North Korea's Satellite Tumbling In Orbit 257
schwit1 writes: U.S. Defense officials stated Tuesday that the satellite that North Korea launched on Sunday is now tumbling in orbit and is useless. Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit. From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth. They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately, but if you want to ignite an atomic bomb somewhere, you don't have to be very accurate.
Let's get real (Score:5, Interesting)
Now and for decades to come, North Korea would be very unlikely to use an ICBM/IRBM to launch a nuclear bomb. The missile might not work and neither might the payload after being subjected to the stresses of lift-off and re-entry. Assuming they wanted to blow up Washington, DC, I should think that they would simply smuggle the warhead into the US using the same routes used by smugglers to import carload lots of Cannabis then deliver it using an elderly Toyota purchased on credit . (Be a bit difficult to repossess THAT one when the payments stop).
Re:Let's get real (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell. A ground burst also limits the damage. The slow nature of deploying it would make it offensive only - if they were attacked it would be too late to use it. They need the opposite, something that could be launched within a few hours in response to an attack. Something that would sting just enough to make the US decide not to invade.
Actual use would mean suicide, so it's not meant to be used.
Re:Let's get real (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think N. Korea can miniaturize their bombs to that degree. It's probably about 10 tons and bomb-looking as hell.
If that's so, it seems to support GP's point. 10 tons is greater than the throw weight of the largest ICBM in history (8800 kg). The Taepodong-2 vehicle's payload capacity at maximum range (which would only reach the western US, btw) is estimated to be 500 kg or less.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Disclaimer: this is not my field. I'm probably missing a lot of things.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
That's an excellent point. But my comment about the timeliness of launch still stands. An eventual car bomb attack that may or may not work is a lot less of a deterrent than a couple of dozen ICBMs.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.
If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.
If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the nuke aboard a ship and detonate it in a harbor somewhere; at least then they'd have some fig leaf of plausible deniability.
Yeah, not so much. Not that the Norks wouldn't try that dodge, but fingerprinting nuclear weapons is a thing. Within hours of it's use, we'll know whose it was, or at least who built it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Taepodong-2 was not an ICBM. It's the space launch vehicle and Taepodong-1 was an earlier, clearly failed attempt. I believe someone made the Taepodong names up, and a decade or more ago we all assumed these were long range missiles rather than something to launch a satellite from.
True the line between space launch and ICBM seems really thin but this is really a rocket that needs weeks of launch preparation, can be fired from a single place and would only be usable as a really weak single shot, suicide
Re: (Score:2)
I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?
That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.
Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero u
Re: (Score:2)
> Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability,
I didn't say that nuclear artillery is a good idea. (In fact it strikes me as anything but ... "You expect me to do what? Screw that, I'm going to go find an enemy and surrender") But I don't see how the artillery round can weigh much more than a few hundred kg and the system still be mobile. ie. within limits, shrinking a nuclear warhead once you have one that works probably is not anywhere near as difficult as building on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's get real (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.
In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability. Sure, they can barely feed their people. 20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world. Refining and improving that is well within their ability, they just need the time. I can only interpret your level of meaningful to mean that they can't reasonably develop a large enough arsenal to match existing nuclear powers. Given how brutal, cruel and tyrannical the Godkings inheriting North Korea are, that's small comfort.
The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago. All the hand wringing is watching a very nasty family growing more and more powerful while we fear the cost of their removal too much to contemplate it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think in terms of total probability, the US is more likely to launch a nuclear strike on DPRK than it is to invade and fight a ground war there.
DPRK is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons and has had 60 years to dig in deep, making a conventional ground assault extremely painful. Not that the US couldn't *win* such a fight should it choose to dedicate the resources, but it would be extremely resource and manpower intensive.
And for what possible gain? No appreciable natural resources, a civilian
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea is more rational than most people tend to believe, but not rational to the level that, say, Iran is (and they're far more rational than people tend to believe). They do believe the world is out to get them, but they also know enough not to pull the trigger themselves unless there's no other choice--though that may include taking the nation down with them if someone tries a coup.
