Strike and Destroy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Jun 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No coincidence then, that the North Koreans have embarked upon this particular enterprise at a time when the US is militarily overstretched, is already making growly noises at the Iranians and is about as popular throughout the world as a STI? Much empty posturing from the NK but rampant stupidity from the editorial staff at the Post. I have an image of the NK head of Station flashing this back home with a "told you the Imperialist running dogs were after us" tag attached to it.
  2. What if you happen to miss?
  3. Then the best case scenario is that nobody notices. The not so good case is that they get laughed at (and the Pentagon has to explain just how many billions it spent on an apparent white elephant). The worst case is that NK notices and starts wondering if they could score an end run on the continental USA.
  4. Don't worry. If you read your post again, it'll soon become the second stupidest idea you've seen this week.

    I presume you're referring to the Aegis/SM3 combination. Unfortunately, this has been designed to counter IRBMs and SRBMs, not ICBMs. Plans are afoot to develop the system further, bit it's a way off yet. Whether or not the missile can be intercepted will depend largely on the trajectory that the North Koreans sent it on. It they are looking to do a true intercontinental test the missile will have a much steeper trajectory.

    Of course, there is also the small matter of none of the BMD-ready destroyers or cruisers being scheduled for deployment to the Western Pacific/ Sea of Japan until August, the potential embarrassment if the attempt to intercept the missile fails and the fact that intercepting a North Korean launch vehicle could be considered an act of war.

    Engage brain before opening mouth, there's a good boy.
  5. So ASSUMING N,Korea has a Missle capable of reaching Alaska, is anyone suggesting, other then NK hinting, that NK has the ability to arm a Missle with a practical Nuc.
  6. quote: '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.'

    this may however be the case, that the NK's may think that in being allowed to get away with yet another provocutive act, then we in the west would rather bury our heads in the sand, appease & hope that NK warheads don't rain down on us in the future.

    this should have been nipped in the bud several years ago, wether by diplomasy or military action (yes, the later would be potentialy very costly, but would a few nukes on America's western seaboard be even more costly, complete with Bush then nuking the s### out of NK in retaliation , & I mean leveling it, which he probably would)

    you have got to ask yourself, what would Clansey's President Jack Ryan do? for a start, he would have sorted out NK years before they got nukes. unfortunatly, this hypotheical situation does not help matters.
  7. Excellent foreign policy advice, mate. "What would Jack Ryan do?" I must remember to teach that one to my studes. :D
  8. If it's good enough for the US State Department.... :twisted:
  9. well, cant think of anything better to add on the subject, besides, I'm not paid to sort out problems this big! anyone got any better ideas to solve this one?
  10. You should probably take note of the fact that in the "Jack Ryan Universe" the USA has fallen victim to a nuclear attack (albeit a 'fizzle'), a fairly successful biological attack, a total economic collapse and a naval war with Japan. Russia & China have had a major war and US Troops Garrison Israel.

    Makes GWB's tenure look quite successful.
  11. RTFQ


    I thought all policy decisions were based on What Would Jesus Do? This is a new turn of events, we've "got to" (apparently) ask ourselves what the fictional creation of a once-good, now driven crazy by his own megalomania, author would do. Nice, lets stoke the madness of the trans-Atlantic debate further.

    Look, I'm a brit, I know foreign people are very scary. Deep down, despite all the PC rubbish, despite our apparent "leftist" (read "commie") thinking, we trust Johnny Foreigner about as far as we can throw his bicycle. But I also have enough of a grasp of geopolitics to know that, while Nuclear Proliferation is a cancer to be stopped, a nation who seeks Nuclear weaponry is doing so in order to increase his influence, not to start throwing a couple of shabby warheads at the Western Seaboard of the US. Even if he is a radical communist who doesn't believe in Noahs Ark.

    The UK is committed to retaining its strategic nuclear capability, not because it wants to start zapping people, but because people listen to the UK's opinions because it has them. It is also a deterrent.

    NK has been making threats and beating its chest for years, it is the only way such a strangulated and backward country has exerted so much influence in that part of the world. I don't want to see NK with nukes - it would use them in a limited local conflict (as if Korea would ever be that), and I believe we should take steps to remove that capability. What I don't believe is that inflamatory "the sky is falling" commentary, about how everyone is laying a bead on the US, is helpful. It leads to ill concieved invasions, which when they go t1ts-up leads to reduced global credibility, which in turn is bad when you're playing the "Only Global Superpower" game.

    Choose your battles, don't run onto the field pulling on your armour everytime some chicken-sh1t country claims to have access to nukes. It makes you look ill informed and easy to manipulate and it lets the antagonist score points off your panic.
  12. Amazing there was no actual move to threaten Israel about its nuclear capability........................
  13. With the exception of Iraq, whose possesion of such suited nobody's purpose, there were no direct threats to any of the "non-aligned" who developed nuclear weapons during the length of the Cold War.

    Different Times.
  14. ah, but Israel having Nukes is in Americas interest & Israel is a US ally.
    did America actualy help Israel to get them?