+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Politics and Other Fun (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: North Korea rattles sabers, demands attention, candy (/showthread.php?tid=3889)
Pages:
1
2
North Korea rattles sabers, demands attention, candy - ECSNorway - 04-23-2012
Quote:PYONGYANG, North Korea — North Korea’s military warned Monday ofFile under "Suicide by United States Marine".
imminent “special actions” that would reduce South Korea’s conservative
government to ashes within minutes, sharply escalating the rhetoric
against its southern rival.
The threat from the North’s military leadership comes amid
concerns that North Korea may be plotting another provocation in the
wake of an unsuccessful rocket launch condemned by the U.N. Security
Council as a violation of a ban against missile activity.
North Korea characterized the April 13 rocket launch as a failed bid
to send a satellite into space — not a disguised test of missile
technology — but then followed up two days later by unveiling a new
long-range missile at a military birthday parade for late President Kim
Il Sung.
There are new concerns that North Korea may conduct a
nuclear test as it did after rocket launches in 2006 and 2009. South
Korean intelligence officials say recent satellite images show the North
has been digging a new tunnel in what could be preparation for a third
atomic test.
“Nuclear weapons are not the monopoly of the United
States,” Lt. Col. Nam Dong Ho told The Associated Press on Monday on the
North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone, saying North Korea needs
atomic weapons to defend itself against the threat of attack from the
U.S. “It’s my personal opinion, but I think we’ll continue to conduct
nuclear tests.”
On Monday, the military warned in a statement
carried by state media that it would launch “special actions” soon
against the South Korean government and conservative media.
However,
there was no outward sign of tension on the North Korean side of the
Demilitarized Zone. At Panmunjom, small groups of tourists were touring
the “peace” village and the buildings where the Korean War armistice was
signed in 1953. The South Korean side was quiet.
For days, North
Korea has railed against South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and
conservative South Korean media for criticizing its rocket launch and
the celebrations of the centennial of Kim Il Sung’s birth.
But
Monday’s message, distributed by the state-run Korean Central News
Agency and attributed to the “special operation action group” of the
Korean People’s Army’s Supreme Command, was unusual in its specificity.
“Once the above-said special actions kick off, they will reduce all the
rat-like groups and the bases for provocations to ashes in three or
four minutes, in much shorter time, by unprecedented peculiar means and
methods of our own style,” it said.
The threat comes as North
Korea’s new commander in chief, Kim Jong Un, makes a strong show of
support for the “military first” policy championed by his father, late
leader Kim Jong Il. North Korea marks the 80th anniversary of the
founding of its army Wednesday.
Seoul expressed worry that the threats were hurting relations between the countries and increasing animosity.
“We urge North Korea to immediately stop this practice,” Unification
Ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-suk told reporters, according to the
ministry. “We express deep concern that the North’s threats and
accusations have worsened inter-Korean ties and heightened tensions.”
A
South Korean Defense Ministry official, speaking on condition of
anonymity in line with departmental rules, said no special military
movement had been observed in the North.
In November 2010, after
issuing a warning to the South Korean government, North Korean troops
showered artillery on a front-line island in disputed western waters
held by South Korea. The attack killed four people, including two
civilians.
However, it is unlikely that North Korea would launch a
large-scale military attack against Seoul, which is backed by nearly
30,000 U.S. troops stationed in the South, said Kim Young-soo, a
professor at Sogang University in Seoul.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Ebony - 04-23-2012
“Nuclear weapons are not the monopoly of the United States,” Lt. Col. Nam Dong Ho told The Associated Press on Monday on the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone, saying North Korea needs atomic weapons to defend itself against the threat of attack from the U.S. “It’s my personal opinion, but I think we’ll continue to conduct nuclear tests.”
You're right, Colonel. It's the monopoly of the United Nations Security Council. That's why they're the Security Council.
Ebony the Black Dragon
http://ebony14.livejournal.com
"Good night, and may the Good Lord take a Viking to you."
