×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Are Some of North Korea's Long-Range Missiles Fakes?

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the it's-a-faaaaaake! dept.

The Military 322

gbrumfiel writes "North Korea has not been shy in announcing plans to destroy the United States, but questions remain over whether it has the nukes or the missiles to do so. Now NPR reports on open-source intelligence showing that one of the North's most 'advanced' weapons might actually be a decoy. Six KN-08 missiles were paraded last year, but each showed differences in the way they were assembled. Is it all a bluff? Or are the missiles part of a real program?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

322 comments

Let's nuke them to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663801)

Problem solved!

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663957)

From orbit, I presume?

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664073)

From orbit, I presume?

Sharks are standing by, waiting for your call.

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43663975)

Problem solved!

So just to be clear. Them threatening to nuke us, bad. Us nuking them just to be sure, good. OK?

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43664009)

Yes. Because we would use neutron bombs that simply kill everyone and the fallout dissipates rapidly so we don't get any after effects. and if we air burst them all no nuclear winter.

It's a WIN-WIN!

Well except for some of china, south korea, and japan.... sorry guys....

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664293)

I know this may not be popular but when someone threatens you and you strike out at them it's a whole different ball game then if you just strike out at someone or threaten them just to make yourself look tough. This is like the question of the death penalty. Some try to make it seem hypocritical that you kill someone to show that killing someone is wrong. No, you're killing someone for killing someone else without justification. It's not like you're taking some random guy off the street and throwing him in front of a firing squad. It's a simple cause and effect situation.

I don't think the North Koreans are going to do things either way and certainly wouldn't think the use of arms against them is warranted at this time but they are trying to raise the ire of just about everyone around them.

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664497)

Well my argument against the death penalty is that there is a chance that you could be wrong and the person didn't actually do the crime + you're only as bad as the person committing the crime if you react in the same way they have acted.

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664335)

North Korea barely has electricity, they certainly aren't a threat. A small group of rednecks with shotguns could probably take on their entire military.

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (1)

Rlindstr (2866673) | about a year ago | (#43664447)

North Korea barely has electricity, they certainly aren't a threat. A small group of rednecks with shotguns could probably take on their entire military.

I'm unsure how many rednecks would be a 'small group'. Could you translate that into how many 'pickup trucks filled with rednecks' that would be? Thanks!

Re:Let's nuke them to be sure (0, Troll)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43664493)

They have a well-trained modern military with over 1.2 million well-armed soldiers massed along the border (using pretty modern Chinese armour, vehicles, and weapons). On the other side, you have some 600,000 shitty South Korean soldiers who would probably drop their guns and run at the first sign of attack and about 30,000 U.S. soldiers who would probably be quickly evacuated out in the event of war. At best South Korea might be able to stall a Northern attack long enough to bring in some air support from the U.S. and MAYBE hold Seoul. But even that is unlikely.

Make no mistake about it, the North is a very real threat to South Korea. And don't think for a second that 30,000 U.S. soldiers in the DMZ are even going to try to fight 1.1 million North Koreans. When I was stationed there, they basically told us that we were toast is the North ever decided to attack. And that was back in the 80's, when we had even more soldiers there than we do now.

Duh (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43663811)

Obviously the ones they parade are just shells. Do you think the US/USSR paraded armed nuclear missiles down the streets back in the day?

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663987)

I am shocked, well not that shocked.

Re:Duh (4, Informative)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43664031)

The thing is, it isn't just the shells. There are major differences between what was paraded around, like the length of stage assemblies, and where fuel valves are.

They could be iterative design mockups for producing the real thing, or it could be a massive display of horseshit for propaganda.

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43664067)

They could be iterative design mockups for producing the real thing, or it could be a massive display of horseshit for propaganda.

Or... what's more likely... both.

Re:Duh (4, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43664401)

What do we do with prototype units in the US?

We clean them up, paint them, and turn them into static displays for putting outside of VFWs.

Of course the missiles used in a parade are going to vary, it is a huge waste (and security risk) to have your actual assets all placed in one location and out in the open. This isn't surprising at all.

