Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/1264997/

Topic: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-21 05:10:59 and read 3342 times.

The North Koreans reportedly have ready and fueled a Taepodong II missile, an ICBM, for test firing. It appears all they need is good weather in the launch area.

In response, the US has declared their missle defense shied bases in Alaska and California as "operational". Additionally, the USN aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie, CG-70, part of the defense shield and equipped with SM-3 missiles, is also declared "operational".

If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/us_nm/arms_usa_missile_dc_2

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060620-123010-4554r.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0a0f2300-006e-11db-8078-0000779e2340.html

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Lt-AWACS
Posted 2006-06-21 05:49:32 and read 3334 times.

I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this, but is the other option to let it hit the USA?... or are you getting at the fact we should "lt it fail" if we somehow know that is going to happen. I could see the argument for that in some of the links you post, but I would aim to shoot it down ASAP and not hope for failure. Of course it is early here and the soccer riots kept me up  Sad so I am groggy and cholo-esq at the moment.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Mind the gap

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Greaser
Posted 2006-06-21 07:21:33 and read 3310 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

You can't hide such a launch from anyone. Besides, we'll need to lob more than just 1 of them, since our chances are 50%, they will know if we launch, but will they know if the missiles hit their ICBM?
Pentagon has already stated it wont shoot anything down unless it's a direct threat to the US, but the decision on whether it would be a threat will be most certainly determined within the first minutes of flight.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Pbottenb
Posted 2006-06-21 07:29:07 and read 3308 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

I'm not an expert on this, so please humor me....but, wont we consider a launch over Japan a threat to an ally? If we want them to help pay for it in the long run shouldnt we pull the trigger just to see if we can do it?

If we hit it then its a big victory, if we miss, it shows our resolve and gives us valuable data...who gives a rats ass what anyone else thinks. As far as showing our hand to the russkies and chinese...they probably have all the data they need anyway.....

Am I wrong on this?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: TedTAce
Posted 2006-06-21 09:08:57 and read 3289 times.

I dunno, unless it's comming at the US, we have too many options, and Inaction would likely be best.

Now if it is comming at us we have a tough choice. A) pray the payload is innocuous and watch what happens B) Risk looking like the fools we are for spending trillions on SDI that doesn't work. Either way, the US targeted scenario is not good at all. I'd rather see an Ageis just outside N Korea launch a few missles at it on it's way up. If that works (which I hope it should as aiming at one missle is easier then filtering out the warheads from possible debris) NK has a LOT of egg on it's face.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: L-188
Posted 2006-06-21 09:15:48 and read 3285 times.

We probably shouldn't despite how much fun it would be. The Diplomatic issues probably woudn't be it.

But you can be that everybody manning the NMDS is going to be trying to track that shot.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Bjornstrom
Posted 2006-06-21 10:09:05 and read 3271 times.

If North Korea is using the same trajectory as last time (overflying Japan) surely this must be considered a target for the JSDF.

Would a Patriot to the trick?

Firing a ICBM towards USA is suicide and even North Korea wouldn't try that since it would trigger a strike against all remaining ICBM's almost immediately (probably conventional though).

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AislepathLight
Posted 2006-06-21 10:51:36 and read 3251 times.

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 6):

Would a Patriot to the trick?

Please tell me that you are joking. A patriot couldn't shoot down anything, no matter how crappy or North Korean it is.

I say let it go, and see what happens. If you attempt to shoot it down, you either miss and look like a fool, or you hit the missile and really piss the North Koreans off, not that they aren't pissed enough already.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Tancrede
Posted 2006-06-21 13:45:58 and read 3228 times.

At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Greyhound
Posted 2006-06-21 16:11:11 and read 3172 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down?

Yes.

signed,
Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

I would assume they at least have some sort of radar that could track a shot.... I honestly don't think even THEY are stupid enough to press a button and take bets on where the sucker will land.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mrmeangenes
Posted 2006-06-21 16:16:24 and read 3165 times.

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 8):
At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

Mais oui ! It would give your intelligence service something to do-assuming Africa is not keeping them too busy.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mt99
Posted 2006-06-21 16:17:14 and read 3165 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If the US does shoot it down,



Quoting Tancrede (Reply 8):
At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

What if the US tries to shoot it down - and it fails..

Hasnt this system failed before in tests?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Leezyjet
Posted 2006-06-21 16:19:52 and read 3163 times.

What would China's response be towards NK if they launched an attack on the US for real ?. Would they back them or leave them to face the consequences ?.

Probably would matter anyway though as it would all be over in a matter of minutes !!!.

 Smile

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Wardialer
Posted 2006-06-21 16:28:43 and read 3155 times.

At what ALTITUDE and SPEED does the Taepodong II missile cruise at? Does anyone know here? If not, is there a website that has all those specifications such as speed, range, and cruising altitude?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2006-06-21 16:31:26 and read 3151 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

We have the right to shoot down any missile aimed and fired at the U.S. anywhere along its path whether lethal or not.

Period.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-21 16:36:37 and read 3143 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
We have the right to shoot down any missile aimed and fired at the U.S. anywhere along its path whether lethal or not.

Canada has already disagreed with you on that one.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2006-06-21 16:43:23 and read 3132 times.

Here's what I wrote about it the other day on my blog.

It is being widely reported today that the North Koreans-you know, those wonderful folks from north of the 38th parallel who brought you the Korean War, abductions of Japanese women off the street, mass starvation, refried Scud missiles for all able to pay for them, counterfeit money, factory made methamphetamine, brainwashing, and the Pueblo hijacking-where was I?

Oh yes. I remember now. The folks from Pyongyang, taking time from paying eternal homage to Big Daddy Kim Jong-il and Papa Kim Il-sung are getting ready to test launch the latest iteration of their attempt at an I.C.B.M. if you are old enough to shiver a bit at the term.

This one is the Taepodong-2, and it features a modified Scud-C sitting on top of a No-dong 1. It is alleged to have a range of 5,000 km and is capable of launching-well, anything you'd like, really.

Rumor has it the Iranians and the Pakistanis are interested in acquiring more Dong technology. It is also suggested that it's merely an attempt by these folks to acquire some independent satellite launching capabilities. If this is the case, one might say there is a shortage of Dong in those countries.

Time will tell. At this point it is said fueling is going on, and if that is true, it is a dicey proposition to defuel the at that point extremely hazardous missile. One might also suppose that the missile cannot sit there forever with its load of fuel and oxidizers on board.

So if the missile has been fueled, it will most likely be fired unless they're filling it up with tap water and making a big show of things for the spy satellites that are parked overhead. It's also reported that the weather in the region is somewhat overcast but a peek at the weather map shows a bit of clearing toward the end of the week. Chances are, the best time for a shot should be on Thursday. On the other hand, the I.C.B.M. people do not get to choose the time of launching if the fat's in the fire so it could come anytime.