- Dartz - 04-23-2012
ECSNorway Wrote:File under "Suicide by United States Marine".
Well considering the alternative is suicide by Ambitious General.... at least a double-tap is quick.
That has to be a unique kind of hell, balancing annoying the world, against annoying his generals who've grown used to military-first.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- khagler - 04-24-2012
Ebony Wrote:“Nuclear weapons are not the monopoly of the United States,” Lt. Col. Nam Dong Ho told The Associated Press on Monday on the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone, saying North Korea needs atomic weapons to defend itself against the threat of attack from the U.S. “It’s my personal opinion, but I think we’ll continue to conduct nuclear tests.”It's actually not. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear weapons and aren't permanent members of the Security Council. South Africa used to have some, and they weren't either.
You're right, Colonel. It's the monopoly of the United Nations Security Council. That's why they're the Security Council.
- Black Aeronaut - 04-24-2012
And people think it's a good idea to dismantle the US military presence in Japan and South Korea.
Sure, go ahead and try it in a simulation (not one of your own design... preferably one with parameters set by Generals of the DPRK). Let me know how that goes for you.
- Jinx999 - 04-24-2012
And about the missiles at the parade . ..
Original analysis
North Korea can destroy Seoul using artilery and kill a lot of Korean civilians. Their ability to gain any benefit from military adventurism is distinctly limited. I just hope they know that.
Based on wikipedia, outside of their own production, their most modern tank is a Chinese model that ended production in 1980. I'm unaware if they've had first hand experience of a tank battle recently enough that they'd still have people in service that took part and I seriously doubt they have the mindset required for realistic training exercises (i.e. where senior officers get humiliated by junior ones).
- ECSNorway - 04-24-2012
Jinx999 Wrote:I seriously doubt they have the mindset required for realistic training exercises (i.e. where senior officers get humiliated by junior ones).You'd be correct on this. Korea, like most Chinese-influenced cultures, is still very much of the Royalty-vs-Peasantry feudal mindset.
Argument from Authority trumps everything else, a junior who humiliated his senior that way would be expected to kill himself to expunge the shame, rather than anyone bothering to see what he did right and the senior did wrong.
In their minds, the senior did what was right, because he was the senior, the junior is automatically in the wrong. Facts are far less important than the relative social rank of the persons involved.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Black Aeronaut - 04-25-2012
Yeah, I wouldn't discount their ability to cause exceedingly great harm just because one German rocket scientist says that their missiles look like mock-ups. Because, after all, an amateur is the worst thing a master can have for an opponent. Honestly, what if they're not going the route of mobile launch sites? What if it was a ruse just to make us waste time and resources looking for mobile launch sites? Or, you can go the other way with this... what if they really are setting up mobile launch sites for a liquid fueled ICBM? Even if we saw the launcher-erectors we would write it off unless we saw the accompanying tanker trucks... and even then we'd probably write it off because they are supposedly easy to find and sitting ducks during the fueling process. But the North Koreans know their back yard best.
And finally, so what if those were mockups and there's already a precedent set? They have the ambition for this. There's no doubt in my mind that they have their best scientists working night and day on this (scary thing is they're probably doing it willingly, too). That's enough for me.
- Foxboy - 04-25-2012
Also, it doesn't take bleeding edge tech to killinate a LOT of people.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''
-- James Nicoll
- Rev Dark - 04-25-2012
Blackaeronaut wrote
"an amateur is the worst thing a master can have for an opponent"
This axiom is more suited to the salle or dojo floor than modern warfare. The capability range of the human body is wide, but only within a limited framework (reflex, aggression, strength, skill, etc.) In examining the capability of modern military technology, the gap in the capability range is staggering.
This is posturing on the part of North Korea; when the latest missile test dunked so spectacularly I was waiting for the press release declaring the great victory over herring. Amateur doesn't mean stupid - they know that if they truly start some shit, the capability gap will flatten them; and they are not in the position economically or socially to close that gap in the short or even medium term.
