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  
•       •       •

7666 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 11:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report