US Successfully Tests US Missile Intercept System

[BFritz21]

I thought that the US already had one of these, or maybe it was just that we'd be able to shoot the missile down before it caused any damage, but I just did some research and it sounds like that's pretty much what this missile intercept system is.

In any case, it sounds like South Korea is letting us set-it-up in their country and that we should be able to intercept any missile before it can get close enough to do any damage on American soil. Perhaps South Korea is allowing it on their soil with an agreement that it will also be able to be used if a missile is launched at them (assuming that it could be used fast enough to intercept something on such a short launch).

Quote:US successfully tests missile intercept system
AFP 9 hours ago


Washington (AFP) - American forces successfully tried out Sunday a missile interception system the US hopes to set up on the Korean peninsula, military officials said following a trial just days after North Korea's second test of an ICBM.

In the American test of the so-called THAAD system, a medium-range missile was launched from a US Air Force C-17 aircraft flying over the Pacific and a THAAD unit in Alaska "detected, tracked and intercepted the target," the US Missile Defense Agency said.

It said this was the 15th successful intercept in 15 tests for the weapons system known as THAAD, which stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.

South Korea said Saturday it will speed up deployment of a THAAD battery on its territory because of the latest North Korean test of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Parts of the THAAD defense system were brought into South Korea under the government of ousted president Park Geun-Hye. But new leader Moon Jae-In suspended deployment of the programme last month, citing the need for a new environmental impact assessment.

However, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-Moo said Saturday that Seoul will now begin consultations on the "tentative deployment" parts of the THAAD battery in response to the latest North Korean test.

The THAAD deployment has infuriated China, which has long argued it will destabilize the region.

I don't see how China can believe that it will destabilize the region because it seems like it would do the opposite.

Is this as good of news as I think?

[Benton]

We do have other icbm defense but I don't think it has the radar distance this unit has, which is what has China upset. From what I understand, it's a powerful enough system that the south can detect a middle launch anywhere in the. North. China and Russia prefer that they don't have that ability.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-30-2017, 08:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I thought that the US already had one of these, or maybe it was just that we'd be able to shoot the missile down before it caused any damage, but I just did some research and it sounds like that's pretty much what this missile intercept system is.

In any case, it sounds like South Korea is letting us set-it-up in their country and that we should be able to intercept any missile before it can get close enough to do any damage on American soil.  Perhaps South Korea is allowing it on their soil with an agreement that it will also be able to be used if a missile is launched at them (assuming that it could be used fast enough to intercept something on such a short launch).


I don't see how China can believe that it will destabilize the region because it seems like it would do the opposite.

Is this as good of news as I think?

Maybe if North Korea wasn't busy making videos of them blowing up cities in the US and continuing a program that would allow them to do just that, they wouldn't have to worry about the region being "destabalized".

[BFritz21]

(07-31-2017, 10:08 AM)Benton Wrote: We do have other icbm defense but I don't think it has the radar distance this unit has, which is what has China upset. From what I understand, it's a powerful enough system that the south can detect a middle launch anywhere in the. North. China and Russia prefer that they don't have that ability.

I still don't get that, though, because China is upset that we're just protecting ourselves and other nations (potentially)?

[Benton]

(07-31-2017, 11:51 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I still don't get that, though, because China is upset that we're just protecting ourselves and other nations (potentially)?

And we got pretty pissed at Cuba/Russia whenever they talked about parking more missiles due south of Florida. According to them, though, they were just protecting themselves from the U.S. Same sort of situation. To us, that was escalating a situation; to them it was strategic defense. To us, this is strategic defense; to China/Russia it's escalating the situation.

Although one notable difference — from what I understand — isn't the missiles as much as it is the radar. China/Russia are seeing this as an attempt to install equipment at a U.S. ally capable of spying on Chinese territory. Although what advantage using the THAAD equipment gives the US over the tools it currently has, I don't know. 

[Au165]

I still question it's practical abilities. It is one thing to shoot down a missile that we know when it is being launched, from where, type of missile, and where it is heading. I think this is partially just propaganda to try and deter the use of weapons. If they want to really show it's power shoot down the next North Korean missile as soon as it hits international waters.

[Benton]

(07-31-2017, 12:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: I still question it's practical abilities. It is one thing to shoot down a missile that we know when it is being launched, from where, type of missile, and where it is heading. I think this is partially just propaganda to try and deter the use of weapons. If they want to really show it's power shoot down the next North Korean missile as soon as it hits international waters.

While hilarious, that would be taken as a hostile action until it leaves international air space; although if it flies into our air space we most likely would fire on it. Plus, it could backfire. If we tried to shoot it down and missed, we look pretty impotent. 

[Au165]

(07-31-2017, 01:19 PM)Benton Wrote: While hilarious, that would be taken as a hostile action until it leaves international air space; although if it flies into our air space we most likely would fire on it. Plus, it could backfire. If we tried to shoot it down and missed, we look pretty impotent. 

This is kind of my point though. We do "hostile acts" all the time by doing the military exercises. It is against International law for them to be launching the missiles however it is still allowed to continue. If we can shoot down the next one going in the direction of Japan we can flex a bit. If we can actually do it, we should actually do it. If North Korea thinks they can flex by shooting them....but then they can't anymore, it could crush the country's morale.

[Benton]

(08-01-2017, 09:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is kind of my point though. We do "hostile acts" all the time by doing the military exercises. It is against International law for them to be launching the missiles however it is still allowed to continue. If we can shoot down the next one going in the direction of Japan we can flex a bit. If we can actually do it, we should actually do it. If North Korea thinks they can flex by shooting them....but then they can't anymore, it could crush the country's morale.

To the bold, there's not much that's going to happen to them outside of sanctions. It's not against their law to conduct tests. 

If we shoot something down in Japanese airspace that's very different from shooting something down in international airspace. But, as I said, you still run the risk of missing and losing that game of chicken. 

Right now, the North is firing off empty rockets. They aren't believed to have the capabilities to put a nuclear payload on those ICBMs, so they're basically waving a limp **** around talking about how awesome it will be someday if they can get it up. If we try to hit that limp **** and miss, it's going to slap us in the face. If we learned anything from the Bay of Pigs it was: don't get hit with a limp **** in the face. Because that will greatly improve the morale of the **** slapper. 

Best thing we can do is let them continue to go bankrupt firing off limp **** missiles in their one man Cold War reenactment. When their people get hungry enough they will either take actions against a neighbor — causing the international community to intervene — or the people will force a change on the government.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, there's not much that's going to happen to them outside of sanctions. It's not against their law to conduct tests. 

If we shoot something down in Japanese airspace that's very different from shooting something down in international airspace. But, as I said, you still run the risk of missing and losing that game of chicken. 

Right now, the North is firing off empty rockets. They aren't believed to have the capabilities to put a nuclear payload on those ICBMs, so they're basically waving a limp **** around talking about how awesome it will be someday if they can get it up. If we try to hit that limp **** and miss, it's going to slap us in the face. If we learned anything from the Bay of Pigs it was: don't get hit with a limp **** in the face. Because that will greatly improve the morale of the **** slapper. 

Best thing we can do is let them continue to go bankrupt firing off limp **** missiles in their one man Cold War reenactment. When their people get hungry enough they will either take actions against a neighbor — causing the international community to intervene — or the people will force a change on the government.

That is an amazing analogy!  

[Au165]

(08-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, there's not much that's going to happen to them outside of sanctions. It's not against their law to conduct tests. 

If we shoot something down in Japanese airspace that's very different from shooting something down in international airspace. But, as I said, you still run the risk of missing and losing that game of chicken. 

Right now, the North is firing off empty rockets. They aren't believed to have the capabilities to put a nuclear payload on those ICBMs, so they're basically waving a limp **** around talking about how awesome it will be someday if they can get it up. If we try to hit that limp **** and miss, it's going to slap us in the face. If we learned anything from the Bay of Pigs it was: don't get hit with a limp **** in the face. Because that will greatly improve the morale of the **** slapper. 

Best thing we can do is let them continue to go bankrupt firing off limp **** missiles in their one man Cold War reenactment. When their people get hungry enough they will either take actions against a neighbor — causing the international community to intervene — or the people will force a change on the government.

Here is the problem with waiting, we didn't think they'd have ICBM capabilities for three years and we were wrong. They are possibly a year, or less, away from capable ICBM technology capable of carrying nuclear warheads. We have sat around laughing at them, but now most agree they are going to get the technology, not if but when and that appears to be soon.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-31-2017, 11:51 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I still don't get that, though, because China is upset that we're just protecting ourselves and other nations (potentially)?

Missiles don't kill people, people kill people. The only thing which will stop a bad guy with a missle is a good guy with a missle. Does China think the US is a good guy or a bad guy?

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, there's not much that's going to happen to them outside of sanctions. It's not against their law to conduct tests. 

If we shoot something down in Japanese airspace that's very different from shooting something down in international airspace. But, as I said, you still run the risk of missing and losing that game of chicken. 

Right now, the North is firing off empty rockets. They aren't believed to have the capabilities to put a nuclear payload on those ICBMs, so they're basically waving a limp **** around talking about how awesome it will be someday if they can get it up. If we try to hit that limp **** and miss, it's going to slap us in the face. If we learned anything from the Bay of Pigs it was: don't get hit with a limp **** in the face. Because that will greatly improve the morale of the **** slapper. 

Best thing we can do is let them continue to go bankrupt firing off limp **** missiles in their one man Cold War reenactment. When their people get hungry enough they will either take actions against a neighbor — causing the international community to intervene — or the people will force a change on the government.

This is the single greatest post I've ever read on any message board.

[Benton]

(08-01-2017, 12:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: Here is the problem with waiting, we didn't think they'd have ICBM capabilities for three years and we were wrong. They are possibly a year, or less, away from capable ICBM technology capable of carrying nuclear warheads. We have sat around laughing at them, but now most agree they are going to get the technology, not if but when and that appears to be soon.

Understood.

But it's a two-decade old problem dating back to Clinton. Bill, not the one who — according to the Right — is single-handedly destroying the economy, health care, the middle class and freedom from her couch while she sits around in an old sweat suit talking about 'what could've been.'

Bill was told North Korea was a threat. So he offered them a few billion bucks to dial down the crazy. The problem? That was Bill's approach, not Congress' or Bush's. If we had kept paying NK to not be crazy, they might have backed off the nukes. Or, if we had never given them the cash, they might not have ran through it like a crackhead with a roll twenties. Either way would've been good, but what we did was say "Hey, act crazy enough and we will give you some cash" ... and then we stopped paying them. So now we just get the crazy.

Which leaves us allowing them to continue bankrupting themselves in their show, applying diplomatic pressure (what we've tried with China and Russia up until recently when we started parking spy gear at the border), or attacking. If we attack (shoot down their missile tests), they'll say it was provocation for attacking SK in a defensive strike. Which means we will either have to get slapped in the nuts by a nut, or get into another conflict. And that conflict could potentially bring China/Russia into it.

Shooting down their rocket now runs a significant risk of having open conflict either directly or indirectly with us, allies and some major countries. Even if they manage to get a nuclear payload on a rocket, it's more of a threat to their allies (China/Russia) and our allies (Japan, SK, etc) than it is to us. Which might facilitate all of those countries opening up a dialogue to deal with NK.

[Au165]

(08-01-2017, 01:29 PM)Benton Wrote: Understood.

But it's a two-decade old problem dating back to Clinton. Bill, not the one who — according to the Right — is single-handedly destroying the economy, health care, the middle class and freedom from her couch while she sits around in an old sweat suit talking about 'what could've been.'

Bill was told North Korea was a threat. So he offered them a few billion bucks to dial down the crazy. The problem? That was Bill's approach, not Congress' or Bush's. If we had kept paying NK to not be crazy, they might have backed off the nukes. Or, if we had never given them the cash, they might not have ran through it like a crackhead with a roll twenties. Either way would've been good, but what we did was say "Hey, act crazy enough and we will give you some cash" ... and then we stopped paying them. So now we just get the crazy.

Which leaves us allowing them to continue bankrupting themselves in their show, applying diplomatic pressure (what we've tried with China and Russia up until recently when we started parking spy gear at the border), or attacking. If we attack (shoot down their missile tests), they'll say it was provocation for attacking SK in a defensive strike. Which means we will either have to get slapped in the nuts by a nut, or get into another conflict. And that conflict could potentially bring China/Russia into it.

Shooting down their rocket now runs a significant risk of having open conflict either directly or indirectly with us, allies and some major countries. Even if they manage to get a nuclear payload on a rocket, it's more of a threat to their allies (China/Russia) and our allies (Japan, SK, etc) than it is to us. Which might facilitate all of those countries opening up a dialogue to deal with NK.

But again, the past doesn't matter because the present issue is by next year they could conceivably put a nuke somewhere over the U.S. and thats a problem. Waiting them out is no longer an option. I am about as anti military intervention as you can get, but I think we are nearing the point where we may have to legitimately consider removing the regime of North Korea. I'd like to attempt to do it using the CIA if possible over boots on the ground or missiles in the air.

[Benton]

(08-01-2017, 01:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: But again, the past doesn't matter because the present issue is by next year they could conceivably put a nuke somewhere over the U.S. and thats a problem. Waiting them out is no longer an option. I am about as anti military intervention as you can get, but I think we are nearing the point where we may have to legitimately consider removing the regime of North Korea. I'd like to attempt to do it using the CIA if possible over boots on the ground or missiles in the air.

Sounds like some stuff that went down in Sarajevo about 100 years ago. 

And would likely have the same result. Within a week you would have most of Asia, the South Pacific and western Europe squaring off.

[Au165]

(08-01-2017, 02:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Sounds like some stuff that went down in Sarajevo about 100 years ago. 

And would likely have the same result. Within a week you would have most of Asia, the South Pacific and western Europe squaring off.

We may be heading that way either way with the south china sea issues/territorial disputes and China and India squaring off over territory disputes. I actually agreed with Senator Graham, he mentioned this could turn from a destabilization issue of Asia to a security issue for us.

I think while Trump is in office we will see some sort of North Korean conflict (not sure of the extent). You can't let a crazy guy have access to ICBMs with nuclear capability, and that is what he will have next year at some point.

[Benton]

(08-01-2017, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: We may be heading that way either way with the south china sea issues/territorial disputes and China and India squaring off over territory disputes. I actually agreed with Senator Graham, he mentioned this could turn from a destabilization issue of Asia to a security issue for us.

I think while Trump is in office we will see some sort of North Korean conflict (not sure of the extent). You can't let a crazy guy have access to ICBMs with nuclear capability, and that is what he will have next year at some point.

 Well, that ship has sailed.

[Au165]

(08-01-2017, 04:26 PM)Benton Wrote:  Well, that ship has sailed.

You know I actually considered that when typing it haha. There is a difference though, we aren't actively threatening people with said nuclear weapons....yet at least.

[ballsofsteel]

(08-01-2017, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: We may be heading that way either way with the south china sea issues/territorial disputes and China and India squaring off over territory disputes. I actually agreed with Senator Graham, he mentioned this could turn from a destabilization issue of Asia to a security issue for us.

I think while Trump is in office we will see some sort of North Korean conflict (not sure of the extent). You can't let a crazy guy have access to ICBMs with nuclear capability, and that is what he will have next year at some point.

The same goes for Kim Jong Un also.