North Korea to Launch ICBM

[Jocko]

No. It's based on simple knowledge that it's a lot easier to build and launch a satellite than it is to manufacture a cell phone, as demonstrated that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union were capable of manufacturing cell phones at the time they launched their first satellites. Japan was launching rockets through NASDA in 1975 (and through ISAS in 1965). The ESA (actually, its predecessor the ESRO) was able to build satellites (for launch by US platforms) as early as 1968, and was using its home-build Ariane I platform to launch satellites by 1979.

The basic patents for cell phones were granted in 1973; commercially viable "manufacturing" didn't happen until the early 80s.

Metaphor.

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).

 

[KingMerv00]

Kinda, sorta:

To avoid countless deaths here in the future, we should cause countless deaths there now.

Ya' know, the old Patton adage; we don't try to die for our country. We try to make the other, poor SOB die for his country.

Sneezing wouldn't be my first weapon of choice. Neither would invasion.

I'd pull the same tactic as Israel did at Osiraq. We have all the tools necessary to do it with virtually no military risk. We have the best and unequaled aerial first strike capability on Earth with either stealth, manned aircraft or cruise missles with aerial/satellite targetting capability, or both. Simply destroy their nuclear infrastructure, then wait for them to rebuild it.

Then destroy it again.

Repeat as necessary.

No ground troops necessary. Let the people starve until they're ready to kill Kim themselves.

Political ramifications?

Handle that like Israel, too.

(Bolding mine)

My God, I have never seen such a horrible example of tribalism in my life. It is OK if strangers from other countries die so long as we avoid the deaths of strangers in this country.

Those are PEOPLE you are talking about starving. The fact that they are Korean doesn't mean that their lives are less important that yours or mine.

 

[drkitten]

I asked how poorly the system worked in tests. Your link clearly shows that in IFT, LEAP, THAAD, Upper Tier, and Homing Overlay tests, there were more successes than failures.

"More successes than failures" is not exactly a stringent grading scale, expecially if we're talking about something where the downside of failure is as high as it is for an ABM system, and especially when it takes highly unrealistic and idealized circumstances to be able to achieve the "lofty" success rate of 51%.

 

[geni]

I'd pull the same tactic as Israel did at Osiraq. We have all the tools necessary to do it with virtually no military risk. We have the best and unequaled aerial first strike capability on Earth with either stealth, manned aircraft or cruise missles with aerial/satellite targetting capability, or both. Simply destroy their nuclear infrastructure, then wait for them to rebuild it.

NK doesn't need nukes. It can destroy seoul through conventional artilerly.

No ground troops necessary. Let the people starve until they're ready to kill Kim themselves.

Tried that didn't work.

 

[Jimbo07]

We have also already seen warfare that left millions dead.

...

The illusion that the human species can stop all warfare is a recipe for appeasement, and appeasement equals procrastination.

...

Like an individual's physical death, this too is an eventual, unavoidable reality.

CRIPES!

What kind of faith system involves avoiding spiritual death by advocating the killing of millions?



For some strange reason, Huntster, I had thought you were more moderate...

 

[KingMerv00]

Tried that didn't work.

Suuuuuuuure it works!

Remember Castro?

 

[hammegk]

The fact that they are Korean doesn't mean that their lives are less important that yours or mine.

Actually, to me, it does, at least regarding my own, my family, and USAans who actually give a damn about reality. Sorry to make you cry.

 

[jj]

Metaphor.

Op cit: "Mistake"

 

[jj]

Actually, to me, it does, at least regarding my own, my family, and USAans who actually give a damn about reality. Sorry to make you cry.

Reality? You said "reality"?!?!?

Ok, what is reality?

 

[KingMerv00]

Actually, to me, it does, at least regarding my own, my family, and USAans who actually give a damn about reality. Sorry to make you cry.

My point was that strangers in other countries are the same as strangers in this country. Just because someone lives on the other side of an imaginary line doesn't mean I should starve them to death on the outside chance North Korea will invade America.

Don't worry, the only time you make me cry is when I'm laughing at you.

 

[jj]

My point was that strangers in other countries are the same as strangers in this country. Just because someone lives on the other side of an imaginary line doesn't mean I should starve them to death on the outside chance North Korea will invade America.

Don't worry, the only time you make me cry is when I'm laughing at you.

Um, Merv, so what do you do when you have a hostile government threatening you with nuclear weapons? Send them a bottle of scotch?

 

[hammegk]

Reality? You said "reality"?!?!?

Ok, what is reality?

Depends on one's perception ....

My point was that strangers in other countries are the same as strangers in this country. Just because someone lives on the other side of an imaginary line doesn't mean I should starve them to death on the outside chance North Korea will invade America.

Nor I. I prefer the neocon approach -- and maybe the surviviors will form a government that makes sense or at least feeds the populace -- but admit we really don't have the troops to go around, nor apparently the will to follow through if we do use them. Can we keep the thermonuclear strikes out of our front yard?

Don't worry, the only time you make me cry is when I'm laughing at you.

I'm glad I amuse you. I wish people of your worldview amused me. They don't.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Kinda, sorta:

To avoid countless deaths here in the future, we should cause countless deaths there now.

Ya' know, the old Patton adage; we don't try to die for our country. We try to make the other, poor SOB die for his country.

Sneezing wouldn't be my first weapon of choice. Neither would invasion.

I'd pull the same tactic as Israel did at Osiraq. We have all the tools necessary to do it with virtually no military risk. We have the best and unequaled aerial first strike capability on Earth with either stealth, manned aircraft or cruise missles with aerial/satellite targetting capability, or both. Simply destroy their nuclear infrastructure, then wait for them to rebuild it.

Then destroy it again.

Repeat as necessary.

No ground troops necessary. Let the people starve until they're ready to kill Kim themselves.

Political ramifications?

Handle that like Israel, too.

My God, I have never seen such a horrible example of tribalism in my life.....

Haven't been around much, have you?

It is OK if strangers from other countries die so long as we avoid the deaths of strangers in this country.

Nice sidetrack attempt.

Now, do you want the invasion of NK, a tactical strike, nothing, the continued U.S. policy of sending North Korea emergency aid while Kim propagandizes otherwise and continues to build his nuclear and delivery capabilities, or do you have a better idea?

Those are PEOPLE you are talking about starving. The fact that they are Korean doesn't mean that their lives are less important that yours or mine.

Yeah, they're people. Their lives are no less important than yours or mine, and if they want to improve their lives, they need to get it together and get Kim out of power, or they (and the mealie-mouthed liberals here and elsewhere who oppose action) need to get the hell out of the way so somebody else can do it.

If you don't like those options, I'm game to sit back and wait until the inevitable comes.

 

[Jocko]

Op cit: "Mistake"

At least I know who I'm replying to, genius. Enjoying the sig line? I can do better if you want.

 

[KingMerv00]

Um, Merv, so what do you do when you have a hostile government threatening you with nuclear weapons? Send them a bottle of scotch?

Huntster is in favor of invasion now (if not sooner it seems). There is always a breaking point. We aren't there yet.

 

[Huntster]

"More successes than failures" is not exactly a stringent grading scale, expecially if we're talking about something where the downside of failure is as high as it is for an ABM system, and especially when it takes highly unrealistic and idealized circumstances to be able to achieve the "lofty" success rate of 51%.

51% makes it unworthy?

Do you actually advocate defenselessness?

I'll take the 51% over no chance at all.

That sure beats the odds you'll get from Vegas, and beats the hell out of the odds you'll get in Pyongyang.

 

[KingMerv00]

Haven't been around much, have you?

Hell I'm only 25.

Now, do you want the invasion of NK, a tactical strike, nothing, the continued U.S. policy of sending North Korea emergency aid while Kim propagandizes otherwise and continues to build his nuclear and delivery capabilities, or do you have a better idea?

Of those choices? Probably nothing.

To be fair, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating bombing NK and actively causing starvation as opposed to withdrawling aid.

Yeah, they're people. Their lives are no less important than yours or mine, and if they want to improve their lives, they need to get it together and get Kim out of power, or they (and the mealie-mouthed liberals here and elsewhere who oppose action) need to get the hell out of the way so somebody else can do it.

So no matter what happens there will be war? The only two choices you give are civil war or US invasion.

If you don't like those options, I'm game to sit back and wait until the inevitable comes.

I'm game too, though I don't think it is as inevitable as you think it will be. The Cold War never resulted in WWIII.

 

[drkitten]

51% makes it unworthy?

Yes. A highly unreliable safety precaution (or defense mechanism) is actually worse than none at all. because no one is tempted to rely on the capacities of a nonexistent system.

Do you actually advocate defenselessness?

Yes. If we were actually defenseless and knew ourselves to be so we would be more likely to find a solution that didn't involve launching missiles at all. (Just as a simple example, sabotage the missile on the pad).

 

[Jocko]

Yes. If we were actually defenseless and knew ourselves to be so we would be more likely to find a solution that didn't involve launching missiles at all. (Just as a simple example, sabotage the missile on the pad).

I smell false dichotomy here. Who's saying one can't do both, or even a third option at the same time? It's not like the same resources are expended on both options, so why is it "better" to have fewer options available?

You really think a leaky roof is no better than a roof at all?

By the way, that's another "metaphor." I'm not actually interested in your roof.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm glad I amuse you. I wish people of your worldview amused me. They don't.

I don't think you know me well enough to know my worldview. Without sarcasm, what do you think I believe exactly?