Rumors of North Korea missile launch at Hawaii

[chitoryu12]

Associated Press, article on AOL News

SEOUL, South Korea (June 18) - The United States has positioned more missile defenses around Hawaii as a precaution against a possible North Korean launch across the Pacific, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. "We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile to the west in the direction of Hawaii," Gates said.
Gates told reporters at the Pentagon he has sent the military's ground-based mobile missile system to Hawaii, and positioned a radar system nearby. Together the systems theoretically could detect and shoot down a North Korean missile if it came to that.
"Without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say ... we are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect Americans and American territory," Gates said.
A Japanese newspaper reported Thursday that North Korea might fire its most advanced ballistic missile toward Hawaii around the Fourth of July holiday.
A new missile launch — though not expected to reach U.S. territory — would be a brazen slap in the face of the international community, which punished North Korea with new U.N. sanctions for conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of a U.N. ban.
North Korea spurned the U.N. Security Council resolution with threats of war and pledges to expand its nuclear bomb-making program.
The missile now being readied in the North is believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 mile, and would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast sometime around July 4, Independence Day in U.S., the Yomiuri newspaper said.
It cited an analysis by Japan's Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.

Worrysome, but I have my doubts. Do the North Koreans really have the capability to launch a nuke all the way to Hawaii? I think it would be more likely they attack South Korea or another nearby rival than trying to nuke the U.S. It would cause more problems than it's worth for them to make any attack on such a large country that can and will shoot back.

[SAMAS]

Last I heard, they're struggling to reach Japan. I guess someone's just being careful.

Or paranoid.

[Chris OFarrell]

Shouldn't there be an SM3 equipped ship stationed at Perl anyway?

[Executor32]

Also, isn't Hawaii to the east of Korea?

[MKSheppard]

And look, Obama killed most of GBI's planned future deployment, as well as KEI.

I guess he's counting on HOPE AND CHANGE (TM) to shoot down ballistic missiles heading for Hawaii, his old stomping grounds...

[Rye]

Shep, how about we make a bet? If Hawaii, Japan or the US itself is hit by a ballistic missile in the next five years, from a NK origin, I will send you £100 via paypal. If they're not, you send me £100 via paypal?

[Samuel]

Shep, how about we make a bet? If Hawaii, Japan or the US itself is hit by a ballistic missile in the next five years, from a NK origin, I will send you £100 via paypal. If they're not, you send me £100 via paypal?

This is a black swan event. A better bet would be a ballistic missile hit us or our allies in the next decade.

If you win you get 100.
If he wins he gets 10000.

[Sea Skimmer]

Shouldn't there be an SM3 equipped ship stationed at Perl anyway?

The US Navy only has around 100 SM-3 missiles and around 20 ships equipped to fire them at the moment, so you can’t be sure an operational one with several missiles onboard is going to be present at any given moment without issuing specific orders to that effect, even at such a big base. Also firing missiles or using SPY-1 in port is something to be avoided (an SM-3 exploding and dropping debris over Pearl City would not be good, bunch of civilians died there from falling AA fragments in 1941) so a dedicated patrol well offshore only make sense.

Issues of engaging geometry come into play as well, SM-3 is going to be better at shooting down a missile flying over the firing ship, then at destroying one landing well ahead of it. The Hawaiian islands aren’t exactly small so a ship west of Oahu is better then a ship at Oahu.

If we had KEI, which of course even without cancellation wouldn’t be until about 2016, then we could position a ship 100 miles off the North Korean coast and destroy the missile the moment we confirmed its trajectory towards US territory. The debris would then fall back on North Korea.

[Stark]

This is a black swan event. A better bet would be a ballistic missile hit us or our allies in the next decade.

If you win you get 100.
If he wins he gets 10000.

Don't give up your day job, you'd make an awful bookie. What the fuck does 'ally' mean, why is the target area so broad, how does this address Shep's hilariously one-note fearmongering, and what's with the hilarious odds? Rye's point is if Shep isn't prepared to lay money down, then even HE doesn't believe that such a missile strike will be launched in the given timeframe, and is thus simply trolling.

[Broomstick]

A Japanese newspaper reported Thursday that North Korea might fire its most advanced ballistic missile toward Hawaii around the Fourth of July holiday.

Look! A sleeping giant! And I have a pointy stick! Let's stab the sleeping giant with the pointy stick! JAB JAB JAB JAB JAB JAB JAB......

After which Isoroku Yamamoto's ghost can show up and say to Kim Jong-Il "You dumb fucking shitstain, what the hell did you go and do THAT for...?!?!"

Doing it on the fourth, of course, is meant to be especially provocative.

Worrysome, but I have my doubts. Do the North Koreans really have the capability to launch a nuke all the way to Hawaii?

It is possible but at this point highly unlikely. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the US would react to a successful missile strike on Hawaii with anything less than bloodthirsty hysteria. If it is a nuke then the US will really be pissed off. You think we got nuts after 9/11? You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Given the consequences of a successful hit, however unlikely, having at least the potential to shoot a missile down prior to impact makes a great deal of sense. If nothing else, make it a training exercise, what the hell, right? The ship's crew needs to be doing something in exchange for their pay.

I think it would be more likely they attack South Korea or another nearby rival than trying to nuke the U.S. It would cause more problems than it's worth for them to make any attack on such a large country that can and will shoot back.

Unless, of course, you're a batshit crazy, which there is some reason to believe Kim Jong-Il might be.

Yes, South Korea or Japan are much more likely targets. Don't forget, there's that business about the US being pledged to defend Japan, which means an attack on Japan should (if agreements are honored) mean the US military shows up with guns blazing. Of course, if the Norks hit Japan there's a good chance the Japanese will beat us there even if they have to swim the strait naked and use pointy sticks to retaliate. Japan wasn't intimidated by the US in the 1940's, and it took two nukes to get them to surrender back then (and even then, some of them wanted to continue fighting), somehow I don't think they'll take shit like Nork missiles without severe reprisals. In fact, if the Japanese get there first there might not be much left for the US to do other than sweep up the crumbs and fragments. Alright, I exaggerate. A bit. A little bit.

I always said that if Japan and the US ever wound up in a war again I'd like us both to be on the same side, but I didn't mean I want to see that, I'd much rather not have that at all, nuh-uh.

[phongn]

Don't give up your day job, you'd make an awful bookie. What the fuck does 'ally' mean, why is the target area so broad, how does this address Shep's hilariously one-note fearmongering, and what's with the hilarious odds? Rye's point is if Shep isn't prepared to lay money down, then even HE doesn't believe that such a missile strike will be launched in the given timeframe, and is thus simply trolling.

It's a bad point and Shep isn't trolling. Consider that construction of missile defense systems have other benefits (at least to the defending country):

• Defense against nuclear "blackmail" (the DPRK threatens to launch - yes, they will die in a retaliatory attack, but as the old saying goes, are we willing to trade Anchorage for Seoul?)
• Defense against accidental launch/target misidentification. See the 1995 incident for more details
• Increased strength to reduce the chance of attacker success, possibly tilting the decision balance to "don't chuck a missile at the US"

The best defense is one that never has to be used - ideally, no US missile defense system will ever actually be fired in anger.

If you want to argue that US deployment of missile defense is wasteful, useless and/or pointless, go ahead. Rye's point was utterly inane and doesn't even address the issue, instead attacking Shep.

[Samuel]

This is a black swan event. A better bet would be a ballistic missile hit us or our allies in the next decade.

If you win you get 100.
If he wins he gets 10000.

Don't give up your day job, you'd make an awful bookie. What the fuck does 'ally' mean, why is the target area so broad, how does this address Shep's hilariously one-note fearmongering, and what's with the hilarious odds? Rye's point is if Shep isn't prepared to lay money down, then even HE doesn't believe that such a missile strike will be launched in the given timeframe, and is thus simply trolling.

The odds are- amazingly enough- not 50/50. However, the cost of building the system is less than the cost of coping with an actual missile attack. This isn't a situation where the odds or costs would be symetrical.

