Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Best Korea launches missile. CIA predicts they may be able to fire weather satellites into the bottom of the Mariana Trench by 2050   (reuters.com) divider line 139
    More: News, CIA, North Korea, United Nations Security Council, ballistic missiles, military threat, upper stage, per capita incomes, UN resolution  
•       •       •

7673 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-11 09:04:32 PM  
Okay I like this one.
 
2012-12-11 09:11:31 PM  
ya, i luled
 
2012-12-11 09:11:41 PM  
Heh... nice

/+1 subs
 
2012-12-11 10:27:21 PM  
What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>
 
2012-12-11 11:28:09 PM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


Kim Jong Un
 
2012-12-11 11:53:48 PM  
The general in charge of the rocket cadre will get an extra scoop of rice!
 
2012-12-11 11:55:34 PM  
Japan's likely next prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is leading in opinion polls ahead of an election on December 16 and who made his name as a North Korea hawk, called on the United Nations to adopt a resolution "strongly criticizing" Pyongyang.

/Yes, a strongly worded letter from the UN should turn things right around. Thanks mate.
 
2012-12-11 11:57:29 PM  
Rock soup with *extra* rocks tonight, comrades!
 
2012-12-11 11:57:51 PM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


I don't see the problem with this. We just launched a military orbiter, so if they want to shoot crap into space, I guess they can shoot crap into space. Just make sure it doesn't hit Tokyo or Seoul.
 
2012-12-11 11:58:39 PM  
So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.
 
2012-12-11 11:59:10 PM  
Yet another slap in the face of the Eisenhower Administration as North Korea launches a satellite before the US.
 
2012-12-12 12:02:30 AM  

davidphogan: Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>

I don't see the problem with this. We just launched a military orbiter, so if they want to shoot crap into space, I guess they can shoot crap into space. Just make sure it doesn't hit Tokyo or Seoul.


i140.photobucket.com

Sympathizes
 
2012-12-12 12:02:40 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Japan's likely next prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is leading in opinion polls ahead of an election on December 16 and who made his name as a North Korea hawk, called on the United Nations to adopt a resolution "strongly criticizing" Pyongyang.

/Yes, a strongly worded letter from the UN should turn things right around. Thanks mate.


Interestingly, this could be the catalyst for Japan changing their pacifist constitution to rebuild their military. That and the increasing Chinese aggression surrounding tiny rocks in the ocean.

Hell, even the Chinese are angry at the North Koreans. There are rumours that the starvation and economic ruin in the DPRK is much, much worse than anyone suspects- that even the army is stealing food because the soldiers are going hungry. This could be the straw that breaks support for them.
 
2012-12-12 12:03:16 AM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


Juche
 
2012-12-12 12:03:35 AM  

WTF Indeed: Yet another slap in the face of the Eisenhower Administration as North Korea launches a satellite before the US.


And right after the Chinese put together a working aircraft carrier too! This is unacceptable America!
 
2012-12-12 12:03:55 AM  
"The rocket, which North Korea says was designed to put a weather satellite into orbit, has been labeled by the United States, South Korea and Japan as a test of technology that could one day deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting targets as far as the continental the United States."

Have you crapped your pants yet citizen?

/I got the fear.
 
2012-12-12 12:04:47 AM  
memeblender.com
 
2012-12-12 12:05:19 AM  

davidphogan: Just make sure it doesn't hit Tokyo or Seoul.


or any other stuff in space?
 
2012-12-12 12:05:37 AM  
I don't see why the "international community" is getting so bothered by this. North Korea might not be the most responsible of nations, but they're still a sovereign nation. They can still launch their own damn sats if they want.
 
2012-12-12 12:06:26 AM  
HA
 
2012-12-12 12:06:44 AM  

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy sexy missile!! Op - op - oppa Jong Un style!


img809.imageshack.us

 
2012-12-12 12:08:05 AM  

D_Evans45: Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.


They've been days away for 30 years.
 
2012-12-12 12:08:58 AM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


bibim bab or galbi tang
 
2012-12-12 12:09:24 AM  
f.kulfoto.com
 
2012-12-12 12:09:50 AM  
Still, I wonder if the Republicans are going to pressure Obama to "deal" with Best Korea. And Iran. Axis of Evil and all that. Never Forget.
 
2012-12-12 12:10:37 AM  

D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.


Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.
 
2012-12-12 12:10:41 AM  
 
2012-12-12 12:11:42 AM  
Everybody Il-Sung tonight!
 
2012-12-12 12:13:37 AM  

debug: Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.



Not scary enough, apparently, they dont seem to give a shiat what the U.S. says/does.
 
2012-12-12 12:13:41 AM  

wiwille: Everybody Il-Sung tonight!


Kill the Farsi Menace
Pour another Guinness

Bomb Iran Ran Ran
Bomb Bomb Iran
 
2012-12-12 12:14:01 AM  
And we will let this gang of thugs get away with it, because China is their protector and we wouldn't want to upset our most favored trading partner, would we?
 
2012-12-12 12:14:44 AM  

wiwille: Everybody Il-Sung tonight!


+100
 
2012-12-12 12:15:06 AM  

Ego edo infantia cattus: "The rocket, which North Korea says was designed to put a weather satellite into orbit, has been labeled by the United States, South Korea and Japan as a test of technology that could one day deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting targets as far as the continental the United States."

Have you crapped your pants yet citizen?

/I got the fear.


They said the twice. They must like the.
 
2012-12-12 12:16:41 AM  
Why don't we just nuke 'em from orbit? It would end the suffering of the N. Koreans and make sure they never attack us.
 
2012-12-12 12:17:43 AM  

D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.


If the DPRK manages to make a test-nuke, it'll consume every ounce of fissile resources they can muster for more than a decade. They've got less wealth than your mom.

/ur mom!
 
2012-12-12 12:20:52 AM  
was it a king missle?

detachable perhaps?
 
2012-12-12 12:21:06 AM  

D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.


Well, ICBM's aren't easy to make. Launching anything into orbit is hard enough, but to get a nuke on a target the size of a city you basically need a spacecraft that can survive reentry. First it is launched into space, then its boosted around the earth to its individual target and then reenters like any spacecraft to fall without power onto a target and explode of course.

US sort of went a bit extreme in the 80's and came up with the Peacekeeper missile that could have up to 10 warheads.
 
2012-12-12 12:22:30 AM  

wiwille: Everybody Il-Sung tonight!


Can you tell me what an Il-Sung is?
 
2012-12-12 12:24:56 AM  

wiwille: Everybody Il-Sung tonight!


Everybody Jong-Un tonight.
 
2012-12-12 12:26:13 AM  

D_Evans45:
They've been days away for 30 years.


This. When people say that these weapons can be built using 1960's tech, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the huge technical difficulties inherent in developing these weapons and the vast resources and infrastructure it takes to actually build them.

/it's more honest to say that the two biggest, wealthiest countries on Earth were able to develop them in the 1960's, but only by utilizing the best minds in the world in physics and engineering and throwing huge amounts of resources behind their development.
 
2012-12-12 12:26:37 AM  

D_Evans45: Pretty scary,


Why is it scary? A nuclear attack means their nation ceases to exist about 20 minutes later.
 
2012-12-12 12:28:21 AM  
This image was on the BBC's website in an article about the launch last week. They have since changed the story to link to a different image.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64552000/gif/_64552534_nkorea_m i ssile_route_464_3.gif

Heh, scatellite debris.
 
2012-12-12 12:30:32 AM  
Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?
 
das
2012-12-12 12:31:36 AM  

JimmySlicings: [memeblender.com image 350x550]


Very nice.
 
2012-12-12 12:35:25 AM  

bbfreak: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Well, ICBM's aren't easy to make. Launching anything into orbit is hard enough, but to get a nuke on a target the size of a city you basically need a spacecraft that can survive reentry. First it is launched into space, then its boosted around the earth to its individual target and then reenters like any spacecraft to fall without power onto a target and explode of course.

US sort of went a bit extreme in the 80's and came up with the Peacekeeper missile that could have up to 10 warheads.


Ah yes, the infamous MIRV.
 
2012-12-12 12:35:25 AM  

JimmySlicings: [memeblender.com image 350x550]


lulz. I refuse to call this guy a dictator. He's worse - a monarch. Dictators fight for it, monarchs inherit.
 
2012-12-12 12:36:05 AM  
Is there actual confirmation that the satellite successfully entered orbit?
 
2012-12-12 12:37:31 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Why don't we just nuke 'em from orbit?


static.prtst.net

/ Hot like an atomic blast!
 
2012-12-12 12:37:53 AM  
Ah, the Japanese Prime Minister wants a UN resolution "strongly condemning" Pyongyang. I'm sure the 17th attempt will do the trick.

I'm not advocating a stronger response, but clearly resolutions are a waste of time.
 
2012-12-12 12:39:36 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges get the centrifuges to spin even faster? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?

 

FTFY.
 
2012-12-12 12:41:58 AM  

Bio-nic: HA


This.
 
2012-12-12 12:42:08 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?


Yeah! How do they manage to marginally accomplish with provided blueprints what we invented from scratch 50 years ago??!??!

They're not doing anything hard or cutting edge. If they have access to a dell desktop they're decades ahead of the computational power that went into the development of basic ICBMs and nuclear devices. Not to mention the fact that they got their designs from Pakistan, so they aren't home-grown.
 
2012-12-12 12:42:38 AM  
i58.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 12:44:17 AM  

had98c: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges get the centrifuges to spin even faster? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat? 

FTFY.


If you had any idea of the shiat A.Q. Khan and his pals in Japan and Malaysia went through to get the Pakistani program off the ground enrichment wise, you'd know what I mean.

Not that speed isn't important, as well.
 
2012-12-12 12:44:32 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?


You do realize that starving brainwashed population is the worlds largest sweatshop, right? They use their people as slave laborers to produce what the military wants/needs. Things are cheap when you dont pay for them. Profit margins on goods are high when you have zero costs.

People in North Korea arent starving because they are incapable of producing food... they are starving because the government takes and controls all of the resources, and just doesnt see the need in feeding people... not when they'll go scrape moss off a tree to stay alive all by themselves.

Its a very fascinating place really.... and full of very sad stories.
 
2012-12-12 12:44:33 AM  
Oh shiat. I saw Red Dawn, so I know what this leads to.
 
2012-12-12 12:46:34 AM  

XveryYpettyZ: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?

Yeah! How do they manage to marginally accomplish with provided blueprints what we invented from scratch 50 years ago??!??!

They're not doing anything hard or cutting edge. If they have access to a dell desktop they're decades ahead of the computational power that went into the development of basic ICBMs and nuclear devices. Not to mention the fact that they got their designs from Pakistan, so they aren't home-grown.


I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm expressing incredulity that they can be so farking poor and do this anyway. I mean, even if they set all the towns on Gold Focus, they'll lose 1 Population each in about two turns.
 
2012-12-12 12:48:02 AM  

superdave386: Is there actual confirmation that the satellite successfully entered orbit?


Yeaaaaaah there is!

Giggity.
 
2012-12-12 12:50:13 AM  

Alonjar: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?

You do realize that starving brainwashed population is the worlds largest sweatshop, right? They use their people as slave laborers to produce what the military wants/needs. Things are cheap when you dont pay for them. Profit margins on goods are high when you have zero costs.

People in North Korea arent starving because they are incapable of producing food... they are starving because the government takes and controls all of the resources, and just doesnt see the need in feeding people... not when they'll go scrape moss off a tree to stay alive all by themselves.

Its a very fascinating place really.... and full of very sad stories.


They still need uranium from somewhere, and they'd need tons upon tons of pitchblende to make one core. If you can't buy it, you have to find it in-country, and their country is really tiny.

For example, if Liechtenstien converted to Qutbiist Islam tomorrow, denied the holocaust, and expelled a minorities and Jews before engaging a nuclear program, they wouldn't get very far.
 
