[QUOTE]North Korea launched a ballistic missile off the east coast of the Korean peninsula, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday. The South Korean military said was closely tracking and monitoring the situation and maintaining a readiness posture for any North Korean provocation. The launch was confirmed by U.S. officials.
[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/17/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html[/URL]
[URL]https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/710610708556341248[/URL]
More non-news. Call me when they drop the bombs like they did in the artillery strike last year.
C'mon
where's it supposed to land? i'm afraid it will actually hit something this time.
glad that nothing actually happened
see you guys next year
[editline]17th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trixil;49954014]where's it supposed to land? i'm afraid it will actually hit something this time.[/QUOTE]
the ocean
somewhere in the middle of the sea of japan to be specific
i wouldn't be so pessimistic this time
it already landed
[QUOTE=Perrine;49954053]it already landed[/QUOTE]
Really? Source please.
Here it is
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile-sea-south-korean-coast[/url]
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35835088[/url]
the breaking news part of CNN's article is to report "it was actually two missiles that were launched"
[QUOTE=booster;49954110]Really? Source please.[/QUOTE]
These things don't spend much time in the air, the launch was hours ago. This information has to go to from the entity that reported it to the DoD, who releases it to the press, who processes it and then releases it on the web. You'd never see "NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED" in sensationalist headlines before the bomb found its target.
Alright well that was the annual "NK launches something" thread.
See y'all next year.
What if, instead of just testing their missiles like we all think they're doing, they're shooting into the ocean to wake up something like Godzilla or Cthulu or something...
[QUOTE=That Ninja;49954247]What if, instead of just testing their missiles like we all think they're doing, they're shooting into the ocean to wake up something like Godzilla or Cthulu or something...[/QUOTE]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulgasari]Pulgasari?[/url]
[QUOTE=booster;49954147]Alright well that was the annual "NK launches something" thread.
See y'all next year.[/QUOTE]
More like monthly.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49954295][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulgasari]Pulgasari?[/url][/QUOTE]
It's OK, the Japanese have Gamera to fight back, after all, who can stop a giant flying firebreathing turtle that runs on the friendship of little children.
Wow that doesn't sound right.........
I recall making a joke a few years ago about how Obama would be more surprised he was banned from entering Chechnya than receiving threats from North Korea about being nuking the white house
There's just as little likelihood anything's going to happen today as it were on that day, and while I get that the media can't not report on this, its still beyond a joke by this point
[QUOTE=Trixil;49954014]where's it supposed to land? i'm afraid it will actually hit something this time.[/QUOTE]
Like what? A rock in the ocean?
I'm not a missile expert. Whats the difference between a ballistic missile and a nuclear missile?
[QUOTE=VanguardElite;49955172]I'm not a missile expert. Whats the difference between a ballistic missile and a nuclear missile?[/QUOTE]
Nothing. Most nuclear missiles are a type ballistic missile. Ballistic missiles are missiles that fly up into the sky, then fall under the force of gravity back down to the earth to it's target.
[QUOTE=VanguardElite;49955172]I'm not a missile expert. Whats the difference between a ballistic missile and a nuclear missile?[/QUOTE]
a ballistic missile uses ballistics calculations to land at its target, using less guidance than a guided missile (or none). A nuclear missile is any missile with a nuclear warhead.
[QUOTE=VanguardElite;49955172]I'm not a missile expert. Whats the difference between a ballistic missile and a nuclear missile?[/QUOTE]
A ballistic missile is one that is boosted to speed, and then coasts like a bullet or an arrow for most of its course. It can be contrasted with a cruise missile, where the engine propels it the entire distance. There are several types of ballistic missile categorized by range - battlefield range ballistic missiles, theater ballistic missiles, intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. There are also submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched ballistic missiles, categorized by what launches them (if not specified, it's assumed to launch from a silo or ground vehicle of some sort).
Both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles may be nuclear missiles, meaning they carry a nuclear warhead. They can also be conventional missiles, meaning there's just a big bomb in them. The WW2 German V-2 missile was a conventional ballistic missile, while the V-1 was a conventional cruise missile. The current Tomahawk cruise missile can carry either a nuclear warhead, a single large conventional warhead, or a number of small conventional warheads (a cluster bomb).
What if they've been capable of long range missiles the whole time and their apparent sub-par technological advances have been carefully staged to make everyone think they're incompetent so that they have some kind of element of surprise when they actually attack with legitimately capable weapons?
[QUOTE=hippowombat;49955255]What if they've been capable of long range missiles the whole time and their apparent sub-par technological advances have been carefully staged to make everyone think they're incompetent so that they have some kind of element of surprise when they actually attack with legitimately capable weapons?[/QUOTE]
the United States would know about it and our nukes are always on standby
[QUOTE=hippowombat;49955255]What if they've been capable of long range missiles the whole time and their apparent sub-par technological advances have been carefully staged to make everyone think they're incompetent so that they have some kind of element of surprise when they actually attack with legitimately capable weapons?[/QUOTE]
jokes on them we already know they have the capability to build ICBMs
why do i keep getting ninja'd
I have to wonder, at what point are we justified in a pre-emptive strike? They have continually threatened to destroy us, and we are seeing more and more signs that they are able to at least inflict some serious damage. How far do they have to go before we can morally say "fuck it, this is getting too dangerous", launch a missile strike on their silos, occupy the country, then hand it over to the UN to deal with?
(The pragmatic answer is "as soon as China won't treat that as a threat to their own sovereignty", but it's an interesting ethical question nonetheless.)
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49955340]I have to wonder, at what point are we justified in a pre-emptive strike? They have continually threatened to destroy us, and we are seeing more and more signs that they are able to at least inflict some serious damage. How far do they have to go before we can morally say "fuck it, this is getting too dangerous", launch a missile strike on their silos, occupy the country, then hand it over to the UN to deal with?
(The pragmatic answer is "as soon as China won't treat that as a threat to their own sovereignty", but it's an interesting ethical question nonetheless.)[/QUOTE]
We have invaded other countries for far less. It's not about morals, it's about international security
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49955340]I have to wonder, at what point are we justified in a pre-emptive strike? They have continually threatened to destroy us, and we are seeing more and more signs that they are able to at least inflict some serious damage. How far do they have to go before we can morally say "fuck it, this is getting too dangerous", launch a missile strike on their silos, occupy the country, then hand it over to the UN to deal with?
(The pragmatic answer is "as soon as China won't treat that as a threat to their own sovereignty", but it's an interesting ethical question nonetheless.)[/QUOTE]
I guess everyone is too scared to do something that isn't about sanctions and we're all just waiting for them to do something first.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;49955403]I guess everyone is too scared to do something that isn't about sanctions and we're all just waiting for them to do something first.[/QUOTE]
What can they do besides nuking North Korea? If they tried to take over North korea via an invasion there would be massive casualties. And if they did nuke North Korea it would cause a massive nuclear war that would destroy the entire world or most of it.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;49955403]I guess everyone is too scared to do something that isn't about sanctions and we're all just waiting for them to do something first.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is really scared of fighting North Korea. They'll do some damage to South Korea before they get taken out, but they're using 1950s technology (and in some cases 1950s materiel), have very poor training and morale, and have no institutional knowledge of warfighting (nobody left in their military fought in any war). Current US estimates for a Korean War have South Korea winning before the US can send the orders to fight through the chain of command.
The problem is China. The problem has always been China. They don't like the US having even a toehold so close to them, and they aren't fond of the idea of having a capitalist democracy like South Korea border them, because it might give their own people too many ideas. Any invasion of the North risks war with China - and [I]they[/I] are justifiably scary. I think we'd "win" that war, but I don't think either side could really be described as "winning" it. And I can't think of any ways to safely de-fang North Korea without a ground invasion. There are signs that China is getting fed up with North Korea's shit, but they just seem to be joining in on the sanctions now. Which is helping, but may not be sufficient.
But I guess we also don't want to risk anything since their threats has always been threats and nothing more. At least, I think that's one of the reasons why everyone is holding back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
