North Korean missiles can now reach US mainland.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    Well, that didn't take long. North Korea launched an ICBM this morning with an estimated maximum range of over 10000 kilometers.

    Jeffrey Lewis, director of the east Asia nonproliferation program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said the latest missile was fired straight in the air. And judging by how high the missile went, how far it went and how long it flew, estimates show it could go from 10,800 to 12,000 kilometers on a standard trajectory.

    That means the missile could hit several major U.S. mainland cities, including Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, New York and Boston.​

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-possible-missile-could-land-off-japan-241087

    So yeah, time to start thinking a little harder about America's approach to NK now.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    A couple of inflammatory 4am tweets should do the trick.
     
  3. SoggyCheese macrumors regular

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Maybe UK, Maybe Spain, maybe even elsewhere
    #3
    Distance is one thing, accuracy another. The best way for NK to hit the US with their missiles is to aim them at India.

    Besides, I'm certain that if they ever do crack the issues and end up with accurate nuclear tipped ICBMs NK's leadership will just let the world know then carry on with their life of luxury. They enjoy their privileged life way too much to risk turning the country that keeps them in it into ashes.
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    Hopefully Trump thinks a bit harder and gets an idea other than the war he has been pushi for. Although I would imagine launching a major war would provide a convenient distraction from his failures in other areas.
     
  5. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Well, yes, accuracy is important if you want to knock out a specific target. Not so much if all you want to do is to generate terror. Germany's V-1 and V-2 weapons in WWII were simply aimed in the general direction of England, and fired off -- it didn't really matter exactly where they hit, just that the people of England knew that bombs were headed their way. In fact, the randomness of the destruction enhanced their usefulness as terror weapons -- you couldn't run away from them by evacuating the obvious target sites...
     
  6. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    NK shot it's load at trump lets see what the business man does.
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Be nice if we started thinking about this over the last 8 years instead of when they actually have the tech to land a nuke on the mainland.
     
  8. SoggyCheese macrumors regular

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Maybe UK, Maybe Spain, maybe even elsewhere
    #8
    Good point, but would they really do that when they have both China and Russia on their doorsteps, and US bases dotted across all the directions those other powers aren't in?

    Kim Jong-Un is too self-centred to strike at anyone IMO. It's much cosier for him to wave his missiles around to keep others away than actually fire them.
     
  9. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    True! I agree that they'd be stupid to initiate a war (of any sort). But still, history shows that the USA tends to treat countries that can directly strike the mainland a bit better than those which do not have that ability. So acquiring the technical capability to send a nuke to America is still in NK's long-term interest.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10

    Yeah. At 3 am our "fearless leader" is using his phone on the potty, sending out deranged tweets.
     
  11. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    Definitely a concerning issue, though there's a lot of questions about their payload capacity, re-entry systems, accuracy, etc. That said, NK has been ahead of expectations time and time again. I suppose whether they can hit a city square or are off by 20 miles, chances are they could still inflict a massive amount of damage and more importantly provoke fear.

    It's too bad the US has slacked on missile defenses lately. It's also too bad we have Trump at the helm handling this, who has proven himself highly violitile and reactionary. Hopefully he will heed the advice of his Generals.

    North Korea must understand if they make a premtive attack they will be obliterated from the earth. And yet we seem to be spiraling into another Cold War.

    If we do nothing, NK will probably just stockpile arms which puts us at greater risk in the future. If we start a war there will be a lot of death and a subsequent humanitarian crisis. I don't see diplomacy being an effective option, at least under the historical approach of threats of military action.
     
  12. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    Ugh you just don't stop, do you? Hopefully he does what it best for the United States of America and the world. Our previous president, the community organizer, seemed to like using drones. I think North Korea might require something a little bigger. If NK goes full on crazy hopefully the world will unite against them.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Cart leading horse. The President should listen to their advice, but should not necessarily take it. They are, after all, only generals. Their expertise is limited to executing military options set out by politicians. The President is supposed to have the bigger picture in mind. One can only hope...
     
  14. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #14
    Oh, come on. :) It is true that the President is "supposed" to have the bigger picture in mind. But this President is explicitly a newbie, a know-nothing, a guy who has never been in any elected office before and quite proud of it.