[Stark]

Quote me claiming missile defence is wasteful, useless or get fucked. Shep is fearmongering about a danger, and does he seriously believe in this danger? I'm curious to know.

[Stark]

The odds are- amazingly enough- not 50/50. However, the cost of building the system is less than the cost of coping with an actual missile attack. This isn't a situation where the odds or costs would be symetrical.

I'd agree; the bet should be for an attack LAUNCHED, since we don't know what defence will be in place. Does he even think such an attack will be launched in the next five years?

[The Romulan Republic]

It is possible but at this point highly unlikely. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the US would react to a successful missile strike on Hawaii with anything less than bloodthirsty hysteria. If it is a nuke then the US will really be pissed off. You think we got nuts after 9/11? You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

This might actually be what worries me the most. I might be being paranoid, and we do have a fairly sane/competent President now, but I keep having thoughts of martial law, the Patriot Act times 50, and retaliation in the form of nuking all of North Korea.

Maybe the years of Bush just made me paranoid about these things.

[phongn]

Quote me claiming missile defence is wasteful, useless or get fucked. Shep is fearmongering about a danger, and does he seriously believe in this danger? I'm curious to know.

The core of your argument is that Shep is fearmongering about a particular threat and the need for defenses against said threat: by implication that threat is not so dangerous. Defensive measures, therefore, would be not particularly good use of resources. As for the danger existing? Sure: there are quite a few ballistic missiles around the world with the range to his the United States.

A further issue is that you are arguing that defenses do not affect launch probability, which is absurd, nevermind the statement about 50/50 odds Rye implied. One does not have to believe that an event will happen with high probability to make efforts to mitigate such an event.

[Stark]

The core of your argument is that Shep is fearmongering about a particular threat and the need for defenses against said threat: by implication that threat is not so dangerous. Defensive measures, therefore, would be not particularly good use of resources. As for the danger existing? Sure: there are quite a few ballistic missiles around the world with the range to his the United States.

I'm really not seeing where you're getting any of this. You already assumed I'm an opponent of missile defence (based on nothing, as far as I can tell). Shep just dropped another zero-content one-liner about how bad Democrats are, and I'm curious if he actually believes this threat is as serious as his manner claims. Missile defence funding or political support seems totally irrelevant to this.

A further issue is that you are arguing that defenses do not affect launch probability, which is absurd, nevermind the statement about 50/50 odds Rye implied. One does not have to believe that an event will happen with high probability to make efforts to mitigate such an event.

This is really psychology; it'd be tragically ironic if the US having effective missile defence actually lowered the bar for posturing nobodies like North Korea to fire (as propaganda, or whatever) assuming the US defence system would stop it. It'd be asinine to do so, of course.

[phongn]

I'm really not seeing where you're getting any of this. You already assumed I'm an opponent of missile defence (based on nothing, as far as I can tell). Shep just dropped another zero-content one-liner about how bad Democrats are, and I'm curious if he actually believes this threat is as serious as his manner claims. Missile defence funding or political support seems totally irrelevant to this.

No, I'm just saying that's the implication of your argument (not that you directly made it, mind you. I make no assumptions as for if you support or do not support missile defense). I saw Shep's post more as for how he doesn't like Democrat policy on a particular issue (yes, it happens to be a dislike I share in this case) and I think it should be obvious that Shep believes that the threat is real, dangerous and should be defended against.

A further issue is that you are arguing that defenses do not affect launch probability, which is absurd, nevermind the statement about 50/50 odds Rye implied. One does not have to believe that an event will happen with high probability to make efforts to mitigate such an event.

This is really psychology; it'd be tragically ironic if the US having effective missile defence actually lowered the bar for posturing nobodies like North Korea to fire (as propaganda, or whatever) assuming the US defence system would stop it. It'd be asinine to do so, of course.

Well, quite, but nuclear war strategy has a lot of psychology to it too (in my case, the argument is that it'd reduce rather than increase p(Launch). Here, I argue that Rye's proposal is meaningless.

