NKorea's ICBM actually can hit Alaska just by changing the firing angle

holy shit

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/planet4589/status/882132508472745984
youtube.com/watch?v=wqczaF0KT3Q
google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/north-korea-missile-test-pyongyang-wheels-veteran-newsreader/amp/
dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA576039
youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXXL2-5a28
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

and we already proved we can shoot it down before it reaches international waters

according to the pic, the ICBM landed in international waters though?

yes we didnt shoot this one down as it costs $250m to do so, but the 3-4 back we did

twitter.com/planet4589/status/882132508472745984

If only you knew how bad things really are.
youtube.com/watch?v=wqczaF0KT3Q

What is air resistance?

The graphic isn't a perfectly accurate model of the trajectory of the missile. The point is it has enough range to strike American soil.

holy balls man

Well I guess that takes the heat off Hawaii. Because, you know, they just might have very lucky aim.

CALL THE AMBER LAMPS!!!
Least populated state in the US! He'll probably blow up some bears and shit! Oh noes!
If anything is launched, it will be at foreign U.S. military bases or Hawaii. Alaska is the dumbest target possible.

WHY DO YOU HATE POLAR BEARS YOU FUCKING REPUBLICUNT GLOBAL WARMING REEEEEEEEE

It wasn't even a few years ago that they could barely hit Japan. It's only a few hundred more miles until they can hit the west coast, and they're improving fast.

and?

as
linked,

it'll still reach about 4163.187 miles assuming pic related doesn't happen

This is just the beginning. The rehearsal. The preamble, if you will.

>The KN-08 is currently under development. (2015)
The missile launched is the KN-14, the latest version of the KN-08, aka Hwasong-14.

In two years, North Korea turned a floundering medium-range missile project into a successfully launched ICBM.

I wonder where we'll be two years from now? One year? Or even two months?
Furthermore, what do they have that we don't know about?

Everyone is scrambling about "what if NK gets an ICBM" or "what if NK gets nuclear missiles", without realizing, it's already too late. The time for action was five years ago. They clearly have the funds and a source of materiel and expertise. NK will have nuclear missiles capable of striking the lower 48 United States. And strictly speaking, NK can already target the United States of America in two different states using ICBMs.

When Kim filled the keg with powder and got out his box of matches, no one batted an eye. Now that he's lit one, everyone is scrambling to stop him. But it's too late. If we cared when it really mattered, we could have prevented this. But those days are long past now.

>It's only a few hundred more miles until they can hit the west coast
Based Kim will soon annihilate California, New York, and DC
they're testing two more new ICBMs this summer too

Could be a long summer for the norks.

I really want the norks to attempt to nuke us, but have it detontate in indo instead.

Also does anybody know if aus has anti ICBM weapons or do we justbrely on the burgers?

Appalachian mountains looking good.

>suddenly NK nukes the mid east
>we were just kidding america

US won't do a thing, nor can they do anything at this point, neither the Chinese nor the Russians will allow it. The Chinese are in all likelyhood covertly aiding the North Korean program
Norks have basically made themselves Liberation-proof

>But it's too late.

It wouldn't matter what state it hit. As soon as we detect any kind of legit missile headed towards anywhere under the US umbrella (Guam and shit), that's it. It's Game Fucking Over for NoKo.

Alaska is right where the GMD interceptors are stationed, I'm sure being near the intended target is probably their optimal angle for interception.
War in a year, China and Russia will cooperate.
Fuck off we're full

>arc trajectory for a flat planet

>If we cared when it really mattered, we could have prevented this.

Big announcement!!!! Itd happening!!!


google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/north-korea-missile-test-pyongyang-wheels-veteran-newsreader/amp/

What's in Alaska worth starting a war over?

They would have to cross Russian territory to hit the US. I wonder if the Russians would have something to say about that?

your mom's pussy is so loose she couldn't detect tsar bomba heading in to central texas

what are you talking about smuglet? look at the angle on the dotted projected trajectory; it's less than 45 degrees. they weren't assuming the earth was flat.

The United States of America, jack. That's what.

I thought we were going to war on the 7th of this month.

The US is the US mate. OK fine there's a crazy amount of mineral resources there, which is part of the reason we bought it.

But it's the US and that's all there is to it.

Wow, that's some hot propaganda. So, same as always, he can basically hit the Aleutian Islands

Ok tough guy.

