North Korea to Launch ICBM

[Ziggurat]

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

Indeed it is. Even the PAC-2 underwent upgrades due to the poor performance during GW1, and the missile systems deploying to Japan are PAC-3's.

 

[Jocko]

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

15 years ago, I was playing video games on the monochromatic screen of an IBM PC Junior with the dual-floppy upgrade and a Rappaport sidecar.

Point is, a lot happens in 15 years. And that's just consumer goods.

 

[Chaos]

The other point is, "big improvements" isn´t enough. If we´re talking nuke here, you´ll need 100% intercept rate, otherwise you´ll end up with lots of dead civilians.

 

[Jocko]

The other point is, "big improvements" isn´t enough. If we´re talking nuke here, you´ll need 100% intercept rate, otherwise you´ll end up with lots of dead civilians.

I would disagree with your 100% success rate requirement, as nothing enjoys a 100% success rate. Indeed, even a 65% success rate would be, IMHO, money well spent. Particularly when it's the only real option on the table.

 

[Chaos]

I would disagree with your 100% success rate requirement, as nothing enjoys a 100% success rate. Indeed, even a 65% success rate would be, IMHO, money well spent. Particularly when it's the only real option on the table.

Even if the success rate was anything like 65%, that would mean about one in three missiles will get through. Which would only mean that Kim (or whoever) is going to have three times as many missiles built.

And, any missile defense with a notable chance of success will induce a false sense of security in those who have said defense, causing them to take greater risks - only to find out that their defense wasn´t all *that* good at all.

Besides, if LA or San Francisco (or Washington DC, for that matter) get hit by "only" one missile out of three, that´s not that much less of a disaster.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if the success rate was anything like 65%, that would mean about one in three missiles will get through. Which would only mean that Kim (or whoever) is going to have three times as many missiles built.

Which he's not in a position to do for free. The missiles cost a lot of money, something North Korea has in short supply, and more importantly, it takes a long time to get sufficient plutonium to arm them (they probably do not have a uranium bomb design which can be launched on a ballistic missile). Just as with the USSR, we have the upper hand when it comes to an arms race.

Not to mention you can fire multiple interceptors against an incoming target, and the probability of success increases. Two missiles each with a 65% chance of success have an 88% chance of success. Three such missiles have a 95% chance. We can scale up the number of interceptors much more easily than Kim can scale up his ballistic missile arsenal.

And, any missile defense with a notable chance of success will induce a false sense of security in those who have said defense, causing them to take greater risks - only to find out that their defense wasn´t all *that* good at all.

That works both ways, though: for precisely that reason, North Korea will know that they cannot make as large demands, because they do not want actual war either. They will feel constrained, and that makes them less likely to push things to the brink.

Besides, if LA or San Francisco (or Washington DC, for that matter) get hit by "only" one missile out of three, that´s not that much less of a disaster.

Hell yes it is, and it's stunning that you would make such a foolish statement. The nukes would not all be targeted at the same location, and a LOT less people would die if one third the nukes got through.

 

[Huntster]

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....

Perhaps it hit enough Scuds to help convince Israel not to join the war. Or to simply offer some face-saving to the Israelis.

In that way, it may have been a smashing success.

Maybe it's like that old saying about horseshoes and hand grenades...........

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

And that is despite opponents of missile defense using the Patriot's initial low intercept success as an ideological tool..............

 

[Huntster]

The other point is, "big improvements" isn´t enough. If we´re talking nuke here, you´ll need 100% intercept rate, otherwise you´ll end up with lots of dead civilians.

Perfection or nothing?

No, thanks. When it comes to a fight, I'll take any and all tools/weapons that I can get my hands on.

If you don't want yours, send them over. I'll take 'em.

 

[Huntster]

...Besides, if LA or San Francisco (or Washington DC, for that matter) get hit by "only" one missile out of three, that´s not that much less of a disaster.

In other words, the loss of one city isn't much less of a disaster than the loss of three cities?

I'll bet your perspective might be different if you live in one of those cities, huh?

What am I missing here?

 

[Jocko]

Even if the success rate was anything like 65%, that would mean about one in three missiles will get through. Which would only mean that Kim (or whoever) is going to have three times as many missiles built.

And that's precisely what scared the USSR to death, if you recall. And they had the capacity to do it, too! Kim? Not so much.

And, any missile defense with a notable chance of success will induce a false sense of security in those who have said defense, causing them to take greater risks - only to find out that their defense wasn´t all *that* good at all.

I see that as a slippery slope fallacy - certainly possible but completely hypothetical at this point. We can already turn N. Korea into a lake of glowing glass a thousand times over; does this encourage more risk taking?

Besides, if LA or San Francisco (or Washington DC, for that matter) get hit by "only" one missile out of three, that´s not that much less of a disaster.

I strenuously disagree. Look at the blast radius of a 100 kiloton bomb (a tiny one by modern standards), likely the kind fielded by an enemy like N. Korea ... especially if they have to build three times as many.

Edited to add: Found a neat little look at a 100-kt blast using google maps. See, it's not that big. It would take four or five to cover all of New York City, for instance.*

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

*Yes, yes, yes, I know fallout and other secondary methods kill beyond the blast itself. But those too are relative to the bomb's size and the amount of material used, so without resorting to math I think the point stands.

 

[Trantor]

I remember years ago reading about how the USSR was going about targeting US cities when both sides had around 25,000 warheads each. The New York City area was thought to be targeted with around 40 nukes, including a couple of 20 megaton yield warheads. Enough to turn the Tri-State area into one giant pancake!

In reference to some of the previous posts, it is true that most countries have reduced their numbers of active warheads, but most of these countries continue to have all the parts and materials needed to quickly assemble additional warheads if needed. I don't recall exact numbers, but France went from around 1,000 active warheads to 500 warheads; their dismantled warheads were kept in a ready to assemble state.

200 warheads is more than enough for deterant. Just think what would become of the US if our 200 biggest cities were nuked. A 100K explosion may not completely destroy a major city, but the blast/fallout will make it uninhabitable. The bombs we dropped on Japan in WW2 were around 20k - much smaller in comparison. Our entire economy was hit hard when two buildings were destroyed in 2001. I would not risk a nuclear exchange with another country that had 200 deliverable nukes. The US as a State may not survive.

All that said, I do think that research and development of an ABM system should continue. I would rather not have to trust the system to work, but something is better than nothing. Interestingly, the Russians have developed a warhead that zig-zags on it's way down as a counter measure to an ABM system. They successfully tested it a few years back.

 

[Chaos]

And that's precisely what scared the USSR to death, if you recall. And they had the capacity to do it, too! Kim? Not so much.

The USSR didn´t die from fright, and certainly not because of the Star Wars system. They died from that f´ed-up communist economy of theirs, if you recall.

I see that as a slippery slope fallacy - certainly possible but completely hypothetical at this point. We can already turn N. Korea into a lake of glowing glass a thousand times over; does this encourage more risk taking?

If you think that you´re safe from the enemy, yes it does. Remember that the safety of Mutually Assured Destruction lies in the "Mutual" part. If you think you´re protected, you´re going to take more risk - it´s an elemental and easily proven part of human psychology.

I strenuously disagree. Look at the blast radius of a 100 kiloton bomb (a tiny one by modern standards), likely the kind fielded by an enemy like N. Korea ... especially if they have to build three times as many.

Edited to add: Found a neat little look at a 100-kt blast using google maps. See, it's not that big. It would take four or five to cover all of New York City, for instance.*

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

*Yes, yes, yes, I know fallout and other secondary methods kill beyond the blast itself. But those too are relative to the bomb's size and the amount of material used, so without resorting to math I think the point stands.

The point also stands that even one teeny-tiny 100-kt nuke going off in the middle of New York, or any other US metropolis would, at the very least, kill hundred of thousands or a million people, cause property damage in the hundreds of billions and economic damage that defies calculation - think of it as 9/11 times 100 at least.

The overall point is, someone like Kim can´t launch an attack devastating enough to destroy or permanently cripple the US (as the USSR could and Russia probably still can); they can, however, hurt the US far worse (by orders of magnitude) than anyone before ever did, and under real (non-test*) conditions any Missile Defense the US has cannot reliably reduce a potential attack to the point where that´s no longer true.

*Intercept rates under real conditions will always be lower than under test conditions, because in reality there will be many more unknowns, and more adverse conditions, than in tests.

 

[Ziggurat]

The USSR didn´t die from fright, and certainly not because of the Star Wars system. They died from that f´ed-up communist economy of theirs, if you recall.

Which was f'ed up quite a bit more because of the enormous fraction of that economy devoted to a military buildup to compete with us.

If you think that you´re safe from the enemy, yes it does. Remember that the safety of Mutually Assured Destruction lies in the "Mutual" part. If you think you´re protected, you´re going to take more risk - it´s an elemental and easily proven part of human psychology.

