Printable View
Now, our government can't even agree as to whether or not North Korea has nukes capable of being delivered on a ballistic missile...
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]N. Korea may be able to deliver nuke, Pentagon intel says - CNN.com[/url]
I think that before the US tried to shoot it down, this logic test would apply:
a. A decision to fire at a North Korean missile launched would be made once the missile's ballistic trajectory was tracked and the probable impact area of the missile known.
b. US Anti Missile Defense systems are designed to shoot down missiles that have gone passed max apogee as they begin their descent to target. This is by design so the decision to fire at the missile is based on a human decision as to the importance and significance of the expected targeted asset.
c. The Target would have to be a US Territory or US Ally such as Guam or Japan.
d. The kill ratio for US Missile Defense Systems is debatable, ranging from 25% by auditors during the 1991 Iraqi War and as high as 80%. The difference is how you count it. At 80%, the Pentagon is saying 8 of the 10 inbounds they decided to shoot at they hit. The audit done counted all the missiles fired by Iraq vs how many we did shoot down. If a bad guy shoots, but the missile's flight path suggests no danger to you or your allies, then it's not work the effort to try to shoot it down. In plain words, you don't shoot a $2-3 million dollar Patriot missile just because someone shot something up that won't, or can't, or isn't even intended to hit something you value highly.
d. If the US shoots and misses, they do prove something to North Korea and they do then give potential rise to the threat. Worse, it Japan or South Korea were to feel the US could not protect them, they may step in and attempt to eliminate the threat themselves. Beginning of the Gulf war, Sadam shot missiles at Israel, Israel was ready to retaliate, and the US put in the missile defenses to protect them so they would not unilaterally enter the war against Muslim/Arab neighbors that might then support Sadam.
e. If the US shoots, and can't prove the missile was enroute to a US territory or Ally, the North Korea can win a moral battle by saying their peaceful test was confronted with an act of aggression.
f. If North Korea launches, and the missile is headed for some unpopulated part of the ocean, and the US does not shoot at it, the US is in the moral seat to launch premptive strikes to insure no further firings occur that might be aimed at the US or Allies.
g. China appears to see North Korea as a menace. China has moved troops to its border with North Korea as a defensive matter. And as a prudent pro-active planning measure to insure that if North Korea does something that cause a US military response, they, China, won't have to inheit millions of N/K immigrants fleeing the fighting.
h. I doubt if the US did strike, you'd see very many US boots on the ground. South Korea has the ground capability, we'll bring the sea and air power.
[QUOTE=MrSplitshot;512598]Now, our government can't even agree as to whether or not North Korea has nukes capable of being delivered on a ballistic missile...
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]N. Korea may be able to deliver nuke, Pentagon intel says - CNN.com[/url][/QUOTE]
Does this sound a little like the WMD and Yellowcake Uranium justification fo a US Strike against Iraq? Kind of sounds like some are implying a greater threat to justify stiffer action. :D
Yep
Chuck
[QUOTE=riverrat12;512758]Yep[/QUOTE]
Lol looks like his personal sex toy....:p