Australia doesn't have any dedicated missile defenses of its own. The most you have is a single Air Warfare Destroyer, Hobart, which may be capable of missile defense but not against an ICBM. Technically the SM-2 interceptors have a chance of hitting an ICBM as it reaches the end of its arc but it's highly unlikely, especially if the AEGIS system installed on the ship isn't fitted for that. Also, you only have one ship, which was made more for defeating anti-ship missiles in the first place.

On no they're going to hit an empty forest with 1 or 2 hicks in it...

>"As a dignified nuclear power that possesses the strongest intercontinental ballistic rocket, which is capable of hitting any part of the world and of carrying a nuclear weapon, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will terminate the US threat of war and blackmail in order to protect the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the region", she read


Kek

oh fuck lol

Yeah of course it's the US, but what strategic targets are there which make it worth using up an ICBM and potentially getting nuked in return? Aim big or not at all.

China is agitating through the DPRK as a proxy as a warning should Trump get serious about pursuing a trade war with them.

It's all so very tiresome. Trump should just nuke Pyongyang and the DMZ and be done with it.

I still don't get why the UK doesn't give Australia some nukes. I mean, why wouldn't you want a nuclear outpost there? Sure they must shitpost wherever they go but they're pretty proven reliable mates when it comes to war and stuff.

Nothing really. Nailing Hawaii would take out relevant military assets.

Alaska they'd blow up some trees and snow or something, but the real impact would be that they fucked with the US. That's what all this dick waving is about in the first place, and why Trump brilliantly btfoed Kim on twitter last night with more power than an ICBM.

Nuclear proliferation is never the goal of a nuclear armed power. If you have nukes and another country doesn't, and they fall under your sphere of influence, you are their protector. Once you give them nukes they can defend themselves. It would be like the British arming the Arabs with machine guns during the Arab Revolt - sure, it would make them stronger as an ally, but they wouldn't be dependent on you anymore.

Plus I'm pretty sure the US is signatory to many nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and unlike most treaties those are actually taken a bit seriously.

Fug.
Our politicians are fucking cucks, we should have become self reliant in our countries defence after the lesson we learnt in WW2. We cant rely on burgers and bongs forever.

So then why don't the brits see fit to station a nuclear sub or something to protect their asset?

OK, I guess if they're playing the game right they already are doing that and pretending to just have a base in Scotland for the meanwhile. But at some point, as nuclear proliferation continues as it will, it would seem to make sense to establish Australia publicly as an armed and dangerous partner of the free world. Really the only reason to avoid this is to let the Chinese take over the Dominions because you're a globalist faggot.

God dammit I wanted Alaska to be the US white ethno state as no shitskins can tolerate testicle freezing temperatures

Time to make peace?

>oh noes some one can harm a part of my country I bet act like I don't care and that it irrelevant that there's a real threat to my country by acting like a sissy faggot
Ftfy

The point is to deter invasion of Korea. When the US can't just land their troops with impunity anymore, the calculus changes. Remember, nuclear weapons don't have to be delivered by missile. They don't even have to be fired at the enemy's territory. Imagine if the US made a huge Normandy-style naval landing in an attempt to outflank the North Koreans, only to have the entire landing force blown away by a nuclear bomb? This is a serious threat when you're putting a nuclear-armed country's existence on the line.

Furthermore, if makes the aftermath of such a war even less desirable. What happens after North Korea falls? Where do the nuclear weapons go? Can they really all be found, or will a surviving radical manage to sneak one into a urban center a few months later and set it off? Or will they be sold to terrorists or rogue nations in order to fund the war effort? Or could they be put to even more devious uses, like nuclear artillery (yes, this is a real thing)?

Suffice to say, nuclear weapons alone are a the bane of an interventionist superpower like the US because they represent an overwhelming force of fire that can be deployed very quickly. It's hard to harass an enemy and overwhelm them with "shock and awe" when they can blow you the fuck out with their own if you back them into a corner. US combined arms doctrine frankly isn't made to deal with nuclear-armed opponents. Most doctrine assumes that anti-nuclear warfare will be defensive in nature (i.e. how to shoot down bombers and missiles), or a MAD scenario.

We signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty. That being said we are the inly nation who signed it that can ascend to nuclear capabilities without breaching it.
We dont have nukes out of principal or some stupid shit like that. Also if we had nukes it would cause a nuclear arma race in the region.

