North Korea launches long-range rocket

[gary]

CNN -
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/north-korea-rocket-launch-window/

BBC -
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35515207

[alpal]

Wow - did you see the map? -

they can reach Australia.

[el_draco]

Lets paint a bull's eye on Parliament house and dare them to hit it.... ;)

[alpal]

Meanwhile - we have no missile defense & no nuclear deterrent

except the "nuclear umbrella" from the Yanks.

[deanm]

If can get to (& from) orbit,,rather than just going ballistic, they can hit pretty much anywhere.

We already know they can achieve orbit (they did that last time). What they don't have is a re-entry system i.e. heat shield + guidance control.

It's also unlikely that they have adequately miniaturised a warhead....yet.

Dean

[csb]

I think the missile threat is too low and the defensive costs (& logistics) too high to warrant a missile defense system.

Who in Australia really wants our own nuclear deterrence? Not many, I would think. Also the issues would be the same as for missile defense.

[alpal]

Maybe you're right & North Korea can be fairly certain that if
Melbourne or Sydney were nuked by North Korea that
their whole country would resemble glowing glass about 1 hour later thanks to the USA.

[pluto]

No-one does!

As far as I know the only anti ballistic missile defense system to ever be functional was the one around Moscow near the end of the cold war. Even the US never had anything that could successfully stop incoming Soviet nukes, especially those riding on MIRVs.
These days the technology is focused on stopping the rocket on its way up, like that crazy giant laser in the back of a 747 that the US have tested, but I don't think any of it's operational, or even practical, yet.
Even today, if - completely hypothetically - someone launched a few ballistic missiles from Russia towards the US there's really not much anyone can do about it.
I suppose stopping a single Nork rocket would be significantly easier but, as has already been mentioned, they don't have all the technologies they need to deliver a bomb via a rocket, yet.

No matter how brainwashed they are, surely those at the top in North Korea know that using a nuclear device as a weapon against anyone would mean the end of their country as they know it.

[deanm]

"No matter how brainwashed they are, surely those at the top in North Korea know that using a nuclear device as a weapon against anyone would mean the end of their country as they know it."

Crazy, irrational people do....crazy, irrational things.

Dean

[alpal]

I think North Korea just wants a sting in the their tail if ever they are attacked.

[deanm]

In spite of all of their vitriolic sabre-rattling, I don't think NK is much of a direct threat.

The trouble is that they are prepared to share their missile & nuclear weapon technology with other slightly-less basket-case countries (Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Libya, Syria & Yemen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_des truction#Export_partners

But when we are talking about the likes of ISIS/ISIL/IS (or whatever they are called this week), even Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram etc, these groups don't really have a 'country' to protect, just a crazed ideology they want to impose on the whole world.

If any of that mob get their hands on a nuke (even if only an inferior, low-yield NK one), the world will get a shock much greater than we experienced on September 11, 2001.

Because if they detonate one, we cannot know if they have more or where the next 'Bucket of Sunshine' will go off.

And they know it.

The ultimate in Global terrorism.

I'm glad I'm not a parent...

Dean

Dean

[pdalek]

Direct attack against cities is not the main risk.

The detonation of a medium yield device at >100km altitude is not automatically regarded as an attack. Also a "malfunction" could be claimed. The location of N Korea makes direct retaliation problematic.
The damage to unprepared infrastucture, e.g. in Japan, would be $Ts for a launch cost of $100M - damage/cost ratio of 10000.
Additionally, major damage to satellites or disruption of operation would occur over a much wider area. The likely cost is probably similar to that for the general target area.
A high altitude detonation would hurt many countries financially but there is little they can do individually to deter such action.

For a very modest cost, N Korea forces itself into the superpower league, a minor player but one who cannot be ignored.

[blink138]

that's comforting!
pat

[deanm]

Patrick - yours is a very good point: they can cause strife without a re--entry system.

Dean

[blindman]

In that case - no increase in GST, right?

[alpal]

It's called the nuclear umbrella & means
we don't need to have our own nuclear deterrent.

That saves us a lot of money.

[drylander]

We don't need to worry there are still councils with the 'Nuclear Free Zone' signs that will save us :rofl:but unfortunately they have them facing the traffic not the sky.:eyepop:
Pete