles, as this would happen the second the North found out the US was supplying the South with nuclear weapons.
Japan would condemn the move, saying it was the US attempting to wring it's way out of it's international obligations again, and then would call the move irresponsible after the deaths of everyone in Seoul, while simultaneously decrying the US for needlessly plunging the region into war, as it gears up it's SDF for the long haul. (Japan is one of the US's allies in the region, but has it's own crimes it committed against it's neighbors in WWII to worry about paying back should war break out.) It would also reject the US's selling of nuclear weapons due to it's Constitution prohibiting them, and in hopes of avoiding further provocation of North Korea.
Taiwan would just be fucked.
China would immediately declare war on the US, as would Russia I would assume for further destabilizing the region by promoting the proliferation nuclear weapons. (Also, watch China collapse the US economy overnight when they demand their share of the US debt to be payable in full immediately.)
NATO countries would probably declare war on the US as well. At the very least they'd refuse to support the US in of show of disapproval for the US's actions, in hopes of avoiding conflict. Not sure if they could get away with not supporting the US when China and Russia come knocking, but they'd try.
These would never get installed, even if you did sell them. Once again, the North Koreans would assume such a sale meant war was imminent. They'd never allow it to happen due to the loss of strategic advantage, and the risk of anti missile systems reducing it's threat to Seoul. The US would then be able to declare war on North Korea for it's retaliatory strikes and we're back to mass regional instability.
China meanwhile would consider these actions an attack on North Korea and would come to their aid, never mind what would happen should the US actually attempt to get a military advantage over China on their home turf. (Remit payment to.... No need to fight an enemy if they can't finance a war. Even if they try to pay for it with the blood of their own, they'll run out of people willing to bleed eventually.)
But the potential deaths of millions if not billions, and literately becoming what we are supposedly against, is justified even though the chances of winning are slim to none? Tell me what do you consider to be a "winning" scenario?
The end result is "WWIII: The World VS. the Superpower led by an idiot". Given the sheer amount of crap the US has done during it's tenure of "World's Empire", I'd imagine it would be difficult for the US to survive the resulting backlash intact, even without the use of nuclear weapons. They'd be bankrupt and isolated. Even if China and Russia never invade or never fire a single bullet, the US would die out by pure economic forces.
Or you know, we could not do that and avoid all the trouble that knee-jerk politics creates.
They can patch it up in version 2.0.
Woops, I posted as an AC, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
Ars Technica appears to be seriously in error here. The "Sea of Japan" - where the missile landed (by most press accounts)- is west of Japan, between Japan and Korea, not east of Japan. That rather implies the missile did not fly over Japan at all and that the Ars Technica article is flat out wrong on the subject.
Another big win for Trump's "We're tougher than you" diplomatic strategy.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
1950s to 1960s: Early Developments
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The scenario you present is the one that China would like to avoid. No nukes in NK means no nukes in South Korea or Japan.
That said, I would suggest that putting nukes in SK makes it much less likely that there would be a war with the North. OTOH, have a pretend defence policy that bends more and more whenever NK pushes is very dangerous.
More to the point, a bomb of the coast of Tokyo would just be a warning shot, prior to escalation.
If a Democrat was in the white house, they would think of many reasons not to do anything, not least of which is NK missiles that could reach the USA.
If a Republican was in the white house, the Chinese would invite them over for dinner, pour on the charm, mention a business opportunity and the Republican would soon forget all about NK.
Then NK might send their next missile to an isolated spot in Hokido...
When, in a few years, NK has the capacity to send a missile to the USA, and they look crazy enough to do it, then treaties will be quietly forgotten. A Democrat would make excuses and do nothing, a Republican would talk tough and do nothing.
The USA should threaten to pull out of the region now. Then Japan and South Korea would need their own nukes to protect against NK. Then China would take a different view of the situation, and the NK nukes would be gone.
NK wants to be able to bully SK and Japan into giving them more and more aid and other concessions, more and more of them.
The question I have wondered is aside from the PR value of missile launches for show, wouldn't it be much easier for NK to smuggle a nuke into NY or DC? Just buy an apartment, park the nuke in the lead lined fridge and sit tight until needed. Much more straightforward than attempting to accurately aim an ICBM, dealing with re-entry, dealing with anti-missile defenses and so on.
"Due to gross incompetence by multiple administrations". Really, which one of this administration should have dragged S. Korea and Japan into a war on their soil? The Norks have never been interested in negotiations. Their defectors say the Norks only think of negotiations has kicking the can down the road while they build up more arms. They think if they can just get enough arms, that S. Korea will be theirs, with or without its people.
China would immediately invade Taiwan before they got their first nuke, it is that important to the bastard regime in Beijing that they appear to have big dicks by non-allowing a free group of approx. 23 million free Chinese. It makes them look bad.
The only good North Korean is a dead North Korean. Kim Il-Sung sucks dick.
Lets hear it for attacking a country that has never attacked us!!!! Yes!!! WAR!! MOAR WARR!!!!!
Sadly I have lost faith my may fellow americans.
Maybe, but with Trump in the whitehouse (outhouse, anyway) he's going to tweet into WW3 pissing off the Chinese AND SK AND Japan AND all of Indochina, etc. Basically isolated from every military ally in the region, forcing the US into dependence on vulnerable aircraft carriers with no land-based airbases for any support. Trump is retarded!
No no no, this has nothing to do with 'security'.
North Korea has multiple times offered peace to the US, which has always been rejected.
Makes one wonder why?
Banks.
North Korea has an independent central bank and prints its own money, instead of borrowing it from the international money lenders (I won't mention any names).
The people (banks) that control the US don't like this at all.
