Slashdot

●Stories

●Firehose

●All

●Popular

●Polls

●Software

●Thought Leadership

Submit

Search Slashdot

● Login

●or

● Sign up

●Topics:

●Devices

●Build

●Entertainment

●Technology

●Open Source

●Science

●YRO

●Follow us:

●RSS

●Facebook

●LinkedIn

●Twitter

● Youtube

● Mastodon

●Bluesky

Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

binspam dupe notthebest offtopic slownewsday stale stupid fresh funny insightful interesting maybe offtopic flamebait troll redundant overrated insightful interesting informative funny underrated descriptive typo dupe error

MongoDB Atlas: Multi-cloud, modern database on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Get access to our most high performance version ever, with faster and easier scaling at lower cost.

×

46291753 story

Are Some of North Korea's Long-Range Missiles Fakes? 322

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:13AM from the it's-a-faaaaaake! dept.

gbrumfiel writes "North Korea has not been shy in announcing plans to destroy the United States, but questions remain over whether it has the nukes or the missiles to do so. Now NPR reports on open-source intelligence showing that one of the North's most 'advanced' weapons might actually be a decoy. Six KN-08 missiles were paraded last year, but each showed differences in the way they were assembled. Is it all a bluff? Or are the missiles part of a real program?"

←

Related Links

→

Dissecting RSA's 'Watering Hole' Traffic Snippet

North Korea Threatens US With Preemptive Nuclear Strike

Submission: Are some of north korea's long-range missiles fakes?

OpenStreetMap Launches a New Easy To Use HTML5 Editor

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Some of North Korea's Long-Range Missiles Fakes? More Login

Are Some of North Korea's Long-Range Missiles Fakes?

Load All Comments

Full Abbreviated Hidden

/Sea

Score:

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

More Login

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password?
Close

Close

Search 322 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

● All

● Insightful

● Informative

● Interesting

● Funny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:18AM (#43663811) Homepage Journal

Obviously the ones they parade are just shells. Do you think the US/USSR paraded armed nuclear missiles down the streets back in the day?

Share
twitter facebook

Re: Duh (Score:4, Interesting)

byperagrin ( 659227 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:23AM (#43663839)

Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bySponge Bath ( 413667 ) writes:

That's nice. I like a happy ending.

Re: (Score:3)

bycold fjord ( 826450 ) writes:

Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors.
It's nice that people can still believe fairytales, but not so nice when they involve the "peaceful" nature of communism. There is a little history you left out, such as:
The Soviet suppression of the workers strike in East Germany in 1953, the Soviet invasion to put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956, the Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush the "Prague Spring - Socialism with a Human Face," and the Soviet invasion of communist Afghanistan.
The Soviet Invasion of Afghanista [heritage.org]

Re: (Score:3)

byFirethorn ( 177587 ) writes:

It's nice that people can still believe fairytales, but not so nice when they involve the "peaceful" nature of communism. There is a little history you left out, such as:
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Peragrin's post pegged mine.

Re: (Score:3)

byspitzak ( 4019 ) writes:

You are really flailing trying to defend the fact that you cannot recognize a joke, sorry. Just realize and admit you did a stupid thing. You are obviously intelligent since you went through the work of collecting references and everything, I'll give you that.
I agree there are probably people who believe communism is a nirvana and everything is perfect. However it is OBVIOUS that the poster writing in response to "did the US and USSR use real nukes in their parades" with "Damn straight they did. And every c

Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)

byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:51AM (#43664031) Journal

The thing is, it isn't just the shells. There are major differences between what was paraded around, like the length of stage assemblies, and where fuel valves are.
They could be iterative design mockups for producing the real thing, or it could be a massive display of horseshit for propaganda.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

byCharliemopps ( 1157495 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:57AM (#43664067)

They could be iterative design mockups for producing the real thing, or it could be a massive display of horseshit for propaganda.
Or... what's more likely... both.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:35AM (#43664401)

What do we do with prototype units in the US?
We clean them up, paint them, and turn them into static displays for putting outside of VFWs.
Of course the missiles used in a parade are going to vary, it is a huge waste (and security risk) to have your actual assets all placed in one location and out in the open. This isn't surprising at all.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

byHentes ( 2461350 ) writes:

Or decoys misdirecting attention from the real ones.

Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

byHadlock ( 143607 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @09:16AM (#43664743) Homepage Journal

There were 13 iterations of the Saturn V, they didn't even have the same paint job, let alone configuration. The first stage had anywhere between 7 and 12 helium tanks inside of the kerosene tank depending on the version. About the only similarity between each rocket was the diameter of the last stage, where it met with the Apollo capsule. Each engine was different, custom built.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byharvey the nerd ( 582806 ) writes:

No doubt an analysis of the tires in the pictures would show that each "rocket" weighs 200-300 kg....

Re: (Score:3)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Unfueled nuclear missiles with no payload, yes. They're light, safe and easy to transport.

Re:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)

byRichard_at_work ( 517087 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:24AM (#43664311)

I'd say that if these were the real things, they are training rounds - versions of the weapon designed to be of the right weight, size and bulk of the original, but have nothing at all to do with actually being able to be used as a real weapon.
Every military has them for every weapon they have in their stock - there are training rounds for nuclear warheads, cruise missiles and even Trident ICBMs.
The crews have to be taught how to handle the weapons, and you do not do that on a live round.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byBig Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) writes:

Also obviously they are parading a variety of missiles which may have different purposes (Nuclear, Satellite, Conventional etc.)

Some analysts say... (Score:5, Insightful)

byrvw ( 755107 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:22AM (#43663833)

I just read those two lines under that nice picture.
Some analysts say the half-dozen missiles showcased at the military parade were fakes.
So the ones they showed in a parade are fakes. Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade? I mean, you have maybe only two of them working, maybe only one, or maybe even six in good condition. Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off? Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks. (How unlikely this might be to us, they have a different perspective.) The decoys might be empty ones that will be used later. That each of them has differences only shows that they are working on them.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?
"We have matched your capabilities with papier mache and toilet roll tubes. Resistance is futile."

Re:Some analysts say... (Score:5, Insightful)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:39AM (#43663949)

Much the same reason Iran has released videos of its super mega awesome tech (which turned out to be toys and stock movie footage)... propaganda and posturing.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Precisely.

Re:Some analysts say... (Score:5, Insightful)

bywhoever57 ( 658626 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:11AM (#43664203) Journal

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?
You ignore the target of the message. They were not trying to show the US that they had missiles, they were trying to show their own population that they had missiles.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Precisely my point. As far as we know - and I'm inclined to believe - they don't actually have working missiles yet. They have a PR exercise.

Re: (Score:2)

byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:

Oh, they definitely have them. It's just a question of how well they work and what their range is.

Re: (Score:3)

bySecurityTheatre ( 2427858 ) writes:

They are fairly adept with short-range missiles. During the Iran/Iraq ware, Iran was actually purchasing missile technology and production-ready missiles from North Korea. A number of these were launched and fell on Baghdad and other cities.
Their range, however, is short and would be barely capable of striking Japan (though S Korea is obviously in range).

Re: (Score:2)

byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?
How combat ready do you think the aircraft (or missiles) at Wright Patterson AFB museum are?
Even the Blue Angels aircraft are modified and couldn't be used in combat right away (without modest retrofit ~72 hours).

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Yes, but some of us have seen actual USAF fighters in flightworthy condition, which is more than can be said of North Korea's armaments.

Re: (Score:3)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade?
You've gotta be pretty dumb, because the point of parading them is to show off that you have them, not that you can build models.
Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?
If you can't manage to hold a parade without breaking a rocket, what's the chances you'll be able to launch it without breaking it?
Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks.
Showing fakes in a parade means they don't have real ones.

Re: (Score:2)

bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?
If you can't manage to hold a parade without breaking a rocket, what's the chances you'll be able to launch it without breaking it?
When he said "Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?", he meant "Why take the risk that an attack happens while showing them off, and you can't use the missiles because they're stuck on a parade float in safe mode instead of being in a lauch-ready status?", not "What if they break?".

Re: (Score:3)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

When he said "Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?", he meant "Why take the risk that an attack happens while showing them off, and you can't use the missiles because they're stuck on a parade float in safe mode instead of being in a lauch-ready status?", not "What if they break?".
You can't just toss these things off, anyway. The USA has the best surveillance equipment on (and orbiting) the planet, and you can bet your ass they'd be the first things we'd attack. They're not useful if someone manages a sneak attack. Thing is, you don't make a sneak attack against another nation any more. Getting ready to perpetrate violence against another country involves a lot of logistics that can be perceived by other countries well in advance even without surveillance satellites.

