Now it makes sense to me. We’ve turned it on, now we’re going to use it to “prove” it works and embarrass and chasten N. Korea.
The Bush administration is weighing responses to a possible North Korean missile test that include attempting to shoot it down in flight over the Pacific, defense officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Because North Korea is secretive about its missile operations, U.S. officials say they must consider the possibility that an anticipated test would turn out to be something else, such as a space launch or even an attack. Thus, the Pentagon is considering the possibility of attempting an interception, two defense officials said, even though it would be unprecedented and is not considered the likeliest scenario.
Actually, it is a very plausible scenario. It actually doesn’t get any better than this.
The current flavor of missile defense is based on Aegis missile cruisers, so they’ll be able to get very close (relatively speaking) to the launch point missile path. The most vulnerable part of any missile launch is the boost phase, where it can’t maneuver or deploy decoys.
Our missile defense system is totally inadaquate for knocking down incoming warheads, but can very handily take down a boosting missile. This would give Bushbots and Star Wars supporters “proof” that missile defense works (albeit against a single missile in boost phase), raising both faith in SDI and Bush’s poll numbers for defending us from the potent N. Korean missile threat.
“When I was your age, we lived with the continual threat of the nuclear anihilation of every living thing on the face of the planet, and we liked it! You kids these days are all a bunch of spoiled, `fraidy SISSIES!”
The downside of announcing that you are a nuclear power capable of delivering WMDs with missles is that if one of your tests goes astray toward another similar power, like the US – then you just might get nuked bigtime – and no one will cry for you afterward.
On the other hand – if the big power strikes first, the former shunned outlaw nation gets all the world’s sympathy and the big guy gets shunned.
Net: we won’t fire first – but North Korea won’t be a problem for 500 years if they fire first.
lol – I actually have an MPEG version of the old “Duck and Cover” civil defense film from the 50’s that I’m reviewing. I don’t think our current administration has thought to release an updated version of this timeless classic, so I guess I’ll be relying on “old school” preparation methods for the upcoming Korean test.
Kids… practice drill will be at 11:00, with critique to follow.
Gotta love Aegis system. Any system made by an ex-doobie brother is ‘just alright with me’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Baxter
everyone’s talking about embarassing so. korea, what if we try to shoot it down and fail.
the whole world will be point AND laughing, and will prove that the whole missle shield thing is just useless money pit pork barrel project that won’t actually protect any one.
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
I heard in a report on NPR (doesn’t make it true but) that the current generation of balistic defense is not designed to take down a missle such as this…
Learned elsewhere that what they are fueling is the two stage version of a three stage rocket. The two stage cannot reach continental US, but the three stage might.
1. If presented with a big red button that is labeled “Doomsday Button: Do Not Push As World Will End”, somebody would no doubt feel compelled to push the thing.
2. Didn’t one of our Aegis cruisers shoot down a passenger liner (by mistake) in the Med a few years back?
3. The atomic genie is out of the bottle and apparently wants to play with everybody and no amount of hostile posturing by the more developed countries will put him back in. Should weapons grade nuclear technology become available to the smaller countries they will eagerly adopt it, no matter what America or anyone else says. It does tend to level the playing field and will, I suspect, encourage the big guys to render a bit more respect to the little guys.
5 everyone’s talking about embarassing so. korea, what if we try to shoot it down and fail.
Debris from their last failure as found in Alaska.
Where would debris from our missile(s) fall if they fail to destroy the target?
Where will the debris fall if we do destroy their missile?
Will this be a smaller-scale version of the Skylab “lottery”?
Geez..Mike this is a great point!
No country in the nuclear club wants a more level playing field. Now that America’s contingency plans for the world’s first unprovoked nuclear first strike (against Iran) are a matter of public record, I can’t help but wonder how history might be different if America continued to be the only country with nuclear capability. Would we still have refrained from using it, even with no fear of nuclear retaliation from any other country? The answer isn’t as clear as I used to think it was.
I’m just glad the people claiming this would be a first finally shut up.
Prediction: An EMP weapon will be used instead of a nuclear weapon on NK.
I’ve read some commentary about this a few other places and they put forward that the best way to actually do this would be to blow up the missile on the launch pad rather than leave it to the missile defense which doesn’t have the best track record. It serves the dual purpose of letting N. Korea know that we’re not joking around and effectively ruining launches from there until they can manage repairs. A cruise missile could manage the task.
“Okay, we’re a peaceful nation!! We don’t mind if anybody has a nuclear arsenal. Every nation on earth has a right to protect it’s existence using the deterence principle, and yes, Iran, which own the world’s second largest oil reserves, is entitled to use nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes. Even though China has no clear affection for the free world, and has no regard for it’s own citizens, being overpopulated, we will gladly welcome them into the nuclear club. We have no desire to interfere with any other country’s affairs.
“In the meantime, we’ll be spending hundreds of billions of dollars engineering supersonic missiles, spy satellites, stealth radar, bunker buster nukes and laser weapons. We’re sure you won’t mind!”
