North Korea about to launch ICBM test and/or space satellite

Click For Summary
North Korea is preparing to launch an ICBM, raising tensions in the region as neighboring countries deploy naval forces for monitoring. The launch, expected between Saturday and Wednesday, poses a threat to peace, particularly as it may violate Japanese airspace. Concerns are heightened due to North Korea's unstable leadership and the potential for the missile to carry a nuclear payload. Discussions revolve around the implications of a preemptive strike, with many arguing that such action could escalate into a larger conflict. The international community remains divided, particularly with China's lack of consensus on how to address North Korea's provocations.
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
No one needs to justify our national defense when faced with such an unknown.

That is a very dangerous policy for all. Including you.

Ivan Seeking said:
Maybe you require justification, but you will see just how little that matters.

I know, I guess I'm still hoping that the US comes to it's senses. As you said "with power comes responsibility".

OAQfirst said:
Forceful action, up to and including war. We did it in Iraq and Afghanistan, if I recall correctly. Not very promising options, but China had little weight in the matter. Now we have a cruel man who tosses around violent rhetoric and isn't fooling anyone with his "space program."

Yes, I believe I have heard of these excursions. But unlike weak Iraq or Afghanistan, NK may actually have nuclear devices, chemical or biological weapons etc. And it has its artillery aimed at Seoul with a population of 10 million. Attacking NK may mean the destruction of Seoul. Are you sure you wish to take that risk?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hurkyl said:
Not that it matters, but I think we're past the point where the adjective "preemptive" applies.

What do you mean?
 
  • #33
A long range missile that takes several days to be fueled is not a practical weapon. The North Koreans need to develop long range solid fuel missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead. Also, they need to develop thermonuclear devices.

While a few Hiroshima sized bombs would do huge damage, they won't win a war for North Korea.
 
  • #34
misgfool said:
Yes, I believe I have heard of these excursions. But unlike weak Iraq or Afghanistan, NK may actually have nuclear devices, chemical or biological weapons etc. And it has its artillery aimed at Seoul with a population of 10 million. Attacking NK may mean the destruction of Seoul. Are you sure you wish to take that risk?
It's not my risk or decision to make. Now you're going on a tangent that is far from my original reply: "there's a lot that can be done without China's blessings, including forceful action."
 
  • #35
OAQfirst said:
It's not my risk or decision to make. Now you're going on a tangent that is far from my original reply: "there's a lot that can be done without China's blessings, including forceful action."

I was referring to the US as a nation with "you". Now could you personally integrate me back to your reply, since I not entirely following you logic.:smile: I would still, however, like to hear what are the forceful actions available while considering the risks.
 
  • #36
misgfool said:
Yes, I believe I have heard of these excursions. But unlike weak Iraq or Afghanistan, NK may actually have nuclear devices, chemical or biological weapons etc. And it has its artillery aimed at Seoul with a population of 10 million. Attacking NK may mean the destruction of Seoul. Are you sure you wish to take that risk?

Iraq did have chemical weapons, although not during either of the Gulf Wars (IIRC). They also did attack Israel with Scuds (analogous to DPRK threatening Seoul), but these were neutralized quickly.

How much damage, realistically, could DPRK inflict before its artillery units were neutralized by air strikes?

More seriously, they do have nuclear weapons, which they may be able to launch on tactical ballistic missiles. I'm not sure how easily these can be intercepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems
 
  • #37
misgfool said:
Why should they attack? Just let NK boast and the trade embargo takes care of the rest. Sure NK may have a nuke, but they know that using it will be their demise.

Will diplomacy work here? If it can work here then that's great!
Else, I think war is inevitable. Would it be better to start it now or in the future?

Or, can we just keep on going like current forever?
 
  • #38
misgfool said:
I was referring to the US as a nation with "you". Now could you personally integrate me back to your reply, since I not entirely following you logic.:smile: I would still, however, like to hear what are the forceful actions available while considering the risks.
That makes even less sense. If you're asking me if I'm willing to take that risk, how am I supposed to respond? I don't represent the U.S.

And I just told you what the forceful action could be: up to and including war. Air strikes and what. So, as I said, these are options that we don't **need** China to agree or go along with.
 
