StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http:/www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73222,00.html

This is supposed to provide short-term emergency capability before a fully operational missile defense system could be deployed within years. The missiles could intercept missiles from countries such as North Korea.

With N Korea's recent thumb and nose to the US, do you think that this is a coincedence? Although, I would like to see more on how effective one of these things are. Last I heard only one out of four or five tests managed to hit its target. But politicly and as an PR campaign, its a good move against NK. What say you "sure pick on Iraq but North Korea has nukes and you don't do anything against them" crowd. I think we have some saber ratteling left over for them as well.

I'm not saying that we should go to war with NK, and I don't know if this missile will work as touted, but its a good political move both internationally and domestic.

The 2004 limited ABM deployment plan has been in the works for several years now. The base that will hold them has been building since before the US even pulled out of the ABM treaty.

The reason for an ABM system very much involves North Korea, but this particular "coincidence" isn't even one as the plan isn't even remotely new.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The 2004 limited ABM deployment plan has been in the works for several years now. The base that will hold them has been building since before the US even pulled out of the ABM treaty.

The reason for an ABM system very much involves North Korea, but this particular "coincidence" isn't even one as the plan isn't even remotely new.

No, but I think the timing of the press release is of note.

AFAIK, that system is still completely useless when it comes to missile defense.

Reminds me of the Gulf War and the Patriots. IIRC, the US claimed they had a 70% success rate. But that just meant that when they pressed the button, 70% of the time the Patriot was successfully launched. None intercepted any scud missles.

The best defense against a N. Korean attack is a strong trade alliance. You're not going to attack a nation whom your are economically dependent on. And that's what happens with a strong trade agreement.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:AFAIK, that system is still completely useless when it comes to missile defense.

Reminds me of the Gulf War and the Patriots. IIRC, the US claimed they had a 70% success rate. But that just meant that when they pressed the button, 70% of the time the Patriot was successfully launched. None intercepted any scud missles.

The best defense against a N. Korean attack is a strong trade alliance. You're not going to attack a nation whom your are economically dependent on. And that's what happens with a strong trade agreement.

Which is why we have all those pictures of SCUD missile bodies with fragmentation patters that match those of the PAC-1. Thep roblume was the missiles went for the center of the target and where made for bringing down aircraft. The result was they did hit the Scuds, but the warheads escaped.

The missile being used for national ABM and the latest PAC-3's, which where not on hand for the Gulf War, use hit to kill rather then blast frag andand have proven there ability to do so many times.

Proof?

The best defense against a N. Korean attack is a strong trade alliance. You're not going to attack a nation whom your are economically dependent on. And that's what happens with a strong trade agreement.

I see so the US can now force other countrys to stop selling to NK and then let us ALONE sell to them

Gee when did we get this power and why have we not abused it yet?

"I think we have some saber ratteling left over for them as well."

Without South Korea permission you cannot invade them.And South Korea is not going to give you the permission (if I have understood anything of south korean politics,that is).So no sabre ratteling.

Ted wrote:Proof?

Five out of eight ABM tests resulting in the target going boom.

The Patriots in the Gulf War also had a software related problem which was partly responsible for not engaging the missile that landed on the National Guardsmen. The problem was identified and fixed during the conflict.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Ted wrote:Proof?

Five out of eight ABM tests resulting in the target going boom.

The only thing I'm worried about is that the production booster hasn't been tested yet and seems to have serious production issues. Two of the test failures were from seperation failure, the other one was from someone leaving the coolant valve open.

Mr Bean wrote:

The best defense against a N. Korean attack is a strong trade alliance. You're not going to attack a nation whom your are economically dependent on. And that's what happens with a strong trade agreement.

I see so the US can now force other countrys to stop selling to NK and then let us ALONE sell to them

Gee when did we get this power and why have we not abused it yet?

You don't need a monopoly to be depedant. Jesus fucking Christ, THINK. Canada has active trading realationships with lots of countries, they're still dependent on the US for economic survival.

That hold's true for many other partnerships. Most with the US as the centre.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:The Patriots in the Gulf War also had a software related problem which was partly responsible for not engaging the missile that landed on the National Guardsmen. The problem was identified and fixed during the conflict.

Has it?

I don't trust the ABM as a deterent. It won't stop suitcase Nukes and will encourage borderline nations to go hardline. If the US can strike without fear of retaliation the MAD goes out the window. So you'd better attack before it's up and running or you will be forced to live under the yoke of American opression.

I'm not saying that the smart thing to do, but I think it's a line of reasoning that will be used.

Smart thing to do is keep working on it and falsify the result making it look like your decades away. Then one day declare that it's in place.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:

The best defense against a N. Korean attack is a strong trade alliance. You're not going to attack a nation whom your are economically dependent on. And that's what happens with a strong trade agreement.

I see so the US can now force other countrys to stop selling to NK and then let us ALONE sell to them

Gee when did we get this power and why have we not abused it yet?

You don't need a monopoly to be depedant. Jesus fucking Christ, THINK. Canada has active trading realationships with lots of countries, they're still dependent on the US for economic survival.

That hold's true for many other partnerships. Most with the US as the centre.

Not true with Cuba. Canada is their biggest trading partner, about several hundred billion US$ a year.

Ted wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: You don't need a monopoly to be depedant. Jesus fucking Christ, THINK. Canada has active trading realationships with lots of countries, they're still dependent on the US for economic survival.

That hold's true for many other partnerships. Most with the US as the centre.

Not true with Cuba. Canada is their biggest trading partner, about several hundred billion US$ a year.

Nope, not all countries are dependent on the US for trade, but many are.

Has it?

Yes, it has. The paticular software error was identified and fixed. If the Patriot Battery was in continous operation for 3-4 days in a row, the software would not properly track a fast moving target. Shutting down and restarting the unit would clear the problem, but like I said its already been addressed.
Not to mention 10 years of upgrades.

Knife wrote:With N Korea's recent thumb and nose to the US, do you think that this is a coincedence? Although, I would like to see more on how effective one of these things are. Last I heard only one out of four or five tests managed to hit its target. But politicly and as an PR campaign, its a good move against NK. What say you "sure pick on Iraq but North Korea has nukes and you don't do anything against them" crowd. I think we have some saber ratteling left over for them as well.

I'm not saying that we should go to war with NK, and I don't know if this missile will work as touted, but its a good political move both internationally and domestic.

Interesting. It seems to erode any bargaining chips that NK has up its sleeve. Any war that would break out would be confined to the Korean peninsula. Lobbing a nuke at the US (which would only reach Alaska if I'm not mistaken) or Japan would invite certain destruction, and I think the North Koreans know this. Besides which, the four powers: China, Russia, Japan, and the US along with South Korea are lobbying hard on North Korea. Even China and Russia have expressed interest in maintaining stability on the peninsula.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/e ... index.html

On an unrelated note: I'm beginning to tire quickly of all these damn news services wanting me to sign up so I can search their archives.

XPViking


edit: fixed a typo

XPViking wrote:
On an unrelated note: I'm beginning to tire quickly of all these damn news services wanting me to sign up so I can search their archives.

XPViking

Isn't that the biggest load of shit?