N. Korean ICBMs fake

#1
Interesting read :)

On April 15, 2012, North Korea presented six road-mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) at a parade in Pyongyang. At first glance, the missile seems capable of covering a range of perhaps 10,000 km. However, a closer look reveals that all of the presented missiles are mock-ups. Therefore, the situation has not changed: There is still no evidence that North Korea actually has a functional ICBM.
"The Dog And Pony Show: North Korea's New ICBM," Schiller, Markus & Schmucker, Robert H. (attached)
 

Attachments

#4
An extremely paranoid outfit like that wouldn't take the risk of the south blitzing the parade ground and eliminating their ace card in a coup de main.

Just because they don't display 'em don't mean they ain't got 'em.

If it's been sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk then I'm probably pissed.
 
#6
I wouldn't like to be the one to break the "good news" to Ronery Jr that you've been pulling the wool over his and his father's eyes for the last (insert years here).
 
#7
That's very true. But surely if you had them you'd mount the empty shell, than go through all the efforts of manufacturing shite mock-ups?
Never underestimate the power of administrative dysfunction. They may think even showing off a deac or replica gives away too much about maximum range, payload, deployability, etc.

Hell, they may even think they're pulling some clever double-bluff.

If it's been sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk then I'm probably pissed.
 
#8
Never underestimate the power of administrative dysfunction. They may think even showing off a deac or replica gives away too much about maximum range, payload, deployability, etc.

Hell, they may even think they're pulling some clever double-bluff.

If it's been sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk then I'm probably pissed.
What's the point of nuclear deterrence if the other side think your ICBMs are made of tin foil?
 
#9
What's the point of nuclear deterrence if the other side think your ICBMs are made of tin foil?
There are lots of other ways of delivering nuclear weapons than this one type of missile. Keeping someone guessing about how badly you can hurt them is a good way of stopping them coming up with a win-win scenario.
 
#10
There are lots of other ways of delivering nuclear weapons than this one type of missile. Keeping someone guessing about how badly you can hurt them is a good way of stopping them coming up with a win-win scenario.
Stop making sense!
 
#12
I wonder if Mr. Kim sees what happened in Libya and Syria. Both countries have/had odious leaders. Libya ostensibly disarmed its WMDs while Syria still has chemical/biological weapons. NATO was very active in regime change in Libya while less so in Syria.

Thus he may calculate that NATO is more inclined to conduct regime change in countries where the leadership does not possess WMDs, and that WMDs are a means of insuring his legacy. Hence his push to demonstrate WMD capability.
 
#14
Well, on the other hand there exists an active Russian naval base in Syria. There was none in Libya. Next, Ghaddafi, through his crazyness, put off most fellow Arab leaders. Assad on the other hand doesn´t act crazy, but just totally ruthless.
 
#15
Were those the ones where the vehicle was bouncing high on its suspension, rather than weighed down as they should be?
Their Soviet uncle taught them well. IIRC at least one Arrser here was tasked with taking photos of the Soviet missile launchers during the Moscow May Day parades....
 
#16
Of course they're bluffing, the only way to guarantee not to get invaded is to have them, that's why Iraq was****ed over.
 

Andy_S

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Bluff, yes - they can't reach the US yet. However, they have successfully tested ICBM and re-entry technology.

Meanwhile, they already have SSMs that can reach anywhere in South Korea or Japan. And as noted above, you don't necessarily need missiles to develop a nuke payload.

I'll take the liberty (ahem!) of posting one of my own rants on this issue:
Nork nukes don't need missiles

South Korean academics who have met their Nork counterparts tell me that the Norks saw what happened to Libya after they gave away their big deterrent, and so now want to follow the "Pakistani Model" - ie become a de facto nuke state that the US has no choice but to deal with.

In short:
The Norks have nukes.
They will never give them up.
They don't need missiles to reach their primary targets.
They will continue working on ICBMs and every test they do gives them data that brings them closer to their goal.

So there.
 
#18
Bluff, yes - they can't reach the US yet. However, they have successfully tested ICBM and re-entry technology.

Meanwhile, they already have SSMs that can reach anywhere in South Korea or Japan. And as noted above, you don't necessarily need missiles to develop a nuke payload.

I'll take the liberty (ahem!) of posting one of my own rants on this issue:
Nork nukes don't need missiles

South Korean academics who have met their Nork counterparts tell me that the Norks saw what happened to Libya after they gave away their big deterrent, and so now want to follow the "Pakistani Model" - ie become a de facto nuke state that the US has no choice but to deal with.

In short:
The Norks have nukes.
They will never give them up.
They don't need missiles to reach their primary targets.
They will continue working on ICBMs and every test they do gives them data that brings them closer to their goal.

So there.
All very logical but makes you wish the North Korean leadership would put growing potatoes at a higher priority than building ICBMs first.

If we wanted to cause North Korea to implode or possibly undergo revolution the cheapest way to do it is to stop food aid to them entirely.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
All very logical but makes you wish the North Korean leadership would put growing potatoes at a higher priority than building ICBMs first.

If we wanted to cause North Korea to implode or possibly undergo revolution the cheapest way to do it is to stop food aid to them entirely.
Except the danger is that the North Koreans decide to go out with a bang, not a whimper. It's why food aid is allowed in - the South and the Yanks are afraid that Kim will launch an attack across the border rather than surrender.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top