Alaska Governor 'concerned' about missile hitting state
politico.com/story/2017/08/08/alaska-north-ko...
politico.comPosted Aug 9, 2017, 5:28 AM UTC
4031
politico.comUnlikely. This is all fear mongering. North Korea can't do shit.
10
I'm pretty sure it is as well. But I always have a little "what if" in my head.
4
You say fear mongering, I say war mongering. I think the Gop wants war to seize control
11
I have the same "what if" too. I also ask, "What if the US has had a way to shoot down nuclear warheads for years?" We do have the highest military spending after all.
5
They could probally shoot down a number... but if more than that number launched at once...
2
The warhead doesn't matter when you are shooting it down, only the missile carrying it. We can shoot a single missile down about 50% of the time if we have control of the test conditions.
Missile defense is impossible. NK is mind-blowingly poor, so if they only have a couple missiles we have a fighting chance at shooting them down, but once they have a small arsenal we will be powerless to defend ourselves except via the threat of assured destruction in the aftermath.
2
Missile defense is impossible.
Ehhhhh. I understand that the mentality has been "hitting a bullet with another bullet" for a while now. But unless missiles start developing the ability to randomize their lateral trajectories in order to avoid a missile-killer (hello, other side of the equation), I'd say our computational ability has gotten to the point that we can at least semi-reliably defend ourselves from a full-throated North Korean ICBM attack. ICBM tech really hasn't evolved since the 50s (launch it at an angle that the payload gets to its destination is pretty much it, no defense capabilities are studied), whereas missile defense capabilities have had to evolve and the progress in computation greatly aids such efforts.
I say this with absolutely no knowledge of the situation though. Possible capability doesn't equal actual capability. I do lean a little on my experience as a comp sci scientist and I can say we are doing things now that when I started I didn't think would be easy to do.
1
Iron Dome in Israel has a 90% success rate on short range missiles and is almost seven year old. It's likely that longer range missiles could have similar success rates, even considering the recent US missile test which likely underplayed capabilities.
1
You would think they would have.
1
Agreed. With laser cannons that can shoot down drones and the ability to give Israel the Iron Dome to shoot down missiles I can't help but wonder what classified tech the US Military has up its sleeve.
2
What happens to a nuclear warhead when the missle carrying it blows up? The best option is preventing that missle from launching. This sabre rattling by Trump is reckless.
1
Don't get cocky. North Korea has been preparing for war since the day after the cease fire in the Korean War was signed. They learned a lot about missiles and weaponry from the Soviet Union and China. They have an enormous submarine fleet. They have ICBMs and might have miniaturized nuclear warheads by now, although that is not 100% proven yet. Their leader is insane and the ideology of their state is insane. They see weakness in the current United States. We can't afford to brush them off as an empty threat yet again. That doesn't mean going straight to war either.
3
Not to Alaska, probably. But they do have nuclear weapons, and it's hard to miss a neighboring country.
2
NK's Hwasong 14 missile launch from July 4th was more impressive than the one claimed to be able to hit Alaska.
It reached 7 times higher than the International Space Station's altitude, the next launch reached 14 times higher. Supposed 10,000 km range.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/hwasong-14/
https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/620/to-be-real?act=1#act-1
1
They could, and especially to Seoul. But the Q is - why would they? Unless someone tried to topple the regime, the regime has to realize that war with SK/Japan/US would mean the end of the DPRK and/or the regime. The regime lives a very comfortable life. I doubt they want to risk that. The nukes and the Mexican standoff with Seoul are only there to ensure no one tries regime change.
The question everyone is asking has to be: is the DPRK a suicide cult? Do they really believe themselves when then say they will reduce the US to ashes? Obviously the higher leadership and generals realize they can only inflict a wound on the US before being destroyed, while the broad population probably overestimates their ability. But the population doesn't have the launch button.
So no, luckily I don't think NK will launch any missiles signing their own fate. The only remaining question is then: will the US accept a truly nuclear DPRK? And if not, what will the US do?
The options are grim. Either accept a nuclear DPRK or accept mass casualties in SK. The best option is hopefully still on the table and that is halting the nuclear program in its current state with kiloton weapons through sanctions/diplomacy. The current weapons are scary enough to be a deterrent protecting the regime, but without a large number of megaton bombs at least we won't see the destruction of civilization in the event things go bad.
1
[removed]
8
3
I'm more worried about Western WA (mostly because I live here). One of the largest nuclear weapon reserves in the world in bremerton, major population center, and JBLM. I think one of their ICBMs can currently reach the west coast.
2
Just wait until Putin rears his head!
3
["Not that state!!!!"] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z16B443bCQ)
1
[removed]
3
[removed]
2
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Downvotes in the comments section may be disabled. Please see our post and FAQ about current research regarding the effect downvotes have on user civility if you have any questions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
I don't think Alaska has a high enough population density for it to be worth Kim blowing his wad over.
1
People hand-waving away concerns should take into consideration that the threat of nuclear annihilation is still kinda fresh on the minds of some residents.
I remember having to perform duck and cover drills in the 80s while attending kindergarten in Anchorage.
80's Missouri was still doing it.
Fair enough. I don't know about Missouri, but AK is a high profile target. There's a very high military presence and installations everywhere. The cold war was damn scary, and a lot of people have forgotten why. Nuclear annihilation is not your average war. :/
I remember doing those drills in school in the early 80's just as I remember my father sitting us down to watch the movie Threads. However, I can not equate the 80's to the Cuban missile crisis or the here and now.