• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

North Korea to Launch ICBM

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
Okay, let's see:
  • Program to develop nuclear weapons - check
  • Program to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles - check
  • Paranoid foreign policy - check
  • Paranoid all-powerful leader with only a tenuous grip on reality - check
Let's discuss once again why an anti-ballistic missile program is a waste of time and money.

One interesting paragaph from the linked story:
Whitman noted that the United States has limited missile defenses but would not say whether it intends to use them against a North Korean missile launch.
Click to expand...
Why not? Sounds like an excellent test scenario.
 
BPSCG said:
One interesting paragaph from the linked story: Why not? Sounds like an excellent test scenario.
Click to expand...

Because the last thing the US wants to do is to tip their hand about the capacities of the missile defense system, and thereby reveal any potential weaknesses.
 
drkitten said:
Because the last thing the US wants to do is to tip their hand about the capacities of the missile defense system, and thereby reveal any potential weaknesses.
Click to expand...
Don't you think we want to know if the thing works or not?
 
BPSCG said:
Let's discuss once again why an anti-ballistic missile program is a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Well, my objection (and it has been since the 1980s) is that it's a waste of time and money because it won't work. More accurately, none of the unclassified proposals for ABM systems proposed in 1980 would work, as was obvious to any second-year physics or engineering student.

This fact was proven empirically when the Patriot anti-missile system failed so abyssmally against the relatively slow-moving and easy to target SCUD missles in the early 1990s during the FIrst Gulf War.

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....
 
drkitten said:
We already know. We're worried that other people will find out.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, I thought you said it couldn't work, or at least that it was about as likely to work as monkeys flying out of your butt. And that any second-year physics student knows that. We can assume, can't we, that the NK's are at least as knowledgeable as your hypothetical second-year physics students?

So the worst that would happen would be that we'd be confirming what is already widely known.

And the best would be that nasty people would say, "Yikes, we were wrong; ABM defense is feasible, and the U.S. is the only country that's got it. Let's target somebody else!"
 
Do we also know if there is a US carrier group stationed up that way? The sub fleet is always around, anyway.


I saw an interesting show recently stating that what's left of the USSR came way too close to launching a "counter-attack" on the US based on a missile launch in Scandanavia the Russkies mis-read as incoming. The last thought on the program was they are edging closer & closer to 'launch on warning' as their infrastructure deteriorates.


The 'let's target someone else' may not be a good idea either.
 
BPSCG said:
Let's discuss once again why an anti-ballistic missile program is a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Translation: Lets see if I convince you to be as scared as I am so we can increase military spending and corporate welfare.
 
Tony said:
Translation: Lets see if I convince you to be as scared as I am so we can increase military spending and corporate welfare.
Click to expand...
Why don't you present your argument against it?
 
drkitten said:
Because the last thing the US wants to do is to tip their hand about the capacities of the missile defense system, and thereby reveal any potential weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Au contriare. To shoot that sucker down would reveal potential weaknesses of N. Korea's offensive capability, which, let's be honest, is the only reason it's not generally confused with Luxembourg on the planetary "concern" scale.
 
BPSCG said:
Okay, let's see:
  • Program to develop nuclear weapons - check
  • Program to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles - check
  • Paranoid foreign policy - check
  • Paranoid all-powerful leader with only a tenuous grip on reality - check
Let's discuss once again why an anti-ballistic missile program is a waste of time and money.

One interesting paragaph from the linked story: Why not? Sounds like an excellent test scenario.
Click to expand...

The problem is that:

1). Like the original "Star Wars", it is simply not likely to work.
2). It will not work as a deterrant, either: if the North Koreans are not deterred by the possiblity of nuclear annihilation in retaliation, certainly the lower chance of them hitting an American city won't stop them.
 
BPSCG said:
Wait a minute, I thought you said it couldn't work, or at least that it was about as likely to work as monkeys flying out of your butt. And that any second-year physics student knows that. We can assume, can't we, that the NK's are at least as knowledgeable as your hypothetical second-year physics students?

So the worst that would happen would be that we'd be confirming what is already widely known.
Click to expand...

Policticaly a bad move. You knock out an element of uncertianty and if it fails it creates domestic problems if it fails for the politicians that have been backing it.

And the best would be that nasty people would say, "Yikes, we were wrong; ABM defense is feasible, and the U.S. is the only country that's got it. Let's target somebody else!"
Click to expand...

No they say ok lets dig out the old british X boat plans (or in the case of NK just use the subs they already have).

You only really need ICBMS for MAD. You don't need them for a first strike.
 
Skeptic said:
The problem is that:

1). Like the original "Star Wars", it is simply not likely to work.
Click to expand...
And you know this because...

2). It will not work as a deterrant, either: if the North Koreans are not deterred by the possiblity of nuclear annihilation in retaliation, certainly the lower chance of them hitting an American city won't stop them.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in whether or not it works as a deterrent. I'm interested in protecting our cities, as opposed to avenging them.
 
geni said:
Policticaly a bad move. You knock out an element of uncertianty and if it fails it creates domestic problems if it fails for the politicians that have been backing it.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. Are you saying you disagree with drkitten, who seems utterly convinced that an ABM system can't work?
 
Tony said:
Why don't you present an argument for it?
Click to expand...
I guess you skipped the first post.

North Korea has openly proclaimed it is developing nuclear weapons.

North Korea has openly proclaimed it is developing a missile that could deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S.

North Korea's leaders are wildly unpredictable, and openly hostile to the U.S.

It is reasonable to assume that North Korea's paranoiac leaders want ICBMs and nuclear weapons because they might someday want to use them against the U.S.

That argument may be wrong. Again, I invite you to prove it. Try to use facts.
 
kalen said:
For the anti-ABM system or for the NK's countermeasures for said anti-ABM system ?
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if NK is testing their first ICBM, they haven't gotten to the countermeasures part yet.

And if they have, wouldn't we want to know about it?
 
BPSCG said:
North Korea has openly proclaimed it is developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

I.E. We should be afraid.

North Korea has openly proclaimed it is developing a missile that could deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S.
Click to expand...

I.E. We should be afraid.

North Korea's leaders are wildly unpredictable, and openly hostile to the U.S.
Click to expand...

I.E. We should be afraid.

It is reasonable to assume that North Korea's paranoiac leaders want ICBMs and nuclear weapons because they might someday want to use them against the U.S.
Click to expand...

I.E. We should be afraid.


Like I said, all you have is fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom