If they don’t yet have ICBM technology - how did they get those satellites into orbit?
Rockets.
The IC in ICBM means “going between continents”.
they don’t need to go between continents to go to orbit.
Going to orbit is *easier* I am going between continents in, say, 10 minutes flat.
Satellites are lighter and don’t require reentry vehicles. The launchers are also grossly impractical to use as ICBMs - they’re not mobile, large, not long-term storable, etc.
The ability to launch a satellite does mean that you’re getting close, however.
I don’t think the North Koreans have the capability to put something as heavy as one of their nukes into orbit, yet.
Yup - Neo Con fake news again, using same playbook from the run up to Iraq.
fool me once shame on you
fool me twice shame on me
I’m not a rocket scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.....
An ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) is different than a satellite launch vehicle (Rocket) in subtle ways as I understand it. The guidance system and physics associated with stresses are different do to trajectory and re-entry. Apparently the ICBM is more sophisticated than the rocket to push cargo into orbit. As it was once explained to me, “the Germans, during WWII likely had the technology to put a satellite into orbit. But they used that technology to fire V2s at London instead.”
THAT said, I think the intent of your question is still very valid. Do they have the technology to actually guide and detonate a device that has been in space for several years into a strategic weapon with any sort of effectiveness. There is a lot of technology involved that I would think would be as complicated as an ICBM or more so.
I’m sure there are others that are more qualified than I to analyze validity of the supposition in this article.
“...how did they get those satellites into orbit?”
They already have satellites in orbit. Don’t be too snarky about them not being able to launch an ICBM just yet; they will eventually succeed.
Re-entry vehicles.