SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:23AM (6 children)
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)
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)
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 The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:54PM
You're comparing an entire world war to the expected initial artillery strike here? Really? Come on...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:15PM (2 children)
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)
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
Are we talking WWII marines or modern ones that have access to equipment from 2017?