Didn't want to screw up the vibe on the main board

[shortski]

Yes - that was the most recent test back in June.

Usually the guys out at PMRF put together a much longer and detailed video (set to music), but so much on this mission was classified all we get this time is that little clip.

The 1st missile that launches from the shore is a Hera target missile - it is the first two stages of a Minuteman II. Talk about LOUD!

Dont be fooled by the slow motion of the SM-3 launching from the ship (btw it is high noon when it is launching the rocket plume just makes it look like it is night) - it is traveling Mach 1 before the length of its body clears the tube.

So what happens now, Korea launches their test missile we launch interceptors and take it out, Russia and China get worried that we now may have the capabilities to launch a first strike and survive a responsive strike by taking out the missiles reaming from our first strike so they decide to launch their own first strike before we do, not good not good at all.

Check out the opinion of Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara
San Francisco, September 18, 1967

"Let us consider another term: first-strike capability. This is a somewhat ambiguous term, since it could mean simply the ability of one nation to attack another nation with nuclear forces first. But as it is normally used, it connotes much more: the elimination of the attacked nation's retaliatory second-strike forces. This is the sense in which it should be understood"

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deter ... ence.shtml

By showing we have the capablity to effectively counter any retaliation after a first strike aren't we inviting a preemptive strike upon ourselves?

[yeti]

(I didn't see this post until now, hence the late response.)

I don't know. I work to deliver the best defensive capability I can. I let the muckity mucks figure out policy.

[ski_adk]

"All we have to fear is fear itself." ~ FDR applies here as well.

If a nation is so fearful that it believes that it will inevitably be attacked and overrun by a hostile adversary, then that nation will do whatever it feels is necessary to survive.

North Korea is feeling quite threatened by the United States. Remember, North Korea was officially named as a part of the Axis of Evil. While that's not legally an article of war, the meaning does not change -- in other words, they feel that Bush has in fact already declared war. All the talk and rhetoric ever since that speech has just been political maneuvers to mobilize the bases of both nations.

The more pressure we put on North Korea, the more they're going to feel as though an attack is imminent. What we consider santions -- they consider as military blockade. As a result of their fear, North Korea must continue to reinforce its defensives, and likewise the US will then strengthen their own. And the vicious cycle begins.

I can only hope that North Korea will become our newest adversary for Cold War 2. Unfortunately, if things continue at the current pace, this war will eventually go hot. It's as if we're trying to corner a wounded tiger. At some point, if not given a tranquilizer, it will lash out. North Korea at this point is just growling. However, as we continue to corner them, at some point, they will have to lash out.

Militarily, I can't understand why we'd want to get into an armed conflict with NK. We couldn't beat them back in the 50's, I don't know why we think we still can today. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems as though the politicians in charge are deadset in favor of forcing NK into a provocation. If that's the case, it will not bode well for millions of lives on all sides of the issue.

[Cityskier]

"All we have to fear is fear itself." ~ FDR applies here as well.

If a nation is so fearful that it believes that it will inevitably be attacked and overrun by a hostile adversary, then that nation will do whatever it feels is necessary to survive.

North Korea is feeling quite threatened by the United States. Remember, North Korea was officially named as a part of the Axis of Evil. While that's not legally an article of war, the meaning does not change -- in other words, they feel that Bush has in fact already declared war. All the talk and rhetoric ever since that speech has just been political maneuvers to mobilize the bases of both nations.

The more pressure we put on North Korea, the more they're going to feel as though an attack is imminent. What we consider santions -- they consider as military blockade. As a result of their fear, North Korea must continue to reinforce its defensives, and likewise the US will then strengthen their own. And the vicious cycle begins.

I can only hope that North Korea will become our newest adversary for Cold War 2. Unfortunately, if things continue at the current pace, this war will eventually go hot. It's as if we're trying to corner a wounded tiger. At some point, if not given a tranquilizer, it will lash out. North Korea at this point is just growling. However, as we continue to corner them, at some point, they will have to lash out.

Militarily, I can't understand why we'd want to get into an armed conflict with NK. We couldn't beat them back in the 50's, I don't know why we think we still can today. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems as though the politicians in charge are deadset in favor of forcing NK into a provocation. If that's the case, it will not bode well for millions of lives on all sides of the issue.

There's an assload of money to be made by waging war. Your tax money gets funneled to the Pentagon who in turn doles it out to defense contractors, often run by former pentagon officials and the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/

[Bubba]

"All we have to fear is fear itself." ~ FDR applies here as well.

If a nation is so fearful that it believes that it will inevitably be attacked and overrun by a hostile adversary, then that nation will do whatever it feels is necessary to survive.

North Korea is feeling quite threatened by the United States.

This explains North Korea invading the South in 1950, its self-imposed isolation for 53 years since the end of the war, and the wacko leadership it's had with both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, father and son, that has produced by far the poorest country in the Pacific Rim and starvation among its people. Yep....thanks for the explanation.

BTW, feel free to use father/son wacko leadership analogy as you see fit

[HelmetCam]

By showing we have the capablity to effectively counter any retaliation after a first strike aren't we inviting a preemptive strike upon ourselves?

Our shield (assuming we have one) will work whether we fire first or they do. Preemptive won't help them.

Its similiar to the disruptive unbalancing of a missile sub or other mobile launcher. A massive first strike aimed at our silos still leaves our subs to contend with. A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile. Much less time to prepare a counterstrike.

In the end all a shield does is force the enemy to build more/better missiles to beat the shield. Reagan's SDI is credited by some with helping to bring down the Soviet Union.

[XtremeJibber2001]

A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile.

I think in the pacific alone we have nearly 100 subs!

[Bubba]

A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile.

I think in the pacific alone we have nearly 100 subs!

Where's Peter King and the rest of the Republicans? You have just divulged strategic information to our enemies and should be charged with treason. You and the NY Times can hang together.

[G-smashed]

Yeah you're right! This is much to upbeat to post on the main board. Wouldn't want to spoil the lovefest!

[HelmetCam]

A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile.

I think in the pacific alone we have nearly 100 subs!

Uhh, no. By my count we have 77 in the ENTIRE active fleet.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/lists/shipalpha.asp

[XtremeJibber2001]

A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile.

I think in the pacific alone we have nearly 100 subs!

Uhh, no. By my count we have 77 in the ENTIRE active fleet.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/lists/shipalpha.asp

Ah. That's the link I couldn't find. I'm still surprised by the number either way.

[shortski]

By showing we have the capablity to effectively counter any retaliation after a first strike aren't we inviting a preemptive strike upon ourselves?

Our shield (assuming we have one) will work whether we fire first or they do. Preemptive won't help them.

Its similiar to the disruptive unbalancing of a missile sub or other mobile launcher. A massive first strike aimed at our silos still leaves our subs to contend with. A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile. Much less time to prepare a counterstrike.

In the end all a shield does is force the enemy to build more/better missiles to beat the shield. Reagan's SDI is credited by some with helping to bring down the Soviet Union.

You almost got the point I was trying to make, undoubtedly we have the capacity with our land based nukes to strike first at both China and Russia and effectively knock out 60-70 % of their capacity. If in fact we do have the "shield", which a knock down of the Korean missile would go a long way to confirm, if we deploy it on our subs not all just enough to deal with the retaliatory strike, don't we achieve what McNamara was referring to when he explained "first strike" to mean the ability to hit them and then take out any remaining counter strike. By taking out the Korean missile and displaying we have the capability, wouldn't the best interest of China and Russia be to hit us now with the hope of taking out enough of our capacity that at least the leadership and a sustainable amount of their general population survives before we fully develop and deploy the "shield"? Don't discount that China , Russia and especially Korea think we already have plans to hit them. This crap is just scary.

[yeti]

Yeah it's scary... but it is also situation normal for the last 40 years or so.

The names have changed, that's about all. That, and the fact that we are working on an actual defense - rather than defending by building an overwhelming offense.

Sure as hell sucks - there are better things we could be putting our money into these days (some decent railroads, extensive wind farms, and alternative fuel stations coast to coast would be nice for a start).

But no - we get to deal with the Korean kook over there with geeky looking birth control glasses and a 3 inch nuclear pecker trying to lob ICBM's all over the damn place. Great. Give me an F/A-18, a rack of Mk 82's, a Colt M1911, and a firm lat/long good for atleast 15 minutes... and we will hear no more from that particular midget.

[Dr. NO]

A sub can also put a missile on target in under 10 minutes versus a 25+ minute flight of a land launched missile.

I think in the pacific alone we have nearly 100 subs!

Um, you have a source for this information? Living near Roton Groton, I doubt we keep 100 subs operational let alone boomers (missile subs to you), and definitely not 100 in the Pacific.

Hmm, Janes Navel ships?

[Dr. NO]

Militarily, I can't understand why we'd want to get into an armed conflict with NK. We couldn't beat them back in the 50's, I don't know why we think we still can today.

Um, NK did NOT defeat us in the 50's. We had pushed them nearly to China when the Chinese felt that we had gone too far and sent several hundred thousand troops across the boarder to over run out positions and troops. Study of the war shows that many of our positions were cut off and then rescued by some pretty hairy operations.

Should have let MacArther NUKE Peking.