2012-12-12 12:52:57 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: I'm expressing incredulity that they can be so farking poor and do this anyway


Well as for uranium, it's actually not hard to find, plenty of rock formations have enough uranium that you can extract it without too much trouble. Sure it may not be economically viable but this is North Korea we're talking about. As for the rocket fuel and oxidizer, it depends on what they're using. They could just take a bunch of water split it into oxygen and hydrogen and liquefy the gasses. Granted that takes some storage infrastructure, but it's nothing you can't build if you really really want to. Beyond that there are plenty of suitable fuels that are easy enough to produce and not even particularly expensive to produce. Really Best Korea's problem is a lack of any quality control and apparently people who know how to calculate a launch trajectory. A while back they were launching a rocket that when they announced the intended trajectory every rocket scientist on Earth went "Good luck with that" because while it could work it would require things that are beyond the Koreans.
 
2012-12-12 12:53:42 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: XveryYpettyZ: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?

Yeah! How do they manage to marginally accomplish with provided blueprints what we invented from scratch 50 years ago??!??!

They're not doing anything hard or cutting edge. If they have access to a dell desktop they're decades ahead of the computational power that went into the development of basic ICBMs and nuclear devices. Not to mention the fact that they got their designs from Pakistan, so they aren't home-grown.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm expressing incredulity that they can be so farking poor and do this anyway. I mean, even if they set all the towns on Gold Focus, they'll lose 1 Population each in about two turns.


Love the Civ reference.

North Korea actually was a far more industrialized and modern state than South Korea even a decade after the Korean war. They had the legacy of Japanese industrial expansion in their territory and South Korea was one of the poorest countries in Asia-- lacking raw materials or an industrial sector. Nuclear investigations and technology date back to the Japanese occupation. They have a lot of mineral wealth. (Enter export-driven development after the US decided S. Korea was a basket case and would never amount to anything and decided to cut their foreign aid drastically).

If they hadn't been so gloriously mismanaged for the last 60 years N Korea would be ideally positioned to do very well for themselves.

But yeah, they are starving right now. Not because of the nuclear program, though. Waste, abuse, ineptitude, foolish collectivization of marginal land... all contribute a lot... but it's not like with more money they wouldn't have those problems.
 
2012-12-12 12:54:24 AM  

D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.


North Korea already has nukes. They've conducted two successful tests, the first in 2006 and the second in 2009. The only thing we're not sure of is how long it will take them to scale down the physical size of their devices enough to turn them into missile warheads. The "rocket" launches that some folks in this thread don't see as a big deal are part of North Korea's parallel program to develop long-range ballistic missile technology. When they get the rockets right and the warhead size right, they will marry them up to make long-range ballistic nuclear missiles. And as for Iran, Iran is one of the countries providing missile technology to North Korea. Iran, and other sources, provide technology (and oil) in exchange for a portion of the resulting manufactured weapons. So, instead of thinking this is no big deal, you might want to reconsider how long we have until something really bad results from all this. The time will come sooner than you think.
 
das
2012-12-12 12:54:53 AM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


Sputnik.
 
2012-12-12 12:56:13 AM  

Kuroshin: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

If the DPRK manages to make a test-nuke, it'll consume every ounce of fissile resources they can muster for more than a decade. They've got less wealth than your mom.

/ur mom!


They've tested two already:
The first in 2006. Possibly a fizzle.

The second in 2009 

Wealth/costs aren't meaningful when having 2000 calories/day would likely put someone in a very high class there.
 
2012-12-12 12:56:22 AM  

D_Evans45: debug: Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.


Not scary enough, apparently, they dont seem to give a shiat what the U.S. says/does.


Ignoring for a moment whether the big kid had a good reason for it, if a big kid was oppressing you into the dark ages wouldnt you want to get any possible leverage you could? Short of just stepping on them (mercy killing?) what the heck else could we do to them that we're not already doing? They correctly see this as a bargaining chip. Who can blame their efforts?
 
2012-12-12 12:56:29 AM  
I think they make a lot of those crank pills southeast asia is all whacked out on at present

wasn't there some story on fark years ago about a tanker full of ephidrine on it's way to north korea?
 
2012-12-12 01:01:15 AM  
Credit where it's due: supposedly it didn't explode this time.
 
2012-12-12 01:02:09 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: They still need uranium from somewhere


A quick Google search shows that North Korea has operations dealing with phosphates from rock, and so happens such phosphates can be a good source of uranium. Could be they have their own phosphate sources or others are getting the phosphate from others to process nominally into fertilizer. However be perfectly painless to also extract uranium while doing that. Even a small amount of uranium per ton of phosphate would be workable if you can process sufficient tonnage, which happens to be not particularly hard.
 
2012-12-12 01:02:27 AM  

ImpendingCynic: Ah, the Japanese Prime Minister wants a UN resolution "strongly condemning" Pyongyang. I'm sure the 17th attempt will do the trick.

I'm not advocating a stronger response, but clearly resolutions are a waste of time.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-12 01:03:08 AM  
The DPRK website has moved ahead by 15 years since the last time I was there.

Link 

Hell they even have a gift shop. They really are living it up over there. Im so jealous.
 
2012-12-12 01:08:36 AM  
One line of thought not often considered that all this stuff, the nuke tests, missile tests etc aren't actually aimed at producing workable weapons to use against anyone but rather demonstrate to the North Korean people that the place is run by people who are capable of what they say they are capable of and that they can develop the means to take on the world. North Korea has spent the last 60 plus years telling its own citizens that it can take on anyone. Launching up a few rockets and exploding a nuke or two will do nicely to show the home crowd you can deliver on what you say. Given the media control in North Korea the people aren't going to find out whether or not something worked as planned and thus whether or not it does doesn't matter from that respect. As a bonus if it does work you can cause all sorts of people, the US included, to engage in a massive eyeroll and bark of "Stop that!", that is also nice to play for the home crowd. Especially if you only show them the "Stop that!" part so they think others are angry and/or afraid of them.
 
