PDA

View Full Version : US Could Use Experimental Battery If North Korea Shot Missile



Jana
23 Jun 06,, 17:00
US Could Use Experimental Battery If North Korea Shot Missile At Its Territory
Michael Adler, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Fri, 23 Jun 2006, 01:49


Budapest: The United States could use an experimental anti-missile system to try to defend itself if a North Korean missile were aimed at US territory, US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said Thursday.

"We have a missile defense system . . . that is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system" but it has "some limited operational capability," Hadley told reporters in Budapest, where he was travelling with US President George W. Bush before returning to Washington.

"And the purpose, of course, of a missile defense system is to defend the territory of the United States from attack," Hadley said.

Asked if the United States would shoot down a test missile if North Korea launched one, but not necessarily aimed at US territory, Hadley would only say that he hoped North Korea, which claims to have nuclear weapons, would come back to the negotiating table and heed international warnings.

According to the warning "a North Korean missile test right now would be, again, breach of North Korea's unilateral undertakings."

In Washington, a senior official said North Korea would pay "some cost" if it launched a long-range missile.

"If such a launch takes place, we would seek to impose some cost on North Korea," Peter Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.

Preparations for the launch of a multi-stage Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) have been underway for several weeks at Musudanri on the remote northeast coast of North Korea.

But South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said Thursday that a launch was not imminent, while another senior Seoul official said the communist North has made no substantial moves for several days towards a firing.

A senior US defense official, meanwhile, said the US military would use any capability it has to protect the American people if North Korea launched a missile at the United States.

The official, however, said the US missile defense system would not necessarily be used if North Korea launched a missile that was headed into open ocean.

His and Hadley's comments were the clearest official indication yet that the United States has activated its missile defense system in the face of North Korean preparations for a launch of a long-range Taepodong missile.

Former US defense secretary William Perry went even further, calling Thursday for an ultimatum for North Korea to defuel and put away the missile or face a US missile strike to destroy it before it can be launched.

North Korean preparations to test launch a missile "are very far along," Hadley said.

But he said it was hard to guess what the North Koreans will actually do.

"Preparations are very far along, so you could, from a capability standpoint, have a launch," Hadley said.

"Now what they intend to do, which is what a lot of people are trying to read, of course, we don't know. What we hope they will do is give it up and not launch," Hadley said.

He said that North Korea "is a very opaque society and very hard to read" and that it was not useful to speculate on Pyongyang's intentions.

"What we need to do is look at their capabilities, and that's what we're trying to do," Hadley said.

He said North Korea had "voluntarily" adopted a moratorium in 1999 on missile testing "and reaffirmed it several years later."

"And our position is that the North Koreans ... should not test, should not test. They should respect their own moratorium," Hadley said.

Confed999
23 Jun 06,, 19:37
Heck, if NK continues to test these things without flight plans and maritime warnings, we should blow them up before they clear land. Same deal to Iran...

Dreadnought
23 Jun 06,, 19:53
Heck, if NK continues to test these things without flight plans and maritime warnings, we should blow them up before they clear land. Same deal to Iran...

Dam straight either play nice or we'll destroy it upon lift off over your own country that way the people see how those idiots waste their money and keep them in poverty. Then go throw the pieces that rained down on them at their palaces/residences. :biggrin:

2DREZQ
23 Jun 06,, 21:10
I'd prefer to destroy the d@mn thing on the launching pad. Why let them get any telemetry data at all? Besides, can you imagine the propaganda coup if we tried to shoot the missile down and missed?

A couple cruise missiles should do the job, would they even see them coming?

Swift Sword
28 Jun 06,, 13:01
If we intercept a North Korean test launch, we will be tipping our hands to other Powers.

Letting sophisticated, well armed and potentially dangerous parties observe a dress rehearsal for NMD at this point does is a poor pretty piss poor payout for breaking a long cease fire which is exactly what destroying a North Korean aircraft/spacecraft on a test flight pretty much amounts to.

What message will be sent if the system does not perform as advertised?

