SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When North Korea launched long-range missiles this summer, and again on Friday, demonstrating its ability to strike Guam and perhaps the United States mainland, it powered the weapons with a rare, potent rocket fuel that American intelligence agencies believe initially came from China and Russia.
The United States government is scrambling to determine whether those two countries are still providing the ingredients for the highly volatile fuel and, if so, whether North Korea's supply can be interrupted, either through sanctions or sabotage. Among those who study the issue, there is a growing belief that the United States should focus on the fuel, either to halt it, if possible, or to take advantage of its volatile properties to slow the North's program.
But it may well be too late. Intelligence officials believe that the North's program has advanced to the point where it is no longer as reliant on outside suppliers, and that it may itself be making the potent fuel, known as UDMH. Despite a long record of intelligence warnings that the North was acquiring both forceful missile engines and the fuel to power them, there is no evidence that Washington has ever moved with urgency to cut off Pyongyang's access to the rare propellant.
Classified memos from both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations laid out, with what turned out to be prescient clarity, how the North's pursuit of the highly potent fuel would enable it to develop missiles that could strike almost anywhere in the continental United States.
Pop Science earlier has a more detailed look at how their missile might work:
How North Korea's Theoretical ICBM Would Work
Toxic Propellant Hazards ~ 1966 NASA KSC; Hydrazine Rocket Fuel & Nitrogen Tetroxide Oxidizer
It's really nasty stuff...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:26AM (1 child)
The interesting thing is that currently we rely on what is basically 'security through obscurity' when it comes to things like nukes and other weaponry. It should be apparent with even the briefest glance through history that that's not going to work in the longterm. Neither is trying to make sure only "acceptable" parties have weapons. As enter into an era where we're likely to see autonomous systems capable of replicating increasingly complicated work, physical systems will be able to be digitally transferred. This poses all sort of interesting issues. For one physical devices will soon face the same copyright issues as digital 'things' (music, software, etc) do today. But it also means that things like weaponry and other sort of destructive technology will be leaked into the hands of everybody.
Not sure what the solution is here. But sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this will never happen is probably not the wisest strategy.
(Score: 3, Funny) by coolgopher on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:23AM
Someone is going to claim the solution is DRM...