Comment: Guam? Yes? CONUS? Well, that is a different story..

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Let me ask you this, Bob: (see in situ)

Guam? Yes? CONUS? Well, that is a different story..

http://oldsite.nautilus.org/archives/fora/security/9903A_Nik...

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/TAB_Long-Range-Ballistic-Mi...

http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/north_korea_missile_2.pdf?_=13...

The mobile IRBM capable of hitting Okinawa and Guam has proven to be very reliable.

I am actually more concerned about their midget submarine threat. Nearly 40 years ago, the James Bond film "The Spy Who Loved Me" hypothesized a supertanker that was actually a disguised midget submarine carrier.Midget submarine carriers have actually been around since before World War II. However, all of them EXCEPT LARGE SUBMARINES lifted the midget submarines off the deck down to the water. Nonetheless, I would not be at also surprised if China is using North Korea as a surrogate and China Ocean Shipping (COSCO) may well have a ship with built in submarine pens. If you look at COSCO's shipping routes, you will see that COSCO could deliver midget subs to any port city in the world. http://www.chinatouristmaps.com/china-maps/air-lines-of-caac...

PBS is certainly concerned about the possibility of midget subs "atomizing US cities". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/threat-midget-subs.html

Also, keep in mind that a North Korean ICBM does not have to "hit" a US city, if it is equipped with an EMP warhead. Such a device could destroy the electronics virtually anywhere in the US. http://www.newswithviews.com/McGuire/paul167.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/north-korea-...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040413-650684-north...

http://www.dailypaul.com/280951/north-korea-tests-super-emp-...

Others, however, dismiss this.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/05/1828101/gaffney...

I fear we will know soon enough.