- Dartz - 04-25-2012
Rev Dark Wrote:Blackaeronaut wrote
"an amateur is the worst thing a master can have for an opponent"
This axiom is more suited to the salle or dojo floor than modern warfare. The capability range of the human body is wide, but only within a limited framework (reflex, aggression, strength, skill, etc.) In examining the capability of modern military technology, the gap in the capability range is staggering.
This is posturing on the part of North Korea; when the latest missile test dunked so spectacularly I was waiting for the press release declaring the great victory over herring. Amateur doesn't mean stupid - they know that if they truly start some shit, the capability gap will flatten them; and they are not in the position economically or socially to close that gap in the short or even medium term.
But how much of their capaility can NK's opponents afford to use against them?
The US can't dedicate the full might of American military to confront the NK menance... not by a long shot. Can the US dedicate enough capability to handle the DPRK, while also handling Afghanistan (Iran?) and struggling against budget issues at home?
While the DPRK is able to dedicate all of it's capability towards whatever ends it desires as it only really needs to worry about what's happening on the same peninsula.
Of course, the US does have ICBM's capable of making Pyongyang into a glowing glass sculpture.... but would *anyone* have the political will to turn that particular key even if the DPRK manage to shoot off a single nuclear warhead? Because once the N-word gets involved things get hairy pretty quickly, and you have to start wondering about the slim possibility that cinderising part of North Korea would provoke a Chinese response.
Not to mention how much of a disaster it'd be on the international stage. The DPRK really doesn't have to worry about that... they're already the world's bogeyman... they can afford to be the bogeyman. They might even be capable of thinking they can set off one of their barely functional nuclear warheads and their enemies might be paralysed into not responding. Or might not be able to afford to afford with the consequences of responding in force.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- Valles - 04-26-2012
Quote:But how much of their capaility can NK's opponents afford to use against them?
South Korea honestly has everything they need to push NK over any time they decide it's worth getting Seoul shelled. They have a very modern, well-supplied, well-equipped, and quite sizable army; the days of Syngman Rhee are far behind us, as are those of Kim Il Sung. However much the latter's memory might be deified, if North Korea's army ever seriously tangled with its opposite number across the DMZ, it wouldn't just get beaten - it'd go splat. The US honestly only plays into matters as a safety blanket and - possibly - a counterweight to China.
The real factors are Seoul's vulnerability to bombardment - it's a 'Primate City', on the mold of Tokyo, Paris, and Mexico City, so this affects a major slice of South Korea's population and an immense fraction of its economy - and the fact that knocking over NK would mean occupying and rebuilding it afterwards, like when Germany reunified only about ten times worse.
How much of this NK's leadership recognizes is... hard to say. For what it's worth, my most common history Prof was South Korean himself, and he thought that the situation would be stable for at least the next several decades.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
- Black Aeronaut - 04-26-2012
I don't think that the Chinese will stand idly by and permit something like that to go unanswered.
Lets have a look at the possibilities of what could be if the DPRK uses a nuclear weapon in some offensive fashion, either against the ROK, Japan, the USA, or even a combination.
The PRC has several options.
1) (Most rational option) China cracks down on the DPRK. Hard. We're talking about the USA's Operation Shock And Awe where we hit Baghdad with everything including the kitchen sink. Basicaly, they're doing the same thing we did to Iraq because they don't want the USA reunite the North and the South by force. Instead, they want to install a socialist government that will tow their party line while playing nice with everyone else. Reparations are negotiated within the UN, and boy are they gonna be hefty.
2) China does to the USA what the USA did to the UK back when they wanted take care of that little problem with the Suez Canal. They threaten to call in our debts with them if we don't back off. (Note that this is without taking drastic measures to ensure that not only are reparations are made, but also that it doesn't happen again. In otherwords, they're tell us to STFU and live with it, which I'm pretty sure that even Russia would find to be unacceptable behavior.) This, in and of itself would have dire consequences...