Re: (Score:2)

bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:

True. But if you have only six missiles, do you want them on parade, or in a silo, ready to fire?

Re: (Score:2)

byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:

If you can't manage to hold a parade without breaking a rocket, what's the chances you'll be able to launch it without breaking it?

Every time you take a piece of equipment out, you risk breaking it. Even here in the US when procure equipment we procure spares to cover for the inevitable breakage.
The Presidential Limo got stuck in a driveway the other month, do you think the Secret Service is poorly trained? You don't think something like a mechanical failure on a caisson couldn't occur during a parade?
You

Re: (Score:2)

byDigitalReverend ( 901909 ) writes:

Let's think about this for a second.
If you take down your missiles for a parade thus rendering them unable to be used , and your enemy has the knowledge of the parade, can you guess when your enemy will attack?

Re: (Score:2)

byVortexCortex ( 1117377 ) writes:

So the ones they showed in a parade are fakes. Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade?
...
Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks.
Maybe they were just en-route to another facility. They needed the police / military presence to secure the route anyway, and decided, hell, let's make a day of it and have a parade too.
I could be completely wrong; However, I find your lack of doubt in your own unproven hypotheses disturbing. There's a pretty easy way to find out if the missiles are real. Just ask our intel agents on the inside. Or, you know, read their computer logs we've probably got. There's no way of us knowing for sure, but IMO:

Re: (Score:2)

byTheCarp ( 96830 ) writes:

The thing is, if they actually had such missles, then fakes are easy. They just pull out some of the prototypes and show those off. The thing is, the prototypes and mockups would be expected to be largely similar to the real thing, and not so wildly different.
Not only that but, why worry so much about hiding the secrets of the technology when they are playing catch-up? Hide them from... who exactly?
They have to know that such weapons are, actually, useless to them as anything but parade toys, as much, if no

Re: (Score:2)

byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:

The thing is, the prototypes and mockups would be expected to be largely similar to the real thing, and not so wildly different.

I've done my share of military product demos. Prototypes and mockups WILL be different than the real thing. You tend to re-use your demo models for a LONG time because they are not cheap.
One of the units I used for a physical display was just a shell of the unit that was the first test run through the CNC mill and coating process.
Differences:
1. The connector for the final unit w

Re: (Score:2)

byphysicsphairy ( 720718 ) writes:

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off? Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks. (How unlikely this might be to us, they have a different perspective.)

I hope they don't have a different perspective. If they do, we should pretty much nuke them ourselves right now---our tolerance for their rhetoric is couched in the belief that it really is just talk. If they were seriously convinced that they were on the verge of war, willing to use nukes against us or South Korea or Japan, and willing to take just about anything as provocation, we would not want to be following a policy of "let them get the first nuke fired off at us before we do anything."
Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?
The reason fo

"Fakes" or Custom Builds? (Score:2)

bycmholm ( 69081 ) writes:

It wouldn't surprise me if much of what the DPRK has put on display are mockups. A bit of craftsmanship and just enough engineering to keep the suckers from visibly shaking and flexing during a parade is a lot cheaper than the real thing, and does 90% of what you need a missile to do.
On the other hand, it's possible that the newer stuff are all custom one-offs. SCUDs they probably have an assembly line for. I'm not sure if they've really had enough launches to wring the bugs out of anything higher performan

Re: (Score:2)

byImrik ( 148191 ) writes:

On the other hand, it's possible that the newer stuff are all custom one-offs. SCUDs they probably have an assembly line for. I'm not sure if they've really had enough launches to wring the bugs out of anything higher performance, a point at which they can freeze a design and say this is the definitive [cobert]Type-O-Dong[/cobert], model X.
If the only problems were differences between the missiles I'd agree, but the missiles had other oddities in their construction even when looked at individually.

Re: (Score:2)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:

Given that each one is a little different, my first guess would be that they're prototypes for testing different things. The US has certainly built enough non-functional or partially-functional prototypes over the years. And if you don't think we've paraded around prototypes for the masses, just go look at the space shuttle Enterprise - it never made it into space, but we still put it on display.