2012-12-12 01:14:23 AM  

lohphat: ImpendingCynic: Ah, the Japanese Prime Minister wants a UN resolution "strongly condemning" Pyongyang. I'm sure the 17th attempt will do the trick.

I'm not advocating a stronger response, but clearly resolutions are a waste of time.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]


Screw you Hans Brix!
 
2012-12-12 01:15:46 AM  
in pink!
i1.cpcache.com
 
2012-12-12 01:24:13 AM  

L.D. Ablo: [f.kulfoto.com image 114x114]


There's a Korean restaurant/take out place near us that had a Luch Special... so this is funny (for me)
 
2012-12-12 01:25:53 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: . So, instead of thinking this is no big deal, you might want to reconsider how long we have until something really bad results from all this. The time will come sooner than you think.



Just how long is "sooner than you think"? Weve been told Iran was 3-5 years away from nukes starting as far back as 1992. Rumsfeld was saying the deadline was 2003. Why is your idea any more urgent than theirs?

/You have a past on Fark with irrational fear-mongering in other threads, Im thinking most of what you post is bullshiat
 
2012-12-12 01:39:44 AM  

Mentat: D_Evans45: Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

They've been days away for 30 years.


Yep. Many days. BUT STILL DAYS! (Just lots of them.)
 
rka
2012-12-12 01:41:51 AM  

IamAwake: if a big kid was oppressing you into the dark ages wouldnt you want to get any possible leverage you could?


Wait a minute? Who's the big kid here? The US? The US is oppressing the NK into the dark ages? We don't have to buy into NK's propaganda you know.

Remember for a moment that even China thinks North Koreans are a horrible but useful pain the ass in the most favorable light and a rabid dog one step away from needing to be shot in a slightly less favorable light. And that's North Korea best friend. With friends like that....

There isn't a respectable country in the world that wants anything to do with North Korea. They are a GLOBAL pariah..and for good reason.

Here's Canada's response.

"Canada stands with the international community in condemning this reprehensible act."

Here's the US's from the same article.

"A United States government official told the Reuters news agency that it had "noted" the launch and would make a fuller comment after monitoring the situation."

Geez, Canada. What a bunch of saber rattlers you are. Probably can't wait to invade.
 
2012-12-12 01:52:06 AM  
Es muy derp

Read some more books kids, just sayin'.
 
2012-12-12 02:01:25 AM  
Silly North Koreans are no possible threat since they had trouble on their first several attempts at launching long range rockets; unlike the USA which had a perfect test record from the beginning.
 
2012-12-12 02:18:04 AM  
Weather satellite? Why can't they just go to Weather.com?????

So suppose the WHOLE THING was a huge nuclear ruse, and Hawaii has just been turned into five glass parking lots. What do you do? What DO you DO?
 
2012-12-12 02:30:51 AM  

Palin2012: The DPRK website has moved ahead by 15 years since the last time I was there.

Link 

Hell they even have a gift shop. They really are living it up over there. Im so jealous.


lol anti-spam text:

i47.tinypic.com

Maybe it was just random...or maybe it's that for ALL of us!
 
2012-12-12 02:42:26 AM  
enjoy the red glare
with the crack of a loud fart
despair is for lunch
 
2012-12-12 02:44:19 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: And we will let this gang of thugs get away with it, because China is their protector and we wouldn't want to upset our most favored trading partner, would we?


Get away with launching a rocket?
 
2012-12-12 02:47:17 AM  

Voiceofreason01: D_Evans45:
They've been days away for 30 years.


This. When people say that these weapons can be built using 1960's tech, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the huge technical difficulties inherent in developing these weapons and the vast resources and infrastructure it takes to actually build them.

/it's more honest to say that the two biggest, wealthiest countries on Earth were able to develop them in the 1960's, but only by utilizing the best minds in the world in physics and engineering and throwing huge amounts of resources behind their development.


The Soviet Union was never one of the two wealthiest nations on earth. Nowhere near it.
 
2012-12-12 02:57:01 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Christ, how much does this shiat cost? Where do they get the cash for the fuel and oxidizers? Where do they get the uranium? How do they pay for the centrifuges? How does a country full of starving brainwashed retards produce the scientists capable of doing this shiat?


According to a quick Google search, North Korea has millions of tons of Uranium they could mine, and they have millions of people they can waste, so they'll find a way to dig it up.
 
2012-12-12 03:08:37 AM  
Holy shiat.

Business in DPR Korea:

The DPR of Korea (North Korea) will become in the next years the most important hub for trading in North-East Asia.

Lowest labour cost in Asia.

Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.

Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.

No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.

Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.

Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.

New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).

Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

You cant make this stuff up. I bet Kim wrote it himself. The section on the value of human rights would be hilarious if it wasn't obviously so fake.
 
2012-12-12 03:09:45 AM  
Maybe he's just ronery and wants a friend on the internet :(
 
2012-12-12 03:40:56 AM  

wiwille: Everybody Il-Sung tonight!


...DAMN. YOU.

/CLASS 3 EARWORM. ALL STATIONS ARE AT DEFCON 2.
 
2012-12-12 03:43:08 AM  
And it looks just like a.....

Johnson!
www.mastermousepatrol.com
 
2012-12-12 03:55:09 AM  
Now you see, the new world is inevitable.
 
2012-12-12 04:01:15 AM  

Hector Remarkable: Weather satellite? Why can't they just go to Weather.com?????

So suppose the WHOLE THING was a huge nuclear ruse, and Hawaii has just been turned into five glass parking lots. What do you do? What DO you DO?


Nothing now. It's way f*cking too late.
 
2012-12-12 04:06:57 AM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


"Crashnik"
 
2012-12-12 05:42:14 AM  
Yay, more useless debris that might slam into everyone else's expensive equipment...
 
Esn
2012-12-12 05:46:39 AM  

WhyteRaven74: One line of thought not often considered that all this stuff, the nuke tests, missile tests etc aren't actually aimed at producing workable weapons to use against anyone but rather demonstrate to the North Korean people that the place is run by people who are capable of what they say they are capable of and that they can develop the means to take on the world. North Korea has spent the last 60 plus years telling its own citizens that it can take on anyone. Launching up a few rockets and exploding a nuke or two will do nicely to show the home crowd you can deliver on what you say. Given the media control in North Korea the people aren't going to find out whether or not something worked as planned and thus whether or not it does doesn't matter from that respect. As a bonus if it does work you can cause all sorts of people, the US included, to engage in a massive eyeroll and bark of "Stop that!", that is also nice to play for the home crowd. Especially if you only show them the "Stop that!" part so they think others are angry and/or afraid of them.


I think you've got it.

For the people who're wondering about how North Korea can do this even though they're so poor, they do have a certain advantage: extreme dedication.

They have the kind of society that is a really good fit for idiot savants (or generally people who want to focus on one thing and ignore everything else). Ever watched the Youtube videos of North Korean musicians? They've got to be the best in the world.

Here's one example.

Why? A few reasons. First, life in communist authoritarian societies is MUCH simpler than in democratic capitalist ones (at least this is true of the ones I've had personal knowledge of: the Soviet Union and Cuba, to which North Korea is pretty similar). Your free choices get taken away, but imagine if this also meant that you didn't have to worry about taxes, electric bills, complex legal forms, any of that. Imagine if everything was simple and written out in simple language that anyone could understand. Just imagine how much more time and energy would be freed up if you didn't have to think about any of that. And in North Korea, this is part of the reason for why they have more people who just devote everything to what they do, because there are no distractions, wanted or unwanted. Here, you could not do that even if you wanted to unless you were very rich, because there are all sorts of choices that you HAVE to decide on whether you want to or not. It's part of adulthood. In North Korea, the population is encouraged to be more like children, in that the government takes care of a lot of things so that they don't have to. Our world is more complex than theirs, and this complexity takes up a certain part of our minds and doesn't allow us to be as dedicated to some particular specialty.

The other side is that this same complexity also breeds creativity, but there's more than one way to skin a cat - the North Koreans have gotten to a high level of scientific and cultural development by a very different route than the West has used, but it's one that works as well, and not just in North Korea.
 
2012-12-12 05:55:46 AM  

bbfreak: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Well, ICBM's aren't easy to make. Launching anything into orbit is hard enough, but to get a nuke on a target the size of a city you basically need a spacecraft that can survive reentry. First it is launched into space, then its boosted around the earth to its individual target and then reenters like any spacecraft to fall without power onto a target and explode of course.

US sort of went a bit extreme in the 80's and came up with the Peacekeeper missile that could have up to 10 warheads.


That's not how ballistic missiles work (the B in ICBM is for ballistic).

They don't go into orbit (if they did, they wouldn't be ballistic), they follow a curve after the initial booster fase. The spacecraft thing is incorrect as well.
 
2012-12-12 05:56:40 AM  
Can somebody tell me why America believes that we can stop a nation from developing a technology?

What? They signed a treaty decades ago? And? So we look the other way when our friends who signed the same treaty develop Nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, yet we attack other nations that do the same. I just don't get it.

Now I may be a simplistic idiot, but I don't think we should have the right to say who develops anything.

If we are attacked, then we have right, and should, respond with overwhelming force. Everyone from dear leader to the person fueling the missile should know that if that thing is launched against us, that it means the destruction of their country.
 
Esn
2012-12-12 06:02:44 AM  

BigBooper: Can somebody tell me why America believes that we can stop a nation from developing a technology?


Because people don't kill people. Guns kill people.

;-)
 
2012-12-12 06:27:26 AM  
BigBooper: Can somebody tell me why America believes that we can stop a nation from developing a technology?


We can, the question is "why should we?".
The reason is that many governments cannot be trusted.

Dictators have a habit of using weapons of mass destruction either directly or as bargaining chips. They think nothing of killing a few thousand people, let alone a few million, if it achieves some objective they have.
Their shenanigans cost us money and, in a worst case scenario, could destroy nations.

If you wouldn't let an individual own a nuclear weapon, I don't know what logic would let you stand by while a political party buys one.
 
2012-12-12 06:32:27 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
Esn
2012-12-12 06:38:47 AM  

way south: BigBooper: Can somebody tell me why America believes that we can stop a nation from developing a technology?


We can, the question is "why should we?".
The reason is that many governments cannot be trusted.

Dictators have a habit of using weapons of mass destruction either directly or as bargaining chips. They think nothing of killing a few thousand people, let alone a few million, if it achieves some objective they have.
Their shenanigans cost us money and, in a worst case scenario, could destroy nations.

If you wouldn't let an individual own a nuclear weapon, I don't know what logic would let you stand by while a political party buys one.


C'mon now, that's not the reason. It's not because of humanitarianism, it's because of a desire to maintain military and technological superiority because these are the key to political and cultural superiority. You can stay on top by being the best, or you can stay on top by pushing down the other contenders.

This is one thing that both North Korea and the US (by their reaction to it) agree on: this successful satellite launch helps legitimize the North Korean government.
 
2012-12-12 07:00:01 AM  

Esn: way south: BigBooper: Can somebody tell me why America believes that we can stop a nation from developing a technology?


We can, the question is "why should we?".
The reason is that many governments cannot be trusted.

Dictators have a habit of using weapons of mass destruction either directly or as bargaining chips. They think nothing of killing a few thousand people, let alone a few million, if it achieves some objective they have.
Their shenanigans cost us money and, in a worst case scenario, could destroy nations.

If you wouldn't let an individual own a nuclear weapon, I don't know what logic would let you stand by while a political party buys one.

C'mon now, that's not the reason. It's not because of humanitarianism, it's because of a desire to maintain military and technological superiority because these are the key to political and cultural superiority. You can stay on top by being the best, or you can stay on top by pushing down the other contenders.

This is one thing that both North Korea and the US (by their reaction to it) agree on: this successful satellite launch helps legitimize the North Korean government.


