Failed North Korean Missile Aimed at Hawaii?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Dr. Dilznick, Jul 7, 2006.

  1. Dr. Dilznick

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060706/kyodo/d8imlu980.html

    Uncle Sam has to cobble together a scheme to validate the pending military invasion.
     
  2. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    Usually there's little doubting about the trajectories of ballistic missiles, so if the evaluation says it was aimed at Hawaii, I'd believe so. However, I think it was more a demonstration of power, aimed less at the US itself, but more at the immediate neighbors and military powers of eastern Asia, like Japan, China and Russia. The message: "Don't fuck with us".

    While the question now seems to be the one for the range of the missiles, I'd like to know better how many of them are available, and what's the capacity of their production sites.
     
  3. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good thing we invaded Iraq when we did, look at all the ICBMs we disarmed there. Of course, North Korea is not now, and has never been, and threat to the United States, or anyone else for that matter. Not even South Korea.
     
  4. Altairion

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,607
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I don't think Uncle Sam is doing much to pump up North Korea as a true threat. They've been part of the "axis of evil" for years now and we've barely touched them. Sadly enough, it seems that we just care about oil and little else. However if Japan gets attacked, who gets to defend them? Let's just say the US would probably have one of the most extremely unpopular wars ever unless if its citizens would realize our economy and available products would go to hell without Japan making everything for us.
     
  5. Matthew

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,374
    Likes Received:
    163
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Really. Aimed at Hawaii??? I doubt they could even aim at South Korea correctly.
     
  6. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    Alas--there is no OIL under Korean soil, or best believe we would have stomped their asses into the ground by now.

    UGH.
     
  7. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    Long range ICBM's are only a strategic device anyways. The more alarming threats are their short and medium range tactical weapon systems. Maybe they have no access to western high-technology weapon systems, but I'd not underestimate the abilities of their engineers. Nuclear technology and ICBM's aren't assembled by a bunch of half-wits or mechanics in a garage, it takes some pretty peculiar abilities and technologies to use both, and obviously them Koryo guys have access to both.

    By the way, you can also open a Bank account with their number one bank, SILIBANK (http://www.silibank.com/silibank/english/). Try to get an Amex Card issued by them.
     
  8. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Are the 'Alas' and 'UGH' because:

    You think the US shouldn't 'stomp their asses' and you're glad the lack of oil has so far precluded this convenient pretext?

    or

    You think the US should 'stomp their asses' and regret that a lack of oil has so far precluded this convenient pretext?

    I'm probably being dense but it's unclear to me.
     
  9. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    the korean icbms are essentially oversized scuds - 60s-era missile technology, and not even a very impressive example of that. clairetalon is correct in that their tactical weaponry is a far more significant threat to south korea. just because most of their shit is native knockoffs of chinese knockoffs of ancient soviet systems don't mean it doesn't work, and they have plenty of hardware and no shortage of brainwashed operators. the NKPR is quite capable of prosecuting an extremely ugly ground war if it ever chose to. while south korea remains a close ally of the US, the eventual outcome would never be in doubt, but the potential for body counts on both sides would be pretty grim.
     
  10. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    "Taepodong-2 long-range missile"

    Seems pretty fitting to discuss taepodongs on the LPSG. :tongue:
     
  11. B_horribleperson

    B_horribleperson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,149
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida, Americas penis
    The Taepodong-2 long-range missile

    hahahahahahah

    dong-2longmissile sure could be someones name on here
     
  12. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Claire, my incredibly informed and intelligent friend, (that one was from the heart) I'm surprised you couldn't tell which parts of my post were sarcasm/irony. Their test was obviously just a tidbit, a crumb... telling us "we are not there yet, but we are making progress. No one is safe, no one is immune. Nyah, nyah, nyah, we are making fools of you lousy stupid capitalists!"
     
  13. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    I was joking with the Alas. We have no liked what North Korea has been doing for years. As long as China does not place trade embargos on them, the UN has no leverage. And we also have some issues with China. Bit, since there is not OIL over there, we have largely ignored those two issues for some time.
     
  14. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sorry to mix my metaphors, but "quid pro petrol?"
     
  15. Jessica

    Jessica New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Fla
    The problem I see in the international politics of our country, is related to credibility.
    How can we tell nations around the world that they can not develop nuclear weapons, when us, the US, and France, and other nations including Israel have those same weapons we want forbidden to the rest ???
    I do not want nuclear weapons to become common stock , but we have to destroy our own arsenal, in order to be genuine.
    it is not as simple as saying,
    "I am american , we ought to have those weapons,but they should not"
    .. because that inequality is the originator of the crave for nuclear weapons around the world.

    To be the leaders of the world, we need quality of character, probity of intentions, I think our current goverment, and our nation as in our policy, is not interested in a world, but in the US.
    As long as we think like that, we will be leading this world to its destruction.
     
  16. nick22ca

    nick22ca Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't 'oil' the easy answer? If it was also the correct one, you would have invaded your number one supplier by now.

    Anyway, the world better pray that the situation is handled by a different presidency. Or, I can't wait until Dubya gets his hands on this one. I also believe that North Korea is on record as saying that they would nuke a west coast Canadian city before they nuked an American one. Both for calibration and to prove they have the balls.
     
  17. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Thanks Lex, I thought so but wanted to check.

    China always acts in it's own percieved best interest and/or turns a blind eye to what doesn't directly concern it, not unlike a certain other world power.:rolleyes::tongue: Yet, like that certain other world power (which also has very selective respect for the UN) such loyalties have repeatedly proven rather fickle.

    I don't see any realistic scenario where military intervention would have anything other than disastrous conseqences whatever the motivation behind it. This, together with the fact that realistically for many reasons political and military, right now the I'd say the US is almost certainly simply incapable of undertaking such an action effectively using conventional means.

    I think it's posturing on North Koreas part, at least right now.
     
  18. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    that's why its suppliers control the planet. :rolleyes:
     
  19. SomeGuyOverThere

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold on now people.

    An ICBM is an "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile", these babies go into a low orbit and come down thousands of miles away with a wallop. They have guidence systems and tend to be fairly presice things, these are the type of missile loaded with a nuclear warhead that will explode 1 mile above the target for maximum "fuck you" value.

    What Iraq had were not ICBMs as such, they had Scuds. Scuds, are tactical ballistic missiles, they are called "tactical" because they arent very long range, you deploy them and fire them at armies, not at other countries to wipe them out; they have a short range in comparison to ICBMs. Basically they're big fuck off missiles that you fire in the general direction of who you are telling to fuck off. They shoot off into the air and plop back down again. Fairly basic technology, they have no guidence systems per-sey, they're litterally hauled along on the back of over-sized lorries and fired in the direction of the person you want to fuck off. In short, they are just big WW2 V2 Rockets. Really basic stuff.

    So, Iraq had no serious strike capability whatsoever, they had tactical ballistic missiles, but they aren't really much of a threat, further Suddam wasn't very well going to start fireing them at people because he knew that we'd go kick his ass. It's all very well marching about in your little military uniform, playing at dictator, but if you step on the big boy's toes, your rank doesn't mean shit.

    North Korea on the other hand, is run by a bunch of nut cases who have driven the place into the ground. I was against the Iraq war, on the grounds that we were lied to and fed the WMD bullshit, but I'm not against a war with North Korea. However, the simple fact of the matter is, that it isn't going to happen for several reasons:
    1. Korea has the 4th largest army in the world.
    2. The people we need to co-operate with us in such a war are the Chinese, who are trying to play Soviet Union with North Korea: they don't want the Communists kicked out and a western democracy shoved in place, that'd ruin the whole set-up.
    3. In light of number 2, it's best not to piss off the nation with the largest army in the world, the highest population, and the most production capability.
    4. North Korea doesnt have any oil.
    5. If we lost the war, South Korea would get the buisiness end of the afore mentioned 4th largest army in the world, and I bet they wouldn't be too chuffed.
    6. North Korea doesnt have any oil.
     
  20. nick22ca

    nick22ca Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if that is part of the easy answer, then I suppose they do. But in my worldview, they don't control the planet at all. Maybe it'll have to take coal-powered China becoming a superpower for that to be realized.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted