US warns of 'strong response' if North Korea launches rocket

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

US warns of 'strong response' if North Korea launches rocket

North Korea wants to launch a satellite into orbit for "peaceful space research" the U.S. and our allies does not beleive they just want to launch a sateltite for space research.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/US-warns-of-strong-response-if-North-Korea-launches-rocket/articleshow/12380032.cms

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea may have the bomb, but it hasn't perfected ways to put one onto a missile that could strike faraway enemies like the United States.

Washington says North Korea uses these launches as cover for testing missile systems for nuclear weapons that could target Alaska and beyond.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ii_GvguLMOt1mUlMmzvqz9fA6IfQ?

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-says-launch-long-range-rocket-042546009.html

Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".

EDIT: Also, Why is the Source an Indian Paper?

KlLLUMINATI:
US warns of 'strong response' if North Korea launches rocket
North Korea wants to launch a satellite into orbit for "peaceful space research" the U.S. and our allies does not beleive they just want to launch a sateltite for space research.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/US-warns-of-strong-response-if-North-Korea-launches-rocket/articleshow/12380032.cms

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea may have the bomb, but it hasn't perfected ways to put one onto a missile that could strike faraway enemies like the United States.
Washington says North Korea uses these launches as cover for testing missile systems for nuclear weapons that could target Alaska and beyond.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ii_GvguLMOt1mUlMmzvqz9fA6IfQ?
http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-says-launch-long-range-rocket-042546009.html

Yeah I saw this on the beeb.
Just more posturing by the NKA the way I see it - even if they get a missile that could reach the continental US, the guidance systems they could put on it aren't anywhere near reliable enough. If they really wanted to nuke the US, the way they'd do it would be to put a nuke in a shipping container bound for a US port. They've even got deniability then.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.
on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".
EDIT: Also, Why is the Source an Indian Paper?

They've got ABM's but not coverage of the entire continental US. The US still relies on deterrence to stop nuclear attacks. And the fact that the US could turn the entirety of North Korea all green and glowy is going to stop the North Koreans launching. Just because the US couldn't necessarily stop a missile doesn't mean they can't tell where it comes from.

And in terms of "Strong Response"; it probably means cutting off the food aid deal that was just announced.
What's wrong with Indian Papers? :P

OneCatch :

They've got ABM's but not coverage of the entire continental US. The US still relies on deterrence to stop nuclear attacks. And the fact that the US could turn the entirety of North Korea all green and glowy is going to stop the North Koreans launching. Just because the US couldn't necessarily stop a missile doesn't mean they can't tell where it comes from.

And in terms of "Strong Response"; it probably means cutting off the food aid deal that was just announced.
What's wrong with Indian Papers? :P

Still, If NK goes Launch a Nuke, It could be stopped my the US right? Don't want a Nuclear War to break out.
So...the US will stop sending in Food?...Was thinking more the WMD's in the Middle East, Thank god for that!

Nothing against India, just one of the US News outlets should be all over this by now.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

Well yeah but do we really want a nuke going off for no reason at all other than dick waving?

Diablo1099:
on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".

It's a ploy. Remember how before any fight in high school the people involved would always threaten each other and shit like that? Well, this is the exact same.

PercyBoleyn:

Well yeah but do we really want a nuke going off for no reason at all other than dick waving?

Not wanting a Nuke to go off, just wanted to know if the US had another plans against an Attack other than "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"

It's a ploy. Remember how before any fight in high school the people involved would always threaten each other and shit like that? Well, this is the exact same.

Well...as long as it stays like that, the World doesn't needs another Middle-East.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

Three words: Aegis Combat System

Yeah, I may not like the amount of money the US spends on its bloated military, but, damn, it has some fun toys...

Diablo1099:
on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".

A strongly worded statement if it sputters like the last one.

Some kind of increase in sanctions if it goes over allied landmass.

Invasion if it hits Korean or US population center.

Diablo1099:
EDIT: Also, Why is the Source an Indian Paper?

Because statements like these are a dime a dozen, US is paying more attention to domestic politics today, and Europe is picking apart the French terrorist siege. The only big thing in Asia at the moment other than this is preparations for the G-20 in Seoul.