That makes sense if you think you have complete protection when you have none. But it doesn't really follow if you know your protection is partial. And there's no evidence that leaders in Japan OR the US think that such a system does provide complete protection, or that they are acting as if it did.

The overall point is, someone like Kim can´t launch an attack devastating enough to destroy or permanently cripple the US (as the USSR could and Russia probably still can); they can, however, hurt the US far worse (by orders of magnitude) than anyone before ever did, and under real (non-test*) conditions any Missile Defense the US has cannot reliably reduce a potential attack to the point where that´s no longer true.

So what? That doesn't need to be the case, as has already been pointed out to you. All the system needs to do to provide significant benefit is reduce the likely damage by a sizeable amount. And for precisely the reasons you outline above, intercepting even one nuclear missile is a significant and worthwhile reduction in damage suffered.

 

[Jocko]

The USSR didn´t die from fright, and certainly not because of the Star Wars system. They died from that f´ed-up communist economy of theirs, if you recall.

That was chronic. Panicked military spending was acute. You can call the cause of death anyway you like, but when I see a guy flat on the sidewalk beneath a open 10th-storey window, my initial diagnosis is not heart disease.

If you think that you´re safe from the enemy, yes it does. Remember that the safety of Mutually Assured Destruction lies in the "Mutual" part. If you think you´re protected, you´re going to take more risk - it´s an elemental and easily proven part of human psychology.

I really don't see that as the fact you seem to, and you haven't addressed the counterexample of overwhelming retaliation, but there we go.

The point also stands that even one teeny-tiny 100-kt nuke going off in the middle of New York, or any other US metropolis would, at the very least, kill hundred of thousands or a million people, cause property damage in the hundreds of billions and economic damage that defies calculation - think of it as 9/11 times 100 at least.

No, the point is, if you will recall stating it, is:

Besides, if LA or San Francisco (or Washington DC, for that matter) get hit by "only" one missile out of three, that´s not that much less of a disaster.

I've shown how that's not really true, and how reducing the number of hits by 65% (to keep with the hypothetical, optimistic though it may be) is, indeed, MUCH less of a disaster.

The overall point is, someone like Kim can´t launch an attack devastating enough to destroy or permanently cripple the US (as the USSR could and Russia probably still can); they can, however, hurt the US far worse (by orders of magnitude) than anyone before ever did, and under real (non-test*) conditions any Missile Defense the US has cannot reliably reduce a potential attack to the point where that´s no longer true.

I am not contesting that the risk of failure is miserably high. However, you have failed to explain why you are happier under a scenario where the risk of failure is miserably 100%.

Again, why is no umbrella better than a leaky umbrella to you? Because we might be more tempted to go out in the rain? News flash, buddy, you can't always control when and where the rain is.

*Intercept rates under real conditions will always be lower than under test conditions, because in reality there will be many more unknowns, and more adverse conditions, than in tests.

True. And irrelevant. You're arguing a strawman because I told you up front that 65% success rate was a hypothetical. Your 0% success counterproposal, however, is completely precise.

 

[Chaos]

Which was f'ed up quite a bit more because of the enormous fraction of that economy devoted to a military buildup to compete with us.

Of which an insignificant fraction, if anything at all, was caused by US missile defenses.

That makes sense if you think you have complete protection when you have none. But it doesn't really follow if you know your protection is partial. And there's no evidence that leaders in Japan OR the US think that such a system does provide complete protection, or that they are acting as if it did.

Well, *you* are acting like it does. Or rather, your claim is that with the system, the overwhelming majority of incoming missiles is intercepted - enough that, considering the numbers North Korea could probably launch, there is a good chance none get through. Which is close enough to "complete protection".

So what? That doesn't need to be the case, as has already been pointed out to you. All the system needs to do to provide significant benefit is reduce the likely damage by a sizeable amount. And for precisely the reasons you outline above, intercepting even one nuclear missile is a significant and worthwhile reduction in damage suffered.

For precisely the reasons I outlined, it is *not* significant to intercepting just one missile.

Just one missile getting through would be a disaster like none ever before - look at 9/11; it doesn´t matter all that much if you have to multiply its effects my 600 or only 500 to imagine what a missile strike would be like.

To use an analogy, if you are going to lose an arm, it doesn´t really matter if it is cut off at the shoulder or halfway down the upper arm.

 

[Jocko]

For precisely the reasons I outlined, it is *not* significant to intercepting just one missile.

Wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And here's how you're demonstrably wrong:

There was only a 25% success rate in the countermeasures taken on 9/11. A lousy, paltry, "insignificant" 25%. Yet that 25% is honored for the disaster they prevented, by forcing United 93 down before striking some Washington landmark.

Are you saying the preservation of the Capitol, or the White House, or anything else there is "insignificant?" Was that 25% success rate beneath notice? I think it's time you reassess your priorities, sir.

Just one missile getting through would be a disaster like none ever before - look at 9/11; it doesn´t matter all that much if you have to multiply its effects my 600 or only 500 to imagine what a missile strike would be like.

Sure, as long as we (like you) compare a single missile strike to a Sunday in the park, instead of honestly comparing a single missle strike to a barrage of missile strikes.

It's not just about the dead. It's also about the saved.

To use an analogy, if you are going to lose an arm, it doesn´t really matter if it is cut off at the shoulder or halfway down the upper arm.

Not true either. A prosthetic is more easily attached to a stump. Unless you're afraid it's going to provide an unhealthy willingness to risk applauding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, *you* are acting like it does. Or rather, your claim is that with the system, the overwhelming majority of incoming missiles is intercepted - enough that, considering the numbers North Korea could probably launch, there is a good chance none get through. Which is close enough to "complete protection".

How do you figure that's how I acted? I made no claim as to how many missiles might or might not get through. My only claim is that the missiles will likely provide at least some protection, and that even the likelyhood that the shield will provide at least some protection puts North Korea at a strategic disadvantage (relative to a situation in which no missile shield were deployed), which is a good thing for us.

Furthermore, I'm not really *acting* at all. I'm writing on a message board of no real consequence. Your claim was that a shield would lead to a false sense of security which would lead to dangerous actions on our part, increasing our net danger. But what I write or do not write on this board has little to do with what we as a country do. In other words, your attempt to label my position (falsely, I might add) as one of false security is a transparent evasion: I asked for evidence that we (Japan and the US, as countries) were acting in such a manner, and you have provided none.

 

[Trantor]

All this talk about missile shields got me thinking yesterday about a hypothetical scenario. Let's assume for the sake of argument that some industrialized country succeeded in inventing and developing a true energy shield(like Star Trek or Star Wars) capable of stoping any incoming warheads or aircraft. Such a country would be completely protected from attack from others, but would still maintain the ability to attack others at will.

If you were in the leadership of such a country, would you share this new technology with the rest of the world to keep the balance of power, or would you secrectly work on getting your country under a protective umbrella before anyone finds out about your new technology?

If you were in the leadership outside this country and found out about the new technology before it was fully operational, would you demand the technology be handed to you on the threat of pre-emtive war; and if the technology was denied, would you strike hard before the shield was operational?

 

[Jocko]

All this talk about missile shields got me thinking yesterday about a hypothetical scenario. Let's assume for the sake of argument that some industrialized country succeeded in inventing and developing a true energy shield(like Star Trek or Star Wars) capable of stoping any incoming warheads or aircraft. Such a country would be completely protected from attack from others, but would still maintain the ability to attack others at will.

If you were in the leadership of such a country, would you share this new technology with the rest of the world to keep the balance of power, or would you secrectly work on getting your country under a protective umbrella before anyone finds out about your new technology?

If you were in the leadership outside this country and found out about the new technology before it was fully operational, would you demand the technology be handed to you on the threat of pre-emtive war; and if the technology was denied, would you strike hard before the shield was operational?

Oh, that's an easy one. If it's my country that develops it, I keep it close and quiet, at least at first. After all, the only one whose sanity I completely trust is me.

Complaints will rise, resolutions will be passed, teeth will gnash and wailing will be heard all the way to heaven. And at the end of it all, I've still got the strongest hand at the table. Never let anyone bluff you when you're holding a royal flush.

Down the road a bit, I share it with longstanding allies, both to strengthen ties and to demonstrate to others that being my pal not only means less threat, but more goodies. Not unlike any other unique technology, really.

Now if someone else was developing it, the response would depend on who it is and my relationship to them. If it's a superpower that can whoop my ass without breaking a sweat, I get busy with the friendly bit. If it's some pissant little noisemaker like N. Korea, I kill it in the womb. If I'm lucky, I steal it first.

Universal shielding has the same net effect as universal armament: stalemate re: missiles.

 

[BPSCG]

If you were in the leadership of such a country, would you share this new technology with the rest of the world to keep the balance of power, or would you secrectly work on getting your country under a protective umbrella before anyone finds out about your new technology?

Reagan wanted to share SDI with the Soviets.