Breaking News, North Korea did NOT launch an ICBM as CNN said

[NYcarbineer]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Among your many deficiencies you have no idea what an ICBM is.

An ICBM is a missile able to travel over 5500 miles and also able to have a thermonuclear bomb or bomblets loaded onto it, and it also must be stable enough not to blow up over the country where it was launched.

The rocket that NK launched met ZERO of these prerequisites. It was a big fucking bottle rocket, they prayed that it would not blow up on launch like the last one.

You may resume wanking now.

You're an idiot if you believe that. Or, more precisely, that is why you're an idiot based on what you believe.

 

[Ted Frazier]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesn't have to carry a nuclear payload in order to be considered an ICBM.

 

[debbiedowner]

but bassman the asshat is never wrong, he said so.

He was wrong.

I was correct, since the rocket carried no nuclear payload, and did not travel over 5500 miles, nor can it be demonstrated that the NK have the ability to pack a nuclear payload into a missile, the rocket fired can not be considered an ICBM.

But that's OK, you keep believing the news that says that Hillary is the President

You got that little acorn for brains

No, you were wrong about Russia not having a border with NK.

I never said any such thing, ever...............see if you can find a post where I did.

You will not.

Next loser

Here you go loser and liar.

Which border does NK share with Russia, sploogy?

You fascists sure are smart.

That was your post dumb shit kid.

 

[Ted Frazier]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesnt necessarily have to have a nuclear warhead to be considered an ICBM,thats just the most common payload.

That is true, but it must be able to hit a dime at over 5500 miles at least. This never happened, and again the last one of these that they launched blew up over the pad which if it were a nuke would have irradiated NK and ended the problem. There is also NO EVIDENCE that NK has a small enough device to be loaded onto a missile. Their devices were detonated underground and may have been as large as a dumptruck, as we have never seen them

Are you saying Fox is fake news?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesnt necessarily have to have a nuclear warhead to be considered an ICBM,thats just the most common payload.

That is true, but it must be able to hit a dime at over 5500 miles at least. This never happened, and again the last one of these that they launched blew up over the pad which if it were a nuke would have irradiated NK and ended the problem. There is also NO EVIDENCE that NK has a small enough device to be loaded onto a missile. Their devices were detonated underground and may have been as large as a dumptruck, as we have never seen them

 

[Timmy]

Let's say NK had a nuke missle . Why would they fire it at the US ? Makes no sense? They'd hit some west alaska fishing town, and then would be wiped off the globe .

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The 5500 km part is really the only designator.

ICBM
abbreviation for
(Military) intercontinental ballistic missile: a missile with a range greater than 5500 km

 

[Little-Acorn]

but bassman the asshat is never wrong, he said so.

He was wrong.

I was correct, since the rocket carried no nuclear payload, and did not travel over 5500 miles, nor can it be demonstrated that the NK have the ability to pack a nuclear payload into a missile,

Now he's wrong twice (at least) in the same thread.

Did somebody engrave on stone tablets that those things must be fulfilled before we can use the title "ICBM"?

You're hilarious when you make up your imaginary "rules" and try to impose them on normal people.

A missile is anything that flies through the air (or space) from one point to another. It usually has no assistance from lifting wings, gasbags (except Democrats , etc. A thrown rock is technically a "missile", and is often referred to as such. Ditto for a rocket, whether it's carrying something or not.

"Ballistic" just means that it accelerates for a short time after launch, then the engine stops and it coasts the rest of the way. Most one-way rockets do this. So does a thrown rock, in fact.

The closest point on the North American continent to North Korea, is Attu Island in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. It's about 2,500 miles distant. If the rocket can hit that, it's intercontinental. Just not very useful.

(The rest of little bassman's fibs and denigrations deleted)

 

[iceberg]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesn't have to carry a nuclear payload in order to be considered an ICBM.

but it's minimum distance does need to be 5500 miles.
doesn't anyone look this shit up before saying something?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesnt necessarily have to have a nuclear warhead to be considered an ICBM,thats just the most common payload.

That is true, but it must be able to hit a dime at over 5500 miles at least. This never happened, and again the last one of these that they launched blew up over the pad which if it were a nuke would have irradiated NK and ended the problem. There is also NO EVIDENCE that NK has a small enough device to be loaded onto a missile. Their devices were detonated underground and may have been as large as a dumptruck, as we have never seen them

Agree.
They may have a missile that can reach the proper distance but I doubt they have a nuke small enough to put on it and still hit the 5500 km designator.
Which kinda makes it worthless.
Doesnt mean we should allow him to continue to try though because eventually he will succeed.

 

[Lewdog]

ICBM, Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile... North Korea is in Asia, and Alaska is in North America. The missile is projected to have a range to hit Alaska... yep that sure seems Inter-Continental to me.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it was an ICBM... I guess he didn't call Bassman before deciding what it was. Tillerson is incompetent and should be removed from his position!

"U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has confirmed North Korea's claim that it launched an intercontinental ballistic missile overnight.

"The United States strongly condemns North Korea's launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile," Tillerson said in a statement. "Testing an ICBM represents a new escalation of the threat to the United States, our allies and partners, the region, and the world.""

North Korean leader calls ICBM test part of 'package of gifts' to US

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesn't have to carry a nuclear payload in order to be considered an ICBM.

but it's minimum distance does need to be 5500 miles.
doesn't anyone look this shit up before saying something?