Re:Duh (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year ago | (#43664041)

No doubt an analysis of the tires in the pictures would show that each "rocket" weighs 200-300 kg....

Re:Duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664143)

No doubt an analysis of the tires in the pictures would show that each "rocket" weighs 200-300 kg....

Wat? Wat? Are you say my missiles are fat? That's it, now you on my list too. I am writing you name on a missile right now myself.

Re:Duh (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#43664311)

I'd say that if these were the real things, they are training rounds - versions of the weapon designed to be of the right weight, size and bulk of the original, but have nothing at all to do with actually being able to be used as a real weapon.

Every military has them for every weapon they have in their stock - there are training rounds for nuclear warheads, cruise missiles and even Trident ICBMs.

The crews have to be taught how to handle the weapons, and you do not do that on a live round.

Not fake at all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663819)

In related news, NK news outlets are also playing this footage [youtube.com] and claiming Mark Whalberg's face was photoshopped on to Kim Jong Un's body.

Some analysts say... (5, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43663833)

I just read those two lines under that nice picture.

Some analysts say the half-dozen missiles showcased at the military parade were fakes.

So the ones they showed in a parade are fakes. Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade? I mean, you have maybe only two of them working, maybe only one, or maybe even six in good condition. Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off? Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks. (How unlikely this might be to us, they have a different perspective.) The decoys might be empty ones that will be used later. That each of them has differences only shows that they are working on them.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

empties (2827183) | about a year ago | (#43663919)

And some might suggest that parade day would be a good time to invade, but wooden warheads can give you a nasty splinter.

Re:Some analysts say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664413)

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Re:Some analysts say... (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43663943)

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?

"We have matched your capabilities with papier mache and toilet roll tubes. Resistance is futile."

Re:Some analysts say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663965)

Your comment is best comment, Patton-san.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43664161)

This sort of thing is faked all the time, in the western world as well as North Korea. People like ceremonies. North Korea obviously either just wanted to impress the locals or thought they were better fakes than they are.

Re:Some analysts say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664163)

The point of the propaganda parade isn't to fool an educated external audience. They only have to be sufficiently missile-like for an average North Korean to fall for it. Realistically North Korea's greatest threat isn't going to come from US or South Korean invasion, but internal instability. If you were told there was nothing to eat because the government spent all of it's money on the military, I think you'd at least want some shiny, space-agey technology to show for it.

Re:Some analysts say... (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#43664203)

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?

You ignore the target of the message. They were not trying to show the US that they had missiles, they were trying to show their own population that they had missiles.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664339)

Precisely my point. As far as we know - and I'm inclined to believe - they don't actually have working missiles yet. They have a PR exercise.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43664433)

The whole point of the parade was to demonstrate that they had the weapons, though. Why hold the parade just to show off obvious fakes?

How combat ready do you think the aircraft (or missiles) at Wright Patterson AFB museum are?

Even the Blue Angels aircraft are modified and couldn't be used in combat right away (without modest retrofit ~72 hours).

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664467)

Yes, but some of us have seen actual USAF fighters in flightworthy condition, which is more than can be said of North Korea's armaments.

Re:Some analysts say... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43664101)

Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade?

You've gotta be pretty dumb, because the point of parading them is to show off that you have them, not that you can build models.

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?

If you can't manage to hold a parade without breaking a rocket, what's the chances you'll be able to launch it without breaking it?

Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks.

Showing fakes in a parade means they don't have real ones.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43664343)

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?

If you can't manage to hold a parade without breaking a rocket, what's the chances you'll be able to launch it without breaking it?

When he said "Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?", he meant "Why take the risk that an attack happens while showing them off, and you can't use the missiles because they're stuck on a parade float in safe mode instead of being in a lauch-ready status?", not "What if they break?".

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43664113)

So the ones they showed in a parade are fakes. Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade?
...
Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks.

Maybe they were just en-route to another facility. They needed the police / military presence to secure the route anyway, and decided, hell, let's make a day of it and have a parade too.

I could be completely wrong; However, I find your lack of doubt in your own unproven hypotheses disturbing. There's a pretty easy way to find out if the missiles are real. Just ask our intel agents on the inside. Or, you know, read their computer logs we've probably got. There's no way of us knowing for sure, but IMO: If the feds are spouting FUD about how much of a thread China's hackers are, and pretty much ignoring NK, then I'm not too worried about either eventuality.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43664175)

The thing is, if they actually had such missles, then fakes are easy. They just pull out some of the prototypes and show those off. The thing is, the prototypes and mockups would be expected to be largely similar to the real thing, and not so wildly different.

Not only that but, why worry so much about hiding the secrets of the technology when they are playing catch-up? Hide them from... who exactly?

They have to know that such weapons are, actually, useless to them as anything but parade toys, as much, if not more, to put on a good show for their own people, as they are to try and wrangle better negotiating position with the international community.

The only real reason they even have for a missle program is so that the intelligence reported back says they have one.

Re:Some analysts say... (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about a year ago | (#43664435)

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off? Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks. (How unlikely this might be to us, they have a different perspective.)

I hope they don't have a different perspective. If they do, we should pretty much nuke them ourselves right now---our tolerance for their rhetoric is couched in the belief that it really is just talk. If they were seriously convinced that they were on the verge of war, willing to use nukes against us or South Korea or Japan, and willing to take just about anything as provocation, we would not want to be following a policy of "let them get the first nuke fired off at us before we do anything."

Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off?

The reason for using the real specimens is precisely to avoid the kind of speculation we are engaged in right now. Their value as a deterrent (or blackmail) is directly proportional to our confidence in their functionality, deliverability, etc. Ever having to use them is a losing proposition--North Korea would become a sea of glass minutes after the fact. (That assurance of destruction would normally make their nukes useless as a conventional bargaining chip, which is why NK has to up the crazy factor so that we *aren't quite 100% sure* about their intent, and they can demand concessions.) Thus, the only purpose the nukes serve is as a bargaining chip. If seeing fake nukes reduces our belief in their feasibility by 5%, that represents a 5% loss on their investment in that bargaining chip. Not a good play. On the other hand, if they only have one serviceable missile, or otherwise would be embarassing themselves with an honest display, it would be well-worth trying to drum up their apparent tactical abilities.

Yes, decoy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663837)

The real McCoy is cyber warware.

Re:Yes, decoy (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43663955)

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn!

Re:Yes, decoy (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43664359)

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn!

So close!

He's a doctor, not an egomaniacal third world leader with nuclear weapons and a taste for freaky porn, Jim!

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Yes, decoy (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43664069)

"The real McCoy is cyber warware."

Indeed. We already knew, the US conquered all the computers of the North, both of them.

"Fakes" or Custom Builds? (1)

cmholm (69081) | about a year ago | (#43663853)

It wouldn't surprise me if much of what the DPRK has put on display are mockups. A bit of craftsmanship and just enough engineering to keep the suckers from visibly shaking and flexing during a parade is a lot cheaper than the real thing, and does 90% of what you need a missile to do.

On the other hand, it's possible that the newer stuff are all custom one-offs. SCUDs they probably have an assembly line for. I'm not sure if they've really had enough launches to wring the bugs out of anything higher performance, a point at which they can freeze a design and say this is the definitive [cobert]Type-O-Dong[/cobert], model X.

Re:"Fakes" or Custom Builds? (1)

Imrik (148191) | about a year ago | (#43663897)

On the other hand, it's possible that the newer stuff are all custom one-offs. SCUDs they probably have an assembly line for. I'm not sure if they've really had enough launches to wring the bugs out of anything higher performance, a point at which they can freeze a design and say this is the definitive [cobert]Type-O-Dong[/cobert], model X.

If the only problems were differences between the missiles I'd agree, but the missiles had other oddities in their construction even when looked at individually.

Re:"Fakes" or Custom Builds? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43663933)

Given that each one is a little different, my first guess would be that they're prototypes for testing different things. The US has certainly built enough non-functional or partially-functional prototypes over the years. And if you don't think we've paraded around prototypes for the masses, just go look at the space shuttle Enterprise - it never made it into space, but we still put it on display.

Re:"Fakes" or Custom Builds? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43663923)

If anything, I'd expect purpose-built mockups to exhibit greater uniformity than would mockups built from the discards of an actively iterating R&D project, or functional prototypes from a reasonably late stage of an R&D project...

Even substantially less expensive gear, with a much stronger incentive for mass production(small arms, light artillery, that sort of thing) handled by well reputed defense outfits with a century of experience tends to have enough 'Block A vs. Block B' and different revisions and licensed variants and things to keep military trivia enthusiasts arguing endlessly.

I'd imagine that very low quantity development hardware from the DPRK rocketry program has a certain number of 'file to fit' and 'option plate Z goes here if stage 1 pressure test is marginal' hand-scribbled annotations on the blueprints and assembly instructions.

Fake PARADE nukes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663861)

Just because they use fake nukes on parade doesn't mean they don't have real ones. Who would use real nukes in a parade?

Re:Fake PARADE nukes (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43663883)

A country without much money to make mock-ups, and real nukes.
Say a country that is isolated from the outside world with very few trading partners. Who tends of emphasize their military?
 

Does anyone know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663877)

if they bought a 3D printer? Just ONE of those fuckers in the wrong hands and it's death by plastic trinket for the entire species!

Does it matter if SOME are? (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43663899)

It only takes ONE to start a major war.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43663941)

There's no history to back that up. However, history would suggest that it only takes two to end a major war. So maybe N Korea is just preparing to end three wars.

The only reason you know the above isn't true is because it's more logical than what N Korea usually comes up with.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

Sollord (888521) | about a year ago | (#43663983)

So because we have no recorded history of someones using a nuke to start a war means we won't have a major war if just one is used?

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#43664271)

Of course not, you should get a refund from whomever your logic teacher was though.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43663961)

Well someone might lose a city, but NK would be no more. It'd be the shortest war ever.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43664027)

The current record for shortest war ever is the Anglo-Zanzibar war at 40 minutes. Even with nukes, it would be hard to beat that against any opponent larger than a city.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664217)

If you're suggesting that North Korea would be nuked in retaliation for a nuclear attack, I dare say that South Korea would object to that plan.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664347)

If you're suggesting that North Korea would be nuked in retaliation for a nuclear attack, I dare say that South Korea would object to that plan.

Unless South Korea was the target of the attack, then their attitude to a retaliatory strike might just be a tad different.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664499)

Even then I don't think the additional long-term damage from a further nuclear strike right next door would be worth it, compared to a conventional response.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43664049)

Nope.

They fricking crashed planes into our buildings and attacked the Pentagon and we did not go to war. WE called it war, but it was a half assed attempt. If it was a war we wound have carpet bombed every fricking city known to have talaban, and Pakastan right now would be shaking in their boots that we would come in and clean their house for them.

After 9/11 we could have NUKED something and the world would have not bat an eye, instead of acting like the lion, we acted like a scared bird.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43664155)

They fricking crashed planes into our buildings and attacked the Pentagon and we did not go to war. WE called it war, but it was a half assed attempt. If it was a war we wound have carpet bombed every fricking city known to have talaban, and Pakastan right now would be shaking in their boots that we would come in and clean their house for them.

After 9/11 we could have NUKED something and the world would have not bat an eye, instead of acting like the lion, we acted like a scared bird.

"They"?

I had no idea the "talaban" were behind 9/11.

That's why I come to Slashdot: to learn stuff about the world.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664179)

idiot.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664407)

The world would have done more than "bat an eye". The world was up in arms over your idiotic and nonsensical invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (neither of which had anything much to do with 11/9) and you can bet your donkey there would have been international uproar if the US had gone nuclear.

