US Warship Knocks Down Missile
June 23, 2006 6:49 AM   Subscribe

A test missile fired from Hawaii was knocked down by a ship-based interceptor, using a Japanese ship for radar tracking. Officials say it's been planned for months, just happens to be coincidence that the test takes place in the Pacific with Japan's assistance, while North Korea threatens to test a new long-range missile, and some call for a strike against the missile...
posted by pupdog (78 comments total)
 
That would rock.
posted by IronLizard at 6:59 AM on June 23, 2006


That's a no-win situation. If we succeed and hit the missile, it sends NK into paroxysms of rage... they are CRAZY mofos and god only knows what they'd do. If we fail and MISS.... that gives us a big black eye.

Just a bad idea.
posted by Malor at 7:00 AM on June 23, 2006


I think it's a great idea. We have to find out if the shit works sooner or later. I don't think it would be any more provocative than NK firing the missile in the first place.
posted by empath at 7:06 AM on June 23, 2006


nk is going to say the missle is to launch a satellite, not a bomb or bomb test. so if we knock it down, they will have a right to be pissed. but i'm guessing the thing won't work very well, and it'll end up falling on japan.
posted by lester at 7:19 AM on June 23, 2006


I had a laugh at the phot, showing South orean youth rallyhin g against the North possible missle launch. This is the same group has for some time been pushing for re-unification with the North.
posted by Postroad at 7:22 AM on June 23, 2006


Bullshit.

I.e., major media outlets have had a hard-on for missile-to-missile technology ever since Gulf War I and the marvelous Patriot missile defense system. The problem? It didn't fucking work. And the technology hasn't improved much since then.

Makes for good copy though. Kind of a Star Wars for the asymmetrical warfare age.
posted by bardic at 7:25 AM on June 23, 2006


Well Lester, seeing as the North Koreans have advertised this *missile* as capable of hitting the continental United States, I'd say that's a pretty blunt threat and no amount of "but we were going to launch a satellite!" rhetoric will play anywhere but within the Stalinist confines of North Korea.

Having said that, I think it would be fantastic to test the missile defense system at this time. I agree - it's time to test the damned thing to see if it works or not and if it does, great - it might make the North Koreans think twice about their plans for...whatever. If it fails, I see that as just as good - we realize it doesn't work and need to go back to the drawing board.

I see absolutely no shame in that, and in fact, I think it would be ballsy of the US to try it. Even if we fail, we're open enough to admit it, fix it and try again. We did it with the space program in the late 1950s and 1960s (and today, even) and I see no reason not to try it here.
posted by tgrundke at 7:25 AM on June 23, 2006


This is the same group has for some time been pushing for re-unification with the North.

Nothing contradictory there. They love their Korean brethren and hate that shitbag who's been starving them out of existence.
posted by mkultra at 7:26 AM on June 23, 2006


Bardic -

While I agree that the technology needs refinement, comparing 1991 Patriot missile technology to what is being worked on today is like saying to Chuck Yeager, "if the Wright brothers couldn't break the sound barrier - there's little chance you will."

15 years is a looooong time. The technology needs work, but to dismiss it as a total failure isn't entirely fair, either.
posted by tgrundke at 7:27 AM on June 23, 2006


Even if we fail, we're open enough to admit it, fix it and try again.

You had me up until here. Our track record on this is... not so good lately.
posted by mkultra at 7:28 AM on June 23, 2006


Whee! In November 1984, I was sitting at the console when the SPY 1/D radar tracked its first target.

I think it's a great idea. We have to find out if the shit works sooner or later. I don't think it would be any more provocative than NK firing the missile in the first place.

Rumsfeld, et al. don't want to shoot it down after its been fired, they want to destroy it on the ground before its fired.

Shooting Kim Jong Il's missile down mid-flight would certainly be far less provocative than bombing the North Korean launch site, but the technology to do this reliably does not yet exist.

It's a tough call.
posted by three blind mice at 7:29 AM on June 23, 2006


seeing as the North Koreans have advertised this *missile* as capable of hitting the continental United States, I'd say that's a pretty blunt threat

But what if that's a standard unit of distance, much as in the UK we use 'an area the size of Wales' as a standard to allow us to relate to effects of global disasters?
posted by biffa at 7:30 AM on June 23, 2006


Is it legal to shoot down another country's test missile?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:31 AM on June 23, 2006


George Carlin had a great joke (made during the 1960's I believe) about how to rattle the Russians without spending any money--just dump some wreckage in Siberia with US decals on it and say one of our spyplanes crash again, dammit. . . .

tgrundke, your point is taken, but it's my understanding that while the missile-to-missile stuff can work, right now under optimal conditions (firing a missile at a missile that we also fired, and hence know it's speed and trajectory), the success rate is still under 50%.

To knock down a missile fired from a foreign country without even knowing when, exactly it's going to be launched? Sorry, but that's unpossible.

Hasn't stopped the Bush administration before though. And while someone joked about missile parts landing in Japan, that's a distinct possibility. Not one I'd want to push.
posted by bardic at 7:35 AM on June 23, 2006


mkultra - that made me laugh.

In seriousness, though, when it comes to public tests/disasters involving technology (I am referencing the space program specifically), we have traditionally had a very open policy that when we fail publicly, we admit it, correct it and try again.

No reference intended to the current situation in Iraq...haha
posted by tgrundke at 7:35 AM on June 23, 2006


I'm sure Rummy is very concerned about legalities.
posted by notreally at 7:38 AM on June 23, 2006


The DPRK have also advertised the fact that Kim Il-Sung is not just still alive, but immortal. I think he supposedly invented water or something like that too. Nothing to get too worked up about. I mean, don't get me wrong--they're a horrible regime. But to try and go for a "Haha! Neener-neener! We shot down your test missile! Pwned!" moment is hardly what I 'd call real diplomacy.

Given that it wouldn't work, anyways, and could possibly make us look even dumber.

Do you think this threat impresses anyone outside of America? And only 35% of Americans at that?
posted by bardic at 7:39 AM on June 23, 2006


Bardic -

Again, you are correct that we're only at a 50% success rate, but we keep getting *better* at it. Look, I'm really not a fan of the missile defense shield either - but the fact that we keep trying, failing, trying again and improving everytime is alright in my book.

I go back to my space program analogies - had we stopped work on rocket technology in 1958 because every single one of our test rockets blew up on the pad or shortly thereafter, we never would have progressed. Considering the complexity of the hardware involved, losingonly three vehicles with crews since 1960 is a pretty good ratio to me.

If we've improved our kill rate to 50% that means we have another 40 to 50% to go. I'll bet we can do it.
posted by tgrundke at 7:39 AM on June 23, 2006


Bardic -

All politics is local. The administration could give a rat's ass what other countries think. I think it's safe to assume that the DOD and State Department already know that if we do shoot down a DPRK missile, it's surely not going to make the North Korean Nightly News....

And that 35% of Americans you mention? Yeah, they're the last 35% supporting this administration, so you damned well bet Bush and Company are going to try and keep them happy.

Again, not that I agree - but it's the political reality the administration faces at the moment.
posted by tgrundke at 7:41 AM on June 23, 2006


I'm sure Rummy is very concerned about legalities.

Really?
posted by pupdog at 7:43 AM on June 23, 2006


tgrundke, I don't personally have any problem with learning how to shoot down missiles.

That said.... we're highly unlikely to hit that missile if we shoot at it, and we'll get laughed at for trying. We don't need any more credibility losses just now. Your observation that BushCo doesn't care about foreign opinion is probably true, but it is a stupid attitude, and one that we will pay for.

Until we're close to 100% success rates with missiles we fire ourselves, shooting at enemy missiles, short of an emergency (ie, known hostile fire) is probably not a very good idea.
posted by Malor at 7:49 AM on June 23, 2006


I'm all for improvement. This occurs under test conditions with controls and all that good stuff.

Threatening to actually use the technology when even many of its most loyal adherents admit it isn't finished? And less than 50% effective in ideal circumstances? Against a hypothetical missile launch from an unknown location? At an unknown time? Using the same intelligence agency and sources that told us Saddam had nukes? Stupid.

To follow your analogy about the Space Race, I'm not suggesting America should have given up when the Soviets got Gagarin into space before us. I'm suggesting that the appropriate response was to further refine the technology, not launch some poor SOB up in a leaky rocket that we knew didn't work just to spite the Soviets (and to mix analogies, a leaky rocket that might land on some village in Hokkaido killing dozens, possibly).
posted by bardic at 7:50 AM on June 23, 2006


/or what Malor said.
posted by bardic at 7:51 AM on June 23, 2006


I go back to my space program analogies - had we stopped work on rocket technology in 1958 because every single one of our test rockets blew up on the pad or shortly thereafter, we never would have progressed. Considering the complexity of the hardware involved, losingonly three vehicles with crews since 1960 is a pretty good ratio to me.

The problem with this analogy is that the missiles we're trying to hit keep getting better as well. The moon just keeps drifting around. Anti-Virus software is, IMO, a better analogy.
posted by mkultra at 8:08 AM on June 23, 2006


tgrundke writes "seeing as the North Koreans have advertised this *missile* as capable of hitting the continental United States, I'd say that's a pretty blunt threat and no amount of 'but we were going to launch a satellite!' rhetoric will play anywhere but within the Stalinist confines of North Korea."

Boy the US is going to look pretty foolish if instead of invading Iraq they could have taken on the Axis of Evil state with ICM technology.
posted by Mitheral at 8:09 AM on June 23, 2006


If we managed to shoot down NK's missle, that would be pretty sweet. However, I think we're now 2-1 for shooting these things down.
posted by delmoi at 8:09 AM on June 23, 2006


50%? So, if we fire five or six of them from the carriers stationed in the Pacific we probably hit it and get some good test data on knocking down a foreign missile in real world conditions, all while slapping down a part of Jong's little nuclear ambitions. Sounds like a bargain.
posted by IronLizard at 8:14 AM on June 23, 2006


Until we're close to 100% success rates with missiles we fire ourselves, shooting at enemy missiles, short of an emergency (ie, known hostile fire) is probably not a very good idea.

how do we know the missile launch won't be hostile fire? ... the north koreans aren't really telling us what they're doing, they don't exactly have a stable or friendly reputation and we're only going to have a couple of minutes after the missile launch to figure out what the probable intentions are

we should try to shoot it down
posted by pyramid termite at 8:14 AM on June 23, 2006


I think we're now 2-1 for shooting these things down.

According to the article, we're 7 for 8, but I'm not sure if tht's just the recent testing, or ever. I know we've tried this a few times in the past...
posted by pupdog at 8:15 AM on June 23, 2006


To follow your analogy about the Space Race, I'm not suggesting America should have given up when the Soviets got Gagarin into space before us. I'm suggesting that the appropriate response was to further refine the technology, not launch some poor SOB up in a leaky rocket that we knew didn't work just to spite the Soviets (and to mix analogies, a leaky rocket that might land on some village in Hokkaido killing dozens, possibly).

Well, we're not talking about sending a person up to hit the missile (which is obviously the reason your analogy makes any sense) There's no reason to send up robots on missions that may or may not work.

They test their missile, we test our anti-missile stuff. Why not? No actual people would get hurt. OTOH, hitting the missile on the pad is lame. We could actually end up killing some north Koreans, and damaging their property, etc. That's kind of an act of war.
posted by delmoi at 8:18 AM on June 23, 2006


Actually, people could get hurt. Or does our vaunted less-than-50% success rate anti-missile technology have built in civilian avoidance technology too? I mean, it's a long shot, but still--a really small chance of success at a very minor diplomatic victory coupled with the potential for killing some Japanese civilians. Do you think Koizumi is excited by this possibility?

Again, I can assure you that the DPRK won't be telling us exactly where and when it'll launch this thing. The success rate for test-phase technology against an announced missile would be 0%. IANANO (I Am Not a Naval Officer), but what percentage of US warships have this technology anyways? And are within effective range of the DPRK? And could respond to a missile launch before the thing was already well on its way towards landing somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

I'm sorry, but use your heads people. This is a hollow gesture meant to counter a hollow gesture. At least the former has a chance of succeeding on its own terms (i.e., landing a few hundred miles west of Alaska, I believe). The fact that some people are excited by this just goes to show how inept and lacking American foreign policy towards the DPRK has been since the 90's. This is the best we can do?
posted by bardic at 8:32 AM on June 23, 2006


* unannounced
posted by bardic at 8:33 AM on June 23, 2006


bardic, if we can't get the missle shot down before it goes over japan, we're probably not going to shoot it down anyway

has our foreign policy towards north korea really been that inept and lacking? ... they're pretty much impossible to deal with and hate us anyway ... we, and the chinese, have managed to keep them from doing something crazy ... i think that's just about the best we can do with them
posted by pyramid termite at 8:44 AM on June 23, 2006


I agree it's a lose-lose for the US, for the reasons stated above.

Another thing to consider is how NK will interpret the US launching a missile as part of the shield. Will they recognize it's an anti-missile missile, or will the crazy mofos think it's a counter attack?
posted by Crash at 8:52 AM on June 23, 2006


Kafka Goes Shopping - commentary in prose

(english)
We don’t need certain civil liberties to safely fly away from it all, to shop in peace for an American way of life, to watch Congress sing America the Beautiful on TV
There’s a red, white and blue light special in isle eleven, shoppers. Old glory on a white plastic stick in our auto accessory department. While you’re there checkout the everyday low prices on name brand motor oil. Why not stock up for the holidays!
Yes, these are New World orders, but it’s really an old world after all. We may no longer burn witches at the stake in the name of justice, but we do burn states that harbor evildoers. We do this because we are good and they are evil. We do this because we are one nation under God. United we stand by what looks like vengeance, with liberty and justice for all who agree. We pledge allegiance to the flag in homeroom, homeys in homeland, brand names on our backs. It’s the law, more or less.
We don’t need to see the evidence others have been shown. We don’t need certain civil liberties to safely fly away from it all, to shop in peace for an American way of life, to watch Congress sing America the Beautiful on TV. In times of “war” we may sacrifice rights, but we are free to spend, to invest in our nation’s futures. The business of the nation is business or legislation wrapped in the flag to keep the contents safe from traitors and enemies within our borders, un-American Americans, unpatriotic slow drivers, you people who think you’re free not to stand and face the music, face the front of the class, to repeat after me, to pledge until death do us part, to us or them, it’s you or me, now or never. No middle ground. With us or against us. So help me God.
You are being summoned to the castle now, to the towers. There is a sale going on. The village belongs to the castle, but it takes a castle to raise a village, and, to manufacture justice, to market justice and summon you to its closed gate. Two products: vengeance and justice. Look at this brand new justice. Does it resemble vengeance? Which is the better product? Which is more affordable? What will this product do for you? What will it do TO you? It’s your choice, shoppers. You decide.
posted by Unregistered User at 8:53 AM on June 23, 2006


haven't all the successes so far come against drones with beacons that tell the anti-missile where to go?

actually, after looking here, it appears onlya few of the tests have used beacons. still, the results don't appear entirely promising. and this line "Starting with IFT-9 [10/14/2002], very little information about the tests has been publicly available" seems to go against tgrundke's assertion that "we" have been open about the program and its results/failures.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:56 AM on June 23, 2006


Internationally crazy, yes, but domestically it's a genocide.

And no, I don't have any easy answers. No one seems to. But the missile-to-missile thing is just so much wishful thinking. It frustrates me for two reasons. It's jingoistic military Kool-Aid thinking for one, and second and more importantly, it just demonstrates how few options we have (speaking as an American) against a country that is, IMO, far more of a threat than Saddam ever was.

So OK, we knock their missile down. FOX news cheers. Nothing changes. However, along the lines of what Crash is saying, there are worst case scenarios (perhaps far-fetched, but worst case scenarios all the same)--missile wreckage crashing into DPRK and killing civilians? An act of war. Crashing into Hokkaido? Further erodes already shaky support for US policy among the Japanese (and the South Koreans, but there's not much to lose there). American anti-missile simply misses the DPRK's Great Liberatory Candle of Revolutionary Zeal or whatever? PR coup for the North Korean regime.

Dumb.
posted by bardic at 9:01 AM on June 23, 2006


bardic writes "Against a hypothetical missile launch from an unknown location?"

Er, they know where the missile will be launched from. The satellite photos are all over the news here.
posted by Bugbread at 9:13 AM on June 23, 2006


Any relation to the satellite photos Colin Powell brought to the UN?
posted by bardic at 9:19 AM on June 23, 2006


Er, they know where the missile will be launched from. The satellite photos are all over the news here.

Er, the launch site tells you nothing about the trajectory of the missile which is what you need to know.

Without advance warning, there is no guarantee that the ship will be in the right place to launch an intercept, or if the weather will cooperate, etc. etc. etc. It is a very complicated problem to hit a missile with a missile.

The system on that scored on the test fire is more than 30 years old and it is state of the art. It will take decades to develop and field a "new and improved" model.

Sure the technology is getting better, but not getting better faster than NK can build missiles. That is the cold hard reality.
posted by three blind mice at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2006


Nope. They are getting updated from time to time (initial shots when it was assembled on the launchpad, and additional shots during refueling). Even a layman can tell that they're shots of a missile, unlike the random Iraq "this looks like a dot, but it's really a tank of nerve gas with a few rocks at its base and a little lizard perched on top. Trust us, we're image analysis experts" randomness.
posted by Bugbread at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2006


(Sorry, the comment starting with "nope" was directed at bardic's comment, not three blind mice's)

three blind mice writes "Er, the launch site tells you nothing about the trajectory of the missile which is what you need to know. "

Er, I wasn't refuting that. Bardic said "we don't know where it will be launched from". I said "we do". That's all I was refuting.
posted by Bugbread at 9:29 AM on June 23, 2006


I think it might be worth pointing out that the Aegis system is for short and medium range missiles. To hit the west coast of the US, a missile from North Korea that would have to be a long-range ICBM, and this system wouldn't touch it.
posted by moonbiter at 9:39 AM on June 23, 2006


Maybe, but it would still rock.
posted by IronLizard at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2006


I see people still twitch to the same nerve reflexes. Fools.
posted by furtive at 10:26 AM on June 23, 2006


moonbiter has it right. Even if it did work (and what are country's percent rates with first missile launches?) we're talking about a space launch which the current antimissile systems don't work against. You'd have to intercept it before it entered space - several minutes after launch. And if you had the time of launch so accurately known you might as well do the just-as-provocative bombing it on its launch pad.

This is just PR for an imaginary antimissile system built to do nothing useful - but that's okay, it's like the Q-bomb, it doesn't have to ever be tested under real situations so everyone can claim success and money well-spent.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:30 AM on June 23, 2006


The fact that some people are excited by this just goes to show how inept and lacking American foreign policy towards the DPRK has been since the 90's. This is the best we can do?

Dude, not since the 90's, but since there's been a NK. They are impossible to deal with psychos. We tried to make deals with them but when we fulfill our end of the bargain they secretly continue their weapons programs. All the while, our aid is feeding their starving people.

They don't respond to diplomacy. Period.
posted by b_thinky at 10:37 AM on June 23, 2006


True enough b_thinky. And given that they could reduce Seoul to rubble within 10 minutes, the entire world is over a barrel. Blowing up one of their missiles won't change things if it could work, which it can't. The potentially negative consequences are big, the positives practically zero as far as I can see.
posted by bardic at 10:40 AM on June 23, 2006


nk is going to say the missle is to launch a satellite, not a bomb or bomb test. so if we knock it down, they will have a right to be pissed.

This is what is blinking in my brain right now. First of all, what if, on the off-chance, it's legit? And we're going to knock it down? The U.S. is REALLY resembling a schoolyard bully at that point.

Second, even if it IS a bomb test, why does that give us the right to mess with their tests? We wouldn't tolerate anyone messing with OUR military tests.
posted by agregoli at 10:43 AM on June 23, 2006


OK, so what are our options here:

1: NK launches the missle successfully Result: NK wins

2a:Our missile defense system is deployed and works Result: We win, but this is supposedly unlikely

2b: Our missile defense system is employed and doesn't work. Result: NK wins, we look like asses.

3: We pre-emptively bomb their launch pad. Result: We win, but look like asses and potentially start another Korean War.
posted by b_thinky at 10:43 AM on June 23, 2006


the positives practically zero as far as I can see

there's 2 positives ... 1) the north koreans learn we're serious about their missiles

2) they won't know how good or accurate their missles really are if they've been blown to pieces
posted by pyramid termite at 10:45 AM on June 23, 2006


Look, for a successful missile intercept, they currently need to know velocity, trajectory, and signature, assuming no dummy missiles are fired to throw off target acquisition. Even when they know these things, after over two decades of funding, and after something like 30 billion dollars, we're barely at a 50% success rate, and that's when we know all those things. And even then, there's a wide discrepancy in how they define "intercept." During Gulf War 1, for example, a successful Patriot missile intercept meant the Patriot exploded within 3 miles of the SCUD target missile. I have no idea what the current standard is, but I'm fairly sure it's not direct contact with the target.

But let's say we do test it, which isn't a bad idea. This is a system that, uniquely in Pentagon history, waved demonstrable operational ability when implemented. In other words, the Pentagon excused it from meeting the basic and long-standing requirement than any military system/equipment must be shown to work prior to its installation. We dropped millions installing interceptor silos in various locations and in linking them into radar installations. We did so in part to place pressure on the Canadians, because we needed to have them think NMD was a fait accompli, and because of that they wouldn't fight us using NORAD to help with target acquisition. Didn't work, and there's a real concern that the interceptors are useless without it. Satellite photos don't tell us shit about the target, and we would need a massive amount of coordinated radar data to be able to learn what we needed to learn after its launch. This need for coordination, btw, is why there are so many ships in place to assist in the intercept tests. And as an aside, given the articles unqualified portrayal of 7/8 successes, it would be nice if they spent some time talking about the specifics of the target missile.

But let's say we test it and it works. Good story, and good news for U.S. military technology. Unfortunately, if that actually deters the North Koreans from developing better ballistic missile technology, it would mean that deterrence and containment work, and there are already a variety of measures in place that do just that, and we should then all feel confident that we didn't need to invest billions in the system. If it doesn't work, it reveals to the world that, much like a vaunted smart bomb technology, that the U.S.'s claim to being the tech bad ass may be a wee bit overstated, and actually encourages our enemies to test the capacities that the U.S. advertises as being integral to its power projection. Seems like a lose-lose to me.
posted by hank_14 at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2006 [2 favorites]


I agree with pyramid termite, but if we pre-emptively destroy their missiles, we must prepare for their reaction - potentially launching an attack at Seoul. And with our troops already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting on a 3rd front can't be seen as anything but negative.

We would have to not only destroy this missile, but wipe out their entire military capabilities for retaliaton. This would be a huge victory because it would end the nuisance of their WMD program.

But attacking another country's military is a clear act of war. Do we really want to do that? Can we stand up to the inevitable criticism on the international stage? Do we even have the needed intelligence info to do this? Are we allowed to?
posted by b_thinky at 11:13 AM on June 23, 2006


"Can we stand up to the inevitable criticism on the international stage? "

I think that's the least of our problems by far. Anybody that would even consider starting a war with NK at this point is batshit insane and should be ignored.
It's not a good situation and I realize the diplomacy is pretty shaky, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. This isn't Iraq after years of sanctions; it's the real deal.
posted by 2sheets at 11:27 AM on June 23, 2006


No, this would rock. Trust me.
Worse comes to worse, it can be stopped off the coast with one of the anti-ICBM (surprise, they've been around since the seventies and yes they're nukes, too!) missiles. As long as the cute little tapdong, or whatever it's called, doesn't have multiple warheads it's fucked. Thanks, come again for nuclear winter. It's funny how many of you seem to assume this thing won't be live while chanting on about how insane these fuckers are. If North Korea actually starts a war over this, then that was their intention to begin with. What better time, after all?
posted by IronLizard at 11:33 AM on June 23, 2006


Nuclear winter could be just the thing for canceling out global warming.

Shooting down a test missile would be an act of war, regardless of what type of missile it is. (As long as they don't test their missile when it's raining.) The US has tested plenty of ballistic missiles that could hit North Korea. They'd be just as entitled to retaliate against us as we would against them.