Absent an enlightened successor to Kim Jong-Un in about 30 years, any shift in that impoverished country is likely to
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea is more rational than most people tend to believe, but not rational to the level that, say, Iran is (and they're far more rational than people tend to believe). They do believe the world is out to get them, but they also know enough not to pull the trigger themselves unless there's no other choice--though that may include taking the nation down with them if someone tries a coup.
Absent an enlightened successor to Kim Jong-Un in about 30 years, any shift in that impoverished country is likely to be bloody, violent, and involve a lot of carnage outside its borders.
Where I'm not inclined to disagree much... It's obvious that an overthrow of the Kim dynasty will be bloody, I'm inclined to believe that if it happens it will be quick and the violence will be fairly localized and unlikely to flow over the border that much. What WILL be an issue is if the conflict lasts very long and the population starts flooding over the borders as refugees, mostly into China.
The question that should be going through everybody's minds though should be what will trigger such events...
Re: (Score:2)
They want an ICBM for the same reason that the US and all other nuclear ICBM equipped powers do: Mutually Assured Destruction.
Okay, in their case they couldn't destroy the US, but the threat of possibly having a major city destroyed is probably enough to prevent a US president from risking an attack.
They are a long way from that point though. They don't have solid fuel rockets, so they can't keep weapons in a state of readiness for very long. Still, the weapon doesn't need to be 100% reliable or practical,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now and for decades to come, North Korea would be very unlikely to use an ICBM/IRBM to launch a nuclear bomb.
Well, not unless they've invented a Golfball of Doom. The throw weight on an Unha is pretty pathetic, and in any case it's not suitable in its current config as an ICBM.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea has demonstrated that it can launch garbage into orbit. If it used that capability strategically it could make a real mess of things up there.
Its not the actual bomb, its the threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, what they want is the threat that they could let loose with several missiles if we were to invade them, and it would be difficult to stop them once in the air. That scares the US populace, and makes them think twice about coming and attacking them on the first place. That is why they make such a big show of it all, to make sure we know they have a weapon they could use against us. That, after all, is really the whole premise of nuclear weapons at this point.
Re:Its not the actual bomb, its the threat (Score:5, Insightful)
massive retaliation literally destroying their country
I assume you don't actually know where NK is. Look on a map. Bejing is less than 500miles away. NK shares a border with China. Japan is very close, too. There is no possibility that China would allow the USA to nuke one of its neighbours - not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region.
Luckily, your fears are completely unfounded. NK doesn't give a flying *** about the USA. It is more concerned with South Korea and if it was to use a nuke, they already have a target painted large as Seoul is only 30 miles from the NK border - easily reachable by truck in less than an hour. That is their hostage, should anyone attack them. What is far more likely is that they are developing the technology to sell. The launches are just advertising for their capabilities and the people you should be worried about are the ones who hate you and have lots of money. Sadly, that list is quite long: just look at all the countries you've bombed back to the stone age in the past few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Would let us? There's no "let". If China doesn't want us nuking North Korea, they have to make sure North Korea doesn't drop a nuke on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points.
If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.
You can argue whether or not we SHOULD respond by obliterating NK, but if the continental US was nuked the US would be out for blood and nobody else in the world could stop us.
Re: (Score:2)
not with the possibility of fallout spreading across the region
This isn't a real concern; Beijing's pollution already blows eastward over the Koreas and the Pacific to end up in California, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
NK's entire educational indoctrination program is based on hatred of the U.S [youtube.com]. You know how one of the best ways to unite a people is to confront them with an outside e
Re: (Score:2)
And the US defense system has no protection from a low-orbit-ish ICBM passing over the US. And no plans for anything that would protect against it.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, so people in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska wouldn't be able to use electronic devices? Would anyone notice?
NK can send a storm of artillery rounds to seoul (Score:2)
NK can send a storm of artillery rounds to seoul.
Re: (Score:2)
When dedicated nuts are up to something, take them at their word.
Big difference between a nutcase that's ruling over a functional government and a nutcase who's still trying to establish one. Kim has a lot to lose if he decides to wage a hot war against the most powerful military in the world. Bin Laden had nothing to lose except his life, which he probably thought of as merely a barrier to the blissful afterlife [wikipedia.org]. Maybe we should be thankful that Kim still loves basketball and Disneyland and the sensual pleasures of the here and now.
Sputnik days are here again (Score:3)
it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth
Almost 60 years ago, americans were scared of the USSR for exactly the same reasons. Same fears, different country. Nothing changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it is totally beyond the pale for the Norks to slip Daesh a nuke and claim Daesh stole it from the Russkies. That would never happen in your bunny world.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they did manage to do that, the entirety of N Korea would be quickly turned into a hot glass mess. For as much bluster and bullshit they turn out, even they know that they could not survive a nuclear war with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why exactly would Kim who fancies himself a god want to provide Daesh whose cause is to create an Islamic state with assistance in the form of a nuclear weapon?
I don't see many upsides for Kim or the DPRK in doing so. Everyone likes to paint Kim as a mad man. It might be true he does not always display what we consider to be sound judgement. Still he is self interested enough to hand a group that would turn on him as fast as he can blink a real actual WMD ( as opposed to the nasty but hardly massivel
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing missing in your conspiracy theory is postulating a link between North Korea and the Feminization of Western Society.
Re: (Score:3)
it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth
Almost 60 years ago, americans were scared of the USSR for exactly the same reasons. Same fears, different country. Nothing changes.
Yep. And unlike during the cold war, these North Korea fears are almost entirely without basis. North Korea does some odd things, but they aren't stupid or suicidal. A US invasion is a serious and genuine concern for them. They know they would be utterly devastated in any serious conflict. That's exactly why they are working on atomic bombs- to make any conflict so bad that the western powers will not attack them.
It's funny how we remember the events of history but forget the reasons why. Most nu
"you don't have to be very accurate" (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Is the story writer a nuclear arms specialist or is this movie-knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going with movie-knowledge. A nuke blast is only large compared to conventional weapons. Anything more than a few miles away from the blast will be virtually unscathed, and even much closer to the blast you're mainly talking broken windows and a bit of radiation damage. And hitting a relatively small and valuable target like a city requires precision aiming.
The only really credible threat from a poorly aimed nuke is a high-altitude blast, which would knock out radio communications and spread the fall
Re: (Score:2)
Second in damage may be a truck-based ground blast in DC, between the White House and Congress. Should be able to take out both, they are under 2 miles apart. And the damage wouldn't even be much beyond that, leaving DC largely intact, aside from the fallout from a ground blast.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for the US, you don't even have to hit anything.
A single nuclear explosion on the ground that hits an area of moderate importance would have tremendous geopolitical implications (to say the least), combined with probably a trillion dollar shock to the economy.
Three nuclear explosions somewhere 100 mi above the central US and West and East coasts would cause an EMP-triggered cascading failure of most consumer electrical devices for good, and most parts of the power infrastructure for months... if n
Re: (Score:2)
A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.
Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.
Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'
What's the benefit? (Score:2)
I don't really see the benefit of them having ICBM capabilities. At the moment, for people in the USA and Europe, NK is just an annoying abstract threat. Nobody wants to go start anything there because they could probably take out Seoul and parts of Japan quite easily, so it is better to just monitor the situation and leave them alone. It would seem that they are getting some support from China as well, so doing something preemptive could end up getting messy very fast.
But if they get long range missile cap
China is the reason NK exists (Score:4, Insightful)
At the moment, for people in the USA and Europe, NK is just an annoying abstract threat. Nobody wants to go start anything there because they could probably take out Seoul and parts of Japan quite easily, so it is better to just monitor the situation and leave them alone.
The main reason they get left alone is because of China. China protects NK even when they get completely out of pocket for reasons that are only vaguely comprehensible to us. Honestly if China wasn't involved I think NK would have been curb stomped by either the US or one of their neighbors some time ago. China props up the NK regime apparently primarily because they don't want to deal with the humanitarian crisis that would follow if the regime toppled. They also apparently don't want a unified and modern Korea with a border on China for strategic reasons.
