10 ms·
North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often
- Merad 10y agoThe article that this discusses appears to be https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi...
- mathiasben 10y agospeculation as to why the rocket test have been failing? 88% failure rate is pretty dramatic.
- jedimastert 10y agoApparently, the prevailing theory is a program to cyber-sabotage the launch systems[0]. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi...
- accountface 10y agoIt also seems crazy to me that we'd be successful at sabotage 88% of the time
- manicdee 10y agoWell, it could be 11 agencies each being successful about 10% of the time?
- mulmen 10y agoThat seems to be a preferable approach since space lasers would require allowing NK to build a functional missile in the first place. If it is possible to sabotage the actual design at some critical point they can be prevented from creating functional missiles at all.
- mc32 10y agoI wonder if they could go the next step and make it fall back on Mr Kim's compound --then he'd suspect one of two things, his own people were trying to get him or-- as adversary had critically compromised his systems. Both scenarios would be equally devastating for his goals. Scuttling them at sea is nice and all --having them go up and straight back down would present the regime with quite a problem.
- tim333 10y agoThat would be an interesting solution to the North Korean problem if the missile was armed.
- dwringer 10y agoDirected energy weapons used similar to the way kidney stones are dissolved. Several weaker signals constructively interfere directly at the location of the target providing a destructive amount of energy but without a single traceable point of origin?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rangibaby 10y agoBuilding rockets is hard, even if you know what you are doing. Neither Russia nor PRC have any interest in DPRK developing their nuclear arsenal. DPRK is resource-constrained (to say the least), and that's not just about money.
- pps43 10y agoNot really. In the first two years (from May 1957 to May 1959), R-7 had 56% failure rate (23 launches, 13 failures). It is now one of the most reliable rockets.
- karbak 10y agoSomeone forgot to task Detachment 2702.
- tickbw 10y agoBest Comment ever.
- PhilWright 10y agoIs it wise for reporters that discover a covert program to disrupt North Korean missile launches to disclose the information? Seems like they want the credit for breaking a significant story more than they care about the delicate and dangerous situation with a rogue country that has nuclear weapons. I suggest they STFU.
- dwringer 10y agoYeah, North Korea was just waiting for the NYT reporters to give them up-to-date intel on why their launches were failing. That's really the only reporting Kim Jong Un trusts, so I hear.
- PhilWright 10y agoThey may have all sorts of suspicions at the high failure rate. Having it confirmed gives them information it would be better they didn't have.
- mulmen 10y agoThe article discusses this, they did meet with the CIA before publishing. The CIA will of course issue the standard Glomar response (or simply remain silent) and NK will have no more or less concrete information than they had before.
- rapsacnz 10y agoThey don't need concrete information - it's not a criminal trail. Simply the knowledge of the existence of a program is easily enough to derail it.
- wahern 10y agoOn a less sarcastic note, the fact that Western governments have such a difficult time gathering credible intelligence in North Korea is evidence that the North Koreans have a robust intelligence apparatus. What the whole Abdul Khan episode brought to light some years back was how Western agencies underestimated the technological and political skill and motivation of many so-called "third world" countries. Arguably that blind spot was caused by the deep-seated racism and cultural elitism of Western countries. There were plenty of opportunities to discover the illicit trade; we just weren't convinced they were capable of it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Our leaders never took it seriously because their expectations were that these countries were still too backwards. Yet another example of why we really need to face prejudice head on. We simply can't accurately assess the state of things if we're blinded by so many poor assumptions, particularly the ones girded by racist attitudes. If American culture continues casting Asians as uncreative copycats; Muslims as radical fundamentalists; Africans as irredeemably corrupt; and South Americans as hopelessly socialist; then we're in for decades of more wild and very much unwelcome surprise.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Firebrand 10y agoIf we look past the North Korean missile program, has the U.S. opened Pandora's box by using malware to affect another country's missile launch? We used to talk about Stuxnet infecting Iran's underground nuclear computer systems which destabilized their centrifuges, but now we're talking about malware affecting the "left of launch" of a missile. If this is the future of stopping a potential nuclear attack from another country then is everything that used to be stable about the nuclear order now in disarray due to the "cyber age"? During the Cold War, The U.S. and the USSR knew where each other's missile were located and generally shied away from operations within the other's command and control systems for the most part. Are we not inviting other major powers to play around in our nuclear systems? It's one thing to try and stop the North Koreans from launching a missile at California, but if the Chinese, the Russians, and the U.S. are inside each other's command and control centers, does this not undermine the mutually assured destruction doctrine? It could help make a country be so sure of its capabilities that it would be willing take a bet and never suffer any proportional retaliation.
- mulmen 10y agoWe don't know what other possible defenses are in place, this may just be the method preferred at this stage in missile development or perhaps the NY Times just hasn't identified others yet. We may also have other vectors on the weapon itself. Perhaps another software bug like this or Stuxnet and/or more conventional missile defense technologies. Like anything else in cyber security it is important to understand what is possible to defend oneself against it. Do you think the Russians and Chinese would sit idly by if we did not participate in cyber warfare? With regard to MAD any nuclear strategy has to be based on the expectation of other parties interfering with the proper operation of our arsenal. This is why the nuclear triad exists. Is this a new vector? Maybe. Is it so different from designing missiles that are fire-and forget or using launch codes in the first place?
- ra 10y ago> Are we not inviting other major powers to play around in our nuclear systems? Not really. We're just acknowledging the fact that they can and will. I don't believe the US has the most advanced "cyberwarfare" military apparatus at this time... but that's another topic.
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoSo Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to us. This was the whole reason the US & Russia tried to restrict building anti-missile defense systems in treaties - because it increased the chance someone might think a first strike could work. If true, this is bad.
- jeffdavis 10y agoThe US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other. No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous. China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK. Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert on this subject and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
- ekianjo 10y agoChina is the main supporter of the DPRK regime. It acts as a buffer against the US sphere of influence in the region.
- yladiz 10y agoOne possibility of what would happen if there were a war/conflict would be China would take over NK and create a buffer Chinese state, possibly another country in the Two System, One Country philosophy. China is becoming increasingly intolerant of DPRK's actions, as evident by their stopping importing of coal due to the killing of Kim Jong-nam (which will hurt DPRK's economy as it is a large part of their exports). My guess is that the buffer country would be a compromise, since SK doesn't want China directly at their door and vice versa, but SK wouldn't be able to really support NK's terrible economic situation as their economy is too small, and the US wouldn't want China's influence in the region to too much grow. I could see another part of that compromise would be to allow NK citizens to go to SK to be with family, be reeducated, etc, as well.
- 10y ago
- nonbel 10y agoI hope someone has said this: "Perhaps it is a biased sample? Defective missiles are being sent to the "known" sites to make you underestimate their capabilities."
- Athas 10y agoThis makes no sense if you want the missiles to work as a deterrent. I'm quite sure North Korea isn't actually planning on going to war (and winning it); they just want to give the impression that going to war would be too costly for their enemies. Giving the impression that their missiles don't work is counter-productive in this context.
- ry_ry 10y ago"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
- chvid 10y agoWhy cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clearly benifit from that and have already seen the rise of Japan, South Korea and China without military conflict. I know the explanation is that they are "crazy" and "irrational". But those are traits of individual persons; I find it hard to believe that can apply to a whole country.
- WillyOnWheels 10y agoNorth Korea wants recognition that it and the US is still at war (even though the rest of the entire planet does not consider the US and NK to be at war). They also want the US to directly negotiate with it (NK). Whenever the US feels like negotiating with NK, it calls a meeting with South Korea, China, and Japan... bizarrely and deliberately not involving NK. The political and military (perhaps in NK they are the same thing) leadership in NK belligerently fires missiles and pursues a nuclear weapons program because the current government in NK wants to stay in power, and this is their way of trying to preserve this. I'm not saying it'll work, but that's their line of reasoning.
- vtange 10y agoYou make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames. The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in control so you might just be enriching him and lengthening the people's suffering.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat's nonsense, just as much nonsense as saying that economic sanctions against a dictatorship hurt that dictator more than it hurts the people there. Of course it doesn't. The guarantee is that the dictator will not eat one truffle less and that the people will suffer more. The best way to attack a dictatorship is to fund a middle class with something to lose.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoThis was covered on today's edition of the NYT podcast, The Daily, too. I highly recommend listening to it. It's my one 'must-listen' podcast. It's hosted by the guy who did the Times election podcast, The Runup, but offers far better production value. Give it a whirl: https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily
- Animats 10y agoThis might make sense if North Korea hasn't mastered onboard inertial guidance yet. Early US ICBMs, the Atlas, and (probably) the Titan, were radio guided from the ground. The Minuteman and Polaris were and are completely self-contained after launch. That took a lot of development, much of it done at MIT's Draper Labs. Today, you can buy fiber optic gyros on Alibaba. The accuracy might not be good enough for hitting a silo, but it should easily keep a rocket roughly on course. It's surprising that N. Korea doesn't have reliable full onboard guidance by now.
- ghughes 10y agoNYT's original scoop hints that the missiles or the systems controlling them were compromised by malware similar to Stuxnet, which worked by tampering with parameters used to control industrial hardware. That kind of attack could work regardless of the accuracy of NK's guidance systems.
- rl3 10y agoNote: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to mention North Korea continues to pose an actual WMD threat, they have concentration camps in dire need of liberation, their general populace is basically an ongoing humanitarian disaster, and they continue to pose an ever-increasing threat to global security. All the US had to do was say NK was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda and had provided material support for 9/11 or something. War fever would've done the rest. Granted, an estimated 100,000 civilian casualties from shelling in Seoul during the opening hours of the war is a hard pill to swallow. Today's threat however is the same deal plus nukes. Then again, we had no qualms blowing away about 6500 Iraqi civilians with our surgical "shock and awe" campaign.[0] Turns out when you drop 2,000lb GBU-31s on civilian targets in the middle of a densely populated urban environment, it tends to kill a whole lot of people. Who knew! The fireworks look pretty on CNN though.[1][2] Of course, enemy civilian lives tend to be far less valuable than allied civilian lives. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties [1] https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm [2] https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/10.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/10.htm
- khuey 10y agoEh, it could have easily started World War 3 with China. Nobody cares what happens to Iraq.
- misja111 10y agoAnd, North Korea didn't have oil. If the US just wanted to invade a country to make the world a better place then there would have been plenty of easier countries to invade. How about Zimbabwe or Eritrea to mention just a few.
- billpg 10y agoIs there an ideal number of times for North Korea's missiles to work?
- coldcode 10y agoI would think zero is a number we could live with.
- jccalhoun 10y agoEvery year (I think they were cancelled once or twice) the US and South Korea hold military exercises. Around that same time North Korea does something to flex their muscles. In writing the comment I just looked up when the last US-South Korean military exercise. I was surprised to learn it started March 1st. http://www.dw.com/en/us-south-korea-launch-large-scale-military-exercises/a-37757202 http://www.dw.com/en/us-south-korea-launch-large-scale-milit...