KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Bombing another country is basically the same as an invasion when it comes to someone like Kim. Technically, there aren't forces on the ground but it is an attack all the same.
Bombing another country is basically the same as an invasion when it comes to someone like Kim. Technically, there aren't forces on the ground but it is an attack all the same.
Great post, bjb.
Isn't a ballistic missile a much different challenge than an orbital launch?
The orbital launch would be a great political coup for North Korea, and I agree that they would be politically wise to do so, but eventually they will need to test ballistic missile targetting.
Despite the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs fiasco for the CIA, there were some incredible intelligence successes (which, for obvious reasons, are never broadcast) by U.S. intelligence regarding Soviet missile technology as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There's one thing inherently unfair about the Western intelligence world; their failures are broadcast far and wide by political and ideological foes, but their successes must be kept secret...............
Isn't a ballistic missile a much different challenge than an orbital launch?
The orbital launch would be a great political coup for North Korea, and I agree that they would be politically wise to do so, but eventually they will need to test ballistic missile targetting.
Despite the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs fiasco for the CIA, there were some incredible intelligence successes (which, for obvious reasons, are never broadcast) by U.S. intelligence regarding Soviet missile technology as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There's one thing inherently unfair about the Western intelligence world; their failures are broadcast far and wide by political and ideological foes, but their successes must be kept secret...............
More opinion, Kenny? (See sig lines below......................)
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
"Nothing" was one of your choices, wasn't it?
*chuckles at environmentalism*
The Cold War was an Arms race that brought us to the brink of WWIII. The world didn't come to an end because because our leaders had cooler heads than you. Just because Kim is taking part in an arms race doesn't mean that war is inevitable.
But it is much different when it comes to people like our troops currently in Iraq.
Yup.
And it achieves the goal (elimination or heavy damage of their nuclear ICBM capabilities) without the large loss of our troops, and without a long propaganda war at home with apologists.
Like I said, that's all I can say. Maybe a different GN&C person would care to comment. Even someone who reads Avation Week could answer your questions but there don't seem to be anyone here who is familiar with the information they have made public over the years.
The engineers just need to fly their rocket and make sure it works as designed. George Bush could stop these tests but the warhead interceptors won't do it for him. He does have other options that do not involve nuclear weapons or an invasion. Maybe something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak
Notably, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney specifically referred to the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor as protecting American troops during the first, and implicitly, the second Gulf War.
The engineers just need to fly their rocket and make sure it works as designed. George Bush could stop these tests but the warhead interceptors won't do it for him. He does have other options that do not involve nuclear weapons or an invasion. Maybe something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak
Notably, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney specifically referred to the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor as protecting American troops during the first, and implicitly, the second Gulf War.
Yes, it was.
Does nothing include open, political criticism of the efforts of others without offering an alternative?
The arms race was just part of the Cold War. The Cold War was an ideological and political struggle, and it was very much "hot" in the periphery (Korea, Vietnam, etc).
"The world didn't come to an end"? You still believe that line of propaganda?
A thermonuclear exchange between the superpowers didn't occur primarily because the stakes were too high, both sides knew it, and both sides were reasonable.
Now, with India/Pakistan, Israel/Arab World, and (soon to join the fray) North Korea and Iran, do you think the chances of averting a nuclear exchange is better now, particularly when the superpower's political power over their allies has waned?
Just because Kim is taking part in an arms race doesn't mean that war is inevitable.
Last edited:
I agree, and have already advocated such a move:
In fact, I believe that is the administration's only viable military option...........
Elind
Philosopher
The only system that exists is kinetic kill. It will probably be impossible to keep the knowledge of a launch secret, but nobody but only the US will have the capability to determine the result, and that part can be kept secret, or lied about.
The Koreans will not be able to monitor the final flight path of a ballistic payload. They launch and will know from the boost phase if it reached the speed and trajectory for the ballistic payload. After that it's gone. Possibly they can transmit from the payload while it's coasting for a while, but I wonder what a few awacs over the Pacific could do to such a signal?
Last edited:
Elind
Philosopher
We know that
We will know that within seconds
There are not many directions they can aim, therefore we know that pretty well
This one will probably have that too, for Korean purposes, but that is not how the anti missile tracks the target and it has nothing to do with identifying "countermeasures". IE decoys.
Which part of the above qualifies for "accommodating" and are you talking about the current situation, or moving on to when they really attack?
Agreed.
Now, THAT'S real torture right there.
Apart from charging up the peninsula in 1950, running back again, then camping out on the 49th parallel in 1953 and building immense fortifications facing each other, I'd be interested to know what else has been tried to break the impasse. I'm aware there's been assorted spy-raids from NK, but many of those ended up defecting. Details, anyone?
With a hammer.
Here's one idea: NK don't build computers themselves (unless they are made from mud or concrete), they steal the parts and technology from the west - it's cheaper and easier by far. So find the conduits and feed them "appropriately modified" technology. Too simple to work? The US did that to the USSR regularly, with good results.
ETA: This is probably already being done, so it's not like I'm prescient or anything.
Bill Clinton's Secretery of Defense and Assistant SecDef have an op-ed today saying we should destroy the missile while it's still on the ground.
A good argument, and quite comfortable to support. And it's much MUCH easier to hit the thing standing on the launch-pad than when it's in flight. Even zapping its launch infrastructure will do, but seeing the rocket itself go poof! would be much more satisfying.
If Kim isn't going to back down and this becomes a feasible alternative, I'd be giving Kim and his crowd a loud-and-clear warning call. Make an international announcement addressed specifically to him that he has 12 hours to pack it up and put it away, or his new toy is rubble. Count on it. A few cruise missiles and...
So Kim gets to choose between a humiliating back down to the Americans, or ignoring the warning and pushing on, in the certain knowledge his grand new "bargaining chip" will be destroyed quickly and easily and publicly. Either way, his (pathetic) credibility is put right on the line, especially at home.
And to CYA, get UN sanction for the potential action up front. Shouldn't be too hard - Kim hasn't exactly been hiding his WMD, has he.
Hey - you could sell tickets to the satellite view of the blast!
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Read the piece, BPSCG; and I still think that would be a bad idea.
Many posters, I among them, have posited about the less than rational state of the body politic of North Korea, beginning with the Dear Leader; the article seems to indicate that they would react to an direct attack (for it could be interperted as nothing but) on what they may consider a matter of their national security in a sane, rational matter. That seems to me to be a risky proposition.
The article also seems to discount or minimize the reaction of the other 6-party nations to such an attack, particulary S. Korea. A nation that stands to lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives in the first hours of a war (if the N. Koreans direct their artillery on Seoul without warning), and which has a history of protests over the US role in S. Korea may not act quite as calmly as the pundits say. And anyone predicting the Chinese reaction to a surprise US attack a couple of hundred miles from their borders probably should still be working for the Government--as soothsayer. Accurately reading other countries reactions to our gambits is something most administrations, and this one in particular, have not done exceptionally well.
Last, they (the article writers) are sure that we would defeat any attack by N. Korea handily and within a few weeks/months; and I tend to agree with this, BTW--US and S. Korean military technology is that much better. The operational question is if the N. Korean Military leaders--very insular, brought up on propaganda on the superiority of N. Korea, with little practical knowledge of what the state of the art tools can do--might think they can win--and advise the Politbureau that way-after all, Generals have been known to tell politicians what they want to hear before...
Lastly, you are rolling the bones on one shot (albeit you might target more than one cruise missile) that could fail for a variety of reasons (systems failure, jamming, shot down by N. Korean Air Defense-you'll know they'll be on alert) and thus embarrass us with no positive result, something I don't think Bush would risk politically at this time with low ratings and the 2006 elections. Politics and war are much the same thing, as has been stated before (I cannot recall if it was Bismarck or Clauzwitz).
