Talk:Taepodong-2

Merger discussion for Taepodong-2

An article that you have been involved in editing—Taepodong-2—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Extrapolaris (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Taepodong-2 into Unha. The name Taepodong-2 was applied by US intelligence agencies to what is known in North Korea as the Unha, and thanks to deployment of the Hwasong-15, it is clear that the Americans mistakenly assumed that the Taepodong-2 was a ballistic missile, given the all-out secrecy surrounding North Korea's missile programs. Moreover, the illustration in the infobox erroneously depicts the Taepodong-1 and Taepodong-2 with pointed tips, when in fact they had rounded domes. Extrapolaris (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

U.S. goverment biased point-of-view presented as factual data

No technical data of this particular Korean-developed missile is verified, but at the same time the alleged nuclear payload directed exclusively to the United States of America is presented as a certainty.

I don't recall that the wiki entry of the U.S.'s Tomahawk cruise missile includes targeted countries as its main "description" in Wikipedia.

Also, mentioning Iran as a supplier, now that they're becoming the U.S. fashionable "enemy of the month", is reeking of political propaganda.

The missile is supposed to be based on the Taepodong-1 IRBM, which in turn is based on the Russian Scud "rocket". Didn't have to research that elsewhere, since all is listed on Wikipedia.

To solve this problem, its best to put two points of views on this subject, namely the US and North Korea's. However, seeing as the US makes its intentions and views public and not North Korea, the person cannot be blamed as it is the only source of facts available at the moment. Regarding the "propaganda" portion, it could be from newspaper reports, which are allowed as sources under Wikipedia's rule of citing sources. Unfortunately, the person who gave this information has not labelled his source. --Terrancommander 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the data listed on fas.org and globalsecurity.org? Neither of them are governmental organizations. Baring any serious issue, we can simply replace the fact templates with links to the specifications here. -- Doctorbigtime

Added some references, and am eagerly awaiting comments on wether or not we should remove the not verified template. Doctorbigtime 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for removing it. This page is linked by news.com.au, and a big fat accuracy template doesn't do much to promote us. Even if this were not the case, there seem to be enough relaible references to back the article up. That, and the original complaint seems to be one of POV, not accuracy.--Iorek85 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Tag?

There has been very much in the news about this missile, and I think that a current event tag may be sufficient. For example, it has been said that North Korea may test their missile tomorrow, Wednesday June 21.

TD-2 displayed?

The page had a note that said the TD-2 had been displayed at military parades. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, since it doesn't actually exist yet. See this blog entry for a nice explanation of this aspect of things, and why any pictures purporting to be a TD-2 are in fact, not. --Fastfission 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That may have been wrong, but CNN wrote on 3 July 2006 that "Washington and Japan have said in recent weeks that spy satellite images show North Korea has taken steps to prepare a long-range Taepodong-2 missile for a test-launch." If they say it is a Taepodong-2, perhaps it does exist?

I am pretty sure that it exists, since they fired it today, among other missiles. They said it failed in mid-air, though. This story has all the details.--Chili14 (Talk) 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The co-ordinates that are the suggested launch site are in the sea.

[As the person who wrote said blog post, the point was that the description "Taepodong 2" is an American term created as a placeholder to describe a missile "mockup" found near the placename Taep'odong -- there was no object to which to attach the placeholder until the North Koreans assembled one on the pad and launched it yesterday. Jeffrey Lewis]

Nice clarification. In any case, the image which was recently added here was a TD-1, as Lewis's blog points out, and not a TD-2. --Fastfission 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One or many?

Is the TD-2 a type of missle, or is it a missle? How many are/were there? MUSICAL 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the entry above. --Fastfission 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry above makes it sound like there is only one missle with this name. But then, the article says "U.S. intelligence reported the launch of up to eight missiles, at least one of which was the long-range Taepodong-2". Is the TD-2 reusable? Was the one in the failed test destroyed? MUSICAL 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The one in the failed test landed in the ocean; I'd say it is probably destroyed. As for re-usable, who knows at this stage? Almost nothing is securely known about this thing. TD-2 is a placeholder for a model of missile representing a long-range successor to the TD-1. --Fastfission 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deployment 2004?

