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

61–70 of 102 posts

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

#61

Post by nl »

wahern wrote: post #31
mulmen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of assumptions. You could say that the lack of another 9/11 type attack in recent history and the high failure rate of these missiles shows that the US Intelligence community has already overcome this prejudice.

Also, I think it was only in the past few years that everybody finally accepted that North Korea has the bomb. As late as, what, 2013, we were still half-way convinced they were blowing up boxes of high-explosives to fool us. Even in 2016 some outlets were still hedging. Now, maybe the intelligence community came around much earlier. But certainly Congress was still having trouble coming to terms with the reality. Wh…

As late as, what, 2013, we were still half-way convinced they were blowing up boxes of high-explosives to fool us

I think that's an exaggeration. I'd note this 2013 NYTimes article[1], which notes that all US intelligence agencies agreed that North Korea tested a bomb in 2006, but were unable to come to a consensus view as to if they were capable of miniaturizing it enough to put on a missile:

an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency that it has “moderate confidence” that North Korea has the ability to shrink a nuclear weapon and fit it into a missile warhead surfaced at a Congressional hearing. That conclusion was disputed by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, who issued a statement later in the day saying that it did not reflect “the consensus” of the nation’s intelligence community.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/world/asia/contrasting-vie...

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

#62

Post by kjs3 »

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…

Came for the inevitable "it's the Wests fault", was not disappointed.

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

#63

Post by ptaipale »

nl wrote: post #60
ptaipale wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, actually. But them having nukes seems to be not much of a problem to China. If China wanted them to not have nukes, they wouldn't have.

Speaking in absolutes ("If China wanted them to not have nukes, they wouldn't have") is usually a mistake in geopolitics. China currently won't accept a unified Korea under South Korean rule (which they view as a US proxy). China also doesn't want a destabilized North Korea on its border. But it is likely that many outside China and the Koreas view China's influence as a lot more than it is. China had Kim Jong Un hal…

Of course it is not so absolute, China is not directly controlling NK, but NK's existence in its current form is ultimately dependent on China.

Yes, China has cooled down the relationship recently.

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

#64

Post by malloryerik »

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…

Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake.

1. North Korean artillery could have done far more damage than 100,000 deaths in Seoul. It's said that one out of three rounds holds a chemical charge.

2. South Korea under the progressive Roh Moo-hyun gov't was firmly opposed. Socially, South Korea would be torn apart by pro and anti-US (war) sides.

3. What about China? At that time the PRC had just joined the WTO. Instead of coming close to the advanced world, Chinese nationalists would likely have gained the upper hand domestically, and a war with the US in North Korea would even be possible.

4. Who would control North Korea afterwards? This assumes that the US would be able to occupy North Korea long enough to create order. It would have then joined South Korea, though they would have been against the war from the start? The surviving voters, that's to say the original South Koreans, and the new North Korean citizens of the republic, might well elect a strongly anti-US gov't. Esp after the US unilaterally decided to launch a bloody war.

Be careful what you wish for...

If we're playing coulda shoulda woulda, it would have been better to keep and strengthen the Clinton nuclear agreement. The Bush Administration let it break down, and North Korea got nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

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

#65

Post by douche »

wahern wrote: post #22
dwringer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, North Korea was just waiting for the NYT reporters to give them up-to-date intel on why their launches were failing. That's really the only reporting Kim Jong Un trusts, so I hear.

On a less sarcastic note, the fact that Western governments have such a difficult time gathering credible intelligence in North Korea is evidence that the North Koreans have a robust intelligence apparatus. What the whole Abdul Khan episode brought to light some years back was how Western agencies underestimated the technological and political skill and motivation of many so-called "third world" countries. Arguably t…

Since at least the end of the Cold War, human intelligence operations have been allowed to wither and fade in preference for all manner of whizz-bang electronic intelligence methods. That's a lack of investment that isn't quick to turn around.

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

#66

Post by caf »

ptaipale wrote: post #55
misja111 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, North Korea didn't have oil. If the US just wanted to invade a country to make the world a better place then there would have been plenty of easier countries to invade. How about Zimbabwe or Eritrea to mention just a few.

North Korea is China's laboratory for orthodox communism. They need it to remind party faithfuls what it would mean to return to the iron rice bowl (which sometimes lacks both rice and iron). Having some 25 million people occasionally suffer from hunger is preferable to losing stability in a country of 1400 million. North Korea would collapse very quickly without China's support in fuels and food.

North Korea's value to China is that the Korean peninsula is the historical invasion route into China.

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

#67

Post by senorjazz »

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…

Add to the 6,500 the million or so children who died during the proceeding decade of sanctions.

If only all those who were pro-war could see innocent children operated on without anaesthetic, if they could see the true brutality of war then perhaps we would live on a more peaceful planet.

Unfortunately it is more likely to be more of the same as the war mongers can be heard quite loudly rattling their sabres ready to send the sons and daughters of others out to slaughter

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

#68

Post by inimino »

ams6110 wrote: post #26
wahern wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a less sarcastic note, the fact that Western governments have such a difficult time gathering credible intelligence in North Korea is evidence that the North Koreans have a robust intelligence apparatus. What the whole Abdul Khan episode brought to light some years back was how Western agencies underestimated the technological and political skill and motivation of many so-called "third world" countries. Arguably t…

None of the "deep-seated racism and cultural elitism" you cite is at all unique to Western countries.

Did the GP say anywhere that it was?

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

#69

Post by dogma1138 »

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.

Russian tried the US walked out of the treaty and has been pulling quite a few risky moves.
Post reply on HN