What I think will happen is that we will monitor the hell out of the test launch, use it to 'real-world' test our ABM system to the point of launch, and try to recover the nose cone of the missile from whereever it lands in the ocean (if the N. Koreans are smart, they'll target it for the deepest part of the Marianas trench). And we'll use the launch to jawbone our 'partners' in the Group of 6 to add to the pressure on N. Korea. But no more.
IMHO as always.
Many posters, I among them, have posited about the less than rational state of the body politic of North Korea, beginning with the Dear Leader; the article seems to indicate that they would react to an direct attack (for it could be interperted as nothing but) on what they may consider a matter of their national security in a sane, rational matter. That seems to me to be a risky proposition.
The article also seems to discount or minimize the reaction of the other 6-party nations to such an attack, particulary S. Korea. A nation that stands to lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives in the first hours of a war (if the N. Koreans direct their artillery on Seoul without warning), and which has a history of protests over the US role in S. Korea may not act quite as calmly as the pundits say. And anyone predicting the Chinese reaction to a surprise US attack a couple of hundred miles from their borders probably should still be working for the Government--as soothsayer. Accurately reading other countries reactions to our gambits is something most administrations, and this one in particular, have not done exceptionally well.
Last, they (the article writers) are sure that we would defeat any attack by N. Korea handily and within a few weeks/months; and I tend to agree with this, BTW--US and S. Korean military technology is that much better. The operational question is if the N. Korean Military leaders--very insular, brought up on propaganda on the superiority of N. Korea, with little practical knowledge of what the state of the art tools can do--might think they can win--and advise the Politbureau that way-after all, Generals have been known to tell politicians what they want to hear before...
Lastly, you are rolling the bones on one shot (albeit you might target more than one cruise missile) that could fail for a variety of reasons (systems failure, jamming, shot down by N. Korean Air Defense-you'll know they'll be on alert) and thus embarrass us with no positive result, something I don't think Bush would risk politically at this time with low ratings and the 2006 elections. Politics and war are much the same thing, as has been stated before (I cannot recall if it was Bismarck or Clauzwitz).
What I think will happen is that we will monitor the hell out of the test launch, use it to 'real-world' test our ABM system to the point of launch, and try to recover the nose cone of the missile from whereever it lands in the ocean (if the N. Koreans are smart, they'll target it for the deepest part of the Marianas trench). And we'll use the launch to jawbone our 'partners' in the Group of 6 to add to the pressure on N. Korea. But no more.
IMHO as always.
As a student of the U.S. Civil War, you are certainly familiar with Grant's reaction to all the dire predictions about what General Lee was going to do to the Union army: "Next you'll be telling me Lee did a backflip and put his whole army in our rear overnight. Maybe you should be thinking about what we're going to do to Lee, instead."
Well, that's a shame, isn't it? This missile is for the purpose of hitting the U.S., not South Korea. Sorry if our national self-interest and yours don't coincide. Maybe you want to find some other ally willing to park his army on your northern border so his troops can be the first to die in case of an invasion.
Not a surprise attack. Carter and Perry say we should make our intentions known ahead of time.
Well, FWIW, these gentlemen are from the last administration, not this one.
...what, they might launch an attack?
You'd be crazy not to. Zarqawi was killed with two 500-pound bombs, not one 1000-pounder.
Diplomacy is warfare by other means. Bismarck, I'm almost certain.
Let's be fair. The only system that we know exists is kinetic kill. I have no idea what the backroom boys at DARPA have dreamed up, and if I did, I wouldn't be telling the Randi forum about it.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you suggesting that the North Korean Navy can't move a radar-equipped missile boat downrange to track the final flight path? Or, or that matter, install a radar set on a rented cargo boat?
No it is Clausewitz: "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means."
Well, at least I know what Edmund Burke didn't say...