Atlantic magazine did a war game on our military options against North Korea last year and concluded it "could make Iraq look like child's play--and the longer we wait, the harder it will get."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:39 PM on June 23, 2006 [1 favorite]


Iron, they're crazy, but they're not stupid. They're not going to start a war if they think they can shake us down for more money instead. They know perfectly well that if we get serious, we can turn their entire country into a gigantic glass crater.

The Army is stretched pretty thin in Iraq, but we don't need the Army to turn North Korea into rubble, even if we stick with conventional weapons. They KNOW that. So they're not gonna start something out of the blue.

If we, on the other hand, piss them off enough by fucking with their tests, they just might. People don't always think straight when they're angry. So we'd better not make them angry if we're not ready to follow through 1000%.

NK is a real threat, unlike Iraq. They're like grouchy, hungry bears, trying to find food. The last thing you do with a grouchy bear is poke it with a sharp stick. Either you take out the '30-06, or you run the hell away. Commit totally to taking the ****er out, or don't engage at all.

Just annoying it is a very good way to end up with a lot of corpses, possibly including your own.
posted by Malor at 12:46 PM on June 23, 2006


IronLizard, I genuinely hope you aren't is a position of any power.

Some of you guys talk like a war with NK would be no biggie--we'd have to re-deploy American troops, but eventually Pyongyang would be rubble. There's no chance NK could ever invade the US! What short-sighted and typical American-centric thinking (is that a word? I can't think of a better one right now.).

You don't think NK knows this? Ask a native Japanese or South Korean how they feel about the prospect of war with NK. It's not a hypothetical--Seoul, a city bigger than NYC, will be gone, not through the use of nukes even, but just plain vanilla conventional artillery tubes. Gone. Japan will be hit too, although it will probably be much more sporadic types of short- and medium-range missile fire. Given the complexities of attitudes regarding military events amongst the Japanese, this won't bode well for any American attempt to come in after said war and pick up the (quite literal) pieces.

So yeah, some of you guys are crazy. The next step is to call me a "cut n run librul" or something, but in reality, America's self-interest (nor the world's) is served by playing cowboy over relatively minor shit like this.

(America has had a working ICBM shield since the 1970's? Funny how we never showed it off to accelerate the end of the Cold War in, I dunno, the 1970's. I have some bridge property you might want to look into as well.)

Shorter: When confronted with an apparently unwinnable situation like NK, doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing. Kim Jong-Il has to die someday and hopefully some sort of positive change or thaw can then occur. Frankly, it's not for America to decide whether or not there's going to be armed conflict with NK, not if they ever want to have decent relations with China, S. Korea, Japan, and the rest of Asia ever again.
posted by bardic at 1:44 PM on June 23, 2006


*is not served
posted by bardic at 1:46 PM on June 23, 2006


Clowns Sabotage Nuke Missile
posted by homunculus at 2:01 PM on June 23, 2006


It's not a hypothetical--Seoul, a city bigger than NYC, will be gone, not through the use of nukes even, but just plain vanilla conventional artillery tubes. Gone.

I doubt their military is much stronger than Saddam's was, nor is their populace much more eager to fight for Great Leader than Iraqis were for Saddam.

Our Air Force could obliterate all of Great Leader's toys - tanks, planes, ships, launch pads, ammunition - and deny him any chance of lashing out against neighbors.

If there was a war I imagine it would play out much more conventionally than the one in Iraq or Afghanistan. South Koreans look forward to reunification and while the Northeners are shielded from the outside world, dropping postcards of modern Seoul would probably be propoganda enough to get most to abandon their Great Leader.

I do agree with you that nothing will be done without the consent of SK or Japan.
posted by b_thinky at 2:37 PM on June 23, 2006


b_thinky, again, I suggest you talk to a South Korean, or in particular, someone living in Seoul about this. Conventional artillery and mortars have been pointed at Seoul since the 1950's. You don't need that many men to pull triggers for 60 seconds. That's all it would take. Look at a map--Seoul is right next to the border. If it was so simple to take out NK, it probably would have happened by now. Thing is, literally millions of civilian deaths kind of puts a damper on things.

The US military could obliterate all of NK's toys? Wrong again. More specifically, they could over time, but given that most of them are buried under tons of concrete (a "technology" that's been around since WWI, nothing too special), and given that they'd only need minutes, not even hours, to level Seoul, you're really talking out of your ass.

I'm glad you at least know something about South Korean politics--many of them don't want a war with NK (I'd agree that it's a shame many of them hate America more than they hate a maniac like Kim Jong-Il, but still, it's their f'ing country. Why do Americans have such a hard time understanding that nationalism is not something that only belongs to them?).

Suck it up and deal. America has no viable options other than long-term containment which, some might forget, is a pretty valid strategy when compared with the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Remember that Reagan guy? I think he'd agree with a dirty librul like me on this one.
posted by bardic at 2:48 PM on June 23, 2006


North Korea has been getting ready for a war they think is inevitable for fifty years. Yes, we can eventually reduce them to rubble... but it could take a long, long time.

If you've read stories by people who've been there, the entire population is brainwashed to believe a war with the US is inevitable. There's no way to know the morale of troops until they're tested, but assuming they'll just fold like Saddam's army did.... probably not too smart.

We can't destroy their stuff fast enough to save South Korea. There won't BE a South Korea anymore if a war breaks out.
posted by Malor at 2:54 PM on June 23, 2006


Again... a North Korean loss is inevitable, but the price would be far, far higher than any rational person would want to pay, both in terms of direct war costs and in human suffering.

I don't think we should appease them in any way, but provoking them is a BAD idea.
posted by Malor at 2:56 PM on June 23, 2006


I would love to hear from someone better-informed than I am, but I thought our ABM failures were all with missiles we tried to intercept in the re-entry phase.

Missiles in boost phase are much more vulnerable -- if you can fire the interceptor close enough to the launch site. The size of the Soviet Union ruled this strategy out for use with them, but North Korea might be sufficiently small for it to have a chance of working.
posted by jamjam at 3:28 PM on June 23, 2006


I doubt their military is much stronger than Saddam's was...

The Korean People's Army is made up of 1.2 million troops, making it the fourth-largest military in the world. North Korea spends more than 30 per cent of its gross domestic product on its military. About 37,000 of those troops guard the demarcation line between the two Koreas.

When the CBC's Raymond Saint-Pierre visited Pyongyang in 2001, he said "thousands of soldiers swarm the city."

The country's largest industry is military production and it exports its ballistic military technology to such countries as Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt.

Source

Perusing the net, North Korea's military looks formidable indeed. I'd say they're much stronger than Saddam's forces and even if they're not, look how wonderfully the operation has gone in Iraq.
posted by juiceCake at 3:29 PM on June 23, 2006


Not to mention the fact that they've had 50 years to dig in. The US military often finds tunnels that have been built beneath the DMZ into SK by the NK military. Smart-bomb away all you want--if you stay underground, don't turn on your radar (which is probably pretty useless anyway), and literally don't have the electricity to have lights at night, you've got a pretty good (somewhat unintended) strategy for holding off a US ground invasion. For a while. But the inability to get beyond binary logic here is stunning--it's not NK wins or the US wins. Kim Jong-Il is a maniac--if he lost all of his over 1 millions troops, as long as he took out a major chunk of the SK civilian populace, a few hundred Japanese using some missiles, and tens of thousands of American troops, it'd be a win for the dictator and losses for the US, Japan, South Korea, and the world. Oh yeah, and Seoul would be flattened.

And do you think the Chinese and Russian governments would just sit idly by while all this happened?
posted by bardic at 3:42 PM on June 23, 2006


I have no problem with this. I hope it works.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:47 PM on June 23, 2006


This map suggests that North Korean artillery can't reach Seoul. (I don't know how up-to-date it is, though.)
posted by kirkaracha at 5:00 PM on June 23, 2006


This map suggests that North Korean artillery can't reach Seoul. (I don't know how up-to-date it is, though.)
posted by kirkaracha at 8:00 PM EST on June 23 [+fave] [!]


The NK artillery isn't mobile? Is it common to place your arms in an offensive position anyway during a cease-fire?
posted by juiceCake at 5:20 PM on June 23, 2006


The very definition of cold comfort.
posted by bardic at 5:35 PM on June 23, 2006


As mentioned, the North Koreans has been preparing for this for 50 years. They have 170mm artillery and 240mm rockets that are capable of hitting Seoul. These are built into underground bunkers for protection. They are capable of putting 10,000 rounds per minute or 600,000 per hour into the city. The North Koreans also have one of the world's largest arsenals of chemical warheads. An all out war could kill millions in a few hours. I don't think the South Koreans think too kindly of the American propensity to provocation.
posted by JackFlash at 6:47 PM on June 23, 2006



IronLizard, I genuinely hope you aren't is a position of any power.

Not yet, but I'm insane and that MUST qualify me for a republican posting somewhere.

Some of you guys talk like a war with NK would be no biggie--we'd have to re-deploy American troops, but eventually Pyongyang would be rubble. There's no chance NK could ever invade the US! What short-sighted and typical American-centric thinking (is that a word? I can't think of a better one right now.).

No one has said any such thing. Unfortunately, it may be inevitable and time is not on our side. Of course, no one is advocating war, at any e=rate.

You don't think NK knows this? Ask a native Japanese or South Korean how they feel about the prospect of war with NK. It's not a hypothetical--Seoul, a city bigger than NYC, will be gone, not through the use of nukes even, but just plain vanilla conventional artillery tubes. Gone. Japan will be hit too, although it will probably be much more sporadic types of short- and medium-range missile fire. Given the complexities of attitudes regarding military events amongst the Japanese, this won't bode well for any American attempt to come in after said war and pick up the (quite literal) pieces.