I dunno. "This Dong's for you! This Dong's for you! And this Dong's for you and you!" is starting to sound like that Jackie Mason schtick on the Ed Sullivan show a few years ago, but it is one that people are getting upset over. What's even more puzzling is how much power can be controlled by two of the ugliest people who ever lorded it over their fellows. The interesting thing about Kim Jong-il is how chubby he is-in a country where square meals are as scarce as prairie chickens.

The best result for everyone would be if the damned thing blows up on the launch pad.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-21 16:49:09 and read 3127 times.

This might interest some people here, its a tourists tour of North Korea with photos.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: MD80fanatic
Posted 2006-06-21 17:02:10 and read 3115 times.

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
At what ALTITUDE and SPEED does the Taepodong II missile cruise at? Does anyone know here? If not, is there a website that has all those specifications such as speed, range, and cruising altitude?

Wasn't the last NK test warhead found in Alaska?

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...n/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm


I am not sure of this, but I think that a missile expected to travel that far must do so via "space". I don't think there is near enough fuel aboard to thrust continuously through the atmosphere. My guess is that they will boost to some level of "orbit" and then use small thrusters to ultimately manuever to a re-entry point. The missile speed must be escape velocity or greater (~25000 miles per hour).

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-21 17:16:45 and read 3105 times.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 18):

I am not sure of this, but I think that a missile expected to travel that far must do so via "space". I don't think there is near enough fuel aboard to thrust continuously through the atmosphere. My guess is that they will boost to some level of "orbit" and then use small thrusters to ultimately manuever to a re-entry point. The missile speed must be escape velocity or greater (~25000 miles per hour).

Ever wondered what the BM in ICBM stands for? Ballistic Missile.

An ICBM typically has a maximum 7 or 8 minute boost phase, getting it to something like maximum 7KM/second velocity, at a height of about 2000meters.

Then it starts the elipse phase under pure momentum, taking it to around 12000KM altitude, before earths gravity causes it to start the descent phase, during which it releases the warheads. No manouevering thrusters, just a pure simple ballistic trajectory because it doesnt achieve orbital speed.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mrmeangenes
Posted 2006-06-21 17:31:46 and read 3089 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Canada has already disagreed with you on that one.

Explain to me why the US-if it feels it is going to be impacted by a NK missile- should give a crap about Canada's position in this matter. Is Canada going to send one of its RCMP Constables over to North Korea to say : "Here now,lads.You really shouldn't have fired that thing." ??

 Confused  Confused

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Tbar220
Posted 2006-06-21 17:32:17 and read 3089 times.

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 1):
I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this

Well you are talking about the Taepodong missile here. Its not that hard to sound like one...

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-21 17:45:16 and read 3078 times.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 20):
Explain to me why the US-if it feels it is going to be impacted by a NK missile- should give a crap about Canada's position in this matter.

And thats the reason Canada pulled out - the vast majority of potential intercepts would be done over Canadian territory of missiles coming over the north pole, leaving massive amounts of nuclear material spread over Canada.

So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?  Smile

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2006-06-21 17:47:53 and read 3078 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?

Canada has the right to shoot down any missile they believe to be a threat to Canada, regardless of source.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Greyhound
Posted 2006-06-21 17:48:47 and read 3072 times.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 21):
Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 1):
I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this

Well you are talking about the Taepodong missile here. Its not that hard to sound like one...

Taepo-what?  duck 

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: MD80fanatic
Posted 2006-06-21 18:43:34 and read 3024 times.

Understand Richard.

The ICBM designation is now somewhat "generic" when referring to armaments that span the globe in effective range. Not all warheads are brought to the target via a ballistic trajectory. Lately we have been seeing launch vehicles capable of manuevering multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs) over a large distance. If the bird can manuever then it can no longer be considered on a ballistic trajectory.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: ANCFlyer
Posted 2006-06-21 18:43:53 and read 3024 times.

Once said missile leaves NK Air Space it then becomes a target of opportunity, and should be taken out forthwith.

I don't care if it's what the trajectory . . . once it is in International Airspace, it's a target. Take it out. Now.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mir
Posted 2006-06-21 18:50:24 and read 3018 times.

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 3):
If we hit it then its a big victory, if we miss, it shows our resolve and gives us valuable data...

If we miss, it makes us look like idiots. That's why we should let it go, unless it's coming at us.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Now if it is comming at us we have a tough choice.

Not a tough choice at all as far as I'm concerned. If it's coming at us, shoot it down. If it misses it misses, but you can't take the chance that they might have decided to "forget" to take the warheads out for the test.

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 12):
What would China's response be towards NK if they launched an attack on the US for real ?. Would they back them or leave them to face the consequences ?.

I think China will back NK so long as they don't make the first move. Thus, NK has free reign to go right up to the brink of war, but not take the next step. The challenge for the US will be not to take the bait, because if they do, it'll get really nasty really quickly.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-21 18:54:22 and read 3006 times.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 25):
The ICBM designation is now somewhat "generic" when referring to armaments that span the globe in effective range. Not all warheads are brought to the target via a ballistic trajectory. Lately we have been seeing launch vehicles capable of manuevering multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs) over a large distance. If the bird can manuever then it can no longer be considered on a ballistic trajectory.

Actually even with MIRV capability, the warheads are still delivered ballistically to the targets - they are released at slightly different points on the descent phase. There is no thrust past the boost phase, so the trajectory is all ballistic from then onward until impact.

If it isnt a ballistic trajectory, it isnt an ICBM.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: JGPH1A
Posted 2006-06-21 18:55:49 and read 3006 times.

I should hope they would try to shoot it down at least. However, given the test results from the Missile Defence System in the past, they may end up taking out another aspirin factory in Khartoum  Smile

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Kaitak
Posted 2006-06-21 19:57:58 and read 2983 times.

I think it would be a huge risk for Kim to take. If the missile is launched and the Americans take it down, what then?

If the Americans fail, they can blame it on technology and the fact that the system was just being tested. There would be some annoyance expressed at official level (provided, of course, it didn't end up levelling half of LA) ...

But in the DPRK, the situation would be a lot different. Kim relies on the military, who get a vast proportion of the country's resources, to keep him in power and he cannot afford to be seen as weak in their eyes; to have a missile shot down and NOT to retaliate could be seen as that sign of weakness.