    Almost any general is going to know more about international relations than Trump. Almost any human being in Washington is going to know more about international relations than Trump. We've gotta hope that Trump does take their advice, because his own ideas are certainly not going to be of any use.
     
  15. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15
    Trump do the best? Really? You got to be kidding.
     
  16. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #16
    Well he did not with transgender that's for sure.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    Hillary ain't going to get her ass up at 3am, Trump's still up figuring out what screwed up tweet he's going to do.
     
  18. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #18
    Hillary, at any time of day, is light-years better than dim-bulb Trump.
     
  19. GrumpyMom macrumors 603

    GrumpyMom

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    #19
    I laughed at these comments and then I was hit with the sobering thought that these scenarios are quite possible given the way things are.

    I can't believe my generation lived through the threat of nuclear annhilation under the Soviet Union and overcame that threat, only to now have my kid's generation have to worry about nukes aimed at them from a country run by a guy who looks like Humpty Dumpty and who has all the dignity of an Austin Powers villain.

    And this time we don't have a fortuitous pairing like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev to save us from mutual stupidity. Instead we have two hotheads with absurd hair and unfair access to attractive women.
     
  20. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #20
    Odd that the U.S. should get its knickers in a twist bout this.Japan,South Korea,China and Russia amongst others have been living with the north Korean threat for some time.Of course they haven't been pouring petrol on the fire by threatening northKorea with nuclear oblivion or trying to starve them into submission with sanctions.Nutters though the north Korean leaders are they are not about to try and nuke their neighbours,of course if the UUS continues to threaten them and destroy their economy who knows what might happen.
    The present US president is every bit as loony as Kim Jong-un.
     
  21. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #21
    I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But I do think there is a lot that diplomacy can do.

    To start with, I think the US ought to consider walking away from its 60-year old "One Korea" policy: The notion that there is really one nation of Korea, that is temporarily divided.

    To start with, this principle is antagonistic to China. Which certainly does not want, under any circumstances, a unified Korea allied with the United States, on its southern border. A border that would be extremely porous. The other, and perhaps less well-understood, notion is that there is a growing sense in South Korea that they don't want reunification with the North. And certainly not in the way that Germans wished for reunification. South Korea does not want to add 28 million poverty-stricken and brain-washed former North Koreans to their country. It could not afford to integrate them, and they would likely cause a political upheaval. You see this in the recent Korean rejection of offers of US anti-missile systems.

    If the US were to make an agreement with China to relinquish the "One Korea" policy, in exchange for a Chinese guarantee for the territorial and political integrity of South Korea, then I think the Chinese could also be persuaded to tighten the pressure on Kim Jong-Un. Part of the agreement with China would be some reduction of US military presence and activity in South Korea. An unspoken, but implicit, goal of this agreement with China would be the pursuit of a change in regime in Pyongyang to one that was less antagonistic towards the South and its neighbors.

    Unfortunately, I don't see the Trump Administration being willing to even consider this route.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    I think they share the same speechwriter.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 29, 2017 ---
    That's actually a pretty sound option. Not one you would hear from the generals, though.
     
  23. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    Well, obviously, the new factor is how easily NK can now port one of their nukes over to the US mainland with their shiny new ICBMs.

    But yeah, I imagine the world will learn to live with a nuclear armed NK, the way it has with so many other countries with nukes...
     
  24. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #24
    North Korea has been able to nuke the United States mainland for decades now. Why does them having a missile that may or may be able to reach the country (note hasn't actually been fired in this direction) and may or may not have the capability of successful carrying a nuclear weapon cause fear in people when they have other far more accurate ways of carrying nukes?
     
  25. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #25
    Well, obviously, because the American people have been taught to fear ICBMs for decades now. Other forms of attack, such as bombers or amphibious assault from across the oceans, take time to mount, and at least in theory can be defended against. ICBMs, on the other hand, can be launched at the press of a button, will reach their targets in a matter of minutes, and there is no defense against them.

    Once your opponent has a working nuclear ICBM, he is automatically holding your citizens hostage. He can kill vast numbers of them at any moment, and there is nothing you can do about it.
     

Share This Page