North Korea just launched an ICBM - CONFIRMED.

a reply to: 3daysgone

It doesn't take ego.
It takes strategery...lol

a reply to: TrueBrit


Are you saying that its path, trajectory ect are figured to hide the true ability? As a tactical consideration.

a reply to: Logarock

No, I am saying that people saying "its accurate" or, "It could hit Alaska", are talking out of their arses.

Thats all.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dont think Trump will do anything but he has some warmongering crazies on his side like Nikki Haley that could easily start ww3

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: xstealth

With respect, it is impossible to state whether they are accurate, unless they are being tested at their maximum range. That is the only way to know whether they achieve the necessary loft, at the necessary speed, and can be guided properly from the ground, throughout the whole transit period. Firing them into the sea is not going to get you that information. Also, this thing could barely have hit Guam, leave alone Alaska.

That's not true, with travel time, apogee, distance they can calculate the max range using standard warhead weight of 500kg.

Max range calculates to 7,000km putting all of Alaska within range.

a reply to: xstealth

Max range doesn't have anything to do with accuracy. You can have a missile with a 7000 km range, but it night have a CEP of 10 km. That's not accurate by any means. Accuracy can't be determined by them launching a missile into the Sea of Japan.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

They are reporting that to actually arm a missile will take another 18 to 24 months.
I think we have time to act before they nuke anyone.

Still, I'm going to plan my last vacation in life for THIS year.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: xstealth

Max range doesn't have anything to do with accuracy. You can have a missile with a 7000 km range, but it night have a CEP of 10 km. That's not accurate by any means. Accuracy can't be determined by them launching a missile into the Sea of Japan.

True enough, Zaph.

But when the hysteria is focused on the mere ability to lob a nuke farther than the confines of the Korean Peninsula, nobody really cares how accurate it really is.

Maybe they should, but they won't.

All the vast majority of the public will hear is "ICBM(very bad), "NUKE (Horror)", and "North Korea (dangerous, unpredictable, madman)"

DOOOOOM!!!!!

Thats not the point I made.

I said, that unless they physically test the objects with a maximum range test, they cannot possibly state that the system is "accurate". They can establish what its estimated maximum range is, but they cannot remotely suggest that the system will, with any degree of certainty, land at its destination, rather than suffer a malfunction of some sort before reaching a target at the maximum effective range. There is actually quite a bit that can go wrong with such a device, at any time throughout the period between launch and target. The more time in the air, the more time there is to fail.

And the maximum range calculation you gave... based on precisely what? Because unless you had access to their telemetry, and specific information about the object they launched, I fail to see what information you were going on?

Will this thread be the beginning of world war III?

Will this venue provide the theatre?

Stay tuned for further developments

RIGHT HERE ON ATS!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Based on the trajectory you can get a ballpark of the range. That's what they were able to do with a recent IRBM test. They fired it more vertical than horizontal, so they flattened the trajectory out into a ballistic track and got a rough range calculation. It wouldn't be as accurate as a full range test, but it gives a pretty good ballpark range.

originally posted by: rickymouse
So where did this missile actually go anyway, anyone heard where it landed yet?

They usually fall somewhere near Japan.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah, the voice of reason.
Glad you popped your head in

This might be one of the converted rat rockets from the Soviet Union ICBM program.
Cheapest way to get a private 3600 kg payload into LEO.

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket)

Since the launch was successful, I'm assuming the payload orbit could be found somewhere.
Are the military orbits still classified?

See if anybody can post it.

originally posted by: xstealth

a reply to: xstealth

Max range calculates to 7,000km putting all of Alaska within range.

Well, this is not good.



They are testing in my general direction (highlighted blue part of the map below represents 7,000km).



That dot in Alaska is approximately where I'm sitting typing this and considering the military bases here, I'd imagine we are on NK's target list. That kind of puts a different perspective on things.

Hopefully Kim will be too busy looking at stuff and not get bored enough to push the button just to see what will happen.



ETA: He needs a new tailor.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Japan has a lot more to worry about than you do up there. Demonstrating range is one thing, accuracy another. I won't say they're no threat, but they're still a way from being a significant threat beyond their neighbors.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Good point there is more water your way.
Typical scrub mission distances are quite long.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blaine91555

Japan has a lot more to worry about than you do up there. Demonstrating range is one thing, accuracy another. I won't say they're no threat, but they're still a way from being a significant threat beyond their neighbors.

I get that accuracy is a big deal..But even if they have the ability to strike a continent like north America, or a country like Japan, Isn't that a bigger deal?

I don't think Kimmy is trying to show off his accuracy skills at this point.. Just my opinion tho.

a reply to: Wookiep

I imagine the polar orbit pool is getting saturated last one I could find from Asia was an "East Wind".

a reply to: Wookiep

Yes and no. It's a much bigger deal for Japan, but it's still not something to ignore for the US. Right now we have nothing but unconfirmed reports that they have miniaturized a nuclear warhead to the point a missile could reach full range and hit Alaska.

So without a nuclear warhead, they're limited to a conventional warhead. The bigger the warhead, the more it reduces range, so you're talking about a fairly small warhead to reach the US, which is why I say accuracy is so important.