After Two Months of Quiet, North Korea Launches Another Ballistic Missile (arstechnica.com) 245
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.
What's Japan doing ... (Score:2)
... about sovereign airspace violation?
Re: (Score:3)
So the pundits are already saying we need to just back off and use diplomacy. Now, if NK landed an ICBM off the coast of California, would they suddenly sing a different tune?
Roughly, this is the time line I have watched unfold over my lifetime:
1. Don't worry, NK is a joke. Maintain the DMZ and they will eventually warm up to the international communi
Re:What's Japan doing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen various estimates showing that Japan could have nukes in short order if they desired. They have all of the relevant tech, the expertise, the money, and the raw materials. Certainly not advocated for them to build them, but it would likely be a relatively trivial exercise for them to develop nuclear arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere between an all-nighter and a long weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen various estimates showing that Japan could have nukes in short order if they desired. They have all of the relevant tech, the expertise, the money, and the raw materials. Certainly not advocated for them to build them, but it would likely be a relatively trivial exercise for them to develop nuclear arms.
I just came back from Asia and, according to Singapore TV news, Japan indicated last week that they can build over a thousand nuclear weapons in less than 3 months. They have everything ready to go, they have just not chosen to do so due to the fact that many of the citizens of Japan are strongly against nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen various estimates showing that Japan could have nukes in short order if they desired. They have all of the relevant tech, the expertise, the money, and the raw materials. Certainly not advocated for them to build them, but it would likely be a relatively trivial exercise for them to develop nuclear arms.
I just came back from Asia and, according to Singapore TV news, Japan indicated last week that they can build over a thousand nuclear weapons in less than 3 months. They have everything ready to go, they have just not chosen to do so due to the fact that many of the citizens of Japan are strongly against nuclear weapons.
Presumably, all of them with 3D face scanner targeting, set for NK's Dictator.
And after they blow up Humpty Humpty, the Japanese will go over and carefully piece Humpty Dumpty back together again with very fine craftsmanship and glue.
And then we will all acknowledge it to be a very great work of Wabi.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about 1000, that would require a lot of material, and mass production capability, which I'm not sure they have setup. Though given the current climate that might prompt them to change that.
However I have heard the 3 month timeline and I believe it. They could most certainly have a bunch in short order if they really wanted to. Also they already have an advanced space program, so likely the jump from that to a delivery system is pretty minor also.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
NK violated Japan airspace.
Notice the limited scope of "NK and Japan."
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the limited scope of "NK and Japan."
The scope is not limited to NK and Japan thanks to a treaty forced on Japan by the USA after the war.
If any scope regarding international conflict ever includes Japan, it by default now includes the USA.
Learn some history.
Re: (Score:2)
... about sovereign airspace violation?
Everything they are allowed to based on their agreements with the USA after the war: "Asking the USA to intervene"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's Japan doing ... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Jap" is just short for Japanese. It is no different than saying "Brit" or "Yank". If you give Japanese people a form that has a field for "nationality", instead of writing out "ni-hon-jin", they will usually write a single kanji that basically means "Jap" (but in other contexts can mean "day" or "sun"). If they abbreviate their nationality down to one syllable, then why can't we?
Re: (Score:2)
And on that note...
If a cliched Jewish American Princess were to somehow be granted Japanese citizenship, would she be a Jap JAP?
(I'm here all night folks... That is unless I get bored and switch over to Star Trek Online before getting my sleep.)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, lets not get bigoted about letters, why less letters, more letters are OK (and not a white power sign) too. So septic tank becomes yank becomes American, don't take offence at the seppo bit it was world war II and everyone was a little tense at the time.
When it comes to airspace there is an altitude limit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], so somewhere between 30km and 160km. I know Americans are blindly egoistic but hey, don't get the rest of us caught up in your desire to claim the entire galaxy wit
Re: (Score:2)
Its the whole N word thing over again.,, as in.. Its OK for them to call each other it in normal everyday usage, but not ok for other people to even write the word. This is called Racial Equality.
It Flew OVER Japan? (Score:2)
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?!
Re: (Score:2)
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?!
So continue with the sanctions then?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try some carrots instead of sticks?
Jimmy Carter ... is that you? All jokes aside he should have had to give back the Nobel prize he got when the North Koreans duped him.
Citation: https://nypost.com/2016/01/06/... [nypost.com]
Re:It Flew OVER Japan? (Score:4, Insightful)
So are you advocating a "wait and see" attitude? Maybe we should continue to hope China can be a "positive influence" on them? That didn't work out so well for Neville Chamberlain who hoped to use the Italians and the French to temper Hitler's ambitions.
It's only a matter of time before this blows up in the faces of the civilized world. Better to deal with it sooner than wait until NK is bristling with nuclear armed ballistic missiles. They have proven time and again to be untrustworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
South Korea won't allow military action, as they shouldn't. My speculation is that Trump is trying to provoke Kim Jong "Rocket Man" Un to do something rash -- like fire a not-so-test missile prematurely so it malfunctions -- so that the US has more options. Potentially though if provoked enough Kim may be so crazy to give an order his generals won't stomach so if they are all in agreement he'll disappear in a coup. One clue about the latter is Trump in his insults makes a clear distinction between Kim and N
Re:It Flew OVER Japan? (Score:5, Insightful)
> My speculation is that Trump is trying to provoke Kim Jong "Rocket Man" Un to do something rash
My speculation is that Trump has an ego only outsized by his mouth, and he has no plan at all beyond trying to out-insult NK. He's a stupid egotistical hypersensitive bully, and simply doesn't have a complicated playbook to draw on.
The difference between my speculation and yours is that mine explains everything he's said and done and yours... well, yours doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You are pretty much playing into kims hand with that attitude.
When a toddler throws a tantrum, or a troll starts a harassment campaign, what is the best response?
Ignore them. They are looking for attention, so any attention, bad attention, good attention, war attention; that is what they are seeking. So to deny them that is the ultimate defeat of this strategy. They haven't actually hurt anyone, except their own people, so let
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. And your analogy is terrible.
You don't ignore toddlers throwing tantrums, you give them love. Leaving kids alone is bad, look it up.
I'm fine with comparing Kim to a toddler, but you need to understand millions of lives are in the balance. That's usually not the case when kids go ape shit.
Re: (Score:2)
We are extremely dissapointed in your behavior.
Please stop it.
Regards,
The UN.
Re: (Score:3)
Not any more. No one is brave enough to deliver it and risk getting dropped into a tank of sharks.
Or did Kim Jong Goon eat the sharks already?
Re: (Score:2)
+1
The 5th Dimensions (Score:2, Funny)
We just want war (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [nti.org]
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!
I'm battling to understand what your point is. Don't get me wrong - I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know what point you were trying to make with that snippet because to me it it is so neutral that I cannot tell if you are *for* NK having nukes, *against* NK having nukes, or ambivalent about NK having nukes.
China / North Korea (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
haha correction, Yellow Sea :|
That would be one hell of a trajectory if they shot it over NK and back down to the SCS. Though I suppose a cruise missile would do the trick.
This missile is an SS18. It can hit DC or New York (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
I'm amazed (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
in the atmosphere relatively close to the ground...even for a 1 megaton bomb the optimal altitude is about 2 miles up, and north korea's largest weapon was but a fraction of that
Huzzah! (Score:2)
Another big win for Trump's "We're tougher than you" diplomatic strategy.
Reunification of Korea by force (Score:2)
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 ever
Re: (Score:2)
It seems likely that an invasion of South Korea by the North would face a fate similar to that of so many invasions of China: with the invaders being absorbed into the culture they sought to conquer.
After having been told so many lies about the South for so many years, how would a peasant-soldier from the North react to the astonishing, almost magical technological wonderland he would find himself trying to comprehend? How long would such a soldier remain loyal to the tyrants in command when so many optio
Likely End Game (Score:2)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has NK ever shot a missile across Peking?
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious why did you pick Santa Barbara here?
Re: Let Japan settle ... (Score:2)
Vandenberg airforce base maybe? I believe that used to be (maybe still is??) home to many nuclear-armed ICBMs.
Re:Let Japan settle ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not their "jurisdiction". It is their neighborhood. But any conflict they get into is also our conflict, due to our commitment to their security.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
If the US gets fired upon, it's other people's conflict by reciprocity.
Are you suggesting the US is bound by your logic to defense by committee?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't follow your logic, but maybe you don't understand mine. I simply mean that the US is bound by treaty to defend Japan. Seemed like a good idea right after they killed a couple of hundred thousand Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
What's America got to do with this story?
To review:
NK fired a missile over Japan and it landed in Japanese economic waters.
