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.

(The Big Story)   U.S. last week: "We're not concerned about a nuclear threat from North Korea." U.S. this week: "Uhh, let's add some interceptors along the west coast. You know, just in case"   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 198
    More: Scary, North Koreans, interceptors, U.S., North Korean ICBM, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Air Force bases, missile defense, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel  
•       •       •

6935 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 4:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 05:19:40 PM  
Maybe the US was invited, and did not just make some kind of unilateral decision. I mean, only a fool would think they could move their military around so close to China and Russia and a host of Muslim island nations without making sure everyone was on board with their plan (or at least informed of it). Also, this article doesn't do a very good job of explaining if the US will be cooperating with Chinese or other Pacific fleets/air forces. It makes it sound like the USA is the only nation with toy ducks in the bathtub. That just ain't so.
 
2013-03-15 05:20:03 PM  
Hmm.  I am OK with this.
$1B seems pretty cheap for all that, considering the damage one nuke would do to, say, Los Angeles - even Fresno would have a property loss of more than $1B.

/and no one goes to Fresno any more.
 
2013-03-15 05:20:32 PM  

ArtosRC: What North Korean could ever afford bulgogi, save for the military and government elite? Even then, that's a stretch.


LOL, yeah, this guy is not going hungry

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-15 05:20:45 PM  

JeffDenver: And if they don't have it right this minute, that must mean it is impossible they can ever get it in the future. Developing nukes must have been the exception to the rule. Your brilliant logic has convinced me.


heahea.org

Your fear mongering and ability to place words in my mouth has convinced me that a country barely able to feed it's starving, mostly militarized population, and who have only managed to detonate - with some marked question if it was an actual nuclear device or not - something that the US did 20 years before it had a viable, accurate delivery mechanism for intercontinental ballistic missile warfare, and without the same technological research abilities that the Soviets or the United States had at the time is a threat to the United States.

Despite the fact that they have no ability to deliver such a weapon, which is not even in a form that can be used militarily, to the shores of the United States, or to the shores of Japan.

And despite the fact what missile systems they DO have are so inaccurate that they pose more of a danger to the North Koreans than ANYONE around them, and can't even reach Japan with conventional or even chemical weapons.

And, even ignoring ALL THAT, are capable of being intercepted with a 99.5% accuracy rate using Theater ABM systems that have been in service since 1985, and that are THEMSELVES derivatives of 1960s technology.

But yes. Somehow North Korea poses a massive threat to the United States, and that threat can only be countered by wasteful, pork barrel programs.
 
2013-03-15 05:22:20 PM  

JeffDenver: I like how all the liberals have finally STFU about missile defense. It's a good thing we ignored your assholes and funded it anyway eh?


March 18, 1999
WASHINGTON -- "Reacting to warnings that missiles from several emerging nations could soon be capable of hitting the United States, the Senate voted yesterday to build a national defense system as soon as the technology is developed

"The legislation, which the Senate approved 97-3, follows several unexpected missile launches by foreign nations, including a long-range ballistic missile tested by North Korea last August, and medium-range tests by Iran.  The fear is that those nations will soon have the capacity to fire rockets to the United States."

105th Senate:1997-1999(D)45(R) 55

Wait, you mean JeffDenver is talking out his ass?
No Way!
 
2013-03-15 05:23:17 PM  

highendmighty: Hmm.  I am OK with this.
$1B seems pretty cheap for all that, considering the damage one nuke would do to, say, Los Angeles - even Fresno would have a property loss of more than $1B.


If it Fresno, it would be an improvement.
 
2013-03-15 05:23:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: Your fear mongering and ability to place words in my mouth has convinced me that a country barely able to feed it's starving, mostly militarized pop...blah blah blah blah


You could have just said "OMG just relax, they probably won't do anything, they're too stupid to make missiles LOL".

It would have saved you a lot of typing.
 
2013-03-15 05:23:49 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: echomike23: /i just realized that i've eaten more north korean food than the north koreans.


In one sitting


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-15 05:26:01 PM  

JeffDenver: You could have just said "OMG just relax, they probably won't do anything, they're too stupid to make missiles LOL".

It would have saved you a lot of typing.


Ah. I see you ignored the fact that you're blatantly lying, and ignored the fact that a wasteful program accomplished what had already been accomplished in 1985 with the deployment of the Patriot and AEGIS systems.

