It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

watch your back korea

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Isn't it legal to down the missile, if it's flight path would go across Japanese airspace? Tresspassers will be shot principle....


Does anyone know what's the gun to gun ratio in DMZ? How many artillery pieces north has per one ROK/US piece?

Because first NK Salvo will turn Seoul into a flaming hell, or it may devastate souths capability to respond by hammering troops along the DMZ. And if NK is smart they concentrate their missiles against ROK airfields to prevent US supply/reinforcement flights (both combat aircraft and ground troops)... and mining the approaches to major southern harbors might be a good move. Marines can allways land on beaches, but it's hard to get supplies inland without facilites.




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
North Korea has the right to test such missiles. Who exactly is the agressor? Like North Korea is going to attack the US with a single missile.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Japan, South Korea, the United States and Australia have united in saying that any test-launching would result in serious and stern consequences, seeing such a move as a provocation.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zakattack
not on this thread but i have read where someone said that if US fires on missile and misses we should just scrap it all together

if we miss then that would give us a chance to improve, i saw on cnn on tv tonight that the interceptor is about 60-70% success rate, 9 in alaska 2 on west coast- in cali i think, now i dont think that they would launch all 11 for this one missile, but think about it this way, your car has an airbag traffic injuries and deaths have decreased majorly since they have been installed, now granted someones grandmothers cousins sisters best friends boyfriend has been killed by there airbag when it went off, but airbags deter serious injury more then they cause, so wouldnt it be better to have this missile system


My understanding is that the missiles in Alaska and California are of a type called THAAD. They are positioned to defend the US. The general problems with shooting down ballistic missiles are twofold:
1. They travel damn damn damn fast
2. Unless you actually hit them they still land on you (i.e. a proximilty warhead is not enough unless, say,. it's nuclear).
3 (bonus problem!) - real nuclear ones often have multiple re-entry warheads.

The Patriot debacle of GW1 was because of those factors.

Ballistic missiles can be catagorised into several classes:
* Short-Range Ballistic missile SRBM up to 1000 kilometers
* Medium-Range Ballistic Missile MRBM 1000 to 3000 kilometers
* Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile IRBM 3000 to 5500 kilometers
* Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICBM over 5500 kilometers

SCUD and things like that are SRBMs. These Korean ones are MRBM/IRBMs.

In basic terms, the further it flies the faster it is travelling on its desent. So IRBMs generally travel MUCH faster than SRBMs.

Anti-ballistic missile systems like THAAD, Arrow, Patriot PAC-3 and Standard SM3 are all designed to intercept the compariatively slower SRBMs with less effectiveness against MRBMs, IRBMs and ICBMs in that order. The chances of the THAADs stopping an incoming ICBM are pretty slim.

OK, I've started doing a graphical overlay of ballistic missile flight profiles against the various anti-ballistic missiles but I think that's deserving of another thread.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

2. Unless you actually hit them they still land on you (i.e. a proximilty warhead is not enough unless, say,. it's nuclear).


I always wondered how much it would increase the success rate of modern anti-missiles systems like that if you had a nuclear warhead on it. I mean a 300KT must have a huge effective range on a incomming ICBM compared to conventiional warheads.

And really if your defending against a incomming WMD attack why not go all out and use nuclear warheads for defense as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
North Korea has the right to test such missiles. Who exactly is the agressor? Like North Korea is going to attack the US with a single missile.


Do you even read what you write?

There are existing protocols for launching a ballistic missile into international waters / airspace. The sane, space-faring nations of the world adhere to said protocols so a satellite launch isn’t mistaken for an ICBM launch.

Absent adherence to these protocols, the only prudent action is to assume the worst, ESPECIALLY FROM NK

Does the missile have a warhead? I don't know, do you? Are you going to take NK's word for it? I wouldn't.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
hey planeman let me know when you get that graph done, im interested in what the comparisons are, but doesnt activating the defence system also mean that they activate the ABL? and shouldnt they put the ABL say in SK or Japan and fly 24/7 (obviously air refueling) and laser it down possibly while still in NK'n air space, then it can fall on there ass.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
THAAD is a different system from the GBI (Ground Based Interceptor), GBI is intended for ICBMs, and that's what is in the continental US.

As for who says North Korea shouldn't fire missiles, well, they said it themselves in the last 6 party talks. Now they're saying those rules don't apply to them, unless the US agrees to bi-lateral talks that we've never agreed to.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Number23
There are existing protocols for launching a ballistic missile into international waters / airspace.

Between the former USSR (now Russia and consorts) and the US, yes. But international ones?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Actually THAAD can intercpet IRBM's anD ICBM"S

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - U.S. missile defense developers have discovered that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, designed to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their final stages of flight, will also be capable of shooting down longer-range targets.

At the seventh annual space and missile defense conference here, Army Col. Charles Driessnack, THAAD's program manager, said in a speech late Aug. 18 and at a press briefing Aug. 19 that recent tests of the system's Raytheon-built radar have shown that THAAD will have a "residual" capability against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

"We weren't planning to have the ICBM capability," but the radar is "outperforming what we thought it was supposed to do," Driessnack said.
www.aviationnow.com... y.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2Ftha08204.xml



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Oh the joys of brinkmanship. A crisis appears, settles into a state of tension and threats, after which no real action is taken. Slowly, tensions decrease as the world looses interest, or has it stolen by someone else. Meanwhile, the original crisis still exists, just without the attention it first commanded.

still waiting...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we're betting any success on the missile defense systems. The military-industrial-Congressional complex has done absolutely no testing beyond the basic "see if at least flies" stuff, not a single thing done to ensure that the thing is truly ready for trouble. It is almost criminal, IMO, for the government to be playing with people's lives through a missile defense system.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I think PAC 3 and THAAD interceptors along the border could make quite a sucessful boost phase intercept. We wouldn't have to put those expensive destroyers at risk you know.i think North Korea deserves a bit of counterforce strategy.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I say we revive Safeguard,screw KEI warheads for THAAD and tip them with nukes.The radar has already proven itself to show good capability to get an interceptor on an ICBM class target.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by airtrax007
Let korea send up there little rocket , because we are ready to take it out as seen here-----www.msnbc.msn.com... USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Ronald Reagan carrier groups steam in formation near Guam Sunday during preparations for Valiant Shield.


Er, I don't like to mention such a tiny detail but NK seems to have sent up more than one, and how many got taken out?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by airtrax007
Let korea send up there little rocket , because we are ready to take it out as seen here-----www.msnbc.msn.com... USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Ronald Reagan carrier groups steam in formation near Guam Sunday during preparations for Valiant Shield.


Dude, it's "North Korea" not "korea". Just doing my bit to "Deny Ignorance"



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
there's NORAD too that can intercept missles and all, plus it will take maybe 10minutes for a missle to go from NK to USA, and in that time somebody gonna get hurt(russel peters) anyway, the USA has the capability to counter attack and defend itself, so it's okay, the missle can easily be intercepted.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Safeguard would cause far more problems and damage than any missile it's on it's way to intercept.

NORAD is an operational command, not a weapons system. They'd be directing the firing of missiles, they aren't the missiles being fired.

As for the expensive destroyers, they are not at risk, as they can safely operate from some distance.

None of those missiles got shot down, because none of them actually proved threatening. Personally, I would've seen great benifit in observing a successful Taepodong II launch by being reasonably able to determine just what the missile is actually capable of. On the other hand, this badly failed launch is in a way of far greater value because they didn't learn anything more about thier missile than we did, and they spent thier political "they wouldn't dare" chip on it.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by VType
the thousands of small attack craft the NK has massed on its shores and at its ports.

What thousands? NK has 43 missile craft, 103 torpedo craft and 158 patrol craft. That's just 304 boats. Proof: www.globalsecurity.org...


bih

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by SIRR1
A mass invasion from the North would be hard to stop at any time, and it would take weeks to mobilize an offensive to push them back across the DMZ.


Are you kidding me, US troops train along the southern side of the DMZ almost daily and have a quick reaction team/QRT ready 24/7. Teams rotate readiness stance, and if I recall correctly soldiers in Camp Casey or Garry Owen, were conducting trench warfare exercises.

Sorry, if the US was not in South Korea maybe the north would make an attempt. But they will not dare while we are there.


if you think your 30000 us soldiers would stop north koreas military your wrong.they would only be helping south korea



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join