Aw Hell...who am I kidding...Moscow and Beijing can join the rest of us and read all about the insides of the NMD system on the front page of the New York times after someone in the Bush Administration leaks it to the World.

Bluesman
29 Jun 06,, 12:57
If we intercept a North Korean test launch, we will be tipping our hands to other Powers.

Letting sophisticated, well armed and potentially dangerous parties observe a dress rehearsal for NMD at this point does is a poor pretty piss poor payout for breaking a long cease fire which is exactly what destroying a North Korean aircraft/spacecraft on a test flight pretty much amounts to.

What message will be sent if the system does not perform as advertised?

Aw Hell...who am I kidding...Moscow and Beijing can join the rest of us and read all about the insides of the NMD system on the front page of the New York times after someone in the Bush Administration leaks it to the World.

Oh, naturally, it'll be somebody from the Bush Administration, correct? Not some time-serving bureaucrat that votes straight-ticket Democrat every two years. :rolleyes: Even though all the leakers lately have done all they can to harm this administration, to YOUR lazer-beam sharp analysis, it'll be a BUSH administration guy that'll leak it.

Lunkhead.

As far as tipping our hand to anybody, are you remotely familiar with the concept of 'deterrence'? Can you conceive that there may be really good reasons to demonstrate a certain military capability?

The only point you've made in a week of ridiculous posts is that one above about MISSING a called shot. I agree that would be REALLY bad. But a HIT? REALLY GOOD.

In fact, it utterly nullifies the last card North Korea has to play: ballistic missiles, once unstoppable...but NOW...demonstrably STOPPABLE.

And then, the last thing they have to sell for hard cash is rendered worthless.

REALLY.

GOOD.

Swift Sword
29 Jun 06,, 13:52
Oh, naturally, it'll be somebody from the Bush Administration, correct? Not some time-serving bureaucrat that votes straight-ticket Democrat every two years. :rolleyes: Even though all the leakers lately have done all they can to harm this administration, to YOUR lazer-beam sharp analysis, it'll be a BUSH administration guy that'll leak it.

It could be anybody I suppose but the Bush Administration has granted itself broad powers in matters of handling information and surveillance so it should not be too hard to find these leakers, right...assuming that there is a will to do so and prosecute?

If the AG, NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup cannot find moles and leaks inside of their own agencies and government, it is a great victory for the terrorists because they know they can remain hidden.

And no, I do not beleive in a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy any more than I beleive in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.


As far as tipping our hand to anybody, are you remotely familiar with the concept of 'deterrence'? Can you conceive that there may be really good reasons to demonstrate a certain military capability?

When you become familiar with weapons and their uses, you will eventually be forced by reality to learn what the rest of us all did in the end: weapons that you can see impress your friends while weapons you cannot see impress your enemies.


The only point you've made in a week of ridiculous posts is that one above about MISSING a called shot. I agree that would be REALLY bad. But a HIT? REALLY GOOD.

In fact, it utterly nullifies the last card North Korea has to play: ballistic missiles, once unstoppable...but NOW...demonstrably STOPPABLE.

If you cared to study the subject, you would find that missle defense development by any party has been accompanied by a healthy dose of bluffing and/or exaggerated claims.

Furthermore, the only combat proven missle defense is to overrun the launching areas.

I find it bizzare given your background that you would desire to commit an act of war and then fail to use the most effective weapons and tactics at your disposal.


And then, the last thing they have to sell for hard cash is rendered worthless.

You can beleive what you wish but this Republican is not naieve enough to buy into the idea that ballistic missle technology is the sum total of the North Korean threat.

Your lunkheaded friend,

William

HistoricalDavid
29 Jun 06,, 16:46
If a ballistic missile is probably headed towards friendly territory, then you can screw the potential political embarrassment if it misses. You need to maximise the chances of the missile not getting there, and if that means using experimental missile systems, so be it.

If you hit, that'll be a massive propaganda coup from an excellent live combat test. If you miss, civilians will die but at least you tried. If you didn't fire at all because you were too scared of the political implications, then you're just stupid.


Furthermore, the only combat proven missle defense is to overrun the launching areas.

Nothing is 'proven' 100% like you seem to imply. How would overrunning the ICBM fields of North Dakota stop them launching? Those silos are designed to withstand all-but-direct nuclear blasts.

Despite American forces overrunning Iraq, are not RPGs launched everyday?

The SM-3, in contrast, has a 5/6 success rate per one launch, and the GBIs, I believe a 5/8 success rate. Lots of room for improvement... but still a lot better than 0%.


Letting sophisticated, well armed and potentially dangerous parties observe a dress rehearsal for NMD

They will only know whether or not it works, not 'observe' in the proper sense of knowing its capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc.


If we intercept a North Korean test launch, we will be tipping our hands to other Powers.

You'd also be in with a chance of saving lives, which is much more important than international diplomatic niceties.

Bluesman
30 Jun 06,, 03:18
It could be anybody I suppose but the Bush Administration has granted itself broad powers in matters of handling information and surveillance so it should not be too hard to find these leakers, right...assuming that there is a will to do so and prosecute?

Oh, right, easiest thing in the world, Mr. Hoover, if we want to grant the broadest and most sweeping powers to law enforcement that I'm dead CERTAIN you'd never back, were it proposed. (Hey, neither would I, just so we're clear. But your ridiculous and fatuous assertion that it's child's play to stop anonymous leakers, now that the American Gestapo is loosed throughout the land is BUNK.)

At least I got you to concede that your snarky slap at the administration is at best misplaced, CERTAINLY directed at the wrong line-up of suspects.


If the AG, NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of the alphabet soup cannot find moles and leaks inside of their own agencies and government, it is a great victory for the terrorists because they know they can remain hidden.

Absolutely correct. It IS a great victory for our enemies. Do you see how that admission undercuts your argument that this latest leak thang was 'no big deal'?


And no, I do not beleive in a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy any more than I beleive in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Sweet; ne meither. But you also seem not to acknowledge that there IS a war to the knife going on, and we'd better win it, for ALL our sakes.


When you become familiar with weapons and their uses, you will eventually be forced by reality to learn what the rest of us all did in the end: weapons that you can see impress your friends while weapons you cannot see impress your enemies.

Missed me by a mile, civvie-street. I'm somewhat more than passingly familiar with weapons and their uses. And the ability to destroy an ICBM in flight would impress EVERYbody: friends, enemies, and the customers of those enemies.


If you cared to study the subject, you would find that missle defense development by any party has been accompanied by a healthy dose of bluffing and/or exaggerated claims.

How 'bout a lifetime of study, that cut any ice with you? And what we were talking about was the completely hypothetical successful shoot-down of an ICBM in flight. IF we can do it...THAT is a Big Dam' Deal. This is undeniable, even for a nugget like you.


Furthermore, the only combat proven missle defense is to overrun the launching areas.

Not true, but even if it were, refer to the hypothetical posed above. IF we can do it...HUGE implications. Absolutely undeniable.


I find it bizzare given your background that you would desire to commit an act of war and then fail to use the most effective weapons and tactics at your disposal.

Acts of self-defense are not acts of war. And the shoot-down of an ICBM would NOT be an act of war; blowing it up on the pad WOULD be, which is why Cheney *******-slapped the Democrats that stupidly proposed such an idiotic move. (Proposed for purely political reasons, it should be pointed out, by trying to out-flank the Republicans on their right, and as a clear demonstration AGAIN that Democrats do not understand and cannot be trusted with national security). As if we can shoot ordnance into another country with impunity, and expect that to be that, with no response from the target.


You can beleive what you wish but this Republican is not naieve enough to buy into the idea that ballistic missle technology is the sum total of the North Korean threat.

Never said it was; I was the lead DPRK analyst for three years while stationed in Misawa, Japan. I know a thing or two re: the North Korean threat.

My point was, the ONLY thing North Korea has that anybody is willing to pay for is ballistic missile tech. Well, IF we demonstrate an ability to destroy same...who's gonna buy 'em THEN?

dalem
30 Jun 06,, 03:44
Never said it was; I was the lead DPRK analyst for three years while stationed in Misawa, Japan. I know a thing or two re: the North Korean threat.

Oooo, that's gonna leave a mark. Pure pwnage.

-dale

Ray
01 Jul 06,, 01:46
To test or not to test an experimental weapon in a scenario where there is no active combat and instead there is a hostile standoff, is a tricky thing.

Should it fail, it will be an embarrassment.

Should it succeed, there will be great elation amongst friends.

There is no doubt that whenever any weapon system is tried out, the inimical powers try to obtain the details of the same through all means, including electronic. The copycat weapon systems of China bear testimony.

NK has been a thorn in the side of the US for a long time and so should there be any failure of the weapon system, it would prove to be of great propaganda value for countries not friendly to the US.

That is what I feel could happen; and all friends of the US would rather wish that the US should not use an experimental missile that is not a 100% surety.

I still remember a headline in the newspapers when I was in school, "Ike's Sputnik is a Budnik!" when the USSR beat the US in putting a man (Yuri Gagarin) in space after the US had raised the ante that US would be the first nation to put a man in space. A Polish schoolmate Jankowski (Poland was Communist then) gleefully went about the school, never failing to impress us that the Communist system was greater than any system etc etc!

I sure would not like the Jankowski glee to happen now!

Bluesman
01 Jul 06,, 04:27
Agreed. If you go up to the batter's box and point to the right-field bleachers...you dam' well better hit a homer. Into right field.

It's bad to strike out if you're a star athlete in that situation. If you're the world's hyper-power, and you blow you're 'called shot'...it's a calamity. The one thing ANY leader cannot afford it to look ridiculous.

Parihaka
01 Jul 06,, 12:35
It's bad to strike out if you're a star athlete in that situation. If you're the world's hyper-power, and you blow you're 'called shot'...it's a calamity. The one thing ANY leader cannot afford it to look ridiculous.
Hell it's happened before and it'll happen again. Gagarin goes into space, first rendevous in space, first woman in space, but who ended up playing golf on the moon? Use what you got when you got it, and if it causes a laugh, well so what?

Confed999
01 Jul 06,, 14:40
Use what you got when you got it, and if it causes a laugh, well so what?
Yes. It's not like they won't laugh at us for not doing anything...

Bluesman
02 Jul 06,, 08:37
Hell it's happened before and it'll happen again. Gagarin goes into space, first rendevous in space, first woman in space, but who ended up playing golf on the moon? Use what you got when you got it, and if it causes a laugh, well so what?

That's a great example:
Kennedy promised to land a man on the moon and return him safely, inside of a decade...during a time when our rockets were routinely blowing up on the launch pad, and our space program was a shambles. Do you understand how dam' AUDACIOUS that was? THAT was a called shot, and a great deal of national prestige was on the line.

I recall growwing up during that period, and there were numerous calls for all that money that was being 'wasted' on the Gemini and Apollo programs to be put into the anti-poverty programs of the time, you know, to improve OUR people, instead of chasing after some chimera of nationalistic pride and a goal that wouldn't really improve the lives of ordinary Americans.

Guess which party those people came from? ;)

THAT is what it means to be a world leader, and if JFK understood anything about his job, he totally understood national morale. Carter did NOT; Reagan DID. And from their examples, we can see in the nation's character actions and general attitudes why it it so dam' important.

A dispirited, defeated and cowed nation cannot lead. Not itself, not the world. But a confident, forward-looking and visionary country that thinks big and executes well is a beacon for the others. After Vietnam, the nation went into a period of global retreat and decline, and was the worst period in our history of a dispiriting and self-doubting 'national malaise', as Carter called it. The dominoes tumbled down, not just in Southeast Asia, but all across the world, and the Bad Guys were on the make. THEY were the ones confident that they had the momentum, and they behaved like it. It looked like they were the 'strong horse', to borrow Osama's phrase.

