N. Korea has nuclear missile capability to hit US territory

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

I have a tangential question:

If N. Korea can hit cities in the U.S. then it can also hit cities in Europe and Russia and China.

Why are none of those worried????

North Korea can't hit cities in the US with a nuclear weapon.

They can hit Tokyo though.

I'm sure they can hit some cities in China, too, and maybe a few cities in eastern Russia.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It seems to me that Oralloy very much wants to believe that there is a viable, nearly operational system.

Not exactly. I am pretty sure it isn't "nearly operational".

I think they have a lot of work to do before the system is ready.

I just think we can get there someday if we keep working on it.

My main point was that the groups who are opposed to the system are bending the truth when they characterize a scrubbed launch as a failed test, and also when they claim that a missile defense system can never work.

Setanta wrote:

Any problem external to the interceptor which shuts down launch is as critical as any internal problem with the interceptor.

Would such a problem be allowed to shut down the launch in a fielded system?

I keep thinking of the ICBM silos. I can't imagine that we would build a system during the cold war that might suddenly tell us "sorry, you can't launch these missiles" in a situation when we actually were trying to launch them.

I think the same would apply to an ABM system.

0 Replies

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

Quote:

I have a tangential question:

If N. Korea can hit cities in the U.S. then it can also hit cities in Europe and Russia and China.

Why are none of those worried????

Because we are the enemy. Not Russia or Japan or even Europe. Bush has done everything in his power to make the US the number one enemy of North Korea.

0 Replies

oralloy
Forgetting all the launch problems. They still have to prove when launched the system can track and destroy an incoming missile.

0 Replies

I'm not so sure if it is money well spent, but as I'm not paying for it, I don't really care that much. But I think that the reports of a nearly operational system have been greatly exaggerated.

And even if the system will be working at some distant point in the future - what do you really gain? The system will not be able to intercept more than a couple of ICBMs - provided they don't carry too many warheads or decoys or are intercepted early enough. So the system will be of no use against nations like Russia or China. That leaves countries like North Korea, Libya or Iran as adversaries. Provided those countries even had nukes or ICBMs.

So, hypothetically, if the US will, one day, have a functional missile defense shield, and those nations will, one day, have nukes - wouldn't it be really easy for them to just put a nuke inside a container and have it shipped into New York harbor and detonate it there instead of delivering the thing via ICBM?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Because we are the enemy. Not Russia or Japan or even Europe. Bush has done everything in his power to make the US the number one enemy of North Korea.

Not just N. Korea, pretty much everybody except G.B. And they are just as messed up as we are.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Louise_R_Heller wrote:

Quote:
I have a tangential question:

If N. Korea can hit cities in the U.S. then it can also hit cities in Europe and Russia and China.

Why are none of those worried????

Because we are the enemy. Not Russia or Japan or even Europe. Bush has done everything in his power to make the US the number one enemy of North Korea.

What an utter crock.

If the term rogue nation has any meaning, then North Korea is certainly one.

We should be their enemy. Nations that will not take a stand against a country which allows millions of it people to starve so that it can fund its military are not enlightened, they are deplorable cynics.

Remove George Bush from the equation (if you can) and tell me that you believe the US should come to an accomodation with North Korea.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So, hypothetically, if the US will, one day, have a functional missile defense shield, and those nations will, one day, have nukes - wouldn't it be really easy for them to just put a nuke inside a container and have it shipped into New York harbor and detonate it there instead of delivering the thing via ICBM?

This is a valid consideration, and the more so because of the appallingly sloppy method in which container ships are dealt with. One might call this the "outdated Cold War mindset" argument. A missle defense is not an unreasonable thing to have, as i've already opined--the expense only becomes a problem because these idiots have squandered so much in Iraq. But you do have a valid point that this is a Cold War view of defense--that an attack is going to come over the pole from the Ruskies as warheads on ICBMs.

0 Replies

Set, I remember reading some science magazine back in the summer of '01. It was discussing the new missile defense shield program, and all the money that went into it and all the attention it received, after Bush had gotten into office. The article basically said, "There are several hundred ways of striking a nation like the US in a most devastating way - so why would you want to pour $100 billion into a program in order to eliminate one way?" Then the article went through a couple of scenarios that were all at least as likely as a direct attack from terrorists or a terrorist state with ICBMs. It mentioned McVeigh and the Sarin attacks in Tokyo, too. And the first attack on the WTC.

0 Replies

Politicians are always more concerned with appearances than with facts. As it is part and parcel with their profession, they know that "facts" can be manipulated to one's own ends, and that it is more important to appear to be doing something than actually to be doing it.

Keeping the population in fear is a useful technique, but only bears fruit if one also creates the appearance of vigorously taking steps to defend the frightened herd.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Politicians are always more concerned with appearances than with facts. As it is part and parcel with their profession, they know that "facts" can be manipulated to one's own ends, and that it is more important to appear to be doing something than actually to be doing it.

Keeping the population in fear is a useful technique, but only bears fruit if one also creates the appearance of vigorously taking steps to defend the frightened herd.

That last sentence makes me feel like I'm reading Emmanuel Goldstein......

0 Replies

I don't know who that is, but he is free to use my material . . .

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Politicians are always more concerned with appearances than with facts. As it is part and parcel with their profession, they know that "facts" can be manipulated to one's own ends, and that it is more important to appear to be doing something than actually to be doing it.

Keeping the population in fear is a useful technique, but only bears fruit if one also creates the appearance of vigorously taking steps to defend the frightened herd.

That last sentence makes me feel like I'm reading Emmanuel Goldstein......

Emmanuel Goldstein is the fictional author who wrote

Quote:

"The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it."

in George Orwell's novel 1984

and from a contemporary source:

Quote:

While the administration may appear to have forgotten the lessons of 1984, contemporary readers will continue to absorb Mr. Orwell's terrifying - and today strangely pertinent - vision of a totalitarian society. We indeed do well to remember Big Brother's slogan "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." It is as false then as it is now, and it is hoped that concerned citizens will demand that the purging of documents on www.ed.gov cease immediately

0 Replies

Excellent, Steve . . . it's been nearly forty years since i've read 1984, so i feel no embarrassment at having missed the reference.

I actually think this silliness in which we are presently embarked--the "world-wide web"--is the surest talisman against "Big Brother," as control of information is the issue.

0 Replies

delighted and somewhat amazed that I can be of assistance old chap Wink

agree about the www being an antidote to bigbrotherism, but then who controls...or rather wants to control the web?

0 Replies

I think it is less an issue of wanting to control rather than whether or not the internet can be controlled . . . i think that is beyond the resources of government, even a coalition of governments.

In Orwell's world, citizens spied upon one another, and all organs of the dissemination of information were in the hands of government. In our world, you'd be obliged to employ half the population to watch the other half, leaving no one to watch the watchers--information is so far out of the control of government as to make the likelihood of government control ridiculously remote. I could be wrong, but (obviously) i don't believe i am.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think it is less an issue of wanting to control rather than whether or not the internet can be controlled . . . i think that is beyond the resources of government, even a coalition of governments.

In Orwell's world, citizens spied upon one another, and all organs of the dissemination of information were in the hands of government. In our world, you'd be obliged to employ half the population to watch the other half, leaving no one to watch the watchers--information is so far out of the control of government as to make the likelihood of government control ridiculously remote. I could be wrong, but (obviously) i don't believe i am.

I certainly agree the internet is a liberating experience for all who use it. But whilst "we" can find out things which "they" would prefer us not to know, its also true that "we" are providing "them" with heaps of information about ourselves everytime we use go on line. You might say that its impossible to make any sense out of such an overwhelming volume of material, most of it rubbish, but dont they use computers and the latest artificial intelligence software to do just that? The UK has cameras in just about every public place. They will soon introduce cars with chips (nominally for road charging) but will also allow all car movements to be logged and traced. Plus new more sophisticated cameras that can recognise faces, even the driver or passenger of a car. Then there are identity cards with biometric and personal information stored on them..

Of course being the perfectly honest and upright citizen that I am, with nothing to hide or be ashamed of (at all, ever), I am perfectly happy to live in the world's largest prison.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Forgetting all the launch problems. They still have to prove when launched the system can track and destroy an incoming missile.

Well, they've proven that once they get close enough, the infrared seeker can work.

They of course haven't proven that the X-band radar will get the interceptor close enough, because they haven't built the X-band radar (at least that I know of).

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

But I think that the reports of a nearly operational system have been greatly exaggerated.

I haven't seen those reports.

I do know they plan to field the system before it is operational, and then upgrade it until it has reached operational status.

old europe wrote:

And even if the system will be working at some distant point in the future - what do you really gain? The system will not be able to intercept more than a couple of ICBMs - provided they don't carry too many warheads or decoys or are intercepted early enough. So the system will be of no use against nations like Russia or China. That leaves countries like North Korea, Libya or Iran as adversaries. Provided those countries even had nukes or ICBMs.

In the long run, 100 ICBMs, regardless of warheads or decoys, should be doable. That would cover China.

If the interceptors were advanced enough, they could cover an accidental (or unauthorized) launch of a Russian missile, even if they couldn't block a deliberate launch of all Russian missiles.

old europe wrote:

So, hypothetically, if the US will, one day, have a functional missile defense shield, and those nations will, one day, have nukes - wouldn't it be really easy for them to just put a nuke inside a container and have it shipped into New York harbor and detonate it there instead of delivering the thing via ICBM?

We'll be working on ways to stop that mode of delivery too.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

In the long run, 100 ICBMs, regardless of warheads or decoys, should be doable. That would cover China.

Okay, I'll bite. 100 ICBMs? That could equal, in the case they were carrying MIRVs, up to 1200 warheads.

Now, the system isn't operational so far. You say "in the long run". When exactly do you think this would be? 30 years? 50 years? Longer?

0 Replies

N. Korea has nuclear missile capability to hit US territory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know