Slashdot Log In
North Korea Missile Launch Fails
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Apr 05, 2009 07:47 PM
from the one-of-the-strings-must-have-broken dept.
from the one-of-the-strings-must-have-broken dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launch by the North Koreans last night? You know, the one that went over Japan and supposedly put a 'communications satellite' into orbit. Well, according to the US Northern Command and NORAD it has been a complete and utter failure, with the second stage and payload 'falling in the Pacific.'"
Related Stories
Submission: North Korea Missile Launch Fails by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Politics: North Korea Launches "Communication Satellite" Rocket 492 comments
Mad Ivan writes "The BBC has just reported that North Korea has launched a long-range rocket, which they say is a communications satellite, but that the US and Japan fear may actually be a ballistic missile. Details are still arriving; the rocket passed over northern Japan on its way up."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
... lol. (Score:5, Funny)
PROPAGANDA (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the real goal was to prove that they can nuke Japan.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm, you're off by a decade or two if you think the kidnapping stuff comes from Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese [wikipedia.org]
There are lots of other hits too. And that isn't even beginning to touch what undercover reporter have exposed from within North Korea. Did ya know that human tastes like pork? How about opium being more profitable a crop than any grain while costing less in upkeep than the populace the grain would have fed. Ya don't think that the CIA was alone in exchanging drugs, guns, and cash, do you? How about these reporters?
http://cbs13.com/local/north.korea.americans.2.963243.html [cbs13.com]
Invading Iraq was a geo-polical move, possibly a bad one, but that won't be known for a few more years. North Korea, the country that invaded South Korea, is actual dangerous if you live in Japan or South Korea. Kim has successfully, and repeatedly, extorted aid and concessions by threatening his neighbors then backing off if he is just given what he demands. This was with both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Russia and China tolerate him, as he is their geo-political bishop piece.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Informative)
What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan
Nothing. But that doesn't stop the DPRK from benefiting from having the capability to nuke Japan. The DPRK is heavily dependent on aid from the West, having a nuclear stick allows it to demand aid on far more favourable terms and remain relevant on the world stage.
US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war,
They're like that because the DPRK still acts like the Cold War is on, with cross border skirmishes with the South every few years at least. Not to mention the fact that the Korean War never officially ended.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like their ability to annihilate Seoul; it would be a suicide attack, but that doesn't stop it from keeping the entire civilized world at bay.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Funny)
What is it with people and nuking Japan? Isn't twice more than enough?
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Same reason they might start a war they couldn't possibly win -- because their leader is an unpredictable nutjob.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
bottom line, is the world doesn't trust countries run by crackpot dictators, and rightly so.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy it. They have a pretty solid dictatorship going with heavy communistic leanings. This displeases a lot of governments besides the US. If they wanted to be the world's friend, they could just not act aggressively (it's not like South Korea is really waiting for their chance to strike, they are fine letting North Korea just do their thing.) So, why the attitude? Let's look at Cuba, they learned the hard way that a missile "defense" strategy is a good way to lose friends, but for the few decades since, they have been going along fine with no militaristic tendencies and they haven't been overthrown by Turks n' Caicos or one of the many other nations drooling at the chance to storm Havana.
So is North Korea really a bogeyman? I think they give themselves a lot more headache than anyone else tries to pin on them. Why not just set up a "cute dictatorship" by declaring Kim Jong Il "familial monarch" (britain I am looking at you) or "prime minister" (russia I am looking at you) and then hold an election to find a "president" to give things an air of democracy. That way you can at least say you are trying, even if you still do things like invading peaceful neighbors (russia, again.)
That being said, it is nice (as a US citizen) having an international jerk around, it makes the US not look so bad.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
Okay.
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
This question is nonsensical. It's the kind of rhetorical fodder to feed those who are incapable of actually engaging in logical analysis and thinking for themselves. Anyone who does so would immediately note that a nation cannot want anything, as it is a non-physical abstraction incapable of independent thought. Possibly you mean, "why would the leader of a nation want..." or "why would the party leadership want..." or "why would the man on the street want...", but of course the answers to all these questions are likely to be different. Making the question nonsensical forces the reader to rationalize it in their own manner, and thus causes the largest number of readers to act as if this is a sensible question, and treat what you're saying with a "yeah, man, you're right" attitude even when you're not saying anything. This is why questions like this one you're asking here are so powerful tools against people who don't actually analyze very well, they even repeat them without noticing they are contentless rhetorical tools.
The real problem for you here is, if you actually make a sensible question out of this, no matter which way you go, it either has a sensible answer, or it's immediately obvious that it's not a relevant question. It's easy to come up with reasons why a dictator would want to isolate a country (and the DPRK is not the only example of this, see Burma, for example, or any number of isolationist regimes of many nations over the years). It's maybe not to easy to see why the man on the street would want it, but then it hardly matters what they want in a non-democratic country.
US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war,
...as is much of the current world power structure and even a number of nations, yes.
...and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.
...as did a large number of countries at one time or another, which are not similarly isolated. This would indicate that the reasons for the isolation are more complex than this rather facile treatment. Without even going into details, it's apparent from even a cursory bit of logical analysis that most of what you've said here is wrong, incomplete, or meaningless (indeed, I would say the majority of what you posted was, in fact, "not even wrong").
Reading and thinking analytically, it's actually pretty hard to form a rebuttal to what you said, since you in fact said almost nothing. You asked a bunch of questions that were mostly vague and nonsensical, but to the extent you did say or at least imply anything, it would appear to be poorly thought out or ill-informed.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm...speaking of analytical thinking... Would you care to enumerate the number of nuclear weapons that were fired by Russia or the US at each other during the Cold War? I mean...the whole point is to NOT USE THE FUCKING THINGS. That is what Mutually Assured Destruction is all about. The notion that you could "win" a nuclear war was pretty much entirely abandoned a long time ago. The only people that really have any intention of USING them are psychotic. (See Iran declaring that Israel should be wiped off the map, or Dubya asking for "tactical" nuclear weapons to be developed). The whole point behind them is to join the ranks of countries that can bring a tremendous amount of hurt, because if you can't nuke someone you don't get taken seriously.
Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't - Invasion!
Iraq got stuck in a pretty bad situation. Admit to the world they don't have nuclear capabilities and aren't close to having them and face the wrath of the Iranians or Saudies as the world looked the other way, or pretend they did have the capabilities and hope to God that no one would invade.
NK is going to be very interested in demonstrating that it has nuclear capabilities and the ability to deliver them (even if at a rather limited range). It sends the message "fuck with us and we will murder millions". Now, I agree that there has been a great deal of overly aggressive rhetoric, but those NK folks aren't exactly the most friendly bunch to begin with. In fact their leadership tends to show quite a bit of psychotic behavior. There have been people defecting from NK for years telling the world that ol Kimmy thinks he can fight with the big dogs and win. The really disturbing ones are the people that escape to China and are shocked by how "free" they are there.
Now...to answer why would any nation want to be that isolated...well...because it allows their psychotic dictators to rule with an iron fist. Some of these freaks are content with ruling their little corner of the earth with absolute power rather than expanding their lands and making it harder to control with absolute power. Ol Kimmy fashions himself to be a God much like the Egyptian Pharohs...that kind of nonsense doesn't really work out well unless you keep the people isolated from the rest of the world, and what better way to do that then enlist the aid of the rest of the world.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.
You forgot
Pakistan - Known to be hiding the most wanted man in the world, [wikipedia.org] but is also known to have nukes [wikipedia.org] - No invasion.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Because the nation's leader is a vain, paranoid demagogue, who knows that if his people ever come in contact with the outside world and realize that the rest of the world is mostly full of nice, reasonable people who get to eat more than 500 calories a day, they'll all rise up and murder him in his sleep.
the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century
That, and the fact that the moment the world stops stomping, they'll march a million men across the border and burn Seoul, one of the greatest free cities on Earth, to the ground.
