Reports are that our limited anti-missile system could be brought to bear against a theoretical Teapodong 2 test launch.

I'm thinking sweet if we hit it, we look incompetentant if we can't.

What do you think if we shoot it down, what if we can't hit shit?

Keep in mind the new ABL Airborne Laser. The 747 fitted with the chemical laser to shoot down ICBM's in the launch stage.

6/25/2006 12:21:50 AM

Well, we should call it a "test", and we should work out a schedule with the NK crowd to make sure we are ready. This way we get to practice shooting down missiles and NK gets to practice launching them.

6/25/2006 12:46:55 AM

it would be fucking awesome if we hit it.

it be like poking a stick in the eye of every goddamn nation on the planet

"DO NOT FUCK WITH AMERICA BITCHES WE WILL SHOOT YOUR MISSILES DOWN"

6/25/2006 12:51:36 AM

I don't see how it can be that hard to shoot down a missile, with another missile. I almost want to say that all the negative media the missile defense shield gets is just a smoke screen to keep the enemy off track (like the stealth bomber was denied to exist, well into its existence).

6/25/2006 12:54:00 AM

Reagan was such an idiot to suggest that this sort of technology could be developed. If only we'd listened to the pacifists then at least North Korea would have a fair chance. On the other hand, they might hit Kalifornia, sooo....

6/25/2006 12:57:05 AM

on the other hand, kalifornia is entirely populated by everyone who is campaigning for North Korea's ability to successfully launch a nuclear missile without fear of consequence


so it all works itself out in the end

[Edited on June 25, 2006 at 1:00 AM. Reason : s]

6/25/2006 1:00:22 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how it can be that hard to shoot down a missile, with another missile."

Are you fucking joking?

6/25/2006 11:07:54 AM

Well, if the missile is sub-sonic then I would suspect it should be within our capabilities.

That said, there is no reason to suspect the NK missile will be sub-sonic...

6/25/2006 11:48:31 AM

haha, a subsonic ICBM?

6/25/2006 11:49:38 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how it can be that hard to shoot down a missile, with another missile. "

Well, you have two relatively small objects approaching each other at 10's of thousands of feet per second. Having them actually hit each other is a lot closer to impossible than it is to possible. Even having one missile explode in the general vicinity of another is tricky, since the missile you're trying to shoot down may actually be travelling faster than the concussion generated by the explosion.

6/25/2006 12:00:58 PM

couldnt you hit it from behind as if it were a fighter.

6/25/2006 12:16:41 PM

"I could hit it."

6/25/2006 12:24:49 PM

even if the speed wasn't an issue, how exactly would you get the anti-missile missile BEHIND the target missile?


they do have missiles that can hit other missiles...the Patriot missile from Gulf War '91 is one example...but it wouldn't protect us from someone nuking us.

6/25/2006 12:25:10 PM

Btw - my post was a bit of sarcastic humor. That pic is of the guy who ran the mission at JPL that smashed an object the size of a washing machine into a comet.

6/25/2006 12:31:51 PM

i was assuming the anti missil would be alot faster than the missil and launched from the pac after the missil passes over the ship.


but dont the missil move in a strait line at a constant speed? if so vpython could find a way to hit that dead on no problem.

6/25/2006 12:34:28 PM

Scud missles travel significantly slower than ICBMs, and, even then, the Patriot failed several times. If I remember right, the misses were due to math precision errors in the software.

^ ICBM's don't travel at a constant speed. Remember those physics problems "If you launch an object at such-and-such an angle and such-and-such speed, find the speed, hieght, and acceleration at time x"? That's what ICBM's do.

[Edited on June 25, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : add]

6/25/2006 12:39:20 PM

We are going to do absolutely nothing about N. Korea. Watch

6/25/2006 12:51:33 PM

yippe, something I know about. FYI, a lot of info is available at http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/factsheet.html

Quote :

"I'm thinking sweet if we hit it, we look incompetentant if we can't."

That is exactly true. This is why I doubt any military commander would volunteer their system for the job. They would face severe scrutiny and funding might be threatened if they failed.

Quote :

"What do you think if we shoot it down, what if we can't hit shit?"

The system that everyone is talking about is the Army's ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD). It has not had a good success rate on tests: http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/Testing_013006.html. The link says 39% success rate.

Quote :

"Keep in mind the new ABL Airborne Laser. The 747 fitted with the chemical laser to shoot down ICBM's in the launch stage."

The missile defense shield will actually be a combination of many different systems from the different services. The ABL is the farthest off. The system that has shown the best success rate is the sea-based system (successful test last thursday: http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/23/news/story09.html). The army systems blow and are usually the source of the bad press on the missile defense system.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Well, if the missile is sub-sonic then I would suspect it should be within our capabilities. A Tanzarian: Scud missles travel significantly slower than ICBMs"

The velocity of a missile is purely a function of how far it travels. Taepodong is supposed to be a long range missile. You can easily figure out the max speed from the distance it will travel. For an LRBM, you can easily see speeds of 10,000 MPH. Long story short, the speeds at which ballistic missiles travel is a principal reason why hitting them down is a hard task. This is why poor countries like NK want to get them.

Quote :

"they do have missiles that can hit other missiles...the Patriot missile from Gulf War '91 is one example"

We do indeed have missiles that can hit other missiles, but the Patriot from Gulf War 1 isnt one of them. I don't believe that we ever intentionally shot down a scud in GW1. There was a whole lot of misinformation about this at the time (Let that be a lesson about how pervasive misinformation is in a time of war, folks). Patriot at that time was only designed for cruise missiles, and they gerry-rigged it to do ballistic missile defense. We got the expected results (crappy).

The patriot has been upgraded a lot, though, and can actually hit a ballistic missile (there's a cool video of this on the MDA site: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/videos/pac3dt6.mov). Patriot is only a terminal phase interceptor, so it is a last line of defense. I wouldn't feel happy about using a patriot against a ballistic missile threat.

Quote :

"Reagan was such an idiot to suggest that this sort of technology could be developed. If only we'd listened to the pacifists then at least North Korea would have a fair chance. On the other hand, they might hit Kalifornia, sooo.... "

The missile defense system has always been under development, even in the Clinton years. The name has changed many times, but all the services want it, and all of them have found ways to fund it. Don't mistake the publicity campaign for what actually goes on.

Quote :

"it would be fucking awesome if we hit it. it be like poking a stick in the eye of every goddamn nation on the planet "DO NOT FUCK WITH AMERICA BITCHES WE WILL SHOOT YOUR MISSILES DOWN""

I recently heard a 4-star general who is a decision maker on this issue share his opinion. He said that we should not shoot down the missile (assuming it didn't head for us). He said that our goal in dealing with NK is to modify their behavior so that they do some of the things that we want them to do. Shooting down their test doesn't achieve anything in this regard. If anything, it gives them an incentive to accelerate their missile dev.

Also, unlike the 1998 test, they have told us well in advance about this test. They have told us the missile site, and they have done everything on an above-ground launch pad. Furthermore, they have said that they plan to shut down that launch location after this launch. Thus, I doubt they would be surprised if we destroyed the missile on the pad or tried to do it in the air. It's a strong possibility that they are even planning on that.

The "rah rah" benefit of successfully shooting down the test is probably one of the smallest, and it comes at a high risk and cost. However, I think Bush has already partially declared his response on this -- if it's heading to the US, we will try to shoot it down. Whether it is heading here is something you can easily know based on the velocity of the missile.

What I think will/should happen: NK fires off the test, it lands harmlessly in the pacific or blows up in flight. We do nothing. Their brinksmanship strategy fails to get a rise out of us.

[Edited on June 25, 2006 at 2:38 PM. Reason : v yep, thats a strong possibility. ]

6/25/2006 2:18:20 PM

n. korea probably wants us to blow it up so that kim can use it as more propaganda ammunition

6/25/2006 2:24:01 PM

still laughing at:

Quote :

"if the missile is sub-sonic"

6/25/2006 3:02:59 PM

^^winner

Quote :

"Reagan was such an idiot to suggest that this sort of technology could be developed."

and when exactly did they finally figure sdi out? did i miss something?

6/25/2006 3:15:16 PM

we should use our space laser to vaporize kim jong il's house

6/26/2006 12:52:47 AM

^^ you don't think that the defense spending of Reagan had something to do with the current technology in play? Even Reagan himself said that the lasers would be an eventuality not an immediate thing, seems like we are headed in that direction nowadays. And sure, subsequent presidents and congresses had some role in it, but as I understand it Reagan was instrumental in getting the ball rolling.

6/26/2006 1:00:02 AM

The SM-2 (Standard Missile) Block IV aboard SOME of the Aegis Arleigh-Burk Destroyers and the Ticonderoga class cruiser MAY be able to shoot down and incoming ICBM warhead., but like the Patriot, that wasn't their designed mission.

Fusing, not guidance is the main problem. Air intercept missles are detonated by a proxomity fuse. They are designed to explode close the the incoming warhead.

However. if you have an ICBM coming if the interceptoR pas w/i 1 meter of it the nuclear missile will outrun us. HIROSHIMA. NORTH KOREA, i RAN....bad bad bad bad


Thi is the message that I am sending to all my rafting buddies online

6/26/2006 1:56:27 AM

^
1. Patriot is now designed to do ballistic missile intercepts.
2. There is no fusing involved in ballistic intercepts -- all the missile-based BMD systems are kinetic kills, meaning that they collide with the threat directly. Furthermore, the ones that are midcourse intercepts happen in space, where there is no air.
3. No one will shoot a nuke at anyone. MAD still applies.

6/26/2006 2:17:48 AM

Quote :

"moron:I don't see how it can be that hard to shoot down a missile, with another missile. LoneSnark: Well, if the missile is sub-sonic then I would suspect it should be within our capabilities. hcnguyen: couldnt you hit it from behind as if it were a fighter. A Tanzarian: Remember those physics problems "If you launch an object at such-and-such an angle and such-and-such speed, find the speed, hieght, and acceleration at time x"? That's what ICBM's do. evilbob: The velocity of a missile is purely a function of how far it travels. Taepodong is supposed to be a long range missile. You can easily figure out the max speed from the distance it will travel "

pls to allowing me to demonstrate my MAT 141 Rocket Science Skillz.

I will to be analyzing the capabilities of our missile defense system.

thanking you in advance for this opportunity.





jesus.

6/26/2006 2:41:31 AM

^just go ahead and say that you don't know anything about the topic. No need to be passive aggressive about it.

6/26/2006 2:53:46 AM

Just send in Sam Fisher. He could re-program the rocket to head toward Pyongyang, make it look like an accident, and be in and out without a trace.

6/26/2006 7:26:49 AM

^ Now that would be a sticky wicket. I wonder what Beijing would do in response, now that Chinese Nationalism has made a resurgence?

I suspect the ultimate response would be nothing, probably just a few bombing raids to stop NKs missile development program.

Then again, there probably isn't much of an explosive on board, it might just proclaim it to be an accident and squash all news about the incident. The people cannot be upset about what they don't know.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/26/2006 8:56:18 AM

Quote :

"you don't think that the defense spending of Reagan had something to do with the current technology in play? Even Reagan himself said that the lasers would be an eventuality not an immediate thing, seems like we are headed in that direction nowadays. And sure, subsequent presidents and congresses had some role in it, but as I understand it Reagan was instrumental in getting the ball rolling. "

he spent them into oblivion, really an ingenious plan.

too bad he screwed up so badly with all his "freedom fighters" and whatnot.

6/26/2006 11:44:48 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how it can be that hard to shoot down a missile, with another missile."

6/26/2006 12:03:56 PM

If it looks like that missile is heading our way, we'll probably try and drop it from the sky (and see if those billions of dollars have actually produced something).

I seriously doubt we'll actually do what William Perry and Walter Mondale are calling for and hit the launch pad with air strikes.

I agree with evilbob's opinion:

Quote :

"What I think will/should happen: NK fires off the test, it lands harmlessly in the pacific or blows up in flight. We do nothing. Their brinksmanship strategy fails to get a rise out of us."

6/26/2006 1:43:06 PM

^^yeah but if we shoot down one of their missiles...we essentially just declared war

6/26/2006 1:43:58 PM

^How so?

They should expect us to shoot down their missiles, if they are heading to our vicinity. There's nothing war-declaring about that.

6/26/2006 2:16:16 PM

theres nothing war-declaring about that?

we'd basically be saying "oh, you're shooting a missle at us? ok, we're gonna blast it out of the sky"

sounds pretty war-declaring to me

6/26/2006 2:38:26 PM

I thought the point of shooting their missile out of the sky would be something akin to:

"Don't even think about starting a war, we just effortlessly blew up your latest and greatest tech puddle skipper."

6/26/2006 2:54:01 PM

Quote :

"yeah but if we shoot down one of their missiles...we essentially just declared war"

Really does depend on where that missile is heading. If it looks like it's going to enter American territory, we have every right to blow that thing out of the sky (and while we can't necessarily guarantee that we can shoot it down, predicting where it will land once launched isn't so difficult). Even if it crosses over Japanese airspace, we probably can justify taking it out. If it looks like it's going into international waters, well, I again echo evilbob. Just let the sucker splash down... maybe send some ships over there to pick up the pieces for study.

6/26/2006 3:39:50 PM

wtf

ok so THEY shoot a missle at us

(at this point i'd think that was some kind of declaration of war)

and WE shoot it down

and WE are the ones declaring war?

sounds a little messed up to me

6/26/2006 4:20:02 PM

We could just let it hit us. And then blow their entire country to pieces.

And from then on send all our diplomats to international conferences made up in war paint, splattered with blood and strapped with Bowie knives.

"AHA, you fuckers thought we were just arrogant. Oh, no, we crazy, bitches. CRAZZZZZZAAAAAY!!!"

6/26/2006 4:31:27 PM

6/26/2006 4:33:21 PM

Quote :

"ok so THEY shoot a missle at us (at this point i'd think that was some kind of declaration of war) and WE shoot it down and WE are the ones declaring war?"

alright well maybe if we shot down their missile we wouldnt be "declaring war" since they started it

but we would essentially be saying "we realize that now we are at war"

6/26/2006 4:39:59 PM

Quote :

"wtf ok so THEY shoot a missle at us (at this point i'd think that was some kind of declaration of war) and WE shoot it down and WE are the ones declaring war? sounds a little messed up to me"

I doubt they would actually shoot a missile at us. I was talking about the case where they are testing a missile, and it's heading or even looks like its heading anywhere near us, then we have the right to shoot it down, without really pissing them off. Of course, they would say that they weren't threatening us, just testing a missile, so no one is declaring war on either side, just doing some "testing."

6/26/2006 5:04:53 PM

Whats insulting about spelling California with a K?

6/26/2006 5:07:59 PM

Quote :

"on the other hand, kalifornia is entirely populated by everyone who is campaigning for North Korea's ability to successfully launch a nuclear missile without fear of consequence so it all works itself out in the end"

Dude, sarcasm only works if they know you're being sarcastic.

6/26/2006 8:05:11 PM

I think we should definately have some Aegis ships along the west coast, even in port, yeah it's a long shot that they could hit it but better than nothing. Plus they can provide valuable medium and terminal-phase tracking information. I say we have carrier battle groups w/i striking distance of NK, and if there was an attempt, which I agree is extremely unlikely "MAD still applies," and they aren't MAD-capable now, the counter-strike should ne a TLAM-N or a low-yeild B-2 nuking of their nuke reactor, all of them if there is more than one. To prove that we can fly right over their country and nuke them, not to mention the capabilities of the Trident MIRVS and the Minutemen III's.

How about this... The possibility that SK or Japan gets nervous and strikes first?

6/26/2006 11:48:45 PM

Take back the USS Pueblo!



Another reminder of how North Korea defies the USA and gets away with it.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 12:09 AM. Reason : :]

6/27/2006 12:08:31 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/north.korea.ap/index.html?section=cnn_world

Is this admin gonna mess around and really get us fucked up?

7/3/2006 2:32:38 PM

just heard that on the news...frankly, i wonder if we'll even give a response (he doesnt deserve it, and i doubt the public fears much right now, this doesnt sound like something new from him). these situatuations are so very difficult to solve...

7/3/2006 2:35:04 PM

Look up: "The boy who cried wolf"

7/3/2006 2:47:42 PM

non sequitor

at least, not without telling us how the fuck you are using that comment. moron.

7/3/2006 3:37:17 PM