As it happens, the North Koreans have asked for talks about the missile test, which I read as looking to do a deal - give us money, food etc, etc, and we'll stop the test. It's blackmail, but unfortunately, it's worked before. No country should be allowed to behave like this; it's time America called Kim's bluff, once and for all. If he launches the missile, take it out and then the next move is over to him.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: LSPA
Posted 2006-06-21 20:07:24 and read 2972 times.

yes they should Big grin would be some nice target practice and I would love to see th NK getting agitated about it  Smile
You have to set limits. And NK and WMD is a big no no.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mrmeangenes
Posted 2006-06-21 21:44:36 and read 2939 times.

I suppose another alternative is to just let it fly-wherever-and land-wherever.

If it lands on Canada, we can shrug and say-very politely-"Well, we didn't want to overfly your airspace with our ordnance,and risk spare parts landing on you. That would have been awfully rude !"

If it lands on or near our "Left Coast", we could shrug and say: " You insisted our missile defense didn't work,and that it was a waste of money,so we decided not to intercept."

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-22 03:51:17 and read 2910 times.

Well, then let's get all the pictures we need, track it with Aegis Cruisers and Cobra Ball, then shoot it down.

Kim will be POd. Maybe enough to comb his hair.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KingAir200
Posted 2006-06-22 04:34:16 and read 2882 times.

It would be interesting to see what NK's response to that would be. Would it deter them, or just make them attempt to launch another at a later date? One thing's for sure though. Krazy Kim would freak out.

[Edited 2006-06-22 04:47:31]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2006-06-22 04:43:06 and read 2874 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
the vast majority of potential intercepts would be done over Canadian territory of missiles coming over the north pole, leaving massive amounts of nuclear material spread over Canada.

Canada would recieve more contanimation from windborn fall-out from any blast south of their border than a hundred kilograms of Pu being obliterated hundreds of thousands of feet above the atmosphere.

Not to mention, any fragments could be tracked by radar and recovered by ground teams. It beats particulate matter that is impossible to economically clean, or having to re-build a city.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?

Thwarting an act of self-defense would be no better than an act of aggresion...

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2006-06-22 05:21:28 and read 2856 times.

Any test where the unnarmed missle is over 'international' waters should mean we get to try out our anti-missle technology. Busting up that missile would be very nasty to NK, although he would lie about it to his people. As others suggested, this is nothing but extortion by NK to get a payoff from the USA to NK not do these tests or sell missles or it's tech to others. As another said, lets hope this turkey blows up on the launch pad or maybe near it on live NK and world Television but not kill innocent NK's.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Soyuzavia
Posted 2006-06-22 05:24:40 and read 2854 times.

I've got a question.

Should North Korean shoot down US spyplanes?

Go back only a couple of weeks, and there have been several instances of RC-135s violating North Korean airspace. These violations occurred over a period of a few days.

Since then the North Korean military command, in a very unusual move, gave a public warning that they will shoot down any aircraft involved in spying over North Korean territory (land and/or water).

Also, since these spying incidents, planning of launches by North Korea have come up. They weren't talking of doing it before these spy flights violated North Korean airspace.

As much as the regime in North Korea is detestable, they have the RIGHT to not have their sovereignty violated and their hand seems to have been forced on this one. At the same time North Korea also has to respect the sovereignty of other nations.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: JCS17
Posted 2006-06-22 07:42:51 and read 2814 times.

So SoyuzAvia, you think its a good idea for North Korea to be able to "test" missles unannounced and without prior knowledge? I'm sure most Japanese, S. Koreans, Americans, and Canadians would strongly disagree with you. North Korea has a right to their soveriegnty militarily, only when it agrees to abide and take action on international sanctions placed against it.

The only people in North Korea who would know about an intercept is a select few in the military and the higher ranking government officials. The North Korean citizens and soldiers will be told that by the highest graces of Dear Leader, the missle test was a stunning success and left the US imperialists cowering. Remember folks, North Koreans don't see BBC or CNN International, they get Kim Headline News, they can't even hear foreign broadcasts on their radios.

I say shoot it down, if possible. What if we get into a situation where Kim decides to "test" his missles more frequently. What if one of these "test missles" has Seattle or Anchorage in its sights later on and we're still in "It's just a test" mode?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Darrenthe747
Posted 2006-06-22 08:08:42 and read 2801 times.

this is what i don't understand... the US was all up in arms over the threat Iraq posed to us when a lot of us knew it wasn't. we are all caught up in a war over there that is depleting our military at a frightening rate. there are threats in the world like NK, or Iran that need our attention. NK is IMHO a real threat to us. If they shoot ANYTHING even remotly our direction it should be shot down no questions asked.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2006-06-22 08:32:16 and read 2792 times.

I think if the US knocks the Missile out.It would be a very strong signal to the NK Administration.
regdsMEL

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Darrenthe747
Posted 2006-06-22 08:43:46 and read 2786 times.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 40):
I think if the US knocks the Missile out.It would be a very strong signal to the NK Administration

not to launch missiles in our direction.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Itsjustme
Posted 2006-06-22 09:18:13 and read 2772 times.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 7):
Please tell me that you are joking. A patriot couldn't shoot down anything, no matter how crappy or North Korean it is.

I'm just going from memory but didn't the patriot play a significant role in our defense against scud missiles the first time we paid a visit to Iraq in '91? I remember there was one tragic miss that resulted in the deaths of several American soldiers but wasn't that an isolated incident?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AAden
Posted 2006-06-22 09:23:57 and read 2770 times.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 7):
Please tell me that you are joking. A patriot couldn't shoot down anything, no matter how crappy or North Korean it is.

those missiles are 50% hit or miss on targets so they're not useless.
we just shoot 5 at one missile.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Scbriml
Posted 2006-06-22 09:55:36 and read 2765 times.

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 7):
A patriot couldn't shoot down anything, no matter how crappy or North Korean it is.

I believe one did manage to down an RAF Tornado.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 42):
I'm just going from memory but didn't the patriot play a significant role in our defense against scud missiles the first time we paid a visit to Iraq in '91?

The only significant role it played was in keeping Israel out of the war. I think post war analysis revealed that the Patriot missile system failed to shoot down anything it was fired at. It was all smoke and mirrors to calm the Israelis down.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Itsjustme
Posted 2006-06-22 10:40:53 and read 2758 times.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 44):
The only significant role it played was in keeping Israel out of the war. I think post war analysis revealed that the Patriot missile system failed to shoot down anything it was fired at. It was all smoke and mirrors to calm the Israelis down.

You are correct. Here is an excerpt from one of a few articles I've found:

The tally of Scuds claimed was, in fact, fictitious. An initial kill rate of 40-50 per cent soon became a mere 5-10 per cent. Worse still, Patriot suffered from a serious software problem which quickly manifested itself with disastrous results:

On February 25, 1991, a Patriot missile defense system operating at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, during Operation Desert Storm failed to track and intercept an incoming Scud. This Scud subsequently hit an Army barracks, killing 28 Americans.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-22 12:25:28 and read 2740 times.

I'd reccomend people to watch this video. I watched it last night after reading all sorts of articles. Discovery Channel: North Korea Nuclear Documentary Very good. (45 minutes long)

My response is long...read carefully.

It goes into some things maybe we all don't really understand about NK. Back in the Clinton years, Clinton started mobilizing military to react to NK. But Carter had gone to North Korea and met with Kim Jong Il. Carter asked Kim to not launch another missle and not to mobilize but go to the negotiating table. As it is, North Korea has the 5th largest army and enough missles pointed at Seoul to flatten it in a few minutes. As they say, "Leave Seoul in flames before they even had a chance to move." But It is also said that the number one thing Kim fears is the U.S. They say a lot to their people about defeating the Americans, but they know they do not have the technological ability to take down a massive invasion, especially if South Korean and Japan were to step in.

Anyway Kim Jong Il agreed to not mobilize and Clinton call of plans to mobilize as well. Within a few months Sectretary of state Albright was dispatched to North Korea to help start a process that lead to the six nation talks (China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Russia and the US). NK was hoping it could lead to normalized relations with the US and Japan. After all Kim Jong Il is more interested in a unified Korea than defeating Japan or the US or even having China as a friend (They are not that friendly...China is too capitalist and North Korea isn't communist enough.) Bush made his statement putting North Korea as an axis of Evil, helping to set a nail in the coffin of diplomacy. But these talks really broke down when it came out that North Korea had produced a nuclear weapon. The six nation talks have started and restarted but North Korea is always asking for more without giving.

We ask, why did we go for Iraq when North Korea is truly and imminent threat? Here is your answer. Iraqis didn't like Saddam, they could receive information from the outside world, they wanted Saddam out and were ready to fight. The US knew that when they rolled in, the Iraqis would help with the liberation of their nation. North Koreans have no access to outside information, they only get what is fed to them by the government, they cannot travel, they have limited allies and even those are not tight. Kim Il Song's ideas of Juche, or self reliance make it so that North Korea doesn't trust anyone even China or Russia. Children are taught this from birth. They believe their leader is something of a god. If the US were to invade or attack North Korea, tt would be a far bloodier war than anything we see now. It would also cause global economic problems. North Korea invades the South, Japan mobilizes, China goes on defense. Japan's economy would be in worse condition and they would be without the man power to fight. The South would fight but could be over powered by the will and determination to fight by the Northern army. Russia has no money and has chilled relations with North Korea (Stalin liked Kim Il Song but was not interested in Korea). Russia will most likely try diplomacy, they can't afford to loose U.S., Japanese and South Korean economic support. China would most likely close its border to prevent a flood of refugees which would create an economic strain on Heilongjong province and the nation as a whole. Even though there are 30,000 troops in South Korea and the US can kick some ass, we would have to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or reinstate the draft to meet the demand. If we pull out of those two countries, we leave a vaccuum for further instability which could lead to economic collapse in the Middle East (bye bye EK and Dubai). All of these events would cause a ripple across the globe bring the worlds economies crashing down and the start of WWIII.

Where does China fit into all of this? China wants North Korea to relax. Why? It is not good for business. China is a growing economy and doesn't want to be seen in bed with North Korea. Their largest trading partner is the U.S. They will choose neutrality and diplomacy before siding with North Korea or the U.S. Mao Zedong called Kim Il Song a bad communist because he built palaces and lived an extravigant life.

Where does Canada fit into all of this? Americans can pick on Canada, but we must remember that Canada is an indirect diplomatic channel to North Korea. They are not in the six nation talks, but have heavy interest in its success. We used Canada to help establish relations with China in the 1970s and use Canada now with North Korea. Of course Bush can just pick up the phone and call Kim Jong Il, but he can also ask the Canadian mission in Pyongyang. Americans can't go to North Korea but Canadians can. In the media we can bash Canada and we have plenty of Jokes, but the Candians are damn good diplomats.

As for the missle itself. The Taepodong II is crude. It may have a range of 5000nm but is not strong enough to actually carry a nuclear warhead. North Korea has not yet developed the technology for delivery of a nuclear warhead. Even US intelligence knows this. But what they don't know is the status of the rocket. They do know that it has a poor trajectory system and not good at targeting. They could aim it at the US but more likely it will fall apart like the last one. They will report to their people that it was a "great success in scaring the American Dogs under the guidance of our dear leader Kim Jong Il."

I think we will see some very impressive 11th hour diplomacy coming from China, South Korea, Japan and the US. Bush has already stated that if Kim Jong Il launches this missle and it comes into US airspace, it will be a violation and they will take take action. Rice will take it to the UN which could lead to UN cutting North Korea's seat (not a good thing). The US will cut all Food aid, which doesn't get to the people anyway resulting, in massive starvation of not only the commoners but the elite. (US is the largest donar of food aid to North Korea) If any part lands in Japan (the last one flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific...it failed), Koizumi has stated it will be treated as an attack on Japanese sovereignty. Japan will retaliate. Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, is handling diplomacy with North Korea now for the US. He is the former Ambassador to Korea, and is a calm headed career diplomat trusted by both parties.

Worst case senario. It is not about nuclear fall out, as the chances are still very skim. Its not about if the US defense sovereignty, that is our right. What if North Korea were to lose its UN seat and throw out all counselors and Ambassadors. We would have no diplomatic access to prevent further launches or leverage to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula and East Asia. With North Korea going more isloated, you could see increase opium and meth trade, black market weapon sales and reliance on terrorist groups and unstable governmental regimes.

So Should we shoot the missle down? If it enters US territory...YES...it is our right. But before we do that, we should have level heads and do what is best for civilization. We will not only save our lives but the lives of North Koreans, who are suffering enough already. We can also save the lives of billions if things were to escalate. Kim Jong Il ain't no dumby. He is strange and unpredicatable, but he knows that if he makes a wrong step, he is done for. If Bush pulls it off right, it will help ease tensions and he will be remembered for it. It would be the best move in his career.

Justin Dart
East Asian Studies Major (Economics and History)
International Relations Consultant

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Slider
Posted 2006-06-22 16:26:37 and read 2701 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
We have the right to shoot down any missile aimed and fired at the U.S. anywhere along its path whether lethal or not.

Period.

Yup- take it out. Peace through strength.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
Rumor has it the Iranians and the Pakistanis are interested in acquiring more Dong technology.

 rotfl 

Quoting Centrair (Reply 46):
The US will cut all Food aid, which doesn't get to the people anyway resulting, in massive starvation of not only the commoners but the elite. (US is the largest donar of food aid to North Korea) If any part lands in Japan (the last one flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific...it failed), Koizumi has stated it will be treated as an attack on Japanese sovereignty. Japan will retaliate.

