Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (215806)	1/8/2002 4:34:52 PM
From: rich4eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

What is the launch range of these missiles? And in the war against terrorism why don't we just destroy the launch sites?

To: KLP who wrote (215806)	1/8/2002 4:42:21 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The best way to stop a missle attack from North Korea is to stop their weapons program, not let them begin an arms race with us in catch-up mode. The threat of an attack by "rogue" nations like North Korea is the primary reason given for building a missle defense. The current Taepo-dong 1 missile can only carry a 1,000-kilogram nuclear bomb for about 2,500 kilometers, not enough to reach the US. It could also carry lighter biological or chemical weapons for 4,100 kilometers, but it would still be about 400 kilometers short of the two closest parts of America - the tip of Alaska and the Hawaii islands. However, the untested Taepo-dong 2 missile can just barely reach Alaska. Of course, North Korea could also launch a short-range nuclear missile from a ship, and the current missile defense system wouldn't be able to defend against it. In addition, if a nuclear bomb was to be launched from a ship, it would be more difficult to track where it came from, and the US probably wouldn't be able to retaliate. area51zone.com