US Could Use Experimental Battery If North Korea Shot Missile

**dalem** · 02 Jul 06,, 08:57

Originally Posted by Bluesman

We've got to win. Period.

And we will.

-dale

**Swift Sword** · 02 Jul 06,, 17:04

Originally Posted by Bluesman

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

Originally Posted by dalem

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