this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
61 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

812 readers
512 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yes, they've had ICBMs capable of hitting New York for like a decade now.

Oh really? I thought it was the west coast and maybe Washington DC. Didn't know it was the entire continental US.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

DC is on the east coast, so the question at that point would just be if the missiles can reach the extreme northeast and southeast, but for the purpose of war with the DPRK, I don't think Maine and Florida are that strategically significant. That said, here's a recent example of a missile that can hit anywhere in the continental US, the Hwasong-20. I think the example that I was thinking of when I said they've had this capability for a decade is the Hwasong-15, which was unveiled in 2017.

The main limitation is that they reportedly have that many, and even if the DPRK is hiding the size of the stockpile (which would make sense), it still probably isn't very many. Nonetheless, you don't need a huge number of nukes to cause horrendous damage.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago

I always think DC is a little more towards the center, south of the great lakes, I didn't realise it was basically just next to Baltimore (though I also thought Baltimore was on the Mississippi for some reason, only adding to my confusion). This is why I shouldn't be in charge of the missiles.

[–] I_Voxgaard@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do ICBMs not have to worry about interceptors? Too fast? Too nuclear?

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

I think very recent ones have a better shot of intercepting an ICBM, but you don't need to land every nuke to nuke a place.

[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

They don't only have ICBMs. They've launched satellites. They have a space program.