Too dangersous? So he's backing down? He's backing down from one of the nations he named in the axis of evil? How many people will be lost if that madman decides to move hundreds of thousands of troops across the border?
OK folks, here it is: A. Our troops there are simply a tripwire. You can't tell me without being slightly insane that our small amount of troops there would be sufficent to ward off a full-tilt boogey NK invasion of South Korea. Actually, the less troops we have there, the better. We're not backing down in Korea, but taking some of our troops out of what will be a harm's way. We should play a hard line with KJI and let that troll know that his behavior will not be tolerated. B. I don't have a problem with us building tactical ABM systems like the Aegis system (mounted on Navy cruisers and destroyers) and the AL-1 laser attack plane. But I do believe the big, fixed strategic system would be a waste of money. The advantage of a theater system would be its ability, especially with AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, to be moved quickly to a trouble spot.
Bama, if the NK's do another launch over Japan, or attempt it, do you think that the Japanese (or us) will try to shoot it down with an AEGIS? I know the Japanese have one positioned between Japan and the Korean peninsula. And, if the attempt were made, I wonder if it's a good idea? If it were to fail, then a major weapon for use against the "primitive" missiles the NK's have would be exposed as flawed. Having said that, if I were the Japanese, I would make the attempt. And if we have an AEGIS in theatre that could also make an attempt, we should. If successful, it would be a huge political, as well as military, slap in the face of the NK's of the world.
You're assuming rational actors and N Korea aren't, I note that you don't lead with an argument about great love for the N. Korean people as you now proclaim as a major justification for war with Iraq. Hayes you seemed so much more rationale when you were responding to steps we could take to reduce terrorism in the other thread. Now you have regressed to the "crazy man" rationale that led to the war with iraq, and will unless defeated lead to war with Iran and other countries under the "crazy ayatollah" variant.. The crazy man argument says logic and moderation should be left at the door. It envitably leads to war.
I'm not opposing the missile-defense system because it's impossible, merely that it's pointless. There are a million ways to detonate a nuclear bomb in the US w/o actually having to use a sophisticated ICBM. Heck, what do you think is easier to do? That N. Korea develops a long range missile with a nuclear warhead and launches it against the US, or N. Korea simply try to find the means to smuggle the weapon into the US, and detonate it here?
From what I know, the Japanese AEGIS boats are more advanced than ours (Got to love the Japanese: they invent a few things, but perfect everything else ) and I imagine they are equipped with the SM-2 Block IVA like our ships. This is what I'm talking about: link If the North Koreans do decide to shoot off a missile at Japan, the Japanese will act. Not only will they have a couple of their destroyers in position, but I imagine that we'll be able to retaliate pretty effectively as well. I'd be willing to bet at least a couple of our subs are parked off of North Korea ready to let fly with cruise missiles.
Bama, I was assuming that the NK's would be launching another missile over Japan, as they did before, which freaked the Japanese out, putting it mildly. Of course, you have a very short time to decide a missile's trajectory, but unless Japan was clearly a target, I doubt very much that we would retaliate. I was more interested in the possibility of a similar overflight (assuming the damn thing didn't break up and parts of it fell on Japan anyway), and an attempt to shoot it down. Success or failure, in that case, would have huge political implications, besides the obvious good feelings we'd all have from being able to do it, or the bad ones if AEGIS missed the mark.
Well, no weapons system is perfect and the bugs are being worked out of the Block IVA interceptor for sure. I'd imagine they'd try to shoot it and down and I agree. A shootdown would definitely take the wind of that little troll's sails.
Completely different because you aren't allocating boots on the ground to build a missle system. In fact, my opinion as expressed in the WOT thread was that we build a system with the other major powers specifically to remove the threat from a so-called 'rogue state,' and to a lesser degree, from an accidental launch from a underdeveloped state. Proliferation literature simply doesn't equate the danger from a smuggled nuke to that of an ICBM delivered warhead. It incomparable. ICBM nukes are very large, detonate in the air and obliterate large cities. Dirty bombs and their ilk simply have that destructive capacity. In addition, if your argument is resource allocation, you cover a lot of bases with a missle defense system: accidental launch, rogue missle launch, miscalculations in some scenarios - for example if a BMD system would remove the need for Japan to 'rearm' and themselves go nuclear. Japanese proliferation creates a whole laundry list of potentially catastrophic consequences. The advantages to such a system are almost endless.
Not sure what you mean. I'm talking about building a missle defense system. No, that's not for the people of NK. What's your point? Uh, no it says you don't want crazy people to get nukes, and if they do then you would be wise to attempt to protect yourself. I'm not calling for the invasion of North Korea, so don't run off to Canada just yet. I'm calling for a DEFENSIVE measure to protect civilian populations from a purposeful or accidental nuclear launch. Boy I sure am a warmonger...(roll eyes would be good here but I'll defer to Deckard).
I think it would be easier for NK to launch an unstoppable (as it is now) ICBM than to smuggle a nuke into the country, and that the ballistic platform is more devestating than a backpack nuke, for instance. If you think it would be easier to smuggle one in then please explain how it easier.
In a container on a container ship. Those ships are huge, aren't checked out nearly enough, and should be. Hopefully, we have some secret detector for that stuff. Otherwise, one could have nightmares about it. (btw, Hayes, when I'm provoked enough, I put (insert roll-eyes here), instead of the emoticon. It has the advantage of forcing someone to actually read it, instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to the real thing. ) Keep D&D Civil!!
Look, North Korea would have to move their nuclear material to someone else's port. They can't just sail a boat from pyongyang to SF harbor. Because of the stict embargo there aren't even that many places for them to do that. Then they'd have to get it on a ship registered to another country (opening that country up to retribution btw), or have the explicit help of another handling country. You can bet your ass the PRC is not going to let them move nuclear material through their hands to bomb the US. Neither is any other state. You can't just move a bomb in a crate that's nuclear without handlers. The thing weighs thousands of pounds and needs specialized care. You'd have to have someone to detonate it. NK is not AQ. You'd have to avoid ALL detection and even then if you got in the harbor your bomb wouldn't be anywhere as close to devestating as an ICBM. With an ICBM they'd have to push a button. Tell me which is easier. And again, this doesn't deal with accidental launch, miscalculation, or the proliferation that will probably follow without some way to neutralize states like NK's nuclear arsenal. Sweet.
except for his actions and the fact that they still exist and are able to influence the entire region. Can you prove that your point isnt speculation? Albright, one of our few high ranking politicians, has met him and said on record that he is a rational actor. If you can find someone who has met him and says he's irrational, please lets hear, but maybe you are the type to connect big glasses with evil. Again, you are mixing up criminal and rational., the words have different meanings.
I certainly won't deny that the type of nuke the North Koreans could probably fabricate would be of a pretty good size, but they have had technological exchanges with Pakistan, who are busy beavers, making smaller ones for their missiles, and they've managed to export missiles, and missile technology, to other countries. I wish I could feel sanguine about it being out of the realm of possibility, but that possibility, however remote, exists. I've read several articles in the past about our harbors being the most open means of importing a bomb, sophisticated or not, and container ships are one of the first things mentioned. Lets hope we increase port security, something Kerry has mentioned numerous times, and stay lucky. The alternative is truly a nightmare. I hope we develop some sort of missile defense, and I think what bama mentions is the right track. What's being deployed now as a land based system is more of a goldmine for defense contractors, then anything we should hang our hats on. I think there is promise in airborne lasers, and ship defense along the lines of the AEGIS... anti-missile systems designed to shoot down the more crude types of missiles, that can be moved quickly to a threatened theatre. Keep D&D Civil!!
Besides you forget that lasers can eventually be used to shoot at things other than ICBMs. Supposedly, the Navy will have a laser-based Close In Weapons System in around 10 years on their new cruisers and destroyers. Phasers on stun!