The current infobox lists the TD-2's deployment as 2004. Since the first prototype shot (a failure) was 2006, what is this supposed to indicate? --Fastfission 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "not yet", since I can't think of any definition of "deployment" which would indicate that the TD-2 was deployed in 2004, or is even deployed at the moment. --Fastfission 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning in Korean

What does the word "Taepodong" mean in English? According to the daily show, it means "kind of penis." Is this true???-72.78.53.72 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Daily Show is a comedy show. It is joking that the name sounds like "Type-o-dong" in English. It means "large cannon" in Korean, apparently. --Fastfission 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Taepodong means "large cannon?" The hanja just look like its a toponym. AjaxSmack 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I got it from this page. We should definitely have someone who knows Korean go over that. --Fastfission 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm korean. 'Tae(대,大)' means large and 'po(포,浦)' means near water. But it's a toponym.--Kk10009 (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps they were trying to say/suggest "Heavy" not Large. Heavy Water is a euphemism for Radioactive materials used in Fission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.203.83 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

range

BBC news said that the range for the taepodong-2 missile that failed in july 2006 had a range of 6000KM

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

the article does not state 6000KM, i don't want to correct something if i am wrong,

so what do you think? is the BBC wrong?

-Joe

The estimates for its range are all just estimates without much behind them at this point; it looks to me like the BBC is just averaging the US intelligence estimates (which are between 4000 and 10000 km). --Fastfission 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are too many references to Taepodong range that exceeds tested and reported capability. Comparing this junker to US or even Russian missiles is silly, because the range, accuracy, and payload capabilities are so different. Actual capability should be reflected in the article. No speculation. Abe Froman 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We most certainly shouldn't list a range that the Taepodong-2, at least its current state, is completely incapable of achieving. It may have been intended to have a range of 4,000-10,000 km, but the failed test shows that North Korea will have to go back to the drawing board if they want to actually achieve that goal. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Is the payload capacity "100-200 pounds" or "700–1000 kg"? --Pifactorial 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Only the short-range Taepodong's can carry the one ton payloads necessary to threaten neighbors with nuclear weapons. "The longer range almost certainly implies a reduced payload," [1] probably of only 100-200 pounds at maximum range. This payload wouldn't even carry Kim Jong Il to western Alaska, much less a crude multi-ton North Korean nuclear weapon. Abe Froman 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, 100-500 pounds payload at maximum range. [2] The US does not even make warheads that light. Abe Froman 22:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that it says "At maximum range", I've removed the contradict template. --Pifactorial 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear devices

"This is an order of magnitude lighter than the likely weight of any North Korean nuclear device." Nobody has yet to provide a citation for this so I'm removing it, and replacing it instead with "Whether this would be large enough to carry a North Korean designed nuclear warhead is currently unknown, as the full development status of the North Korean nuclear program is largely unknown." Neither I nor anyone else on here know the size of any North Korean nuclear device, or even if they actually have a nuclear device at all (we know they have plutonium in one form or another — there's still some distance between that and a nuclear device). Assuming that a North Korean design would necessarily be on the order of magnitude as the Gadget doesn't seem entirely justified to me — not only is public knowledge about weapons design light years beyond what it was in the 1940s and 1950s, but we also know that North Korea has a history of playing hooky with the Khan network, who has been known to shop around Chinese warhead designs. I think there is considerable reason to just say "nobody really knows much about this" in this case, because the leaps and bounds one has to take in speculating on what they either do or don't have are a bit too great to say with any certainty about what the "likely weight" is of any North Korean device. I think if there's one lesson of the history of nuclear weapons is that each country does it a little bit differently. --Fastfission 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

It's not a Taepodong-2 on the image. Taepodong looks more complicated. Maybe it's a Scud --84.50.35.71 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

That is a picture of an Iranian Shahab 3 and should be removed immediately... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle07 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed it.- Tourbillon ^A ? 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ha RT-2 copy

ha RT-2 copy Gnomsovet (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy political bias

Well, this article clearly and unmistakably accuses a country of this world (and by omitting any differentiation all the inhabitants of it) to conduct crimes against the rest of the world - based on the fact, that this country is able to produce spacecrafts (which as well may be used as intercontinental ballistic missiles).

