US military considers shooting down North Korea missile tests, sources say

[DonViejo]

Source: The Guardian



Exclusive: As Pentagon looks for strategies to pressure into denuclearization, officials worry that intercepting missiles could escalate tensions and risk war

Spencer Ackerman in New York and Justin McCurry in Tokyo

Tuesday 18 April 2017 09.58 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 13.06 EDT

The US military is considering shooting down North Korean missile tests as a show of strength to Pyongyang, two sources briefed on the planning have told the Guardian.

Amid heightened tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, the Pentagon is looking for ways short of war to pressure the country into denuclearization, particularly if Pyongyang goes forward with a sixth nuclear test.

The defense secretary, James Mattis, has briefed Congress on the option, but the military has not yet decided to intercept a test missile.

One US official said the prospective shoot-down strategy would be aimed at occurring after a nuclear test, with the objective being to signal Pyongyang that the US can impose military consequences for a step Donald Trump has described as “Link to tweet
?lang=en" target="_blank">unacceptable”.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests

[atreides1]

1. Good plan

But, don't they have to get off the launch pad, before you can shoot them down?

[More_Cowbell]

3. Ha!

I didn't see yours, had my browser open too long!

[cstanleytech]

5. No worries, you see they have this special little blue pill to help Lil Kim get it........up. nt

[More_Cowbell]

2. Why?

Don't they always just fail, anyway?

[Bayard]

11. A much better idea

Rachel covered an Obama program last night where our military was interfering with these missiles electronics to make them fail. Of course, no fanfare or wars to look forward to with that technique.

[WoonTars]

4. Great idea, because, you know, what could possibly go wrong?

With the US shooting their missiles in the general direction of a hostile nation...pretty sure we played this game once before in Vietnam, didn't we? Gulf of Tonkin anyone?

[elmac]

6. There goes some more empty aircraft hangers. nt

[MindPilot]

7. So a North Korean rocket scientist...

falls into a bar...

[Thor_MN]

8. Are they sure that they can hit a missile that they don't know precisely when and where?

Lots of room for failure on that...

[cstanleytech]

9. A single missile usually isnt a problem its when there are hundreds and or thousands then you have

a problem and N Korea doesnt have hundreds of missiles to spare.

[Thor_MN]

12. Not according to independent scientists and government investigators...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-may-not-be-able-shoot-down-north-korean-n748046

"They are leading political leaders to believe that they have a military capability that they don't, in fact, have," says physicist David Wright, who has studied the program for years as co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

[EX500rider]

13. They are only talking about GMD in that article...

When what they would use would be the Aegis system on a US naval vessel off N Korea and get it in boost phase, which is easiest anyway, lots of heat to home in on, and still accelerating and a much bigger target then a warhead.

Also Aegis has a much better track record then GMD:

As of February 3, 2017, Aegis BMDS has performed 34 successful intercepts in 41 at-sea attempts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

GMD is US based and would only be for missiles fired at the US.

[Thor_MN]

14. 83% success rate, when squaring off against highly known test parameters

That also means a 17% failure rate against very favorable conditions.

Color me not impressed. Very expensive way to brag about the size of one's penis.

[EX500rider]

15. 83% success rate with one missile fired...

......they could ripple fire 2 to 4 or more and have a almost 100% chance of a successful intercept.

As of May 2014, there are 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers and 25 Arleigh Burke class destroyers equipped with BMD in the U.S. Navy.

I doubt the Japanese would have bought the system if they thought it was useless.

Also:

The Aegis BMD system, coupled with the RIM-161 Standard missile (SM-3), has also demonstrated a limited capability as an anti-satellite weapon against satellites in the lower portion of low Earth orbit. On February 20, 2008, USA 193 was destroyed by a group of Aegis ships in the Pacific; the stated reason was concern that satellite's hydrazine payload might contaminate land area upon re-entry from an uncontrolled orbit. The launching vessel was the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), and one SM-3 missile was used. Interception was at an altitude of 133 nautical miles (247 kilometers).

A successful intercept at a altitude of 133 NM is pretty impressive.

[Thor_MN]

16. While bragging on the fabulosity of of the Aegis system and all,

what are the benefits of trying to shoot down a North Korean test launch and what are the potential costs of failing to do so?

Not much to gain and a whole lot to lose...

Like I said, a lot of money for some people to get their rocks off.

[EX500rider]

17. Because they are under UN sanctions not to?

Plus it would take a lot of the heat out of N Korean threats to nuke everybody in sight.

"...a whole lot to lose" Like what?

I know there is a lot of knee jerk hatred of ABM systems going back to Reagan and "Star Wars" but as the systems get more mature they become working systems. If they save one city ever from being nuked it will all be worthwhile to me.
And letting N Korea (or Iran in the future) blackmail the world with nuclear threats sounds like a bad idea to me too.

[Thor_MN]

18. The context is not "saving a city" it's Trump saying he has a bigger dick than Kim Jong Un.

And don't pay any attention to that Russia thing.

"Knee jerk hatred"? I was saying what if we miss? The world expects that we should be able to defeat North Korean technology. If we failed, that is a huge win for little Kim's propaganda. If we shot down a test launch, it would be a page 17 article at best.

It's sounds like you have a real hardon for anti missile systems that maybe might, sometimes work when it's known exactly when and where a missile is being launched. It's good for people to have hobbies. Hope you enjoy yours.

[EX500rider]

19. Some people prefer US cities not to be nuked by N Korea

ymmv

...and if we shoot down a N Korean missile, more like page 1.

I love the assumption that ALL the missile tests weren't done under real world conditions.

[Thor_MN]

20. Most people know that North Korea can't get a missile to a US city, much less place a nuke in one.

You knowledge may vary. Again, the context is not taking out a missile directed at anything other than the sea of Japan. Trump is talking about shooting down a North Korean TEST LAUNCH. I put it in caps because you seem to be oblivious to the context.

Besides, your buddy Trump's mouth is far more effective at rendering missiles worthless. He destroyed 59 Tomahawk's value just by flapping his fat mouth to Putin.

[EX500rider]

21. Trump's my buddy is he? lol...whatever...np,

..the losing side of a argument on the internet ALWAYS falls back on insults..lol

I never said N Korea could currently nuke a US city, now did I?

But they are hard at work on it, and I prefer when they acquire the ability, we can neutralize it.
YMMV as usual.

[Thor_MN]

22. You made you entire argument based on saving a US city from being nuked..

I really never did get why you kept gnawing on the bone of the value of the Aegis system, when I was questioning the value of shooting down a missile test launch, the point of the OP.

[G_j]

10. poking a hornet nest

as a show of strength=Stupidity.