Invading is dumb and unnecessary. Asymmetrical warfare, fgt.

seattle chicago sanfran DC

do it, kim

You have to remember to factor in the spin of the Earth once the DPRK missile leaves the Earth's atmosphere. If you assume the DPRK's intended target is to the east of the launch site, the spin of the Earth will carry the target away from the missile which has the effect of shortening the range of the missile. If the DPRK fired it to the west it would have the effect of lengthening the range.

Soon there will be foreign missile threat drill followed by a real missile.

This great. Based Kim should launch at the West coast and eliminate the SJW scum in LA

Cos you guise have nuclear subs in the region for us.

How can you believe such a thing? I mean its covered in elementary ffs.

This. Only other user that into physics. 500 miles is barely low earth orbit

This has never been more necessary

I think it's about time to drop the NNPT considering that Israel refuses to sign it, is known to have sold nukes on the black market (perhaps even to North Korea for all we know), and the US breaches the treaty all the time by providing free shekels to Israel.

It's a turd of a treaty. Time to flush the loo.

>So then why don't the brits see fit to station a nuclear sub or something to protect their asset?
Near Australia? They could if there were a serious threat to Australia. Right now there isn't though. You're right that it would make sense to empower them but frankly the will and means aren't there in the UK. The Royal Navy is practically mothballing in decay and domestic issues are taking predominance over military ones. As for the US, well, if the US really had to defend Australia they could.

That's the real question though, in what scenario does Australia have to be defended? It's far away and isolated. Almost all of its population centers are in the south, far away from any potential invaders. Invading from the north would be a nigh impossible logistical nightmare. Even landing in the first place would be a troublesome task. And what happens once you do land? The Australian economy isn't terribly large and its military assets, while useful, aren't worth pacifying swathes of desert and mountainous territory, overextending your lines to basically fight an Afghanistan-like war, except it's on an isolated continent thousands of miles from anything. Even the closest potential invader to Australia, Indonesia, would be hard pressed to even make any gains at all, let alone actually win. Australia is its own best defense.

Of course when it comes to anti-ICBM all that goes out the window since they just fly overhead.

That's not a normal trajectory for an icbm. It's not a fucking cruise missile that can reach higher, nor is the world a flat plane where such an angle will result in real increases of range. Who the fuck made this graph and wrote this bullshit?

Dont really want to start a nuclear arms race with the largest muslim country in the world. Its the only reason why im against it. Though there is a bonus we could go nuclear without having to do tests as weve already done all the legwork. So nobody would know if we had nukes or not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If anyone wants to force regime change in NK they'll have to either bargain it through some kind of unification deal, miraculously execute a coup, or invade NK and remove Kim manually. In a scenario where the US is trying to defeat NK they'd have to invade at some point. Of course that scenario may never occur but that's my point, if I were Kim I'd be planning as if that eventuality may happen at any time.

You can always gift it back to Putin, I guess.

North Korea is being used as a scapegoat for predictive programming so the U.S. can attack itself again. 911. Here we go again...

I don't think Australia has much to fear in terms of military threat. Economic, demographic, etc. sure. But what are the real uses of nukes anyway? There's already a tacit agreement that anybody who uses them has just violated NAP and all bets are off the table.

Giving Australia nukes is nothing more than shaking up the board a bit. It's a preemptive deterrent and a statement about securing the existing force projection in the Asia-Pacific field. It doesn't have to be about escalation if it's done correctly.

Invade and occupy while the Chinese provide massive support to a guerilla campaign
And at the end, the US leaves having gained nothing, since the Chinese will assert influence over the new governing body

And that is the range under powered flight. They could probably get another 600-800 miles if they launched at a slightly higher angle than let it coast after fuel burnt.....granted, this would make it very innacurate, but could still strike mainland USA

It's basing it's assumptions in a geometric model where they just extend the length of the arc by changing the angle. It's literally them adding the length of the of one trajectory, transforming the angle, and then deriving the new length based on that. That's terrible physics.

This isn't even if NK can reach Alaska or not, they probably can. It's that the graph, and the method, is bullshit.

No, you don't have to coup them. You could easily trigger a regional destabilization that forces somebody else to go in and restabilize it.

I wonder how much CGI will be used?
Just like Sandy Hook and Boston marathon, one more link in the false flag agenda. Can you say Crisis Actor?