So North Korea's regime has to go. Not because it's so dangerous, or crazy, no. Only because of money.
Now what's the easiest way to remove a regime? By letting it go bankrupt, for instance by forcing it to spend the largest part of its national budget on defense.
That's why the money lenders instructed the US to never accept peace from North Korea, unless of course it surrenders to the banks.
So the US is playing this game, NK is forced to spend most of its money on defense, and the banks are waiting for the people in NK to revolt and remove the regime, after which the banks can come in.
Some other countries that don't (or didn't) play nice:
Afghanistan, Irak, Syria, Venezuela, Russia.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Of all the doomsday scenarios you can project this into, here's the darkest one I see as having merit.
The world(China) is likely to continue to do nothing to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles short of strong language. So, the North WILL develop a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the continental USA. Of course, the North has no reason to start a war with the USA so why bother? The hopeful argument is that it's defensive. That of course flies directly in the face of everything that the North says. Most importantly, reunification of Korea is still one of the North's most 'important' stated propaganda goals.
Here's the scary part to me. A North Korea that can demonstrably deploy multiple nuclear warheads onto American cities is NOT a North Korea that America is eager to wage war with. Would America even be willing to defend South Korea from an invasion from the North anymore in this future that is now inevitable? More importantly, what does Kim think the American's are willing to do if faced with nuclear retaliation? If Kim calculates that America is NOT willing to lose multiple cities to nuclear attack just to defend the South, then Kim can invade the South without worrying about American backup.
Which makes it a massive, slow, stupid target for the interceptors.
I don't see NK throwing nukes around willy nilly. They will use them the same way that other nations that have them use them, which is as a deterrent.
NK has one of the largest land based armies in the world. They have also been digging into fortifications since likely the 50's.
The US presence in SK is what keeps NK at bay. NK knows that the US could/would never (politically) invade NK using conventional means. That only leaves unconventional means. Remember, the only reason the US used them against Japan was due to the potential casualty count they would incur should they have tried a land invasion. NK is no fool, however if it ever has any intentions on SK, that is their primary problem. How do you counter that problem? Why you develop your own deterrent. Had Japan at the time had the ability to counter, you can bet it would never had happened. Nor would have the land invasion, as politically the US just wouldn't stand for it. Similarly if NK can show that it has the capability then it is a deterrent. They can use this to force the US into an impossible decision. Should NK move against SK, what would the US do? Unconventional would be off the table if NK could retaliate anywhere in the US. That would leave conventional, but even then, step lightly as if you back them into a corner you have the same problem. Never mind like Japan, it would never come to that, as the US casualties would be far too high, politically would never have the means to do so, and frankly likely most Americans don't really care all that much about either NK or SK all that much (in a relative sense) anyway. To put things in prospective (abet a historical to modern comparison), the estimated casualties for a US invasion of Japan was in the realm of +1,000,000 men. In 8 years of war in Iraq, the number of US casualties were 4,500. Now consider the amount of political pressure that caused, and think about the alternative. It wasn't political then, and wouldn't be now. Even if you tried to massively adjust those numbers to be a more fair comparison, it would still be too large by many levels of magnitude.
So ya, that is basically the problem, and there isn't a whole lot of good solutions (which is likely why nothing has ever been done short of sanctions that don't seems to be all that effective). Bottom line, only really China not America is going to be able to do anything about it, but so far seem unwilling to do anything about it. That said, China has its own disputes with Japan (yellow sea), and the US (Taiwan), so perhaps they don't really care all that much about the eventual result anyway should it go the way they think it will.
With Hillary in the white house WW3 between the US and Russia would already have been started in Syria.
The Ars Technica article appears to be uniquely wrong on this point. The Sea of Japan is west of Japan, between Korea and Japan. No overflight necessary. Such overflights have occurred in the past with the missile landing somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, but not this time. This is a conventional straight line trajectory, not a cruise missile on a pleasure trip.
http://www.nola.com/national_p...
The height of the missile was much higher than any previous one from NK. Based on that, if they had fired it at a lower trajectory, it could have reached anywhere in the US. Granted, it didn't have a massive nuclear warhead on it, but that fact alone is significant. They could still land one in NYC or wherever they choose in the US as a show of capability.
And we are the country that has our dickbeater-in-chief trading insults and playing crazy-chicken with NK.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
After dropping the world's biggest bomb on Afghanistan. Very few people will _say_ they want war. But when it starts they get in line and watch the fireworks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yep. With a mobile launcher. And they tested a 140 kiloton bomb. Next year, they put will them together and starting production. Time to set the Doomsday Clock to 30 seconds until GAME OVER!
It's interesting to note that in the modern world, the few countries not under control of the central banking system include Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and a few others.
These countries are considered 'evil'. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 100 years! Evil? I think not.
By comparison, Israel is constantly at war, commits human rights violations on a daily basis, illegally occupies Palestine, stockpiles nuclear weapons and refuses to let weapons inspectors in.
The USA is the only country to drop an atomic bomb on another country (and murder millions of innocent people).
The British committed genocide against the natives in Canada. Part of their crimes was delivering small-pox laced blankets to native children to 'keep them warm'.
But that is irrelevant. Russia, China and North Korea are evil!
- If you get caught doing something this stupid, you're dead
- there's no diplomacy value, leaving the country vulnerable and weak
- no domestic prestige, no space program
- buying a flat in Mahnattan or DC is barely cheaper
- they try to claim some moral high ground actually, or really intend to nuke US military bases. try smuggling nukes to Guam, Pearl Harbor, or super strategic mainland places
Slow at early boost maybe when you can't intercept it but I think it's pretty hypersonic.
They hinted twice this year about intent to fire four missiles at a same target, this might be enough to defeat missile defense.