Well - let's try to follow the intend of the article writer and ACTUALLY TAKE the possession of spacecrafts as well as intercontinental ballistic missiles as a fact of crime against the world! As IT IS the stated law of the wikipedia, articles MUST be unbiased and without any party-political prejudgment.

Thus, if this article really would satisfy the intend of wikipedia to be a simple collection of FACTS instead being a simple collection of judgments and accusations, it should obviously be a FACT, that the possession of spacecrafts and missiles IS A CRIME!

Now, try to find ANY article in wikipedia, that cites any of the countries with the by factors of thousands biggest possession of spacecrafts, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads as being A THREAT TO THE WORLD! Or connecting the term "weapons of mass destruction" with those countries!

Nothing!

Well - as a matter of fact, it i not a question of the next 10 to 20 years, that the USA develops nuclear warheads, which in the hands of some mad driven military chiefs could destroy the complete world in minutes! It is a matter of history and presence!

It is not a matter of question, if those military chiefs in the USA are able to think in a straitforward way. It is a matter of fact, that those guys heavily addicted to religious blindness - having even presidents telling this wide open to the world!

It is not a matter of question or future, which country of the world is the only one having already conducted nuclear crimes against the world.

It is not a matter of question or future, which countries are the only ones in possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and shamelessly refuse to allow any international control over their gigantic stocks of those weapons: Namely exactly those countries, that are declared "consider sanctions against North Korea" in this article!

At other places, it's only a matter of minutes till the deletion of an article, that shows only a percentage o the prejudgment and distance from reality like this one. All in all it strongly imposes the assumption of being composed by some US warshipping guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.99.83 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 launch

The satellite probably failed to launch, but I don't think that means the missile failed. If the third stage managed to detach from the second stage (which most probably happened), then we have a successful test of this missile. I think this should be mentioned. - Tourbillon ^A ? 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Norad statement does not mention if the third stage separated or not, so I think success/failure of the presumed missile test is unknown at this point. Offliner (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this new map at globalsecurity.org, the Taepodong-2 travelled 2,973 km...if it wasnt a full-range test, it's quite possible that it was successful. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a story associated with the picture? I'd really like to know where Globalsecurity got this info. The following article speculates, that the second stage might have failed: Western analysts said that shortfall, if correct, probably indicated a failure of the missile’s second stage. [3] Offliner (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

South Koreans say it flew for 2,000 miles (3,200 km) or more.[4] Quite a respectable distance... - Tourbillon ^A ? 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Taepodong-2 scheme.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Taepodong-2 scheme.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible (?) test 2012

According to German Wikipedia, even journalists for admitted to the launch. So, I would assume that it was officially anounced, hence I wonder why "possible" was used here?! Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Was the 2006 test a failed orbital launch?

There have been unconfirmed reports that the failed first flight of the Taepodong-2 was merely a satellite launch attempt, but North Korea did not say whether the 2006 launch was carrying a satellite or it was just a sounding rocket intended to test the airframe of the Unha. If there are no signs of operational deployment of the Taepodong-2, this would lead intelligence analysts to conclude that the Taepodong-2 is partly a figment of poltical literature. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Launch platform

Concerning the launch environment of the Taepodong-2, a launch pad environment is extremely problematic because ICBMs are vulnerable to nuclear strikes if they are fueled for 20 hours out in the open instead of in a silo (which was one reason why the R-7 Semyorka was judged impractical as an ICBM). Would it be intuitive to say that the Taepodong-2 could be launched from underground silos safe from US and South Korean airstrikes? 68.4.28.33 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian