[Does so]

How do they know?

...never mind...

[blueunicorn6]

You can call it a success if they were aiming at the air.

They probably hit some air....for a little while anyway.

[Bon mots]

[Paladin2]

The IC is not so much.

Plus they need to tend to their dropped stitches knitting and stop working to get rid of Trump.

Especially KKKlapper.

[SkyDancer]

They hit the ocean again, didn't they?

[353FMG]

Even a failed test can provide useful information.

[Molon Labbie]

I offer that it was US that failed...failed to shoot them down immediately.

[familyop]

Another late revision. That way, people on the coasts and in urban areas will hardly notice it.

[ImNotLying]

So our initial intelligence reports were incorrect but the South Koreans got it right. What the hell is going on in the Pacific Command? Three ships damaged and still no report on who is at fault and how it happened? Obama’s navy needs some major overhaul.

[DNME]

I think we saw some of the thinking behind test evaluations in the recent NK test ICBM launch.

By elevating the missile’s flight path, it looked like their ICBM only went a few hundred miles. But the missile flew over 1,200 miles vertically against some 450 across the map. (I don’t remember the actual numbers and I’m not willing to hunt down the numbers.)

So what looked like a failed ICBM test was in fact successful. Change that flight path to emphasize the horizontal instead of the vertical and that bird would have flown on a much more dangerous course.