>The Washington Post
Great job solving their problem for them, you stupid fucks.

Now North Korea knows that they have to launch their shitty rockets at an angle instead of straight up in order for them to do something other than land in water.

Yeah. Best Corea. The gift that keeps on giving.

I'm sure Putin would love that :^)

Yeah!
Fuck you Canada!

That's still 200 miles short of hitting mainland USA, even using bullshit method number 76 here. What the fuck is up with people and being shit at physics and math today?

haha NO DONG

You think they didn't meant to launch it straight up? What, you think their target is on land?

Don't be naive. They're launching straight up because they have a different target. A target that's very special to the United States. A target they can only reach by going beyond our atmosphere...

>There is danger / in the summer moon above
youtube.com/watch?v=wqczaF0KT3Q

yayuss daddy slay!

pls make a bigger one

Vancouver will soon be within range.

Well Iran can breath a sigh of relief for now as King Donut is begging to be occupied.

Being this autistic, I was off by 150 miles; well within the margin of error for a weapon like this free falling....

My degrees are in Physics, only basement dwelling fags who took intro to physics in 10th grade HS talk like you

Hardly. Any realistic occupation of NK would escalate the shit show in the ME in such a way as to provide additional excuse for Iran to become a target.

News like this makes me think of that old Terminator line. The nuclear holocaust can only be postponed not prevented. Its only a matter of time before the planet burnt to cinder and no we will not survive on Mars

So the question is why the fuck should anyone be concerned about this crackpot having a few nukes? He won't stop at a few nukes though. The US will not do a thing and this regime knows very well how to do brinkmanship. Nobody will do a thing.

can someone just nuke this fat chubby already. whatever temporary chaos there is would be more than offset by the longer term peace in the region.

what are you talking about?

the x-coordinate does not represent a flat earth. it is representing the range of the missile.

pic related at source: dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA576039

fucking armchair physicist trying to be steven hawking yet can't even read a graph

I just did the comps for aus theyre well within range of our entire notth coast all the way down to the red centere. But none of our capitals are in range yet. Except darwin. That should probably be nuked so we can start over up there anyway.

Good. Fuck Iran.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXXL2-5a28

But Trump must make America great again.

Israel needs Iran as a foil to maintain its power plays in the ME. Setting that off would result in their apocalyptic end times bullshit, and probably in the form of Israel hucking nukes in every direction for the general suffering of all the goyim around the world.

>Being this autistic, I was off by 150 miles; well within the margin of error for a weapon like this free falling
Even soviet missiles of the 60's could hit a target within a 2 miles of it designated target while free falling because that's what being an ICBM (ballistic missile) is all about. The powered part of the ICBM's flights normally only the first third, if that. So no, an 8% margin of error even for the shittiest of ICBMs working as designed is not within the margin, its actually larger than the very firsts one ever.

Theyre also in range of our iron ore ports and mines. But surely the norks wouldnt be smart enough to nuke our iron producing centres.

Interesting how Korea is placed in such a way so that they could reach all the relevant countries with their dong. Is this a coincidence or did the Chinese plan this all along?

I am fully aware what it represents, the Washington's post description and a few napkin calculations show they all fucking did was what I described here: That's not how that works.

Destroying Iran is the only thing that can guarantee stability in the middle east. Israel needs to be in charge of that region. All the pieces will fall into place when that happens.

Vietnam has a dong. North Korea has a won.

>Alaska
Literally where? Do they even realise they are part of the US?

Of course the DPRK maynot have a land based target in mind. Just boost a large as possible nuke above the Earth's atmosphere, and detonate it there, in the general direction of their target and hope the resulting EMP does enough damage to justify the risk of retaliation. The EMP effect could not be restricted to any one country and would damage a great many, all of whom would seek revenge.

They have at least two dongs and no wons, according to the picture I was replying to.

Yes, and they often disdain the lower 48 for thinking they should be able to tell them how to run their lives from thousands of miles away.

But it's still the US.

Now that Best Korea has the capability to launch nuclear ICBM's doesn't that officially make them untouchable? Nobody could even fuck with them before so it seems like they have officially joined the club of "the untouchable nuclear powers.

The only realistic option I see here is a pre emptive strike on Best Korea at the cost of forfeiting South korea. What other realistic options are there at this point?