• platysalty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    An Ohio-class submarine carries 20 Trident II D5 missiles, each of which can deliver up to eight nuclear warheads to targets as far as 12,000 km (7,500 miles) away.

    Let me get this straight. Do these missiles split into 8 individual warheads that can hit individual targets? Or do they just pack 8 warheads together for bigger boom? Or is it more of a cluster bomb kind of deal?

    On one hand, cool. On the other, especially considering what’s hot in the movies recently, bloody hell that’s a bit too many bombs, isn’t it?

    • Lem453@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      They split up and can hit different targets. It also makes anti missile air defense harder

    • Fisting for Freedom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Multiple independent warheads that can hit different targets. Also, they can actually carry up 12 warheads each , but the US limits the number deployed to meet treaty obligations. And each boat can has 20 missile tubes.

      It’s a lot of Armageddon in a small space.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    76
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow. I know Reuters is state-affiliated media, but the barbarism and cultural fetishizing of brutal mass murder and environmental devastation is just disgusting. These people are sick. When will the European hordes learn that this sort of behavior is uncivilized and hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. I guess they’ll just have to fuck around and find out.

    • baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know Reuters is state-affiliated media

      Jeez, even the first thing you say can easily be checked. Please check if what you think is true is actually true.

      Reuters partly does their own research/reporting, partly it just redistributes reports from other media.

      That’s completely different than your first claim.

      barbarism and cultural fetishizing of brutal mass murder

      This doesn’t make any sense. Are you from Russia? How does anything in your comment make sense? It feels like random words and sentences.

      • appel@whiskers.bim.boats
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the first line may have been in jest, regardless, the rest of the points are valid I believe. They are exclaiming in horror at the attitide conveyed by the article, that showing off with these subs and terrorizing NK with them is good and we should be proud of it. I also see this as pretty barbaric behaviour. That sub has enough nukes on it to probably turn to glass every population centre in NK. Isn’t that terrifying?

        NK poses no real harm, they are desperately trying to catch up with their military, probably because they are surrounded by American weapons. The only thing that NK has been taught by the international community is that you have to have nukes and be a bully to be successful. Following the example of the US. I’m not sure whether or not that poster is from Russia has much to do with what they wrote, and for the record, I found it perfectly legible.

        • torphexi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          „NK poses no real harm“ the people suffering under a brutal militaristic dictatorship. Starving and possibly worked to their death if they disagree even slightly with the state or dare to question their leader might disagree.

          • appel@whiskers.bim.boats
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did neglect to mention I meant external harm. But I wonder does surrounding them with guns and nukes make their state more likely to demilitarize? I feel like it does not.

            • torphexi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair enough, I mean they are also increasingly posing a threat to external entities, didn’t a recent missile test fly over Japan? But in general I do not think NK is a positive influence on the world, much less once they can build and deploy nuclear weapons. In any case the original article really isn’t news as the us has the ability to strike basically anywhere on the planet with nuclear weapons. But I do agree that it won’t have a demilitarizing effect, however I doubt anything could have.

    • tallwookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pyongyang is probably safe but port cities like Chongjin or Nampo will be the first to be smashed to bits if/when the west decides to go that route.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        The West already devastated the entire country completely unprovoked. 30,000 tons of napalm. 600,000 tons of bombs (more than the US dropped in the Pacific Theater during ALL of WW2). Destroyed every single city and town. Destroyed 85% of their buildings. North Korea is the third most bombed country in the history of the world.

        The US is a bloodthirsty death cult.

          • renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            And they were right to. I’d be damned if some foreign country tried to set up a fascist client state in my homeland, especially one that was made up predominantly of the imperial overlords that were just thrown out.

              • renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I wholeheartedly agree? I was referring to how the South Korean government was predominantly made up of Japanese imperial collaborators in its early years.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh shit. I thought you were defending the US occupying South Korea! Got my thread mixed up!

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which has nothing to do with the US. The US created the entire concept of South Korea in its barbaric wrath against anyone that would try to do something other than white European capitalism.

              • appel@whiskers.bim.boats
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is it though? Does the US really have business in their war? (Of course the answer is yes, but only to sell them weapons)

              • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Reading your comment history, it seems it would benefit you greatly to read history. The simple reaction you just had to the parent comment was born out of historical ignorance: you don’t know the history of the region, so when you see a claim that you don’t like the sound of (despite it being true), your reaction is to assume the other person is divorced from reality. In actuality, by nature of not knowing history, you are detached from reality.