back
55 comments
"Defense stocks rise" bothers me infinitely more than "North Korea might have a satellite sometime next year"
One man's satellite delivery rocket is another man's ICBM. Ongoing progress in rocket design and experience is more concerning to me than a rise in value of 2 defense stocks.
Well yes and no. While it is technically possible to use a satellite launcher to deliver a nuclear weapon, those technologies have almost completely diverged in most countries. Satellite launch rockets are almost all liquid fueled now in order to maximize payload. Some early ICBMs were also liquid fueled, but that made them less effective as deterrents due to long launch delays. Modern ICBMs are solid fueled: not enough specific impulse to be very useful for orbital launch, but great for sending a warhead on a sub-orbital trajectory with no advance notice. Don't need to waste time with fueling, just turn the keys and it goes.
For advanced rockets, this is true. But not for first gen. First gen is the same tech for both.

That is why Sputnik was such a big deal: it was not JUST a huge science/engineering breakthrough, it said "you know your huge strategic airforce that means we cannot bomb you? Well actually we can still bomb you, and we can do it faster and more accurately". Older, surplus, ICBMs were routinely used for space launches back in the day (eg the Titan 2 which were even used for manned spaceflight). I think at point point it was a major source of income for early post-soviet russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)

That makes sense from a Western perspective where the primary value of nuclear weapons is deterrence. But for North Korea the calculus is different. North Korea already has a conventional deterrent in the form of artillery that could be fired at Seoul and do enormous damage in a matter of seconds.

Instead, their goal with nuclear weapons seems to be nuclear blackmail to obtain food and other economic aid to prop up their dysfunctional economy and support their totalitarian regime. For that purpose, liquid fueled rockets are fine because they don’t need to be fired at a moment’s notice. So it’s not hard to see how a space program could be used to further nuclear aims.

Key context (for those not following this): North Korea has had a parallel solid-rocket program for years, and have test-launched their first solid-fuel ICBM two months ago. They are almost certainly replacing their 60's-style liquid-fuel ICBM's with these things.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568032 ("North Korea tests ‘breakthrough’ solid-fuel ICBM")

That reads a bit like a SimCity/Railroad Tycoon in-game newspaper pop-up.
Could definitely be a Chirp on Cities Skylines.
Are the orbits of spy satellites agreed with any international institutions (e.g. to avoid collisions) or is it all secret and a free-for-all?
Secret and free for all.

"The world must cooperate to avoid a catastrophic space collision" (2021) - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02167-5

"...At the European Space Agency’s operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany, which controls key research spacecraft, hundreds of e-mail alerts arrive each day warning of potential space smash-ups. And, in May, NASA engineers spotted a 5-millimetre-wide hole in one of the International Space Station’s robotic arms, created by a collision with an unknown piece of space junk..."

Yup! Those aspects are covered in the Outer Space treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Most satellites are registered and their orbital data published. This includes reconnaissance satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration_Convention

You can find them here: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.htm... If you drill into the submissions from say, the USA, you can look up the "USA-###" designations and see USSF and NRO launches.

I believe however, that this data may not always be up to date, and might only reflect the orbital characteristics at time of launch, and not reflect subsequent maneuvers. Some reconnaissance satellites are then harder to track, and it's a bit of a hobby for those who don't have access to an enormous space radar. =P But that's where the Space Liability convention comes into play. Basically, if you launched it, you're responsible for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention

The treaty does not require disclosure of all orbital parameters. And spy satellites do not publicly disclose specific orbits, even if they are not difficult to discover.

"China berates US after ‘close encounters’ with Elon Musk satellites - Beijing urges US to act responsibly after two near misses that it says posed serious threat to astronauts’ lives" (2021) - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/28/china-compla...

See "Online Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space" - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx

Most if not all Starlink say "Not registered with the United Nations."

With regards to Starlink, there's a backlog. The link there shows Starlink launches in 2023. If you look at the register (https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/spaceobjectregister/index.htm...), there's a list of submissions yet to be processed. But for those that have been, Starlink makes up a majority. For example: https://www.unoosa.org/res/osoindex/data/documents/us/st/sts...

Note the "USA-###" launches in there as well with the basic orbital characteristics. (USA-327 being the first mentioned above, a ocean reconnaissance satellite.)

I take comments of China berating the US with collision threats with a grain of salt. But it does of course highlight the need to share such data and for parties to act in good faith.

I live in South Korea, according to our media the North filed today with the international maritime organization (UN), why that particular org... I have no clue. SK also said the launch would be illegal and they may shoot it down if they launch it. Doubt they will. Notably China and Russia countered saying it is legal.
Giving notice to the International Maritime Organization is good practice. The reason being is that there's a danger that pieces (or the booster itself) could or will fall into the sea, posing a danger to shipping. For example, in Florida, launches have been delayed when boats stray into the exclusion zone, and the U.S. Coast Guard assists with this.

As for the legality, that's a UN question. Sovereign airspace plays a role, along with whatever UN Security Council resolutions are applicable.

Screw North Korea and all that, but it seems absolutely wild to me for it to be illegal for a country to launch their own satellites.
It's because of the type of rocket they're launching it on. They're using an ICBM that there is an international regulation on.
Any rocket capable of reaching orbit is potentially an ICBM.
What does this even mean? Illegal just means the other team says they can't do it. I can't believe that you're very surprised that our team told their team no. NK is almost universally regarded as a bad actor.
Ideally the law provides equal protections and rights to everyone. International law is much further from this ideal than US National law, and many people are surprised to learn details about international law.
Starlink was not agreed upon by any international institutions. It appears to be free for all and up to each nation to decide how many thousand satellites they wish to have orbiting our planet.

I have been expecting that soon the US will take to the airwaves and announce the urgent need for an international body to regulate how many satellites can be put into orbit and by whom.

Starlink is of course grandfathered into the new system.

Yes, we approved the launch of thousands of satellites by ourselves but what is done is done, what we need now is to stop other nations from doing the same.

If you can put an object into orbit, you can put it into any major (US or other) city within about 45min and no one can intercept it.
I personally see very little risk from North Korea. Put simply, they know they’ll be destroyed if they lash out. They just don’t want to be invaded and deposed.

I wouldn’t doubt once they get their ICBM program up if they start improving living standards. They can then adjust their GDP allocation, and reduce their investment in their military.

To be clear, completely think their government is beyond horrible. Do not support or condone in any way. That said, I’m observing their own statements & actions, which indicate they are very defensive

Then you agree with all sober analysts.

I mean, they basically agreed to disarmament and implemented it with nothing in return for over a decade. It took Bush tearing up the agreed framework, placing them on the axis of evil, and then the Iraq war (exemplar of what happens to states without a deterrent) for them to really reverse course on that.

Of course, that's all flushed down the toilet of history now, no such deal will be on the table again in our lifetimes.

I wouldn't hold my breath over living standards. But who knows, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the internal situation there. Hi-res satellite pics of the garden gnomes in King Kim's garden, sure. But reliable human intelligence. Not something that that rapists, murderers and torturers at Guk-Jeong-Won (NIS) have a track record of.

"Fun" fact: both South Korea and North Korea plan on being the first to strike the other in case of a war. I'm sure you can see how that would make them more prone to take the risk.

It's also not enough to have ICBMs, they have already credibly tested those years ago, they want so many ICBMs that the US feels threatened by it (this is what deterrence means in practice), but not so many the US decides it has to do anything about it.

Do you have a source for the "fun" fact? What circumstances would ignite a war outside of striking first?
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/08/15/south-korea-s-decap... provides this account of official ROK strategy:

> Every Pyongyang district, particularly where the North Korean leadership is possibly hidden, will be completely destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosive shells as soon as the North shows any signs of using a nuclear weapon.

For the DPRK the official strategy is not known as far as I know, but in 2022 they passed a new law explicitly authorising preventive nuclear strikes if "it is judged" that ROK is going to strike state leadership. See https://www.apln.network/analysis/commentaries/north-koreas-... which also links to a janky translation of the law.

