USA Today reports that under the watchful eyes of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, North Korea says it has conducted an underwater test-firing of a submarine ballistic missile. Kim called the missile a "world-level strategic weapon" and an "eye-opening success." Although American officials had suspected North Korea was developing such a missile system, the country had not previously claimed to have conducted a test launching. The test, if confirmed, would pose a new challenge to the United States and its regional allies, South Korea and Japan, which have been trying to build missile defense capabilities to guard against potential North Korean missile attacks.
The news of a successful test-fire was most likely a surprise to South Korean military officials, who have privately told reporters that they believed it would take years for the North to develop such a submarine-launched ballistic missile. "North Korea's development of a submarine-launched missile capability would eventually expand Pyongyang's threat to South Korea, Japan and U.S. bases in East Asia" says Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. "Submarines carrying land-attack missiles would be challenging to locate and track, would be mobile assets able to attack from any direction, and could operate at significant distances from the Korean peninsula."
See also: BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, Washington Post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:18AM
Clearly this ballistic missile test was unsuccessful and also it never happened. Kim Jung Oon is a liar because North Korea is not America and America is the only country that has Technology or will ever have Technology. All other countries are not permitted ever to have Technology. By imperial order of Barak Husseion Obama the Obama.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:22AM
The UN Security Council != America.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:26AM
The UN Security Council meets in America.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:44AM
Thanks anon, your grasp of international politics is awe-inspiring.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @03:47AM
OK then, let's see the United Nations forcibly eject the United States from its membership, while continuing to meet in New York. What's that? American soldiers are here to detain the United Terrorists and everyone just lost diplomatic immunity? Imagine that.
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Sunday May 10 2015, @06:01AM
In fairness to the AC, neither of you is showing any grasp of how the UN system works.
Lets also remember that the US was never at war with North Korea; the UN was!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 10 2015, @03:22AM
Knowing the North Koreans, this is probably not that much of a threat. These guys pull stunts all the time.
It might not even be their own build. But in any event this launch picture looks a bit different than most submarine launched missiles. It looks like its engine was fired underwater, which is uncommon. Googleing around You will see most missiles launched from subs rise to the surface in a huge steam/bubbles, with sufficient speed to jump into the air, and actually ignite in the air. See this sequence [ausairpower.net] of a Chinese SLBM.
Its considered mildly crazy to light your boosters under water in this day and age. It might be a standard frigate missile, or even a truck mount missile. North Korea isn't known to have any submarines big enough to house internal missiles as far as I can tell.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Sunday May 10 2015, @05:58AM
If you go and read the UN Charter, you'll find that out that there is not some sort of UN bureaucracy that enforces the Security Council decisions, but actually instead the member states are supposed to implement the Council decisions themselves.
So yes, in fact, when there is a UN Security Council action creating sanctions against a country, that means that the US is indeed authorized to enforce those sanctions. That authorization is what the Security Council decision actually is!
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday May 10 2015, @06:11AM
Yes, I already know all that. The point is that when the Security Council votes 15-0 [wikipedia.org] (yes, China included) to apply sanctions to North Korea, it is not an act of American imperialism.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:40AM
It is totally surrounded with nuclear weapons.
If the US or South Korea do not want North Korea to possess nuclear weapons, then the US should remove its own nuclear weapons from the area.
It is for the same reason that I support Iran's right to possess them. If we don't want Iran to have nukes then we should remove ours from the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.
My father was a naval antiaircraft missile fire control officer; mostly he worked with the Talos, which had a range of fifty miles. While used only with conventional warheads as yet, the Talos could be outfitted with nuclear warheads.
A USAF pilot who was scrambled during the Cuban Missile Crisis described his fighter as being outfitted with "the stupidest weapon ever invented", that being a nuclear antiaircraft missile.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @04:20AM
The US does not want batshit crazy regimes to possess nuclear weapons. There's a big difference between territorial self-defense and what's going on in North Korea or Iran. If you want your insane neighbor disarmed, the last thing you do is disarm yourself.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @04:26AM
General Douglas MacArthur asked President Truman for authorization to drop thirty nuclear bombs on North Korea. I am dead certain that they have not forgotten that.
As for Iran: consult a map so you can observe where Iraq and Afghanistan are located.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @06:24AM
Iran hasn't invaded another nation in over 200 years.
USA has invaded nation after nation during its existence.
Projecting power to the other side of the planet is NOT "defense".
That is AGGRESSION.
You have a twisted definition of "batshit crazy".
...but they did indoctrinate you very well in the USAian school system.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @09:50PM
Projecting power to the other side of the planet is NOT "defense".
That is AGGRESSION.
"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-- Ronald Reagan [reaganfoundation.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @11:01PM
Nice words. He was completely full of shit.
Reagan was very good at lying with a straight face.
You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a President who wasn't a warmongering scumbag.