Diablo1099:
Not wanting a Nuke to go off, just wanted to know if the US had another plans against an Attack other than "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. If the US stops sending aid to North Korea and convinces South Korea to do the same then the North will have to rely solely on China for support and that's sure as hell not happening.

The Gentleman:

Three words: Aegis Combat System

Yeah, I may not like the amount of money the US spends on its bloated military, but, damn, it has some fun toys...

Huh...
Forgot about the Navy...

A strongly worded statement if it sputters like the last one.

Some kind of increase in sanctions if it goes over allied landmass.

Invasion if it hits Korean or US population center.

Thats for the Space Launch right?

Because statements like these are a dime a dozen, US is paying more attention to domestic politics today, and Europe is picking apart the French terrorist siege. The only big thing in Asia at the moment other than this is preparations for the G-20 in Seoul.

Ahhhh...
Still, you would think Fox would be all over this, with it being a threat to 'Merica and all.

PercyBoleyn:

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. If the US stops sending aid to North Korea and convinces South Korea to do the same then the North will have to rely solely on China for support and that's sure as hell not happening.

Why was the US sending Aid to the North?
/totally clueless

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".

They have stuff like that but I doubt it works.

I would suggest to you that "strong response", while intentionally ambiguous is likely to effectively mean... cuts in food aid.

PercyBoleyn:

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. If the US stops sending aid to North Korea and convinces South Korea to do the same then the North will have to rely solely on China for support and that's sure as hell not happening.

I went to a Chinese forum the other month where they were discussing North Korea.

I had no idea how strongly supportive of the North Koreans the Chinese people feel.
They love those guys on the same kind of level as the US loves Israel.

Any US hopes of splitting those two apart is a pipedream.

Baff:

PercyBoleyn:

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. If the US stops sending aid to North Korea and convinces South Korea to do the same then the North will have to rely solely on China for support and that's sure as hell not happening.

I went to a Chinese forum the other month where they were discussing North Korea.

I had no idea how strongly supportive of the North Koreans the Chinese people feel.
They love those guys on the same kind of level as the US loves Israel.

Any US hopes of splitting those two apart is a pipedream.

They have a long history........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

If we had balls, 'strong response' would be a predator drone assassination of the Kim family, thus ending the reign of insanity in North Korea. As it is, Baff is probably right about it just being us slapping their wrists and telling them no. We don't really have a choice, we can't afford North Korea to -actually- collapse.

PrinceOfShapeir:
If we had balls, 'strong response' would be a predator drone assassination of the Kim family, thus ending the reign of insanity in North Korea. As it is, Baff is probably right about it just being us slapping their wrists and telling them no. We don't really have a choice, we can't afford North Korea to -actually- collapse.

What? How would the fall of the North Affect the US?
/Politically Retarded

Baff:

PercyBoleyn:

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that. If the US stops sending aid to North Korea and convinces South Korea to do the same then the North will have to rely solely on China for support and that's sure as hell not happening.

I went to a Chinese forum the other month where they were discussing North Korea.

I had no idea how strongly supportive of the North Koreans the Chinese people feel.
They love those guys on the same kind of level as the US loves Israel.

Any US hopes of splitting those two apart is a pipedream.

Read this:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/03/wikileaks-china-may-be-fed-up-with-north-korea-too/

As you can see, China is just as tired of North Korea's antics as everyone else.

Diablo1099:

Still, If NK goes Launch a Nuke, It could be stopped my the US right? Don't want a Nuclear War to break out.
So...the US will stop sending in Food?...Was thinking more the WMD's in the Middle East, Thank god for that!

The Gentleman:
Three words: Aegis Combat System

Yeah, I may not like the amount of money the US spends on its bloated military, but, damn, it has some fun toys...

Err, probably not, unless they had prior warning.

ICBMs of the type the NKA are trying to build travel too high and fast for things like Patriot, Standard and Aster to engage reliably. All of these systems are designed for killing cruise missiles (like exocets, harpoons and tomahawks) and smaller ballistic missiles (like scuds) within a small area of operation. A couple of Aegis cruisers doesn't 'close down' the entire West Coast from ICBMs. You need layered defence which quite simply you aren't going to have.*

You'd need to hit an ICBM during launch or re-entry which means you need prior warning in order to get Aegis/Horizon class cruisers or Patriot batteries near the launch site**.

Like I said though, no nation state is suicidal enough to launch a nuke at any of the big 5, and the US isn't going to go traipsing across the DMZ either.

---

*Defense is difficult because until you compute the missile's path, you have no idea where it's going. You aren't going to have time to move a missile battery or ship or plane or whatever to intercept it because the flight time of these missile is about half an hour
**Re-entry is an absolute bitch to intercept, given most ICBMs are going at about Mach 10 (for US systems - would probably be around Mach 4-5 for an NKA system) and can jink around to make their flight pattern unpredictable. That means you have to make every effort to hit it during boost.

Captcha: 'easy as cake' - no computer, no it isn't!

KlLLUMINATI:
US warns of 'strong response' if North Korea launches rocket

North Korea, if they ever launched a rocket at the US, would be nuked into oblivion. They know this. No country would prevent us from defending ourselves. All this saber rattling is just that.

We don't want to be the first one to be the aggressor, and neither do they. They're a secular country; not an odd religious empire willing to die in order to meet with virgins in the sky.

I tend to ignore most news about NK because they aren't going to really figure prominently in the future. Mark my words.

Diablo1099:

PrinceOfShapeir:
If we had balls, 'strong response' would be a predator drone assassination of the Kim family, thus ending the reign of insanity in North Korea. As it is, Baff is probably right about it just being us slapping their wrists and telling them no. We don't really have a choice, we can't afford North Korea to -actually- collapse.

What? How would the fall of the North Affect the US?
/Politically Retarded

It's complicated, but I'll try to condense down my fairly little understanding.

North Korea collapses and becomes part of South Korea again, Korea is reunified. Good. Or is it? North Korea's economy is shit, and when I say shit I mean Jesus. Let me put it to you this way - South Korea spends less than 2% of their GDP on their military. That amount, equivalent to 27.6 billion dollars, is over 2/3rds of North Korea's entire GDP. When North Korea becomes part of South Korea again, South Korea's economy is going in the toilet as they get millions of people with no infrastructure to support them.

And then there's China. Dearly beloved China is not a fan of North Korea, but you know what they would like even less? South Korea (Actually just Korea again now), one of the biggest chums of the United States, sidling up to their border.

Do I think it would start World War 3? No, but it certainly will be a rocky time for Korea in general. I doubt it'll effect the common U.S. citizen much, but I'm sure there are factors I'm overlooking.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

The "B" in ICBM stands for "Ballistic". That is, when it's fired, it keeps going on the same course.

So, on the one hand, there's nothing to jam, but on the other, as soon as it's launched, everyone knows exactly where it is going. This makes it very easy to shoot down with ABMs (or other air defenses, as it happens), assuming the people running the things realise it's a real threat and launch missiles at it.

A guided missile, on the other hand, moves around to avoid that sort of thing, but doesn't have the range.

Um...imagine you a playing cricket or baseball or something. If the person throws a ball at you, you can hit it easily enough. If instead a bird flies past you while trying not to get him, that's much harder.

As an aside, ABM is a big thing, lots of nations are investing in them because they work. They don't have to work perfectly to work perfectly, though, a potential enemy is going to have a finite supply of missiles, and there are going to be targets they really need to be fairly certain to destroy. If you intercept 50% of incoming missiles, the enemy can't just fire twice as many at you, because each target getting two missiles has a 25% chance of surviving both. If the enemy wants to be more sure than that, it needs to aim more missiles at eahc target, meaning lots will end up being wasted on hitting things already destroyed. Or they can just decide not to go to war, which makes the people building the ABM system very happy.

OneCatch :
*Defense is difficult because until you compute the missile's path, you have no idea where it's going. You aren't going to have time to move a missile battery or ship or plane or whatever to intercept it because the flight time of these missile is about half an hour
**Re-entry is an absolute bitch to intercept, given most ICBMs are going at about Mach 10 (for US systems - would probably be around Mach 4-5 for an NKA system) and can jink around to make their flight pattern unpredictable. That means you have to make every effort to hit it during boost.

Not exactly true. The speed of a missile is directly proportional to its range, you can't change one without changing the other.