Well, that is why we simply cannot afford to lose in Iraq. I've seen it before, and the stakes are MUCH higher this time. I did not intend to make this an Iraq War thread...but the point is relevent. I can see what all this means. We simply have to win, just like we had to land Neil and Buzz at Tranquility Base, and bring 'em back alive, before the end of 1969.

We've got to win. Period.

dalem
02 Jul 06,, 08:57
We've got to win. Period.

And we will.

-dale

Swift Sword
02 Jul 06,, 17:04
Oh, right, easiest thing in the world, Mr. Hoover, if we want to grant the broadest and most sweeping powers to law enforcement that I'm dead CERTAIN you'd never back, were it proposed. (Hey, neither would I, just so we're clear. But your ridiculous and fatuous assertion that it's child's play to stop anonymous leakers, now that the American Gestapo is loosed throughout the land is BUNK.)

The Executive Branch appears to be well enough blessed with the powers required to police itself if it so chooses and if it chooses not to police itself we can assume that the leak is not particularly threatening.


At least I got you to concede that your snarky slap at the administration is at best misplaced, CERTAINLY directed at the wrong line-up of suspects.

Be glad I am snarky and not psychophantic.


Absolutely correct. It IS a great victory for our enemies. Do you see how that admission undercuts your argument that this latest leak thang was 'no big deal'?

I only pay for government secrets and am not privy to them.


Sweet; ne meither. But you also seem not to acknowledge that there IS a war to the knife going on, and we'd better win it, for ALL our sakes.

...and I am also aware that the best defense against a knife is not another knife ;)


Missed me by a mile, civvie-street. I'm somewhat more than passingly familiar with weapons and their uses. And the ability to destroy an ICBM in flight would impress EVERYbody: friends, enemies, and the customers of those enemies.

Bluesman, you can try to show the little girls whats what by the size of the thunder in your hand if you wish but I was not brought up that way; no sale.


How 'bout a lifetime of study, that cut any ice with you? And what we were talking about was the completely hypothetical successful shoot-down of an ICBM in flight. IF we can do it...THAT is a Big Dam' Deal. This is undeniable, even for a nugget like you.

Unless you are shooting down a communications satellite or research launch...now THAT would be a Big Dam' Deal IF we did it.

Us unsophistacted, lunkheaded nuggetfolk are simple sorts but do have some sense of object permenance: we are not xenophobic enough to instantly jump to the conclusion that everything the Commies loft is neccessarily a dagger pointed at the heart of Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet.

The North Koreans are dangerous, we know that, which is exactly why hysteria and overreaction are contraindicated.


Not true, but even if it were, refer to the hypothetical posed above. IF we can do it...HUGE implications. Absolutely undeniable.

My military education has probably been sadly neglected but IIRC invasion of Holland and Iraq were the ultimate solutions to the V2 and SCUD menaces respectively.


Acts of self-defense are not acts of war. And the shoot-down of an ICBM would NOT be an act of war; blowing it up on the pad WOULD be, which is why Cheney *******-slapped the Democrats that stupidly proposed such an idiotic move. (Proposed for purely political reasons, it should be pointed out, by trying to out-flank the Republicans on their right, and as a clear demonstration AGAIN that Democrats do not understand and cannot be trusted with national security). As if we can shoot ordnance into another country with impunity, and expect that to be that, with no response from the target.

Not everything that has been lofted on liquid fueled boosters is an ICBM and shooting down anyone of several of the alternatives might darn well be an act of war.

Use of the fledgling NMD is going to be just like that of any other weapon be it a hand, halberd, hand gun, harsh tort or hydrogen fusion assembly: extremely dependent on good intelligence.


Never said it was; I was the lead DPRK analyst for three years while stationed in Misawa, Japan. I know a thing or two re: the North Korean threat.

I have never been a DPRK analyst and would not even play one on T.V.

North Korea specialists and analysts have been telling us that Pyonyong was dangerous for as long as I have been alive and a provacative gesture such as a missle test is just exactly the type of thing I would expect given their past performance.


