This is a discussion on Korea attack? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Does anybody know what this is all about?
WASHINGTON - The U.S. suggested Thursday it has limited ability to shoot a North Korean missile out ...
June 22nd, 2006 08:26 PM
Does anybody know what this is all about?
WASHINGTON - The U.S. suggested Thursday it has limited ability to shoot a North Korean missile out of the sky and spurned suggestions of a pre-emptive strike on the ground. Still, it warned the Koreans would pay a cost for a missile launch.
The nation's missile defense system, which now includes about a dozen interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and on some Navy ships, has suffered multiple test failures since President Bush ordered the Reagan-era program accelerated in early 2001.
Missile defense experts disagree on current U.S. ability to destroy a long-range missile once it is fired. But they seemed in agreement that shooting at it — and missing — would be a huge embarrassment.
A better solution, said Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, was for the North Koreans to "give it up and not launch" the missile that the U.S. believes is being fueled and prepared. "We think diplomacy is the right answer and that is what we are pursuing," he said.
Tensions persisted over North Korea's apparent preparations to test-fire a Taepodong-2 missile amid disagreements over U.S. military options for responding. The missile, with a believed range of up to 9,300 miles, is potentially capable of reaching the mainland United States.
Pentagon officials said they were prepared to use the nation's missile defense system if needed.
Asked under what circumstances it would be used against a North Korean missile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday, "The president would make a decision with respect to the nature of the launch, whether it was threatening to the territory of the United States or not, and the likely threat that it would pose."
Rumsfeld expressed no sense of alarm about the missile situation. "It's clear: All the intelligence suggests they have been making preparations for a launch of a missile from the area of Taepo Dong for some days now. There's a lot we know and a lot we don't know. So we'll just have to see."
The U.S. missile defense program is a downscaled land-and-sea version of a global defense network first proposed by Reagan that was dubbed "Star Wars" by critics. Interceptor missiles — linked to a network of satellites, radar, computers and command centers — are designed to strike and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
The Pentagon says the system is capable of defending against a limited number of missiles in an emergency — such as a North Korean attack. More than $100 billion has been spent on the program since 1983, including $7.8 billion authorized for the current fiscal year.
In the most recent test, a Navy ship late last month successfully shot down a long-range missile in its final seconds of flight. Before a successful test in the Pacific in December 2005, interceptor tests had failed five of 11 times.
In developments Thursday:
_William Perry, a Clinton administration defense secretary, advocated a strike on the missile on its launch pad. "Diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature," Perry and former assistant defense secretary Ashton B. Carter wrote in Thursday's Washington Post.
_Vice President Dick Cheney said North Korea's "missile capabilities are fairly rudimentary" but developments were being closely monitored. In a CNN interview, Cheney rejected Perry's suggestion of a pre-emptive strike, saying, "The issue is being addressed appropriately."
_Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said Pyongyang risks unspecified retaliation in proceeding. "If such a launch takes place, we would seek to impose some cost on North Korea," Rodman told the House Armed Services Committee.
Loren Thompson, a defense consultant at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., cited "two basic problems" with trying to shoot down a Korean missile in the air. "Our system is barely operational. And the impact on Korean perceptions if we miss could be counterproductive."
Said Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton national security aide now at the Brookings Institution: "Either it won't work, in which case you've just undermined the rationale for the system. Or if it does work, you have created an even bigger international crisis."
Hadley brushed aside Perry's suggestion for a pre-emptive strike. Instead, he said, "We hope it (North Korea) would come back to the table, and we hope it would be a little sobered by the unanimous message that the international community has sent."
No international talks to persuade North Korea to restrict its nuclear program have been held since last November. The five other nations in the talks — the U.S., China, Russia, Japan and South Korea — have all strongly urged the North not to launch the missile.
Hadley, who briefed reporters in Budapest, Hungary, during a Bush visit, expressed some reservations about the U.S. ability to intercept and destroy such a missile: "It is a research development and testing capability that has some limited operational capability."
"If the North Koreans fire the missile and the president chooses to launch an interceptor, the administration has an odd set of options," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the private Arms Control Association.
"If it hits the missile, will the North Koreans consider that an act of war? And if the interceptor misses the North Korean test missile, it would simply illustrate the fact that we spent tens of billions of dollars for a system that's not effective — even against one missile from one known launch point."
Associated Press writers Terence Hunt in Budapest and Foster Klug in Washington contributed to this report.
June 22nd, 2006 08:26 PM
June 22nd, 2006 08:51 PM
Tough sell. They are right that it would probably go bad either way. I dunno. Glad I don't have to make the decision.
The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD
June 22nd, 2006 08:57 PM
Not to mention that we're stretched FAR to thin to get into a scuffle with North Korea right now. They know that, and that's why they're flying us the bird (pun intended).
June 22nd, 2006 09:43 PM
What it's about is blackmail. N. Korea wants something and the west has it. Clinton started it by giving N. Korea fuel oil and food after a similar missle test of a meduim range missle. So the N. Koreans figure we are good for it again.
As for all the other discussion about shooting it down or not. Well that's way above my pay grade.
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
June 22nd, 2006 10:59 PM
All I know is that our missle defense system has only been accurate 50% of the time and I'm within missle range.
June 27th, 2006 02:20 AM
So it was a good thing when Reagan started SDI, and all those who made fun of it, called it "Star Wars" and delayed its implementation by cutting funding were short sighted fools?
Just so I can rub it in my liberal friends' noses. And they live in CA, while I live in FL.
Of course, we could test fire one of our missiles at them...
June 28th, 2006 03:38 PM
"If it hits the missile, will the North Koreans consider that an act of war?
Let us back up here a bit: If they shoot it at us, that IS an act of war already!
Not only should we shoot it down, we should also DESTROY their ability to shoot another one.
June 28th, 2006 09:23 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Ticonderoga VLS SM-2 SAM system can shoot down ballisitic missiles in the initial boost phase. This is pure speculation as I'm sure that the actual capabilities are classified T.S.C. But I do remember hearing that the Aegis radar system can track missile-sized targets up to 80,000 feet.
June 29th, 2006 02:30 PM
In the 80's I remember hearing about an F16(?) launched missile that could hit low earth orbit objects. It went up to its max altitude, stood on its tail, and launched the guided missile.
The US also has some classified ("black") anti-missile weapons.
But I agree with Freedom Doc, if it comes into our airspace or splashes down within our territorial waters or even comes close to our military bases or ships, we should take out their capability to do it again.
By AlexHassin in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 17th, 2010, 05:29 PM
By Sheldon J in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 8th, 2009, 06:43 AM
By Major E in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: April 14th, 2007, 10:30 AM
By osanmike in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 05:50 PM
By urypadorav in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: August 12th, 2006, 03:17 PM