Secondly, though this is a quibble, if it can move around on its own in a non-ballistic way, it's not a ballistic missile, by definition, it's something else.

thaluikhain:

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

The thing is, ballistic missiles aren't ballistic! It's a misnomer of sorts. Think about it; a missile is powered and therefore can't be ballistic any more than a helicopter can be. The term "Ballistic missile" is a contradiction of terms!

Historically the 'ballistic' bit simply describes the fact that they attain low earth orbit and are unpowered when up there. During that phase of flight, they are unpowered and are indeed ballistic (apart from minor course corrections and the like).
But during launch and re-entry, they aren't ballistic precisely because they are powered.


This is a picture of the re-entry of multiple warheads from a single ballistic missile. As you can see, they are all aimed at different targets despite the fact that they are fired from a single ballistic missile. It is possible to change the course of a warhead after it is launched.

How does that affect interception?

It means that you can determine roughly where a missile is going by the time it gets into orbit. That's a few mins into the flight. You aren't going to be able to tell exactly where it'll hit though, because radar isn't perfect, and the missile might have extra stages containing chaff, decoys and all kinds of other crap designed to throw you off early.

Then you have the orbital stage of flight. This lasts the longest, but varies depending on the profile of the launch. You can fine tune your prediction of where the missile is going to go during this stage, because the missile has an ever decreasing envelope to make small course adjustments.
However, the missile is too high for ABM's to reach at most of this stage, since ABM's currently in use have a ceiling of a couple of hundred kilometers, which the missile is only at at the very start and very end.

Finally, re-entry. This all occurs in about 2 mins. The missile releases the warhead which is then boosted down through the atmosphere at many times the speed of sound to detonate on, in or above the target. Warheads have their own motors for adjustment and aren't simply unpowered ballistic objects. They are guided. In order to confuse ABM systems there are several techniques usually used in ICBMS. Chaff, decoy warheads, atmospheric penetrators provide dozens of false targets for ABMs to aim at instead of the warhead. Multiple warheads themselves are often used (as in the pictures). The warheads are often programmed to spiral down to a target in unpredictable patterns to avoid being bracketed by ABMs.
Lastly, because they are all independently targetable, they can all spread out over a wide area. Since a ABM battery is only effective over a certain area, it has to be positioned slap bang in the middle of where you think the warheads are going to end up in order to target them within its effective range of a couple hundred kilometers.

Intercepting an ICBM once it's in space and headed towards you is a fucking nightmare and frankly, none of the systems currently in use are much use at that mission profile. They're good for getting rid of scuds and other short range BMs but aren't suited for anything more than that.

I realise that North Korea can hardly be expected to come up with something equivalent to Trident or Minuteman or Topol.
But intercepting any ICBM without warning would hardly be a walk in the park, especially since the US missile defence system is barely in place anyway!

Solution: Take out the North Korean missile before it gets off the ground.

Hey, at least they're telling us now. That counts for something, right?

How about a mutually assured destruction pact? If we get missiles launched at us, I don't think North Korea could do as much damage to the US as we could do to them.

renegade7:
Hey, at least they're telling us now. That counts for something, right?

How about a mutually assured destruction pact? If we get missiles launched at us, I don't think North Korea could do as much damage to the US as we could do to them.

I think that's pretty much a given (and probably why they haven't launched already)

OneCatch :
[snip]

Hmmm, not sure about that. From what I've been led to believe from people who work in the Business, ABM systems work fairly well, MIRVs are intercepted (or not) before they release their warheads (so nobody builds new ones anymore) and decoys used to be effective but aren't anymore.

PercyBoleyn:

Read this:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/03/wikileaks-china-may-be-fed-up-with-north-korea-too/

As you can see, China is just as tired of North Korea's antics as everyone else.

The government, not the people he was talking about. The people I guess depending on who you meet but usually on the internet they're insanely anti-American and Pro-North Korean more than you'd like to think.

Warforger:

The government, not the people he was talking about. The people I guess depending on who you meet but usually on the internet they're insanely anti-American and Pro-North Korean more than you'd like to think.

Since when has the Chinese government given a shit about what the people say?

thaluikhain:

OneCatch :
[snip]

Hmmm, not sure about that. From what I've been led to believe from people who work in the Business, ABM systems work fairly well, MIRVs are intercepted (or not) before they release their warheads (so nobody builds new ones anymore) and decoys used to be effective but aren't anymore.

People haven't developed new MIRVs because they were banned under START II (a treaty with a long, tortuous and convoluted history).
Even though the START II treaty was eventually cancelled in favour of general strategic reduction, for a couple of years it did hinder the pace of MIRV development. The systems that weren't in development in the mid-90's would just about be coming to maturity now if they had been developed!

And decoys and things have got more advanced as the defences have. It's kind of like the continuing arms race between advances in tank armour and advances in armour piercing shells
Additionally, because MIRVs have space for about 10 warheads and are legally only allowed to carry 5, they fill the extra space with decoy warheads that look and act exactly the same way as the real thing. There's no way to tell which ones are real until they hit the ground so an ABM system has to target all of them. Bear in mind that the most high altitude targets intercepted simultaneously by an ABM is 2, and neither were using countermeasures.

ABM systems do work well at what they're designed for. An Aegis cruiser is great for defending it's carrier battlegroup against SRBM's (or, impressively, killing satellites in very low orbits), a Patriot system is great for killing Scuds and other TBMs (most of the time).

But they aren't designed to kill ICBMs in exoatmospheric flight (I know, that's a contradiction in terms too). I can't stress this enough; an ICBM is not the same as another kind of ballistic missile. Most short and mid ranged missiles barely get out of the lower atmosphere, but an ICBM can have a peak altitude of more that 1000km.

While current systems are nominally of some use against re-entering warheads and the like, they aren't all that great at it and probably won't succeed unless the entire area is saturated with defence systems all firing at the same targets.
Even Standard missiles (the one that killed that satellite as part of AEGIS) don't have the range to hit an ICBM for most of its orbital trajectory (i.e. before it releases it's MIRV's and decoys).

The only current system that is actually designed to have some anti-ICBM capability is the THAAD, and it currently hasn't been deployed. If it were deployed along the ICBM's flight path, it could probably down any first generation NKA ICBM, but it still wouldn't be guaranteed.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

There's anti-ballistic missiles aimed to stop such a thing, but they've never really seen action, and the likelihood that they're in time to notice it, respond, and manage to shoot such a thing down is totally unknown.

The only time such systems saw action was when Israel used Patriot missiles to try and shoot down Iraqi scud missiles, and they largely failed, especially when scuds broke up into smaller munitions, the targeting systems just failed.

And one type of such ICBM missiles used to deliver nukes is they can actually enter space, break up high in the air, and deliver several nukes at once, making shooting all of them down quite an impossible affair.

The fear here is North Korea is testing everything except the re-entry and equipping them with nukes.

OneCatch :

Do you have sources for that other than wiki? Because that contradicts what I've read from people who ought to know about those things and I'd like to look into it further.

Mind you, there was mention of anti-ABM people making false claims about them being useless, knowing that proving them wrong would have to involve information that can't be released, so perhaps there's a bit of conspiracy theoring nonsense going on with the pro-ABM crowd.

Blablahb:
The only time such systems saw action was when Israel used Patriot missiles to try and shoot down Iraqi scud missiles, and they largely failed, especially when scuds broke up into smaller munitions, the targeting systems just failed.

They did? IIRC, they didn't fail fail, they succeeded in what they were supposed to do, which was fly at the missiles and explode. It's just that the explosion only damaged things behind the warhead.

thaluikhain:

OneCatch :

Do you have sources for that other than wiki? Because that contradicts what I've read from people who ought to know about those things and I'd like to look into it further.

Mind you, there was mention of anti-ABM people making false claims about them being useless, knowing that proving them wrong would have to involve information that can't be released, so perhaps there's a bit of conspiracy theoring nonsense going on with the pro-ABM crowd.

Blablahb:
The only time such systems saw action was when Israel used Patriot missiles to try and shoot down Iraqi scud missiles, and they largely failed, especially when scuds broke up into smaller munitions, the targeting systems just failed.

They did? IIRC, they didn't fail fail, they succeeded in what they were supposed to do, which was fly at the missiles and explode. It's just that the explosion only damaged things behind the warhead.

I don't have any specific sources. I remembered a lot of what I posted from my history course in school (I did a term-long project on nuclear warfare), and just posted the wiki articles to give further info if you wanted it, rather than as 'unbeatable evidence'.
You can look at the citations on the various related wiki pages, and at least some of them are legitimate too! :P

For specifics:

You can check the stuff on START and SORT and NewStart and all that in any modern book on the cold war, or even on news websites for the more recent ones.
In terms of the development for decoys and countermeasures, there are news reports such as this one detailing how ICBM interception is still a developing field (as of 2005 at least). I'm sure you can find more recent ones.
You can find stuff on ballistic missiles in general in any number of books too - even books on the space race seemed to be good for that kind of thing I seem to remember.

Again, sorry I can't be more help on specific sources, but I don't have the books with me at the moment, and I can't remember what specific websites I used.

Obviously, you can't trust the Russians when they say the Topal M is 'unvulnerable to ABM", but neither can you entirely trust the Americans when they say that they could "definitely stop it". It's in all of these companies/nations best interests to inflate the ability of their product.
And you're right when you say that both sides are guilty of distortion in the ABM debate - it got so politically polarised during Reagan's presidency that it's still a poisoned chalice so to speak.
That's the other reason I tend to reference wiki a lot (and not just on this thread) - it tends to be a little more balanced than DARPA or Apple or Ubisoft or Tesco or whatever are going to be about their own, even if it is a little Western/Americo-centric at times.

---

In terms of Patriot, it sucked ass at even dealing with tactical ballistic missiles in the first gulf war. There are doubts that it actually scored more than a 10% success rate. I know, I know, I'm quoting wiki again, but the citations are good in this instance!

The PAC-3 variant fielded by the time of the 2003 war was capable of dealing with Al Samoud's (basically homemade Iraqi scuds) very successfully, but also had a habit of firing on friendly jets resulting in a couple of friendly fire deaths.

But the PAC-3 still has a relatively limited range, making it unsuitable for targeting re-entering MIRVs. Standard practice with the patriot is to fire two missiles with three seconds separation, which against a TBM means about a 12 km separation to 'bracket' the incoming missile
However, if an ICBM was engaged by Patriot at the maximum range, it would already have impacted the ground by the time the second missile launched. They're that much faster that TBMs.

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

on the topic of the Space Launch, Define "Strong Response".

EDIT: Also, Why is the Source an Indian Paper?

We got counter measures, but would you like people launching nukes at your city? Or do the homefront deal of "setting off Nuke in orbit, cut off most of the power in the United States.

thaluikhain:

Diablo1099:
Even if North Korea does send a Nuke towards the States, Doesn't the US have Countermeasures for such an event?
Like Jammers or something to send the Missile off course.

The "B" in ICBM stands for "Ballistic". That is, when it's fired, it keeps going on the same course.

So, on the one hand, there's nothing to jam, but on the other, as soon as it's launched, everyone knows exactly where it is going. This makes it very easy to shoot down with ABMs (or other air defenses, as it happens), assuming the people running the things realise it's a real threat and launch missiles at it.

A guided missile, on the other hand, moves around to avoid that sort of thing, but doesn't have the range.

Speed is another factor, a lot of ballistic missiles are too fast for radars to lock on to.
By the time they are in detection range, it's too late to stop them.

The Chinese ASBM's, use this principle and there is currently no known defense against them.
The Russians latest ICBM have guidance systems which fly them evasively. They duck and weave.

@ The Gentlemen, I'll give you a little tip about the Aegis Combat system.
We sold it to you and we're the only people who have ever used it in combat.

Missiles sunk the (unsinkable) ships we had it mounted on.
The tech has advanced since then, but the track record is not good. Not good at all.

PercyBoleyn:

Warforger:

The government, not the people he was talking about. The people I guess depending on who you meet but usually on the internet they're insanely anti-American and Pro-North Korean more than you'd like to think.

Since when has the Chinese government given a shit about what the people say?

When it is so widespread it might cause national outrage causing the regime to become extremely unstable? That's what happened to Libya and the USSR.

Warforger:
When it is so widespread it might cause national outrage causing the regime to become extremely unstable? That's what happened to Libya and the USSR.

I wouldn't say support of North Korea is that widespread in China.

*Yawn*

Just more saber rattling by both sides

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked