U.S. Prepared to Shoot Down N. Korean Missile

[holy king]

let's just agree that winner has come in second.

 

[RedRalph]

let's just agree that winner has come in second.

Fair enough.

 

[Yeekim]

The only threat they pose comes from few missiles and artillery aimed at Seoul, that's all, so let's stop pretending that North Korea is some kind of a military great power.

Yes, they would obviously lose the war. Which is why the chances they'll start this are negligible indeed. However, there is an Estonian proverb which says: "Once a year, even broomstick can go "bang"". Deluded dictators starting suicidal wars is not entirely without precedent. Cambodia attacking Vietnam comes to mind for instance.
So, don't sneeze at their military. The worlds' largest number of artillery they have aimed at Seoul might be dated from WW2 period mostly, but artillery back then could level cities pretty nicely, iirc. And they have it placed nice and deep into mountains, so it is pretty well protected from counter-fire afaik. They could turn Seoul into a pile of rubbish within few hours and the fact they'll run out of fuel, ammunition and probably fighting spirit in a week after that is not going to rebuild it.

EDIT: Still I won't belive that shooting down his missile is going to push ol' Kim over the edge.

 

[Winner]

A predictable change of tactics when one realises one is backed up against a wall by their own stupidity.

Don't be so hard on yourself

Oh right, so he's lying, is he?[/QUOTE]

No - he just tells his audience things they wanna hear, which also help him.

Underestimating your enemy is a risky tactics in military-diplomacy, which is why politicians and the generals who support them tend to OVERESTIMATE the enemy. They're just playing it safe.

Again - remember all that hype about Iraqi military? How it was supposed to be super-hard war for the US? How Saddam will kill thousands with his nerve gas delivered by Scuds? And do you remember how it actually ended?

"Credible military force" what is that? Sounds like one ofthe useless phrases circulating in the media.

 

[Winner]

Yes, they would obviously lose the war. Which is why the chances they'll start this are negligible indeed. However, there is an Estonian proverb which says: "Once a year, even broomstick can go "bang"". Deluded dictators starting suicidal wars is not entirely without precedent. Cambodia attacking Vietnam comes to mind for instance.

North Korea has consistently acted the way it is acting now - it has a regime which wants to survive, not die with a bang like some fundie morons in the Middle East.

So, don't sneeze at their military. The worlds' largest number of artillery they have aimed at Seoul might be dated from WW2 period mostly, but artillery back then could level cities pretty nicely, iirc. And they have it placed nice and deep into mountains, so it is pretty well protected from counter-fire afaik. They could turn Seoul into a pile of rubbish within few hours and the fact they'll run out of fuel, ammunition and probably fighting spirit in a week after that is not going to rebuild it.

Speculation based mostly on NKs threats and propaganda. They desperately want the others to believe that so that they look stronger that they actually are. Deception in strategic/geopolitical games is omnipresent.

Now, I am not saying that war with NK would be a walk in park, no. I am saying that NK military is incapable of launching any invasion - most of their equipment would probably break up long before entering South Korea.

All they could do would be some suicidal terror strike against South Korea. ROK would suffer losses and then wipe North Korea off the map with the willing help of the US Air Force. It's not that hard to take out artillery positions in the age of laser-guided bunker-busting bombs...

EDIT: Still I won't belive that shooting down his missile is going to push ol' Kim over the edge.

Ralph seems to believe that it would, which tells a lot about his expertise.

 

[Souron]

I think the greatest danger is if the US tries and fails to intercept the test. ICBM intercepting technology is not shaky, and it would look really bad if the US failed.

 

[Winner]

I think the greatest danger is if the US tries and fails to intercept the test. ICBM intercepting technology is not shaky, and it would look really bad if the US failed.

Which is a reason why the US won't attempt to shoot it down.

The test will most likely fail, so there is no reason why to miss a chance to see North Korea embarrassed

 

[Aegis]

"If the puppet warmongers infringe upon our inviolable dignity even a bit ... we will not only punish the provokers but reduce their stronghold to debris," the committee said in a statement carried by the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

Good luck with that.

 

[MobBoss]

Because North Korea is entitled to test missiles as any other country is.

Not exactly. They dont have the right to shoot them over Japans territory as they have been wont to do. I am not sure they have the right to shoot them into/over international waters either, without approval of nations using those waters/airspace.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How come the US can prepare to shoot down North Korean missiles but not Iranian ones? Anyway, I'm doubtful that it's a satellite launch, seeing as they have absolutely nothing to gain from that. And their desire for nuclear energy might also be just as ridiculous. But shooting down a missile test is provoking North Korea unnecessarily, isn't it?

 

[Irish Caesar]

So basically what he is saying is that he would follow Obama's orders? I would've expected so. I'm sure they would shoot down a Chinese, Russian or even a Timorese missile if Obama gave the order- it's their job.

My thoughts as well.

I think the greatest danger is if the US tries and fails to intercept the test. ICBM intercepting technology is not shaky, and it would look really bad if the US failed.

That would be pretty not-cool.

But shooting down a missile test is provoking North Korea unnecessarily, isn't it?

Nope. It's a nice way of calling their bluff without holding back food to starving people or shooting anything that's alive.

 

[MobBoss]

How come the US can prepare to shoot down North Korean missiles but not Iranian ones?

Cause we cant really park an aegis cruiser in Poland.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Nope. It's a nice way of calling their bluff without holding back food to starving people or shooting anything that's alive.

I suppose that's true. One concern was that this would set back attempt at talks, but considering how hell-bent they are on doing this that might seem pointless. I wonder if anything like this has happened before, a missile being shot down in peace-time...

 

[Irish Caesar]

I suppose that's true. One concern was that this would set back attempt at talks, but considering how hell-bent they are on doing this that might seem pointless.

I think President Obama figured out pretty quickly that anything that happens in foreign policy now, he owns. And eight years of useless talks and nuclear tests aren't going to be something to be proud of.

I wonder if anything like this has happened before, a missile being shot down in peace-time...

Probably not too many missiles being launched in peace-time to begin with?

I don't know what sorts of testing policies other countries have these days.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Because North Korea is entitled to test missiles as any other country is.

And the USA is equally entitled to test its anti-missile systems.

That way each county would understand their relative positions.

 

[Dachs]

I think that a lot of this anxiety is because it's not an announced test, it's nominally a satellite launch. Could be cover for a harmless missile test, could be a cover for a missile test that ends up in downtown San Francisco.