North Korea says its missiles can reach US

Antidisestablishmentarian said:

Yes...

I fail to see what this has to do with anything I said.

Click to expand...

Well, you said that this thread is full of lies. Which I agree, although not from me . So after you stated that the thread is full of lies, you then said that we had nuclear capabilities before we went to space, and then reference the nuclear weapons detonated over Japan. Seems to me your were saying that because we had nukes before rockets capable of delivering a intercontinental warhead, then North Korea wouldn't need the rocket technology to strike the continental U.S.. I could be wrong though. Maybe you were just giving us a quick history snippet for some reason- Just reminding us that the U.S. blew off a nuke before we went to space- If that was the case then thank you! It was just out of place and random. Given the context I was sure you were implying that you thought of something this whole thread overlooked- that the U.S. detonated a nuke without having the rocket technology to deliver it. But like I said- I could be wrong!

fb360 said:

No. I think you guys are misplaying my whole nuke going off. I brought up old technology, because you claim they can't even devise a rocket that can reach space (We did in the 70s).
We all already know they didn't have a warhead in that rocket, I hope, as well as they didn't give this their best attempt.

If that was their best attempt, and they were going to try send it to the US, obviously they would put a warhead in it, and I'm pretty sure they would succeed except for the fact we would destroy it



Here's some basic logic for you. If they REALLY had no ability to send a weapon to the US, why would we even worry about them? North Korea is HIGH on our radar list for the EXACT reason that we speculate that they DO possess the ability to harm us. What are they going to do, shoot us with AKs thousand of miles away?

I don't even want to continue this argument because you are obviously naive due to a mixture of ignorance and arrogance.

e;
LOLOL I just watched the video and are you kidding me! You are basing the fact that they CANNOT POSSIBLY get an object to space because of one rocket failure? Shit man, we've had a Space Shuttle explode shortly after launch in the atmosphere. And that is a rocket we put a great deal of effort into making sure all possible faults and malfunctions WONT occur.

Click to expand...

Why would we worry about them? Because they have nuclear capabilities. Nobody is disputing that except for the straw man you just created. And yes, North Korea cannot get a nuclear warhead into space. Wanna know why? They tried launching an unarmed rocket into space, claiming it was to launch a satellite. They were so proud that they thought they could do it that they invited other countries new networks to show them. It launch and blew apart in a mile or two. It lasted 81 seconds. They never launched anything into space. They tried many times. Failed many times. Just like you on this thread. I've said this many times and showed you a video proving it. You still are implying that they have capabilities of launching an intercontinental nuclear warhead. The facts prove you wrong. I'm done repeating myself and going in circles with you. I'll let the views of RIU decide who's right. Or as you put it " obviously naive due to a mixture of ignorance and arrogance". So go on and continue thinking North Korea can launch an IBL. Fear monger all you want. Think that you know better than all of our intelligence agencies.

One point that I want to mention that I don't think was mentioned through out this thread is:
To the original poster that said "thanks Obama".... Lets not forget under what administration North Korea acquired nuclear capabilities. For those of you who don't know- It was the Bush administration- Bush 43 that it. Good ol' Dubaya.

lol @ everyone saying Noko doesn't possess rockets that can reach the US. It's widely accepted that they do. Mainland US is another story.

You're right... That's why I said the continental U.S. and intercontinental ballistic missile.

an11dy9 said:

You're right... That's why I said the continental U.S. and intercontinental ballistic missile.

Click to expand...

I guess that depends if you consider Alaska part of the continental US. Which I do, as it's on the same continent.

EDIT: And either way, it's still "intercontinental".

billybob420 said:

I guess that depends if you consider Alaska part of the continental US. Which I do, as it's on the same continent.

EDIT: And either way, it's still "intercontinental".

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that the continental U.S. doesn't include Alaska- Because I remember hearing that Texas is the largest state (in terms of size) in the continental U.S.-Basically the continental U.S. refers the lower 48, another popular term.

an11dy9 said:

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that the continental U.S. doesn't include Alaska- Because I remember hearing that Texas is the largest state (in terms of size) in the continental U.S.-Basically the continental U.S. refers the lower 48, another popular term.

Click to expand...

Alaska is in the continental US. Contiguous US is the term you're thinking of. (they often get confused).

Either way Noko can hit that shit. They made need a few tries but where there's a will there's a way, lol.

Since we (hopefully) got it through Fb360's head that North Korea doesn't have IBL capabilities- Let's widen this conversation:

It's terrible to fear monger that N. Korea would strike the U.S.-- But does anyone really think they would? I don't of course. I think it's a ploy to stuff some more bucks in the defense contractors pockets by- possibly going to war, stock up weapons ready for war, create west coast missile defense systems, or needless "star wars" as they call it. But really, would N. Korea ever preemptively strike us? No never. Given the cost/benefit analysis, their alliance and relations with China, and the geopolitics of the region- they would never strike us. So this whole thread is about fear mongering. It's disingenuous and very, very sad.

billybob420 said:

Alaska is in the continental US. Contiguous US is the term you're thinking of. (they often get confused).

Either way Noko can hit that shit. They made need a few tries but where there's a will there's a way, lol.

Click to expand...

Not according to wiki- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_United_States --- But who cares.. You're right they can't strike us... But most importantly- I just learned a new word and term! "Contiguous" and "Contiguous US"!!! Cool! Thanks billybob420! You just earned yourself a like! lol

Actually that wikipedia page says it both ways. So even wiki is confused.

It says " The Continental United States does not include the state of Hawaii on a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, the state of Alaska north of Canada, or any other territories under the control of the United States"

But then it has this image



With the caption"
"This map shows the Continental United States in blue. Alaska is also shown in blue, but is separate from the other states. Hawaii is not shown on this map."