You could make that argument, because if we learned nothing else in WWII it's that letting others be the top dog is a bad idea.
However the US doesn't make it a habit of holding most nations back. We've even helped some with their space and nuclear programs. We've dealt with the Russians and their competing tech programs without resorting to sanctions or military force. We've done a very poor job of securing our position at the top.

With that in mind: Bombs and missiles wont buy the North Koreans legitimacy in the eyes of democratic nations.
Building weapons only heightens them as a potential threat, which gives the hard liners a better argument for taking action.

If the norks want legitimacy, their leader needs to be put on a term limit and a diet.
 
Esn
2012-12-12 07:25:48 AM  

way south: With that in mind: Bombs and missiles wont buy the North Koreans legitimacy in the eyes of democratic nations.
Building weapons only heightens them as a potential threat, which gives the hard liners a better argument for taking action.


So... in other words, if they build weapons, they get taken seriously? That sounds like a "win" to me.

Besides, the European nations never asked the world for legitimacy, they got legitimacy by conquering most of it and making their cultural values the ones associated with success. As did the Mongols. If North Korea can do successful things even in the face of worldwide opposition, it similarly legitimizes their cultural values (not nearly to the same extent, but somewhat). 

It's just like you've got people now talking about how maybe China's system of technocratic leaders and huge-punishments-for-rich-fraudsters is something to emulate because China's on the upswing.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:59 AM  

kg2095: Voiceofreason01: D_Evans45:
They've been days away for 30 years.


This. When people say that these weapons can be built using 1960's tech, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the huge technical difficulties inherent in developing these weapons and the vast resources and infrastructure it takes to actually build them.

/it's more honest to say that the two biggest, wealthiest countries on Earth were able to develop them in the 1960's, but only by utilizing the best minds in the world in physics and engineering and throwing huge amounts of resources behind their development.

The Soviet Union was never one of the two wealthiest nations on earth. Nowhere near it.


I think a HUGE factor is having scientist on your side. US and Russia both had extremely bright scientist who truly believed in what they were doing when they built their missile programs. Its already been shown that in Iran their scientist are often sabotaging their own work because they don't believe in their fundamentalist regime. I suspect SK is in a similar boat.
 
2012-12-12 07:50:58 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ah yes, the infamous MIRV.



www.thesuperficial.com
 
Esn
2012-12-12 07:54:07 AM  

kg2095: Voiceofreason01: D_Evans45:
They've been days away for 30 years.


This. When people say that these weapons can be built using 1960's tech, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the huge technical difficulties inherent in developing these weapons and the vast resources and infrastructure it takes to actually build them.

/it's more honest to say that the two biggest, wealthiest countries on Earth were able to develop them in the 1960's, but only by utilizing the best minds in the world in physics and engineering and throwing huge amounts of resources behind their development.

The Soviet Union was never one of the two wealthiest nations on earth. Nowhere near it.


Hm? Wasn't it the second-largest economy in the world? (not in GDP-per-capita, but in overall size)

Although something I've been thinking about: the US economy had (and has) a great deal of trade with other countries, mostly poorer ones, while the the USSR's economy was mostly self-contained.

If you could somehow calculate the GDP-per-capita of the US economy INCLUDING its many trading partners/branches (without which the economy would not exist), I wonder if the USSR or the US-plus-subsidiaries would end up having the higher GDP-per-capita. Has an analysis like this ever been done?
 
2012-12-12 08:11:20 AM  

Esn: If North Korea can do successful things even in the face of worldwide opposition, it similarly legitimizes their cultural values


dl.dropbox.com

I wonder which successful thing you think it is they are doing...
 
2012-12-12 08:34:28 AM  
Ronreeeeee, I so Ronreeeeeeee,.....Oh My Unicorn!!

I no Ronree any mow.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:53 AM  

way south: I wonder which successful thing you think it is they are doing...


Saving the world from global warming by not consuming fossil fuels to generate electricity.

/some people find absolute power to force others to obey admirable
//would rather be tyrant kings of hell than mere presidents of heaven, you know
 
Esn
2012-12-12 09:07:23 AM  

way south: Esn: If North Korea can do successful things even in the face of worldwide opposition, it similarly legitimizes their cultural values

[dl.dropbox.com image 400x513]

I wonder which successful thing you think it is they are doing...


Their science program, obviously. South Korea tried to put a satellite into space too, but so far have failed.

I've also been very impressed with North Korean fine arts. Their music, dance and visual arts are top-notch. The Arirang mass games (2005 video) are their unique contribution to the world's culture, the ultimate gesamtkunstwerk - other countries have had mass festivals, but nothing even approaching the level of what the North Koreans do every year.

There are also plenty of things that they suck at, but those are the successful things I think they're doing.
 
2012-12-12 09:27:51 AM  

Captain Steroid: What's Korean for "Sputnik"? >_>


스푸트니크

Possibly.
 
2012-12-12 09:37:38 AM  
i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 09:38:41 AM  
Nobody on the TV news this morning would say the word "orbit".
 
2012-12-12 09:51:36 AM  

debug: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.


Very thought-provoking devil's advocate reply. Impressed.
 
2012-12-12 10:35:34 AM  

MindStalker: I think a HUGE factor is having scientist on your side. US and Russia both had extremely bright scientist who truly believed in what they were doing when they built their missile programs. Its already been shown that in Iran their scientist are often sabotaging their own work because they don't believe in their fundamentalist regime. I suspect SK is in a similar boat.


Scientist, eh? Just one?
 
2012-12-12 10:41:51 AM  

Palin2012: Hell they even have a gift shop. They really are living it up over there. Im so jealous.


A Cafepress gift shop! My god, their technology is even more advanced than I'd feared!

/lololololol
 
2012-12-12 10:50:52 AM  

studebaker hoch: Nobody on the TV news this morning would say the word "orbit".


CNN did.
 
Esn
2012-12-12 10:58:42 AM  

nekom: studebaker hoch: Nobody on the TV news this morning would say the word "orbit".

CNN did.


One of the anchors yesterday began saying "satellite" then immediately corrected herself and explained that she meant "rocket".
 
2012-12-12 10:59:53 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Japan's likely next prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is leading in opinion polls ahead of an election on December 16 and who made his name as a North Korea hawk, called on the United Nations to adopt a resolution "strongly criticizing" Pyongyang.

/Yes, a strongly worded letter from the UN should turn things right around. Thanks mate.


Sure worked for the US invading Iraq didn't it....

/Kettle... pot.... black... etc.
 
2012-12-12 11:03:52 AM  

spawn73: bbfreak: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Well, ICBM's aren't easy to make. Launching anything into orbit is hard enough, but to get a nuke on a target the size of a city you basically need a spacecraft that can survive reentry. First it is launched into space, then its boosted around the earth to its individual target and then reenters like any spacecraft to fall without power onto a target and explode of course.

US sort of went a bit extreme in the 80's and came up with the Peacekeeper missile that could have up to 10 warheads.

That's not how ballistic missiles work (the B in ICBM is for ballistic).

They don't go into orbit (if they did, they wouldn't be ballistic), they follow a curve after the initial booster fase. The spacecraft thing is incorrect as well.


The "ICBM" term is somewhat a generic and often misleading term. Many of the missiles used in the various ICBM systems have been fully capable of launching to orbit, and have been used many times for that purpose. Thor, Titan, and Atlas have launched many spacecraft, including deep space probes. Peacekeeper (formerly known as the MX Missile) stages are used by Orbital Sciences for the Taurus rocket for LEO shots. The warheads themselves were meant to follow a ballistic path (which is what the ICBM term was for), but technically it is the warhead that is ballistic, not necessarily the missile, even though that is what the "M" stands for.

The 'spacecraft' description is accurate on a basic level as they do have to survive space-type conditions and the heat of re-entry.

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

In the case of Peacekeeper, the post-boost stage actually performs some maneuvering to increase the targeting footprint, so it's not purely ballistic as a "dumb" bomb would be.

As for Peacekeeper going "overboard" with 10 warheads, according to Guiness World Records, the Russians own that title with one capable of over 40 warheads (although the accuracy was lousy, but so is a shotgun). 

/former ICBM Team Chief
 
2012-12-12 11:39:23 AM  

Captain Swoop:
The 'spacecraft' description is accurate on a basic level as they do have to survive space-type conditions and the heat of re-entry.


Of course.

Unless you do like the Germans sometimes did under WW2, and just lauch a 1 ton block of concrete (they did that as they apparently didn't have enough explosives for all the rockets). Whatever the reentry speed of the V2 was, was enough to still make a nice impression with that kind payload. :P

AFAIK the Iraqi SCUDs did the most damage as well when they broke up during reentry, both because the Israelis couldn't shoot them down in that state, and because the debris had a greater chance of hitting something.
 
2012-12-12 11:48:40 AM  
I wouldn't disregard this as fearmongering either.. NK might not have a portable nuclear device yet, but this launch serves as a demonstration of one piece of the tactical puzzle. if they can put something in orbit, they can re-enter something across the globe. If this was a peaceful nation with peaceful ambitions, I think the international community would be congratulating them, but this is a military dictatorship that is constantly aggressive and arguably unstable. It's very difficult to believe any launch could be purely scientific and not just a blatant test of ICBM capabilities. Furthermore, as someone pointed out there are other elements to ICBM development, but who knows how far away they are on those technological hurdles like down-sizing their warheads and designing an accurate re-entry vehicle. maybe these things have already been developed or, worse yet, outsourced. So I can't blame anyone for being on edge at the moment, was really hoping a new leader would change the direction of the country
 
2012-12-12 11:49:09 AM  

spawn73: bbfreak: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Well, ICBM's aren't easy to make. Launching anything into orbit is hard enough, but to get a nuke on a target the size of a city you basically need a spacecraft that can survive reentry. First it is launched into space, then its boosted around the earth to its individual target and then reenters like any spacecraft to fall without power onto a target and explode of course.

US sort of went a bit extreme in the 80's and came up with the Peacekeeper missile that could have up to 10 warheads.

That's not how ballistic missiles work (the B in ICBM is for ballistic).

They don't go into orbit (if they did, they wouldn't be ballistic), they follow a curve after the initial booster fase. The spacecraft thing is incorrect as well.


Do you know how I know you're not a rocket scientist? or a Ballistic Missile scientist?

/you can't spell phase
//ICBMs do exit and re-enter
//long range missiles are not that hard, nukes are a bit harder. nukes in long range missiles is ricockulously hard
 
2012-12-12 11:50:40 AM  

debug: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.


... Until they build nukes of their own.

The problem here is not necessarily that Iran or NK will, upon building sufficient nukes, will immediately use them.

It's that once they have sufficient nukes, they potentially gain cover for their wilder schemes. Pakistan is a good example of this -- relatively speaking, we're treading lightly in their territory, and nukes are a big part of that.
 
2012-12-12 11:52:25 AM  

spawn73: AFAIK the Iraqi SCUDs did the most damage as well when they broke up during reentry, both because the Israelis couldn't shoot them down in that state, and because the debris had a greater chance of hitting something.


dude. stop. SCUD missiles have a range of less than 500km. there is no re-entry of a SCUD.
 
2012-12-12 11:57:22 AM  
I, for one, welcome Best Korea to the 1950s.
 
2012-12-12 12:18:55 PM  

rikkitikkitavi: spawn73: AFAIK the Iraqi SCUDs did the most damage as well when they broke up during reentry, both because the Israelis couldn't shoot them down in that state, and because the debris had a greater chance of hitting something.

dude. stop. SCUD missiles have a range of less than 500km. there is no re-entry of a SCUD.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hussein_(missile)

How about you stop?
 
2012-12-12 12:23:43 PM  
Problem solved...

www.atarimania.com
 
2012-12-12 12:28:18 PM  

Esn: One of the anchors yesterday began saying "satellite" then immediately corrected herself and explained that she meant "rocket".


This morning they most certainly said that it had `reached orbit' but they stopped short of calling it a satellite. Isn't that just mincing words, though? I mean even if you launch a small stone into orbit, it is still technically a satellite.
 
2012-12-12 12:29:08 PM  

spawn73: How about you stop?


that's your knowledge base? wikipedia? seriously, stop.
 
2012-12-12 01:35:44 PM  

rikkitikkitavi: spawn73: How about you stop?

that's your knowledge base? wikipedia? seriously, stop.


The Scud is a mobile, Russian-made, short-range, tactical ballistic surface-to-surface (hence the nomenclature abbreviation SS) missile system. The SCUD-series guided missiles are single-stage, short-range ballistic missiles using storable liquid propellants.

...

The SCUD-D SS-1e featured an improved guidance system, possibly incorporating active radar terminal homing, and a wider choice of warheads than its predecessors. This missile has a range of about 700 km. Initially operational in the 1980s, it may not have been deployed by former Soviet ground forces.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/r-11.htm
 
2012-12-12 02:44:32 PM  

Esn: kg2095: Voiceofreason01: D_Evans45:
They've been days away for 30 years.


This. When people say that these weapons can be built using 1960's tech, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the huge technical difficulties inherent in developing these weapons and the vast resources and infrastructure it takes to actually build them.

/it's more honest to say that the two biggest, wealthiest countries on Earth were able to develop them in the 1960's, but only by utilizing the best minds in the world in physics and engineering and throwing huge amounts of resources behind their development.

The Soviet Union was never one of the two wealthiest nations on earth. Nowhere near it.

Hm? Wasn't it the second-largest economy in the world? (not in GDP-per-capita, but in overall size)

Although something I've been thinking about: the US economy had (and has) a great deal of trade with other countries, mostly poorer ones, while the the USSR's economy was mostly self-contained.

If you could somehow calculate the GDP-per-capita of the US economy INCLUDING its many trading partners/branches (without which the economy would not exist), I wonder if the USSR or the US-plus-subsidiaries would end up having the higher GDP-per-capita. Has an analysis like this ever been done?


Yes, they did have the second biggest GDP, but not GDP per capita. Their GDP per capita was close to developing country status - very poor.
 
2012-12-12 03:34:50 PM  

rikkitikkitavi: spawn73: How about you stop?

that's your knowledge base? wikipedia? seriously, stop.


Enough to make you look like the ass that you are.
 
2012-12-12 04:09:09 PM  
Hate your hate you haters!


Proving yet again, my taepodong is best taepodong.
 
2012-12-12 04:43:02 PM  

elchupacabra: debug: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.

... Until they build nukes of their own.


The problem here is not necessarily that Iran or NK will, upon building sufficient nukes, will immediately use them.

It's that once they have sufficient nukes, they potentially gain cover for their wilder schemes. Pakistan is a good example of this -- relatively speaking, we're treading lightly in their territory, and nukes are a big part of that.


Yeah, that's kind of the point I was making. They want it to level the playing field.
 
2012-12-12 06:29:32 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Japan's likely next prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is leading in opinion polls ahead of an election on December 16 and who made his name as a North Korea hawk, called on the United Nations to adopt a resolution "strongly criticizing" Pyongyang.

/Yes, a strongly worded letter from the UN should turn things right around. Thanks mate.


Given that we had to use nukes to deal with the last bunch of Japanese hawks, I'm okay with this.
 
2012-12-13 01:03:31 AM  

D_Evans45: Fark Me To Tears: . So, instead of thinking this is no big deal, you might want to reconsider how long we have until something really bad results from all this. The time will come sooner than you think.


Just how long is "sooner than you think"? Weve been told Iran was 3-5 years away from nukes starting as far back as 1992. Rumsfeld was saying the deadline was 2003. Why is your idea any more urgent than theirs?

/You have a past on Fark with irrational fear-mongering in other threads, Im thinking most of what you post is bullshiat


To be fair, Iran HAS been that close. We've been very busy murdering scientists and trashing processing facilities over the last 20 years. We've been very successful at hampering their efforts.
 
2012-12-13 05:34:26 PM  

debug: elchupacabra: debug: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.

... Until they build nukes of their own.

The problem here is not necessarily that Iran or NK will, upon building sufficient nukes, will immediately use them.

It's that once they have sufficient nukes, they potentially gain cover for their wilder schemes. Pakistan is a good example of this -- relatively speaking, we're treading lightly in their territory, and nukes are a big part of that.

Yeah, that's kind of the point I was making. They want it to level the playing field.


Yeah, but when "Leveling the Playing Field" means, "Let us get away with more mass murder", that's not a good thing.
 
2012-12-13 11:44:24 PM  

elchupacabra: Yeah, but when "Leveling the Playing Field" means, "Let us get away with more mass murder", that's not a good thing.


You have no right to judge their culture, just because it oppresses minorities and women.

/islamophobe
//amidoinitrite?
 
2012-12-14 02:47:15 PM  

elchupacabra: debug: elchupacabra: debug: D_Evans45: So how many years til North Korea or Iran have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting the continental US? One of these articles was saying Iran was several years away at least, probably closer to a decade, from actually having a working nuke.

Pretty scary, but from the fear mongering earlier this year you'd think these people were just days from having a nuke.

Imagine how scary it must be for them to know that we can already do this. We can attack them from anywhere in the world at any time we want and there is nothing they can do about it.

... Until they build nukes of their own.

The problem here is not necessarily that Iran or NK will, upon building sufficient nukes, will immediately use them.

It's that once they have sufficient nukes, they potentially gain cover for their wilder schemes. Pakistan is a good example of this -- relatively speaking, we're treading lightly in their territory, and nukes are a big part of that.

Yeah, that's kind of the point I was making. They want it to level the playing field.

Yeah, but when "Leveling the Playing Field" means, "Let us get away with more mass murder", that's not a good thing.


Because the US was never involved in any mass murders in their history...
Sorry, I just don't think we have a right to deny technology to other people. We don't have to help them obtain it, but if they and their friends figure it out, oh well.
 
Displayed 139 of 139 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report