chicot Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Accuracy is the issue. They have the technology to hit Japan but the accuracy is not there. Of course, with nuclear weapons you have a little wiggle room regarding accuracy. 235267[/snapback] Accuracy probably isn't that much of an issue with Japan being one of the most densely populated nations on the planet. I would imagine that a nuke landing just about anywhere would do a considerable amount of damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Accuracy probably isn't that much of an issue with Japan being one of the most densely populated nations on the planet. I would imagine that a nuke landing just about anywhere would do a considerable amount of damage. 235271[/snapback] I am not denying that fact. They just need to get it there, and they can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Not sure about that. I know they are working on it, and technically they probably do, but I don't think it is deployed yet. 235268[/snapback] It has been deployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 It has been deployed. 235278[/snapback] Fine. But again they cannot strike the US. Also, they had better hope it pops at the right time if they nuke Japan, or Japan will level NK. In fact they probably still would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Not sure about that. I know they are working on it, and technically they probably do, but I don't think it is deployed yet. Then you have the issue as KRC brings up of accuracy, then the ability to actually bake the thing go boom at the right time when it is overtop. My point was a "legit" weapon system, that means all of the above factors to even hit Japan. Add to that, they have no way to hit the US. Then to top it off even more, Japan does have legit ability to knock missiles down with their Aegis class systems, and a good defense Air force, where they could quickly scramble and attack North Korea quickly. Meaning NK had better stop lobbing sh-- around or Japan and neighboring countries would have a legal reason to attck if they felt threatened. To top it off the US would because of treaties be obligated to support an assault on NK. 235268[/snapback] They've got a two-stage design that, if it isn't truly reliable, has at least been tested successfully many times and, as KRC said, deployed. It's a relatively short-range missile, though (maybe it'll reach Guam. Maybe.) Their longer range missile (that can threaten ths US western coast) is a three-stage that last I heard has never worked - the upper stage has a nasty habit of exploding in tests. And regardless, I've never heard of either successfully carrying a meaningful payload - and it's a pretty big jump from launching a rocket to successfully attaching a nuclear warhead to it, putting it on target, and getting the damned thing to detonate. As for accuracy, chicot...the Koreans would be pretty lucky to get a CEP of a mile or so, which, for the size warheads they probably have, is a near miss for a soft target like a city or port, and a clean miss for any hardened target. Believe it or not, accuracy actually does matter with nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 And regardless, I've never heard of either successfully carrying a meaningful payload - and it's a pretty big jump from launching a rocket to successfully attaching a nuclear warhead to it, putting it on target, and getting the damned thing to detonate. 235302[/snapback] That's what I said. What you like repeating what I say and then calling it your own work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 They've got a two-stage design that, if it isn't truly reliable, has at least been tested successfully many times and, as KRC said, deployed. It's a relatively short-range missile, though (maybe it'll reach Guam. Maybe.) Their longer range missile (that can threaten ths US western coast) is a three-stage that last I heard has never worked - the upper stage has a nasty habit of exploding in tests. 235302[/snapback] They have tested the TD-1 enough in NK, Iran and Pakistan to have confidence enough in deploying it, as you mentioned. THis can reach Japan. VA is referring to the TD-2 which has the capability to reach Alaska. It has never been successfully tested and it has a severe design flaw. Expect Iran to test this missile and possibly Pakistan. NK and Iran have basically been working together on it and as far as I know it has not gone past the motor testing phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 That's what I said. What you like repeating what I say and then calling it your own work? 235306[/snapback] The only reason you posted it is because I explained it to you to begin with... (Note to public: I'm just yanking his chain.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is delivery via an ocean-going vessel with sufficiently obfuscated origin into a harbor undoable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is delivery via an ocean-going vessel with sufficiently obfuscated origin into a harbor undoable? 236116[/snapback] Very difficult into the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is delivery via an ocean-going vessel with sufficiently obfuscated origin into a harbor undoable? 236116[/snapback] Technically it is possible. Whether that can actually pull it off is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Is delivery via an ocean-going vessel with sufficiently obfuscated origin into a harbor undoable? 236116[/snapback] I'd wager to say that's a likely possibility. We never should have thrown the Japanese out of Korea, right, Kurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I'd wager to say that's a likely possibility. We never should have thrown the Japanese out of Korea, right, Kurt? 236129[/snapback] Well, they were intermingling the gene pool - so that merits consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well, they were intermingling the gene pool - so that merits consideration. 236151[/snapback] What?!?! That's ABSURD! We all know subspecies can't intermingle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Technically it is possible. Whether that can actually pull it off is another story. 236128[/snapback] Why don't we wait till they have another one of those "Parades" someone could take out a lot of them at once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Then enlist. 234656[/snapback] Right, because me enlisting will force the president to make that decision? Just because I'm advocating a foreign policy of overthrow means I should inlist? Did you enlist to overthrow Saddam? Puh-leez. But you would have minded overthrowing those motherfuggers before they acquired nukes, right? 234684[/snapback] Way to oversimply a complicated subject. I would have minded overthrowing them BEFORE this latest announcement, but enough is enough. We've been trying to use diplomacy with them for years and years, and they've been blackmailing us and other countries for far too long. This latest announcement is the straw that broke the camel's back. Its time to stop playing their games. We have it a good diplomatic run for a long time now, and so has the rest of the world, and now its time for the whole world to say enough is enough. What will the media report to us next? That water is wet? That Radical Islam hates Jews? That Jessica Alba is one spicy number? The sky is blue? 234702[/snapback] Wait, I didn't realize that North Korea admitting to the public that they had Nuclear Weapons and that they are pulling out of the Nuclear Arms treaty wasn't a big deal? Its one thing to do it privately, its another to do it publically. sounds like a job for Team America! 234714[/snapback] lol Hopefully it'll be a job for Team World: America's Police. Let's see how many people step up their panicking after these revelations. 234754[/snapback] Its one thing to panic, its another to deal with something thats a much bigger problem to international security as well as our own. Panicing is what we did in Iraq, not what we would do after years of diplomatic games with North Korea (oh yeah, and did I mention they fully admit to backing out of the treaty and having WMDs now?). Not to mention Kim Jung Il is more of a threat then Saddam would have ever been to the US. Fine. But again they cannot strike the US. Also, they had better hope it pops at the right time if they nuke Japan, or Japan will level NK. In fact they probably still would. 235289[/snapback] I thought our policy now was if they are not for us, then they are against us? Sure seems to me like NK is against us and Japan is for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Its one thing to panic, its another to deal with something thats a much bigger problem to international security as well as our own. Panicing is what we did in Iraq, not what we would do after years of diplomatic games with North Korea (oh yeah, and did I mention they fully admit to backing out of the treaty and having WMDs now?). Not to mention Kim Jung Il is more of a threat then Saddam would have ever been to the US. 236250[/snapback] They backed out of the NPT. Big deal. They have been threatening that for over a decade. We all know that they were not abiding by it, so what has changed between last week and this. Same with the nukes. We know that have had them since Clinton was in office. Again, what has changed between last week and this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Way to oversimply a complicated subject. I would have minded overthrowing them BEFORE this latest announcement, but enough is enough. We've been trying to use diplomacy with them for years and years, and they've been blackmailing us and other countries for far too long. This latest announcement is the straw that broke the camel's back. Its time to stop playing their games. We have it a good diplomatic run for a long time now, and so has the rest of the world, and now its time for the whole world to say enough is enough. How exactly did I oversimplify it? You just said that you wouldn't have supported an invasion of NK a week ago (or presumably a few/several years ago when they didn't have nukes yet), but now you would support an invasion....now that they have confirmed the fact that they have nukes. The point is: wouldn't it have been a lot easier to deal with this problem BEFORE the camel broke his back? Oh yeah, and can I assume you won't be blaming Bush when Tokyo or Seoul gets nuked in response to our initial bombing campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Right, because me enlisting will force the president to make that decision? Just because I'm advocating a foreign policy of overthrow means I should inlist? Did you enlist to overthrow Saddam? Puh-leez. 236250[/snapback] I was against the Iraq invasion. I did 12 years in the military. Alot of people advocate military action because they have no idea what it takes and the current generation knows no sacrifice. You feel free to chew on that as long as you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorman Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Right, because me enlisting will force the president to make that decision? Just because I'm advocating a foreign policy of overthrow means I should inlist? Did you enlist to overthrow Saddam? 236250[/snapback] Is inlisting similar to inbreading???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts