North Korea to Launch ICBM

[Trantor]

Reagan wanted to share SDI with the Soviets.

Yeah, I remember that. But considering how good the Soviets always seemed to be at getting our secrets, I doubt that they would have asked. I recall a spy working for the KGB( I think it was Aimes) once offered the Soviets all the current Military Naval Codes and his contact told him - thanks for the offer, but we already have the new codes!

Jocko, I agree with your last statement. That is why a defensive shield can be a very dangerous asset before it's fully deployed.

In my opinion, these are the countries that US should try to stay at peace with for our own sake: Russia, China, France, Great Britian, Israel, Japan. Yes, I know Japan doesn't officially have nukes, but don't kid yourself on their ability to be ready if they need to, and at a very rapid speed. India and Pakistan do have nukes, but no balistic missiles - yet. Their numbers of warheads and warhead yields are also smaller than the other countries, but they are continuing to work on that!

 

[Crossbow]

For a nuclear defense system to work, it MUST BE 100% effective.

To explain:

The main justification for building a nuclear defense system is that doing so will eliminate the need for nuclear war because the nuclear weapons will be destroyed before they reach their targets.

However, if the system less than 100% effective and misses so much as one nuclear weapon which then proceeds to hit its target, then we will have a nuclear war and the USA will have to respond (at the very least) to the same degree because it would be impossible for the USA to ignore a nuclear attack.

Also, even if the system is 100% effective at destroying all ICBM type nuclear weapons (which is the focus of the current nuclear defense work), it will not function against such things as aircraft, cruise missiles, trucks, ships, trains, or other such delivery modes. Thus, if even only one nuclear weapon actually impacts the USA, then they USA will be in a nuclear war.

I hope this helps!

 

[Jocko]

For a nuclear defense system to work, it MUST BE 100% effective.

To explain:

The main justification for building a nuclear defense system is that doing so will eliminate the need for nuclear war because the nuclear weapons will be destroyed before they reach their targets.

However, if the system less than 100% effective and misses so much as one nuclear weapon which then proceeds to hit its target, then we will have a nuclear war and the USA will have to respond (at the very least) to the same degree because it would be impossible for the USA to ignore a nuclear attack.

Also, even if the system is 100% effective at destroying all ICBM type nuclear weapons (which is the focus of the current nuclear defense work), it will not function against such things as aircraft, cruise missiles, trucks, ships, trains, or other such delivery modes. Thus, if even only one nuclear weapon actually impacts the USA, then they USA will be in a nuclear war.

I hope this helps!

I didn't think (certainly didn't SAY) that it would prevent a nuclear war, only that it could diminish the amount of damage and number of casualties.

If you think that we wouldn't retaliate, 100% effective shield or not, you're kidding yourself. It's a "nuclear war" the second their birds leave the silos, not the second they hit US soil.

 

[Trantor]

In the case of Russia, they have worked for many years on counter measures against an ABM system. They currently use decoys in the Midcourse Phase(coast) and have developed a zig-zag warhead for the Terminal Phase(reentery). Their missiles may only be vulnerable during the Boost Phase and given the geographical size of Russia, it would be nearly impossible to destroy their missiles right after launch. This of course doesn't even take nukes delivered by ships, subs, or planes into account.

Look for other countries with nukes to follow Russia's lead on counter measures. All nuclear powers will do whatever it takes in order to preserve their ability to strike back.

It's a crazy world we live in.

 

[Ziggurat]

For a nuclear defense system to work, it MUST BE 100% effective.

Wrong.

The main justification for building a nuclear defense system is that doing so will eliminate the need for nuclear war because the nuclear weapons will be destroyed before they reach their targets.

That supposition is simply wrong. A nuclear defense system can be intended merely to decrease the damage suffered from a nuclear attack. That provides an obvious benefit in the unfortunate event of nuclear war. But just like nuclear weapons themselves, their existence changes the balance of power in favor of the side which has it, EVEN IF it never gets used. It decreases the effectiveness of an enemy's nuclear threat (note that I say decrease, not eliminate), which decreases the leverage they have to make threats against us. The point is not to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war (though that would be nice): the point is simply, and ONLY, to give us an advantage. It need do no more than that to be effective and worthwhile. And nothing you have said here indicates that it does not give us an advantage.