  • #39
As Count Iblis pointed out, a ballistic missile that takes days to prep and fuel on a gantry that is outside on public display makes a pretty bad "secret" weapon. We have lots and lots of imagery of the launch site (WAY more than has been made public, certainly) and we could take out the facility with a cruise missile quite easily. North Korea would face certain self-destruction if they used such a missile to attack SK or Japan, and I doubt that the Chinese would step into help them. China needs regional stability in order to continue to build its economy. If China jumped in on North Korea's side in a conflict with US allies, they would risk having their US assets and investments frozen, and that wouldn't be pretty. Financial and economic entanglements mean that both the US and China each have a "tiger by the tail" and can't afford to let go.
 
  • #40
signerror said:
How much damage, realistically, could DPRK inflict before its artillery units were neutralized by air strikes?

Apparently enough to prevent any incursion at least so far.

rootX said:
Will diplomacy work here? If it can work here then that's great!
Else, I think war is inevitable. Would it be better to start it now or in the future?

Or, can we just keep on going like current forever?

No diplomacy. Just leave NK to itself. They can rattle their saber as much as they want, but as long as they don't strike, the only thing that needs to be done is to make sure that they understand the consequences.
 
  • #41
turbo-1 said:
North Korea would face certain self-destruction if they used such a missile to attack SK or Japan, and I doubt that the Chinese would step into help them. China needs regional stability in order to continue to build its economy. If China jumped in on North Korea's side in a conflict with US allies, they would risk having their US assets and investments frozen, and that wouldn't be pretty. Financial and economic entanglements mean that both the US and China each have a "tiger by the tail" and can't afford to let go.

Not sure about North Korea being destroyed or what there is there to destroy. It's not exactly the most advanced country. But that said war there is in no one's interest. Not the US or China or even NK or SK. Those populations are pretty large and pretty close. Japan sticking their nose in isn't exactly useful either, though I suppose that they are far enough removed from WWII now to want to think about flexing their muscles. Ultimately though I don't see how there could be any winners.

I think this is Kim Jong-il being a narcissist and getting maximum leverage for minimum expense.

As to talk of shooting it down, I doubt anyone will, because I doubt that anyone wants to demonstrate that their anti-missile defenses don't work.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Count Iblis said:
A long range missile that takes several days to be fueled is not a practical weapon. The North Koreans need to develop long range solid fuel missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead. Also, they need to develop thermonuclear devices.

While a few Hiroshima sized bombs would do huge damage, they won't win a war for North Korea.
Winning a war against the modern world, nuclear weapon or no, has never been possible for NK. A WMD allows them to essentially hold people and other nations hostage, and that can grant them a great deal: money, a greater internal hold on power, an ego boost for the Great Leader, and so on.
 
  • #43
mheslep said:
Winning a war against the modern world, nuclear weapon or no, has never been possible for NK. A WMD allows them to essentially hold people and other nations hostage, and that can grant them a great deal: money, a greater internal hold on power, an ego boost for the Great Leader, and so on.

I think they have been in that position for a very long time: They can shell Seoul using artillery installations that are built within a mountain. The time it would take for North Korea to completely destroy Seoul would be about an hour or so.

The time it would take for us to silence the North Korean guns, assuming that the North Koreans start a surprise attack, would be longer. Obama would have to be notified and then he would have to consult with his generals and decide on emergency measures, such as the deployment of nuclear weapons to destroy the mountain.
 
  • #44
Count Iblis said:
I think they have been in that position for a very long time: They can shell Seoul using artillery installations that are built within a mountain. The time it would take for North Korea to completely destroy Seoul would be about an hour or so.

The time it would take for us to silence the North Korean guns, assuming that the North Koreans start a surprise attack, would be longer. Obama would have to be notified and then he would have to consult with his generals and decide on emergency measures, such as the deployment of nuclear weapons to destroy the mountain.
Would he have already been briefed on that?
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
...North Korea would face certain self-destruction if they used such a missile to attack SK or Japan, and I doubt that the Chinese would step into help them.
It is by no means certain that NK would face self-destruction in the event of an NK attack on another country, say Japan. One thing that makes it uncertain is indeed the Chinese. They don't want to step into help NK, but they may very well want to stop action by anyone else. They certainly will object strongly to any action that threatens to destabilize their border, same goes for Seoul. Then there is the question of who is going to do the 'certain' destroying. Even a one shot nuclear attack from NK is unlikely to draw a nuclear response from the US, IMO. It would kill thousands who are essentially under the lash of chattel slavery, and second the fall out is bound to be felt in Seoul and/or China. And the US will be extremely averse to another hundred years of post Hiroshima like 'was it really necessary' questioning. Then, with a nuclear response off the table and with China sitting out, who has the conventional muscle to destroy the NK million man military? Again, only the US. At the moment the US is poised with sufficient force only to deter NK, to hurt it through air strikes, etc in the event of an attack on SK. The US has by no means sufficient force in theater to decisively force capitulation of the NK military, and the rest of the force that could do the job is, as we know, busy elsewhere.
 
  • #46
Count Iblis said:
I think they have been in that position for a very long time: They can shell Seoul using artillery installations that are built within a mountain. The time it would take for North Korea to completely destroy Seoul would be about an hour or so.
'Completely destroy' is way off the mark. NK could kill many people, do damage, temporarily stop the daily life of Seoul, cause panic and a huge migration of people. Artillery needs a quite a bit of time, un-harassed, to 'destroy' even a small city, and NK arty would enjoy neither condition. Another consequence - NK will lose all the immovable heavy arty.
 
  • #48
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
mheslep said:
NK launched their rocket 11:30AM Korean time (Sunday), 10:30PM EST. It cleared Japan and continued over the Pacific, no word yet on how far.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123889854918290025.html?mod=article-outset-box

EDIT: No rocket! Japan retracts its initial report as bogus, according to Reuters.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE53314H20090404?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Yeah, bogus report.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-04-voa24.cfm

LOL, that's a bit of a blunder. I was worried we were going to get a hunk of metal landing on the West Coast at any minute.

The rest of the news agencies, at the moment, are showing that a missile HAS been launched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
LowlyPion said:
Not sure about North Korea being destroyed or what there is there to destroy. It's not exactly the most advanced country. But that said war there is in no one's interest. Not the US or China or even NK or SK. Those populations are pretty large and pretty close. Japan sticking their nose in isn't exactly useful either, though I suppose that they are far enough removed from WWII now to want to think about flexing their muscles. Ultimately though I don't see how there could be any winners.

I think this is Kin Il Sung being a narcissist and getting maximum leverage for minimum expense.

As to talk of shooting it down, I doubt anyone will, because I doubt that anyone wants to demonstrate that their anti-missile defenses don't work.


I don't think it's possible for ANY Nation to "win" a nuclear exchange. A terrorist network without a domestic population is another story.

NK knows we can't do anything except get mad...and they'll keep playing games and continue to torment the big dogs until they cross a line that is unacceptable...hopefully China will advise them otherwise prior to a point of no return.
 
  • #51
misgfool said:
Hurkyl said:
Not that it matters, but I think we're past the point where the adjective "preemptive" applies.

What do you mean?
There is already a missile aimed towards Japan about to be launched. It's too late to do anything before the threat arises, because it's already here.
 
  • #52
Hurkyl said:
There is already a missile aimed towards Japan about to be launched. It's too late to do anything before the threat arises, because it's already here.

Wiki said:
Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes.

I would understand that a materialized threat would be Japan actually nuked. So I would interpret any action against a perceived threat as a preemptive strike.
 
  • #53
drankin said:
LOL, that's a bit of a blunder. I was worried we were going to get a hunk of metal landing on the West Coast at any minute.

The rest of the news agencies, at the moment, are showing that a missile HAS been launched.

The punch line is at the end of the last article:
Japan says the launch endangers its security but has backed away from earlier threats to try to shoot down the missile. North Korea said any such action by Japan would mean war.

Dear Leader is getting ballzy with the sword rattling.
 
  • #54
Evidently, the "missile" was a satellite delivery vehicle. So, is this a really provocative threat? Or a ruse, to say "see, it was just a satellite launch like we were saying" but really setting up a satellite for a more threatening military capacity? Was it a chess move or a harmless communications satellite to say "we are not a technological inferior country" and to further their countries development on their own terms. The media and Western world has portrayed this as a threat. I'm not sure what to believe.
 
  • #55
So does anyone know what actually happened? Is there a satellite in orbit?
 
  • #56
drankin said:
Evidently, the "missile" was a satellite delivery vehicle. So, is this a really provocative threat?
Yes.

First, don't let hindsight confuse you; knowledge of what the missle was actually carrying is irrelevant. The threat assessment has to be made on the information you have.

Secondly, even now that we now know what it was, it is still a threat (albeit not an immediate one); even though it was used this time to deliver a satellite, it is still a weapon, and one developed and tested in direct defiance of the U.N. and whatnot.
 
  • #57
Too much bad information. There is NO SATELLITE in orbit.

New York Times said:
North Korea claimed that its Kwangmyongsong-2, or “Lodestar-2,” named after the propaganda nickname of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, was in an orbit anywhere from 490 to 1,426 kilometers, or 304 to 886 miles, from the earth, circling once every 104 minutes. KCNA said the satellite was broadcasting “immortal revolutionary songs” about Mr. Kim and his late father, President Kim Il-sung.

North Korea made a similar claim in 1998 when it launched what it called a satellite but U.S. officials considered its Taepodong-1 missile. At the time, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said it found no satellite. This time too, the command said “no object entered orbit.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/world/asia/06korea.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD

I've yet to find clarification as to whether there was a satellite attempt which failed, or whether there was no satellite in the first place. I'm assuming the latter.

drankin said:
Evidently, the "missile" was a satellite delivery vehicle.
What's your source?
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Hurkyl said:
Yes.

First, don't let hindsight confuse you; knowledge of what the missle was actually carrying is irrelevant. The threat assessment has to be made on the information you have.

Secondly, even now that we now know what it was, it is still a threat (albeit not an immediate one); even though it was used this time to deliver a satellite, it is still a weapon, and one developed and tested in direct defiance of the U.N. and whatnot.

What an excellent test on the accuracy of the the information gathering system.
Now where is that link to that 'you-fail' site.

"Secondly, even now that we now know what it was,"
ummm
Do we 'know' what it was? What was it?
 
  • #59
Alfi said:
What an excellent test on the accuracy of the the information gathering system.
Now where is that link to that 'you-fail' site.
:confused: NK did launch a multi-stage rocket* in Japan's direction, just as predicted. As to what it was capable of carrying, nothing has (apparently) been confirmed. So what gathered information, pray tell, turned out to be inaccurate?

Oh, and do keep in mind that probabilities are part of the conclusions drawn from the information. If the analysis process gets nine things wrong out of every ten things they predict happen with 10% probability, then people are doing a very, very good job.


"Secondly, even now that we now know what it was,"
ummm
Do we 'know' what it was? What was it?
After seeing Drankin's post, I thought I read a BBC article confirming it was a satellite. But it was either a preliminary article that has since been edited, or I read it wrong. (Or I just can't find it again)


*: I use this term only because we do not know what the payload was. To be a missile, I believe it has to carry a weapon. (Or be used as a weapon)
 
  • #60
North Korea space launch 'fails'

North Korea failed in its attempt to get a satellite into space after a rocket launch early on Sunday, US and South Korean officials say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7984254.stm
The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says a failure would seriously detract from North Korea's ability to exploit the propaganda value of the launch, although it may never admit it to its own people.

In a previous satellite launch attempt in 1998, North Korea said it was sending up a device that would orbit the world transmitting revolutionary melodies.

It claimed this was also successful but the launch is believed to have been a failure as no trace of the satellite was ever found.

:smile:
 

Similar threads

News North Korea - Suspicious Seismic Activity
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
News North Korea - another nuclear weapon test
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News What Secrets Does ESCAPING NORTH KOREA Reveal About Life Under Kim Jong-il?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Please come to lovely North Korea
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Could a Disabled Spy Satellite Pose a Threat to Earth?
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
12K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K