3 ms·
The "secrets" are how good our radar systems are at tracking a Mach 20 object in space. That sort of stuff is classified and no one seems to be speaking about t
by dragontamer 5y ago
The "secrets" are how good our radar systems are at tracking a Mach 20 object in space. That sort of stuff is classified and no one seems to be speaking about that.
Yes, we know what path it probably will take, but to actually _HIT_ such a target requires extremely precise tracking and positioning.
What we do know, is that they ground the entire West Coast's airplanes when an ICBM from North Korea is launched. My guess is that those radars probably work better when there's fewer airplanes in the sky. Hard to know for sure, the spooks don't seem to be talking about the details. But I'm working backwards here with Occam's razor.
- jonathankoren 5y agoNo we don’t know that they ground airplanes during a publicized DPRK ICBM test. This isn’t the first test, yet this is the first temporary grounding. Occam’s Razor suggests someone in the west coast ATC fucked up.
- dragontamer 5y agoEvery other DPRK ICBM test has crashed into the ocean. This one also crashed into the ocean, but it got further along. In particular, there seems to be confirmations that this DPRK ICBM test did in fact reach Mach 10. If this is the first ICBM to reach hypersonic speeds and had something that looked like an intercontinental launch cycle, it would make sense to take it seriously.
- jonathankoren 5y ago> If this is the first ICBM to reach hypersonic speeds *EVERY* ICBM hits hypersonic speeds.
- dragontamer 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-12 The Hwasong-12 (EDIT: Hwasong-8 I mean) missile test only reached Mach 3, which is slower than hypersonic. If this is the first successful hypersonic missile from North Korea, that's big news, and possibly warranting the severe response that our nuclear defense forces (probably) gave to the FAA.
- jonathankoren 5y agoAgain. You are simply wrong on the facts and your interpretation. I suggest you read any commentary from an arms control expert. Nothing you’ve been asserting makes any sense at all.