This kinda explains it, or explains the confusion anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States#Continental_United_States

Because Alaska is also on the North American continent, the term continental United States, if interpreted literally, would also include that state, so the term is sometimes qualified with the explicit inclusion or exclusion of Alaska to resolve any ambiguity.[6][7][8][3] The term was in use prior to the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states of the United States, and at that time usually excluded outlying territories of the U.S.[9][10] However, even before Alaska became a state, it was sometimes included within the "Continental US".[11]

Call me old school, but Continental US includes Alaska.

Here's one of the references they use from National Geographic

http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/C/conterminous-contiguous-continental

"Use contiguous, or conterminous, for the 48 states.

The continental United States comprises the 48 contiguous, or conterminous, states plus Alaska."

billybob420 said:

This kinda explains it, or explains the confusion anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States#Continental_United_States

Because Alaska is also on the North American continent, the term continental United States, if interpreted literally, would also include that state, so the term is sometimes qualified with the explicit inclusion or exclusion of Alaska to resolve any ambiguity.[6][7][8][3] The term was in use prior to the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as states of the United States, and at that time usually excluded outlying territories of the U.S.[9][10] However, even before Alaska became a state, it was sometimes included within the "Continental US".[11]

Call me old school, but Continental US includes Alaska.

Here's one of the references they use from National Geographic

http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/C/conterminous-contiguous-continental

"Use contiguous, or conterminous, for the 48 states.

The continental United States comprises the 48 contiguous, or conterminous, states plus Alaska."

Click to expand...

You're right- And Conterminous! There you go with another one! Reminds me of "The Factor's" "Word of The Day" (The only good part of the show- most of the time anyway)! Cool man!

an11dy9 said:

You're right- And Conterminous! There you go with another one! Reminds me of "The Factor's" "Word of The Day" (The only good part of the show- most of the time anyway)! Cool man!

Click to expand...

lol, no problem. i'm a stickler for semantics is all.

OMG people continental US is all US on the same Continent (NORTH AMERICA)..Contiguous US is all the states that are actually touching and running together ( 48 states which is minus Alaska and Hawaii because they sit alone )..don't make it harder then it is

Some say we shot that missile down with satellites, (not likely but would be nice to do) but who knows?

Seems to me a bigger threat would be NK could just have their suppliers UPS parts to the safe house in St.Louis, build and detonate in place. Could be one large one or many small ones delivered around the country. Oh wait, I think that was just a movie.....

fb360 said:

Actually this makes you sound particularly stupid.
When you send a missile intercontinental, you send it essentially straight up, until it leaves the atmosphere, let it hang around floating in space (requires near 0 energy) until the location you are targeting revolves into place, and then you just have to push it down to Earth at the correct trajectory. This requires the energy for the warhead to leave the atmosphere, and the energy to get into the correct trajectory, no more, unless wanted. A very feasible and plausible situation.

If you can build a rocket that can get to space, or better yet, the moon, what's stopping you from turning that rocket into a weapon and landing it in your enemies backyard? You don't just point the warhead towards America and shoot it straight through the atmosphere from point A to point B lol...

The only point you could be trying to make, which would deem your argument correct, is that North Korea does not have the capability to put a warhead in a rocket, and send it to space, which is fallacious.

e; If you think they are going to showoff the big guns before employing a strategy to gain reward, then you are naive

Click to expand...

north korea does NOT have the capability to put anything on a rocket, and send it into space.

north korea DOES have the capability to strike the US with a missile, as did japan in ww2. in fact a misfired japanese missile from ww2 killed like 8 people on a church picnic in the late 50's near spokane i believe
Japan also shelled carpinteria california and long beach in ww2. these days they would have used missiles, and the north koreans are known to have subs.

the idea of north korea using an intercontinental ballistic missile is laughable though. even the chinese havent been able to pull that one off yet.

if kim jong un was the 'Beloved Successor" of mnexico or canada we might have cause to be concered for san diego, or niagra falls, but siuunce he is trapped over there on the xiongnu peninsula (and the shitty part of it at that...) he is as impotent and pathetic as his daddy and granddaddy ever were.

Dr Kynes said:

north korea does NOT have the capability to put anything on a rocket, and send it into space.

north korea DOES have the capability to strike the US with a missile, as did japan in ww2. in fact a misfired japanese missile from ww2 killed like 8 people on a church picnic in the late 50's near spokane i believe
Japan also shelled carpinteria california and long beach in ww2. these days they would have used missiles, and the north koreans are known to have subs.

the idea of north korea using an intercontinental ballistic missile is laughable though. even the chinese havent been able to pull that one off yet.

Click to expand...

The only one saying they could is;

fb360

i dont usually Like ad hominems,

but when i do, they feature retards.

Stay Special My Friends.

an11dy9 said:

Well, you said that this thread is full of lies. Which I agree, although not from me . So after you stated that the thread is full of lies, you then said that we had nuclear capabilities before we went to space, and then reference the nuclear weapons detonated over Japan. Seems to me your were saying that because we had nukes before rockets capable of delivering a intercontinental warhead, then North Korea wouldn't need the rocket technology to strike the continental U.S.. I could be wrong though. Maybe you were just giving us a quick history snippet for some reason- Just reminding us that the U.S. blew off a nuke before we went to space- If that was the case then thank you! It was just out of place and random. Given the context I was sure you were implying that you thought of something this whole thread overlooked- that the U.S. detonated a nuke without having the rocket technology to deliver it. But like I said- I could be wrong!

Click to expand...

You must not have read the thread. Those are all things fb360 said incorrectly throughout this thread. None of it was out of place or random.

Btw, I said fail, not lies.

Because one gets facts wrong doesn't always make it a lie.

Just reviving this to demonstrate fb360's epic failings as a "new-clear engine-ear".