Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 04 2017, @11:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-they-say dept.

North Korean state media claims that it can hit anywhere in the world with its new missile. Others say that it is capable of reaching Alaska:

North Korea said on Tuesday it successfully test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time, which flew a trajectory that experts said could allow a weapon to hit the U.S. state of Alaska. The launch came days before leaders from the Group of 20 nations were due to discuss steps to rein in North Korea's weapons program, which it has pursued in defiance of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

The launch, which North Korea's state media said was ordered and supervised by leader Kim Jong Un, sent the rocket 933 km (580 miles) reaching an altitude of 2,802 km over a flight time of 39 minutes.

North Korea has said it wants to develop a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead capable of striking the U.S. mainland. To do that it would need an ICBM with a range of 8,000 km (4,800 miles) or more, a warhead small enough to be mounted on it and technology to ensure its stable re-entry into the atmosphere. Some analysts said the flight details on Tuesday suggested the new missile had a range of more than 8,000 km, underscoring major advances in its program. Other analysts said they believed its range was not so far.

Also at BBC and NYT.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:22AM (10 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:22AM (#535025) Homepage Journal

    Again, we were talking about artillery.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:23AM (6 children)

    by fnj (1654) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:23AM (#535115)

    Your point is? What difference does it make whether they use missiles, artillery, or ballistae? Or whether they deliver nuclear mines into harbors using submarines?

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:24AM (2 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:24AM (#535125) Homepage Journal

      Potential damage. The amount of artillery they have simply is not capable of killing millions unless they stand there going lalala waiting to be killed.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)

        by fnj (1654) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:07PM (#535240)

        Yeah, that WWI thing was overrated, right? 8 million military combat deaths, almost all of them from artillery and machine guns, with some crude chemical weapons thrown in, while NK almost certainly has nerve gas, and quite possibly biological weapons. And let's not forget nuclear artillery shells. The US and the Soviets had those 50 years ago.

        In North Korea you are looking at around 12,000 pieces of artillery dug into mountainsides. Artillery is a hard target to begin with. Even machine tools were surprisingly resistant in Germany. The factories were turned to rubble, but the tools could be back in operation under tents very quickly. Stuff made out of great hulking pieces of steel doesn't just vaporize graciously from a few bombs. From experience in WWII, particularly Italy and the Pacific, prepared positions are extremely difficult to neutralize. You look at the pounding of the Pacific Islands from heavy gunfire and sustained air attack, and you wonder how anything could resist, but they did. That stuff had to be taken out one strongpoint at a time by point-blank assault, and it often took ten or more times as long as planned.

        12,000 pieces of artillery can fire over 100,000 shells, which is thousands of tons of explosive, per hour and keep that up for days, weeks, months. It would make the destruction of Hamburg or Dresden look like a firecracker.

        Turning Seoul into hell would strike a devastating blow to the entire world economy. An incredible amount of consumer and industrial goods are manufactured there. The entire population attempting to flee would create staggering dislocation, starvation, and misery.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:15PM (2 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:15PM (#535146) Journal

      With artillery they need to fire a lot which means it's a lot easier to find and wipe out the shooter.

      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:11PM (1 child)

        by fnj (1654) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:11PM (#535244)

        Ask the US Marines how tough it is to find and wipe out fortified positions. Caves and cocoanut-log pillboxes had to be assaulted individually at point-blank range. Heavy naval gunfire and sustained air attack just didn't do squat.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:54PM

          by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:54PM (#535302) Journal

          Are we talking WWII marines or modern ones that have access to equipment from 2017?

  • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:31PM (2 children)

    by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:31PM (#535161)

    Pack a bunch of plutonium in a shell; dirty artillery. They could easily contaminate anything their artillery can reach and they would have plenty of non-weapons grade, not capable of critical mass, radioactive material as a byproduct of production of weapons grade radioactive material.

    The result would be a catastrophic impact on SK economy.

    --
    Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:38PM (1 child)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:38PM (#535165) Homepage Journal

      Yup, it'd be nasty. Might cause quite a lot of radiation sickness, cancer down the road, and some amount of extra death. Still not capable of killing millions though.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by infodragon on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:04PM

        by infodragon (3509) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:04PM (#535350)

        Killing millions via a dirty bomb *MAY* be an over statement. The economic impact of a dirty bombs, i.e. artillery packed with dirty material, would eventually cause millions of deaths.

        1. All of Seoul could be irradiated quite easily, only 10s of shells needed and dirty material is abundant for NK.
        2. Mass panic due to being hit with dirty bombs
        3. Mass migrant displacement. It would be more than the Syrian migrant crisis x10! Logistics don't scale linearly so the more migrants deaths increase non-linearly.
        4. Infrastructure for feeding/watering dense population stops over night.
        5. economic impact destroys companies that could step in to deal with the crisis.
        6. Disease starts to tear into the survivors within 1-2 weeks.

        Easy to consider 20% of the population dying after the above takes place within 2-3 months. Feel free to look up dirty bomb scenarios for NYC and whatnot.

        --
        Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!