Covert USA Imperialism [wikipedia.org]
Overt USA Imperialism [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 10 2015, @04:32AM
If the US or South Korea do not want North Korea to possess nuclear weapons, then the US should remove its own nuclear weapons from the area.
What good would that do?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gman003 on Sunday May 10 2015, @05:21AM
Iran is at least generally reasonable. They have some crazy nutjobs saying crazy things, but few of them wield any real power. They are unfortunately a theocracy, and that drives some of their foreign problems, but they are, on the whole, a sane country. If we made a deal with them, they would probably honor it.
North Korea is crazy. They have no business even being a country - if it weren't for the fact that China wants a buffer between them and South Korea (both for military reasons, and to keep democratic ideas from reaching their own populace), North Korea would have fallen apart decades ago. They're still barely holding together, even with all the "cheating" (for lack of a better word) they do, and can only get away with because they have the second-most-powerful country on the planet protecting them. They fund themselves with drugs and counterfeit money, they feed themselves with Chinese "gifts", and they avoid revolution by having a ridiculously large army and by blaming every single problem on countries that haven't touched them in decades.
If we made a deal with North Korea, they would not honor it. Their "glorious leader" barely keeps his lieutenants in line with constant executions. His lieutenants can't control their own military whenever foreign powers are involved, because of their own propaganda. They've proven they can't be trusted to respect a neutral zone without conflict. Give them a field-deployable nuke, and they'll eventually use it with or without orders.
That might be the simplest way to solve the problem - give them enough rope to hang themselves with. Eventually they'll do something that's inarguable casus belli, and South Korea will sweep them off the map, and then we can forget about all that insanity. Unfortunately, if NK gets a nuke they can actually use, even a small one, the civilian casualties will be in the millions.
I don't think that's worth the cost.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday May 10 2015, @05:53AM
The main thing that keeps me from getting overwrought about the DPRK, is that it is starving. At most it can launch an attack. It does not have the backend resources to sustain an attack. It has a large army sure, but its weapons are antiquated and ineffective for any sort of sustained action. It has no ability to project power any real distance and hold on to whatever it attacks. Because it's starving.
The second thing that keeps me from being concerned, is that our government really wants us to be worried. That gives it an excuse to spend more money on the military despite our current insane levels of spending, expand surveillance, and pass laws contrary to the exercise of personal freedom.
So, fuck the DPRK and its weapons theater, and fuck the Feds for taking advantage of KJU's tired script.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @06:44AM
Something you left out:
To match the military might of the USA, you would have to COMBINE the #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11 most powerful militaries.
...and several of those are USA allies.
The level of insanity is mind-boggling.
The only things USA manufactures any more is weapons.
USA is an empire in a death spiral.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @10:26AM
... than the entire rest of the world COMBINED.
I learned that from a certain left-wing radical underground publication known as "The CIA World Factbook".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @10:31AM
yes, but what an attack: Seoul isn't far at all from the DMZ. NK has a whole bunch of short-range ballastic missiles.
While it would not win a war, North Korea could easily make a smoking crater of Seoul. Millions would perish.
This leads me to believe that the South Koreans live in denial. When NK conducted its first - unsuccessful - nuclear weapon test, they passed it off with the explanation that they were using conventional explosives to dig a sports stadium. When they sunk a South Korean naval vessel, taking the lives of thirty sailors, everyone bought the idea that it must have been an accident, or anything but the North Koreans.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:02PM
N. Korea may be nuts enough to jump, but their masters(China) will keep them reined in just to preserve their(China's) southern buffer zone.
Yes, that is the only reason that N. Korea still exists as a nation, IMO. They are not much more than China's side-door bell/mat.
China has always been a little 'isolationist', and does not want a 'western' influence on it's borders if they can help it.
I see N. Korea as similar to one of the neighbor's dog. When you walk past that yard, the dog runs to the fence and barks like the most ferocious beast alive. I just laugh to myself, and walk on by, no worries. But at the same time, I don't think it wise for me to taunt the mutt, or jump the fence into it's yard. :-)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @05:58AM
Korea got it really bad from Japan for many years before WWII started. The Korean War was quite vicious. MacArthur asked to use nuclear weapons; while he wasn't granted permission to use them, we tricked NK into a ceasefire by tricking them into believing we would nuke them.
They've been starving for decades. They know very well that the US has thousands of bombs.
If you were in their position, what would you do?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday May 10 2015, @03:14PM
I don't think Kim Jong Un is crazy.
Kim Jong Un always makes these very public proposals of attack plans that are utterly ludicrous. Anyone with sense knows that North Korea is not capable of launching an amphibious assault on Texas, for example. His weapons and computers are state of the art for 1975. Kim Jong Un is a western-educated guy who showed no signs of being nuts prior to coming to power, so why would he do that knowing full well it makes him look like an idiot?
There's a logical answer: His government remains in power so long as the illusion of them being permanently at war with the West is maintained - otherwise, the citizens would never tolerate the starvation that's been going on for so long. In addition, Kim Jong Un puts out these kinds of plans to convince the generals that have the same kind of attitude as Buck Turgidson that he's serious while not actually attacking anybody or even threatening attack seriously enough to induce the US to pre-emptively attack North Korea. If Kim Jong Un doesn't steadfastly maintain both of those illusions, he will be killed (either by an angry mob, or by the army).
If that analysis of his situation is correct, his plan then becomes:
1. Wait for the old guard of generals who were loyal to his father and grandfather to die. They're his greatest threat. Replace them with people loyal to himself.
2. Quietly shift the focus from the military to civilian efforts. Particularly focus on how to increase the food supply. That will win him the support of the population.
3. Once he's dealt with those threats, slowly open up his country to travel, particularly with the South.
About the only assets Kim Jong Un really has in internal power struggles is his name and the fact that he's at least 30 years younger than anybody else with real power. This kind of plan uses both of them to remain alive and in power as long as possible.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 10 2015, @08:51PM
Nice dream, but it won't happen that way. By the time the old guard dies off Un will have grown comfortable with his total power. He put his own uncle to death for pete sake. He isn't playing some waiting game.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @09:43PM
You are probably right about getting comfortable if being raised the way he was has not warped him to begin with.
But you can draw precisely zero conclusions from the killing of his uncle.
We have absolutely no idea what was going on behind the scenes. For all we know Dear Uncle was in the process of staging a coup. The guy might not even be dead. Remember the ex-girlfriend who was executed nominally for making porn? Turns out she is not dead after all. [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @03:36AM
It is totally surrounded with nuclear weapons.
Considering that 1) North Korea invaded the south and started the Korean War and 2) nearly ran the South Korea forces along with UN forces off the tip of the peninsula, then it should not be a surprise if their adversaries were to put nuclear weapons to... what's the word? oh, yeah.. deter future behavior.
If the US or South Korea do not want North Korea to possess nuclear weapons, then the US should remove its own nuclear weapons from the area.
Prove that they haven't. US policy used to be (and may still be) to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any location.
It is for the same reason that I support Iran's right to possess them. If we don't want Iran to have nukes then we should remove ours from the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Are there some in the Persian Gulf area? Beats me and US policy will probably not shed any light on that either. Considering the problems the USAF has had in the past few years regarding nuclear weapons surety, it is safe to say that the US Navy is either 1) more competent at handling nuclear weapons or 2) doesn't have any in the region.
When you are in a position to actually influence US foreign policy with regard to Iran, I will start to worry. Until then, your opinion means as much as mine.
Notwithstanding the US policy to neither confirm / deny nuclear weapons presence, what makes you really think that we had / have nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan? There is absolutely no reason to risk have those weapons that far forward when they could be delivered from a non-stop flight from the US aboard a B-1 or B-2.
My father was a naval antiaircraft missile fire control officer; mostly he worked with the Talos, which had a range of fifty miles. While used only with conventional warheads as yet, the Talos could be outfitted with nuclear warheads.
I am not sure what that has to do with the issue under discussion. There are many weapon systems that had (and may still have) nuclear-armed versions. So what?
My father was an Army cook in the Korea war. For all I know, some of his work products were nuclear-armed as well.
A USAF pilot who was scrambled during the Cuban Missile Crisis described his fighter as being outfitted with "the stupidest weapon ever invented", that being a nuclear antiaircraft missile.
Again... what does that have to do with the issue under discussion? I am not going to attempt to defend the rationale for creating an air-to-air nuclear missile. Maybe it made sense to them at the time, maybe it was an engineering experiment to see if the concept had value, maybe they did it just because they could. I don't know. Neither do you.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jasassin on Sunday May 10 2015, @02:45AM
Seriously Kim, you don't even have to fall back on a penis enlargement. They can transplant the hog of your dreams!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by lars on Sunday May 10 2015, @07:31AM
Back in the cold war, the US could track Russian subs patrolling US waters by first finding them using SOSUS, then following them using their own subs. In the event of war, those subs could be disabled quickly. I'm sure the same is true now, any NK subs that leave their coastal waters are tracked.They could get away with launching a single missile, but that's really it, and they know full well doing so will result in their complete annihilation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 10 2015, @09:25AM
They could get away with launching a single missile
At whom? NK wants to protect itself and also show the world that they can cause some harm if attacked/invaded.
People talk as if the world was in danger from NK missiles. They hardly have anything to feed themselves with. The NK regime may be bad for its own people (with its communist tendencies and all that), but they are not going to land on your beaches anytime soon.
If they ever launch any missles at anybody, you can be sure that they are under attack, and they fired in self-defense. Self-defense is not a bad thing. Overseas aggression is a bad thing.