Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the plans-are-for-next-launch-to-put-DC-in-oven dept.

North Korea's latest missile launch appears to put Washington, D.C., in range (archive)

North Korea appears to have launched another intercontinental ballistic missile, the Pentagon said Tuesday, with experts calculating that Washington, D.C., is now technically within Kim Jong Un's reach.

[...] The missile launched early Wednesday local time traveled some 620 miles and reached a height of about 2,800 miles before landing off the coast of Japan, flying for a total of 54 minutes. This suggested it had been fired almost straight up — on a "lofted trajectory" similar to North Korea's two previous intercontinental ballistic missile tests. [...] If it had flown on a standard trajectory designed to maximize its reach, this missile would have a range of more than 8,100 miles, said David Wright, co-director of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. [...] The U.S. capital is 6,850 miles from Pyongyang.

Although it may be cold comfort, it is still unlikely that North Korea is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the U.S. mainland. Scientists do not know the weight of the payload the missile carried, but given the increase in range, it seems likely that it carried a very light mock warhead, Wright said. "If true, that means it would not be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to this long distance, since such a warhead would be much heavier," he said in a blog post.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:19AM (25 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:19AM (#602803)

    Why isn't Japan shooting these goddamn things down??!! They certainly have every right! Is self defense such a bad thing now??!! Dammit! I wish people weren't so goddamn submissive!! If these assholes wanna play with missiles, let's show 'em what happens when one lands on their fucking heads!! We have the power, the Chinese and the Russians are no match. Let's fucking finish the job post haste!!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Ixtl on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:23AM (8 children)

    by Ixtl (6508) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:23AM (#602805)

    If we shoot down one, we have to shoot down all of the subsequent ones. If we screw up, it would just reveal the weaknesses in our missile defense. They’re probably thinking it’s best to save it for the armed missiles.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:35AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:35AM (#602809)

      ... when there's a smoldering city.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:31AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:31AM (#602862)

        A city in the middle of an ocean, oh Great Armchair General?

        Those are ballistic missiles. It's easy to calculate their trajectories, then (attempt to) shoot down those that are aiming for a city, and ignore those that are obviously not a threat. Trying to shoot down each and every one of them just gives the opponent an enormous amount of data about your defensive capabilities.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @11:20AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @11:20AM (#602930)

          You fail to take (at least) one thing into account: ballistic missiles need to be taken down on their way up during the boost-phase. Since they are ballistic, after the boost-phase, they just follow their ballistic trajectory down - and in that part, they may jettison chaff to circumvent your fancy take-down rockets which have yet to prove their worth. Even if you come close to taking it down in the down-part, the (possibly nuclear) debris will still hit your precious 'homeland'.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:14PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:14PM (#603003)

            They seem to be intercepting descending ballistic missiles in the Middle East [bbc.com].

            It's a million times better for nuclear debris to hit a city than a working atomic bomb.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:57PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:57PM (#603020)

              The Volcano H-2 is a member of the Scud family.[9] Analysts identify it as being based on the Iranian Qiam 1/Scud-C,[10][11] Iranian Shahab-2/Scud-C,[10] or Scud-D[12] missile.

              The Qiam 1 (Persian: قیام-١, "Uprising-1") is a short-range ballistic missile designed and built by Iran. It was developed from the Iranian Shahab-2,[1] a licensed copy of the North Korean Hwasong-6, all of which are versions of the Soviet Scud-C missile.[4]

              Kind of an interesting coincidence.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:53PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:53PM (#603055)

            And why couldn't they deploy their hypothetical chaff on the way up as well?

            Meanwhile, nuclear debris really is a non-issue - the preferred isotopes for making a fission bomb are U235, with a half-life of 700 million years, and Pu239, with a half-life of 24,000 years. Which is to say that neither is appreciably radioactive. Radioactive fallout comes from the relatively fast-decaying fission byproducts, not the original fissile material itself.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:06AM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:06AM (#602891) Journal

      They’re probably thinking it’s best to save it for the armed missiles.

      Because its so easy to tell which ones are armed?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:41PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:41PM (#603050)

        Nope. But it's a fair bet that they didn't bother loading a warhead on a missile aimed at the middle of the ocean. And if they did - so what?

  • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:40AM (2 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:40AM (#602810) Homepage

    All bullshit.

    This is what crybaby does everytime he needs new things.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by captain normal on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:44AM (1 child)

      by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:44AM (#602813)

      Are you talking about the great orange one? He won't give a shit until No Korea can hit Mar-a-Lago.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:56AM (#602887)

        Hmmm, I guess he is busy: http://www.magapill.com/ [magapill.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:47AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:47AM (#602816)

    Because intercepting a ballistic missile while it is accelerating from its own power is hard. Rocket science hard.

    And shooting down a ballistic missile when it is not travelling under its own power is most likely too late, because the payload is on a ballistic trajectory towards its target.

    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:59AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:59AM (#602821)

      That's why you bomb them before they launch! What the fuck are we waiting for?? China can't do a damn thing, and they won't anyway. They hate Korea too. They only needed the buffer zone to protect them from Japan a long time ago. If the Koreans are exterminated, nobody is going to give a shit. Give the land to the Palestinians...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:11AM (#602824)

        Better idea, we ship you over there so you can explain things to their great leader. I'm sure you'll do well, don't worry you have our support!

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:39AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:39AM (#602881)

        That's exactly what Kim is trying to get Trump to do. And vice versa.

        China was their friend for many years. At the moment, China is mostly neutral, they don't exactly like what NK is doing, but they are not pissed off enough to actually do anything about it.

        The whole battle of words between Kim and Trump is an attempt by both sides to get the other side to shoot first. Because when that happens, China will be forced to take a side, and they will most likely take the side against whoever shot first.

        If the US shoots first, Kim will have his big strong friend back. That's what he wants.

        If NK shoots first, Kim Jung Un is gone.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @11:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @11:39PM (#603727)

          I have no concerns about China. We can wipe them out too. The only effective response China could mount is to shut down the factory that makes Trump's ball caps, and maybe the Walmart factory, but that would be going to far.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:24AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:24AM (#602830)

      These are crap missiles. They are liquid fuel, and thus physically weak. Shooting them down isn't terribly hard for the USA, Israel, and Russia. The job can probably be done, perhaps with a bit of research effort, by many more nations: France, Japan, China, India... maybe even Poland.

      There are many ways to shoot them down. Nothing in life is perfectly reliable, so a sane plan would be to attack via multiple methods. Take enough shots at it, and the probability that it gets through will drop down well below that of equivalent natural disasters.

      1. Hack it before it even gets on the launch pad.

      2. Hit it from a ship or from South Korea with a rail gun.

      3. Hit it with THAAD from South Korea or Japan. We delivered THAAD to South Korea last March.

      4. Hit it with the S-400 from Russia or the KQ-9 from China.

      5. LASER it from a 747. The USA has mothballed hardware that can do this.

      6. Hit it with intercept in space. The USA has tech for this.

      7. LASER it from the ground as it passes through space, perhaps from Alaska or Hawaii. Things in space have been destroyed this way; the true details are not public.

      8. Hit it as it arrives. The USA and USSR both developed working systems for this.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:29AM (2 children)

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:29AM (#602900) Journal

        We have no deployed rail guns.
        We don't have any deployed Laser planes.
        Russian and Chinese systems aren't for sale, and are not in position to defend the US or Japan.
        THAAD is a short range weapon designed to protect a target, you need them everywhere. Having them in Japan won't help us. Its not designed for a boost phase kill.

        We do have lots of Standard Missiles [wikipedia.org]

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @10:01AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @10:01AM (#602907)

          The claim was essentially that stopping an ICBM is close to impossible. Clearly it isn't.

          We have stuff, not so great, deployed right now and publicly acknowledged. We have more that can be deployed in the near future, and likely more that is not public. There are numerous other solutions that could be viable in just a few years. We aren't talking about fusion power, artificial wombs, or interstellar travel here!

          Because an ICBM would fly north to hit much of the USA (round Earth so flight near the pole), Russia is along many flight paths. Russia might be more willing to help than one might guess from public behavior. We'd owe them something, and it'd look great for them. There is a decent chance that Russia already has the equipment in place.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday November 29 2017, @10:44AM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 29 2017, @10:44AM (#602918) Journal

            I wouldn't include artificial wombs in your list. A proof of concept has already been demoed [soylentnews.org] and it's probably only a matter of single digit years before the process is perfected and can be used routinely for animals we don't care about (everything except for humans). Fusion power works, but there are several approaches to it and the question is when it will become economically viable (decades). Interstellar travel works on [wikipedia.org] paper [wikipedia.org], but will not be realized in the near term in any way that could be considered reliable or economical.

            With ICBM interception, we have what is publicly known, and then the black budget stuff. Since being able to reliably stop incoming nukes would be politically destabilizing. Well, even if we did perfect it, China would probably hack and steal it.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @06:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @06:25PM (#603093)

        ... maybe even Poland.

        I come from Poland. You not say Poland weak. Poland is game to you?! Howbout I take your little board and smash it!!

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:06PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:06PM (#603060)

      The only reason you really care about a destroyed bomb hitting the target is if it's a contagious bioweapon that you're not certain you've completely killed. The fissile material used in a fission bomb isn't appreciably radioactive, only the fission byproducts are, and the bomb need to explode as intended to get those.

      Not to mention, once you blow up a missile you radically reduce the aerodynamics of the fragments so that it's very unlikely that any will reach their intended target. Even in a vacuum, while the center of mass of the missile will indeed continue on it's path to the target (assuming the interceptor contributed negligible momentum), it's unlikely that any fragments would do so since they've all been blasted on different trajectories from the moment of detonation. Think of an exploding firework - how many of those shining balls actually continue to travel along the original rocket's path? None - the explosion sets them all on new paths, even though the path of their combined center off is unaltered.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:25AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:25AM (#602831)
    Maybe because the technology for truly effective ballistic missile defence plain doesn't exist yet?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:24AM (#602899)

      No, it exists. But it isn't perfect.

      Have you noticed how great a success it is for Kim Jong Un every time one of these launches are successful? You know what would be a much greater success? The US (or any ally with US hardware) trying to shoot it down and missing. Even once.