North Korea: why bother with a test?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/...a_missile_dc_2

So we've activated our missile defense system. I'm just hearing about this as I'm going to work.

What do you guys think about this? And just how effective is this system?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I guess we won't know how effective it is until it needs to be used.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by YeOldeButchere

There are, as a matter of fact, modifications which can add range or payload capacity to a rocket. It's called adding more stages to your rocket. If you can drop more dead weight more often, then you stop wasting your thrust accelerating what is essentially a useless metal hulk. It's not entirely difficult to prove with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. As I've said in my original post, the Taep'o-dong 2 exists in 2 or 3 stage configuration. The first stage remains the same for the Taep'o-dong 2, but this can make a significant difference.

I've already mentioned that the estimates for the missile's capabilities vary from source to source, and I'm not even sure the North Koreans themselves really know exactly what range they can get with the thing.

So far neither of us provided any actual quantitative evidence for our respective opinions, so I'll go ahead and do so, roughly. Take the W-50 thermonuclear warhead, once used on Pershings and for which manufacturing began in 1963. The W-50 weighted 410 pounds, less than a quarter of a metric tonne. To give ourselves a margin of safety, let's triple this number. We get less than 700kg. 700kg is at the lower boundary of the payload weight estimates I've seen for the Taep'o-dong 2 in its 3 stages version. When you consider that the same estimates place the missile's range around 6000km and sometime higher, can you still say that a Taep'o-dong 2 with a nuclear warhead won't be able to get off the ground with the same certainty?

HOLY HELL YeOlde... you really take this stuff seriously, did you study this stuff, or is it just internet-research-based knowledge?

Originally Posted by night phoenix

Let's not forget one simple fact - When it comes to simple army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force the United States shits on the rest of the world.

Spoken like a true arrogant american. If you think equipment and funding makes an army you'd better go review your sources, last i checked an army with DVDs in tanks feels way less like an army than ones where you're forced to kill live animals with your teeth to survive, "oh hell i forgot my Mp3 player in the humvy, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE HERE!!".

No disrespect meant towards the US military, but ponder what i said while you exhaust your "we're the best military in the world" propaganda. This ain't a Muscle flexing competition, one thing's for sure though, you're one proud american. Congrats.
heh.
Love the bit about LeHah and the Hydrogen bomb . Generic internet jerk, eh?

Why use "jerk"? Can't we be civil?


To add any use to this post, and because i really think so, don't alot of you agree that no country is foolish enough to commit suicide by provoking the american war machine? I say it's impossible North Korea will do anything, except look real cool in WoW and DOTA tournaments. And have Nukes they'll never use.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

And yet nothing you says discounts the fact that in a direct conflict, the United States military can defeat any other military in the world. That, is an irrefutable fact, my friend. It has nothing to do with arrogance.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Spoken like a true arrogant american. If you think equipment and funding makes an army you'd better go review your sources, last i checked an army with DVDs in tanks feels way less like an army than ones where you're forced to kill live animals with your teeth to survive, "oh hell i forgot my Mp3 player in the humvy, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE HERE!!".

No disrespect meant towards the US military, but ponder what i said while you exhaust your "we're the best military in the world" propaganda. This ain't a Muscle flexing competition, one thing's for sure though, you're one proud american. Congrats.

I partly agree with what you said, equipment and funding does not make an army because the chief incalculable in war is the human dimension. However, as the means to wage war improves through technological development, so must the tactical and operational means to adapt to the improved capabilities. If the OPFOR is far behind us in terms of equipment and funding, he will inevitably be overcome by violent and rapid changes in which he cannot cope.

Oh, and your Mp3 example was just sheer stupidity.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Dude the Mp3 example was in no way meant to sound clever, your noting that is incredibly useless. If you didn't get it from its intentional stupidity then you're probably too stupid to cater to with such examples. Don't turn this into a little flame war. I take that back, you're not stupid, ok..?

I agree i didn't provide anything to counter the argument that the states is the most fearsome force on earth today, partly because i believe it IS.
BUT the way it was phrased was really arrogant, and apparently semper understood the main part of my argument, the human factor.

You're probably right though, phoenix, i'll admit that. Just the phrase is a bit provocative.

FELIPE NO

So your arguement is that Night Phoenix is too proud of the US Military?

Alright, yeah buddy, argue for no reason at all.

Most amazing jew boots

I'm tempted to tell you to shut the fuck up, but that would probably be trolling, besides, what use is your post if you're contrdicting it by stating a useless opinion?

I'd suggest you get back on topic and not state your useless opinion of my useless debate, i made my 'useless' point clear, this goes no further..At least by me..

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by CryHavoc

I'd suggest you get back on topic and not state your useless opinion of my useless debate

I'd suggest you not try to member moderate.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

I'd suggest you not try to member moderate.

Excuse my treading on your ground.. It wasn't intentional..

All i was trying to do was to stop it from going in the flaming back and forth direction, in which case i'd probably be a reason for it, i felt obliged to say something since i was almost gonna start that.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by IdleChill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/...a_missile_dc_2

So we've activated our missile defense system. I'm just hearing about this as I'm going to work.

What do you guys think about this? And just how effective is this system?

Nearly every test of this has failed, only a handful have passed, although, if I am remembering correctly, most of the problems were known to be correctable errors. There hasn't been a lot of news about it lately, I don't think there have been many tests recently (a good portion of the system is made here in Tucson).

Based on what I've heard, we shouldn't rely on this system quite yet.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

This is bullshit. Why does everything have to be aimed at the West Coast? I'm moving to Ohio. No one gives to shits about Ohio. Maybe not even one shit.

Either way, I don't believe that our missile defense system will be anything short of a failure. Like previously stated in this thread; they have done tests and it failed numerous amounts of times. The way I figure it as well, if there's technology to counter missile attacks, wouldn't there be technology to counter the system that counters the missile attacks?

Most amazing jew boots

If I can recall correctly - the NMD system has roughly a 50/50 success ratio based on the tests. Everytime there is a failure, the next text is a success because they fix the problems that caused the previous test to fail.

I consider the whole system to be a testbed for technology that will only truly be effective 20 years from now.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

That's what I mean, in 20 years from now, wouldn't they have also made a little chip that allows missiles to creep through the missile defense system, undetected?

PS: Jesus Christ I need a new sig and ava, this is ridiculous. I can't even take MYSELF seriously.

FELIPE NO

Well, the North Koreans are typically not outpacing anyone in technology, so when you say "wouldn't they have", if by they you mean the US, then US. And the US can test its own technology against its own defense.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Well, I meant anyone that decided to test the system, besides the US, of course.

Though you raised a good point. They're (North Korea) is not exactly the head of the game right now. How's the south doing? =p

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

I consider the whole system to be a testbed for technology that will only truly be effective 20 years from now.

You don't inspire much confidence. The French were ready to effectively fight World War I on the eve of World War II. That worked out great for them.

Originally Posted by Prosthetic

That's what I mean, in 20 years from now, wouldn't they have also made a little chip that allows missiles to creep through the missile defense system, undetected?

The Russians probably already have. They didn't have that much of a fit when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. To the contrary of what the media thought at the time, there was only a mild protest.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well, it is hard to hit a bullet with a bullet.

Barring rapid development of directed energy weaponry and the ability to deploy it effectively on multiple platforms, you'll never be able to defeat a full scale ballistic missile attack.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well, we are working on something called a smart bullet that is meant to save lives. There's a computer that basically puts up a dome of safety around something that needs to be protected. When the computer detects munitions, it fires a bullet that explodes near the incoming round and veers it off course. I most likely saw this on the History or Military channel, but it is definitely interesting technology we should continue to develop. I'm pretty sure we can do the same with missiles, just bigger ordinance to knock it out.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

In other news, you got two former Clinton Administration officials saying we should launch a crippling strike against the NK missle:

Quote:

If Necessary, Strike and Destroy
North Korea Cannot Be Allowed to Test This Missile

By Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry
Thursday, June 22, 2006; A29

North Korean technicians are reportedly in the final stages of fueling a long-range ballistic missile that some experts estimate can deliver a deadly payload to the United States. The last time North Korea tested such a missile, in 1998, it sent a shock wave around the world, but especially to the United States and Japan, both of which North Korea regards as archenemies. They recognized immediately that a missile of this type makes no sense as a weapon unless it is intended for delivery of a nuclear warhead.

A year later North Korea agreed to a moratorium on further launches, which it upheld -- until now. But there is a critical difference between now and 1998. Today North Korea openly boasts of its nuclear deterrent, has obtained six to eight bombs' worth of plutonium since 2003 and is plunging ahead to make more in its Yongbyon reactor. The six-party talks aimed at containing North Korea's weapons of mass destruction have collapsed.

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

The U.S. military has announced that it has placed some of the new missile defense interceptors deployed in Alaska and California on alert. In theory, the antiballistic missile system might succeed in smashing into the Taepodong payload as it hurtled through space after the missile booster burned out. But waiting until North Korea's ICBM is launched to interdict it is risky. First, by the time the payload was intercepted, North Korean engineers would already have obtained much of the precious flight test data they are seeking, which they could use to make a whole arsenal of missiles, hiding and protecting them from more U.S. strikes in the maze of tunnels they have dug throughout their mountainous country. Second, the U.S. defensive interceptor could reach the target only if it was flying on a test trajectory that took it into the range of the U.S. defense. Third, the U.S. system is unproven against North Korean missiles and has had an uneven record in its flight tests. A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever deterrent value our missile defense may have.

We should not conceal our determination to strike the Taepodong if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out and take it back to the warehouse. When they learn of it, our South Korean allies will surely not support this ultimatum -- indeed they will vigorously oppose it. The United States should accordingly make clear to the North that the South will play no role in the attack, which can be carried out entirely with U.S. forces and without use of South Korean territory. South Korea has worked hard to counter North Korea's 50-year menacing of its own country, through both military defense and negotiations, and the United States has stood with the South throughout. South Koreans should understand that U.S. territory is now also being threatened, and we must respond. Japan is likely to welcome the action but will also not lend open support or assistance. China and Russia will be shocked that North Korea's recklessness and the failure of the six-party talks have brought things to such a pass, but they will not defend North Korea.

In addition to warning our allies and partners of our determination to take out the Taepodong before it can be launched, we should warn the North Koreans. There is nothing they could do with such warning to defend the bulky, vulnerable missile on its launch pad, but they could evacuate personnel who might otherwise be harmed. The United States should emphasize that the strike, if mounted, would not be an attack on the entire country, or even its military, but only on the missile that North Korea pledged not to launch -- one designed to carry nuclear weapons. We should sharply warn North Korea against further escalation.

North Korea could respond to U.S. resolve by taking the drastic step of threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on that threat. Why attack South Korea, which has been working to improve North-South relations (sometimes at odds with the United States) and which was openly opposing the U.S. action? An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to enhance deterrence by introducing U.S. air and naval forces into the region at the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong. If North Korea opted for such a suicidal course, these extra forces would make its defeat swifter and less costly in lives -- American, South Korean and North Korean.

This is a hard measure for President Bush to take. It undoubtedly carries risk. But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater. Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature. A successful Taepodong launch, unopposed by the United States, its intended victim, would only embolden North Korea even further. The result would be more nuclear warheads atop more and more missiles.

Ashton B. Carter was assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and William J. Perry was secretary of defense. The writers, who conducted the North Korea policy review while in government, are now professors at Harvard and Stanford, respectively.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Good idea or bad idea?

I was speaking idiomatically.

I say good idea. The course of war is shaped by decisions and non-decisions. If anything, we should go for a pre-emptive strike of that missile because any decision at this point is better than no decision. As the article said, a successful launch of the missile would only stiffen North Korea's resolve to develop bigger, badder missiles that can truly wreak some damage on the world. Stop it now before it escalates.

Most amazing jew boots

I actually kind of agree with that article. At this point, destroying the missile on the launch pad might very well be the best course of action. The main goal here for North Korea is to get a weapon useful for blackmail (or "negociations", if you like euphemisms). Right now that one missile doesn't really pose a threat because, one, it's untested, and two, there doesn't seem to be too many ready, which makes sense as you usually do not start full scale production until you've done some real testing. It'll either won't make it to its intended target, or have a chance of being intercepted too high to risk using it for real. The former can be solved with testing, the latter by having more than one missile ready. So North Korea needs to complete that test, then make modifications and repeat until they get something that works. Then it's all a matter of making more of those missiles.

Another consequence this would have is that a number of other states would likely get access to this technology. North Korea is known to sell ballistic missiles to other nations. But the real problem is that they also sell ballistic missile technology to other countries, meaning that if they test a long range missile, perfect it, and THEN get wiped off the map, or even merely lose their test and production facilities, other states will be able to build similar weapons. If this were to happen, then its likely those countries would put whatever missiles they produced out of the reach, or at least hidden, from cruise missiles or airstrikes. Not to mention it likely wouldn't be easy to strike at all the sites that would pretty much come up at the same time. Speaking of which...

It's likely no coincidence that this new missile test from North Korea pretty much happened to coincide with the current trouble over Iran's nuclear program. Iran is easily one of North Korea's best customer when it comes to ballistic missiles. It's even suspected that both countries cooperate on ballistic missile development. In fact, Iran's Shahab-5 is widely believed to be close to a direct copy of North Korea's Taep'o-dong 2, with good reasons if you consider the estimated specifications and the use of the exact same fuel and oxidizer, in both cases a mix of gasoline and kerosene and a mix of nitrogen tetroxide and nitric acid, respectively. Iran and North Korea might not have actually planned this together, but North Korea is likely doing this since it knows it won't get a good opportunity to test its missile very often. Iran might not currently be drawing enough attention away from North Korea for Kim's taste, but North Korea certainly is drawing attention away from Iran, so even if that missile explodes on the launch pad, it'll likely have done some good for Iran-North Korea.

FELIPE NO

And doing so, wouldn't that start a full on war? I'm assuming it wouldn't be much of a land war, either, given what we're dealing with to begin with.

I'm not looking forward to yet another war. We're already at war in almost three countries as it is. A full-scale war in another one... I don't think the US would be able to handle that without withdrawing troops from Iraq.

But then again, if they were to attack the US homeland, I don't believe that we'd have much trouble trying to recruit soldiers. I, for one, would definitely take that opportunity to enlist with the Marines. Hopefully the mentality of the rest of the nation is along the same lines.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

WOOHOO! WE'RE IN THE NEWS!

The test today was a success, I know they've had 9 previous tests for this system. Some of them did, in fact, fail. But, with each failure comes new knowledge. The system is online now, and after what I saw today I'd say that it's a pretty solid counter-measure. I mean, nothing is perfect, but this is a lot better than not having anything.

Man, we've been out for almost a month now, waiting to do this shit. Tracking everything from cargo ships to civilian aircraft, we had a north korean ship trying to tail us for a few days. You have no idea how this feels as an accomplishment, considering that it means I can go home, now.

On one hand, I feel like I'm finally part of something big, and that's why I joined the Navy, but at the sametime, I can't help but think how all of this is really so unnecessary and how we (meaning mankind) could be speding our resources in a more productive manner. All of the E-5 and below on this ship could've gotten full-ride scholarships to almost any university they wanted, for the amount of money that the one SM-3 costs. It was all gone in a matter of seconds.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You're on the Shiloh?

Do you know, Duo, does the Navy use the interceptors made by Raytheon, or is that the, uh, Army maybe?

There's nowhere I can't reach.