The distance between Pyongyang and Seoul is about 190 Km (120 Miles). Fancy a Nuclear War?

Edit: Just to clarify...I mean the distance between both is so short, a Nuclear War is absurd. There is no way to Nuke one country, without making your own country a radiation fallout zone.

The DPRK is probably planning to strike Busan or other ports where American reinforcements would be disembarking.
> I wouldn’t doubt once they get their ICBM program up if they start improving living standards. They can then adjust their GDP allocation, and reduce their investment in their military.

"Giant Evil threatens our motherland!" paranoia is very useful for keeping a closed society's dictatorship in power. Regardless of whether any Great Evil exists. Or has any interest in said motherland. Vs. over the past (say) 50 years, how many authoritarian governments have fallen, after their attempts to pivot from paranoia to more openness-and-prosperity-focused stances went wrong?

Definitely. South korea makes great use of it with sweeping and draconian national security laws, torture, spy agencies trying to rig elections, political parties being abolished, internet censorship, etc.

It's just that in the case of south korea the "giant evil" is a country with a military budget comparable to that of the LAPD, which would be "invading" (lol) over the most mountainous and well defended border in human history.

I don't think north korea will shift military budget away from defence as the region is getting more and more dangerous. The "liberal" Moon administration embarked on south koreas largest ever military buildup and Japan is re-arming and, for obvious historical reasons, is very hostile to north korea. Also, I don't think the North Korean government is all that competent.

>"Giant Evil threatens our motherland!"

Sounds a lot like the red terror propaganda you get about China, DPRK and formerly the USSR, from US media.

I like your optimism.

For the rest of the world, I don't think they "will" but I don't like that they "could". And I expect we will be paying protection money accordingly...

> They just don’t want to be invaded and deposed.

It's a means of extorting food aid from, among others, South Korea without losing control over who ultimately receives it.

They're not self-sufficient in terms of agricultural output, but currently it's by design.

> I wouldn’t doubt once they get their ICBM program up if they start improving living standards

i'm not sure where this opinion comes from, i seriously doubt it myself

Yeah no doubt the global capitalist regime is licking their lips and has been licking their lips for a long time about the opportunity to open up and exploit North Korea... North Koreans want to preserve their community togetherness, which is almost stronger than any other nation in the world
Is it true that a single icbm cannot be intercepted?
No one really knows. The only time it has been managed was once and that relied on having a tracking device on the ICBM, on it's source, path and target being know before time and on it following the simplest possible trajectory. And that's assuming the Koreans only launch 1, presumably if this thing works in June, they will make more than 1...

It's surprising how many systems there are (Russian, French, British, US, Chinese, Indian etc) and how rarely anyone dares to actually do a public test...

> It's surprising how many systems there are (Russian, French, British, US, Chinese, Indian etc) and how rarely anyone dares to actually do a public test...

The stakes of getting this wrong are incredibly high. Perhaps all of these systems are simple posturing tools, incapable of providing real protection if called upon. They provide comfort to the population, and doubt in their enemies.

I think it's just as likely that these systems work to some degree, but demonstrating them would provide the enemy with quantifiable data that can use to help circumvent the protection.

Single ICBMs can absolutely be intercepted, but the easiest they are to intercept during the launch phase where they are still accelerating, aka close to the launch site. An ICBM in its final phase of flight that's falling towards some random city... way harder. But yes, the nuclear threat relies on there being multiple ICBMs, with decoy warheads that are also launched so that you never know which one is the real bomb.
Definitely can't be intercepted if you completely go around the interceptors—launching north, going around the world once, and hitting North America from the south. That's the fractional-orbit [0] concept the parent comment alludes to.

If North Korea were to attack the US in the most cost-effective way – crossing the Pacific east – there's GMD interceptors in Alaska that could try to hit them in space, several thousand km's above the ocean. It's unclear how well those work. The *public* version of the story is that they have about a 60% success rate, against simple targets without countermeasures; and that they intend to fire four interceptors against each incoming warhead to boost this probability [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/01/11/there-is-...

I assume shooting it down would potentially scatter debris over Japan.