5500 km

 

[iceberg]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fox is not spelled C-N-N. Your thread just died, and you will be laughed at.

Fox News: North Korea successfully test-launched ICBM, US officials confirm

Did the missile fly 5500 or more miles and carry a nuclear payload, because these are the qualifications to be considered an ICBM. Since this never happened I am correct and you are a fake news believer

Next Bozo

You may now resume pulling your own fingers

It doesn't have to carry a nuclear payload in order to be considered an ICBM.

but it's minimum distance does need to be 5500 miles.
doesn't anyone look this shit up before saying something?

5500 km

i need to work on my reading also.

 

[Bassman007]

but bassman the asshat is never wrong, he said so.

He was wrong.

I was correct, since the rocket carried no nuclear payload, and did not travel over 5500 miles, nor can it be demonstrated that the NK have the ability to pack a nuclear payload into a missile,

Now he's wrong twice (at least) in the same thread.

Did somebody engrave on stone tablets that those things must be fulfilled before we can use the title "ICBM"?

You're hilarious when you make up your imaginary "rules" and try to impose them on normal people.

A missile is anything that flies through the air (or space) from one point to another. It usually has no assistance from lifting wings, gasbags (except Democrats , etc. A thrown rock is technically a "missile", and is often referred to as such. Ditto for a rocket, whether it's carrying something or not.

"Ballistic" just means that it accelerates for a short time after launch, then the engine stops and it coasts the rest of the way. Most one-way rockets do this. So does a thrown rock, in fact.

The closest point on the North American continent to North Korea, is Attu Island in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. It's about 2,500 miles distant. If the rocket can hit that, it's intercontinental. Just not very useful.

(The rest of little bassman's fibs and denigrations deleted)

God u r stupid, the Russian SS27 is an example of a real missile

The development of the Topol-M, began in the late 1980s as an upgraded version of the SS-25, though it was redesigned in 1992 as the first missile designed and built by the Russian Federation (as opposed to a Soviet design). The first test launch occurred in December 1994 with the first testing of the TEL vehicle version nearly six years later.2

The first Topol-M missiles entered service in 1997 in modified SS-19 silos. The first silo missile regiment was declared operational in 1998, with a second in 1999, a third in 2000 and a fourth in 2003. The first road-mobile versions entered service in 2006.3

Production was originally scheduled for 350 missiles, though these numbers have subsequently been lowered several times, and in 2009 Russia announced that Topol-M production was completed, saying any future missiles produced would be RS-24’s, a similar missile design.4

Following the implementation of New START, Russia possessed 15 road-mobile, and 50 silo-based Topol-Ms.5 According to a 2013 U.S. report, there were approximately 80 operational missiles. 6

The Topol-M’s RV is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target. It likely also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of interception by missile defenses. The missile is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance; whilst previous missiles could be disabled by detonating a nuclear warhead within ten kilometers. 7

It is reported to typically be equipped with a 550 kT yield nuclear warhead; however, there an unconfirmed report suggest a yield of 1 MT has been achieved, as well as the placement of up to six MIRV warheads. It uses a Post-Boost Vehicle (PBV) system to deploy its warhead(s) using a digital inertial navigation system with a GLOSNASS (equivalent to Global Position Satellite) receiver. It has a launch weight of 47,200 kg with a length of 21.9 m, first stage width of 1.95 m, second stage width of 1.61 m, and a third stage width of 1.58 m.8

In 2016, Russia has 18 road-mobile Topol-M launchers deployed, along with 60 more deployed in fixed silos. 9

So kid it seems that you are the uneducated one

 

[Little-Acorn]

It doesn't have to carry a nuclear payload in order to be considered an ICBM.

but it's minimum distance does need to be 5500 miles.

Already debunked.

 

[JimH52]

A test rocket that might blow up on the launch pad as North Korean missiles do can never be considered an ICBM as it has no payload, primarily because it has a high rate of blowing up over it's own country. Thus, there is no evidence that North Korea has an ICBM since there is no evidence that they can produce a dependable rocket to carry a nuclear payload. However you are free to believe the news that says clearly that President Hillary Clinton is handling this situation.

Argue all you want, I am never wrong

Fake News from a Trumpette.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Could a North Korean missile hit Australia?

Where could a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile hit?
Updated yesterday at 8:20pmTue 4 Jul 2017, 8:20pm

North Korea claims it fired a Hwasong-14 missile which reached an altitude of 2,802 kilometres and flew 933km in 39 minutes.

David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said the missile was fired at a "very highly lofted trajectory".

If the missile had been fired at a standard trajectory, he said it could have a maximum range of 6,700km.

 

[Little-Acorn]

God u r stupid, the Russian SS27 is an example of a real missile

(The rest of little bassman's insults, namecalling, and subject changes deleted.)

(Gee, there's nothing left of his post! )

 

[Reasonable]

The Assman not only lied about the NK missile, he throws in Hillary's name to make a COMPLETE fool of himself.

 

[Bassman007]

Could a North Korean missile hit Australia?

Where could a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile hit?
Updated yesterday at 8:20pmTue 4 Jul 2017, 8:20pm

North Korea claims it fired a Hwasong-14 missile which reached an altitude of 2,802 kilometres and flew 933km in 39 minutes.

David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said the missile was fired at a "very highly lofted trajectory".

If the missile had been fired at a standard trajectory, he said it could have a maximum range of 6,700km.

A swarm of killer bees is far more dangerous than a Korean tinkertoy rocket that might blow itself up on the launchpad