By the way, massacring thousands or millions of innocent, defenceless people (whether by nuclear or conventional weapons) is not "acting like a lion". It's "lashing out like a frightened, hysterical pussy". But then that's Americans for you: Afraid of everything. Afraid of terrorists, even though you're more likely to die accidentally in your bathtub than by terrorist action. Afraid of communists and socialists and paying taxes. Afraid of guns. Afraid of not having guns. Afraid or immigrants. Afraid of ethnic minorities and of ethnic majorities. Afraid of imaginary "death panels", afraid of sonic booms, afraid of killer bees, afraid of flouride in your drinking water, afraid of anything and everything your media and your political system can spin into fear. The reason for this is that sellers and politicians know that Americans have three comforts: Buying, eating and shooting. When Americans are afraid, they start buying, and they will buy anything or vote for anyone that promises them some comfort. But then they start shooting, and they will shoot anyone and anything if it will temporarily assuage their fear.

When Britain faced terrorism in the 1980s, with crazy people blowing up city centres on a regular basis, did we flip the fuck out and start murdering random people by the thousand on the other side of the world? Did we flush our civil rights down the toilet, set up a bunch of overfunded, unaccountable security theatre agencies and usher in a police state in the name of "security"? Did we give a small group of deluded murderers the credibility and reputation a massive, international James-Bond-Villain-conspiracy? No. We set the police onto the bastards and got on with our lives. THAT is "acting like a lion". At the very least, it's "acting like a grown up."

Anyone who is now depressed, here's an on-topic link to cheer you up: watch Dr House sum up the last few decades of American Foreign Policy through the medium of song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqCha93nBTU

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43664473)

Actually, the world pretty much unanimously condemned your country's response to 9-11. You would have been faced with trade sanctions and cancelled treaties if you'd actuall gone ahead and nuked something. You think your economy is in the dog-house now? Imagine it if you didn't have access to half your imports and exports.

Re:Does it matter if SOME are? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#43664485)

WE called it war, but blah blah blah bunch of 101st Fighting Keyboarder macho chest-thumping

Why don't you go up to some of my friends who came back from Iraq or Afghanistan missing pieces of themselves and tell them they weren't in a war. I dare you.

Probably not real (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43663935)

They probably just want to use a scare tactic, make the US think they have the firepower and wait till they back down out of fear. It's like a bully at school who threatens to beat you up every day after school but never actually does it, your scared until you figure out he's a bigger pussy then you are.

Re:Probably not real (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43663993)

But bullies usually at least look intimidating. This is more like the underweight nerdy kid in the slow reading group playing with his Power Rangers action figures saying that someday, the Power Rangers will beat up the jock. The nerdy kid might be able to give the jock a black eye if he throws the action figure, but then the jock will beat the living shit out of him. And break the nerdy kid's toys.

The bright side of North Korea (5, Funny)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#43663937)

Say what you will about North Korea, you still have to admit those guys sure know how to put on a parade.

Re:The bright side of North Korea (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#43663999)

Say what you will about Kim-Jong Un, but he has shown great dedication in how to have a cake and eat it, too. He has already mastered the latter part of that!

Re:The bright side of North Korea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664275)

Oh, a fat joke. How droll.

captcha: anomie

Re:The bright side of North Korea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664479)

but he isn't going to get any more Choco Pies for quite a while.

jr

Speed ridges (2)

tippe (1136385) | about a year ago | (#43663967)

Close inspection of the nose of the missile shows the warhead's surface is undulated. Some analysts suggest the wrinkles mean the material is a thin metal sheet, unable to withstand flight pressures.

Maybe they're speed ridges, you know, to make them go faster. Sort of like speed holes on a sports car, but different...

No, in case I fooled you, I'm not a rocket scientist.

Re:Speed ridges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664025)

Homer, is that you?

Re:Speed ridges (3, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43664127)

Close inspection of the nose of the missile shows the warhead's surface is undulated. Some analysts suggest the wrinkles mean the material is a thin metal sheet, unable to withstand flight pressures.

Maybe they're speed ridges, you know, to make them go faster. Sort of like speed holes on a sports car, but different...

Or maybe they're just ribbed for her pleasure?

Solution: decapitation (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43664075)

Look, I don't know for sure if they are faked, and neither does anyone else. If they are real, all of the world leaders need to be removed and punished for allowing it to happen. But let's suppose for a moment that they ARE fake. I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world. We know this has been done before. Saddam Hussein did his level best in 2003 to convince the world he had WMDs and would use them. In response his military was shredded, he ended up dead, and his country was reduced to a wasteland in slow motion after his military was conquered.

