North Korea to Launch ICBM

[geni]

OK. I haven't bothered to research the exact numbers myself. I tried to rationalize the 10,000 thrown out earlier, when I was being educated, which is a number I've heard before, if a bit on the high side.

You seem to say the number is about 9,000. I would take a wild guess and say that, since these don't have an unlimited shelf life, and some have quite a short one (certain half lives, radiation issues, and all that), perhaps 50% are not useable at any given time. So perhaps there are 4,500 total available for use, in all scenarios by all forces everywhere. Plenty if they were all used at the same time, but of course that is not why there are more than a handfull.

No. The only half life you have to worry about is tritrium. That means you need to service fusion weapons every few years. Of your 9000 odd (may be less you are meant be sheading about 2000 odd by 2012). 5000 odd are in active service with the rest in a reserve stockpile and not instantly avalible. Of the 5000 most are probably in a ready to go state since maintince can be done pretty fast.

 

[Kerberos]

You're leaving out another rather important point about the Non-Proliferation Treaty: countries chose to sign and ratify it. This was not a treaty that was stuffed down their throats by the United States (in fact, it was first proposed by Ireland). Every country had an option to sign or not to sign. India, Pakistan, and Israel chose not to ratify it.

I'd say that's a truth with modifications. If you look into Cold War history you'll see that bad things frequently happened to countries that annoyed the US or USSR (see Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary for the USSR and assorted interventions and coups in Latin America for the US). Refusing to sign the NPT would have annoyed both (and China and France and Britain) a great deal.

Israel could get away with it because they were a close US ally, and India probably could because they were an important and powerful neutral country. I don't know exactly what Pakistan’s position in the Cold war was, but I'm guessing we're dealing with the same explanation as for India.

 

[Elind]

No. The only half life you have to worry about is tritrium. That means you need to service fusion weapons every few years. Of your 9000 odd (may be less you are meant be sheading about 2000 odd by 2012). 5000 odd are in active service with the rest in a reserve stockpile and not instantly avalible. Of the 5000 most are probably in a ready to go state since maintince can be done pretty fast.

OK, so my guessing comes up with 5000 or less weapons useable, which is what you say, and being gradually reduced. Perhaps Crossbow can take note with the numbers he bandies around when trying to make a point.

 

[Cylinder]

We may, of course, have new classified technology that makes practical in 2006 what wasn't practical in 1992. And monkeys may fly out of my butt....

Have you noticed any flight training being conducted from your nether regions?

The U.S. Navy, in cooperation with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), successfully conducted a ballistic missile defense (BMD) demonstration May 24 involving the intercept of a target missile in the terminal phase (the last few seconds) of flight.

The test involved an Aegis cruiser modified to detect, control and engage a ballistic missile target with a modified Standard Missile - 2 (SM-2) Block IV. The Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) conducted the mission against a short-range target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.

It was the first sea-based intercept of a ballistic missile in its terminal phase.

I think this makes the new integrated system 7 for 8 - not bad for a proof of concept.

 

[a_unique_person]

The concept that you can shoot down your own missiles?

 

[Beerina]

Ever think N Korea might have been intending on just launching a satellite before all the hoopla started? I kinda doubt it too, but I don't recall N Korea saying anything about their true intent.

When 911 happened, I thought the first plane was a fluke or accident. When the second plane hit, I could conceive of no way for it to be a double accident, but I thought and thought and thought.

I came up with the idea there was some kind of guidance transponder error and these planes were on autopilot, with the pilots not paying attention.

That's the last time I tried to think my way out of a situation where people may, yes, actually, deliberately be trying to harm you.

The fact is, whatever their true intentions, outside of military intervention there's no way to stop them or other wannabes from building rockets or nukes.

Which, of course, is what this is all about. It's about extorting the west for as much money as possible, without the north actually starting a pointless war. Which, of course, is not what they're interested in. They just can carry it a hell of a lot further than Iraq or Iran because South Korea is right there within their long gun range. If anything did start, look for a 30 mile strip north of the border to be a sheet of glass within a few hours.

 

[Crossbow]

Look, I wasn't pretending to write the definitive analysis on nuclear armament; I was responding to someone who thinks that having a couple of hundred big booms on missiles is a serious nuclear capability in any way other than the doomsday one.

I'd like to think that we can reach that stage, or zero, in terms of global politics but the fact is that we can't. What I was pointing out is that IF we intend to remain the superpower and be nuclear, and IF we ever had to use it, we have to be capable of doing so in the most effective, and I would even say "least" harmful manner possible, which also means fastest, smallest, tailored to the need and most accurate, to name a few categories.

On that basis, without scrubbing a lot more than just warheads, I think simple math makes numbers of up to 10,000 weapons, for all the reasons I touched on before, seem quite reasonable.

Soooo, you find it reasonable for the USA to have 10,000 nuclear weapons (even though the USA promised over 35 years ago to get rid of all of its nuclear weapons), and
You do not want Iran (or anyone else you deem unworthy) to have any nuclear weapons, and
You admit that you do not know all that much about the numbers of nuclear weapons, the science of nuclear weapons, and the diplomacy of nuclear weapons.

While I am sure that your logic makes perfect sense to you,
the contradictions in your logic make very little sense to anyone else.

 

[Elind]

Actually, it seems that the discussion with Gnome came up with a likely number of useable weapons at 5000 or less. Still a big number perhaps, but that's what it takes if one isn't ready for unilateral disarmament, as you seem to propose.

As to the "unworthy", yes I think in that regard "we" are more worthy than some. Obviously from this and other posts, you don't.

Next issue...

 

[drkitten]

Have you noticed any flight training being conducted from your nether regions?



I think this makes the new integrated system 7 for 8 - not bad for a proof of concept.

I'm not impressed. As was pointed out upthread, the people who run the tests cheat. (They had equally impressive "proof of concept" number for the original Patriot missile, which was why it was deployed in the first place. As Han Solo put it, "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else.")

 

[Crossbow]

Actually, it seems that the discussion with Gnome came up with a likely number of useable weapons at 5000 or less. Still a big number perhaps, but that's what it takes if one isn't ready for unilateral disarmament, as you seem to propose.

As to the "unworthy", yes I think in that regard "we" are more worthy than some. Obviously from this and other posts, you don't.

Next issue...

Excuse me but you really need to pay better attention to the data being supplied to you because

I NEVER PROPOSED UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT!

Nor has anyone else in this thread. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone to make such a propsal here at JREF.

As for the next issue, I had long expected that:
you simply react to parts of postings that garner your immediate attention while ignoring other parts
then you use the partial data to form completely false conclusions with a high degree of self-confidence.

So thank you very much, because now I know for certain that is exactly what you do. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that has gotten us into so much trouble with Iraq and I see that you have failed to learn from this recent experience as well.

 

[DaChew]

This just in: The Japanese are Idiots.
Apparently not knowing that the Patriot was a complete and dismal failure and that ABM can not work, Japan has entered into agreement to not only base Patriot batteries on Okinawa but they're also going to build their own.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/D8IFNVOG1.html

Props and $1 million to drkitten for accurately predicting this early on in this very thread:

In order to deploy a successful ABM, we either need the close cooperation (in secret) from a friendly country like Japan, an already-deployed (in secret) weapons platform in space, or a weapons platform deployed from mobile, probably seaborne, platforms -- and, again, a secret.

OK so it didn't stay a secret but that's pretty good shooting on dk's part I think.

 

[Trantor]

Just letting you know that I saw Dick Chenney on CNN Friday and he confirmed that the missile readied for testing is in fact a three stage version of the Taepo-Dong 2. It should be able to launch a payload into orbit or a nuke into our backyard. Chenney also said that the US does not rule out a test of our ABM system if NK goes ahead with the their launch.

I do hope that Chenney is not serious about trying to shoot it down. It would be very embarrassing for a NK successful test and a ABM failure on our part. Hopefully the missile will explode right there at the launch pad, due to NK's failure.

 

[Ziggurat]

This just in: The Japanese are Idiots.
Apparently not knowing that the Patriot was a complete and dismal failure and that ABM can not work, Japan has entered into agreement to not only base Patriot batteries on Okinawa but they're also going to build their own.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/D8IFNVOG1.html

The Patriot missile has gone through some pretty major changes over the years since it first entered service in 1981. The electronics in the PAC-3 (the version deployed to Japan), which are really the most critical component, are quite a bit different (and quite a bit better) than those in the first-generation PAC-2 missiles which were rushed into service for GW1 and had such a dismal track record. The North Koreans know this, even if you don't. How effective are they against NK ballistic missiles? Hard for me to say for sure. But on the flip side, the North Koreans cannot say with any confidence that they AREN'T effective, and that alone provides Japan with a benefit.

It also doesn't make any sense to categorically say that ABM cannot work. There's no fundamental limit to prevent ABMs from working, and (just as importantly) from a strategic perspective it doesn't need to be close to 100% effective to provide enormous benefit either.

In other words, the Japanese are not idiots, not by a long shot.

 

[Elind]

Excuse me but you really need to pay better attention to the data being supplied to you because

I NEVER PROPOSED UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT!

Nor has anyone else in this thread. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone to make such a propsal here at JREF.

As for the next issue, I had long expected that:
you simply react to parts of postings that garner your immediate attention while ignoring other parts
then you use the partial data to form completely false conclusions with a high degree of self-confidence.

So thank you very much, because now I know for certain that is exactly what you do. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that has gotten us into so much trouble with Iraq and I see that you have failed to learn from this recent experience as well.

There you go again. All a fluster in a tizzie. Did you say you'd like wanting to see a couple of hundred weapons only?

I'm saying that amounts to disarmament because all they would be good for would be a revenge strike on population centers most likely.

 

[Elind]

I'm not impressed. As was pointed out upthread, the people who run the tests cheat. (They had equally impressive "proof of concept" number for the original Patriot missile, which was why it was deployed in the first place. As Han Solo put it, "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else.")

I don't quite get your point. Are you simply saying that you don't believe any such system can work, either because the first generation of patriots, designed to shoot down airplanes was rushed into service against missiles and did not perform as well as hoped; or that the whole exercise is pointless because testing never works anyway?

 

[Huntster]

This just in: The Japanese are Idiots.
Apparently not knowing that the Patriot was a complete and dismal failure and that ABM can not work, Japan has entered into agreement to not only base Patriot batteries on Okinawa but they're also going to build their own....

Maybe we're not sure who the idiots are.

How do you know the Patriot was "a complete and dismal failure"?

How do you know "that ABM can not work."

Do you have any evidence of those claims?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

OK so it didn't stay a secret but that's pretty good shooting on dk's part I think.

Japan's participation in the US ABM project has never been a secret. At least, not since 1999 or so anyway.

And ditto to what other people said about the PAC-3. The original Patriot missile had a secondary and fairly rudimentary function of shooting down missiles, but it wasn't originally designed for that function. Its primary mission was still anti-aircraft. Pointing out the failure of a platform that was doing a mission for which it was not really designed does not mean that the current platform cannot work.

 

[DaChew]

Guys. I was being facetious. The Patriot was NOT a dismal failure in the first gulf war. The Japanese are clearly not idiots. "ABM cannot work" is an extremely short sighted and unsupportable claim as well as being a psychic prediction of the future.

I posted the story to refute the anti-ABM crowd. Which it does.

 

[Crossbow]

There you go again. All a fluster in a tizzie.

Well gee whiz! After seeing the several posts you wrote to me talking about how Kim Jong Il is laughing at me I had no idea that you were such a delicate and fragile person. I will make every effort to keep your incredibly sensitive nature in mind in the future.

Did you say you'd like wanting to see a couple of hundred weapons only?

Well gee whiz again! I see that you still unable to read the data being presented to you. Because if you actually did read the data being presented to you, then you would clearly see that I did not say anything of that sort.

Instead, what I did do was refer to an idea that former President Carter had after he was fully briefed, and rather horrified, on just how vast and extensive the USA nuclear weapon actually was.

If at some point in the future a sensitive person like you actually can read the data that is presented to you, then please refer to post #239 as it provides a brief summary of major nuclear weapon disarmament initiatives over the decades.

I'm saying that amounts to disarmament because all they would be good for would be a revenge strike on population centers most likely.

Congratulations, you finally have at least one thing right to your credit! That is pretty good considering how sensitive you are.

If the USSR and the USA did indeed reduce their nuclear arsenal to 200 launchers each (as Carter wanted to do), then that would indeed be disarmament. Nuclear disarmament would indeed be the goal of such an exercise because thousands of thousands of nuclear weapons make nuclear war more likely and more destructive rather than less likely and less destructive.
Also, considerable nuclear disarmament makes it far easier to contain the spread of nuclear weapon technology.

 

[Crossbow]

Actually, the Patriot Missile during the First Gulf War was an abysmal failure when it came to destroying incoming Scud missiles.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

But in all fairness, that some 15 years ago and the system may be much better now.