North Korea to Launch ICBM

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Huntster

You young folks repeatedly demonstrate the crisis in education. You get plenty of liberal indoctrination, and not enough of the 3 R's.

For example, your reading.............

Did you somehow miss this when I replied to you?:



Was it poor reading, or was it a purposeful attempt to put words in my posts?

Bombing another country is basically the same as an invasion when it comes to someone like Kim. Technically, there aren't forces on the ground but it is an attack all the same.

[Huntster]

Great post, bjb.

Originally Posted by bjb

...If the North Koreans are smart, they'll put a small payload in orbit. This would allow them the test data they need and they can deny that they were conducting a missile test. It's the same thing the Russians did with Sputnik. If you can put something in a desired orbit, your engineers will have the confidence that they can hit a target in another country. I wish I could say why this is so but I'd rather not.

Isn't a ballistic missile a much different challenge than an orbital launch?

The orbital launch would be a great political coup for North Korea, and I agree that they would be politically wise to do so, but eventually they will need to test ballistic missile targetting.

Quote:

...During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro wanted to launch atomic bombs at the US, but the USSR wouldn't let him. Castro even admitted that he knew Cuba would be destroyed if he did this, but he was willing to die and have his country destroyed just so he could drop bombs on us. Sure, I know this doesn't prove that Kim is just as foolish as Castro was back in the 60's, but please realize that it is possible to have a severly deluded person in charge of a country.

Despite the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs fiasco for the CIA, there were some incredible intelligence successes (which, for obvious reasons, are never broadcast) by U.S. intelligence regarding Soviet missile technology as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

There's one thing inherently unfair about the Western intelligence world; their failures are broadcast far and wide by political and ideological foes, but their successes must be kept secret...............

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Faith in God in no way prohibits justifiable warfare.

Lack of a reasonable justification does, though.

Quote:

I consider myself somewhat moderate.

Many extremsists do.

Quote:

In some issues I'm very conservative, and in some I'm very liberal. Overall, I think I tend to lean toward the right.

You are so far slanted to the right that the rest of the world looks left from your perspective.

More opinion, Kenny? (See sig lines below......................)

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Even the "better idea"?

So, you just like condemning and obfuscating, and have no better ideas?

"Nothing" was one of your choices, wasn't it?

Quote:

It is widely believed (and I agree) that the Cold War actually was a decent glue holding the world in two halves.

Now we have tribalism, globalism, fundamentalism, environmentalism, and a few other "isms" tearing the world apart in many pieces.

We may be as close to world war as we were during the Cold War years, with less of a chance to avert it as when there were just two sides talking.......

*chuckles at environmentalism*

The Cold War was an Arms race that brought us to the brink of WWIII. The world didn't come to an end because because our leaders had cooler heads than you. Just because Kim is taking part in an arms race doesn't mean that war is inevitable.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You young folks repeatedly demonstrate the crisis in education. You get plenty of liberal indoctrination, and not enough of the 3 R's.

For example, your reading.............

Did you somehow miss this when I replied to you?:

Was it poor reading, or was it a purposeful attempt to put words in my posts?

Bombing another country is basically the same as an invasion when it comes to someone like Kim....

But it is much different when it comes to people like our troops currently in Iraq.

Quote:

Technically, there aren't forces on the ground but it is an attack all the same.

Yup.

And it achieves the goal (elimination or heavy damage of their nuclear ICBM capabilities) without the large loss of our troops, and without a long propaganda war at home with apologists.

[bjb]

Like I said, that's all I can say. Maybe a different GN&C person would care to comment. Even someone who reads Avation Week could answer your questions but there don't seem to be anyone here who is familiar with the information they have made public over the years.

The engineers just need to fly their rocket and make sure it works as designed. George Bush could stop these tests but the warhead interceptors won't do it for him. He does have other options that do not involve nuclear weapons or an invasion. Maybe something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

Notably, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney specifically referred to the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor as protecting American troops during the first, and implicitly, the second Gulf War.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Even the "better idea"?

