Strike and Destroy

#2
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.
 
#3
#4
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.
 
#5
tomahawk6 said:
A call to destroy NK's missile while still on the launching pad is about the stupidist idea I have seen this week. Instead we should wait til a launch and shoot it down once it goes out over the Sea of Japan. Currently there is a sizeable USN presence off the NK coast with a capability to down an ballistic missile.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html
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.
 
#6
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.
john
 
#7
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.
 
#8
press_it said:
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.
Excellent foreign policy advice, mate. "What would Jack Ryan do?" I must remember to teach that one to my studes. :D
 
#9
If it's good enough for the US State Department.... :twisted:
 
#10
crabtastic said:
press_it said:
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.
Excellent foreign policy advice, mate. "What would Jack Ryan do?" I must remember to teach that one to my studes. :D
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?
 
#11
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.
 
#12
press_it said:
you have got to ask yourself, what would Clansey's President Jack Ryan do?
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.
 
#13
RTFQ said:
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.
Amazing there was no actual move to threaten Israel about its nuclear capability........................
 
#14
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.
 
#15
mukhabarat2003 said:
RTFQ said:
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.
Amazing there was no actual move to threaten Israel about its nuclear capability........................
ah, but Israel having Nukes is in Americas interest & Israel is a US ally.
did America actualy help Israel to get them?
 
#16
[quote="press_it]ah, but Israel having Nukes is in Americas interest & Israel is a US ally.
did America actualy help Israel to get them?[/quote]

Is it really? How does a nuclear armed israel HELP the interests if most US voters?

Did the US help the israelis to get nukes? I was under the impression that Israel was nuke armed before the US decided tosend them a large Cheque every year.
 
#17
Pteranadon said:
Is it really? How does a nuclear armed israel HELP the interests if most US voters?
in the same way the huge US support to Israel over the years helped US voters. It prevented expansion of Soviet influence in the middle east. The conflicts there over the years became very much a war by proxy between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. We backed Israel, they backed the Arabs (in general terms). Make no mistake, it was a high stakes endeavour - one of the reasons we got our hands slapped over Suez was that the Arab league and its russian friends threatened to make the conflict global - via economic and miltary means. For many years it was deemed that the spark for the Big One would come from the ME, not NW Europe. Furthermore, a Soviet hedgemony in the region would mean they controlled the oil and the important strategic channel of the canal and the indian ocean. Us pongos often forget it, but he who controls the seas controls the world.

So, how does this effect the US voters? Well, it helped you and us win the cold war. The embroglio around israel and the mess in afghanistan kept southward soviet expansion restricted and it gave the US a fingerhold of influence in the ME. Where. The. Oil. Is.

Did the US help the israelis to get nukes? I was under the impression that Israel was nuke armed before the US decided tosend them a large Cheque every year.
Yes, via its chums, the UK, France and Germany. Arming Israel was very much a joint NATO and western venture. Do you start to see why the arabs and persians got so p1ssed off with all these foreign fingers in their pie? Personally, I think our actions were necessary, the soviets were a bigger threat than a few aircraft hitting the US and a few backpack bombs in London, it's just a crying shame we were so naive in not seeing them coming in the 70's 80's and 90's. At the very least the US could have taken that time to Know It's Enemy before it started expeditionary ops in the region, and the UK could have tried to retain the knowledge it had of them from the 20s, 30s and 40s.
 
#18
IIRC, the US "discovered" the Dimona facilty in 1960- 3 years after construction began on it. The USIC has something of a sh1t-fit when they found out what was going on- especially because it took them 3 years to figure it out. Rather than aid the Israelis, the US was quite concerned because both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were trying to get some sort of non-proliferation regime established.
 
#19
crabtastic said:
IIRC, the US "discovered" the Dimona facilty in 1960- 3 years after construction began on it. The USIC has something of a sh1t-fit when they found out what was going on- especially because it took them 3 years to figure it out. Rather than aid the Israelis, the US was quite concerned because both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were trying to get some sort of non-proliferation regime established.
I thought the stink of it was that france had supplied the facilities (or at least designs for them) and brits provided the fissile material. Was there some post suez transatlantic shennanigens going on?
 
#20
gallowglass said:
tomahawk6 said:
A call to destroy NK's missile while still on the launching pad is about the stupidist idea I have seen this week. Instead we should wait til a launch and shoot it down once it goes out over the Sea of Japan. Currently there is a sizeable USN presence off the NK coast with a capability to down an ballistic missile.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html
What if you happen to miss?
TH - Seems a bit daft that. You're putting a lot of trust in the US Navy aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Rogers_III
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top