EPTNorth Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6327 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
A true ICBM however is an entirely different beast than simply a long range missile. You should think of an ICBM as a vehicle for space travel. Wouldn't you agree that space travel seems more difficult than building a bomb? Also, the two topics aren't disjunct. Making an armed ICBM also means that you not only need to be able to set off a fission explosion, you also need to be able to make a miniature device that will survive space travel - not just set off the explosion in what is essentially a controlled laboratory experiment. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
| ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On January 15 2016 14:17 Assault_1 wrote: Maybe it's just me but I'm shocked an ICBM is more difficult to make than a nuclear bomb. Making a fission/fusion bomb seems so much more complex than a long-range missile. True ICBMs didn't come online until the we could get to space, so the late 50s. (I.e. almost 15 years after the A-Bomb from the USA and nearly 10 for Russia) But a Missile has to be a LOT more stable than a Space Rocket. You really, REALLY don't want to exploding on the launch pad. Or just a mile into the air. For the technological consistency of a hell-hole like North Korea, a missile-launched nuclear weapon could explode and EMP their own country. There's the further issue that these are military weapons, so they also need to roughly hit a useful target. Nuking the middle of the Pacific Ocean is a reason to obliterate North Korea, but that's not a military utility. (Unless you think shooting yourself in the head is a strategic victory). Still, for North Korea, it's only a bargaining chip. Our understanding is that the Khan-bomb should have a very high failure rate, but do you really need more than 1 in 5 working if you're lobbing across the Korean Peninsula? A bomb doesn't actually need to work to change everyone's considerations. Even with an Atomic Bomb, North Korea can't win a war with the South. They can just up the damage. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1080 Posts
They were able to achieve some nuclear explosions, that's the only sure thing isn't it? I remember the first one was even argued about just being giant non nuclear explosions to fake the achievement. A US spy plane was able to confirm the explosion being a weak nuclear one 2 days later though. But all the tests were underground right? It could be a stationary multi ton construction. The explosions were also quite weak. Maybe because of missing understanding of the construction or the quality of their material and "fuel" and hopefully not because they are already on a tactically-usable weapon level. Is there any info about that? They could be decades away of putting a true nuclear bomb in even a mid-range rocket. Really depends on how much they got from Khan... "Little Boy" weight 4-5 metric tons. The first true hydrogen bomb the US tested "Mike" weight over 80 metric tons! 10 megatons though... The warheads used in modern multi-warhead-ICBM's are on total different level. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
 We have all sorts of things that can fly around the world - airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons... but I imagine a missile is a totally different concept. Anyway I read a bit about how a MIRV (type of ICBM) works, it's quite complicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#/media/File:Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg/1055px-Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg.png) I'm just surprised there's so many stages - if any one of them fails the missile becomes useless, and each stage increases the chance of this happening | ||
|
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
qr.ae From the article: To put the capabilities of these weapons in perspective, the Indian Shaurya clocked in at a speed of about Mach 7.5. That means that in its test, it could cover the distance of San Francisco, California to Phoenix, Arizona in roughly the same time as a TV commercial break. That is some seriously scary shit. Even *IF* NK were able to develop ICBMs, I wouldn't be quite that scared. Our defense systems should be able to knock it down, I cant imagine NK developing and firing off more than just one. But if a country were to fire a hypersonic ICBM? That jets off into space and roars back down from the sky at what experts believe will reach speeds of up to Mach 20 someday? How the hell do we defend against that | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
pebble444
Italy2503 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
http://spaceflight101.com/north-korea-kms-4-launch-success/ | ||
|
oBlade
United States6327 Posts
On January 16 2016 04:55 BlueRoyaL wrote: Semi related but (very) interesting article about the future of ICBMs (answer on Quora): qr.ae From the article: That is some seriously scary shit. Even *IF* NK were able to develop ICBMs, I wouldn't be quite that scared. Our defense systems should be able to knock it down, I cant imagine NK developing and firing off more than just one. But if a country were to fire a hypersonic ICBM? That jets off into space and roars back down from the sky at what experts believe will reach speeds of up to Mach 20 someday? How the hell do we defend against that All ICBMs are hypersonic. :/ They wouldn't get very far otherwise. It takes speeds over Mach 20 to get halfway around the world just due to physics. | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2503 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On February 08 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote: All ICBMs are hypersonic. :/ They wouldn't get very far otherwise. It takes speeds over Mach 20 to get halfway around the world just due to physics. Wouldn't it depend if they went spinwise or antispinwise? A very slow ICBM could just go up and then back down and end up very far East. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On February 08 2016 23:23 KwarK wrote: Wouldn't it depend if they went spinwise or antispinwise? A very slow ICBM could just go up and then back down and end up very far East. You realize the atmosphere moves with the earth, like when you jump you don't land 100 feet away. Even if it leaves earth's atmosphere it still has the momentum from earth's spin. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On February 10 2016 05:16 Assault_1 wrote: You realize the atmosphere moves with the earth, like when you jump you don't land 100 feet away. Even if it leaves earth's atmosphere it still has the momentum from earth's spin. That momentum would send it at a tangent once it left the atmosphere, rather than spinning around. If the earth were to cease to exist then people in the UK would be sent flying out into space in one direction and people in Australia would be sent in the other direction. We wouldn't keep spinning around a point where the earth used to be. The physics involved would be complicated but I stand by my patient ICBM strategy. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
| ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On February 10 2016 05:49 KwarK wrote: That momentum would send it at a tangent once it left the atmosphere, rather than spinning around. If the earth were to cease to exist then people in the UK would be sent flying out into space in one direction and people in Australia would be sent in the other direction. We wouldn't keep spinning around a point where the earth used to be. The physics involved would be complicated but I stand by my patient ICBM strategy. Yeah that's right, they would go in a straight line (or I guess start orbiting the sun). Anyway though, I think once it leaves the atmosphere it'd have two velocity components, one is a tangent in the direction of the earth's rotating atmosphere and the other is the rocket's velocity perpendicular to earth. So it would have to slow down and stop its tangential velocity to at least be travelling backward at the speed of earth's rotation (relative to earth), then eventually reverse its perpendicular velocity to drop back to earth (presumably on the other side of the planet). I think this is how it works? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On February 10 2016 06:07 zatic wrote: Uhm I am pretty sure that's not how it works. Where would the drive against the Earth's rotation come from? If you put a rock on a length of string and swing it around your head then when you let go it doesn't keep orbiting you, it goes out in a straight line 90 degrees from the line of the string at the time of release. Same principle. You'd need to clear the atmosphere but I think the principle is sound. You'd also need to turn around and come back down at the right time. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 10 2016 06:26 KwarK wrote: If you put a rock on a length of string and swing it around your head then when you let go it doesn't keep orbiting you, it goes out in a straight line 90 degrees from the line of the string at the time of release. Same principle. You'd need to clear the atmosphere but I think the principle is sound. You'd also need to turn around and come back down at the right time. You are (somewhat) right but the examples you are bringing up don't really explain what you are arguing. The reason the rocket doesn't come down at the same spot is that in order to stay over the same spot it would have to rotate around the center of the earth faster with every bit of altitude gained. But it keeps the same rotational speed it had at liftoff. That has nothing to do with in or out atmosphere either, if you want imagine the atmosphere doesn't exist and come out at the same location. The effect is rather small though over reasonable altitudes (like 100km) so you would still hit rather close from your starting location. Of course you could go further out to increase the effect but then you might as well just travel towards your target like a proper ICBM. | ||
| ||
