Another Korean War?

[Tonci87 163]

The north korean say yes, the south koreans say no....

[Baff1 0]

None of these reasons preclude war as a direct result. If the ship was in their territorial waters, then fair game as far as I'm concerned. Violating the territorial waters of an enemy nation gathers what it sews. Was this boat in undisputed NK territory?

According to NK it's undisputed.

According to SK maybe the same.

According to the rest of the world...disputed.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

Complete independent development of nuclear weapons would have been costly and very time consuming. .

We make our own nukes. It's just the ICBM's we buy in.

Whatever the reasons, it still gives North Korea the no.5 slot in the world for rocket technology. No mean feat for a country in their position. As well as being the 5th member of the space race, they've managed to join the nuclear club too. Not bad for going one of the poorest nations on the planet.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

The French, the Russians, the American's and perhaps even the Chinese launch our satelittes for us.

Someone correct me if I'm horribly wrong, but it seems to me that a lot of US satellites and spacecraft, and those from other countries, are launched by the Russians because the Russians do it cheaply, and part of the reason why they're cheap is because they have a load of decommisioned ICBMs that they have converted into launch craft...

I'm not sure how far the art in nuclear rocketry technology can advance, I mean, most of the major nuclear powers can put a nuke on any point in the globe.

[*LK1* 10]

post the videos when will start.it's gonna be fun if we dont get a nuke in europe.

north korea suck at all levels but the army is not bad at all.and is huuuge.

Edited May 27, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Big Mac 19]

north korea suck at all levels but the army is not bad at all.and is huuuge.

If only paper armies were real armies...

[Baff1 0]

Someone correct me if I'm horribly wrong, but it seems to me that a lot of US satellites and spacecraft, and those from other countries, are launched by the Russians because the Russians do it cheaply, and part of the reason why they're cheap is because they have a load of decommisioned ICBMs that they have converted into launch craft...

I'm not sure how far the art in nuclear rocketry technology can advance, I mean, most of the major nuclear powers can put a nuke on any point in the globe.

A lot of the NASA rockets used their old ICBM engines too.

I don't know if they are still using them or if they have run out of all that stock by now.

Rocketry keeps advancing. The latest Russian ICBMs are faster and can dodge. Same for the Chinese ones.

This is a direct counter to anti-missile systems which are unable to lock on to them in time.

There is also a question of range and payload, also accuracy.

The Chinese for example were able to shoot down a satelitte with theirs and using the Russian Sunburn guidance systems have developed a range of ballistic missiles accurate enough to be used as intercontinental anti-shipping weapons, fast enough and manouverable enough to be without effective countermeasure.

The Americans have also managed to shoot down a satellite with one recently, the Russians are working on their own anti-satelitte program.

We might also consider, preparation and deployment time.

In the bad old days rockets had to be drip fueled days before firing and kept warm with the engines running on the launch pad.

President Obama's latest rocketry project is to be able to land a warhead anywhere on the planet in under one hour. Making for a very rapid response to intelligence. An Osama killer!

Not to mention the ability to re-target on the fly or carry an increased number of warheads.

For naval based rockets in particular we could look for improvements in miniturisation, the ability to launch from beneath the waves and the depth at which we can launch.

We've obviously also got all the cruise missile technology to consider. The advancements in range accuracy, stealth and reliablility, although I believe cruise missiles are strictly speaking jets not rockets.

The Russians had an intresting approach to stealth on offer at the Malaysian arms fair last month. A ballistic(?) missile launcher disguised as a shipping container.

Here's their promotional render for it.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6dKCkv1fzs&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6dKCkv1fzs&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

And finally there is always the cost of manufacture. There is always more room for improvement in this regard. One of those Club K systems goes for $20 million per container. (I don't know if that's cheap or expensive but I suspect it's very cheap).

Here's another render of the same rocket from a more conventional launch platform. you can see it's a pretty sophisticated device with 3 stages and and a very advanced attack sequence, that provides multiple co-ordinated strikes from different directions at wave hopping height and some form of turbo boost for the final attack run so as to overwhelm countermeasures with it's raw speed.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlreb9-fXQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlreb9-fXQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Edited May 28, 2010 by Baff1