-A) The USA goes "No, YOU!" and war is declared. TL;DR, bad ending, especially if nukes become involved (again). Note that this depends a lot on who we have for President and in Congress when the shit hits the fan.
-B) The USA acquiesces and loses its position as a world power. This does not, however, keep Japan, the ROK, and whatever other interested parties from kicking the holy crap out of the DPRK and China loses its only real ally in exchange for its new position of power... which, if anyone here has ever watched an elimination-by-voting-type reality TV show, can mean bad things for the country. (They have plenty of trading partners, but very few real allies.)
3) The PRC throws up their hands in despair and kindly asks that we all mind their fence. The war with the DPRK is a nasty, bloody affair with high civilian casualty rates (because, let's face it; the DPRK will put a gun in the hands of every man, woman, and child if they feel it's needed) on both sides of the border (because they're gonna want to take as many people with them into hell as possible). Even after the ROK takes control of the North they will probably be faced with a long and arduous insurgency to deal with that will probably last at least twenty years, just because the personality cult of the DPRK is that strong. Of course, I could be wrong - the USA didn't have nearly as much trouble once Japan officially surrendered at the close of World War II.
The PRC is in a very precarious position having the DPRK as a close ally. They practically installed the current government of that country thinking that, at the time, they were getting a puppet, only now they're realizing that full consequences of those actions. (The USA has suffered similar consequences with Afghanistan, IIRC, so this is not without precedence as well.) This leaves them with some very tough choices, and equally tough consequences. We have already seen Chinese ambassadors politely asking the DPRK ambassadors what the fuck they think they're doing. I have no doubt that they're doing that again right now.
Thoughts?
- Valles - 04-27-2012
If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon offensively, I'd say that it's almost certain to be on Seoul. I very much doubt that they have the capability to deliver one even that far from their own border, honestly, but it's a major target that might just be within their technical capabilities to pull of. At which point my prediction would be that China would wash their hands of the entire mess and start talking to the ROK about how to keep things from overheating on the new border once the DPRK was finished. It would, after all, be much cheaper and easier for them than paying for their own invasion, leaving aside the chances that rolling in themselves would wind up with them running into the South Korean Army with the latter in no mood to be reasonable.
What the occupation of the former Democratic People's Republic of Korea would be like... is hard to say, honestly. At the start, it'd probably be pretty ugly, bloodshed wise, yes. How long that would last once the food shipments started arriving is another question, and one that, like many other questions about how decisions get made by anyone in North Korea, no one outside that country has enough data guess at with any confidence, but my own estimate would be 'not long', especially if the power doing the occupying was the ROK.
I think that you overestimate the 'closeness' of the relationship between the PRC and DPRK. My read is that the sole value the former places on the latter is that they're less potentially threatening to have across the Yalu than the ROK would be. The deployment of a nuclear weapon in such an openly destabilizing and aggressive manner would rather change that at the same time that it changed South Korea's evaluation of the potential benefits of occupying the place.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
- CattyNebulart - 04-27-2012
My thought on blackareonaut's thoughts;
1) North Korea is not in any shape to pay reparations, especially not after a war. The reparations would have to come from China.
2a) This could go badly, very badly indeed, but I also see it as unlikely.
2b) Even if the USA acquiesces I see this going badly. Potentially a new cold war which would wreck the now integrated global economy.
3) I the world wishes to stick to non-nuclear retaliation this could happen. However the official policy in case of a nuclear attack is a nuclear counter-strike, and I can see this happening either immediately or more likely after some long drawn out discussions in the UN. If North Korea launches a nuclear strike I give it good odds for the country to be glassed in retaliation. Most powers in the world would be clamouring for such a harsh example to be set.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
- Black Aeronaut - 04-27-2012
Nah. Why waste a nuke on something you got so much artillery pointed at already that the combined explosive yield of all those shells outweighs your one single nuke.
No, if they're gonna nuke something, it's gonna be Yokosuka. Not Tokyo. Yokosuka. Why? Home port of the US Navy's 7th Fleet. Take out Yokosuka and you'll deal a crippling blow to the US Navy's ability to respond to an offensive action. It's also the home port for a good deal of the JMSDF. If they have an additional nuke available, they'll hit either Sasebo or Okinawa. Sasebo is the home port for 7th Fleet's amphibious fleet (you know... water taxis for the Marine Corps). As for Okinawa... Well, Marines. As well as one of the larger USAF Air Bases in the region.
In short, whatever operational nukes they have, they will probably use to buy themselves as much time as possible. If you plan things just right, you could probably delay a significant US military response for at least a week.
As for China... To be honest, I don't see why the PRC doesn't just get it over with. They're certainly not lacking in troop levels, and the civilians would probably take better to a fellow socialist state coming in to clean house. And the DPRK is certainly scaring them, no questions about that. I just hope that they don't get it in their heads to sell functional warheads to countries like Iran or Syria.
- Valles - 04-27-2012
If North Korea can get a nuclear warhead to Japan, I will eat my shoes.
(I don't own a hat.)
I suspect that China's reasons for leaving be are partly cost-related. Their leadership wouldn't flinch from the human loss involved, but more or less building a working country from scratch will be expensive as heck. If they were willing to hold out a plausible chance at peaceful reunification, they might even be able to talk South Korea into not getting involved, that being the other half of their equation.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
- khagler - 04-27-2012
If China conquered North Korea they'd be stuck sharing a border with the US, and avoiding that danger is the whole point of their propping up North Korea in the first place. Even when that danger goes away (either by South Korea declaring independence or by the inevitable collapse of the US empire) I can't see why they'd want to bother--it's better for them to just cut off support for North Korea and let it be South Korea's very expensive problem.
- Black Aeronaut - 04-28-2012
Valles Wrote:If North Korea can get a nuclear warhead to Japan, I will eat my shoes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1
(I don't own a hat.)
And Tokyo is well within its range when carrying a 1,500 kg payload.
How would you like your shoes, Valles? Might I recommend marinating
them for about a week followed by several nights in a slow-cook oven?
khagler Wrote:IfUm... the hell? Look, it's not really what you're saying, it's how you say it. Really, it's more like a collection of empires and each of them are still out trying to carve out more of the pie for themselves while us peons try to fight against it. And don't gimme any BS about most Americans being in the top 5% of the world - it's hardly the point.
China conquered North Korea they'd be stuck sharing a border with the
US, and avoiding that danger is the whole point of their propping up
North Korea in the first place. Even when that danger goes away (either
by South Korea declaring independence or by the inevitable collapse of
the US empire) I can't see why they'd want to bother--it's better for
them to just cut off support for North Korea and let it be South Korea's
very expensive problem.
As for China... Well, I guess you might think that, given I referenced Shock and Awe. But not that way. China would prefer a puppet state. One they could run without really running, you know. So, while they'd hit the DPRK hard, it'll be nothing but their military assets, and I'm pretty sure the Chinese military knows where to hit them the best. After the new government is in place (C'mon, face it. This is China we're talking about. They'll have new heads of state in place before you can even say 'rigged election'.) there won't be much of a new military build up. There will be a lot of new trade as DPRK is now a much more friendly place. And once the GDP goes up enough they'll start buying only Chinese weapons to update their sorely technologically repressed military. Not a build up per se, just an overhaul of the hardware.
This would be the most desirable outcome, I think... but unfortunately, I don't think its gonna happen, because that would be like China taking responsibility. And we all know how they are about that.
EDIT: I'd like to apologize to Catty for not noticing that he Ninjad me earlier...
CattyNebulart Wrote:My thought on blackareonaut's thoughts;Agreed on all points, even Number 3... Though it would be nice to think that if it happened while Obama is in office that he'd refrain from pushing the Little Red Button(tm).
1) North Korea is not in any shape to pay reparations, especially not
after a war. The reparations would have to come from China.
2a) This could go badly, very badly indeed, but I also see it as unlikely.
