Hmmmm, isn't this a little off though since you are putting a flat circle on a flattened out map of the globe. I think your radius would be a little skewed, you'd need to make this in 3d or something and then flatten it to show the real range. That small bit of nitpicking aside, yeah who really thought north korea had any chance of hitting us with a missile? Or better yet, who actually thought they would? It would be suicide for north korea. It's all just a ploy to get resources...like a lame attempt at a ransom.
This is more realistic. This is centered around Pyongyang's airport but you get the idea. No shade is the range of the 4000km missle and and the middle shade is the range of the 10000km missle. The darkest is the unreachable parts.
my main concern is s. korea and japan. i don't believe n. korea would attempt to fire on anyone it's worth noting they tend to posture like this every few years to try and get their way on something or the other.
It seems pretty absurd that they will threaten us with a "fire storm" of missles...is 5-7 a fire storm these days? Maybe a fire-storm on the small island of Hawaii is what they meant...who knows.
Seeing as we have about 500 that we can send and target anything bigger than a quarter, all seems like hot air to me.... Then again, since when has Kim Jong-Il been logical...
@Noobs-R-Us: Except he's smart enough to know its too dangerous for us to attack them. He's got some sort of a nuke (how far it can travel doesn't really matter) and that is his ultimate bargaining chip.
@tehsquish - Still plays Ultima Online: If from some crazy reason (very likely) N. Korea did send a Nuke towards the US, we would have no choice but to tactical nuke them into the stong-age. We wouldn't not send one back.
@Geph_knows_more: The US may need to consider S. Korea before launching anything. Our offense may follow well after any attack, and it's a possibilty that it could not be nuclear.
@ElemenopEE: Agreed. I disagree that a nuclear counterattack is imminent. if there was a military response, it would most likely be conventional but devastating. It's hard to imagine the U.S. ever using nukes again, except perhaps in a massive global nuclear exchange, or extremely low-yield tactical payloads (like bunker busters). Or if Matthew Broderick is elected president.
@tensenki: From 40 year old out dated encyclopedias like in college.
I actually had a teacher tell me that i absolutely COULD NOT use wikipedia because its not accurate. So i went to the library in our school and pulled out the "I" Britannica, 1992 printing and looked up Internet. Lo and behold it was ok to use Wikipedia.
@SpruceStreetPhil: i don't get how David Hahn proves you have "launched a rocket from my neighborhood park further than the North Koreans," but thanks for the link, because I have never heard of him, and it was actually an entertaining read the successfully kept me from doing work for a few min!
Eh...let them eat war. That's how to ration the poor.
Maybe their first step should have been to not name their rocket DONG. As if their attempt at waving their penises wasn't enough with the imagery of a rocket going off, they had to name it dong, too.
@bpapa9013 - Is now an ego maniac thanks to his new star ->: If it makes you feel any better, I originally wasn't going to add that part of the comment. However, I thought that people would be able to figure out that part of the comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Seems to me that nothing would need to enter orbit for an ICBM and that landing the "payload" in the Pacific would be a great way to show its range because all it really needs to reach that mileage to reach the US, Australia, Russia, France, UK, Spain, well you get the idea. I really don't think this can just be dismissed quickly as a "another pathetic failure by the North Korean clowns, boys and girls."
@Zack Nelson: Okay, but that means this test proved nothing. You see, the Pacific lies between North Korea and the US, as well as NK and Australia. It would seem that it is no issue for this to hit pats of Russia, but not a large portion of it. Europe is not across the Pacific from them, but it IS a good distance. The Pacific is the ocean that borders Korea, not the one across the world.
@Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz: But if the second and/or final stage failed, then their ability to target any kind of strike to less than a ~500mi area would be non-existent.
They might as well lock in a target of "eh, that way..."
@Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz: The range is only one side of this coin of failure. If this report is true, then they missed their target completely. The rocket they were using technically has the range they were looking for, it failed due the them not knowing what the hell they are doing.
@Zack Nelson: Nobody made it in space or to the moon in one try. If that freakjob can print more many, this will only serve to make them strive harder the next time, and the time after that. Just because he failed this time doesn't mean we won't all be turned into monkeys from the radiation the next time.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
Great circle map: 4000km and 10000km range
This is more realistic. This is centered around Pyongyang's airport but you get the idea. No shade is the range of the 4000km missle and and the middle shade is the range of the 10000km missle. The darkest is the unreachable parts.
06/25/09
Ok my link got deleted, copy and paste the stuff below:
[gc.kls2.com]
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
It seems pretty absurd that they will threaten us with a "fire storm" of missles...is 5-7 a fire storm these days? Maybe a fire-storm on the small island of Hawaii is what they meant...who knows.
Seeing as we have about 500 that we can send and target anything bigger than a quarter, all seems like hot air to me.... Then again, since when has Kim Jong-Il been logical...
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
I actually had a teacher tell me that i absolutely COULD NOT use wikipedia because its not accurate. So i went to the library in our school and pulled out the "I" Britannica, 1992 printing and looked up Internet. Lo and behold it was ok to use Wikipedia.
06/25/09
You should use current peer reviewed journals like the rest of us use for research.
06/25/09
/ex-teacher
06/26/09
I use it all the time for general knowledge and personal interest, but never for academia.
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
don't believe me??? look what David Hahn did... [en.wikipedia.org]
and then ask yourself what and where hundreds of store bought model rocket engines methodically strapped to one another would get you.
04/05/09
i don't get how David Hahn proves you have "launched a rocket from my neighborhood park further than the North Koreans," but thanks for the link, because I have never heard of him, and it was actually an entertaining read the successfully kept me from doing work for a few min!
Also, David Hahn is one scary looking dude...
04/06/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/05/09
Maybe their first step should have been to not name their rocket DONG. As if their attempt at waving their penises wasn't enough with the imagery of a rocket going off, they had to name it dong, too.
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
To think someone would attach Bad Religion lyrics to such an otherwise terrible comment.
Someone oughtta slap you, boy...
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/06/09
@Moordryd: You really want to know what the payload of the Dong 2 was?
04/05/09
04/05/09
04/05/09
They might as well lock in a target of "eh, that way..."
04/05/09
04/06/09