Talk:2006 North Korean missile test/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

US and Japanese BMD

The United States and Japan have set in place a system for Ballistic Missile Defense. Much of it has started with the MDA and every branch of the DoD is involved. Several articles have been published about various specifics including an article in Scientific American.

This article mentions one random U.S. destroyer pulling into Yokosuka, but gives no relation to anything else. There were articles and reports by CNN at the time about the specific U.S. Navy ships involved in the Sea of Japan as well as the Japanese ships.

The entire event was observed by the U.S. from various satellites, land based RADAR facilities in South Korea, and Japan, and by U.S. Navy ships and Japanese ships serving in the position of BMD in the Sea of Japan. None of this in the Wikipedia article. This information serves to tell that the U.S. and Japan were neither surprised nor in any way uninformed about the entirety of the events, and the previously heavily reported promise by President Bush to establish a system of BMD was falling into place. I'm sure someone could find the articles on this subject. I could write it all myself because I was there in the Sea of Japan on watch on a U.S. Navy ship observing the event myself, but that wouldn't fly for "official" source necessity.

Background

It is not appropriate to begin the Background section with information from 2003 alone. Instead, it is necessary to include information about the "Agreed Framework" of 1994 and the failure of the United States to keep up with its own requirements of the "Agreed Framework" between 1995 and 2003. Otherwise, the Background section is both incomplete and biased. 201.65.130.248 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of Missles

I heard it confirmed on CNN that there were actually six missles launched. The article only stated four. Just wanted to point that out. Davidpdx 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

- Yes, it was at first three, then four, then six, then five, now it is back to six. --210.109.239.46 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The NBC News broadcast I just watched said five missiles. -Fsotrain09 00:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is six. However, it would be wise to wait until about 24 hours after, so the news can 'come down'.

The Philadelphia Inquirer said 6.. that's all I know CJ 12:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest it now be changed from "seven" to "at least seven". There it alrerady a footnote saying Russia claims there were ten missiles. I watched CCTV-9 at 16:00 UTC which said ten missiles. And more than one reporter at the White House Press Briefing today slipped out "ten". I think CNN International were using "at least seven" by 1800 UTC. Lee Stanley 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

according to the Interfax press agency, the Russian antibalistic system has detected 10 launches as reported by Iouri Balouïevski. Russian technology is the most advanced in the area and therefore a reliable source.

Japan's Retaliation

Japan cannot be too happy about this. I expect that they will retract much of the economic and humanitarian aid they give. But how will the Korean people deal with this blow? .ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι.^{( talk | contrib)} 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Business (or more properly, survival) as usual" would be my guess. Note that average North Koreans have never received or are unaware of any aid sent to them. --Revth 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's awefully presumptious of you, isn't it? Have you been a poor citizen of North Korea to confirm that they don't take care of their citizens, or did you just take the news at it's word? Personally, I wouldn't trust the media on any issue. 144.131.255.249 02:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point entirely and are unaware of how bad living in North Korea is. North Korea's TV station once broadcasted a cooking show on how to make potato pancakes with edible wild grass as filling. Now, this is for people who actually own a functioning TV. Guess what people who are too poor to afford a TV could be eating. Situations there is like that. --Revth 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Japan contributes much aid to N.K. in the first place. Most of the aid comes from China, South Korea, and (previously) the US. Japan would talk about sanctions on N.K., but they are quite isolated already. Pseudotriton 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a 600,000-strong pro-NK Korean expat community in Japan. Their org., Choson Soren, would be the main target of any Japanese sanctions. -Fsotrain09 03:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

japan is quite a player in this. nk already fired a missile over japan in 1998 even though japan provides aid to the country. japan is probably one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to humanitarian aid and disaster aid--Sesloan 07:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how many of these missiles are failing, imagine what if the failure caused a missile to land in Japanese or South Korean territory. There would be war because of a missile flaw. North Korea surely does not know what it's getting into.--64.75.187.197 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the above. japan and north korea's relationship is already bad as it is. north korea recently admitted that it had kidnapped numerous japanese civilians in the 1970s North Korean abductions of Japanese. the purpose was to use these japanese to train north korean spies. now these missile tests have occurred and the last thing anyone wants to see if a re-militarized japan or a nuclear arms race in east asia. japan is heavily endorsing the idea of sanctions which would further strain the already tense relationship.--Sesloan 01:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont like south korea is lashing out at japan for talks about a pre-emptive strike. Seoul:Japan inflaming N-crisis japan is more at risk of a missile attack than south korea and they need to understand that. crazy kim jong il has encouraged anti-Japanese sentiment in his country and a previous missile test in 1998 flew over the Japan and into the Pacific. If a pre-emptive strike is ever carried out, it would violate Japans constitution. If anybody would strike NK, it would be the US, maybe South Korea. North Koreans have a history of breaking promises and making up lies so diplomacy may never work with that country. --Sesloan 05:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Understand our limitations

Please understand out limitations. Everyone involved can be expected to lie. Look at the self interest of the major paries involved, look at the technological possibilties available, what would you do if you were in charge ... of the US ... of N. Korea ... of China ... etc. I don't know what is the reality behing the lies and neither do any of the reporters mouthing the lies they are told. All I'm saying is understand our limitations. WAS 4.250 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The non-anon speaks with a wise tongue. This is an extremely political issue. We should pay particular attention to having references and point them out with care. --Kizor 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Independence Day

It's no coincidence they fired it when they did. In the United States, it was still 4 July--our Independence Day. This test was a deliberate attempt to provoke the United States into a military action against North Korea. --anon

Total bull, the DPRK doesn't want to be invaded, nor does any country, just because they stand up to imperialism doesn't make it be that they are provoking imperialism. --anon

I wouldn't be so sure of that. They might've done it purely for the fact that it was the 4th of July. I think that North Korea thought we wouldn't strike back even if they did launch the missile, and in this case he was right. Thing is, where was failed missile headed for? We may never know. Kim Jong Il doesn't even care about his country...he couldn't care less if he was invaded because the guy is so nuts. Personally, I think he is just trying to mess with us because he knows we are watching him. Japan should really be worried about this. Clinevol98 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say if it were coincidence or not but in 2003, North Korea "chose to launch a missile hours before the inauguration of South Korea's new president" according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5149868.stm Lee Stanley 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the DPRK "doesn't want to be invaded", and this isn't likely an attempt to "provoke the United States into military action". However, it is very unlikely that the Kim Jong Il and the DPRK were ignorant of the date on which they launched. The choice of the middle of July 4th, our independence day, was a very deliberate one. The nuclear tests were made explicitly for the benefit of the United States, against whom the DPRK and Kim Jong Il had been recently levying threats and pressure. It is likely that Kim Jong Il believes we are directing a nuclear threat towards them. They definitely knew the date when they launched. --Obsidian-fox 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The news is pretty shocking, but there sure are a lot of missing citations. I am particularly disturbed by the threat of nuclear war, which this article attributes to the N. Korean government. That's a pretty alarming thing to report without a citation to back it up. Also, please not the article suggests China would cut off trade to North Korea, which runs directly counter to the historical relationship between China and North Korea. The lack of a citation makes this claim sound spurious.

Iam grateful that this news was reported here on Wikipedia. However, for the sake of accuracy (and to avoid causing a panic among the readers of this article), I would suggest that any statements that cannot be suuported with a citation be removed from it. Wandering Star 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Readers chiming in here should keep in mind that the DPRK is one of the world's leading practitioners of brinksmanship, i.e. threatening something without the intent of follow-through that the opponent must respond to as if the threat is real. (I just wish they were clearer than mud about what it is that they expect to gain from all of this gaming.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I gave some thought to making some link to brinkmanship, but realized that that would touch upon the putative motivations for the DPRK's missile test/propaganda spectacular/"signal"; the situation remains extremely volatile, but the the truth will out. Kencf 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(please spell Independence correctly! Lee Stanley 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

North Korea (and many other countries that have a beef with the US) are more than well aware of just how thinly stretched our military resources are at the moment. You see, natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes are normally dealt with by the National Guard. However, when the 2005 Hurricane Season devistated the Gulf Coast, the National Guared wasn't there, and you can see the results. Why? Because ALL our military resources are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. And everyone knows about it. That's why the countries which have had a beef with the US have been getting pretty bold lately-this is their golden window of opportunity. They all know that there will probably not be another time in US history when we're this thihly stretched. They'd be idiots not to take advantage of the situation and milk it for all it's worth. And if they decided it was time to get even with the US for the Korean War, maybe by developing nuclear weapons capabilities, either as a deterrent to any perceived beliicosity on the part of our government (we did call them the Axis of Evil, of which Iraq was also declared a part), or as a bargaining chip to get money in exchange for halting further production, or even as a component in the dreams of a dictator who dreams of ruling all of the Korean Peninsula. Think about it. If nobody's at home minding the store when the hurricanes hit us last year, that probably means even less troops are available to back up any of those vague threats W has made about N Korea. We have, in short, created our very own monster. Wandering Star 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

your so wrong, do you think those countries care about the US or any other country????. This country is only provoking to beg for money and keep outsiders out of their land. The bad side is that meanwhile normal people over there are food starving. This is a different kind of corruption then anywhere else actualy those politics in a way are eating their own people or country. They know they behave like this, and armor themselves with large weapons so other countries wont stop them from doing this. It's so sad did you know reporters have to smugle their films out of the country with a dead penalty on their head? That's why most people don't know how poor this country really is, because you'l never will see how a farmer lives overthere on normal TV.

The fact that North Korea tested their missiles on the fourth of July is not an intentional provocation. Which country in the world wants to be involved in nuclear warefare. North Korea is in the habit of displaying their millitary might on significant dates just like the Ryanggang Explosion which occured on North Korea's 56th Anniversary[[1]].

user:permanentmarker

Ignorant Comments

I removed an ignorant sentence at the beginning of this article. It was regarding something about Wyle E. Coyote.Bunns USMC 05:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And it was good that you did. Prominent articles are particularily tasty targets for vandalism. --Kizor 05:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added USA temp

I did this because I felt it didn't offer a world view. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, you have a point. On the other, this test was very clearly designed to annoy the US, so some prominence of that issue in the article is essential. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as the only US-specific info in the current version refers to US bases in Alaksa being on alert. MLA 07:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dit it provoke America, or did America felt provoked, that's the question. This country wont care how other countries think of them, and to keep it that way they armored themselves with rockets and nuclear technology. (a philosophy wich is also shared with the America) The treu country most fearing those actions would be the other side of korea! think of that...

I added the temp, because in the first paragraph (introduction), it said one of the missles could reach Alaska, but not another place. Thats why.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I killed some vandalism.--69.231.143.155 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan or East Sea of Korea?

I reverted changes to East Sea of Korea because I think Sea of Japan is a more universal name. See Sea of Japan naming dispute. Galaxydog2000 07:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I want to avoid starting a revert war over this geographical naming dispute, but I propose that this article conform to the Wikipedia naming conventions for Korean place names outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Korean%29.

I believe that this page is most appropriately an international article since it refers to the responses of many countries to this missile test. Therefore all references to the body of water should be referred to according to the convention solely as "Sea of Japan".

Alternatively, if this page is viewed as only a Japan/North Korea/South Korea article, the body of water should be, according to the convention, referred to as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the first reference and "Sea of Japan" in all references thereafter.

Thank you. Joeazn 10:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions say :

For all Japan/North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)

I disagree with this, I have never heard "East Sea of Korea" used in English. I have, however, heard of "East Sea." What is the difference between Japan/North Korea vs. Japan/Korea?? Can anyone explain the logic behind the special North Korean naming convention? I couldn't find anything on the above naming conventions page.--KiwiDave 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I am indifferent about the political opinion of the name. But I think we need to elaborate a bit to avoid misleading the (less geographically versed) public. Let's make it "international water in Sea of Japan (aka....)", because it is confusing saying Sea of Japan, when many people instantly thought it was part of Japan. In reality it was in international waters.

N.Korea - Japan Moratorium

The wikipedia article and other media are suggesting a key issue of concern is N.Korea breaking an agreed moratorium on missile testing - it's noted in the opening section of the article. Can anybody reference it, maybe add a small section indicating what it covers? Does it cover *any* testing of missiles at all? cheers --mgaved 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Missile reports

See [[2]]

Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, have been reporting the launch of a second Taepodong-2 missile. These reports are almost universally courtesy of Japan's Kyodo News Agency. Gau 10:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

S Korea had prior knowledge of tests?

A reporter on CNN's Situation Room Breaking News coverage last night (around 21:00 UTC) said a South Korean official had cut a trip short to return to Seoul yesterday before the missiles were tested because South Korea believed the tests were imminent. Does anyone have any more information on this? (Lee Stanley 09:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

This is likely, the bbc report in the section above talks of heightened alert in Seoul in recent weeks amid suspicions of missile launches. MLA 10:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There was over-head photography of the large ICBM on the launch pad being fueled, they knew it had to launch within 3 weeks or so.Hypnosadist 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is, the South Korean official returned on the same day as the tests. Lee Stanley 10:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Very biased article

This article is very biased. The USA and Russia and China regularly conducts ballistic missile tests with much larger and longer range missiles. As long as the launch is domestic territory and the impact is in international open waters, DPRK has the same right to conduct missile tests as the USA or Russia or China. All countries of the UN enjoy equal rights under international law, regardless of size or wealth.

Not even Japan can oppose, because altitudes over 100 kilometers are outer space and fully exempt from national souvereignity. So north korean ballistic missile tests do not infringe japanese airspace even if they fly over Japan.

By the way DPRK plans to repeat their satellite launch attempt of 1997 in six months to gain prestiege. First time the satellite barely reached orbit and decayed within 1.5 revolutions due to third stage misfiring. But USA accused DPRK of a ballistic missile attack and refused to apologize for the slander after satellite launch was confirmed, even though space research is an unalienable right of every nation. With such background you cannot fault DPRK officials still feeling bad about USA ten years later. 195.70.32.136 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous, I tend to agree with you on certain points. For example, my understanding of international law is that yes, all sovereign states enjoy certain rights regardless of whether they are members of the United Nations, including North Korea. And you could be right in implying that there is some hypocrisy in the way that other states are reacting to North Korea's missile test. However, the international law and political issues notwithstanding, I fail to see how this article is "very biased" since most of it appears to be statements of facts gathered from news articles. Joeazn 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, I don't think you can compare a US war game with international observers (including some from China) to a unprovoked ICBM missile test conducted without warning by a rogue state that oppresses its people and taunts the world with threats of a nuclear war. North Korea had a moratorium on missile tests anyway since 1999. They have absolutely no respect for any rule of law. North Korea has been condemned globally for this test. They are obviously in the wrong here. Clinevol98 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

International law is toothless. Yes, North Korea can go ahead and launch missiles if it wants to. And other countries can go ahead and invade North Korea if they want to. The different between the USA, Russia, and China conducting missile tests and North Korea is that nobody's threatening to invade the former three countries for their missile tests. --Cyde↔Weys 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Clyde, our opinions are irrelevant. As for the article, I can't see the bias. It rather dryly details the events and the reaction, and doesn't contradict what 195 states above. --Kizor 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your political polemics. It is an encyclopedia, with standards of verifiability that are met in this article. Every crucial or potentially controversial point is backed up with a reference to major news reports. If you follow those links at the end, you will see that the article is hardly spun from whole cloth. If this article is biased, it is only because its sources are biased. Please direct your concerns there. Thank you. -Fsotrain09

Korean Missile Crisis?

I made a redirect from "Korean Missile Crisis" -the article proper may have to be renamed that or something similar soon enough if this situation worsens! (North Korean Missile Crisis? DPRK Missile Crisis? Asian Missile Crisis?) Most of the launches were of old technology; the putative ICBM, the Taepodong-2, either failed or was deliberately contrained. Apparently it's roughly analogous to Boeing LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM. Kencf 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's a bit premature. Is anyone (apart from select portions of the media) actually calling it a "crisis"? While you're at it you could redirect "World War 3" here also (well, if it's good enough for CNN...) (Lee Stanley 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

I don't necessarily agree that this is a Korean Missile Crisis yet but it seems like a reasonable search term. MLA 13:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my thinking as well. But it does raise an interesting semantic question. Media hype aside, what might the criteria be for an international row to be deemed a notable crisis? When the President makes a prime time speech on the subject, or when carrier battle groups (note the plural) are deployed, or both? Or God forbid, in hindsight, after the shooting has started? The Korean Missile Crisis does bear one point of comparison with the Cuban Missile Crisis: a Communist dictator makes one hell of a gamble in order to gain strategic advantage. Khruschev, however, was an intensely human character as well as a Communist dictator. Witness his letters to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, particularly the one about the knot of war. We'll not see the likes of that from such as Kim Jong-Il! Kencf 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a "missile crisis" so much as a propaganda crisis. The USA has been conducting missile tests and sea exercises in the Pacific for weeks, but none of this is reported to the public. The situation is being intentionally aggravated by the USA, provoking the North Koreans to action. Perhaps linking to "propaganda" would be just as appropraite as "missile crisis". Soupyx 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, a anchor on Fox News just referred to this as a "missile crisis with Korea." It's not even close to a crisis yet. Clinevol98 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---Yep, now Fox is referring to the situation as the "North Korean Missile Crisis." I knew it was just a matter of time before they would... Clinevol98 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't count Fox as a non-biased news source, but we should keep the redirect for all the shameless conservatives. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very blatant comment Kookykman, though I don't see how North Korean Missile Crisis is biased in any way. You may be partisan, but you'd like your ideas to be respected when you state a fact wouldn't you?--64.75.187.197 11:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

--Heh, well I am a conservative, but Fox has really gotten sensationalistic over the last few years with the news coverage. Their hurricane coverage "This is a Fox Weather/Hurricane Alert!" is just out of control. They used to use that "Fox News Alert" slogan only when it was merited (terrorist attack, etc)...now when a severe thunderstorm is issued for Washington DC they show that. It gets so annoying. Clinevol98 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you watched Outfoxed? Lee Stanley 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Clinevol98 00:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

outfoxed is a good movie...or documentary. i dont know what you can classify it as. --Sesloan 07:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both, yet in some ways neither. Lee Stanley 08:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistant items

I recognize that new information is always coming in, but it could at least be kept consistant. the intro reads: 2 Nodong-2, 1 Scud, up to 2 Taepodong-2 While the chart reads" 1 Nodong, 1 questionable nodong, 2 scud, 2 Nodong or Scud, and 1 Taepodong-2 Which shows 6 to 7 missiles with intro stating up to 5 As well the last 3 launches don't include the taepodong (whihc the text says it did, even before the most recent missile was added. And 4:04AM to 5:01 AM is not several hours, it is less than 1 hour.say1988 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Such Serious Talk

What if we just laughed-off these recent launches? They "big one" failed less than a minute into flight, and the little ones dropped harmlessly into international waters. Didn't North Korea say they were provoked by the US Space Shuttle launch? It's like a teenage kid firing bottle rockets in the street, or a toddler throwing a hissy-fit at the grocery store. It's a spastic cry for attention.

The official response should inject humor, like "The Bush administration thanks North Korea for simultaneously celebrating our Fourth of July fireworks" or some soundbite, "Is that the best they can do?"

C'mon world, ignore this child and they'll self-implode. --Robertkeller 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey other countries other than NK test fire missiles they didnt hit anything and werenot intended to hit anything so you people gotta stop being biased--Childzy_talk^contribs 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the big stink? The U.S. Congress just OKed the sale of F16 fighters to Pakistan so they can fight India with them. Sure helps out our defense contractor buddies. If anybody else can nuke N.Korea, why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves? At the end of WWII, didn't the U.S. rename the War Department the Department of Defense? How much did I defend my country when I went to Viet Nam? How much are we defending ourselves by killing a bunch of Iraqi's? If the U.N. or anybody else is upset by their missle tests, why don't they look at what is being done with the food we send them? It's a good bet that only Kim's friends are getting any of it.User W8IMP 2239, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL...I really think Bush is tempted to make some sarcastic/hilarious comment about their big bad missile literally blowing up in their faces. A kid playing with bottle rockets in the street compared to the huge fireworks show downtown is a good way to describe this. They cannot be ignored, however. Even though they are obviously not able to strike the US, they could very easily strike South Korea, Japan, Russia, and perhaps Australia. Kim Jong-Il is absolutely nuts. I think we're going about this in the right fashion. I'm glad to see other countries condemn this action strongly; you'd figure some of the Europeans would resort to ignoring the problem hoping it will go away as they usually do. China still seems to be defending them though while trying to make it seem like they aren't. They haven't officially condemned North Korea, have they? All they've basically said is for everyone to calm down. Clinevol98 19:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unforunately, much humor is lost translating from one language to another. Jon 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

so when sadam did some chemical testing you would have put in in a joke too??. This kind of research is realy dangerous and can go fast (german had almost invented a H-bom in the end of the war, they also invented lot's of superior airplaines while their resources and knowledge wasn't like what we know of the world today. In these times one can re-invent such things much faster.

No, the Germans didn't almost invent an H-bomb by the end of the war. They weren't anywhere close. --Fastfission 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As the original poster to this section, my point is this: when dealing with North Korea, the cumulative, well-intentioned effect of talking, negotiating and serious diplomatic discussion for 50+ years has gotten us one war, a divided Korea, a wildman dictator and thousands of starving and dead people. Why not give humor a chance? Let's dismiss the whole micro-tempest, poke fun at a failed rocket launch, ignore the Scuds because diplomacy is moot: North Korea's antics will continue irrespective of six-way talks, UN Sanctions, Japanese embargos or the tooth fairy. NK will do whatever fancies them. --Robertkeller 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While the Taepodong-2 did seemingly fail, you seem rather confused as to the others tests. My understanding is they were succeses as far as we know. It is fairly normal practice that when you test a missile, you fire it into the sea. Firing it into a land, even largely uninhabitated land could easily be construed as an act of war and is generally not a smart way to test a missile. Indeed, people might assume you're missiles are rather poorly designed if you hit land during a test since it would be likely assumed you must have missed your target as no one would be stupid enough to purposely target land during a test... Nil Einne 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

Can we make an effort to find or recruit speakers to find out if there is a Mandarin version of this article, as well as versions in other languages, and link them? -Fsotrain09 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a Chinese version Wikipedia article. There is one in Chinese Wikinews, though. But I wasn't sure if this Wikipedia articel should cross-link to an Wikinews article, so I didn't create the link. Pseudotriton 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about now? -Fsotrain09 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow down with the article

Its going to have problems, editing it so much, let the event pass and things come out before adding any more bulk, this article has potential for featured status, but it needs to be built up slowly.--Childzy_talk^contribs 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Taepodong-2

From what I gather from the BBC, the Taepodong-2, the poor man's ICBM, just might be able to hit western Alaska. As for its accuracy (assuming for the sake of argument that it ever completed a hypothetical maximum flight), it would probably be be more likely to hit the Angeles National Forest than Los Angeles -in which case the Hotshots would deal with the immediate aftermath. But presumably only a few people in the DPRK have a clue about the Taepodong-2's CEP. So, technically, is the western U.S. at risk? Is Ulan Bator?

In order for a TD-2 to hit Alaska it would have to have a range of something like 10,000 km. At the moment there is no knowledge of what its actual range is — the only one which has ever been fired was a failure. I'd say the risk of a North Korean missile hitting Alaska at the moment is about nil. I also suspect that even within the DPRK nobody really has any clue what the CEP would actually be (they presumably thought that the thing would even fire correctly, and they were wrong about that). (There's also no evidence that the North Koreans have actually weaponized anything worth shooting at Alaska—their nuclear capabilities are completely undemonstrated and, in my estimation, are also probably pretty unreliable). --Fastfission 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've granted that the DPRK could in theory could hit western Alaska, and put in a cite to that effect (my first footnote on Wiki, BTW). Any further putative range seems to come from the realm of advocacy, and to say the least is highly contingent on geo-political and engineering developments. I'm no rocket scientist, so I can't judge. Kencf 07:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/taep-o-dong-2_north_korea.html

The article which currently sources that claim deliberately points out that this is probably a highly inflated estimate in its range pumped up by U.S. intelligence agencies (who seems to have probelms with inflated estimates). I've tried to emphasize that it is only an estimate. --Fastfission 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this thing could hit Anchorage?

Anchorage, Alaska (61°13'6" N 149°53'57" W) is approximately 5568km from the Taepodong-2 test site. (40°50'49.56" N 129°37'42.6" E). I am not willing to speculate on the range of the missile. As an American, I would be not worried about the security of a nation whose predominant military policy during the last two decades has become the pre-emptive strike. Consider the fear South Koreans may be experiencing at the moment. To calculate other distances between latitude and longitude locations, visit this site: http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/LatLong.html. Coordinates for other cities are available on Wikipedia.

American air support

There has been talk on Japanese news about a certain mid-size aircraft (appeared to be a surveillance type craft) that is usually (or reguarly) stationed in American bases in Japan that the US expected to return to Japanese airspace soon which will add a significant measure of protection somehow relating to the missile launches. I'm sorry I can't give any more specific information but I haven't been able to find an English source, or an online Japanese source. The report also said that the aircraft would be able to come within range approx. 4 hours after any threatening launches so I must assume it is stationed nearby, possibly Hawaii or Alaska. Does anyone know of any sources on this American support? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are refering to RC-135S "Cobra Ball", eighth picture on this website[3]. It can track the missile launch and its trajectory. It was stationed in Japan during previous missile launches. Capabilities of this craft is kept very secret and media are usually indifferent about unarmed military crafts meaning up-to-date information are non-existent. --Revth 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that was it, with the nose painted black. I guess that explains why the news details were so vague! Thanks anyways. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 04:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On 7/6/2006 (yesterday)'s NHK news, they showed this aircraft take off from Okinawa. So it's flying out there in case 7th one is actually launched. --Revth 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

International Rebuke? Who said that? US Media?

Drawing International rebuke? who said that? Well the condemnation was so "strong" China and Russia are against the United States taking any action. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060706/ap_on_re_as/un_north_korea

Just because the Bush administration said "the World" doesn't mean it is as such. CaribDigita 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as we know the American (and Japanese, S Korean...) media is sensationalizing and demonizing N Korea, the statement of this incident invoking 'international rebuke' is true. Even Canada, a nation full of US war-deserters and draft-dodgers, has added their condemnation. --chris 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and we all know that there isn't anything worthy of demonizing over there, right? 65.185.190.240 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem as I've seen it, is there hasn't been enough "International" rebuke to actually galvanize this issue and move it towards a resolution. I would say there is some 'International tensions' but way--- more countries are need to make a statement and perhaps come on board for it to be a "International" rebuke. What I've seen so far is nothing more then two 'camps' bickering or arguing. I was expecting to hear more condemnation from perhaps Australia, or other Asian tiger economies but surprisingly its been relatively quiet? I did go looking for it early on to have an idea of how this will play out but it seems litle this is still a divided region on this. The most out-spoken faction member on this appears to be the Bush Administration but it doesn't seem like there's very much solid support for this. CaribDigita 05:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NORAD in Canada response section?

I realize that Canada is a contributor to NORAD (their secondary base is near North Bay, Ontario), but of what relevance is the California NORAD comments to the section that they're in (Canada's response)? --chris 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The decision was most likely a collaboration between the two countries since the deputy commander is from Canada.

6th missile disputed?

The article mentions, unsourced, that reports of the sixth missile are disputed. None of the news reports that I've seen agree. There was some initial confusion over the launches, could this be just an outdated remnant from that? In any case, if a source can't be found it should be removed. --Kizor 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"provocative"

IIRC, "provocative" as a way to describe it was first used by the US (at least, it was the only response found on google news in early reports). Having the countries alphabetically (US last) it's harder to realize that. Shouldn't somehow that be shown? (it first reads 2 or 3 other countries saying it and then US).

Can you reference that "provocative" was first used by the US? If so, go ahead and add that they were first to say this. Also I think some point should be made that the US has made the point that it won't be "provoked" into taking a leading role that North Korea might expect it to, and that this is a problem for all countries involved, particularly North Korea's neighbours, or at least something to that effect. edit: On my latter point, I have added a line with citation but I'm sure someone can come up with something better to illustrate this important (I feel) point. Lee Stanley 14:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The current text said, "The U.S., Japan, and others warned North Korea prior to the incident that such a test would be construed by those nations as a provocative act. North Korea responded to such words by threatening an "annihilating" nuclear strike if the United States attacks or any other nation preemptively tried to destroy the missile before or after it launched" for POV, shouldn't we mention NK's reasoning, i.e. "NK maintained they have every soveriegn right to conduct such tests".......before continue on mentioning the 'responses'.

The current text does seem to be biased. On the other hand, if we are saying NK "threatening", maybe we should also mentioned that some in US also threatened NK with preemptive strike before the test. I think KJI is crazy, but we do not need to omit facts selectively.

The Previous Tests

The sentence that has made its way into the lead concerning NK's previous missile launches is a bit convoluted. I'd attempt to separate it into shorter pieces, but I do not want an edit war over the issue. I'm also not sure why such detail is kept in the lead, or why the redlink 2002 Pyongyang Declaration remains so prominently displayed. Can a stub be written on that, please? Thank you all very much, and let us keep up the good work everyone! -Fsotrain09 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The "previous test" was supposedly carried out by Iran on North Korea's behalf. Or so claims GlobalSecurity.org. Maybe, maybe not: even GS says this is an "open source estimate" (ie, they could be wrong). Had real evidence of NK's participation in the test been at hand, all the "ain't it awful" game-playing going on now would have occured back in January? I suggest the lead be edited with these reservations in mind. Or (even better) offer more documentation behind the claim. mdf 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if it is a sketchy claim it should not be in the lead (I don't even think the "could hit Alaska" should be in the lead, since it is based on the most ridiculously 'optimistic' estimates of range). --Fastfission 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, note that the BBC's graphic includes the Seward Peninsula, etc., within a 6000 km range.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5152918.stm#there

Ooops, forgot to sign the previous. Kencf 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's still pretty optimistic in my book. --Fastfission 03:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Saturday's Wall Street Journal averaged three independent studies, by way of quantifying the range of uncertainty. Too bad the missiles don't come with error bars... The isolines on the map didn't match the figures, however. Kencf 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think hitting Alaska is a long shot, this will surprise you more. Yomiuri Shimbun reported [4] (article in Japanese) that anonymous government official is speculating that the aim of this missile test was to show that North Korea could hit Hawaii, some 7,000km away. The one that exploded prematurely was to show this. Personally, I think this speculation is questionable, but we do have the citation now. --Revth 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

When I said "such detail" above, I was refering to the level of detail in the introduction, which is after all supposed to be a summary of the topic. I was not disagreeing with the inclusion of specific details. Just wanted to be sure I was understood :). -Fsotrain09 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Controlled Self Destruct in Mid-Flight of Long-Range Missile

Please address if this is notewothy for the article. It's interesting to note that a South Korean paper implied the use of a self-destruct mechanism so the long-range missile purposely didn't go that far, perhaps for fear of unintended consquences. [5] The long-range missile was key to getting the attention of the US as they could hit the US mainland. Everyone has assumed that it was an uncontrolled failure. There is this possibility as well. NK has more than one ICBM presumably so chances are they didn't burn their last biggie candle. Also, could the 40 second flight pattern have given the specs NK needed to improve or solidify their ICBM? Prospero74 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an editorial—it is pure speculation. Sounds extremely dubious to me. North Korea would have more face to lose by setting off a missile which looked like a dud than it would if it just ran a normal test. --Fastfission 03:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard a US commendtator on CNNworld speculating it may have been only the first stage of the three stage missile.

I can speculate that the missile was disabled by space aliens from Zubenelgenubi. What of it? Fastfission is correct: full system tests are crucial to fielding a credible weapon, and given NK's position, they won't have many chances to conduct such. Given a decision to launch, it simply isn't in North Korea's interests to dick around with duds or play games with range-limiting schemes. Properly referenced facts and analysis should come first in an encyclopedia, and idle speculation a very, very, distant second (if at all). mdf 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The names are DPRK and Republic of Korea, not North and South Korea.

Please make sure you use the right names. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

While yes, those are the official names, the reader might not know what DPRK stands for, or could confuse the two nations. The Wikipedia entries for these countries are titled North Korea and South Korea and most people know them well as North and South Korea and for clarity I would encourage usage of those names. (I don't at all see what's Democratic about the DPRK, but that's just my point of view). User:Lee Stanley 06:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC) not logged in.

Yes, a reader many not know was DPRK stands for, but it comes from people using North Korea instead. "If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem".--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect that you are fully entitld to your point of view, but I don't agree that there was a "problem" in the first place and believe we should stick to the conventions already in place on Wikipedia. Lee Stanley 07:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The convention of using the wrong name?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

you say DPRK i say north korea. lets not get too politically correct here. people get confused between the republic of korea and the democratic people's republic of korea. so who cares if they say north and south?--Sesloan 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

my god, who cares? people are getting too politically correct these days--Sesloan 07:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not political correctness, its the names of the countries.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a revert war, please stick to the conventions. Lee Stanley 08:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the terms "North Korea" and "South Korea"—they are common terms all over the world for these countries. Sticking with "official" state names is actually less common (we often speak of Russia and not The Russian Federation, etc.). They are extremely neutral names (in contrast with their official state names). --Fastfission 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Without endorsing either side of the original issue here) How about addressing this country simply as "America" instead of the "United States", "US", or "USA" in some of the articles? Pseudotriton 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The general problem with using "America" as an encyclopedic term is that it is not necessarily precise (geographically there are two continents with that name), whereas I'm not aware of any reason that anybody wouldn't know what North Korea referred to. --Fastfission 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely when you say "American" nobody will mistake that as someone from Brazil or even Mexico. The point is that sometimes preferences for common terms are because of subjective reasons. Pseudotriton 07:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Should North Korea have the right to posses and test their weapons?" removed

does anyone have the right to remove comments of others? why were comments with the above title removed from this page?

the user Sesloan, responsible for it, may not be aware of the removals: [[6]] Can it be fixed without removing later comments?

Hopefully, I have (well, tried)... Lee Stanley 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove other people's comments if they are just rants and have nothing to do with the article. The talk pages of articles are not for general discussion, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've removed the section again. Go somewhere else if you want to discuss politics, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. --Fastfission 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

> we are trying to build an encyclopedia here

Beautiful argument. Only that we are talking about Talk: pages, not encyclopedia articles. Of course talk pages should become soap boxes either or waste more time than they save from improving an article but to achieve NPOV you should first fight POV. Do you know any other place where the POV of someone can be presented so neutral arguments can heat it down and prevent later edit wars from the main article? --62.1.131.63 11:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's getting off topic and may be misunderstood as "promoting" pov, I'll try to get the subject into a policy discussion page. --62.1.131.63 11:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing encyclopedia article content. We are not trying to fight POV generally; we are trying to make sure it does not end up in the article. None of the comments removed had anything to do with article content.

Perhaps you should get more acquainted with how we do things around here before trying to tell us how to run our own ship. See Help: Talk page: "The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play." --Fastfission 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk page

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. Wikipedia editors may offer opinions on this page; some of which may be labeled by others as "soapboxing." This slippery slope of censorship is unacceptable on the talk page. Join me in telling a small minority of editors who are actively removing contents from this page that Wikipedia is not like North Korea is suppressing opinion. --141.154.221.208 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We are simply trying to prevent off-topic discussion, e.g., discussion not related changes in the article. -Fsotrain09 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on Fsotrain09: your statement is at odds with the guidelines for talk page use, and it is also in stark contrast to official policy. As the guidelines say "Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research." So if you want to talk about whether or not North Korea should have long range missiles in this forum, you are going to have to structure the discussion in a way that can results in an improvement to this article. Fortunately, this is very simple to do: has someone else discussed as much? Is it related to the recent tests? If so, cite the source, add it in, and defend your edits here if challenged. Until then, I fully support the efforts of those who are zapping irrelevant comments. There are an endless number of USENET, web-log, etc, forums for you to use for these purposes. mdf 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, wait. "Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research" refers to being on topic. The issue in this page was not only possible "soapbox" phenomena, but also being off topic. The above sentence refers to being on topic and it's obvious it may have been a more heated argument in the case of talking about removing on-topic comments (because we are not talking about encyclopedia articles here, but Talk: pages). I should also point out the initial removals seemed like accidental and someone stepped in at a later point they were restored by someone and removed them also as a "policy". But, anyway, at this point that may not be that important. --62.1.131.63 11:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about "being on topic", it is about the question of article content. None of the talk page discussions removed had anything to do with suggestions as to content. --Fastfission 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Location where the long range missile landed

It seems that BBC (and the map here, which is probably based on BBC's map) exaggerated the distance the Taepodong actually travelled. It should be very close to the launch site Musidan-ri, and near the SW tip of BBC's green area. See calculations here. It looks rudimentary, but good enough as an estimate. Any rocket expert who can offer more accurate assessment?

I think you'd have to know a bit more about both its trajectory to really take a good stab. IMO the author of the blog makes the error of thinking that the missile landed after 40 seconds; all accounts say that it failed in mid-air after 40 seconds, which would mean it landed sometime after that point (assuming it kept going for awhile after its engine died). --Fastfission 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

his assumption was quite generous, so even if you would double the distance (i.e. 40 sec in midway, assuming a lot of the energy was given to the horizontal component of the velocity), it still would not have reached the BBC red area. More likely it would ne the east end of the blue area. Could BBC (or its ultimate source NHK) made a mistake of switching the short range and the long range (thinking that long range went farther away - which may not be true.)?

well as Pres. Bush said in a news conference, we dont know what the azimuth of the rocket was. All we know is that we lost the rocket on radar abou 35 seconds into flight and assume that it crashed landed in the about 42 seconds afterwards. Cmdrbond 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair statement. So this actually means it crash landed in 42 second and that puts an upper bound on the distance travelled. (I guess you can only accelerate to certain speed in 35/42 seconds?). A separate note, I noticed now that a rumour that it aimed at Hawaii had made into the main page. Shouldn't that statement be qualified with the skeptism (eg Bush's statement. PACOM statement, etc.)?

It seems pretty clear TPD-2 landed very close to the launch pad (globalsecurity said 14km away), shall we edit the map now?

Valiant Shield

Why is there 3 full paragraphs on Valiant Shield? It may be relevant, but shouldn't it belong to another wiki-item? (and just 1 line here and refer readers over to its own item)

I do not see why the Valiant Shield section is relevant as background info. Any other opinion?

It isn't particularly relevant. North Korea has often condemned U.S. Navy exercises in the area but they are regularly scheduled and public, and happen several times a year. The exercises weren't for any specific actions by North Korea, or any country. And North Korea's missile launches have never been suggested to be in response to any specific exercise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.109.235 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

East Sea vs. Sea of Japan

I've seen people flip this back and forth and honestly wasn't sure what it was all about. I went to the link to East Sea which led me to the very useful Sea of Japan naming dispute page, where apparently between Koreans and the Japanese there is a lot of dispute over what the name of this body of water should be. I have no strong feelings about it personally though I think East Sea is probably the least POV of the two options (though I suppose if the "East" is meant to be from the view of Korea, it favors their POV, but anyhow). I don't honestly think it matters too much for the purposes of this article but we should either pick one and stick with it or else use both to avoid worrying about it. Any thoughts on this from people with more invested in it? --Fastfission 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm as about as invested as you are, Fastfission, which is to say, not much, but IMHO it is quite disruptive to have the names switched back and forth so much. The article needs as much stability as its possible to give at this point, and label-flipping doesn't help. -Fsotrain09 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can pick either one in the beginning, with a bracket noting there is a dispute and point poeple over to that dispute item page. SoJ being the 'first mover' so it seems it is natural to favor that name. However, as noted above, it is misleading, since the sea, especially the area where these missiles landed, does not belong to Japan and has nothing to do with Japan. So I would suggest a special note to clarify that.

It should be "Sea of Japan" since the United Nations decided that to be the legal name: "In response to the enquiry by the Government of Japan, the United Nations Secretariat officially replied on 10 March 2004, that 'Sea of Japan' is the standard geographical term and as such is to be used in official documents of the United Nations." [7]

Well, and considering our own East Sea article more or less says that the main article is Sea of Japan, perhaps the easiest thing to do is to defer to the way those pages are already sorted out. If someone wants to change the way we do it on Wikipedia, they should take it up over there first. --Fastfission 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, a pretty good policy has already been worked out, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#East_Sea. I've put little HTML comments into the text to this effect. --Fastfission 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

France, Belgium, and Chad lack of sources

The writers of the subsections on France, Belgium, and Chad did not provide their sources for their information. I've moved the subsections here as a result until the sources can be supplied. Meanwhile, I've added paragraphs about more possible missile launches and reorganized the international reaction section.

France

France accused North Korea of being a "major actor in missile proliferation in the world" and called for compliance to the self-imposed moratorium of 1999. France currently sits as president of the U.N. Security Council in July.^{[citation needed]}

Belgium

Belgium's foreign minister Karel De Gucht, head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, said that the tests raise tensions considerably in the region and are a serious threat to peace, and therefore the UN Security Council should deal with the matter. De Gucht pleaded for economic and especially political sanctions against North Korea.^{[citation needed]}

Chad

The Chad Ministry of Affairs expressed concern on Wednesday, calling the actions "a terrible mistake".^{[citation needed]}

10 missiles?

These are just some rumors that hopefully can be cleared up by someone. I heard there were 3 additional missiles which were tracked by Russian radar. Also, another rumor that one of these missiles hit Russian soil? anybody shed light on these issues?--Sesloan 01:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Missile or rocket

according to new report by globalsecurity. the Taepodong is more likely a rocket for satellite launch (vs a missile), shall we indicate this somewhere in the beginning and adjust the terminology accordingly? (the 6 other launches are still missiles)

"Almost certainly it was a satellite launch at an inclination of 41 degrees or perhaps a three stage booster dummy warhead launch to impact down range in the south Pacific relative to South America . This analyst is reasonably certain it was not aimed at the United States at a much higher inclination as discussed below. It ultimately impacted near the launch site infrastructure just off shore perhaps about 1.4 kilometers from the pad with perhaps 4.4 km altitude gained before collapsing into the Sea of Japan ." source

I have nothing against globalsecurity.org but they are only as authoritative as the sources they cite; as an independent source I don't consider them more authoritative than the other agencies cited. I'm also not sure what the difference between a missile and a rocket is meant to be in this context—launched in the company of many other "missiles" makes it look a lot like a "missile" to me, whether or not this particular mission was or was not a satellite launch. --Fastfission 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have particular reference on the nomenclature. Just that 1) this adds another possibility. 2) To me there is only small difference in missile and satellite, because if one can launch and recollect a satellite, one has all the technology to build ICBM. But to most other people this is not straightforward. Perhaps we could highlight this fact as well (or remind reader of that by refering them to another wiki item.

I have nothing against or for globalsecurity.org either. But it seems it is the only analysis available today, while most other news sources (such as Sankei) are pure rumours. Although globalsecurity's suggestion seems to be very well reasoned and supported with a lot of (credible) data from DoD

The only difference between a "rocket" and a "missile" is what you use it for. If you put a satellite on it and aim it at space, it's rocket. If you put a warhead on it and aim it at the ground, it's a missile. The distinction is a semantic one only. There are, of course, some missiles that don't have enough power to make it into space, and therefore could never be used as "rockets," but anything with enough "oomph" to make it into space can also make it across an ocean (and probably vice versa).

They (globalsecurity) do have a point about the azimuth, but since the object blew up so quickly after launch, there simply isn't enough data to say for sure where it was aimed. Roachmeister 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources that confirmed Vick's analysis and my earlier hypothesis and estimates. sun1

Iran?

There have been recent reports that one or more Iranians may have witness the missile test [[8]]. Should that be mentioned? Red1530 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the reports can be mentioned (i.e. in the format of "U.S. officials reported that..."). --Fastfission 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Failing GA

Per WP:WIAGA, this article fails for GA status. The reasons are the following:

Well written? - needs major improvement
- This article is basically news collection, rather than encyclopedia nature. Some information is just fragmented and does not flow smoothly throughout the article.
- The lead section does not give a summary and the context of this article, but rather it is a detail content that should be given in the article body.
- I spotted a very serious copyright violations here. When sources are cited, including news, copy paste whole statement is not allowed, unless it is given as a quotation. For example in the following statement:
  - "Pentagon officials said Thursday that the brief flight of the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful technical data, including its intended target, its payload and whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile." Now, look at the word Thursday. When is it? What date? This is just a copy paste and anybody can easily check it by googling: [9]
factually accurate and verifiable - needs some inline citations again
- Since the topic is an event, thus inline citations are required and this has been fulfilled by the editors. However, I found more spots that need inline citations. For example in the following one:
  - "However, the Sankei report is disputed by many, and the Japanese Defense Agency refused to confirm."
- A blog cannot be used as a reliable source, per WP:RS.
broad in its coverage? - needs improvement
- Almost half of the article put responses from different countries. This is not the core of the topic. It should be trimmed out or summarized, as this article serves as an encyclopedic item, not a news item. For me, this article looks like wikinews item.
- What is lacking in this topic are: history, the missile, N. Korean view, the result. Try to acquire more reliable sources not from news agencies, but reports/press release/journal/etc. from reliable institutions.
NPOV? - needs improvement
- This article basically bias with all views against N. Korea, driven mostly by U.S. based newspapers. Views from N. Korea itself are not presented here.
stable? - passes
images - spotted some problems
- The first image is copyrighted and no fair use rationale given in the image description.
- The second image caption says: "Probable location of missile impact (blue shaded region)". It's an unsourced estimation, not a fact, thus its source should be given.

As a summary, this article is still far from Good Article status. The prose likely serves as news clipping with fragmented copy pasted statements fron newspapers. Neutrality is questionable and all views should be presented fairly. When all of the above issues are resolved, this article can be renominated again. — Indon (reply) — 10:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Future mention of US ship movement in August

I removed:

The [[USS Shiloh (CG-67)|USS ''Shiloh'']] will be deployed in August. 
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/08/us.destroyer.ap/index.html|
publisher=CNN|date=July 8, 2006|title= U.S. deploys missile destroyer to Japan}}</ref>

from the introduction paragraph as it is now October so this either has or hasn't happened. Also the link seems to be dead. Please put back more information on this and a working link if anyone has any. sijarvis 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Reuters-council" :
- {{cite news|url=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-05T143843Z_01_L04656181_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KOREA-NORTH-MISSILE.xml&pageNumber=3&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3|publisher=Reuters UK|date=[[2006-07-05]]|title=Security Council meets on North Korea missile test}}
- {{cite news|url=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-05T143843Z_01_L04656181_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KOREA-NORTH-MISSILE.xml|publisher=Reuters|date=[[2006-07-05]]|title=Security Council meets on North Korea missile test}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)