Having said that, the guy sounds like a complete crackpot, so maybe he is just bored.
North Korea is on their third generation of crackpot absolute dictator. Hell, technically the Korean War never actually ended. There was an armistice but never an actual peace treaty.
Re: (Score:3)
China prefers North Korea on its border like the United States preferred a corrupt fascist like Batista on Cuba. NK may be bastards, but they are China's bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason they get left alone is because of China. China protects NK even when they get completely out of pocket for reasons that are only vaguely comprehensible to us. Honestly if China wasn't involved I think NK would have been curb stomped by either the US or one of their neighbors some time ago.
It's very comprehensible to us. It's that any post-regime verison of North Korea is pretty much worse for China than the current situation, even if they don't like how things are currently. If NK goes to SK, then they have somebody outside of their control on their border with the US right there also. Even if it goes with China, NK, is generally worse off than China and they don't want to be saddled with that loadstone, and once again, SK and the USA are on their borders. Their only real option is to stick
Re: (Score:2)
Re-entry aiming (Score:2)
Re-entry aiming is actually quite difficult. Statistically they are more likely to land in the ocean or somewhere in the middle of Kansas than they are to hit DC. If they nuked the middle of the ocean it would be an interesting day. We likely wouldn't nuke them back (though we could I guess), We likely would just invade.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the classic blunders. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the classic blunders. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Or get into a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line... Yea, we know...
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how bad they are. The world's first ICBM had a high, 5km CEP. But still, plot a 5km circle on any major city, you're still going to hit a densely populated area.
That said, it's quite true that NK's nuclear weapons are (comparatively) quite weak, and (probably) heavy.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't launched from an object spinning out of control. This thing is going to have a CEP of about 20,000 km.
Re: (Score:2)
One obviously doesn't count failed launches toward CEPs. Anything involving "spinning out of control" is as failure, as far as deployment goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Story I got was that the "satellite" might be a launcher.
who needs re-entry? (Score:2)
unless you don't need to re-enter or hit a specific target. let's say you just want to get something high over the continental US and detonate it.
something that creates a nice EMP.
Re: (Score:2)
unless you don't need to re-enter or hit a specific target. let's say you just want to get something high over the continental US and detonate it.
something that creates a nice EMP.
They have a ways to go before they can create an EMP-capable nuclear weapon.
And, EMP threat is not what fiction tells you it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told...You also need to get a pretty good nuclear explosion which I understand NK hasn't really mastered, nor do they have the ability to produce nuclear weapons small enough to get them off the ground in any rocket...
Re: (Score:2)
Because, to get the best affect for that EMP you are trying for, you really need to be well within the atmosphere, or so I'm told..
The people who wrote the Wiki page on that disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We'd never invade DPRK. They are basically a giant warehouse of every infantry weapon system ever developed by the Russians or Chinese. It would be a monumental effort to invade them with infantry, even after a conventional bombing campaign of months.
I would wager a nuclear reprisal by the US is more likely following even a flawed launch that dropped a nuke into the ocean. The Republican congress would declare war and impeach the President the same day if he wouldn't sign onto it. Given our current leve
Re: (Score:2)
I think it really depends upon how willing they are to fight back. Put South Koreans on the front line promising re-unification, and we likely could roll right through with very little bloodshed. The true cost will be the humanitarian aide after the current government fails. //I certainly wouldn't be willing to bet on this outcome, but its not out of the realm of probability.
stupid claim, schwit1 (Score:3, Insightful)
for nuclear weapons with than ten kilotons yield of course extreme accuracy is needed if targeting something a third the world a way, what a stupid thing to write. Do you get your ideas about a nuclear weapon can do from entertainment media?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely right, with humans only populating about 1% of the surface of the earth accuracy is not to be ignored.
The recent meteorite that exploded above Chelyabinsk is estimated to be a 500 kiloton equivalent and that didn't bring the region to its knees.
CNN lol (Score:5, Informative)
CNN is always behind....get a better source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-orbit-idUSKCN0VI1XN
North Korea's recently launched satellite has achieved stable orbit but is not believed to have transmitted data back to Earth, U.S. sources said of a launch that has so far failed to convince experts that Pyongyang has significantly advanced its rocket technology.
Sunday's launch of what North Korea said was an earth observation satellite angered the country's neighbors and the United States, which called it a missile test. It followed Pyongyang's fourth nuclear test in January.
"It's in a stable orbit now. They got the tumbling under control," a U.S. official said on Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tumbling under control" (Score:5, Informative)
Reuters is reporting that the tumbling has stopped.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-orbit-idUSKCN0VI1XN
Re: (Score:2)
Tumbling refers to a very specific behavior in rotational dynamics. A body is only stable in rotation when it rotates around its minimum or maximum moments of inertia (inertia is a 3x3 matrix, not a single number of even a vector like they teach you in high school). When a body tries to spin around any other axis, it ends up gyrating wildly [youtube.com]. What's happening is the spin axis is trying to align with a stable spin axis, but overshoots and passes right t
As anyone who's played Civ will know... (Score:2)
>> North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit. From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth
You forgot to add, "as anyone who's played Civ will know."
No Longer Tumbling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
NK simply switched it from neener-neener mode to mooning mode.
Indeed. (Score:2)
According to multiple sources, the satellite is no longer tumbling.
Interestingly, this was reported in news almost a day before the Slashdot story was posted, I assume Timmy doesn't read the news nor, you know, verify the up-to-date accuracy of "current events"...
Deja Vuuuuuuuuuu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You bomb us, we bomb you, we're hurt but you cease to exist. No two-bit dictator is that crazy.
What you really mean is that you *hope* no two-bit dictator is crazy enough to think we will not retaliate and that you hope there is someone that is believably willing to retaliate. Good luck with that.
So in other words... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you don't have to be very accurate??? (Score:2)
They might not be able to aim that impact very accurately
In orbital mechanics 'not very accurate', means 'possibly the sun, maybe the ocean, otherwise some sort of land...assuming it does not burn up in entry'.
Do not take comfort from this failure. North Korea has demonstrated that it can put payloads in orbit
I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it. I'd appreciate it if you could also provide me with the appropriate emotional cue for Trump's victory, because I have no idea how to feel about that.
From this achievement it is a very short leap to aiming those payloads to impact any continent on Earth.
'Any' continent is right. Hey guess what: I just put a hand grenade in a rubber raft and set it adrift in the Pacific Ocea
Re: (Score:2)
I like it when you don't just bring me the news, but also tell me how to feel about it.
Came only to make the same comment. Slashdot is trying to go mainstream.
What about Warhead re-entry? (Score:2)
And can they make their physics package, re-entry system, and guidance system light enough for their booster to lift. That was something the
Unclench Your Buttcheeks (Score:2)
Ignite (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Homefront predicted it all in 2011 (Score:2)
Home front: Future History the controversial trailer which was originally edited and showed as "breaking news" on YouTube that caused a lot of complaints.
But in 2011 they did predict the future. The story was written by famed author John Milius, who also wrote Apocalypse Now, Red Dawn, first 2 Dirty Harry movies...
https://youtu.be/MQeQWWKKvq4 [youtu.be]
The atom bomb test to the satellite launch.
Now we wait for the EMP
Re:I have a request... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this good enough [telegraph.co.uk]?
After all, he has the motive [quickmeme.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all the hoopla about the Iran arms deal, Iran just tested a ballistic missile. It barely made the news despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the deal. Sanctions? Roll-back on the treaty? A stern talking to? No, nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The missile test was not a violation of the deal.
It was exactly such a deal that kept Plutonium in North Korea sealed for so many years, until George Bush in his infinite wisdom scuttled it. The broke the seals and had a working bomb in months.
Re:How do we tolerate this? (Score:4, Funny)
Easy, no one wants to feed the S. Koreans into a very nasty war which the little sawed off runt of the Norks might just start. S. Korea would eventually win, but before that happens, China will jump in to defend The Runt and any suggestion that China would allow a competent country on their borders making China's toy dictatorship look precarious.
So, in true Western fashion, the can is kicked down the road a bit further in the hopes that the can will spontaneously fail to exist at some point whereupon the problem could be declared solved and Victory with Honor promoted throughout the halls of the U.N.
Re: (Score:3)
Kicking the NK can down the road is likely the best option for all involved.
I don't see how beyond economic sanctions there is much more we can do. We SERIOUSLY don't want or need to deal with NK militarily. There is no point in rekindling the Korean war and turn this thing into direct combat again where a bunch of people die on both sides and nothing really changes.
What needs to happen here is the North Koreans need to revolt and overthrow the Kim government on their own, which will eventually happen i
Re: (Score:3)
Re:dmbasso is a pedophile (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to the new owners of Slashdot: this here conversation is precisely the sort of rare case where you should actually get involved (where the person or people involved don't care if they get modded down to zero and will just keep popping back up with more angry, offtopic rants in whatever thread they feel like)
Re:dmbasso is a pedophile (Score:5, Insightful)
Involved in what way? The people are modded down and I wouldn't have even seen the post if it weren't for curiosity on what you were talking about.
How would a policy of censorship or content deletion improve this situation without causing a negative issue at the same time? Lot of things on Slashdot could be changed for the better but quite frankly the moderation and lack of censorship have withstood the test of time.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like this [inspirefusion.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not North Korea - we could destroy what little threat they pose to anyone other than South Korea today in a matter of days, if that. And doing so would probably
The problem is that China would hardly sit quietly by while we decimate their ally, and *they* are a major threat. For China, the continued existence of North Korea is the best of a lot of bad options. While a land buffer has less military value than it used to, they still don't really want the US to have a stronghold right on their
Re: (Score:2)
If the US, or South Korea, is attacked by North Korea, China would care less what we do to them. The only reason they support North Korea is they don't want a mob of refugees flooding into their country. China has a fenced-off, secured border with North Korea to keep them out.
Otherwise, North Korea is only nominally useful to China as an annoyance to the US. Once they are anything other than an annoyance, they have outlived their usefulness.
Re: (Score:2)
There is ZERO chance NK attacks the south. Lit'l Un knows that would be his undoing in a big way. First, he would NOT make it very far south, plus he'd suffer a huge number of causalities which he couldn't sustain. Second, it would set loose a (blank)storm of retaliation and air strikes in the north as we shut down his air defenses and communications faster than he can get is first tank beyond the DMZ. The first would devastate his ability to stay in power by force and the second would make it impossibl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One can only hope the North Korean regime values its survival enough to not actually follow through on any threats.
Of course they do. This is literally how the country makes their living. They either make some crazy statement or do something stupid like shell an island or launch a rocket, get sanctioned, then promise to stop doing/never do again whatever they did in exchange for some kind of concession. Then a few months later they do it again. It feeds NK's propaganda machine and (to a much lesser extent) feeds it's population as well. The Kim regime can only maintain control by limiting access to the outside, so
If a warhead tumbles, it is useless (Score:5, Informative)
If a nuclear missile tumbles after launch, it won't survive entry.
Stabilizing your payload is not optional for nuclear weapons, it's mandatory.
No... (Score:2)
One tumbling EMP nuke detonated above the atmosphere over the center of the US would plunge most of the country into darkness for months, if not years. It would interrupt the production and delivery of food, medicine and clean water. The number of US casualties, after a few months, could be worse than all past attacks and wars combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know Lit'l Un seems crazy to us, but I assure you he's not. If you understand a bit of Korean culture and how the Kim's came to power and keep it, it's pretty clear that he knows what he's doing. It's also clear that despite his repeated taunts and minor infractions of the cease fire, he's not that interested in a full frontal assault with anybody because it won't keep him in power to do so. He needs to keep inventing ways to feed the propaganda machine moral and tactical victories (real or invented) b
Re: (Score:2)