And you think allowing NK to test nuclear delivery devices unopposed will prevent this how? This is Jong's dream, the missiles are just another step in this direction and allowing them such tests will give them more ammunition for the eventual war (quite litteraly).

So yeah, some of you guys are crazy. The next step is to call me a "cut n run librul" or something, but in reality, America's self-interest (nor the world's) is served by playing cowboy over relatively minor shit like this.

Diplomacy is useless without a stiff spine and truckloads of weapons to back it up, unless you consider diplomacy to be rolling over and taking it in the @ss.

(America has had a working ICBM shield since the 1970's? Funny how we never showed it off to accelerate the end of the Cold War in, I dunno, the 1970's. I have some bridge property you might want to look into as well.)

You're ill informed here. The US-USSR ABM treaty essentially put a hold on deployment/further development but the hardware exists and we're no longer bound by the treaty. It relied on EMP to disable the missiles electronics. We now have EMP devices which no longer require nukes, btw. Try adding 2 and 2. You think all of our weapons advances are made public so we can be entertained? YOu obviously haven't been following this since at least 1970......

Shorter: When confronted with an apparently unwinnable situation like NK, doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing. Kim Jong-Il has to die someday and hopefully some sort of positive change or thaw can then occur. Frankly, it's not for America to decide whether or not there's going to be armed conflict with NK, not if they ever want to have decent relations with China, S. Korea, Japan, and the rest of Asia ever again.


Again, who advocated conventional conflict? These 'nutcases' are firing a nuclear capable missile in our direction. This is a threat, plain and simple.
What makes you think his succesor will be any more sane? Sounds like wishful thinking.
posted by IronLizard at 8:11 PM on June 23, 2006


Ironlizard, you don't poke a grumpy bear. The absolute best result we can get from shooting down that missile is slowing down their program a few months. The many potential bad outcomes are varied and vast in their consequences.

We'd have more options if BushCo hadn't gotten into the Iraq mess.

Personally, I think we should be leaning on China to try to contain them.... "Look, at the rate things are going, we may end up with troops in a country on your border. You probably don't want that. We certainly don't want that. If you can make this problem go away, it could save us both a lot of potential grief."

'Course, Bush just doesn't think that way. Hopefully he can contain his cowboy impulses and avoid poking the bear.
posted by Malor at 6:14 AM on June 24, 2006


i might point out that the grumpy bear is actually poking us ... and i don't think north korea is going to go to war because they got a missile shot down, unless they were planning on it anyway and are just going to use it for an excuse

actually bombing the missile site would be a real bad idea, though

i do agree that it's probably a better idea for china to deal with them ... i don't think they're very happy with them right now ... no one likes a loose cannon in their front yard ... i don't really think it's all that possible to lean on china ... but i'm not sure that china really needs to be leaned on to tell the north koreans to quit acting so crazy ... they've already done it a couple of times we know about
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 AM on June 24, 2006


Nah, diplomacy is for pussies. Let's use our magic space lasers.
posted by bardic at 10:22 AM on June 24, 2006


Worse comes to worse, it can be stopped off the coast with one of the anti-ICBM (surprise, they've been around since the seventies and yes they're nukes, too!) missiles.

We don't have these nuclear-tipped anti-ICBMs that you are referring to any more. They were decommissioned in the 70s because it was determined that they wouldn't do the job they were supposed to do: defend against the Soviet threat.

Aside from the technical hurdles, the biggest problem with ABM systems against threats like the Soviets is that ABMs are expensive to build and maintain and are not totally guaranteed to work, while ICBMs are less expensive to build and maintain and are more likely to work with the addition of fairly cheap countermeasures. So if you have two opponents with equal funding in their missile programs, the straight-up ICBM buyers will be able to outproduce the ABM buyers (who must also buy ICBMs of their own for their own offensive capabilities). It's not a winning situation. Especially when you consider that MAD pretty much works -- only folks looking to commit suicide would start a war like that.

When applied to the rogue state scenarios, ABM makes more sense. It's not going to do sh*t against the Russians with their thousands of sophisticated missiles and warheads, but there's a less than zero chance that it will work against a single NK missile. That's what the DOD is gambling billions of dollars on (that, and the bluff factor). However, here again we get into the "AD" part of MAD -- is Kim Jong-il deluded enough to commit national suicide by launching a nuclear-tipped missile against a nation that has thousands of said missiles? Not to mention the fact that the technology still isn't a sure thing.

Furthermore, one has to take into account the fact that smuggling a working nuclear warhead into the US might possibly be easier to do than to launch a missile. After all, are we watching our ports that closely? Especially against Asians? Or the Russians, for that matter? If this is the case, then ABM is not going to prevent a city or three from going up in nuclear fire.

More on Ballistic Missile Defense and on the task of intercepting an ICBM.
posted by moonbiter at 5:25 AM on June 25, 2006


More commentary on this test.
posted by moonbiter at 11:36 PM on June 25, 2006


« Older mommy i am scared...   |   Hmmm. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments