Yup they still work (US test launches Minuteman III ICBM)

[Statistical]

USAF Conducts Successful ICBM Missile Launch

The United States Air Force successfully sent an unarmed ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base to several targets located in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, government officials said.

On Sunday at 9:01 a.m., the unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic re-entry vehicle was sent more than 4,000 miles during the latest round of testing, which saw the missile approach speeds of 15,000 mph. Military officials didn't say if the most recent test impacted targets in the water or on land. Tracking and telemetry equipment was installed on the rocket by the 576th Flight Test Squadron, which was in control of the missile launch for the U.S. Air Force.

The US has 450 Minuteman III ICBM as part of its strategic arsenal.

http://www.dailytech.com/USAF+Conducts+Successful+ICBM+Missile+Launch/article16065.htm

[leveymg]

1. So, why can't they build a reliable American car?

Priorities.

[Javaman]

2. Believe me, if they figured out a way to launch a car

at the (enemy of your choice), that also caused massive destruction, we would have a car that not only was dependable, but would also wash itself, change it's own oil and rotate it's own tires.

[arcadian]

3. Ridiculous. Built in obsolescence

Biggest waste of money in the history wastes of money.

[jayfish]

4. Holy Shite! Are We Going To...

freak out over ourselves testing our own missiles. ...UN resolution anyone?

Jay

[Statistical]

5. Well one difference is we notified the UN, Nato, and Australia.

We didn't violate anyone's airspace or launch unannounced. We didn't have the missile fly near populated cities and splash down in the ocean like NK did to Japan. There was no moments of terror like when Japan was analyzing the flight path to determine if the missile would indeed strike Japan. We didn't cause millions of dollars in costs by requiring another nation to put anti ballistic missile cruiser in place to shoot down the missile if it was aimed at an occupied city (US Navy paid for by US taxpayers when NK shot over Japan).

So yeah those "small" differences.

[jayfish]

6. I'll Give You Your First Point...

that is was nice of us to make the notifications. However, it was a pretty well know fact that NK was going to test when it did. Also the idea that NK would purposely or even accidentally hit a population center in Japan, or Japan at all, is pretty far fetched. The sensationalist deployment cost for the cruiser is on us.

Jay

[Posteritatis]

7. "pretty much know" and "know exactly" are different things

If you're testing a ballistic missile, you tell people when you're firing it - not ballpark when, but exactly, "three PM next Tuesday, weather permitting" when - you tell people where you're firing it, and you make sure that you're not firing it over the neighbors' territory for the sake of eliciting a reaction. North Korea did none of these things.

This really isn't complex, and the two situations aren't equivalent.

[Statistical]

8. Then there is who the internal law issue.

Japan has sovereign authority over its own airspace. North Korea had no authority to invade Japanese airspace with a military weapon. Even commercial aircraft can only operate with the express permission of the host Nation.

The US ICBM test only entered US and Australian airspace and we had permission to do that. The rest of the time the missile was flying in space a domain no country has legitimate claim to.

Of course North Korea missiles are rather unreliable. Even if North Korea didn't intend to hit Japan by picking a flight path that went directly over Japan they risked the chance of a failure which would cause the missile to crash early or detonate over Japan showering her citizens with fiery debris.

There was plenty of open ocean to pick a flight path they kept the missile out of another countries airspace. The intent was to terrorize.

The equivalent would be if we "tested" the ICBM by having it impact 2 miles off the coast of North Korea (in territorial waters) unannounced.