Also, even if the system is 100% effective at destroying all ICBM type nuclear weapons (which is the focus of the current nuclear defense work), it will not function against such things as aircraft, cruise missiles, trucks, ships, trains, or other such delivery modes.

Well, first off, you're wrong on two count: ABM's work quite well against aircraft and cruise missiles. In fact, that was the original primary mission of the Patriot missile, and it works pretty well that way. Aircraft are much easier targets than ballistic missiles. Same thing applies to cruise missiles: they can be shot down much more easily than ballistic missiles because they travel so much slower.

As far as other delivery modes (basically, smuggling them in), yes, ABM's won't work. But those kinds of delivery modes are also strategically almost useless for an enemy state, which is why the USSR never bothered developing such delivery methods. Unlike ballistic missiles, or even aircraft-delivered bombs, you cannot nuke an opponent on short notice with such methods, making them useless as retaliatory weapons. Furthermore, and just as importantly, you cannot THREATEN to nuke an opponent, because knowledge of the threat will lead to removal of the threat, and your enemy will not give into a threat which they are unaware of or do not believe. Which means that while an enemy can only use such methods for a surprise first strike, they cannot use such a method to blackmail us and they cannot even use the threat of retaliation with such methods to ward us off. And an enemy like North Korea wants to blackmail us and scare us off from attacking them infinitely more than it wants to actually start a war with us which they know will lead to their utter destruction.

 

[Elind]

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.

...and the conclusion is what? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that unless someone can guarantee a 100% success rate according to whatever criteria you can accept, then there is no point in trying and one should just prepare for lots of dead civilians.

 

[BPSCG]

For a nuclear defense system to work, it MUST BE 100% effective.

Let's you and me fight.

Go ahead, you get the first swing.

Oops, missed me. I ducked. My turn.

Pow! Ooh, think I busted your nose, Crossbow. Your turn.

Hah! Parried that one. My turn.

Bam! Well, you still have lots of other teeth. Your turn.

Ow! Dammit, my eye's starting to swell. My turn.

Pow! I think I ruptured your eardrum. Your turn.

Missed again! My turn.

Oof! You weren't expecting that left hook to the balls, were you? Your turn.

Argh! That swollen eye busted open - lots of blood. My turn.

Urghh... another left hook to the balls. Your turn.

I said it's your turn.

Don't you want to play any more?

You don't?

Are you sorry we even started in the first place? What was that about my defense not being 100% effective?

 

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Crossbow :
For a nuclear defense system to work 100%, it MUST BE 100% effective.

 

[Crossbow]

I didn't think (certainly didn't SAY) that it would prevent a nuclear war, only that it could diminish the amount of damage and number of casualties.

If you think that we wouldn't retaliate, 100% effective shield or not, you're kidding yourself. It's a "nuclear war" the second their birds leave the silos, not the second they hit US soil.

Er, so if a nuclear war is initiated by the launching of nuclear missiles (regardless of there number, if they hit or not, or if they are intercepted or not), then why have a nuclear missile defense system to begin with?

 

[Jocko]

Er, so if a nuclear war is initiated by the launching of nuclear missiles (regardless of there number, if they hit or not, or if they are intercepted or not), then why have a nuclear missile defense system to begin with?

If you look at the first sentence you just quoted, the answer is clear: to assure we survive with as little damage as possible. How it appears in headlines the next day is really not my concern.

 

[Crossbow]

Let's you and me fight.

Go ahead, you get the first swing.

Oops, missed me. I ducked. My turn.

Pow! Ooh, think I busted your nose, Crossbow. Your turn.

Hah! Parried that one. My turn.

Bam! Well, you still have lots of other teeth. Your turn.

Ow! Dammit, my eye's starting to swell. My turn.

Pow! I think I ruptured your eardrum. Your turn.

Missed again! My turn.

Oof! You weren't expecting that left hook to the balls, were you? Your turn.

Argh! That swollen eye busted open - lots of blood. My turn.

Urghh... another left hook to the balls. Your turn.

I said it's your turn.

Don't you want to play any more?

You don't?

Are you sorry we even started in the first place? What was that about my defense not being 100% effective?

That is a most colorful picture and if a nuclear war was like single combat without weapons (as your analogy states), then you would be right.