2b) Even if the USA acquiesces I see this going badly. Potentially a new
cold war which would wreck the now integrated global economy.
3) I the world wishes to stick to non-nuclear retaliation this could
happen. However the official policy in case of a nuclear attack is a
nuclear counter-strike, and I can see this happening either immediately
or more likely after some long drawn out discussions in the UN. If North
Korea launches a nuclear strike I give it good odds for the country to
be glassed in retaliation. Most powers in the world would be clamouring
for such a harsh example to be set.
I think the 64,000USD question is... would China retaliate on the DPRK's behalf?
- Valles - 04-28-2012
Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:You have a considerably rosier view of both the reliability of North Korean rocket technology and their ability to produce physically compact nuclear weapons than I do, sir. Or grimmer is perhaps the better word, given the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1
And Tokyo is well within its range when carrying a 1,500 kg payload.
How would you like your shoes, Valles? Might I recommend marinating
them for about a week followed by several nights in a slow-cook oven?
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
- Dartz - 04-28-2012
And if the answer to that is even 1 in a Million that they might, it's going to be very hard in the US for anyone to retaliate with nuclear force. The need for a retaliation is balanced against the very real worry of getting The bad end on the slim chance that China takes exception to planting mile-high mushrooms in Pyongyang.
And somehow, I don't think a Taepodong will get far enough to do any harm without either going wildly off-course or falling apart mid-flight and dropping into the pacific. (Also, why did they launch it Westward if they were trying to put something in orbit?)
Edit: Ninja'd. And speaking of North Korean Nukes Either they're digging a new hole, or they're prepping for a new test.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- Salvage - 04-28-2012
Dartz Wrote:And somehow, I don't think a Taepodong will get far enough to do any harm without either going wildly off-course or falling apart mid-flight and dropping into the pacific. (Also, why did they launch it Westward if they were trying to put something in orbit?)The launch was mostly south. That was so that the only land in its sub-orbital path (where failed stages might crash) was Australia, and to get it into a nearly polar orbit.
--
"Remember, the truth is out there." —Johnny
"It is? Oh, I hope it doesn't maul anyone this time." —me
- CattyNebulart - 04-28-2012
blackaeronaut Wrote:Agreed on all points, even Number 3... Though it would be nice to think that if it happened while Obama is in office that he'd refrain from pushing the Little Red Button(tm).
I think the 64,000USD question is... would China retaliate on the DPRK's behalf?
That is one of the places where he followed through, Obama has worked quite hard to reduce the number of nukes in the world. So yes, Obama might not push the red button, but if there is the international pressure to launch I expect then the launch might very well come from Russia.
Alternately if the UN passes a resolution calling for a nuclear strike Obama might do it. Having the official backing of the international community is a powerful thing. (Contrast Libya and Syria)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
- Black Aeronaut - 04-28-2012
Valles Wrote:Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:You have a considerably rosier view of both the reliability of North Korean rocket technology and their ability to produce physically compact nuclear weapons than I do, sir. Or grimmer is perhaps the better word, given the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1
And Tokyo is well within its range when carrying a 1,500 kg payload.
How would you like your shoes, Valles? Might I recommend marinating
them for about a week followed by several nights in a slow-cook oven?
Dartz Wrote:And somehow, I don't think a Taepodong will get far enough to do anyThis is part of why I am in full support of an anti-missile system. I was happy as a clam when I heard our ship was the best at BMD in the fleet and probably the entire Navy. The one thing that worries me is if a Taepodong's course goes just erratic enough that it is able to avoid interception... but lands someplace innocent and undeserving. Like Osaka. The DPRK wouldn't care where it lands so much that it didn't take out the intended target... which was probably a strategic one. Of course, that'll only mean that they are that much more screwed and revenge shall be swift on the wings of Super Hornets, SM3's, and TLAMs.
harm without either going wildly off-course or falling apart mid-flight
and dropping into the pacific. (Also, why did they launch it Westward if
they were trying to put something in orbit?)
Edit: Ninja'd. And speaking of North Korean Nukes Either they're digging a new hole, or they're prepping for a new test.