But yes. Keep FARKing that chicken. Boy, will you have us wrong when those 900km Rodong Missiles start splashing down in the middle of the pacific!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-15 05:26:15 PM  

kmmontandon: I'm not even remotely sold on the notion that North Korea has an ICBM deployable warhead.

Three possibly fizzled underground tests aren't real convincing.

So I'm guessing this is more for public consumption than anything practical.


Fizzled?  No.  North Korea just hates the Sea of Japan.
 
2013-03-15 05:26:54 PM  
Any bets on how long it will take Best Korea to call this "a US agression?"
 
2013-03-15 05:26:55 PM  

hardinparamedic: But yes. Somehow North Korea poses a massive threat to the United States, and that threat can only be countered by wasteful, pork barrel programs.


But the United States NEEDS an enemy.  If we don't have an enemy, we need to invent one.  And North Korea is an ideal candidate.  Americans don't know squat about NK, so the defense industry can fill the void nicely.  They can make up almost anything and a certain number of Americans will nod their bobbleheads in assent.
 
2013-03-15 05:27:21 PM  
Imagine if they had oil

It amazes me that a nation can back out of the armistice and basically declare war and no matter how puny it gets ignored, Is china an active ally of them? other then communist ties will they go to war if actual fighting were to break out?
 
2013-03-15 05:27:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: Ah. I see you ignored the fact that you're blatantly lying


Yes, no liberal has ever opposed national missile defense. I totally made that up just now. You caught me.
 
2013-03-15 05:28:24 PM  
Realizing of course that most of that is staging for show, since a good portion of our missile shield defenses are uber-classified. If anyone actually believes they 100% stopped development in the late 90s, they are kidding themselves about the nature of military research.
 
2013-03-15 05:28:28 PM  
Good thing they don't watch TV or they would already planning their delivery system around the Japanese Zeros

corktails.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-15 05:31:21 PM  
We'll likely do an air strike in Best Korea, without any boots on the ground, to wipe out the nuclear facilities.
 
2013-03-15 05:31:27 PM  
With the rate at which technology advances, the amount of resources North Korea has and the amount of crazy North Korea has - it's pretty hard to rule out anything.
 
2013-03-15 05:31:42 PM  

hardinparamedic: make me some tea: While it's puny in comparison to what's out there, it's still plenty enough to fark some shiat up, though.



You still have to have a way to get it somewhere, and to militarize the design.


Oh sure, absolutely. What they've got--or what we THINK they've got anyway--is pretty much useless. They get concessions from powerful countries by bullying them with potentialities.
 
2013-03-15 05:32:30 PM  

kmmontandon: I'm not even remotely sold on the notion that North Korea has an ICBM deployable warhead.

Three possibly fizzled underground tests aren't real convincing.

So I'm guessing this is more for public consumption than anything practical.


There MAY be a concern that NK wants to try a nuclear detonation in space to achieve continent-wide EMP devastation.  There was science back in the late 80's which showed that it would have a terrifying destructive range on modern infrastructure and tech.  Literally continent-wide.  It could take far longer to get the overall economy running again than we even have money for.

I don't know if that sort of threat assessment is valid.  It's rather "fantastic" energy even for a nuke.  But it could be that NK or Iran THINKS it'll work to that effect.  It may just destroy electronics across a single state or something, which would include business computers, hospitals, vehicles, plant management computers & hardware, etc, and cost trillions in replacement equipment and lost productivity.
 
2013-03-15 05:34:08 PM  

JeffDenver: Yes, no liberal has ever opposed national missile defense. I totally made that up just now. You caught me.


I really don't care if they have or not, the point is irrelevant. I'm sure some strawman conservatives and strawman liberals have opposed everything under the sun at some point. The 105th Congress which voted to fund the Missile Defense system in 1999 was 45% Democrat and 55% Republican, and delivered a vote of 97-3.

A program which, even today, has not produced an effective and mass-deployable weapons system, despite costing over 30 Billion Dollars, and projected to greatly exceed it's budget before all is said and done.
 
2013-03-15 05:34:55 PM  
The military which says the North Koreans do not have the ability for ICBM's - now are turning that around - who says russia or china didn't sell them the capabilities for a launch vehicle?

Lets look at the countries who are non-NPT countries (who give nuke secrets away):

India
Pakistan
North Korea

So who wants to guess which country gave little Kim his boom boom toys?
 
2013-03-15 05:35:12 PM  

kindms: Sounds like some senators figured out a way to get some pork under the guise of protecting the west coast from North Korea.


This. Boeing needs a new pair of shoes.
 
2013-03-15 05:35:41 PM  

cgraves67: Skr: In this case I'd rather them fire one off at the U.S. and have it intercepted/crash into the ocean, than have them fire one off at the easier hit S. Korea or Japan.

That's what I was thinking. The more ocean a NorK missile crosses, the more likely it is to splash.


Most likely will go in a near polar trajectory, thats why most of our landbased interceptors are in Alaska.
 
2013-03-15 05:36:12 PM  

echomike23: totally digging their guidance systems
[www.globalpost.com image 670x450]

/i just realized that i've eaten more north korean food than the north koreans.


Is he using a magic wand?
 
2013-03-15 05:36:28 PM  

Oznog: kmmontandon: I'm not even remotely sold on the notion that North Korea has an ICBM deployable warhead.

Three possibly fizzled underground tests aren't real convincing.

So I'm guessing this is more for public consumption than anything practical.

There MAY be a concern that NK wants to try a nuclear detonation in space to achieve continent-wide EMP devastation.  There was science back in the late 80's which showed that it would have a terrifying destructive range on modern infrastructure and tech.  Literally continent-wide.  It could take far longer to get the overall economy running again than we even have money for.

I don't know if that sort of threat assessment is valid.  It's rather "fantastic" energy even for a nuke.  But it could be that NK or Iran THINKS it'll work to that effect.  It may just destroy electronics across a single state or something, which would include business computers, hospitals, vehicles, plant management computers & hardware, etc, and cost trillions in replacement equipment and lost productivity.


I bet if it happened we'd hear about how the Democrats blocked Star Wars back in the 80s.
 
2013-03-15 05:37:04 PM  
I think that we should setup some in japan and south Korean as well.  Just to cover our bases.
 
2013-03-15 05:42:56 PM  
The only rocket they got with any real range is a liquid fueled giant based on 1960's tech. It takes like two weeks to setup using a prepared launch pad, and that is so obvious to overhead photorecon, the NK military might as well phone it's location to the US in advance.

What the US is afraid of, and rightly so, is some kind of "slap in the face" ship based or over water tactical missile. Like a Chinese Flying Dragon. I can see NK firing one or more of those just to be a pain in the ass.
 
2013-03-15 05:44:09 PM  

Ambivalence: Better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.


It's a billion dollars, more or less.
 
2013-03-15 05:45:05 PM  
media.ft.com

Well I guess it's technically possible they could hit Alaska but so far their rockets act like torpedoes.
 
2013-03-15 05:45:53 PM  
It's ok though... if you get nuked and survive...at least you have an HOA to keep your nuclear sub-waste property value up.
 
2013-03-15 05:48:15 PM  

make me some tea: hardinparamedic: No, they just proved North Korea has reached 1938, and can build a crude Teller-Ullam Triggered Device.

The NK test reached a yield of 5-7kT. For comparison, Trinity shot was 20kT.

While it's puny in comparison to what's out there, it's still plenty enough to fark some shiat up, though.


It would be the last thing Best Korea ever does.
 
2013-03-15 05:48:50 PM  
Even the NK regime are not THAT stupid. can you IMAGINE what the US would do if a foreign power actually launched an outright military strike at US soil? Look what you did to afghanistan when they just allowed the farkers to sit in their territory..

There is a reason attacks on major nations are all done by non-state terrorist groups you know..
 
2013-03-15 05:52:00 PM  
vernonFL: LOL, yeah, this guy is not going hungry

Makes me nostalgic for South Korea. Above all, I pine for the street peddler foods. Oh, God, the fried corn was to die for. Almost literally, since the health inspectors obviously didn't pay much mind to them.
 
2013-03-15 05:52:28 PM  

moefuggenbrew: It's ok though... if you get nuked and survive...at least you have an HOA to keep your nuclear sub-waste property value up.


better keep that lawn up to snuff. oh it was incinerated in the nuclear blast and nothing will ever grow there again? nice try. fined.
 
2013-03-15 05:55:13 PM  

ArtosRC: Makes me nostalgic for South Korea. Above all, I pine for the street peddler foods. Oh, God, the fried corn was to die for. Almost literally, since the health inspectors obviously didn't pay much mind to them.


If you're dumb enough to stand next to the street to eat odds are the traffic will kill you, no need to wait for the food to end you.

These are the stories my friend that serviced 2 years over there tells me.
 
2013-03-15 05:55:26 PM  

dennysgod: [media.ft.com image 418x452]

Well I guess it's technically possible they could hit Alaska but so far their rockets act like torpedoes.


Just a little further and they can take out LA.
We can only hope.
 
2013-03-15 05:56:23 PM  
Why wait to intercept?  Bomb them on the launch pad before they take off.  Costs much less, scares them more.  Why spend billions when you don't need to?  All we need is balls.  Lets announce our bombing plans right away.

binaryapi.ap.org
 
2013-03-15 06:00:22 PM  
Are those the last of the V8 Interceptors?
 
2013-03-15 06:01:09 PM  

I_C_Weener: Oznog: kmmontandon: I'm not even remotely sold on the notion that North Korea has an ICBM deployable warhead.

Three possibly fizzled underground tests aren't real convincing.

So I'm guessing this is more for public consumption than anything practical.

There MAY be a concern that NK wants to try a nuclear detonation in space to achieve continent-wide EMP devastation.  There was science back in the late 80's which showed that it would have a terrifying destructive range on modern infrastructure and tech.  Literally continent-wide.  It could take far longer to get the overall economy running again than we even have money for.

I don't know if that sort of threat assessment is valid.  It's rather "fantastic" energy even for a nuke.  But it could be that NK or Iran THINKS it'll work to that effect.  It may just destroy electronics across a single state or something, which would include business computers, hospitals, vehicles, plant management computers & hardware, etc, and cost trillions in replacement equipment and lost productivity.

I bet if it happened we'd hear about how the Democrats blocked Star Wars back in the 80s.


We're all so inter-connected economically these days, that the DPRK deciding to just take it out on Seoul or Tokyo with a nuke would be an economic tsunami against our economy (coupled with the effect on the market when the US military rushes in)
 
2013-03-15 06:03:54 PM  

JeffDenver: I like how all the liberals have finally STFU about missile defense. It's a good thing we ignored your assholes and funded it anyway eh?


Unpossible! Sarah Palin said Best Korea are our allies!
 
2013-03-15 06:06:04 PM  

JeffDenver: I like how all the liberals have finally STFU about missile defense. It's a good thing we ignored your assholes and funded it anyway eh?


You didn't ignore our assholes in all those mens rooms though didja?
 
2013-03-15 06:06:40 PM  

BravadoGT: We're all so inter-connected economically these days, that the DPRK deciding to just take it out on Seoul or Tokyo with a nuke would be an economic tsunami against our economy (coupled with the effect on the market when the US military rushes in)


If they did something, that is what I'd expect.  Then they'd PS or cut and paste from some movie showing the US being hit by something.
 
2013-03-15 06:08:35 PM  
So... Fail to increase defense in Benghazi, due to possibility of threat costing ones of lives = Scandal, but increasing defense in the US due to the off chance that NK lobs a missile this way, possibly costing hundreds of thousands of lives = scandal?

While I doubt that NK can target a missile this way, I don't put it past them to try and get one over here - they may hit LA, they may hit meteor crater - they may be able to at least get the distance to do some damage.
 
2013-03-15 06:09:36 PM  

LessO2: We'll likely do an air strike in Best Korea, without any boots on the ground, to wipe out the nuclear facilities.


Ok. You just lost your Seoul.
 
2013-03-15 06:10:39 PM  

Evil High Priest: You just lost your Seoul.


Except for the fact that most of the Artillery on the DMZ can't even reach Seoul, yeah.
 
2013-03-15 06:10:46 PM  
You pretty much have to follow an enemy nuclear attack with one of your own or else you face a credibility problem.   Best Korea isn't going to do anything...rash.
 
2013-03-15 06:11:42 PM  

JeffDenver: I like how all the liberals have finally STFU about missile defense. It's a good thing we ignored your assholes and funded it anyway eh?


You conservatives really need to make up your minds. Are you gonna biatch about govt. spending or applaud it? Complain about govt. stockpiling ammo or stockpile it yourself?
Why not just admit the fact that you are just filled with hate and fear, take a Valium and enjoy this short life we all have?
You listening to Rush and emulating Chicken Little ain't gonna make a damn bit of dIfference.
 
2013-03-15 06:11:45 PM  
Why do they need a missile? Just put it on a freighter and sail the damn thing right into San Francisco. Sure you might not get the best position from the bay but it's a nuclear weapon, close counts.
 
2013-03-15 06:13:10 PM  
tonguedepressor:You didn't ignore our assholes in all those mens rooms though didja?

I couldn't. Your dad had such a nice one. He has a talented mouth too. Say hi to him for me.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report