[Stark]

Okay, that's pretty much how I saw it too. I was very taken by the idea of Shep actually doing something more than his typical drive-by fearmongering, and I didn't like Samuel's odds or bet construction at all.

With regard to launch odds, I'd say what Rye was saying was that he doesn't think Korea is going to attack the US either way, whereas Shep clearly (claims to) believe there is without defence a strong possiblity. Again, drawing him on this issue interests me.

[Samuel]

Okay, that's pretty much how I saw it too. I was very taken by the idea of Shep actually doing something more than his typical drive-by fearmongering, and I didn't like Samuel's odds or bet construction at all.

With regard to launch odds, I'd say what Rye was saying was that he doesn't think Korea is going to attack the US either way, whereas Shep clearly (claims to) believe there is without defence a strong possiblity. Again, drawing him on this issue interests me.

I apologize- I was trying to show it wasn't a one to one ratio. The actual odds are probably alot closer to zero, notably because the North Koreans aren't mentally retarded. Of course we could have rogue groups, but I think that moving something in on the ground is alot more likely.

[tim31]

Defense against nuclear "blackmail" (the DPRK threatens to launch - yes, they will die in a retaliatory attack, but as the old saying goes, are we willing to trade Anchorage for Seoul?)

Minor nitpick; you mean Pyongyang?

[Broomstick]

It is possible but at this point highly unlikely. On the other hand, I can't imagine that the US would react to a successful missile strike on Hawaii with anything less than bloodthirsty hysteria. If it is a nuke then the US will really be pissed off. You think we got nuts after 9/11? You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

This might actually be what worries me the most. I might be being paranoid, and we do have a fairly sane/competent President now, but I keep having thoughts of martial law, the Patriot Act times 50, and retaliation in the form of nuking all of North Korea.

Maybe the years of Bush just made me paranoid about these things.

The thing is, no matter who is in office the citizenry is going to DEMAND that Something Be Done and that something won't be pretty. That was the case before Bush, and will continue to be the case after.

Do recall that we are still the only nation that has actually used atomic bombs against another nation. I'd like to think we would exercise restraint but past history indicates this is an act we are capable of. Even if we only stuck to conventional weapons we have the capacity to reduce North Korea to rubble should we stop worrying about collateral damage and civilian casualties. Americans can be mean motherfuckers in warfare, just like anyone else, but we also have built up massive military resources. We also have a pretty strong reaction to getting hit on our own soil. It's not paranoid to be concerned over our reaction to being attacked. I'm a little twitchy about it myself.

[Vendetta]

[*]Defense against nuclear "blackmail" (the DPRK threatens to launch - yes, they will die in a retaliatory attack, but as the old saying goes, are we willing to trade Anchorage for Seoul?).

Is that before or after the rise to national prominence of Sarah Palin?

[Vehrec]

Defense against nuclear "blackmail" (the DPRK threatens to launch - yes, they will die in a retaliatory attack, but as the old saying goes, are we willing to trade Anchorage for Seoul?)

Minor nitpick; you mean Pyongyang?

No, Seoul is the first casualty of any engagement between N Korea and anyone else. The city is close enough to the border to make me wonder why the capital hasn't been relocated years ago, and is under threat from every artilery piece in about a fifty mile radius. The possibility of chemical strikes is likely, as North Korea will attempt to kill a large amount of its population and deny the city to their enemies.

[Aratech]

Defense against nuclear "blackmail" (the DPRK threatens to launch - yes, they will die in a retaliatory attack, but as the old saying goes, are we willing to trade Anchorage for Seoul?)

Minor nitpick; you mean Pyongyang?

No, Seoul is the first casualty of any engagement between N Korea and anyone else. The city is close enough to the border to make me wonder why the capital hasn't been relocated years ago, and is under threat from every artilery piece in about a fifty mile radius. The possibility of chemical strikes is likely, as North Korea will attempt to kill a large amount of its population and deny the city to their enemies.

I've also wondered this. It's been nearly sixty years since the war ended. Why in the world haven't they moved the capital to something not in range of every heavy artillery piece north of the 38th parallel?