5 ms·
US Military's Microwave Weapon Can Fry North Korean Missile Electronics
- vorotato 9y agowell don't tell them that they'll just wrap their missiles with microwave doors.
- blackflame7000 9y agoDon't worry we passed sactions limiting their microwave imports
- SubiculumCode 9y agoThis N. Korea standoff is a tough situation. I cannot help but wonder if satellite weaponry exists that the U.S. could use to laser beam their dear leader? [Edited for clarity]
- rovek 9y agoThe U.S or North Korean leader?
- cosinetau 9y agomeh.
- Waterluvian 9y agoI'm pretty sure the U.S. has the technical ability to explode Dear Leader. I doubt they think it's the right move.
- arethuza 9y agoA bit like the UK plan to assassinate Hitler in 1944 which was cancelled as "he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the Allies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley
- maxxxxx 9y agoNot doing this was a really bad mistake. I think most of his successors would have tried to find a peace agreement quickly.
- arethuza 9y agoBy that point the Allies (actually originally just Roosevelt, with the others following along) had insisted on unconditional surrender: "those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender
- LeifCarrotson 9y agoFrom the linked article: > Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development. Hitler was an eloquent and persuasive person who effectively represented/exploited Nazi philosophy. There were certainly (secret) critics of his policies and goals, but he was not some kind of sorcerer with a spell over the German population as if, on his assassination, the Axis powers would shake their heads and blink their eyes and say "wait a minute, are we the baddies?" The same applies even more to modern politics because modern states are not as totalitarian in their removal of critics - they must therefore have stronger supporters. You cannot blame only Donald Trump or Theresa May or Xi Jinping or Angela Merkel or whoever your opponents figurehead may be; they have huge political parties behind them and are backed by huge numbers of constituents who identify with their message. There are surely strong effects from having these leadership positions, but you also need to reach their base with your message.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
- stevenwoo 9y agoSeoul is near the DMZ, probably closer than San Jose and San Francisco. One would have to take out their entire chain of command to prevent a retaliatory conventional artillery strike on the US bases near the DMZ and Seoul.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoI would think that the death of Kim would lead to.a number of power plays by the various leadership...that they would turn inward...
- stevenwoo 9y agoThat's possible. Based on all the border incidents since the end of the Korean War though it looks like the North Korea side is on a hair trigger to respond.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoI was supposing a hypothetical laser attack because it wouldn't be detected like a missile strike would. Therefore, the political need to respond immediately with all out war would be lessened, and maybe take less precedence than the power struggle.
- ben_w 9y agoIf satellites were not (for good reason!) extremely conservative, I can see a way to turn spy satellite into a deniable blinding weapon for about $10 of parts.
- vorotato 9y agoAn eye for an eye (via satellite) leaves the whole world blind.
- TylerH 9y agoThe weaponization of space is generally outlawed by the Outer Space Treaty of which both the United States and North Korea are signatories.
- barry-cotter 9y agoYeah, and the US doesn’t spy at the UN because it signed treaties saying it wouldn’t, like all the other members of the UN.
- qbrass 9y agoIt only bans nuclear weapons and other WMDs.
- tomjen3 9y agoThey had KJI on their video feeds for 20ish minutes when he was at one of the launches. It will be interesting to see if not blowing him and the missile up will be considered a mistake..
- Cyberdog 9y agoWow, so the weapon fries Nork electronics and only Nork electronics? Weaponry from other nations as well as domestic electronics and infrastructure are completely unaffected? Hmm. Somehow, I doubt it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Cyberdog 9y agoI don't seem to be able to edit this comment anymore, but since it's being downvoted so much, perhaps I need to clarify the tone: Isn't it interesting that this article is written to imply the microwave weapons will specifically target Nork military hardware when it could be used upon other "enemies" and civilian populations too?
- richardfeynman 9y agoMost of North Korea's ICBMs are deep underground in elaborate fortified tunnel systems. Can this technology really pierce deep into mountains?
- dboreham 9y agoIs this true? Everything I've read says they use mobile launchers (that they bought from China on the basis they had been de-militarized and converted for "logging").
- mitchellberry 9y agoThere is not any proven tech that can take down an icbm reliably. This is reassuring propaganda plain and simple. If the US and allies could take down a rocket they'd shoot down every NK test missle just to make a point. Absolutely delusional saying this system can take down consumer drones and then extrapolate that out to a missle that is travelling at speeds measured in machs. Even with drones I don't see how this is more effective than radio signal and gps hijacking which can control a malicious drone rather than destroy it in place. Various companies already do this incredibly well, shoutout to D13.
- sandworm101 9y agoThis isn't about shooting down a rocket. This is about disrupting the launch complex. It's about sending enough energy into a complex that computers, the ones in the offices, stop working reliably enough to launch. It is possible, but imho would require a dish far to large to fit on an aircraft. So I agree that it doesn't exist, that this is propaganda. EM interference is why launch complexes use fiber. You don't want a lighting strike near a 2km cable to cause a squib to fire somewhere. Lighting protections also protect against EM attack.