Re: (Score:2)

byfuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) writes:

If anything, I'd expect purpose-built mockups to exhibit greater uniformity than would mockups built from the discards of an actively iterating R&D project, or functional prototypes from a reasonably late stage of an R&D project...
Even substantially less expensive gear, with a much stronger incentive for mass production(small arms, light artillery, that sort of thing) handled by well reputed defense outfits with a century of experience tends to have enough 'Block A vs. Block B' and different revisio

Does it matter if SOME are? (Score:4, Insightful)

byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:31AM (#43663899)

It only takes ONE to start a major war.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:

There's no history to back that up. However, history would suggest that it only takes two to end a major war. So maybe N Korea is just preparing to end three wars.
The only reason you know the above isn't true is because it's more logical than what N Korea usually comes up with.

Re: (Score:2)

bySollord ( 888521 ) writes:

So because we have no recorded history of someones using a nuke to start a war means we won't have a major war if just one is used?

Re: (Score:2)

bySollord ( 888521 ) writes:

In case you missed it I was being sarcastic towards the post i was replying to there's no logic involved...

Re: (Score:2)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:

The current record for shortest war ever is the Anglo-Zanzibar war at 40 minutes. Even with nukes, it would be hard to beat that against any opponent larger than a city.

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

If you're suggesting that North Korea would be nuked in retaliation for a nuclear attack, I dare say that South Korea would object to that plan.

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Even then I don't think the additional long-term damage from a further nuclear strike right next door would be worth it, compared to a conventional response.

Re: (Score:2)

byPopeRatzo ( 965947 ) writes:

They fricking crashed planes into our buildings and attacked the Pentagon and we did not go to war. WE called it war, but it was a half assed attempt. If it was a war we wound have carpet bombed every fricking city known to have talaban, and Pakastan right now would be shaking in their boots that we would come in and clean their house for them.
After 9/11 we could have NUKED something and the world would have not bat an eye, instead of acting like the lion, we acted like a scared bird.
"They"?
I had no idea th

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

byAnonymous Coward writes:

The world would have done more than "bat an eye". The world was up in arms over your idiotic and nonsensical invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (neither of which had anything much to do with 11/9) and you can bet your donkey there would have been international uproar if the US had gone nuclear.
By the way, massacring thousands or millions of innocent, defenceless people (whether by nuclear or conventional weapons) is not "acting like a lion". It's "lashing out like a frightened, hysterical pussy". But then th

Re: (Score:2)

byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:

Are you seriously going to contend that thousands of Catholics in Northern Ireland weren't beaten, killed, imprisoned, etc. during that conflict? Oh yes, Britain certainly has NO blood on its hands. It's not like they've invaded 9 out of 10 countries [telegraph.co.uk] in the world at some point, or anything. Only those brutish Yanks would do that!

Re: (Score:2)

bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:

Actually, the world pretty much unanimously condemned your country's response to 9-11. You would have been faced with trade sanctions and cancelled treaties if you'd actuall gone ahead and nuked something. You think your economy is in the dog-house now? Imagine it if you didn't have access to half your imports and exports.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (Score:4, Insightful)

byDaniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:45AM (#43664485) Homepage Journal

WE called it war, but blah blah blah bunch of 101st Fighting Keyboarder macho chest-thumping
Why don't you go up to some of my friends who came back from Iraq or Afghanistan missing pieces of themselves and tell them they weren't in a war. I dare you.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

The bright side of North Korea (Score:5, Funny)

bystevegee58 ( 1179505 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:37AM (#43663937) Journal

Say what you will about North Korea, you still have to admit those guys sure know how to put on a parade.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

bystevegee58 ( 1179505 ) writes:

I understand they deliberately fattened him up with a high carb diet so he'd more closely resemble his grandfather.

There is no bright side of North Korea (Score:3)

byiksrazal_br ( 614172 ) writes:

Actually his dead grandfather is the eternal president still, they keep the country together by cult worship of him, "cleanest race" and blood purity propaganda, and the worst death camps on earth for the last 50 years such as Camp 14, where children are born as slaves for life under "three generations of punishment" .

Its unfortunate that these Nuclear and Chemical weapons headlines obscure the human rights violations. Currently there is a UN commission investigating NK for crimes against humanity. Afte

Speed ridges (Score:3)

bytippe ( 1136385 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:42AM (#43663967)

Close inspection of the nose of the missile shows the warhead's surface is undulated. Some analysts suggest the wrinkles mean the material is a thin metal sheet, unable to withstand flight pressures.
Maybe they're speed ridges, you know, to make them go faster. Sort of like speed holes on a sports car, but different...
No, in case I fooled you, I'm not a rocket scientist.

Share
twitter facebook

Re:Speed ridges (Score:4, Funny)

byVortexCortex ( 1117377 ) writes: <VortexCortex@NOS ... t-retrograde.com> on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:03AM (#43664127)

Close inspection of the nose of the missile shows the warhead's surface is undulated. Some analysts suggest the wrinkles mean the material is a thin metal sheet, unable to withstand flight pressures.
Maybe they're speed ridges, you know, to make them go faster. Sort of like speed holes on a sports car, but different...
Or maybe they're just ribbed for her pleasure?

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Solution: decapitation (Score:2)

byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:

Look, I don't know for sure if they are faked, and neither does anyone else. If they are real, all of the world leaders need to be removed and punished for allowing it to happen. But let's suppose for a moment that they ARE fake. I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world. We know this has been done before. Saddam Hussein did his level best

Re: (Score:2)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world.
You mean like when we claimed Hussein had WMDs although we knew he didn't? Yes, that was sick, and morally bankrupt. And done for profit.

Re: (Score:3)

byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:

You need to read up. SH made up his fake WMDs as deliberate policy. He actually essentially confirmed this later. He made them pretty convincing. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled. Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.

Re: (Score:2)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled.
This does not even approach the truth. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was skeptical, and we knew that even as we declared that he definitely had WMDs. Revisionist view of history is revisionist.
Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.
You did not even make your views clear, and your views do not define the situation.

Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

byCassini2 ( 956052 ) writes:

Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
George Bush said he had chemical weapons.
Most of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA, were quietly saying they were no chemical weapons. Some of these agencies had their results taken out of context by their superiors.
If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me. After a while, that was what happened to Saddam Hussein

Re: (Score:3)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein actually thought he had chemical weapons. And since he was kept drugged up the whole time he was on trial, nobody ever got any conclusive answers to anything. He managed to get some good zingers in during the trial anyway.
George Bush said he had chemical weapons.
So, two of the least credible people on the planet said that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, and that's supposed to be convincing?
If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me.
Probably. But if you run outside your house stark naked with no gun in sight (and clearly, nowhere to conceal one)

Re:Solution: decapitation (Score:4, Insightful)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:56AM (#43664591)

Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things, and the capability to make more, before the Gulf War, and the UN implemented a disarmament treaty in the aftermath. Whether he was following that threaty - and what risk any remaining weapons might present - was central to the Iraq war. It's not like, apropos of nothing, Western powers decided he must have weapons of mass destruction.
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:

Be carefuly with that analogy. There's no question that Hussein actually had chemical weapons until the '90s. We sold him the fucking things,
I know that, and I've made the point that we "had the receipt" more than once here on Slashdot. However, as you say:
Of course there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever his ambitions, he simply did not have the weapons or the capability to make them. That is, there was evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.
We knew that what we had sold him was no longer around and we had no evidence that he had actually managed to use what we sold him so really, there was no evidence that he had WMDs and we knew that. There was all evidence that it was possible for him to get WMDs but if that is the bar then we're all fucked.

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Oh, that last paragraph was my way of making it clear I agreed with you.

Re: (Score:2, Informative)

byfnj ( 64210 ) writes:

Alas, it is you who are revisionist. Try checking the facts [snopes.com]. Deal with it.

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

Even a charitable analysis of the situation would suggest that a mixture of "motivated reasoning" (bullshitting yourself to a predetermined conclusion) and/or sheer staggering incompetence was necessary for Hussein's posturing to be read as a credible, actual threat.
Even if he hadn't been complying with his disarmament agreement (which, lest we forget, was partly necessary because Western governments had been selling him chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment for years) that's a political issue for th

Re: (Score:3)

byHatta ( 162192 ) writes:

Yes, regime change in Iraq was so easy, we should do it all over the world! All it takes is a snap of the fingers...
Wait, wait, who's the psychopath here?

for the love of god (Score:5, Interesting)

byCharliemopps ( 1157495 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:04AM (#43664141)

Seriously folks... they HAVE nukes. We know this. They've detonated them underground, we've detected the flash. It's fact. (unless both they and our own government is lieing to us... a distinct possibility)
Do they have missiles that can launch them? Who gives a shit? Any ballistic missile they would have would be trivial for our military to shoot down. They do, however, have very sophisticated submarines. All they need to do is load one of their nukes on a sub and sail it into a major harbor anywhere in the world and viola, world catastrophe. This is the threat we should be worried about. The whole missile thing is just sabre rattling, irrelevant of their real capabilities. They'd need thousands to overwhelm our defenses.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

bygsgriffin ( 1195771 ) writes:

The real bummer would be that a nuke in a harbor would truly piss off the surfers for the amazing wave it would create.. and all of the surfers are out in the ocean, not the harbors.

Re: (Score:2)

bySedated2000 ( 1716470 ) writes:

I know that they had detonations, but I also remember reading that they weren't picking up enough radiation to prove that it was a nuclear explosion and not just large stockpiles of traditional TNT. The explosions were small for a nuclear blast as well, well within the range of what a mass of traditional explosives could do.

This definitely does not prove they _don't_ have nuclear arms, but doesn't it at least cast a bit of doubt?

Re: (Score:3)

byMobyDisk ( 75490 ) writes:

How about neutrino fluxes? ...How about "the flash" (other than neutrinos), like long-wave EMP radiation...
The problem is that none of these things were detected!
Wikipedia: 2009 detonation - Lack of radionuclide confirmation [wikipedia.org]
or this one:
Wikipedia: 2013 detonation - ...as of two days after the blast, Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean investigators had failed to detect any radiation... [wikipedia.org]
All evidence we have shows that it *was not* nuclear.

Re: (Score:2)

bySockatume ( 732728 ) writes:

How do you pick up the flash from an underground nuclear test, exactly? The current concensus is that it could just have easily have been faked.

Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

byDerekLyons ( 302214 ) writes:

They do, however, have very sophisticated submarines.
Sophisticated, maybe, but there's no real evidence of that openly available. Not to mention, what those that aren't obsolete or (at best and being generous) obsolescent and aren't extremely short ranged miniature boats are short range coastal submarines. The numbers may be impressive to the non professional, but their capabilities shouldn't be.
All they need to do is load one of their nukes on a sub and sail it into a major harbor anywhere in th

Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @08:10AM (#43664191)

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Share
twitter facebook

Almost certainly (Score:2)

byMillennium ( 2451 ) writes:

We've probably got a bunch of fakes too: they make good decoys for those who would try to attack or steal our weapons. They're probably better-made, but they're fakes all the same.
The real question is, does North Korea have any of these long-range missiles that aren't fake?

Almost certainly (Score:3)

byistartedi ( 132515 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @10:48AM (#43665575) Journal

Google "Quaker gun". According to Wiki that phrase dates to the American Revolution; but I bet It's the oldest trick in the book. I bet we can find storis of the ancients doing fakes. There was an entire fake army division prior to D-day in WW2, along with the real ones. My favorite WW2 fake was the bomber with a tail gun that had a double-length barrel with an unusual looking flame arrestor on it. It was either an ordinary gun or a broken tail gun. The Germans didn't want to mess with it though, because it was pretty bad looking.

Share
twitter facebook

Probably fake, but it doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)

byAnimats ( 122034 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @12:00PM (#43666285) Homepage

There's a good chance that the missiles shown in a parade were fakes. Many early missile designs didn't travel well. The US Atlas ICBM had walls so thin it had to be pressurized to keep it from collapsing. When not pressurized, it had to be held in a fixture that kept it under tension. North Korea's missiles are roughly at the Atlas level of technology - they're liquid fueled. Putting them on off-road trucks is not too useful, since they have to be accompanied by liquid oxygen trucks. They need a launch complex.
The Atlas was a good booster. Variants of the design were used into the 1990s. (There's a current "Atlas" booster, but it's a full redesign.) North Korea clearly has boosters in that league - they've launched several. They're just not well suited to parade displays. So it's quite likely that, for parade purposes, dummies were used.

Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:2)

byjellomizer ( 103300 ) writes:

A country without much money to make mock-ups, and real nukes.
Say a country that is isolated from the outside world with very few trading partners. Who tends of emphasize their military?

Re: (Score:2)

byTWiTfan ( 2887093 ) writes:

Do you honestly think it would be cheaper and easier to remove real nukes from silos than to build cheap mockups? Even if NK was THAT poor (and they're not when it comes to their military, which is one part of NK that is well-financed) that would be a pretty stupid way to try to save money.

Re: (Score:2)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn!

Re: (Score:2)

bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn!
So close!

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn, Jim!

Fixed that for ya.

Re: (Score:2)

bynospam007 ( 722110 ) * writes:

"The real McCoy is cyber warware."
Indeed. We already knew, the US conquered all the computers of the North, both of them.

Re: (Score:3)

bykthreadd ( 1558445 ) writes:

Problem solved!
So just to be clear. Them threatening to nuke us, bad. Us nuking them just to be sure, good. OK?

Re: (Score:2)

byLumpy ( 12016 ) writes:

Yes. Because we would use neutron bombs that simply kill everyone and the fallout dissipates rapidly so we don't get any after effects. and if we air burst them all no nuclear winter.
It's a WIN-WIN!
Well except for some of china, south korea, and japan.... sorry guys....

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (Score:5, Insightful)

bydragonsomnolent ( 978815 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @09:49AM (#43665043) Homepage

Ok, let's look at this more closely, because you bring up very good and valid points. While it's true, if you are wrongly incarcerated you won't be happy about it, however, there are things which can be done to repay you for that injustice (financial compensation, and I know it may never be enough to make up for you losing your freedom). What reparations can you make to a man who you executed? He's dead, his body will no longer function, ever, you can't give him anything to make him come back to life or to make up for killing him. I won't say that execution is just as bad as murder, because I don't think it is (though I do think it somewhat barbaric).

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

byRich0 ( 548339 ) writes:

I was just reading an article the other day about people in states where there is no compensation, where the conviction still shows up on your record, and where employment for those wrongfully convicted is almost impossible as a result.
These people don't want $50k/yr for lost time - they want their records cleared. Heaven forbid that somebody proven innocent by DNA evidence have a clean record!
$50k/yr is the least we should be doing for them - it should probably be closer to $150k/yr. It isn't like we sho

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (Score:4, Insightful)

bykilfarsnar ( 561956 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @10:42AM (#43665513)

All the history books / classes trumpet the whole "US Defender of Freedom" thing regarding WW2, because we helped stop the holocaust. Yet we have the same sorts of concentration camps / ghettos as in WW2, in North Korea right now. You dont think thats something worth considering war for?
Stopping the Holocaust was not really the reason the US entered the war. The public reason was that we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The real reasons are up for debate. But this is a good object lesson in the use of history classes to reinforce the idea that America = Awesome. Unfortunately history is as often about making one's country look good as relating what really happened way back when.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bySolandri ( 704621 ) writes:

The big difference between North Korea and Nazi Germany is that North Korea's problems and human rights violations are all internal (aside from a few bombings and assassination attempts). Germany made their behavior an international matter by invading neighboring countries.

There's an unstated rule that what happens in your country is your business. Other members of the international community may complain about what you do inside your own borders, but they'll almost never take action based on it. Most

Re: (Score:3)

bydwye ( 1127395 ) writes:

I was born, raised, and educated in the USA, and I never heard this "U.S. Defender of Freedom" thing. We stayed out of WWII because large portions of the US wanted to avoid a repeat of WWI, just as the Oxford Student Debating Society solemnly resolved that there was no reason whatsoever to die for King Or Country just a year or two before Churchill and Co. shamed poor Chamberlain into demanding that Germany not invade Poland or suffer Britain's (and France's) wrath. After Japan attacked, we might have kno

Re: (Score:2)

byRlindstr ( 2866673 ) writes:

From orbit, I presume?
That would be the only way to be sure...

Re: (Score:2)

byNatasRevol ( 731260 ) writes:

Given that they might have only fake weapons, about 4 pickup trucks.

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (Score:5, Insightful)

byphantomfive ( 622387 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @10:30AM (#43665421) Journal

On the other side, you have some 600,000 shitty South Korean soldiers who would probably drop their guns and run

The South Korean soldiers I've known would absolutely not do this. They are tough. They would not win against the North alone, but they absolutely would sacrifice themselves to hold off until the US arrives from the south (where the US military bases are).

Also, your idea of military strategy is wrong. 1.1million infantry cannot do anything without support, they will be mowed down like grass. Look at the battle of Somme for an example of what happens when you try to cross a No-Man's-Land with overwhelming numbers of infantry.

North Korea has the capability to inflict millions of civilian casualties on South Korea, on the first day of battle due to the poor strategic location of Seoul, but they won't win a conventional war.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (Score:5, Insightful)

byCAIMLAS ( 41445 ) writes: on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @10:42AM (#43665511)

You're thinking in the context of mass attacks. That isn't going to happen.
The NK DMZ is 2.5 miles wide. It has no easy passage for vehicles and directly passing through the forest would be all but impossible. Reaching the other side, on foot - if you avoid being eaten or otherwise killed by wildlife or AP mines - would instantly result in being turned into hamburger and/or fine mist by a mix of automated turrets, mortars, etc. Any massing of troops in the forest, as detected by airborne infrared sensors, would immediately result in shelling of the area.
So really, a land passage isn't exactly tenable. There are small passages through these jungles and those are likewise guarded. They'd get shelled out within seconds of any indication of a convoy rolling down the road. (I don't care if they are well trained soldiers, they've got to either walk or ride vehicles, and it takes a long time to move even a fraction of a million people, well trained or not.)
So really, the only tenable way for NK to get actual troops and their associated Chinese vehicles to SK is by sea or air. How well do you think that will work?
Here's a hint: NK uses 1950s-1970s Soviet technology for pretty much everything they do that's "advanced". That means most of what they do is one-off and poorly assembled; they are easily 70 years behind the West at this point in basic industrialization, and they're even further behind if you consider what they are able to produce domestically. NK would almost instantly fall apart internally if they expended the time, energy, and resources to engage in a war - in the matter of days, people would be dying of starvation in high numbers. Posturing alone is likely too much for them to sustain for long.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

bypoity ( 465672 ) writes:

I have a feeling that N.Korean soldiers would be more likely to drop their weapons and look for menial jobs around Seoul that pay 20x better than soldiering for the Kims.

Re: (Score:3)

byinterval1066 ( 668936 ) writes:

On the other side, you have some 600,000 shitty South Korean soldiers who would probably drop their guns and run at the first sign of attack...
Oh, I didn't see this "comment". You are DEAD WRONG. 1) They aren't shitty. 2) They are all fully cognizant of the fact that they are there to defend their country. I've met a few of these men (spent time in Asia, including S. Korea), do not confuse S. Korea with the S. Vietnam of the 60's. Seoul is not the Saigon of the Vietnam era, rife with graft & corruption, and petty dictators propped up by a paranoid Lyndon Johnson. S. Korea is a modern society with a petty but dangerous neighbor to the north, an

Re: (Score:3)

bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:

But bullies usually at least look intimidating. This is more like the underweight nerdy kid in the slow reading group playing with his Power Rangers action figures saying that someday, the Power Rangers will beat up the jock. The nerdy kid might be able to give the jock a black eye if he throws the action figure, but then the jock will beat the living shit out of him. And break the nerdy kid's toys.

Re: (Score:2)

byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: (Score:2)

bycamperdave ( 969942 ) writes:

Yeah! I wonder how much of a "win" it would be if New York and Chicago wound up as a smouldering radioactive craters.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

● 396 commentsMeta Says Llama 4 Targets Left-Leaning Bias

● 377 commentsAmericans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says

● 371 commentsMexico Threatens To Sue Google Over Gulf Renaming

● 363 commentsAmericans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?

● 323 commentsEV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China

next

OpenStreetMap Launches a New Easy To Use HTML5 Editor
53comments

previous

Dissecting RSA's 'Watering Hole' Traffic Snippet
69comments

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot

Moderate Moderator Help Delete

● Get more comments

● 100of322 loaded

● Submit Story

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

●FAQ

●Story Archive

●Hall of Fame

●Advertising

●Terms

●Privacy Statement

●About

●Feedback

●Mobile View

●Blog

Icon

Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.

×

Close

Close

Slashdot

Working...