I was being sarcastic and only mentioned various things I’ve heard on the news.
I think this is a win-win situation for both parties. The Koreans can actually test whether the missile can actually reach the U.S., and the U.S. can actually test their missile defense system against attacks. No harm done.
If we hit it, it will be during the boost phase, as it is the most vulnerable point of the missile launch. The hard part of missile defense is incoming warheads. You could almost take down a missile in boost phase with an anti-aircraft gun.
That’s why it would be a good thing for Bush. The public isn’t sophisticated enough to understand the difference between an easy boost-phase shot and a very difficult terminal-phase re-entry with a jinking, decoy-surrounded warhead. The administration could trumpet how well missile defense “works” even though the scenario is nowhere near how it would be used in a real attack.
Mike V,
PLEASE STOP !!! YOU’RE MAKING MY HEAD HURT.
I’m doing the neo-con denial thingy. Facts are only for those who actually care.
17 I was being sarcastic…
That much was obvious, but it wasn’t clear which “side” you were aiming the sarcasm at… Were you poking fun at the people who make those kinds of assertions, or the people who are less militaristic? Both?
17 only mentioned various things I’ve heard on the news.
On the whole, I did enjoy it – the form is great. The content less so…
It reminded me of what passes for political debate in Congress – where when anyone advocates withdrawl from Iraq, it is attacked by being blown all out-of-proportion [notable exception: some of Kerry’s ideas] into a vote on whether we should just leave immediately – which of course is overwhelmingly rejected… what with the “Cut & Run” moniker being ascribed to anyone who doesn’t want to “stay the course”.
19 If we hit it, it will be during the boost phase, as it is the most vulnerable point of the missile launch.
Aye, there’s the rub… Since we don’t know exactly which direction it will be launched, there will be a window/arc of initial trajectories we would consider a threat… [unless, of course, we plan on taking it out no matter what its trajectory actually is…]
Their missile launches from Korea, while ours will launch from Alaska and/or California.
If the initial trajectory is considered threatening, where will the missile actually be when it is intercepted?
The answer seems to be: …somewhere over the Pacific ocean…
Which brings me back to my questions in #9 – which can’t be answered because of the vast number of possible trajectories involved.
Complicated by the possibility we will launch our interceptors as soon as we detect their launch – without waiting to determine if the trajectory is a threat – so the interception will be that much closer to land vice “open” ocean.
19 …even though the scenario is nowhere near how it would be used in a real attack.
Agreed.
Another under-discussed point is our placing two Aegis-equipped ships and the aptly-named USNS Observation Island offshore…
http://tinyurl.com/ln4r6
Nice of Dear Leader to give us so much advance notice, so we can get all of our units positioned and briefed…
As you mentioned in your initial post: “It actually doesn’t get any better than this.”
So far the only people calling for an attack on North Korea appear to be Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry, hardly a neo-con(though a Republican.)
Here’s some imagery of the launchpad.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/no_dong-imagery.htm
>and yes, Iran, which own the world’s second largest oil reserves, is >entitled to use nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes.
A member of Iran’s cabinet said that if the US attacks, Iran will push its nuclear program underground and the whole region will be mad at the US for making the region less safe. Well if Iran is engaged in peaceful civilian nuclear projects, then why would it be unsafe for these to go underground?
22,
We won’t be launching from Alaska. We’ll be launching from a screen of Aegis cruisers in the waters off Korea, perfectly situated to strike the missile during boost phase.
25 We won’t be launching from Alaska….
Oh…
I was thinking about the plan from the first Reuters story you posted, where the Aegis ships are just used for tracking:
“The United States has installed nine interceptor missiles in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. In addition, U.S. Navy vessels with long-range tracking and surveillance capability ply the Sea of Japan”
I think the land-based leg is being phased out in favor of the ship-based system.
First, it gives you more opportunities to shoot down missiles since you can get a boat in close enough to shoot during the boost phase. Second, one Aegis crusier carries three times the misiles in that one site. Several ships could actually fill the sky with missiles in a real attack scenario.
UPDATE: I’m not the only one thinking about this: http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/06/25/100wir_a6missile001.cfm
Newsweek has an updated on the NK missile “crisis.” Looks like it was (Surprise!) trumped up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13530627/site/newsweek/
July 3-10, 2006 issue – After provoking debate over new intelligence on North Korea and Iraq, the Bush administration last week found itself tamping down the hyperbole it initiated.
…
By the end of the week, however, other U.S. officials played down the threat. Two counter proliferation officials, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive subject matter, noted that intelligence agencies believe that although North Korea has the material to build eight or more nuclear bombs, there is no indication that Kim’s regime has tested a nuclear device. Nor is there evidence that North Korean scientists have figured out how to build a nuclear warhead small enough to load into the nose cone of a missile.
More at the link.
The sad part is we all knew this already and still let him get away with it.