Great read, and thank you for posting all of that. Very insightful. Given the state of NK's economy as it is, wouldn't cutting food aid be a prudent move to make anyhow? Push the nation to it's breaking point where the game has to change. Sounds drastic, but if the news I hear is remotely true, the regime is close to collapse. That's why they're rattling the sabre now--it's a front.

The Japan angle is more curious. Does the US have a treaty that obligates a response on their behalf?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-22 17:11:28 and read 2696 times.

Quoting Slider (Reply 47):
Sounds drastic, but if the news I hear is remotely true, the regime is close to collapse.

You hear this a lot. I would say that the regime is not close to collapse. Kim Jong Il is so confident in maintaining his brainwash over the people that he has gone ahead with choosing his successor. Most likely it will be his third son,Kim Jong-chul, who attended the Berne International School, and whose mother was a former North Korean Actress (Kim Jong Il's second wife). Originally it was to be his oldest son, Kim Jong Nam, but he is a real screw ball. He showed up on an SQ flight in NRT with a fake passport and tried to go to Disneyland. He was deported. Recently he was seen again this time in Germany for the World Cup.

North Koreans don't question the leader, and if it were to collapse there would be nothing to fill it. There would be no one to over throw it. The military has to much power and loyalty to the dear leader. There is such a cult of personality that it would be almost imposible for it to fail. When you have the 5th largest military all with loyalty to Kim Jong Il, willing to lay his or her life on the line for him, you will. You have been trained since you were in preschool to do so. You do not question it. It is the perfect totalitarian regime. It has a tighter grip on its people than Stalin ever did and that is becasue Stalin was a successor not to his father but to another ideologue. North Korea is all about family following the confucian idea of Juche. Kim Il Song...Kim Jong Il...Kim Jong-chul...?

If there will be any change in North Korea it is the next son who will make it. Kim Jong Chul is far more aware of issues. In a program I saw a few months back they stated that Kim Jong Chul was a very smart, observant and caring student who sometimes seemed to wonder about his role and his countries path. Some north Korean observers say that he could be a very different leader from his father and grandfather...too bad we will have to wait 15 to 20 years till he is the ruler. (He was born in 1981)

Quoting Slider (Reply 47):
Does the US have a treaty that obligates a response on their behalf?

Not sure. Recent moves by the Koizumi cabinet and changes in Japanese public opinion on the changing the the role of the Japanese self-defense force could make it that Japan can act on its own. The SDF has submarines, cruisers, tanks, attack fighters, and pretty much everything you need to defend. The role of the SDF is one of self defense. We can use the National Guard in the US in both domestic emergencies and to reenforce the Armed Forces. The SDF is like the National Guard. It can be called to defend the nation, but only if Japan is attacked. Japan needs to be bombed or forces have to land on its shores or a large lizard needs to trample Tokyo before they can do anything.

I believe the US provides extra defense in exchange for bases. However more and more Japanese would like to see Japan take care of itself and the US reduce its presence. This is mainly due to problems with personel not behaving themselves and causing problems for communities.

Someone with more info on US-Japan military relations could answer this better.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AerospaceFan
Posted 2006-06-22 17:16:17 and read 2693 times.

I am of the belief that unless the missile seems headed toward populated areas, we should not use our BMD system.

I happened to be a few miles south of Vandenberg AFB yesterday, where a lot of military space launches have taken place. And I think that there is enough drama going in the world today without an operational launch of our missile defense system, unless needed.

Besides, the word is that there will be a test launch of the system soon, anyway.

[Edited 2006-06-22 17:25:04]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AerospaceFan
Posted 2006-06-22 17:26:03 and read 2689 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 48):
or a large lizard needs to trample Tokyo

LOL! I like the way you put that!

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Slider
Posted 2006-06-22 17:39:14 and read 2673 times.

Thanks Centrair!

More great stuff--really appreciate the insight on North Korea.

I remember seeing a blog that someone had posted last year about a school teacher who had a rare visit to North Korea. He posted several pictures and wrote a very extensive commentary and observations about the trip. It was terribly informative and shocking about how brainwashed they are.

Maybe someone still has that link--I couldn't find it.

I guess now Centrair certainly affirms that, so the hope of a revolution is nil.

Not many options then outside of a total military option then is there? Perhaps an even more terrifying thought.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-22 18:24:29 and read 2661 times.

The question is not whether "Should the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile," but "CAN the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile?" Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on a weapons system which has yet to be even close to 100% effective. It's obvious that missile shields are of no use unless they have a 100% sucess rate.

Since the missile shield is still not foolproof, how should the US respond to hostile states gaining long range missile technology in the future?

Simple...revive the old M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) policy and use it against these hostile states. This policy was the best missile shield the US ever had and it worked throughout the entire Cold War. These hostile states have regimes which are bent on survival, and if the M.A.D. policy was applied to them, they would be very hesitant about launching any attacks against the US.

PS
No missile shield will protect the US from terror organizations, such as Al Queda. That's because the logistical, orgnizational, and technological requirements for launching a missle are so great that only a state would have the ability to do so. Thus, leaving terror organizations attacking using much less sophisticated methods (conventional explosives, chemicals in the subways, and etc).

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Scbriml
Posted 2006-06-22 19:25:29 and read 2637 times.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 52):
Simple...revive the old M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) policy and use it against these hostile states. This policy was the best missile shield the US ever had and it worked throughout the entire Cold War.

MAD only works when you have a conventional enemy who is as bothered about being vapourised as you are.

Say A-Q lets off a dirty nuke in the US, just who exactly are you going to nuke back?

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-22 19:35:32 and read 2632 times.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 53):

MAD only works when you have a conventional enemy who is as bothered about being vapourised as you are.

Say A-Q lets off a dirty nuke in the US, just who exactly are you going to nuke back?

I'm going to quote myself to answer your question.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 52):
No missile shield will protect the US from terror organizations, such as Al Queda. That's because the logistical, orgnizational, and technological requirements for launching a missle are so great that only a state would have the ability to do so. Thus, leaving terror organizations attacking using much less sophisticated methods (conventional explosives, chemicals in the subways, and etc).


My original post wasn't clear; what I should have also said was...the suggestion of the M.A.D. policy only applies to hostile states. Responding to terror organizations and their actions require a completely different set of policies.

[Edited 2006-06-22 20:04:21]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-23 01:00:39 and read 2570 times.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 52):
"CAN the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile?"

I think that the chances are good when the enemy has a good trajectory and targeting system.

But North Korea's missiles have the accuracy of a 3 years old boy trying to pee standing up into a toilet with the seat up.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mir
Posted 2006-06-23 01:26:54 and read 2565 times.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 53):
Say A-Q lets off a dirty nuke in the US, just who exactly are you going to nuke back?

And how exactly would a missile defense system protect against a dirty bomb being set off in the US?

-Mir

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: NeilYYZ
Posted 2006-06-23 01:39:25 and read 2562 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Canada has already disagreed with you on that one.

Quite a shame, I'd much rather ally with the States than have one hit Toronto on purpose or by mistake.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
And thats the reason Canada pulled out - the vast majority of potential intercepts would be done over Canadian territory of missiles coming over the north pole, leaving massive amounts of nuclear material spread over Canada.

So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?

Yes we could shoot down a US missile overflying Canadian airspace even if it was intended to shoot down a North Korean missile heading to the States, although we would never do that, we know that the US would not attack us on purpose.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):

Canada has the right to shoot down any missile they believe to be a threat to Canada, regardless of source.

We might have the right, just not the ability unfortunatly. However, that being said, if the US were to fire a missile over us with notice I'm sure we would let 'er sail. Not that we would have any way to stop it.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-23 05:14:28 and read 2537 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 55):
But North Korea's missiles have the accuracy of a 3 years old boy trying to pee standing up into a toilet with the seat up.

On the contrary, it is much easier to track and destroy accurate missiles especially when you know the launch site and target. Inaccurate missiles which unexpectedly waver off course mid-flight are harder to calculate where they are going in order for a successful intercept.

Take a look at this article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13481845/ The analysts interviewed in the article speculate that the Bush administration hasn't pursued a military option for the crisis because they are not confident the missile shield is going to work.

A lot has been written up about the missile shield and most of the articles have a pretty dismal view of the system's effectiveness. Who knows, maybe with another $30,000,000,000 and 20 years, they might be able to get it up to 90% accuracy...

[Edited 2006-06-23 05:24:00]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-23 09:37:29 and read 2508 times.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 58):
On the contrary, it is much easier to track and destroy accurate missiles especially when you know the launch site and target. Inaccurate missiles which unexpectedly waver off course mid-flight are harder to calculate where they are going in order for a successful intercept.

I guess you don't remember when you were 3 years old. Little boys will try hard to hit the toilet but instead hit the wall, floor and everything but the toilet. North Korean could aim for America and hit Uzbekistan.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-23 15:48:28 and read 2498 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 59):

I guess you don't remember when you were 3 years old. Little boys will try hard to hit the toilet but instead hit the wall, floor and everything but the toilet. North Korean could aim for America and hit Uzbekistan.

That comment was uncalled for, but I understand what you mean now. That the North Korean missile can go extremely off course. If that were the case, I'm not sure what the US missile shield can do.

No one really knows how accurate the North Korean missile will be until it has been tested, but I think if the missile were to go off course, it might go off course by hundred miles, not thousands.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Pbottenb
Posted 2006-06-23 16:27:05 and read 2484 times.

There was a test today off of hawaii with Japanese ships observing...:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060623001445.r0o3j49z.html


"The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earths atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai," the agency said in a statement. "


I think that we should try to shoot down anything that goes over Japan or heads in the general direction of the US (East from NK).

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-23 20:33:40 and read 2470 times.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 37):
Should North Korean shoot down US spyplanes?

Go back only a couple of weeks, and there have been several instances of RC-135s violating North Korean airspace.

USAF RC-135s do not enter NK airspace, ever. They do fly into areas that most countries recognise as international airspace, including airspace that North Korea has claimed as their own.

BTW, the RC-135 is not a "spyplane" It monitors and intercepts information from known frequencies. The RC-135s mission is reconn, not spying.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 37):
Also, since these spying incidents, planning of launches by North Korea have come up. They weren't talking of doing it before these spy flights violated North Korean airspace.

US RC-135s, U-2s, EP-3s, Globalhawks, etc. continously monitor NK. We know of their activities because of platforms like those mentioned. Just because the North Koreans didn't talk about the launch before, doesn't mean it wasn't being planned for years before the US found out about it.

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 42):
I'm just going from memory but didn't the patriot play a significant role in our defense against scud missiles the first time we paid a visit to Iraq in '91? I remember there was one tragic miss that resulted in the deaths of several American soldiers but wasn't that an isolated incident?

The PAC-1 and PAC-3 missiles used during ODS were originally antiaircraft defense missiles. The fact that any of them hit Scud missiles is amazing, since that wasn't the original mission for the Patroits.

Quoting Slider (Reply 47):
The Japan angle is more curious. Does the US have a treaty that obligates a response on their behalf?

Yes.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 52):
The question is not whether "Should the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile," but "CAN the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile?" Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on a weapons system which has yet to be even close to 100% effective. It's obvious that missile shields are of no use unless they have a 100% sucess rate.

So, if the missile defense shield can only shoot down 50% of the incoming missiles, it is a failure? I don't think so. Half a shield is much better than no shield.
 Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-23 23:00:22 and read 2458 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 62):
So, if the missile defense shield can only shoot down 50% of the incoming missiles, it is a failure? I don't think so. Half a shield is much better than no shield.

Even if one missile loaded with a nuclear, biological, or chemical payload passed through the shield and hit the US, it would be a disaster. Because of the devastation even one missile would bring, a missile shield should require 100% effectiveness. But we know there is no weapon system out there that is 100% successful; that is why it is hard to justify spending billions upon billions of dollars on a weapon with an impossible requirement.

Don't be lulled into thinking 50% effectiveness is OK just because today's crisis involves a dummy test missile. Real missiles with the right payload can make 9/11 look like child's play.

My suggestion for M.A.D. is based on the fact we should protect the US without having to resort to spending tens of billions of dollars gorging the already wealthy defense contractors. Also, I have a feeling that some people in our government is keeping this missile shield alive just to satisfy the ideological wishes of a certain former president.

[Edited 2006-06-23 23:05:18]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-23 23:39:31 and read 2441 times.

Quoting Max999 (Reply 63):
Don't be lulled into thinking 50% effectiveness is OK just because today's crisis involves a dummy test missile. Real missiles with the right payload can make 9/11 look like child's play.

My suggestion for M.A.D. is based on the fact we should protect the US without having to resort to spending tens of billions of dollars gorging the already wealthy defense contractors. Also, I have a feeling that some people in our government is keeping this missile shield alive just to satisfy the ideological wishes of a certain former president.

I do have a little experience nuclear weapons. Yes, they are devistating, but not to the extent political hacks make the out to be. Today, there are very few weapons with yields of 1MT or more. Most are between 50KT and 450KT, as that is all you really need. To put that into prospective, "Little Boy" was a 20KT weapon and "Fat Man" was a 22KT weapon. You do the math and compare the BDA of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the time factors for the population being able to live within 1nm of groud zero after detonation. It was a few weeks, not years, as reported by some political hacks.

