The post that was quoted here has been removed"The Pukguksong-1 (KN-11, Bukgeukseong-1) is a North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Reports indicate that the missile appears to be similar to the former Soviet Union R-27/SS-N-6 Serb SLBM.1 Its commonality with the R-27 makes it also similar is some ways to North Korea’s Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile. "
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/kn-11/#:~:text=In%20an%20August%2024%2C%202016,range%20is%20approximately%201%2C200%20km.
The R-27: "The missile was designed for use on the Project 667A Navaga or Yankee-class submarines. Each sub could carry 16 of the missiles, and could launch one every eight seconds.5"
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-n-6-r-27-serb/
The Yankee class: "The Yankee-class nuclear submarines were the first class of Soviet ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) to have thermonuclear firepower comparable with that of their American and British Polaris submarine counterparts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee-class_submarine
So the North Koreans have a missile similar to one that was used to carry nuclear warheads on Soviet submarines. What reason is there to think it can't do the same?
1 edit
@Duchess64
you're a distorter and fabricator. Here is what you first said about No1's effort:
Like his right-wing American political adversaries, No1Marauder likes to mislead
about military capabilities in order to serve his political agenda.
---------
You are clearly accusing No1 of enjoyably misleading because he has an agenda.
Now you change, because of No1's post, and say:
Unwilling to concede any ignorance or error as usual, No1Marauder dishonestly distorts the context.
-----------
You contradicted yourself and made very rude and wrongful accusations in the process.
Are you going to admit you are wrong, and just a troll, Duchess?
@earl-of-trumps saidshe made a very accurate observation!
@Duchess64
you're a distorter and fabricator. Here is what you first said about No1's effort:
Like his right-wing American political adversaries, No1Marauder likes to mislead
about military capabilities in order to serve his political agenda.
---------
You are clearly accusing No1 of enjoyably misleading because he has an agenda.
Now you change, becaus ...[text shortened]... ----------
You contradicted yourself and made very rude and wrongful accusations in the process .
The post that was quoted here has been removedBy that ridiculous standard, there is "no known evidence" that any country could fire a missile with a nuclear warhead from a submarine because no one yet has.
The evidence outlined above is sufficient to conclude that the North Koreans have a missile designed to be fired from submarines that can hold a nuclear weapon. And we know they have submarines capable of firing missiles.
So hardly "no known evidence".
2 edits
@no1marauder said”By that ridiculous standard, there is "no known evidence" that any country could fire a missile with a nuclear warhead from a submarine because no one yet has. ”
By that ridiculous standard, there is "no known evidence" that any country could fire a missile with a nuclear warhead from a submarine because no one yet has.
The evidence outlined above is sufficient to conclude that the North Koreans have a missile designed to be fired from submarines that can hold a nuclear weapon. And we know they have submarines capable of firing missiles.
So hardly "no known evidence".
yes they have.
here is what evidence looks like.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32760/check-out-this-soviet-submarine-firing-a-nuclear-ballistic-missile-while-docked-pierside
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-missiles/pakistan-fires-first-submarine-launched-nuclear-capable-missile-idUSKBN14T1EL
All you have is noko SAYING they have this capability. you dont think the little fat man would be displaying pictures and videos? dont be gullible.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, neither had an actual nuclear warhead.
”By that ridiculous standard, there is "no known evidence" that any country could fire a missile with a nuclear warhead from a submarine because no one yet has. ”
yes they have.
here is what evidence looks like.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32760/check-out-this-soviet-submarine-firing-a-nuclear-ballistic-missile-while-docked-pierside
https://w ...[text shortened]... bility. you dont think the little fat man would be displaying pictures and videos? dont be gullible.
North Korea did the same thing last year.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49915224
@no1marauder saidper your article...
No, neither had an actual nuclear warhead.
North Korea did the same thing last year.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49915224
“ But this one, fired from a platform at sea,”
do you know the difference between a “platform” and a “submarine”?
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidDo you know that in military terms a submarine that fires a missile is a "platform"?:
per your article...
“ But this one, fired from a platform at sea,”
do you know the difference between a “platform” and a “submarine”?
"The United States has one of the most advanced missile arsenals in the world, deploying ballistic and cruise missiles across multiple platforms, which are armed with warheads for a variety of targets and applications." https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-states/delivery-systems/
@no1marauder saidLOL
Do you know that in military terms a submarine that fires a missile is a "platform"?:
"The United States has one of the most advanced missile arsenals in the world, deploying ballistic and cruise missiles across multiple platforms, which are armed with warheads for a variety of targets and applications." https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-states/delivery-systems/
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhy you cannot conform your conduct to the posting guidelines here is a complete mystery to me.
Your goal post moving is noted, but "accuracy" wasn't the issue. The evidence suggests that North Korea has missiles with nuclear capabilities that can be fired from submarines (which it also has). Thus, your conclusion is not based on reality though you did throw in the hedge word "seriously" (again goalpost moving). But that is just an opinion word; any capability by the North Koreans to hit the US with nuclear weapons has been considered "serious" by every US administration that has faced that possibility.