- riku_iki 9y agoAnd after reading this news, North Koreans likely in rush to use some dead simple and reliable knob for launching, instead of computers.
- digi_owl 9y agoVacuum tube radar, anyone?
- mitchellberry 9y agoAm just an armchair commentator but surely NK already has hardened facilities prepared for an EMP from a nuclear strike? I don't see how a b52 with a kerosene powered engine is anywhere near capable of delivering that same level of radiation.
- lisper 9y agoThis story has been all over the news in the last 24 hours, but it's sending my bogometer well into the yellow because Faraday cages are a simple and effective defense against any electromagnetic interference. (That's why you can safely peer into your microwave oven while it's pouting 1500 watts into your leftover lasagna.) So this feels like a Saddam-has-WMDs-style disinformation campaign to me. It also has a whiff of desperation to it since we really so seem to be pretty helpless to stop NK from developing the ability to deliver nukes to the continental U.S. without more collateral damage to Seoul than the American public is likely willing to accept (to say nothing of the residents of Seoul!) I fear that the ethos of tell-a-lie-often-enought-and-it-becomes-the-truth has permeated very deeply into the U.S. government. That approach often works in politics. In physics, not so much.
- leggomylibro 9y agoI love the explanation I got from my high school physics teacher for why microwaves aren't dangerous to be near; anyone comment on whether it's actually accurate? Or whether I may be misremembering it? 'You can look into the microwave safely because the holes in the grate are smaller than the amplitude and thicker than the frequency of the microwave.'
- whatshisface 9y agoThat can't be right because the amplitude of EM waves has nothing to do with spatial displacements (unlike guitar strings). The way it works is that every point in space has an E (electric) and B (magnetic) field vector which can oscillate around a 3D space. The vectors point towards other places in space, but their meaning is a field strength and direction at a single point. So this diagram[1] is actually describing the EM fields along a single line, not in the volume of space that the (purely illustrative) arrows are drawn in. The correct understanding of Faraday cages is that their holes must be small relative to the wavelength: this is easy to remember because on a very large wavelength scale you would expect the tiny holes to not be very noticeable, and on a very short wavelength scale you're essentially talking about the light that you can see your food with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#/media/File:Light-wave.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#/media/File:Light-wave.s...
- pps43 9y agoI suspect that North Koreans have heard of Faraday cage and shielding. The missile has no need to communicate with the outside world, it can use astro and inertial navigation systems.
- njarboe 9y agoMaybe the world should support any country with nuclear weapons in their efforts to build domestic ICBMs. If a nuclear power attacks a country, having it arrive on the tip of an ICBM leaves no doubt where it came from and who is responsible. Using a submarine, shielded shipping container, 4x4 across the Mexican border, etc. to plant and explode a nuclear weapon in the USA or other country would cause much greater long term harm to global political and social systems. On the other hand, one does not want North Korea armed with hundreds of atomic weapons and the ability to end civilization single-handedly. How about this as an opening offer to North Korea? We will accept you with 10 warheads and end the embargo. You allow full inspections of any location at any time, so the number of warheads can be verified. Seems like new approaches to the North Korea problem are needed as they now have detonated a ~100kT device.
- phkahler 9y agoYour response to NK is IMHO exactly what NK wants. They think that having nuclear weapons will get them a seat at the table. Which table I'm not sure. What they want from that point I suspect is more than just elimination of sanctions.
- timthelion 9y agoWould it be so terrible to end sactions against North Korea? Trade should rise the middle class North Koreans up, and the last thing a wealthy middle class wants is war. A well fed and housed middle class seems the best insurance against war possible.
- grandalf 9y agoThis story is meant to make the American public more willing to support an attack on NK. Americans are generally happy to support strikes that we view as high tech and not targeting/harming civilians directly. But in reality any strikes with RF weapons will be accompanied by significant conventional strikes. I think there is still zero chance that there will be any sort of war between the US and NK. NK holds all the cards and has played them quite effectively. The only question is how much longer our president will continue to bluster embarrassingly before he realizes his actual strategic reality. One other possibility is that the US would be willing to undertake a strike on NK even if there was a decent chance of NK launching a successful attack on Seoul. In that scenario, the goal of the PR is to help Americans feel that every "high tech" thing possible was done to stop NK and that the casualties were sad but ultimately worthwhile. US bluster over NK reveals both the failure of power projection toward China and China's full knowledge that the US has more to lose from failed negotiations than China does. China will let this play out slowly and let our leaders act foolish as long as they wish. It's funny how even in spite of the widespread mockery of our president, there is much less mockery of the foolishness underlying US "tough talk" aimed at NK. I think we believe that the tough talk is aimed at NK and not at the American people.
- En_gr_Student 9y agoFELCMSMRCS <- you are welcome, even if you never said thank you per our agreement.