So, you just like condemning and obfuscating, and have no better ideas?

"Nothing" was one of your choices, wasn't it?

Yes, it was.

Does nothing include open, political criticism of the efforts of others without offering an alternative?

Quote:

Quote:

It is widely believed (and I agree) that the Cold War actually was a decent glue holding the world in two halves.

Now we have tribalism, globalism, fundamentalism, environmentalism, and a few other "isms" tearing the world apart in many pieces.

We may be as close to world war as we were during the Cold War years, with less of a chance to avert it as when there were just two sides talking.......

*chuckles at environmentalism*

The Cold War was an Arms race that brought us to the brink of WWIII.

The arms race was just part of the Cold War. The Cold War was an ideological and political struggle, and it was very much "hot" in the periphery (Korea, Vietnam, etc).

Quote:

The world didn't come to an end because because our leaders had cooler heads than you....

"The world didn't come to an end"? You still believe that line of propaganda?

A thermonuclear exchange between the superpowers didn't occur primarily because the stakes were too high, both sides knew it, and both sides were reasonable.

Now, with India/Pakistan, Israel/Arab World, and (soon to join the fray) North Korea and Iran, do you think the chances of averting a nuclear exchange is better now, particularly when the superpower's political power over their allies has waned?

Just because Kim is taking part in an arms race doesn't mean that war is inevitable.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by bjb

....George Bush could stop these tests but the warhead interceptors won't do it for him. He does have other options that do not involve nuclear weapons or an invasion. Maybe something like this?...

Notably, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney specifically referred to the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor as protecting American troops during the first, and implicitly, the second Gulf War.

I agree, and have already advocated such a move:

Quote:

I'd pull the same tactic as Israel did at Osiraq. We have all the tools necessary to do it with virtually no military risk. We have the best and unequaled aerial first strike capability on Earth with either stealth, manned aircraft or cruise missles with aerial/satellite targetting capability, or both. Simply destroy their nuclear infrastructure, then wait for them to rebuild it.

Then destroy it again.

Repeat as necessary.

No ground troops necessary.

In fact, I believe that is the administration's only viable military option...........

[Elind]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Possible, but unlikely. For example, if we have a conventional (i.e. not bomb-pumped) X-ray laser, tightly focused enough and fired from a ground-based platform, then if we miss, we'd basically just be firing a huge burst of X-rays into space. The atmospheric results would likely be anomolous (that kind of ionization doesn't just happen for the hell of it), and the timing would be suspicious, but although a lot of people would guess that we had tried and failed to knock the missile down with an X-ray laser, no one would really have proof.

The problem, of course, is that for military purposes, suspicion is almost as good as proof. In particular, the kind of facilities (particular power generation) necessary to fire one of these devices more or less requires a dedicated, land-based facility (probably based in a friendly country like Japan, due to the need for access to the boost phase.) You could never fit such a beast onto a sub or an aircraft. Once the NKs know that the US has deployed such lasers, they're an obvious espionage or sabotage target -- again, we've basically blown our cover.

A more conventional system, such as the Patriot, will rely on kinetic-kill missiles. These can be deployed by mobile units, but are very easy to track on radar, and the kinetic-kill (or, more likely,
the kinetic failure-to-kiill) will be obvious to any observers.

The only system that exists is kinetic kill. It will probably be impossible to keep the knowledge of a launch secret, but nobody but only the US will have the capability to determine the result, and that part can be kept secret, or lied about.

The Koreans will not be able to monitor the final flight path of a ballistic payload. They launch and will know from the boost phase if it reached the speed and trajectory for the ballistic payload. After that it's gone. Possibly they can transmit from the payload while it's coasting for a while, but I wonder what a few awacs over the Pacific could do to such a signal?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Just about all of the tests involving missile defense have permitted the defenders to know:

Quote:

where the projectile will be launched,

We know that

Quote:

when the projectile will be launched,

We will know that within seconds

Quote:

where the projectile is aimed,

There are not many directions they can aim, therefore we know that pretty well

Quote:

and the projectile has been equipped with a transponder to make it easier to track and distinguish from countermeasures.