However, nuclear war is nothing at all like single combat without weapons so you are completely wrong.

When both sides have many, many nuclear weapons and no compunctions about using them, nuclear war is more like:
killing your opponent,
killing his trainer,
killing his lady,
killing his pets,
killing his family,
killing everyone he has ever known that is still alive,
killing everyone he will ever know in the course of his life, and
destroying everything he owns along with destroying everything else so throughly that it will be impossible to recover from such a situation.

And the same will happen to you. Neither person will win and both will loose most horribly.

In reality, the best that could be expected from a nuclear defense system is the interception of some of the nuclear weapons, missing quite a few of the others, which would still result in a devastating attack that would kill tens of millions immediately and tens of millions more in the subsequent weeks. But until such time, all of that money poured into the research, development, and deployment of a nuclear defense system would be great boost to defense contractors and the aerospace industry.

 

[Ziggurat]

In reality, the best that could be expected from a nuclear defense system is the interception of some of the nuclear weapons, missing quite a few of the others, which would still result in a devastating attack that would kill tens of millions immediately and tens of millions more in the subsequent weeks. But until such time, all of that money poured into the research, development, and deployment of a nuclear defense system would be great boost to defense contractors and the aerospace industry.

But that's not the best that we can expect. The best we can expect is that nuclear war never happens but that the presence of a defensive system makes our enemies accept any negotiations we have with them on terms more favorable to us. I have made this point more than once, and you have failed to address it every time.

In the event that nuclear war does occur, even one nuclear missile shot down will save a lot of lives. You apparently think that this is not important, but I do.

 

[Jocko]

In reality, the best that could be expected from a nuclear defense system is the interception of some of the nuclear weapons, missing quite a few of the others, which would still result in a devastating attack that would kill tens of millions immediately and tens of millions more in the subsequent weeks. But until such time, all of that money poured into the research, development, and deployment of a nuclear defense system would be great boost to defense contractors and the aerospace industry.

I wonder why you insist on approaching this so emotionally? It's a numbers game, always has been, and that's all anyone here has represented it as.

Sorry if the term "game" offends, as I suspect it might, but cold calculations are part of war. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I maintain that partial coverage is better than no coverage.

 

[BPSCG]

Neither person will win and both will loose most horribly.

Not if I keep kicking you in the head long after you've lost the ability to kick back. I might be bloody, but I'll still be standing.

Leastways I will be if I have some halfway adequate defense.

 

[Steve H]

...Getting back to N Korea, I predict they won't fire their missile. I promise I will come back to this thread and eat crow if they do... I'll drop back in when something doesn't or does happen.

So what exactly does go good with crow? I was thinking of something along the lines of a red table wine or, much more likely, multiple bottles of Budweiser followed by a couple shots of Jack Daniels.

 

[Rob Lister]

heh. Not one, but likely three (so far as I can so far garner) along with twice as many decoys. First blew up very soon after launch. All decoys worked perfectly. Not sure about the second two...I assume they worked...er...as not advertised.

Speaking of not advertised...

I'm of the opinion that nobody on this forum has any idea of where the US is in terms of the actual progress of ABM. Does anyone actually think that the stage-shows set up by the DOD are the real deal?

Please, be skeptical.

The pres knows the real deal.
The [need-to-know] members of congress know the real deal.
Certain high-level military know the real deal
A few (<50) select not-so-high but trustworthy others know (scientists mostly).

That's about it. Not cnn, not fox, not abc, cbs, nbs or pbs.

No, Not even sylvia brown.

ETA: I am 100% for ABM R&D and Deployment at all its various stages of effectivness -- even if less than 10%. Those that think it is worthless unless it is 100% effective...well, I feel sorry for your brand of rhetoric.

 

[Zep]

North Korea has test-fired a number of missiles in the early hours of this morning, but it is not clear whether one of the missiles was a long-range Taepodong 2, which has been the focus of speculation for weeks.

Early reports suggested two missiles had been launched landing in the Japan Sea between Korea and Japan.

Both were thought to be Nodong missiles, smaller than the long-range Taepodong 2 missiles, a launch which has been speculated about for weeks.

However, reports now suggest that at least three, and maybe up to five ballistic missiles were launched and one of them may have been the Taepodong 2.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1678903.htm