North Korea
Japan
Watch the ball.
Re:Let Japan settle ... (Score:4, Informative)
You are being deliberately obtuse. The US is bound by treaty to defend Japan. If you didn't know that before, you certainly do after reading my last comment. Treaties have the force of law. So any security problem for Japan is a security problem for the US, even if you neglect the thousands of US troops stationed in (drumroll) Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
What other country is bound to defend Japan by treaty?
Re: (Score:3)
Treaties are just paper (Score:2)
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 g
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually worse than that. Nork defectors claim that the Sawed-Off Dumpling believes if he hits Japan and the U.S. hard enough, they will cave and declare Victory with Honor. For you youngins, that's what Nixon declared after high-tailing it out of Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you are completely ignoring the bozo in the White House who will decide whether or not to honor a treaty obligation. If his current behavior is any precedent, you'd be nuts to rely on the U.S. and any defense treaty you think you have....at least until he and his alleged administration have been repudiated in an election....and not by some left-wing nutjob who similarly won't think it of worth to honor a defense treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually agree with you - in general I'd like to see US policy be to have a long-term goal of extricating ourselves from our position as World Police. With that said, existent treaties have a history and need to be honored. I think I agree that Japan is not the same place it was in the early-to-mid 20th century and can be entrusted with their own defense. However, I'd change our relationship very cautiously, and only in concert with Japan's wishes. We may no longer be in a Cold War with the USSR, which ma
Re: (Score:2)
For no upside? The upside is no resurgent Japan (or Germany). The money spent, and lives not lost in that are trivial compared to another major war.
Here we whine about a handful of troops killed per week. In Vietnam, it was 200. During WWII when the US population was half what it is now, it was 2000 a week.
No thank you, says the American population. Disarming and defending them and keeping our military well ahead technologically is a much better option.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably right, but I think it would depend on the nature of the threat, the current US president, and the political mood of the time. As it is, none of that matters and it would simply be automatic - even if that meant war with China or Russia. Without the treaty, I think it would be more like the situation in Taiwan, where the involvement of the US would very much depend on other circumstances and would not be automatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump generally does not believe in treaties. Any country relying upon a defense treaty with that fellow in the White House needs to reassess their security.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lovely blanket statement you make... Just because there are treaties that he believes are badly negotiated and wishes to withdraw, I doubt that he takes such a stance on all treaties we are party to, especially enough to call it "generally". A few cases does not make a majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The US did not fire the missile.
Re:Let Japan settle ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... with NK.
It's Japan's jurisdiction.
Sadly, this really ignorant post is currently modded "Insightful", which it most certainly is not. And I have no mod points to mod it down with.
North Korea has no diplomatic relations with Japan, nor is it interesting in "settling" any issue at all with Japan. The purpose of the ballistic missiles is to threaten the USA. The only player in this game that North Korea wants to settle anything with is the USA. And just so you know, in the past a Japanese administration tried the "play nice" tactic with North Korea and it didn't accomplish anything except end up with Japan giving up food aid for nothing in return.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"ignorant?"
Did NK violate Japanese airspace or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not given the typical altitudes of ICBMs.
Re:Let Japan settle ... (Score:5, Informative)
North Korea has no diplomatic relations with Japan, nor is it interesting in "settling" any issue at all with Japan.
That's not correct. Japan has been discussing the issue of kidnappings for decades, and NK has made some quite considerable concessions. There is also a small population of NK citizens living in Japan, with a school and some NGOs based in Tokyo.
Japan is one of the major routes in to NK for visitors too. NK likes to host international sporting events like the Pyongyang marathon, with Japanese athletes competing and Japan acting as a gateway for travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is as useless as tits on a boar.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as useful as a bump on a log. The effect is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I apologize for your lack of relevance.
And mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan refuses to have nukes.
Japan, having been nuked, might get kinda PO'd by now?
Re:Okay sure, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously though, the US would never give Japan a bunch ICBM tipped nukes in silos. The international insanity that would follow would make the current international climate pale in comparison. So the Japanese Defense Force is technically a military, but Japan has no Army. The entirety of their military infrastructure is geared specifically towards defensive measures. While in light of the escalating NK program there is talk in Japan of changing this, but reorganizing their military is also not something that can happen overnight.
I suggest looking into the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan". If fact there is a lot of contextual history and subjects like the "San Francisco System" and the "Yoshida Doctrine" the last of which is still largely applicable today.
Rather than writing a whole research paper in a post, I am going to leave it there for you to research. I imagine people will read this post and try to call me out on "this and that has changed, and then there is this and that". I am aware of these things. The bottom line is we have an overwhelming military force in Japan for a reason. We protect Japan, for better or worse. It really is all very complicated.
Re: Okay sure, but... (Score:2)
I know what the public documents say. But do you actually believe the Japanese have no nukes? I find that implausible.
The Japanese have a huge civilian reactor program; first rate engineering ability; worrisome neighbors; and enough nationalist spirit for some top people to disobey the US-imposed ban. Therefore I believe it likely the Japanese have at least some nuclear retaliatory capability.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need it. It has already been said, a nuclear attack on Japan will be treated like a nuclear attack on the continental US.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and everyone who believes this please stand on their head. What...no one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might just wake up that maniac with the bad haircut.
Yep Trump does need to wake up.
Oh you meant someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Or it might cause North Korea to invade South Korea and steal the working nuclear weapons, allowing them to make a big leap in their nuclear program.
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are not the weapon of choice to knock down a missile.
Re: (Score:2)
a. India is not in any kind of state of war with the US, and
b. India never signed the NPT, whereas N. Korea did, and then "pulled out" after being found to be in violation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As opposed to the brilliant job Obama did?
Do dream and think you can just ignore NK they are not going away. Either they arm themselves with full nuclear weapons or Trump does something.
Also if they have Nukes other will buy them off them (infact chances are they are being funded to do this development by others who want Nukes but not the heat of developing Nukes.) Others would be including terrorists (if you don't actually count NK as terrorists.)
A little patience and it will all work out and whiners who s
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old "the other guy is worse" excuse. Obama doesn't matter...except to that nutcase in the White House who is fixated on him because he's got no new ideas of his own. All of Trump's ego-deranged blather and bluster means nothing and the Norks know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the only one who promised he'd solve the North Korea situation because he's such a tremendous dealmaker.
So what you're saying is that at best, he's par for the course. "Par" is not what we were told to expect.
Re: (Score:3)
Even though by every objective measure he's doing *far* worse?
If by "adults", you mean Putin, I have to say I'm not quite comfortable putting "this mess" in his hands.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been sanctions on North Korea (even more stringent than the current ones) on and off for decades. They've never worked.
Trump loves to point to the status quo and then credit himself with a win. You're so besotted with him that you buy it every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be honest, the only reason lil' Kim can continu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 easi
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
It has always been a dangerous situation. Even without the nuclear weapons there was always the threat of a conventional war in which North Korea has enough conventional artillery near the DMZ to kill tens of thousands in South Korea in the first day alone.
But then for the US the only thing that matters is what happens to the US. The vast majority of Americans only ever talk about their casualties from the latest Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It's rare to hear an American talk about the people killed on both s
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they really just want to nuke the moon into the shape of Kim Jong Un's head.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much 'paint' like substance they would need to paint Kim Jong Un's head on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
>>. 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?
Some quick back-of-an-envelope calculations show they are probably pretty close to hitting California in 50 minutes, Assuming their missile is hitting about 7500 mph which according to Wikipedia at least, is apparently not unreasonable.
That said their test missile may not have contained a payload (and almost certainly didn't if the actual goal of their test was just to sscare other cou
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bring back Starwars stuff and pay for it by pulling back from silly conflicts like Iraq / Afghanistan / Yemen / etc. Being able to shoot down incoming missiles should be more feasible now and will create non-H1B jobs as a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult for NK to test their missiles. They have trouble avoiding other countries' territory and these countries don't like that. I think the fact that they are testing their missile straight up is a nod to Japan that they did an effort not to cross their territory - this time.
The point of the missiles is to deter the US. There is a huge difference between a missile which is aimed in the general direction of the US and one which can target a city but for deterrence it's enough they can reach the terr
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians are not rattling their sabers claiming that they will "bomb the US out of existence" so It's going to take a lot of poking. Historically we DID poke the bear, quite a lot and managed to best the Russians in the cold war. The Russians are not crazy, they know this.
The DPRK on the other hand IS making crazy threats on the USA and it's allies in the region. So there is a BIG difference right now. Also, what about the citizens of DPRK and their plight? Are you that cold and unfeeling that you