New North Korean missile tested in Iran
Could threaten Guam, but not continental US
Reports are emerging that a new North Korean ballistic missile may have been test-fired from a site in Iran.
The new weapon, reportedly dubbed 'Musudan' by intelligence analysts, after the well-known North Korean missile facility, was first seen during a military parade in North Korea last month. No photography was allowed at the parade, but media reports have suggested that US spy satellites spotted a previously unknown rocket, perhaps with a range of 5,000 km.
Now it appears that the new intermediate-range missile has been tested from Iranian territory, rather than North Korean. The two countries are believed to have been cooperating on missile technology for some time.
The new Musudan weapon is believed to be longer-ranging than North Korea's Taepodong-1, and could hit American territory at Guam, but wouldn't be able to reach the continental US. The triple-stage version of the Taepodong-2 was assessed by the Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency in January as much more dangerous, with a potential range of 15,000km. This would put US homeland territory firmly under the North Korean footprint. However, the most recent Taepodong-2 test, in May last year, was a failure.
If the reports are correct, this latest test doesn't indicate any major new threat. The new Musudan missile isn't exceptionally capable, and there isn't any firm indication that it can carry a nuclear warhead yet, supposing one were available.
Nonetheless, these reports do serve to confirm the strength of the cooperative weapons-research axis between Iran and North Korea. ®
Pointed at us
I seem to remember that London was a target for a large number of rockets and that some of them actually landed and blew large lumps out of it. But then that was 63 years ago and they no longer make V1s and V2s nowadays !!
Nice hyperbole there but you missed my point entirely. The article was about the use of a long-range missile from Iran, and my response was to those who were crying about it being pointed at us. Such an obvious and traceable act of warfare from a country is completely different to a group of radical extremists loosely tied to regional terror cells throughout countries in the middle east, so I'm sorry but I really can't see how that corresponds to what I was saying.
What are the odds?
What were the odds of 9/11?
The government of Afghanistan was warned of an "immediate and obviously overwhelming response" if they did not give up bin laden.
The Islamic fanatics/fundamentalists obviously chose to suffer the consequences.
Your argument was rendered faulty in October of 2001.
Time for you to "think clearly here", Will.