My point was, the ONLY thing North Korea has that anybody is willing to pay for is ballistic missile tech. Well, IF we demonstrate an ability to destroy same...who's gonna buy 'em THEN?

Plenty of people are in the market for ballistic missle technology and I would think North Korean sales would be robust regardless of the successful or failed deployment of coutnerforce.

In the grand scheme of things, many would be proliferators have more immediate and pressing business with opponents much less remote than Washington and possesed of lesser kit and financing to boot.

More people will probably be able to buy into ballistic missle capability than will be able to buy into anti ballistic missle capability.

Swift Sword
02 Jul 06,, 17:39
Oooo, that's gonna leave a mark. Pure pwnage.

-dale

No, not at all.

I have seen plenty of flowery resumes in my tender years.

I have heard it said that it is better to "look to the fruit, not the flower".

Of course the same guy said that "a nation's best weapons should not be displayed" so he might not know anything at all.

Happy Independence Day,

William

Bluesman
02 Jul 06,, 22:18
The Executive Branch appears to be well enough blessed with the powers required to police itself if it so chooses and if it chooses not to police itself we can assume that the leak is not particularly threatening.

No, sir; it is elemental, like waves and wind. It simply cannot be stopped. Slowed, perhaps, prosecuted occasionally, but if you think people that know secrets can be persuaded or threatened to never reveal them, then you have not the same experience I have had in twenty years' worth of security clearances.


Be glad I am snarky and not psychophantic.

Not sure if you were saying you're not psychopathic or sycophantic, there. The snarky part I got, though.


I only pay for government secrets and am not privy to them.

Then you're not getting your money's worth.


...and I am also aware that the best defense against a knife is not another knife ;) .

Neither is talking to a knife-weilding assailant, particularly if he's as crazed as The Chonger.


Bluesman, you can try to show the little girls whats what by the size of the thunder in your hand if you wish but I was not brought up that way; no sale.

Are you posting while drinking? I didn't follow any of that.


Unless you are shooting down a communications satellite or research launch...now THAT would be a Big Dam' Deal IF we did it.

Absolutely true, and if that's the case, they should be willing and even eager to prove it to us, pre-launch. If they are NOT willing to do that...You may fire when ready, Mr. Gridley.


Us unsophistacted, lunkheaded nuggetfolk are simple sorts but do have some sense of object permenance: we are not xenophobic enough to instantly jump to the conclusion that everything the Commies loft is neccessarily a dagger pointed at the heart of Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet.

Oh, you ARE quite the sophisticate, aren't you? Ever so nuanced and clever. Xenophobia is NOT required to take prudent measures, but your constant line has been that America's enemies have THIS right, or they need be granted THAT benefit of the doubt, and all nations are equal in the way we treat with them. NORTH KOREA IS A ROGUE STATE, and should NEVER be treated as anything but an intractable enemy. DPRK rocket launches, negotiations, or them buying a newspaper and a pack of Wrigley's DoubleMint; ALL of it needs to be seen in the context of the THREAT. Not xenophobia; PRUDENCE.


The North Koreans are dangerous, we know that, which is exactly why hysteria and overreaction are contraindicated.

WHY do you insist that would be hysterical and an over-reaction? I wouldn't counsel either at ANY time, so it is ALWAYS contraindicated.


My military education has probably been sadly neglected but IIRC invasion of Holland and Iraq were the ultimate solutions to the V2 and SCUD menaces respectively.

And why was THAT, do you suppose? What piece was missing in 1944 and 1991? What capability did we NOT have that made the invasions of said areas the ONLY choice to stop them missiles? What I've been trying to say to you is that IF ABM tech gets good enough to cancel out ICBM fleets...there is now another way of dealing with them. You don't seem to be following the thread very well...


Not everything that has been lofted on liquid fueled boosters is an ICBM and shooting down anyone of several of the alternatives might darn well be an act of war.

Then as I said before...prove it, or lose it. That's easy.


Use of the fledgling NMD is going to be just like that of any other weapon be it a hand, halberd, hand gun, harsh tort or hydrogen fusion assembly: extremely dependent on good intelligence.

Well, it'll certainly help, but actually good TECH is the driver on this one. Keep in mind what I've been saying throughout the entire thread: this shot is HYPOTHETICAL, and to take it as we stand right now involves considerable risk. So merely saying that our current state does not allow for certitude of impermeable defense is not what I'm arguing about.


I have never been a DPRK analyst and would not even play one on T.V.

And so you would presume to lecture ME on what I do and do not know about what consitutes the North Korean threat. Super.


North Korea specialists and analysts have been telling us that Pyonyong was dangerous for as long as I have been alive and a provacative gesture such as a missle test is just exactly the type of thing I would expect given their past performance.

And they were correct the whole time they were telling us that. And as long as we - you and I, being experts - are expecting that this IS a missile test, then, and not some benevolent li'l satellite or somesuch...we kill it...IF we can, and the risk is acceptable.


Plenty of people are in the market for ballistic missle technology and I would think North Korean sales would be robust regardless of the successful or failed deployment of coutnerforce.

Rubbish. If we announce our intent to kill each and every ballistic missile launched from countries that are not labelled 'US' or 'Great Britain' or 'Narnia', there's not a lot of utility there, right? Once BetaMax videotape players became rare - and then extinct - there was not a 'robust' market for the blank tapes. There wan't ANY market at all. Consider ballistic missile killers to be VHS.


In the grand scheme of things, many would be proliferators have more immediate and pressing business with opponents much less remote than Washington and possesed of lesser kit and financing to boot.

Awesome. That sounds like a safer world, particularly as we're now (in our hypothetical world) in possession of a working and combat-proven ABM system.


More people will probably be able to buy into ballistic missle capability than will be able to buy into anti ballistic missle capability.

As long as they're friendly to the US, godd for THEM, because their enemies (presumably US enemies) can no longer respond in kind with any certainty of effectiveness. We pull their fangs with ONE SHOT. Talk about economical...no matter the cost of the ABM system eventually deployed, if it can do THAT...it was worth it.

Parihaka
03 Jul 06,, 03:08
That's a great example:
Kennedy promised to land a man on the moon and return him safely, inside of a decade...during a time when our rockets were routinely blowing up on the launch pad, and our space program was a shambles. Do you understand how dam' AUDACIOUS that was? THAT was a called shot, and a great deal of national prestige was on the line.

I recall growwing up during that period, and there were numerous calls for all that money that was being 'wasted' on the Gemini and Apollo programs to be put into the anti-poverty programs of the time, you know, to improve OUR people, instead of chasing after some chimera of nationalistic pride and a goal that wouldn't really improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
.................................................. ..........................
We simply have to win, just like we had to land Neil and Buzz at Tranquility Base, and bring 'em back alive, before the end of 1969.

We've got to win. Period.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=161395&postcount=67

Bluesman
03 Jul 06,, 03:34
I had not seen that post before. Thank you for writing it, and pointing it out.

Brilliant. I felt I was there when you looked it over; it made my chest tighten up.

And it took me back to my godfather's basement in the wooded hills of Tennessee, as I watched history being made on live TV. I was eight, and I'll have forgotten the names of my children before I forget that day.

Not much went right for America in that era, but THAT went spectacularly right, and I was as proud as I've ever been to be an American.

Parihaka
03 Jul 06,, 08:14
I had not seen that post before. Thank you for writing it, and pointing it out.

Brilliant. I felt I was there when you looked it over; it made my chest tighten up.

And it took me back to my godfather's basement in the wooded hills of Tennessee, as I watched history being made on live TV. I was eight, and I'll have forgotten the names of my children before I forget that day.

Not much went right for America in that era, but THAT went spectacularly right, and I was as proud as I've ever been to be an American.
At the risk of sounding both pompous and clichéd that era taught me the simplest and therefore most profound of lessons:
It is a sin to not do something you know is right simply because of the fear of failure.