You may be right that their posturing towards the U.S. is a result of their being boxed in by cold war politics. But they've made it clear that their attitude towards South Korea is anything but posturing.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?
Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?
Yeah, how about you do a little analytical thinking.
The GOVERNMENT of the DPRK isolates themselves so that they can stay in power. By being isolated, they have total control of their citizens and are able to prevent uprisings.
For North Korea, it's not about the welfare of the citizens, it's about maintaining the phat lifestyle of the people in charge. Having the potential to attack other countries (even if it is suicidal), helps ensure the North Korea will be left alone from international meddling and possibly even get some concessions for "giving up" nukes and ballistic missiles in the future.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Informative)
You have more faith in the UN than I do.
UN doesn't enter into it. Japan is still essentially a protectorate of the United States of America -- nuking Japan would be legally equivalent to nuking Hawaii in international law, and the response would be just as swift.
Parent
Re:... lol. (Score:5, Interesting)
can you give a link that shows Japan as a protectorate of the United States of America?
well there's the UN charter and appealing to the Security Council to take action, but more specifically there's the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan [wikipedia.org]:
Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9).
Parent
Re:rational = predictable (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess the big question is, how many UN inspections did they manage to pull off without prior notice being given (or tipped) to the Iraqi government, and without the ever present Iraqi "minders"? We still don't know if any weapons were smuggled to Syria, but that's still a possibility too. We may never know.
There was good reason for suspicion; Saddam had bio weapons scant years earlier, so there was definitely a precedent there - it was not just a fairy tale made up out of thin air. The guy had made and used bio weapons before, that much was solid fact. Considering Saddam's behavior and actions during the inspections, even if just a bluff, he was sending the wrong signals.
Parent
Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be a great opportunity to see exactly how far advanced their missile/rocket program is, assuming we've got salvage vessels in place to pick up the pieces.
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
The US definitely have the ability to salvage it, if it were found. Locating it would be the hard part. Just estimating, but I'd have to put the probability at just about zero.
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Your estimate is almost certainly far too pessimistic.
The USN was doing skunkworks stuff during the cold war, with purpose-outfitted subs, finding interesting bits of Soviet hardware in some crazy deep waters. I seriously doubt that they've forgotten how to do it. My money would be that they've continue to develop the capability, but even if all it's done is stagnate they've already proven very competent at finding Soviet needles in oceanic haystacks. And NORAD will have some very accurate tracking to help them start the search. Hell, I'd bet even money they've already got something out in the Pacific somewhere waiting for just such an opportunity. Or there's a lot of crewmen who just went off leave all of a sudden.
Have a read of "Blind Man's Bluff" sometime, there's some rather fascinating escapades in there.
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
assuming North Korea didn't include an auto-destroy mechanism onboard
If they did, they better hope it worked better the the rest of the mission.
Turns out, it IS rocket science! Who'da thunkit?
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Might also be interesting to see what sort of "communications satellite" was heading for Tokyo and/or orbit.
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).
I don't think so. The remaining pieces of the rocket might be able to tell us quite a lot.
It could be the case that the North Koreans are bumping up against some of the same problems that we did 60 years ago, when we were developing our own rocket program. If we know what made it fail, we'll know what they'll have to change to make it work, and exactly what technological advancements NK will need for future rockets to be successful. We can target our intelligence/diplomatic/military energies on those precise technologies.
Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.
More knowledge is always better than less.
Parent
Such a simple thing... (Score:5, Funny)
You'd think even North Korea could get a missile launch right. I mean, it's not rocke...err, oh yeah, nevermind.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government and the popular media have been spouting this nonsense that it was a "failure."
BS.
I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure." Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. Since we don't know whether or what NK learned from this, calling the test a "failure" is pure speculation.
Quite so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Particularly cause they DO plan to launch a few more.
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13432014&source=features_box_main [economist.com]
Makes one wonder if they perchance don't have another one ready to be launched from the new launch site?
Parent
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I halfway agree with you. The fact that the missile made it over Japan was a success. However, be aware that in our own space program, whenever we had failures, we were often able to recover enough debris to determine precisely what the cause of the failure was. With the rocket splashed down somewhere in the Pacific, NK is only going to have pure speculation as to what the probable cause was. I can guarantee you that the US and her allies probably have a good idea where the upper stage and payload landed, and are probably planning on recovering it. After all, we need to know: 1) what the payload really was and 2) what the failure mode of the missile was in order to estimate how advanced their technology is.
Plus, there's other advantages to having a splashdown in our backyard: We can prevent them from recovering the rocket and learning about their own failures except through further trial and error. Will NK eventually solve these problems? Probably. However, our best bet is to delay them.
Remember, early in our space program, test failures were what happened when the rocket blew up on the launch pad. We could learn from that. No doubt NK did the same thing. However, whenever we had launch failures where a rocket came down a significant distance from the launch point, few things beat examining the wreckage for probable problems. Yes, we had extensive telemetry during flight, too, and maybe NK has that; but until the wreckage is recovered--hopefully by us--there's no telling how it failed. We stand to learn a lot from their failure, too, as I've mentioned before.
One other poster below made the point about this being successful if the intent were to test the range of the rocket. I find that to be much more likely. As far as the story goes, however, the rocket itself was most likely a failure.
Parent
They should have asked Iran (Score:4, Funny)
Let me guess, they couldn't figure out how to get the Photoshop crack to work.
You have to overwrite the .dll file!
Failure in what sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.
If this was a test to see what the effective range was of the missile, then they absolutely determined that and there was no failure. While I dislike the way North Korea interacts with the rest of the world, I find the highly suggestive wording of the write-up to be misleading and inaccurate.
I think we all knew the 'satellite' story was BS, so we can't evaluate the launch in terms of whether they put something in orbit or not. That part is irrelevant.
Re:Failure in what sense? (Score:5, Informative)
They've had missiles that could reach Japan for quite some time already... this was quite the failure for them.
Parent
Re:Failure in what sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Failure in what sense? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Third party verification? (Score:5, Insightful)
according to the US Northern Command and NORAD
Not to get all tinfoil-hat on everyone, but has anyone closer to a neutral third party got any information?
I don't doubt the NORAD report, but it might be nice to have a source without a vested interest make a report as well.
Re:Third party verification? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were going to lie wouldn't you expect them to say the test was a success so that they could get ABM funding?
In any case, I don't think that there is anyone with the resources to provide your verification that doesn't have a "vested interest".
Parent
Re:Third party verification? (Score:5, Informative)
Few sources without a vested interest are equipped with the tracking radars and other equipment needed to verify whether or not the launch failed.
Parent
Re:Third party verification? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
That's what I'm looking for, thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
Perfect. From the link you provided:
Unha-2, which was launched at the Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground in Hwadae County, North Hamgyong Province at 11:20 on April 5, Juche 98 (2009), accurately put Kwangmyongsong-2 into its orbit at 11:29:02, nine minutes and two seconds after its launch.
The satellite is going round the earth along its elliptic orbit at the angle of inclination of 40.6 degrees at 490 km perigee and 1 426 km apogee. Its cycle is 104 minutes and 12 seconds.
Mounted on the satellite are necessary measuring devices and communications apparatuses.
The satellite is going round on its routine orbit.
It is sending to the earth the melodies of the immortal revolutionary paeans "Song of General Kim Il Sung" and "Song of General Kim Jong Il" and measured information at 470 MHz. By the use of the satellite the relay communications is now underway by UHF frequency band.
With that kind of info, there should be dozens of observatories that should be able to spot it. Or HAM radio guys to find the signal it's broadcasting.
Anyone been looking for it yet?
Parent
Glorious Success! (Score:5, Funny)
Far from a failure. North Korean Scientists put their satellite in an extremely low geosynchronous orbit!
A bit wetter than they thought it would be though.
Remember Project Vanguard? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, many of you probably don't. Around the time the Russians put up Sputnik, the American space program was centered around Project Vanguard. It was going to put our first satellite into orbit. And our first satellite was going to be way better than Sputnik.
Only the rockets kept crashing. It became a source of national embarrassment and the subject of jokes.
See this image [wikimedia.org], for examp.e.
North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons. So please be quiet about them nuking everything.
Secondly, it would make no sense at all for NK to shoot anything. They are isolated, NK might make poor decisions but they won't choose to get every cubic meter of NK bombed.
We also know Kim is full of himself. If he lived 5000years ago we would have people building him giant pyramids as monuments to his greatness. At the moment, the greatest achievement a country can make is space travel. Sure the US did it first so what? Right now china, japan and india have space programs and hope to stick a man on the moon. Space Race Asian Edition. Many countries think NK is a crazy backwards land that can't do anything since they are under a horrible tyrannical rule. If anyone felt that way about you wouldn't you want to prove them wrong? Show them how awesome and advanced you are by making it into space.
NK is a bit nutty and isolated from the world. Clearly they must be assholes. But lets look at both sides. The korean war 'ended' poorly sure. Remember the end of WW1 where the global community basically fucked Germany in the ass after winning? Which lead to the bitchiness allowing/causing WW2. A mistake we did not repeat after WW2. So we decide to not trade with NK. Even put up trade barriers/embargoes internationally. Many thousands of people starve in North Korea while the world at large says, give up tyranny and we'll help you eat. (how well does that work?). North Korea is stuck on an island with enemies to the south. Enemies that are much better funded and better armed. They are also probably jealous of the fact and maybe a little pissed that their neighbors are doing so well. They need a bargaining chip. NK starts developing nuclear technology in the early 90s. Out of fear the US promises to provide electricity and normalized trade in exchange NK would disassemble their nuclear plants and join the NNPT. Korea agrees! They take apart their factories. The US changes to the republican party. They do not provide electricity, they do not normalize trade, they spit in NKs face. Bush calls NK part of the axis of evil and lists them as elligable for preemptive nuclear strikes. How the fuck the north koreans are the badguys in this one is beyond me. They were willing to normalize international relations given the chance and it was thrown in their face. So of course they will begin work on nuclear weapons again, they need a bargaining chip.
Clearly NK does not have a good human rights record. Clearly it is terrible that people are starving. But the US policy of Good vs Evil is NOT helpful. Isolating a country, not letting them trade with you, threatening them, hating them does not help. I don't understand the idea that we can fix the problem by giving them an ultimatum they cannot possibly accept then never talking. It is like the 'hard on crime' laws that never seem to help either. Maybe if we offered a hand to NK that we dont use to stab them with they'll be a bit more trusting. Maybe with more money and education, a link to the rest of the world they can join us. A country cannot be evil it isn't a demon or even a person. If we keep going as we have how can you EVER expect countries like North Korea and Cuba to rejoin the rest of us, or maybe the truth is you don't really care.
(man this went longer than I intended, sorry
Re:Silly Koreans (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:north korea is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
> if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all
> calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally
> be taken down like the rabid dog it is
At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?
Parent
Re:north korea is a troll (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Seoul, you insensitive clod!
I am serious.
And since you are an insensitive clod and most likely an American, consider this. Tens of thousands of American soldiers and civilians live in or near Seoul. Right now. That means they are within artillery range of North Korea. (No, I'm not kidding.)
Feel better?
It's so easy to make bold assertions when you don't know or care about the consequences...
Parent
Re:How long is this gonna go on? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you talking about North Korea, or the USA?
Parent