Hacker News Reader

Comment by mitchellberry | Hacker News Reader

There 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.

View on HN

Not arguing about the propaganda point, but there are legitimate reasons for not shooting down test missiles.

If you always shoot down test missiles, then NK just has to keep firing test missiles until they build one that doesn't get shot down.

Certainly there are fair reasons for hiding capabilities, and they seem quite adept at determining what is going into the sea or not, but in a war of words environment if it was a certainty as THAAD propenents seem to claim a single shootdown would be a huge PR blow for nk.

It's just not reliable enough to risk and as such is still a last resort measure.

Defending against a nuclear ICBM is not possible to do reliably. It's a sad reality.

That is a good point. But you also probably don't want to tell people you have microwave tech so that they develop counter measures.

or until they run out of money

Money for what ?

As long as they don't rely on foreign supply for their missiles[1], they can manufacture them forever without having to pay anything to anybody.

[1]: it may sound like a bold hypothesis, but I doubt anyone would ship missile materials to North Korea. China could, of course, but that would be a bit risky diplomatically.

> it may sound like a bold hypothesis, but I doubt anyone would ship missile materials to North Korea.

Historically, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan cooperated on nuclear and missile tech, though I think that was engineering rather than parts.

The place is an autocracy. The only way they will run out, is if nobody, and i mean absolutely nobody, wants to trade with them, officially or under the table.

And with NK slaves showing up in Polish shipyards, that is highly unlikely.

They have been at this for fifty years, don't hold your breath.

why would they need money? Why would they need to trade with anyone? It is not like North Korea is infinitely small and the earth infinitely big. The earth is a small globe, and NK is a region of that globe, one which almost certainly can be an autarky.

This 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.

Am 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.

Sounds like they're talking about some newer technology that works at range, but this has been around for a long time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compre...

The electrical load (output) can be a high power microwave source, or just blast out a massive EMP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power...

Seems like the weapon can be put in cruise missiles.

I expect it must be put in something that can bring it close to its target to be effective. O(n²) power drop off for electromagnetic radiation is tough to beat at a distance of kilometers.

O(n²) power drop off only applies to a spherical emission. Focused power drops of much more slowly.

You can get a way smaller constant, but the area of a cone still drops off as O(n²) with distance. You would need collimination to beat that, and even then, there’s atmospheric dispersion.

I suspect the key is definitely in its focusing mechanism that allows for high powered bursts to be relayed to its target with relative efficiency.

And after reading this news, North Koreans likely in rush to use some dead simple and reliable knob for launching, instead of computers.

Vacuum tube radar, anyone?

"If the US and allies could take down a rocket they'd shoot down every NK test missle just to make a point."

I'm not sure that news is true, shooting down a missile with something that doesn't fly and is not a laser would require an immense power, but anyway, using it on test missiles would be a really bad move: if you have a countermeasure you never use it until when it's really necessary (war) both to keep the surprise element and to give minimum information to the enemy about what you can or -even more important- cannot do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com