13
   

North Korea Pledges Nuclear Assault on USA

 
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:10 am
@farmerman,
Food and humanitarian aid we've provided either goes to the military and the IN-crowd while everybody else starves or gets sold for more money to build arms with.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:12 am
@gungasnake,
sad innit? and the people are the sufferers while Un plays video games
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:31 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Does NK have the ability to hit them at all, and would the govt consider an attack on any of those islands an attack on the US itself?


First there is a little problem of throw weight as it took us and the USSR a lot of efforts in engineering to to get the rockets throw weight up and the weight of the warheads downs.

So getting off the ground with a nuclear warhead to reach anywhere is not in their near future as they do not even yet have bombs only very low yield devices.

Second one of the reasons that the first IBM warheads tend to be in the megatons range once we did work out the two problems above is that the accuracy of the rockets were pitiful indeed.

Not likely they could even hit an island.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:46 am
@BillRM,
I have no idea what youre saying Bill.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:50 am
@BillRM,

Quote:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-12/why-north-korean-rocket-launch-does-not-spell-imminent-doom

So North Korea now has both nuclear warheads and the know-how to launch long-range rockets.
Not so fast. First, there is a difference between launching one tiny, primitive satellite into space and harboring an intercontinental nuclear launch threat.
"My opinion is that the threat is overblown, but it does relate to a threat that they’re trying to make us perceive that they have,” Hansen says. “[The rocket] is 100 feet tall. It’s liquid-fueled so you can’t keep it fueled for very long. There’s only two places in the country they can launch from, one in the east, one in the west. Is this a viable weapons program? I don’t think so.”
That's not to imply that this space launch doesn't mark a step toward a long-range, intercontinental ballistic missile threat. It does. But it's a very preliminary step--and the following steps aren’t even all about rocketry. One significant technological obstacle will be shrinking a nuclear warhead to fit the size and weight parameters of North Korea's rocket designs. Recall, those designs have blown up four times during launch and reached space successfully exactly once. Then there’s the problem of what-goes-up-must-come-down.
“One thing they haven’t demonstrated in the least is a re-entry vehicle,” Hansen says. And the ability to re-enter the atmosphere successfully, without burning up the payload, is key to any manned spaceflight or terrestrial payload delivery system like the kind that would deliver a warhead across the Pacific. That makes for two major technical hurdles between North Korea and a tactical intercontinental ballistic missile (or between North Korea and the United States, if you want to look at it grimly).
So there’s no need to panic?
That’s right. Relax. Enjoy your Christmas. Let death at the hands of a North Korean missile be the furthest thing from your mind. Congratulate the DPRK on their fantastic achievement in spaceflight capability (“Welcome to 1957, you guys.”). The world is a dangerous place, and it would be naive to say that this development isn’t troublesome. Just don’t take it out of the larger context. You are safe.
For now.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 08:59 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I have no idea what youre saying Bil


LOL so warhead throw weight of a given rocket is something you do not understand?

That getting a nuclear warhead weight down to fit even on a must larger rocket with a far greater throw weight is a very hard engineering task is a concept you do not understand?.

To get a rocket to deliver a warhead within a hundred miles of what you are aiming for is also not a simple task.

Maybe the part of an article I had posted above will be helpful in any case the long and the short of it is that North Korean is not able to threaten us with long range nuclear rockets in the real world and are many many years from being able to even start to do so.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 09:08 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

LOL so warhead throw weight of a given rocket is something you do not understand?
NO your fractured English writing is difficult to understand, especially when you are excited.
SOMETIMES, check your sentences for such things as verbs, voice etc.
The sentence above is a perfect example of nonsense writing. I think lots of people have brought this up to you but you dont seem to try to improve your broken english.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 09:21 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
LOL so warhead throw weight of a given rocket is something you do not understand?


There is zero in the above sentence that a person of a lot lower IQ then you happen to have can not understand so what game are you now playing Farmerman?

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 09:25 am
This oughta be interesting.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 09:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This oughta be interesting.



Strange is it not that poor poor Framerman can not understand the below statement or the reasons that were given to back up the below statement. Such as lack of throw weight of North Korean rockets, lack of light weight nuclear warheads instead of just devices bury in the ground and lack of the ability to guide their rockets to hit anywhere near where they are aiming for and so on.

Quote:
the long and the short of it is that North Korea is not able to threaten us with long range nuclear rockets in the real world and are many many years from being able to even start to do so.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 12:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
oy. Instead of trying to learn to write more understandably, he argues that Im the fathead who cant understand his gibberish.

BILL, I have a real problem with my left hand. Its crippled up and I make terrible mistakes in spelling. HOWEVER, I am aware of it and Im also aware that others either go with it, or they joke me up about my "spelling skills", or they pile on me. I honestly like to improve my style. To thatr end I got a really big keyboard so that my dead hand can more esily strike the keys and leave me with some proper spelling.

YOU, on the other hand are oblivious that your English really SUCKS. Fix it up. You dont make sense to me half the time. When you do make sense , its in small chunks and phrases.

Im here for you.

+++++++
When I commented about your garbled phrases above, Im not sure I understand what youre saying clearly enough so I could even make a decent comment. Maybe its just me.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 12:34 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
throw weight
You mean thrust?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 12:48 pm
@farmerman,
So I go on Google and look up "Throw weight" and there is such a term.(I honestly never heard it beforer but I admit Im kind of a moron when it comes to ICBMs). So when I put that nonsense sounding phrase with the rest of his sentences which mix tenses, voices, numbers etc, I was out of reach.

BILL--sorry, usually, when I use my techy terms, I provide a glossary or at least an explanation. You didnt
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 01:29 pm
@farmerman,
Sorry Farmerman the statements where clear and you are therefore playing games instead of addressing the issues and I find that both annoying and amusing at the same time.

An yes, I am very aware of your shortcoming Mr. Farmerman in postings but as those shortcoming had no effects on my understandings of your postings I tend not to care or bring those shortcomings to light.

Personal attacks that are very poorly hidden do not reflected at all well on you or anyone else that use that tools to try to discredit posters.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 01:30 pm
@farmerman,
throw weight
You mean thrust?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:00 pm
@farmerman,
Lord something went wrong and a large post went bye-bye with nothing let but the very beginning of my reply.

However Farmman throw weight were a very common term employed in the 1950s to 1960s concerning the payload mass/weight an ICBM could placed on target.

The problem that both the US and the USSR ran into when creating the first generation or two of ICBMs were that nuclear warheads at the time was heavy and the technology of the early ICBM rockets did not allow large payloads.

The US deal with the problem by reducing the mass/weight of the nuclear warheads for ICBMs and the USSR build large very large ICBM rockets instead.

One of the reasons that the USSR got ahead of us in the early part of the space race is their must larger military rockets and that they were more willing to re-task those rockets for their space program.

Quote:

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

May, 1982,[2] and presented by President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[3] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:04 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
BILL--sorry, usually, when I use my techy terms, I provide a glossary or at least an explanation. You didnt


I am 64 years old and the term throw weight was in very common usages in the newspapers and such in the 1950s to the 1960s so I did not consider it a techy term for anyone who is roughly of similar age.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:23 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

While I do believe the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies that say NK doesnt have the capability to hit the US, I do wonder about other places.
Guam, Hawaii...

...would the govt consider an attack on any of those islands an attack on the US itself?


I think they would, in the case of Hawaii at least. Wink

But seriously, given how we've told the Japanese they can't have their own nuclear deterrent, I think we have a moral obligation to go bat **** -- to react as though we ourselves had been hit -- even if North Korea attacks certain areas that aren't U.S. territories.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:31 pm
@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oy. Instead of trying to learn to write more understandably, he argues that Im the fathead who cant understand his gibberish.


LOL that's your problem. you keep forgetting to begin a sentence with LOL
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 02:33 pm
@Kolyo,
I think you're right about having saddled ourselves with that moral obligation.

Noone can doubt the ability of Japan, or Germany for that matter, to develope any kind of weapons they desire.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 03:40:45