N. Korea warhead found in Alaska

[clk]

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm

But it doesn't matter, right? I wonder what would happen if Iraq tried something like that....or if Iraq tried doing this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/nkorea.intercept/index.html

I bet if Saddam tried something like that, Bush would get a major hard on and fire a few hundred nukes at Baghdad.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk

But it doesn't matter, right? I wonder what would happen if Iraq tried something like that....or if Iraq tried doing this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/nkorea.intercept/index.html

I bet if Saddam tried something like that, Bush would get a major hard on and fire a few hundred nukes at Baghdad.
Actually, Iraq does stuff like that on a very regular basis. Iraqi planes regularly challenge the 'no fly' zones, while American planes are targeted with anti-aircraft missles. (These appear in the news regularly, but they don't warrant much attention.)

The standard U.S./U.N. response is to target and destroy the Iraqi radar stations and/or missle launchers.

[Jedi Knight]

This just proves what I have been saying all along. North Korea has the capability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.

Not that it will matter soon, lol.

JK

[Advocate]

Originally posted by clk
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm

But it doesn't matter, right? I wonder what would happen if Iraq tried something like that....or if Iraq tried doing this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/nkorea.intercept/index.html

I bet if Saddam tried something like that, Bush would get a major hard on and fire a few hundred nukes at Baghdad.

And if North Korea keeps it up for 12 years like Iraq has then they will be treated likewise. Actually since their nuclear capability and missile range is increasing all the time, I doubt they will get anywhere near as long as Saddam got.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This just proves what I have been saying all along. North Korea has the capability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.

Not that it will matter soon, lol.

JK

Actually I think it has been pretty well accepted that Hawaii at least could be hit. Alaska is not that much further. IMHO we need to deal with this threat one way or another before they get more nukes and the missiles can reach California with its millions of people. Not that Hawaii and Alaska aren't important, but California would be even more so. Of course, its still early and there is hope of a peaceful solution yet.

[scotth]

The thread title is, "N. Korea warhead found in Alaska"

The cites listed presumable support this claim?

The cnn link certainly does not. The other link appears to be dead.

I have found nothing about any warhead found in Alaska doing several news searchs.

I strongly suspect this to be bogus.

Edited to add bolding.

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:Actually, Iraq does stuff like that on a very regular basis. Iraqi planes regularly challenge the 'no fly' zones, while American planes are targeted with anti-aircraft missles. (These appear in the news regularly, but they don't warrant much attention.)

The standard U.S./U.N. response is to target and destroy the Iraqi radar stations and/or missle launchers. Just a small correction: The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN. As Kofi Annan relates.... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,843667,00.html)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This just proves what I have been saying all along. North Korea has the capability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.

Not that it will matter soon, lol.

JK

JK, can we leave out the 'lol' when referring to war, it is not PC.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


JK, can we leave out the 'lol' when referring to war, it is not PC.

I am not into "PC" thought-slavery. No thanks.

JK

[gnome]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
JK, can we leave out the 'lol' when referring to war, it is not PC.

*Blinks* :confused:

Can we leave off insisting that anyone be PC? I also believe that JK's "LOL" comments about war are unnecessarily jovial about destruction, but instead of whipping out "PC" codes I'll just say so and be done with it.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am not into "PC" thought-slavery. No thanks.

JK

I am about as non-PC as you can get and I still think laughing at war is not very funny. Even though I think Kim and his cronies deserve to die, the majority of the North Korean people do not. Therefore a war, while maybe necessary, is not funny. This is no more "thought-slavery" than not laughing at a funeral.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Advocate


I am about as non-PC as you can get and I still think laughing at war is not very funny. Even though I think Kim and his cronies deserve to die, the majority of the North Korean people do not. Therefore a war, while maybe necessary, is not funny. This is no more "thought-slavery" than not laughing at a funeral.

lol

JK

[PogoPedant]

Is it no longer PC to be PC?

[crackmonkey]

Danish Dynamite -
Nowhere in your link did Annan state that the no-fly zones weren't sanctioned by the UN. They certainly haven't been formally embraced, but they were put in place to protect the populations covered by the UN resolution. The Kurds have flourished as a result, and this is seen as a good thing. As it should.

[Goshawk]

Um, that's almost certainly a bogus story, just more chest-beating on the part of the North Koreans, for the benefit of the North Korean people and the local political structure. The only place I can find it is the Korea Times.

It goes right along with all their other recent war rhetoric. They're saying, "See, people, in spite of official doubts as to whether we have nukes, we really do! And to prove it, our committee went to America last month and found one of our actual warheads in Alaska! So, see, we could hit them with nukes if we wanted to..."

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Danish Dynamite -
Nowhere in your link did Annan state that the no-fly zones weren't sanctioned by the UN. They certainly haven't been formally embraced, but they were put in place to protect the populations covered by the UN resolution.

Did the United Nations Authorize "No-Fly" Zones Over Iraq? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/)

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
...but they were put in place to protect the populations covered by the UN resolution. The Kurds have flourished as a result, and this is seen as a good thing. As it should. [/B]

Funny that Iraq was allowed to fly in the no-fly zones to bomb the shiites who were encouraged by the US to rise against Saddam. The shiites certainly didn't flourish.

[crackmonkey]

Ah, but the Iraqis used helicopters. Fixed wing aircraft are the only ones excluded from no-fly zones. Rotary-winged craft, tragically, are not allowed to be chased off.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Danish Dynamite -
Nowhere in your link did Annan state that the no-fly zones weren't sanctioned by the UN. They certainly haven't been formally embraced, but they were put in place to protect the populations covered by the UN resolution. The Kurds have flourished as a result, and this is seen as a good thing. As it should.
http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/122002_secret_war.htm
In March last year, RAF pilots patrolling the "no fly zone" in Kurdish Iraq publicly protested for the first time about their enforced complicity in the Turkish campaign. The pilots complained that they were frequently ordered to return to their base in Turkey to allow the Turkish air force to bomb the very people they were meant to be "protecting".

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Segnosaur: Just a small correction: The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN. As Kofi Annan relates.... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,843667,00.html)
I stand corrected.

(I still think the no-fly zones are a good idea.)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I stand corrected.

(I still think the no-fly zones are a good idea.)

so do the Kurds. LOL.

Lille miss saddam
sat on the macadam
eats up Kurds and shiites.

LOL.

Ok Ill go away now.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Advocate


Actually I think it has been pretty well accepted that Hawaii at least could be hit. Alaska is not that much further.

I'm confused here. It's 4,549 miles from Korea to HI. From HI to Anchorage it's 2,782 miles. That's less than the distance to LA. (2,551 miles). Surly they'd pick LA over Anchorage!

Here's a neat little site:

http://www.indo.com/distance/

[clk]

Originally posted by SFB


I'm confused here. It's 4,549 miles from Korea to HI. From HI to Anchorage it's 2,782 miles. That's less than the distance to LA. (2,551 miles). Surly they'd pick LA over Anchorage!

Here's a neat little site:

http://www.indo.com/distance/

Anchorage would probably be much easier to hit than LA because of the nature of the missle's flight. Normally, most commercial airliners do not travel in a straight line, from one destination to another. They travel in a path that's an arc. This is because it is shorter to travel in an arc than it is in a straight line, because of the nature of the Earth (since it is, of course, a sphere). I think that the missile would also travel in an arc, similar to a plane. I'm pretty sure that explains it, but I may be wrong, since it's been a while since I studied stuff like that. Please correct me, or post more information if anyone can. Thanks.

edited to add: Check out this link to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mapcalc.html

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ah, but the Iraqis used helicopters. Fixed wing aircraft are the only ones excluded from no-fly zones. Rotary-winged craft, tragically, are not allowed to be chased off.

The two no-fly zones, one in the north and another in the south of Iraq, were unilaterally created by the US, Britain and France soon after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was banned from using all aircraft, including helicopters, in the air exclusion zones.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm)

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by John Bryce


The two no-fly zones, one in the north and another in the south of Iraq, were unilaterally created by the US, Britain and France soon after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was banned from using all aircraft, including helicopters, in the air exclusion zones.


That's trilaterally, but then I'm difficult.:p

[SFB]

Originally posted by clk


Anchorage would probably be much easier to hit than LA because of the nature of the missle's flight. Normally, most commercial airliners do not travel in a straight line, from one destination to another. They travel in a path that's an arc.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Check out the code from the distance link on the site I provided above - he/she tries to account for the earth's curvature. Of course I could be missing something....