Los Angeles Evacuation Alert

More thoughts on the apparent missile firing off Los Angeles: I an way out of my depth when it comes to modern weaponry, but I thought to check online regarding the known capabilities of the North Korean Navy. (The celebrated Wolfram Alpha, by the way, turns out to be worthless, here. It admits of only one possible meaning for the word “submarine”: it comes with cold cuts). DPRK do have an established submarine fleet, and submarine manufacturing facilities as well. The submarines they have are supposed to be diesel-electric, not nuclear, limiting their range—but the listed range is still 9,000 miles. The actual distance from Pyongyang to Los Angeles is 5,946 miles. That makes it possible, with a little tinkering or extra fuel storage, to make the trip and get home, even without refuelling at sea, and even if North Korea has not significantly improved the submarine models they inherited from China and Russia, using their own research capabilities.

They are also not supposed to be equipped to launch missiles; that would be the crucial innovation.

It is interesting to note, in this regard, that the DPRK's latest and most up-to-date missile facility is actually build on the seacoast.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw080915_2_n.shtml

This seems a bit odd, since the US is a sea power, and this makes it rather more exposed than otherwise to spying and possible destruction. It makes more sense, though, if part of the research program is the fitting of missile launchers to submarines.

The point of the exercise, from North Korea's view, would not be just to warn off the US; North Korea's regime lives largely on weapons sales. The point is to advertise to anyone else who might want a first-strike capability against the US that the store is open...

Iran, of course, is not only on the potential buyers' list; they've been co-developing weapons with North Korea for years.

The expert from Jane's, the ruling authority on such matters, has been prepared to go on record saying it was a missile, not a jet contrail:

“Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt. 

"It’s a solid propellant missile," he told the Times. "You can tell from the efflux [smoke]." 

Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships. 

Some are suggesting it is incredible that anyone could fire a missile so near to one of the US's coasts without being detected or identified. But that would be the entire point of the exercise, wouldn't it—to do something shocking? History is jam-full of examples of official bureaucracies caught with their trousers about their ankles in such a wise. Two words: Pearl Harbor.

But then again, even if they saw the sub coming in and knew what was going to happen, what were they going to do? Depth-charge it? That's an act of war. Tell everyone what was happening? Panic in the streets of LA would not be pretty.