MAD was the official policy of the US and USSR during the Cold War, I was in SAC for a lot of that time. MAD was a failed policy. The problem was, neither country could ever really destroy the other's entire population, nor were they trying to. Targeting options were always military, political, or industrial. The weapons were simply to expensive (for either side) to waste on cities that didn't really fit those options.

An ABM system can be effective, to a certain degree. You are correct, it, or any other weapons system (defensive or offensive), will never reach 100% reliability. But, lets say it is 50% reliable. That means 50% of the targets do not get hit and destroyed. That does not include other factors, like fallout, but it does give additional chances for survival, including some parts of the transportation network for movement.

Your answer is purely political. But, I might add, the former and current administrations, for both major US political parties have supported a missile defense shield, including funding, research, and deployment. Simply because some current politicians are too stupid to know, or only concerned with their own political careers, they will say what ever is popular, to some groups. That does not make what they say or do as fact.

Spending Billions on a system that could save a large portion of the population is well worth the investment, whether or not that system is ever used.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Mrmeangenes
Posted 2006-06-24 01:29:14 and read 2420 times.

This just in: Walter "Give Peace a Chance" Mondale is demanding the US blow up N Korean missiles on the ground; that we attack N. Korea without delay, and "put an end to this nightmare".

Mr. Mondale was Jimmy Carter's Vice President , and later ran for President himself with Geraldine Ferrara as his VP running mate. He's a Council for Foreign Relations member in good standing, and so determinedly liberal he has trouble agreeing with himself.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AerospaceFan
Posted 2006-06-24 05:17:36 and read 2399 times.

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 65):
This just in: Walter "Give Peace a Chance" Mondale is demanding the US blow up N Korean missiles on the ground; that we attack N. Korea without delay, and "put an end to this nightmare".

So does this mean we get to change his middle name to "Give War a Chance"?

A number of people from previous administrations are advising the same course of action, including from the Clinton Administration.

If the Bush Administration had in fact already lobbed a number of cruise missiles to destroy that North Korean missile, would the media have cited the same sources for approval?

It makes one wonder.

[Edited 2006-06-24 05:18:28]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-24 06:08:56 and read 2389 times.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 66):
A number of people from previous administrations are advising the same course of action, including from the Clinton Administration.

Yes and the Bush Administration is doing something right. Taking it to the 6 party and UN. Though NK doesn't really care what anyone says...Thankyou Juche, they do care what the South Koreans say. Kim Jong Il believes in the Sunshine Policy and wishes to only to create good relations for Koreans. The Bush administration knows that if they take military action it could destablize not only North Korea but cause a flood of refugees into China and South Korea destabalizing their economy.

Clinton almost sent the military in 1993 or so but Carter help avert that by holding emergency talks (see above response...the real long one). Bush wants to use pressure from multiple sides to force North Korea to fold. He will use the best card the US has right now...food aid. He threatens to pull food aid and North Korean goes into the worst famine in history. Remember Ethiopia in the 80s? Multiply by 10 and add a very cold winter.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AerospaceFan
Posted 2006-06-24 06:25:32 and read 2382 times.

The President's stock has gone up in my book since about a month ago, when I severely criticized him here for being incompetent. (A Poor Leader; A Poor Choice (by AerospaceFan May 19 2006 in Non Aviation)) Since then, the war on terror has produced new results (e.g., Zarqawi's demise, Iraq's completion of its government's cabinet, numerous raids on terror targets, and the capture of another top Al Qaeda leader), and the Administration has remained level-headed while -- fortuitously or not -- our BMD system seems to be working.

It's been a good month for the Administration, although I still have misgivings about how it has handled a number of issues, including illegal immigration.

More generally, I tend to give significant credit to Dr. Rice for her stewardship of our foreign policy. I think she has the ear and trust of President Bush more than Gen. Powell ever did. Dr. Rice was the President's tutor from during the days of his first Presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, the national Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to shame the Administration for making hay of the war on terror, all while failing to see the mote in their own eye. And the failures of their opposition to the war in Congress have only reinforced the idea that they remain feeble and feckless in regard to the President's areas of strength.

[Edited 2006-06-24 06:36:00]

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2006-06-24 06:43:52 and read 2369 times.

How do we even know for sure if this dongo thingie missile that NK wants to 'bottle-rocket' (if you know what I mean...think 4th of July lol...) really is carrying any type of warhead?!

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AerospaceFan
Posted 2006-06-24 06:51:43 and read 2366 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 69):
How do we even know for sure if this dongo thingie missile that NK wants to 'bottle-rocket' (if you know what I mean...think 4th of July lol...) really is carrying any type of warhead?!

We supposedly don't, despite all our spy sats, recon aircraft, and other "national technical means" around North Korea. Although, I think that if it flies, it might be possible to determine the weight that's in the payload fairing from its flight profile.

The reason that we don't think that the thing is likely to be carrying a nuke is that it is relatively difficult to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop a missile.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AAFLT1871
Posted 2006-06-24 08:09:03 and read 2346 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 62):
So, if the missile defense shield can only shoot down 50% of the incoming missiles, it is a failure? I don't think so. Half a shield is much better than no shield.

The below quote makes me feel good where my tax $$$'s are going

"But in March, the Government Accountability Office said the missiles at Vandenberg and in Alaska were so plagued with defects that officials were actually considering removing them from their silos to be re-manufactured.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13510066/

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-24 17:58:02 and read 2325 times.

Quoting AAFLT1871 (Reply 71):
The below quote makes me feel good where my tax $$$'s are going

"But in March, the Government Accountability Office said the missiles at Vandenberg and in Alaska were so plagued with defects that officials were actually considering removing them from their silos to be re-manufactured.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13510066/

MSNBC is also the same news organization that claimed that USAF RC-135s penetrate into North Korean airspace.

MSNBC has the lowest creditability of any US news agency, including CNN. They are down at the same level as the BBC.

There are also serious questions about the reports written by the GAO, for Congress. It is amazing that some Democratic Senator or Congressman/woman has not picked up on this report and spread it to the NY Times.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2006-06-24 19:29:52 and read 2320 times.

Thanks for the input, AerospaceFan. I was hoping there would be a way to actually detect what's on top of that damn missile.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-24 20:25:37 and read 2311 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 73):
I was hoping there would be a way to actually detect what's on top of that damn missile.

I'll bet there is some test and telemitry equipment there. I doubt very much if it is armed with any weapons.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-06-25 05:08:26 and read 2285 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
MSNBC has the lowest creditability of any US news agency, including CNN. They are down at the same level as the BBC.

CNN I can understand they are commercial, but the BBC? The BBC can be quite credible. I trust it more than many U.S. media outlets. I wonder then...who is at the top of credibility in media?

And... do you think the military is going to share everything with the media? Might want to keep somethings quite so not to freak out the people or worse hint to the opposite side that we actually know something.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-25 15:44:17 and read 2262 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 75):
CNN I can understand they are commercial, but the BBC? The BBC can be quite credible. I trust it more than many U.S. media outlets. I wonder then...who is at the top of credibility in media?

And... do you think the military is going to share everything with the media? Might want to keep somethings quite so not to freak out the people or worse hint to the opposite side that we actually know something.

I usually watch Fox News and CNN, then try to interput between both. All news outlets put their own political spin on the news. The BBC is so bad that the RN stopped taking their broadcasts aboard their warships. The BBC and RN are within the same British Government. The problem is one sided news story reporting, whether it is a liberal or conservitive side. To judge any story, all facts need to be presented, not just the side the news organization wants to highlight. The BBC America, broadcast on NPR in the US is really terrible and anti-American, as is CNN most times. Fox is just the opposite, but they also put their spin on things.

No, the military has learned not to share some things with the news media, just because of this. There are many examples. CNN once reported the US Military was looking at the back ground in tapes released by bin-Laden, so he started putting up back drops to hide the scenery behind him. The NY Times (the worst and most unetichical) reported we were tracking terrorist organizations when they used cell and satillite phones. So, now they use runners. Now the Times reports how the US is tracking the money trail for terrorists. They will now change the way they do those transactions.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: FRAspotter
Posted 2006-06-25 16:25:29 and read 2249 times.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 11):
Hasnt this system failed before in tests?

I was reading in the newspaper that in the test fires of the missile defence system, they were successful 7 out of 8 times. Pretty good results considering this was basically an untested theory a few years ago...

Personally, I think that the USA should shoot it down. But that's just me.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Soyuzavia
Posted 2006-06-25 16:26:32 and read 2249 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):
The BBC is so bad that the RN stopped taking their broadcasts aboard their warships.

HAHAH. Wonder why that is. Because they report the FACTS?!?!? They don't stoop so low as to become just another propaganda puppet of the central government, as all US networks have become (and FNC has always been). And you use FNC as a news source? What a laugh!! You might as well as take your news from the Korea Central News Agency for all that's worth.

And as to the North Koreans. They are adamant that the US has strayed into North Korean airspace on no less than THREE occasions a couple of weeks ago. Recon/spying, it's all the same thing. It's a provocation. No more, no less.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: FRAspotter
Posted 2006-06-25 16:28:38 and read 2248 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
MSNBC has the lowest creditability of any US news agency, including CNN. They are down at the same level as the BBC.

I always thought that the honor would go to FOX News. Although I haven't watched much MSNBC lately...
IMO, I think CNN can claim to be the "most credible".

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-25 16:44:57 and read 2241 times.

Well, we can debate the quality of FNC, CNN, BBC and others. I think we all seem to agree there is a difference in the news media, though we don't agree on which organization is better or worse.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 78):
And as to the North Koreans. They are adamant that the US has strayed into North Korean airspace on no less than THREE occasions a couple of weeks ago. Recon/spying, it's all the same thing. It's a provocation.

That depends on which line they have chosen as their airspace and which line is internationally recongised. Did they attempt to intercept the USAF RC-135s? Back in 1969, they captured the USN recon ship USS Pueblo, saying it was within their waters. The US has denied this since that incident.

But, with the current crisis, the US will monitor the build up and testing of the NK ICBM, and take what ever action we think is best. My bet is we will attempt to shoot it down, possibly in the boost phase before it can enter Japanese airspace.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2006-06-25 16:56:29 and read 2239 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 72):
MSNBC has the lowest creditability of any US news agency, including CNN. They are down at the same level as the BBC.

I will take the BBC over any other news organisation in the world.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2006-06-25 17:58:56 and read 2227 times.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 81):
I will take the BBC over any other news organisation in the world.

Even over al Jarzera? Forgive me as I'm not familure with the correct spelling. LOL.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Slider
Posted 2006-06-27 20:44:44 and read 2201 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 67):
Bush wants to use pressure from multiple sides to force North Korea to fold. He will use the best card the US has right now...food aid. He threatens to pull food aid and North Korean goes into the worst famine in history. Remember Ethiopia in the 80s? Multiply by 10 and add a very cold winter.

For some reason, I don't think Kim Jong-Crackpot would care much.

Topic: RE: Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?
Username: Max999
Posted 2006-06-27 21:53:44 and read 2195 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64):

I do have a little experience nuclear weapons. Yes, they are devistating, but not to the extent political hacks make the out to be. Today, there are very few weapons with yields of 1MT or more. Most are between 50KT and 450KT, as that is all you really need. To put that into prospective, "Little Boy" was a 20KT weapon and "Fat Man" was a 22KT weapon. You do the math and compare the BDA of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the time factors for the population being able to live within 1nm of groud zero after detonation. It was a few weeks, not years, as reported by some political hacks.

MAD was the official policy of the US and USSR during the Cold War, I was in SAC for a lot of that time. MAD was a failed policy. The problem was, neither country could ever really destroy the other's entire population, nor were they trying to. Targeting options were always military, political, or industrial. The weapons were simply to expensive (for either side) to waste on cities that didn't really fit those options.

An ABM system can be effective, to a certain degree. You are correct, it, or any other weapons system (defensive or offensive), will never reach 100% reliability. But, lets say it is 50% reliable. That means 50% of the targets do not get hit and destroyed. That does not include other factors, like fallout, but it does give additional chances for survival, including some parts of the transportation network for movement.

Your answer is purely political. But, I might add, the former and current administrations, for both major US political parties have supported a missile defense shield, including funding, research, and deployment. Simply because some current politicians are too stupid to know, or only concerned with their own political careers, they will say what ever is popular, to some groups. That does not make what they say or do as fact.

Spending Billions on a system that could save a large portion of the population is well worth the investment, whether or not that system is ever used.

I believe that yield and target are irrelevant to M.A.D. That’s because the policy assumes all nuclear weapons are weapons of near-total destruction. There’s no denying that even the smallest nuclear weapons will kill thousands (1st year death toll in Hiroshima was 140,000). And even if the targets were only military, political, or industrial in nature, the widespread destruction of a bomb and the proximity of these targets to major population centers will ensure, if not complete destruction, a massive disruption for every aspect of the target nation.

M.A.D. works because the US can ensure destruction on a massive scale against the hostile state and the hostile state can ensure they can damage the US significantly.

If the US had unlimited resources, I would want our country to pursue every reasonable option available to maximize national security. But we don’t, so I believe there are better ways to protect our citizens.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/