N. Korean ICBMs fake

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by IndependentBoffin, Apr 27, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting read :)

    "The Dog And Pony Show: North Korea's New ICBM," Schiller, Markus & Schmucker, Robert H. (attached)

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  2. An interesting read.

    The bluffing *****.
  3. Were those the ones where the vehicle was bouncing high on its suspension, rather than weighed down as they should be?
  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.
  5. 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?
  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. 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. What's the point of nuclear deterrence if the other side think your ICBMs are made of tin foil?
  9. 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. Stop making sense!
  11. You cant help but admire them playing poker with nuclear weapons, pity it isnt Russian Roulette.
  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.
  13. Weapons of Minor Destruction
  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. 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....