Dartz Wrote:And if
the answer to that is even 1 in a Million that they might, it's going to
be very hard in the US for anyone to retaliate with nuclear force. The
need for a retaliation is balanced against the very real worry of
getting The bad end on the slim chance that China takes exception to planting mile-high mushrooms in Pyongyang.
CattyNebulart Wrote:ThatIndeed, I do hope that cooler heads prevail. Although I would be shocked if Russia would actually go through with it, they having no real interests in the area. In fact, don't they share a small bit of border? I know that Vladivostok is within spitting distance (so to speak).
is one of the places where he followed through, Obama has worked quite
hard to reduce the number of nukes in the world. So yes, Obama might not
push the red button, but if there is the international pressure to
launch I expect then the launch might very well come from Russia.
Alternately if the UN passes a resolution calling for a nuclear strike
Obama might do it. Having the official backing of the international
community is a powerful thing. (Contrast Libya and Syria)
Although if the UN does say "Nuke the bastards" I would think that China would at least ask to hit only strategic targets and not glass the entire area. And honestly, I'd agree with them.
Salvage Wrote:TheNo offense, but this gets filed under my "Don't Give A Fuck" folder. Sure, they probably are trying to put a satellite in orbit because, hey! That's big feather in your technological cap... However, their statements of peaceful use are ruined when they test-explode nukes in underground sites concurrent with each new launch system they test. Therefore, they are full of shit.
launch was mostly south. That was so that the only land in its
sub-orbital path (where failed stages might crash) was Australia, and to
get it into a nearly polar orbit.
- Salvage - 04-28-2012
Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:If China ever gets to the point of not using its veto on something like that, its not recognizably China anymore. Ditto for Russia.
Dartz Wrote:And if
the answer to that is even 1 in a Million that they might, it's going to
be very hard in the US for anyone to retaliate with nuclear force. The
need for a retaliation is balanced against the very real worry of
getting The bad end on the slim chance that China takes exception to planting mile-high mushrooms in Pyongyang.CattyNebulart Wrote:ThatIndeed, I do hope that cooler heads prevail. Although I would be shocked if Russia would actually go through with it, they having no real interests in the area. In fact, don't they share a small bit of border? I know that Vladivostok is within spitting distance (so to speak).
is one of the places where he followed through, Obama has worked quite
hard to reduce the number of nukes in the world. So yes, Obama might not
push the red button, but if there is the international pressure to
launch I expect then the launch might very well come from Russia.
Alternately if the UN passes a resolution calling for a nuclear strike
Obama might do it. Having the official backing of the international
community is a powerful thing. (Contrast Libya and Syria)
Although if the UN does say "Nuke the bastards" I would think that China would at least ask to hit only strategic targets and not glass the entire area. And honestly, I'd agree with them.
And yes, Russia and north Korea have a 17 km border.
One thing to consider is that on some levels, north Korea to China and Russia compares as Algeria to France, Turkey to Germany or Mexico to the U.S. Location, cheap labor, did I mention location.
Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:What?
Salvage Wrote:TheNo
launch was mostly south. That was so that the only land in its
sub-orbital path (where failed stages might crash) was Australia, and to
get it into a nearly polar orbit.
offense, but this gets filed under my "Don't Give A Fuck" folder.
Sure, they probably are trying to put a satellite in orbit because,
hey! That's big feather in your technological cap... However, their
statements of peaceful use are ruined when they test-explode nukes in
underground sites concurrent with each new launch system they test.
Therefore, they are full of shit.
I wasn't asking you to "Give a Fuck." I was trying to answer Dartz' "Why that direction?" and summing up the geographical and orbital mechanics limits. So, please, what's the big deal with that?
Also, the way you put that reads like you think I agree with nK propaganda. So, again, what? Where did that come from? Or would you please clarify what you meant.
--
"Remember, the truth is out there." —Johnny
"It is? Oh, I hope it doesn't maul anyone this time." —me