Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#41

Post by jeffdavis »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #36

So Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to us. This was the whole reason the US & Russia tried to restrict building anti-missile defense systems in treaties - because it increased the chance someone might think a first strike could work. If true, this is bad.

The US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other.

No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous.

China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK.

Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert on this subject and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#42

Post by aaronbrethorst »

This was covered on today's edition of the NYT podcast, The Daily, too. I highly recommend listening to it. It's my one 'must-listen' podcast. It's hosted by the guy who did the Times election podcast, The Runup, but offers far better production value. Give it a whirl: https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#43

Post by ekianjo »

jeffdavis wrote: post #41
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #36

So Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to us. This was the whole reason the US & Russia tried to restrict building anti-missile defense systems in treaties - because it increased the chance someone might think a first strike could work. If true, this is bad.

The US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other. No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous. China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK. Disclaimer: I am not eve…

China is the main supporter of the DPRK regime. It acts as a buffer against the US sphere of influence in the region.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#44

Post by vtange »

chvid wrote: post #40

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clea…

You make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames.

The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in control so you might just be enriching him and lengthening the people's suffering.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#45

Post by jacquesm »

vtange wrote: post #44
chvid wrote: post #40

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clea…

You make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames. The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in control so you might just be enriching him and lengt…

That's nonsense, just as much nonsense as saying that economic sanctions against a dictatorship hurt that dictator more than it hurts the people there.

Of course it doesn't.

The guarantee is that the dictator will not eat one truffle less and that the people will suffer more.

The best way to attack a dictatorship is to fund a middle class with something to lose.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#46

Post by WillyOnWheels »

chvid wrote: post #40

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clea…

North Korea wants recognition that it and the US is still at war (even though the rest of the entire planet does not consider the US and NK to be at war).

They also want the US to directly negotiate with it (NK). Whenever the US feels like negotiating with NK, it calls a meeting with South Korea, China, and Japan... bizarrely and deliberately not involving NK.

The political and military (perhaps in NK they are the same thing) leadership in NK belligerently fires missiles and pursues a nuclear weapons program because the current government in NK wants to stay in power, and this is their way of trying to preserve this. I'm not saying it'll work, but that's their line of reasoning.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#47

Post by Animats »

This might make sense if North Korea hasn't mastered onboard inertial guidance yet. Early US ICBMs, the Atlas, and (probably) the Titan, were radio guided from the ground. The Minuteman and Polaris were and are completely self-contained after launch. That took a lot of development, much of it done at MIT's Draper Labs.

Today, you can buy fiber optic gyros on Alibaba. The accuracy might not be good enough for hitting a silo, but it should easily keep a rocket roughly on course. It's surprising that N. Korea doesn't have reliable full onboard guidance by now.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#48

Post by rapsacnz »

mulmen wrote: post #12
PhilWright wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have all sorts of suspicions at the high failure rate. Having it confirmed gives them information it would be better they didn't have.

The article discusses this, they did meet with the CIA before publishing. The CIA will of course issue the standard Glomar response (or simply remain silent) and NK will have no more or less concrete information than they had before.

They don't need concrete information - it's not a criminal trail. Simply the knowledge of the existence of a program is easily enough to derail it.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#49

Post by rl3 »

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi...

-

In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money.

Not to mention North Korea continues to pose an actual WMD threat, they have concentration camps in dire need of liberation, their general populace is basically an ongoing humanitarian disaster, and they continue to pose an ever-increasing threat to global security.

All the US had to do was say NK was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda and had provided material support for 9/11 or something. War fever would've done the rest.

Granted, an estimated 100,000 civilian casualties from shelling in Seoul during the opening hours of the war is a hard pill to swallow. Today's threat however is the same deal plus nukes.

Then again, we had no qualms blowing away about 6500 Iraqi civilians with our surgical "shock and awe" campaign.[0] Turns out when you drop 2,000lb GBU-31s on civilian targets in the middle of a densely populated urban environment, it tends to kill a whole lot of people. Who knew! The fireworks look pretty on CNN though.[1][2]

Of course, enemy civilian lives tend to be far less valuable than allied civilian lives.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties

[1] https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm

[2] https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/10.htm

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#50

Post by khuey »

rl3 wrote: post #49

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to men…

Eh, it could have easily started World War 3 with China. Nobody cares what happens to Iraq.
Post reply on HN