Now, SH's ghost can maintain that his foolishness served its purpose, since ultimately the US was bankrupted and the US politico-strategic goals were turned into a sick twisted forlorn mess that ended in a worse outcome than the status quo ante. OTOH, SH lost his own life, his political movement was turned into an ash-heap, and most telling of all, his nation ended up in a living hell that continues.

Clearly if others nonetheless, seeing all this, choose to follow in his footsteps, something is wrong with the response to this kind of psychopathy. I can't believe that effective precision decapitation is so hard to do. In one instantaneous surgical strike, send all of the leadership to meet their maker. The US bungled doing this to SH on the eve of war. What was so hard about that? Find them and destroy them, and do it with force so much the opposite of showy that far from being shock and awe, no one in the country even realizes it has happened until you litter the whole countriside with pamphlets and everyone realizes that the reason none of their leaders show up any more is that they have been eliminated with extreme prejudice. That the entire civilized world acted as one, that they will repeat as many times as necessary, that they exercised extreme care not to harm the population, and that they did it barely lifting a finger.

Exactly the same goes for Iran. If they continue going out of their way doing their level best to convince us they are psychopathic, relieve Iran of its burden with a snap of the fingers.

We have tried the silly way, treating psychopaths like civilized human beings, and it continues to make monkeys out of us. Sure, our own cowardly leaders are afraid of the same thing being done to them, but they are fools to think they can guarantee their own oh-so-sacrosanct personal hide is protected if they only don't provoke the true psychopaths. And they bloody well should be afraid the same thing could be done to them if they themselves act like psychopaths.

Re:Solution: decapitation (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43664123)

I do know that the idea of blackmailing or threatening mass devastation using fake WMDs is evidence of either very sick (and stupid) minds indeed, or a bankrupt response policy on the part of the civilized world.

You mean like when we claimed Hussein had WMDs although we knew he didn't? Yes, that was sick, and morally bankrupt. And done for profit.

Re:Solution: decapitation (2)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43664157)

You need to read up. SH made up his fake WMDs as deliberate policy. He actually essentially confirmed this later. He made them pretty convincing. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled. Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.

Re:Solution: decapitation (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43664199)

Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was fooled.

This does not even approach the truth. Pretty much all intelligence worldwide was skeptical, and we knew that even as we declared that he definitely had WMDs. Revisionist view of history is revisionist.

Yes, the response was just as crazy as the provocation. I thought I made all this clear.

You did not even make your views clear, and your views do not define the situation.

Re:Solution: decapitation (1, Interesting)

Cassini2 (956052) | about a year ago | (#43664349)

Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.

George Bush said he had chemical weapons.

Most of the worlds intelligence agencies, including the CIA, were quietly saying they were no chemical weapons. Some of these agencies had their results taken out of context by their superiors.

If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me. After a while, that was what happened to Saddam Hussein.

Re:Solution: decapitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664431)

To follow your analogy, he had already been knocked down (Gulf War), had most of his actual weapons taken away (1990s disarmament operations), and while a bunch of officials searched him for other weapons (ongoing UN inspections), some random guy from across the street (Coalition forces) ran over and shot him, then moved into his house (Iraq), installed himself as the head of the household, and did a really piss-poor job of paying the bills (making the country work) and generally looking after his family (the Iraqi people).

Re:Solution: decapitation (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43664509)

Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.

There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein actually thought he had chemical weapons. And since he was kept drugged up the whole time he was on trial, nobody ever got any conclusive answers to anything. He managed to get some good zingers in during the trial anyway.

George Bush said he had chemical weapons.

So, two of the least credible people on the planet said that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, and that's supposed to be convincing?

If I run outside my house, stark naked, on a city street, carrying a fake gun, screaming "I have a gun!!!" The police will probably shoot me.

Probably. But if you run outside your house stark naked with no gun in sight (and clearly, nowhere to conceal one) screaming "I have a gun" they'll probably just taser you.

Re:Solution: decapitation (1, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43664357)

Alas, it is you who are revisionist. Try checking the facts [snopes.com]. Deal with it.

Re:Solution: decapitation (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664375)

Even a charitable analysis of the situation would suggest that a mixture of "motivated reasoning" (bullshitting yourself to a predetermined conclusion) and/or sheer staggering incompetence was necessary for Hussein's posturing to be read as a credible, actual threat.

Even if he hadn't been complying with his disarmament agreement (which, lest we forget, was partly necessary because Western governments had been selling him chemical weapons and manufacturing equipment for years) that's a political issue for the UN, not a military one. Russia doesn't invade the US every time START gets derailed.

Slashdot is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664133)

... exactly the right place to ask these kind of questions! Crowdsourcing intelligence work works.

So to answer the question: Yes. They are "unintended" fakes, i.e. meant to be real but they don't fly.

for the love of god (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43664141)

Seriously folks... they HAVE nukes. We know this. They've detonated them underground, we've detected the flash. It's fact. (unless both they and our own government is lieing to us... a distinct possibility)

Do they have missiles that can launch them? Who gives a shit? Any ballistic missile they would have would be trivial for our military to shoot down. They do, however, have very sophisticated submarines. All they need to do is load one of their nukes on a sub and sail it into a major harbor anywhere in the world and viola, world catastrophe. This is the threat we should be worried about. The whole missile thing is just sabre rattling, irrelevant of their real capabilities. They'd need thousands to overwhelm our defenses.

Re:for the love of god (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about a year ago | (#43664193)

The real bummer would be that a nuke in a harbor would truly piss off the surfers for the amazing wave it would create.. and all of the surfers are out in the ocean, not the harbors.

Re:for the love of god (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | about a year ago | (#43664273)

I know that they had detonations, but I also remember reading that they weren't picking up enough radiation to prove that it was a nuclear explosion and not just large stockpiles of traditional TNT. The explosions were small for a nuclear blast as well, well within the range of what a mass of traditional explosives could do.

This definitely does not prove they _don't_ have nuclear arms, but doesn't it at least cast a bit of doubt?

Re:for the love of god (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#43664451)

How do you pick up the flash from an underground nuclear test, exactly? The current concensus is that it could just have easily have been faked.

whats with this trend? (3, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#43664191)

the american military has done this crap for 40 years. Threats are received, the enemy is downplayed and underestimated, they suddenly do something wildly advanced and unpredicted. Russias Tupolev was said to be incapable of intercontinental long range flight until we saw it soaring around canada, and at nearly twice its estimated speed. Insurgents basically scrolled through drone video like it was cable TV while we insisted they were just simple sand people. Iran was a perfectly acceptable state-sanctioned boogeyman. it was just itching for 'liberation' or 'freedom' or whatever pretext we need to re-establish regional power until they managed to land our drone at their airport of choice. yet we never seem to shit any big bricks, we just keep plodding away.

now we have north korea. from TFA:

North Korea has demonstrated its ability to build short- and medium-range missiles, and it has launched a small satellite into space. But neither of these achievements would necessarily allow it to reach the U.S. with a warhead.

so how many more steps will have to be completed before we land a competent assessment that north korea can send a warhead to the US? are we seriously going to entertain the idea that a country capable of launching a satellite into space is just 'faking it' when it comes to missile technology? Parent posts are probably correct: you're absolutely insane to parade real missiles in a public square if the goal of those missiles is to be highly mobile and undetectable in the face of a nation thats demonstrated numerous times its willingness to violate foreign sovreignity in the pursuit of furthering its interests.

Almost certainly (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43664265)

We've probably got a bunch of fakes too: they make good decoys for those who would try to attack or steal our weapons. They're probably better-made, but they're fakes all the same.

The real question is, does North Korea have any of these long-range missiles that aren't fake?

open-source intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664307)

must be the oxymoron du jour.

Stuff that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664387)

1) Not this.

all of the above (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664399)

If you were the boss and you found out your chief strategist didn't bother to use any decoys, wouldn't you fire him?

Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43664445)

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they were all fake. Why waste all of that money on something that's never going to be used?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...