# North Korean Missile Launch



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2006)

The North Koreans are on the verge of test firing a missile capable of striking into the heart of the US or Canada.The US has placed its ABM defenses from test mode to active.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/recent_stories.asp?category=missile1


----------



## Genetk44 (21 Jun 2006)

My understanding is that this missle might be able to reach Alaska....bad enough...... and that a second generation of it might be able to reach the west coast...which is even worse.......but "into the heart of America and Canada"???


----------



## chaos75 (21 Jun 2006)

Oh no, not North Korea......although what a way to sell a ballistic missile defence system that doesnt work, is overbudget and has very few customers, than to rile up the only country in the world, with even the smallest chance of launching a nuclear missile at North America, even though they have no proven intention to do so.  Funny how the US is so quick to blast any country that wants missile or nuclear technology, unless they currently are their friends or have something they want/need, while they themselves have recently started a program to replace its ageing nuclear missiles with a new advanced version, that while on paper will reduce actual missile numbers, will still have the same amount of destructive power they currently do.  Not to mention the US development work on tactical nukes, moab's and the like.  I have always admired the we can have it but you cant attitude, but in the end if you have the biggest stick on the block, who is going to tell you what to do.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Jun 2006)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> in the end if you have the biggest stick on the block, who is going to tell you what to do.



That would be the long and the short of it.


----------



## Adrian_888 (21 Jun 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The North Koreans are on the verge of test firing a missile capable of striking into the heart of the US or Canada.



Theres also a danger of walking outside and being killed by a car anywere in the world, but were no paranoid about that are we?

I really don't think the Koreans would be dumb enough to launch a couple nukes at north America.  They would be completely destroyed by the US.


----------



## Franko (21 Jun 2006)

Ummm...sorry but the Taepodong 2 missle is only able to get as far as the west coast.....barely at that.

I know...I'm picking pepper out of fly crap.

Regards


----------



## medicineman (21 Jun 2006)

It's all because Kim Jong Il is "so roneree, so roneree" and nobody's paying attention to him again.

MM


----------



## englishmuffin (21 Jun 2006)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Oh no, not North Korea......although what a way to sell a ballistic missile defence system that doesnt work, is overbudget and has very few customers, than to rile up the only country in the world, with even the smallest chance of launching a nuclear missile at North America, even though they have no proven intention to do so.  Funny how the US is so quick to blast any country that wants missile or nuclear technology, unless they currently are their friends or have something they want/need, while they themselves have recently started a program to replace its ageing nuclear missiles with a new advanced version, that while on paper will reduce actual missile numbers, will still have the same amount of destructive power they currently do.  Not to mention the US development work on tactical nukes, moab's and the like.  I have always admired the we can have it but you cant attitude, but in the end if you have the biggest stick on the block, who is going to tell you what to do.


Point taken about the U.S being hypocritical about who has "the bomb" but they should regulate who gets it. Letting the worst human rights abusers around have access to nukes seriously isnt smart.


----------



## Adrian_888 (21 Jun 2006)

englishmuffin said:
			
		

> Point taken about the U.S being hypocritical about who has "the bomb" but they should regulate who gets it. Letting the worst human rights abusers around have access to nukes seriously isn't smart.



Every one should give there nukes to Canada because we would never actually use them.  Eather that or have them all controlled by the UN.  The US is a way bigger dangour then any country.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jun 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> *Every one* should give *there* nukes to Canada because we would never actually use them.  *Eather* that or have them all controlled by the UN.  The US is a way bigger *dangour* then any country.


1 - Everyone

2 - Their

3 -  Either

4 - Danger

The UN controlling all nukes...think about that real hard !!


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jun 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Every one should give there nukes to Canada because we would never actually use them.



Unless we target IPs that consistently transmit dumb ideas.



			
				Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Eather that or have them all controlled by the UN.



Nice theory, do all the nations get turns commanding that force?



			
				Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> The US is a way bigger dangour then any country.



Please, don't keep us in suspense, let us hear your entire thesis on this premise.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jun 2006)

Yup, the same guys who gave us "Oil for Food" in Iraq and "Sex for Food" in the Congo are exactly the sort of people we want owning or regulating nuclear weapons.  :

Nanaimo, BC sounds like a deserving place to deliver a 30Kt device, to cauterize the silliness before it spreads too far.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2006)

I think this is just sabre rattling a la Duchy of Grand Fenwick. NK wants something and this is their blackmail card.


----------



## Adrian_888 (21 Jun 2006)

about the spelling mistakes, I must have chosen the wrong corections in the spellcheck  :-\

And that Canada and UN things was more a joke, although dont you agree that the US is way to radical to have nukes.  Nukes should be used only against a country who has already hit you with a nuke.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jun 2006)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> about the spelling mistakes, I must have chosen the wrong corections in the spellcheck  :-\



Yeah right...nice try though



> although dont you agree that the US is way to radical to have nukes.  .



Still waiting for your theory as to why the US is too radical..........



> Nukes should be used only against a country who has already hit you with a nuke



Read that again. If the only way a country can use nuclear weapons is to have been hit by nuclear weapons from another country first, then no country should be using nuclear weapons......at all.  Would you have waited until Japan dropped a nuke on the US before dropping one on them ?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2006)

The USN has a large task force off the coast of North Korea.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

I love the little graphic of the explosion... 

aren't we being a little hopeful? ^^)


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2006)

You never know until you try......


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jun 2006)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html

Former SecDef William Perry seem's to be calling for a strike against NK's missile while still on the ground. Frankly a dumb idea. NK does have a right to have missiles. But once it is launched then we need to take it out to make an object lesson to NK and Iran.


----------



## couchcommander (22 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You never know until you try......



Indeed. It would almost be a good thing for the US to try and intercept the missle if it's launched - in terms of testing and validating their systems and doctrine. It's not everyday your enemy agrees to shoot off a test warhead.


----------



## Adrian_888 (22 Jun 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Still waiting for your theory as to why the US is too radical..........



Are you serious or just being sarcastic?  Cause I got tons of theories.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (22 Jun 2006)

Then how about posting your theories!

I would like to hear them! :


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jun 2006)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/06/23/navy.ustest/index.html

USN has had another successful intercerpt of a target off Hawaii. The test had been sceduled for months and was not in any way connected to the NK missile launch crisis. ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

T6 I hope the system and the reporting are better then the Patriot missle fiasco from Iraq 1.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jun 2006)

The software and tracking capability has improved considerably in the past 10 years.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

I would assume as much.


----------