This one will probably have that too, for Korean purposes, but that is not how the anti missile tracks the target and it has nothing to do with identifying "countermeasures". IE decoys.

Quote:

In the event of an actual attack, I seriously doubt that the offenders will be quite as accommodating.

Which part of the above qualifies for "accommodating" and are you talking about the current situation, or moving on to when they really attack?

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Not necessarily an invasion, but I think even that is a better idea than to wait another decade until NK gets it's ICBM program all tidied up, built up, and ready for the unthinkable.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Of course, we could also just watch another episode of Laverne and Shirley and let our children or grandchildren deal with it.........................

Now, THAT'S real torture right there.

Originally Posted by Huntster

I agree wholeheartedly, except that {undermining Kim's regime} hasn't worked for the past 50 years.

I'd like the assassination option, too, but that didn't work with Fidel.

I guess I'll have to be satisfied with letting the next generation worry about it.

Apart from charging up the peninsula in 1950, running back again, then camping out on the 49th parallel in 1953 and building immense fortifications facing each other, I'd be interested to know what else has been tried to break the impasse. I'm aware there's been assorted spy-raids from NK, but many of those ended up defecting. Details, anyone?

Originally Posted by Huntster

With the record of our intelligence community in mind, how are you going to introduce "bad coding"?

With a hammer.

Here's one idea: NK don't build computers themselves (unless they are made from mud or concrete), they steal the parts and technology from the west - it's cheaper and easier by far. So find the conduits and feed them "appropriately modified" technology. Too simple to work? The US did that to the USSR regularly, with good results.

ETA: This is probably already being done, so it's not like I'm prescient or anything.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by bjb

I'd also like to add that many of you need to read up on your history. During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro wanted to launch atomic bombs at the US, but the USSR wouldn't let him. Castro even admitted that he knew Cuba would be destroyed if he did this, but he was willing to die and have his country destroyed just so he could drop bombs on us. Sure, I know this doesn't prove that Kim is just as foolish as Castro was back in the 60's, but please realize that it is possible to have a severly deluded person in charge of a country.

I don't supose you'd care to share the source of that bit of information?

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by jj

Whatever, Corps...

Corps, beeps, jocko... seen one ...

Yeah, but we've all seen you, thanks to Jocko's cameras.

BTW, you need to change your underwear...

[BPSCG]

Bill Clinton's Secretery of Defense and Assistant SecDef have an op-ed today saying we should destroy the missile while it's still on the ground.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Bill Clinton's Secretery of Defense and Assistant SecDef have an op-ed today saying we should destroy the missile while it's still on the ground.

A good argument, and quite comfortable to support. And it's much MUCH easier to hit the thing standing on the launch-pad than when it's in flight. Even zapping its launch infrastructure will do, but seeing the rocket itself go poof! would be much more satisfying.

If Kim isn't going to back down and this becomes a feasible alternative, I'd be giving Kim and his crowd a loud-and-clear warning call. Make an international announcement addressed specifically to him that he has 12 hours to pack it up and put it away, or his new toy is rubble. Count on it. A few cruise missiles and...

So Kim gets to choose between a humiliating back down to the Americans, or ignoring the warning and pushing on, in the certain knowledge his grand new "bargaining chip" will be destroyed quickly and easily and publicly. Either way, his (pathetic) credibility is put right on the line, especially at home.

And to CYA, get UN sanction for the potential action up front. Shouldn't be too hard - Kim hasn't exactly been hiding his WMD, has he.

Hey - you could sell tickets to the satellite view of the blast!

[Hutch]

Read the piece, BPSCG; and I still think that would be a bad idea.

Many posters, I among them, have posited about the less than rational state of the body politic of North Korea, beginning with the Dear Leader; the article seems to indicate that they would react to an direct attack (for it could be interperted as nothing but) on what they may consider a matter of their national security in a sane, rational matter. That seems to me to be a risky proposition.

The article also seems to discount or minimize the reaction of the other 6-party nations to such an attack, particulary S. Korea. A nation that stands to lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives in the first hours of a war (if the N. Koreans direct their artillery on Seoul without warning), and which has a history of protests over the US role in S. Korea may not act quite as calmly as the pundits say. And anyone predicting the Chinese reaction to a surprise US attack a couple of hundred miles from their borders probably should still be working for the Government--as soothsayer. Accurately reading other countries reactions to our gambits is something most administrations, and this one in particular, have not done exceptionally well.

Last, they (the article writers) are sure that we would defeat any attack by N. Korea handily and within a few weeks/months; and I tend to agree with this, BTW--US and S. Korean military technology is that much better. The operational question is if the N. Korean Military leaders--very insular, brought up on propaganda on the superiority of N. Korea, with little practical knowledge of what the state of the art tools can do--might think they can win--and advise the Politbureau that way-after all, Generals have been known to tell politicians what they want to hear before...

Lastly, you are rolling the bones on one shot (albeit you might target more than one cruise missile) that could fail for a variety of reasons (systems failure, jamming, shot down by N. Korean Air Defense-you'll know they'll be on alert) and thus embarrass us with no positive result, something I don't think Bush would risk politically at this time with low ratings and the 2006 elections. Politics and war are much the same thing, as has been stated before (I cannot recall if it was Bismarck or Clauzwitz).

What I think will happen is that we will monitor the hell out of the test launch, use it to 'real-world' test our ABM system to the point of launch, and try to recover the nose cone of the missile from whereever it lands in the ocean (if the N. Koreans are smart, they'll target it for the deepest part of the Marianas trench). And we'll use the launch to jawbone our 'partners' in the Group of 6 to add to the pressure on N. Korea. But no more.

IMHO as always.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Hutch

Read the piece, BPSCG; and I still think that would be a bad idea.

Many posters, I among them, have posited about the less than rational state of the body politic of North Korea, beginning with the Dear Leader; the article seems to indicate that they would react to an direct attack (for it could be interperted as nothing but) on what they may consider a matter of their national security in a sane, rational matter. That seems to me to be a risky proposition.

As a student of the U.S. Civil War, you are certainly familiar with Grant's reaction to all the dire predictions about what General Lee was going to do to the Union army: "Next you'll be telling me Lee did a backflip and put his whole army in our rear overnight. Maybe you should be thinking about what we're going to do to Lee, instead."

Quote:

The article also seems to discount or minimize the reaction of the other 6-party nations to such an attack, particulary S. Korea. A nation that stands to lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives in the first hours of a war (if the N. Koreans direct their artillery on Seoul without warning), and which has a history of protests over the US role in S. Korea may not act quite as calmly as the pundits say.

Well, that's a shame, isn't it? This missile is for the purpose of hitting the U.S., not South Korea. Sorry if our national self-interest and yours don't coincide. Maybe you want to find some other ally willing to park his army on your northern border so his troops can be the first to die in case of an invasion.

Quote:

And anyone predicting the Chinese reaction to a surprise US attack a couple of hundred miles from their borders probably should still be working for the Government--as soothsayer.

Not a surprise attack. Carter and Perry say we should make our intentions known ahead of time.

Quote:

Accurately reading other countries reactions to our gambits is something most administrations, and this one in particular, have not done exceptionally well.

Well, FWIW, these gentlemen are from the last administration, not this one.

Quote:

Last, they (the article writers) are sure that we would defeat any attack by N. Korea handily and within a few weeks/months; and I tend to agree with this, BTW--US and S. Korean military technology is that much better. The operational question is if the N. Korean Military leaders--very insular, brought up on propaganda on the superiority of N. Korea, with little practical knowledge of what the state of the art tools can do--might think they can win--and advise the Politbureau that way-after all, Generals have been known to tell politicians what they want to hear before...

...what, they might launch an attack?

Quote:

Lastly, you are rolling the bones on one shot (albeit you might target more than one cruise missile)

You'd be crazy not to. Zarqawi was killed with two 500-pound bombs, not one 1000-pounder.

Quote:

Politics and war are much the same thing, as has been stated before (I cannot recall if it was Bismarck or Clauzwitz).

Diplomacy is warfare by other means. Bismarck, I'm almost certain.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Elind

The only system that exists is kinetic kill.

Let's be fair. The only system that we know exists is kinetic kill. I have no idea what the backroom boys at DARPA have dreamed up, and if I did, I wouldn't be telling the Randi forum about it.

Quote:

It will probably be impossible to keep the knowledge of a launch secret, but nobody but only the US will have the capability to determine the result, and that part can be kept secret, or lied about.

The Koreans will not be able to monitor the final flight path of a ballistic payload. They launch and will know from the boost phase if it reached the speed and trajectory for the ballistic payload. After that it's gone. Possibly they can transmit from the payload while it's coasting for a while, but I wonder what a few awacs over the Pacific could do to such a signal?

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you suggesting that the North Korean Navy can't move a radar-equipped missile boat downrange to track the final flight path? Or, or that matter, install a radar set on a rented cargo boat?

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Diplomacy is warfare by other means. Bismarck, I'm almost certain.

No it is Clausewitz: "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

No it is Clausewitz: "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

Well, at least I know what Edmund Burke didn't say...

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Diplomacy is warfare by other means. Bismarck, I'm almost certain.

No, Clausewitz, On War:

Quote:

Besides establishing this real difference in Wars, another practically necessary point of view must at the same time be established, which is, that WAR IS ONLY A CONTINUATION OF STATE POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

God bless Project Gutenberg.

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

As a student of the U.S. Civil War, you are certainly familiar with Grant's reaction to all the dire predictions about what General Lee was going to do to the Union army: "Next you'll be telling me Lee did a backflip and put his whole army in our rear overnight. Maybe you should be thinking about what we're going to do to Lee, instead."

And as a fellow student, you know Grant's greatest unacknowledged skill was his abilty to manuever and outfox his opponent into an untenable position rather than his reputation of hitting them head-on...

Quote:

Well, that's a shame, isn't it? This missile is for the purpose of hitting the U.S., not South Korea. Sorry if our national self-interest and yours don't coincide. Maybe you want to find some other ally willing to park his army on your northern border so his troops can be the first to die in case of an invasion.

But is it in our self-interest to possibly alienate and in the worst case, destabilize a long and valued ally?

Quote:

Not a surprise attack. Carter and Perry say we should make our intentions known ahead of time.

I stand corrected. However, to the Chinese, it will still come as an unpleasant surprise in that US behavior has changed--and again, IMHO, I don't think the Middle Kingdom likes surprises--what they will make of it, I really don't know.

Quote:

Well, FWIW, these gentlemen are from the last administration, not this one.

Indeed, and they did so well 6-12 years ago...

Quote:

...what, they might launch an attack?

You cannot discount the possibility--If in their minds they think they could win--and we do not know what is in their minds.

Quote:

You'd be crazy not to. Zarqawi was killed with two 500-pound bombs, not one 1000-pounder.

Indeed, I do agree with you here--but the risks of failure remain.

Quote:

Diplomacy is warfare by other means. Bismarck, I'm almost certain.

well, Kerberos schooled both of us, I think

Thoughtfully, Hutch

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Hutch

But is it in our self-interest to possibly alienate and in the worst case, destabilize a long and valued ally?

I think we've spilled enough of our own blood and treasure there, on their behalf, during the last 60 years, that we have earned the right to consider our well-being before we consider theirs.

If they believe otherwise, they can always invite us to leave. Of course, that might mean they'd have to start paying for a little more of their own national defense, but if my understanding is correct, most Oriental cultures don't like to be in the position of mendicant.

Quote:

I stand corrected. However, to the Chinese, it will still come as an unpleasant surprise in that US behavior has changed--and again, IMHO, I don't think the Middle Kingdom likes surprises--what they will make of it, I really don't know.

Well, I'm sure they've been very content to see us spending untold billions defending South Korea.

Quote:

You cannot discount the possibility--If in their minds they think they could win--and we do not know what is in their minds.

Do you have any doubt as to the outcome?

My bet as to what would happen: A fifteen-minute news cycle. NK would huff and puff and their hilarious official news agency* would print a couple of furious diatribes, and that would be the end of it. All public record of their ICBM would vanish, 1984-like. They would not launch an attack against SK, because they know that it would be a disaster - at least for the NK military.

Quote:

Indeed, I do agree with you here--but the risks of failure remain.

Every war entails risk. Going to work every day entails risk. Allowing an unstable nutjob who hates you to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems entails unacceptable risk.

Quote:

well, Kerberos schooled both of us, I think

Doesn't know who Judah P. Benjamin was without googling it, I bet.

*Warning: Turn off your ActiveX if you're still using IE instead of FireFox; I somehow don't think they're particularly careful about whether or not you'd be getting a virus or something from their web pages.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Let's be fair. The only system that we know exists is kinetic kill. I have no idea what the backroom boys at DARPA have dreamed up, and if I did, I wouldn't be telling the Randi forum about it.

We all know about the Star Wars concepts from years ago. We know what is operational and what is experimental. If you want to speculate that all the current anti missile expense was just a front for the "real" sooper sekret laser systems, be my guest.

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you suggesting that the North Korean Navy can't move a radar-equipped missile boat downrange to track the final flight path? Or, or that matter, install a radar set on a rented cargo boat?

You seem to think it's a simple matter to track something the size of a garbage can travelling at thousands of miles per hour a hundred or so miles overhead from a rocking fishing trawler in the middle of the ocean. Your faith in N Korean technology exceeds mine it seems. So, to answer your question, I very much doubt it.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Elind

We know that

True enough! We know right where the missile is.
That is quite accommodating of them.

Originally Posted by Elind

We will know that within seconds

True enough! But that is still not quite the same thing as knowing in advance when the missile will be launched.
That is not quite so accommodating.

Originally Posted by Elind

There are not many directions they can aim, therefore we know that pretty well

I am not so sure about that. They may aim the missile in such a way that it will be conveniently positioned for interception by the US ABM system, but then again they may not do such a thing.
That is not very accommodating of them.

Originally Posted by Elind

This one will probably have that too, for Korean purposes, but that is not how the anti missile tracks the target and it has nothing to do with identifying "countermeasures". IE decoys.

I do think you getting a bit off track here. While the Korean missile may possibly be fitted with a transponder that they can track, that does not mean that this transponder could be tracked by the US system as well.
That is not very accommodating either.

Originally Posted by Elind

Which part of the above qualifies for "accommodating" and are you talking about the current situation, or moving on to when they really attack?

In regards to "accommodating", please see above.

And I for one am talking about the current situation.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Hutch

I stand corrected. However, to the Chinese, it will still come as an unpleasant surprise in that US behavior has changed--and again, IMHO, I don't think the Middle Kingdom likes surprises--what they will make of it, I really don't know.

WEll bombing a NK missile is hardly a threat to Chinese National security, I'm not saying they'd be thrilled, but I don't think they'd do anything rash either. If NK invades and US rolls them back to the Chineese border that is likely to be a major probelm to them, but not as I see it just blowing up a missile.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Doesn't know who Judah P. Benjamin was without googling it, I bet.

BAH! I'd never google such basic information.

Wikipedia is much better

[bjb]

Castro wanting to start WWIII fits into the 'common knowlege' category, or at least I thought it did. I've heard the story for many years but the best source I have is the documentary "Fog of War". Robert McNamara describes a telephone conversation with Castro where he admits this and adds, "You would have done the same". Of course, McNamara was shocked and horrified and told Castro he was wrong. So much for rational leaders. I recommend that everyone watch this documentary if you get a chance. Some of you think Huntster is an extremist, but apparently, you've never heard of Curtis LeMay. I saw it recently and I learned a lot I didn't know about the bombing of Japan, the cold war, and how we got involved in the Vietnam conflict.

Once again, some of you are showing extreme gaps in your knowlege of US missile defense systems. The airborne laser project (ABL) has been around for quite a while. It is a 747 with a laser attached to its head that can shoot down a missile in its boost phase:

http://www.boeing.com/images/video_t...e_200video.jpg

and

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ips/abl15.html

According to the Boeing ABL site, the prototype system completed ground testing in December of last years. I don't see anything on the Boeing site about when the system is supposed to be ready for flight testing though. Visit the site and click around a bit. There's some interesting information on the Boeing site for all you wanna-be strategic defense experts:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...abl/index.html

I agree that the KKV is our 'only' option because it is the only one that has been deployed. I don't know the status of the ABL tests or when it might be ready for an early test deployment.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by bjb

Once again, some of you are showing extreme gaps in your knowlege of US missile defense systems. The airborne laser project (ABL) has been around for quite a while. It is a 747 with a laser attached to its head that can shoot down a missile in its boost phase:

Cool! I didn't know that Boeing had publically announced its zap gun....

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by bjb

Some of you think Huntster is an extremist, but apparently, you've never heard of Curtis LeMay.

Just watch "Dr. Strangelove". I loved the satirical take on LeMay, as portrayed by George C. Scott. Even the cigar was there.

[Dcdrac]

Didn't Curtis Le May want to go all out nuclear in the cuban Misile crsis and knock out the USSR first?

[Dcdrac]

Ihave FOg of War on DVD it is a good watch and very illuminating

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Didn't Curtis Le May want to go all out nuclear in the cuban Misile crsis and knock out the USSR first?

I think LeMay prefered to go all out nuclear, nomatter what the occasion! Even the young kids were practicing their "Duck and Cover" techniques in school back then.

Watch "Dr. Strangelove" - you won't be disappointed. It's a great satirical movie.

[Dcdrac]

I have Strangeglove as well it is great, Mr President we must not allow a Mine Shaft gap

[Dcdrac]

Mein Fuher I can walk..............

[Dcdrac]

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[Dcdrac]

General "Buck" Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a phone transcript of that conversation if you'd like me to to read it.
President Merkin Muffley: Read it!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and nobody can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.
[beat]
General "Buck" Turgidson: Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
President Merkin Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
General "Buck" Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

I have Strangeglove as well it is great, Mr President we must not allow a Mine Shaft gap

Indeed. I think the General liked the idea of 10 especially selected hotties for every man; with plenty of time on their hands, waiting for the radioactive clouds to clear. Then the fun part - repopulation. No wonder LeMay loved nuclear war.

[Dcdrac]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Zep

......Apart from charging up the peninsula in 1950, running back again, then camping out on the 49th parallel in 1953 and building immense fortifications facing each other, I'd be interested to know what else has been tried to break the impasse. I'm aware there's been assorted spy-raids from NK, but many of those ended up defecting. Details, anyone?....

Quote:

...Here's one idea: NK don't build computers themselves (unless they are made from mud or concrete), they steal the parts and technology from the west - it's cheaper and easier by far. So find the conduits and feed them "appropriately modified" technology. Too simple to work? The US did that to the USSR regularly, with good results.

ETA: This is probably already being done, so it's not like I'm prescient or anything.

Maybe you're answering your own question?