CNN: North Korea Warns US 'We're ready to NUKE any time'!

a reply to: deadeyedick

Better find some more to microagress against before you loose momentum

a reply to: dianajune

Has anyone ever told you how much you look like Kim Davis?

You might want to dye your hair and try contacts.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Question. Would we not detect and destroy anything in the air that was sent our way by NK? I've always just assumed we have folks looking out for that kind of thing. No nuke would ever make it here from NK, right?

we, the South Koreans and Japan have many aegis class cruisers and destroyers around the peninsula. you know... the ones capable of knocking a satellite out of orbit at orbital speeds with SM3 missiles.


well that was several block mods ago too. and it's not just the missiles that have been upgraded. so has the onbaord sensors and networking capability. even if the onboard radars could not track a icbm if other platforms can like SBIRs or that floating ABM Radar we sold to the Japanese sometime back can they can give firing targeting data and fire commands to any platform in the combined fleet.


welcome to block 9 aegis: cimsec.org...

a reply to: dianajune

All SLBMs are land attack missiles. They simply program in target coordinates and launch them.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Which still isn't capable of knocking down an ICBM. IRBM, yes. ICBM, no.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Which still isn't capable of knocking down an ICBM. IRBM, yes. ICBM, no.

Zap coudnt this be fixed by making it a two stage and increasing the power of the boost phase?

a reply to: angeldoll

So are we safe or not?

Like anyone here knows? I wouldn't imagine they "know" anything except guesstimations. It's late, try to get some sleep, your Uncle Sam got you covered, I'd guess..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Which still isn't capable of knocking down an ICBM. IRBM, yes. ICBM, no.

i wouldn't be too sure about that. all of the requisite parts and functions are available.

first though you can argue that a satellite has a very predictable path it is still going faster than an ICBM. sure you can lead it but you can do that with an ICBM too. and only very advanced nations are making ICBMs that can jink and maneuver a little bit to throw radar algorythms off. and that only works if the radar is coded to perform it's track function based on a pure hyperbolic curve. older radars had to do that because signal processing was a huge chore for older computers like i dealt with in the firefinder system (AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37) but that was decades ago.

concerning detection and tracking verification functions we were on the beach down by Pusan to determine if we could detect a South Korean Lance missile launch. the software was set to expect a certain set of parameters including RCS, velocity and a certain well defined hyperbolic movement tracks and a few other things. They fired and we saw nothing. no search fence blip, no tracking and discard, and certainly no verification and impact predict or launch point. because the Lance leaves the rail at Mach 2 and travels flat at first.

The old radar rejects anything not fitting the parameters it is programmed to accept as a valid target WRT RCS velocity and general conformance to a mathematical hyperbolic plot. it counts on these parameters plus the last returns to know where to put the next set of verification and tracking beams. if it does not match it would drop the target to make room for the next detection. this was necessary because of the computer limitations we had at that time. just as i was leaving though they upgraded the softwares and the computers. from the size of a bookshelf to a lap top and a breadbox.

but if the soft ware had been programmed with valid expectations for a lance we could have detected them. i know this because we had had contractor s come in and do software patches to track various things and change the range capabilities several times. we can even track stars (passively) to calibrate the radar.

if software evolution has kept it's predictable pace. we should not be limited to expecting simple ballistic trajectories to know where to put the the next set of tracking beams now and thus a maneuvering rocket would be nonsense as a counter measure versus a modern radar.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

There's a lot more challenge to intercepting an ICBM than a satellite or an IRBM. Aegis may eventually be able to do it when the next block of SM-3s rolls out, but under current conditions they're not designed to stop them.

The system was designed from the go as a theater missile defense system, and later had visions of being part of the National missile defense system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In other words, we are vulnerable, and we are sitting ducks.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stormbringer1701

There's a lot more challenge to intercepting an ICBM than a satellite or an IRBM. Aegis may eventually be able to do it when the next block of SM-3s rolls out, but under current conditions they're not designed to stop them.

The system was designed from the go as a theater missile defense system, and later had visions of being part of the National missile defense system.

i know from experience that modern radars can be vastly upgraded just by software. none of the things we did required changes to the the guts of the radar. just the software and finally swapping out the computer.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Zaphod58

In other words, we are vulnerable, and we are sitting ducks.

Honestly I think the point is moot........

If they are smart the wont be nuking anyway, at least not to hit land......

EMP is the way to go, and im not sure trying to shoot it down would have any effect depending on where it exploded......

Zaph would have to comment on that

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Sure they can. But a radar isn't going to help an IR seeker in the missile discriminate between a false target and a real target. Or help it to maneuver to hit a maneuvering reentry vehicle that's trying to avoid it. Upgraded radar only gets you so far in the antimissile game. Eventually it comes down to your kill vehicle being better than their reentry vehicle. And right now the SM-3 kill vehicle isn't.

a reply to: angeldoll

It's a lot more complicated than that. It depends on where we have ships at the time of launch, how many missiles are launched, if they're trying to hit targets on the ground, or going for an EMP strike....

The Aegis can't hit an ICBM in midcourse, or even late in the boost phase, but if it's close enough, during the early boost phase, it theoretically could hit it and destroy it at that point.

When it comes to missile defense there's a lot more to it than just "yes/no".

a reply to: Zaphod58

Let us also not forget weather conditions.... All variables...

I do not think North Korea, will use ICBM's as a delivery system to try to nuke USA, I do not think they have the stock pile, I think this threat is more for tactical nuke usage, in a conventional war, that is my theory at least as to how a nuclear war will start, tactical air bursts over a battle field air craft carrier etc, which in turn will lead for the loser to the scorched earth strategy..

I am not sure if North Korea, has the capability to do that, but I would assume they have the stock pile for tactical usage yes.

North Korean terrain is mountainous just ask McArthur, about that... North Korea has the advantage with the theater of war etc.

It is obviously just a matter of time until the Korean Peninsula heats back up, I still wonder to this day why we did not use nukes during the korean, war and oust this regime...

Afterthoughts: The firefinder system was conceived in the 1960s and built with 1970s hardware. it remained relavant with basically the same hardware until at least 2004 before they modernized the guts of the radar. up until then it was software revisions with only minor hardware tweaks. it had a 4 track magnetic tape cassette (not even an 8 track) until about 2000.

now they are super high tech. the entire way that radar worked physically has changed. but other than the expectations of the old operations software it could have at least tracked an ICBM even with the old "gee look a really old really fat 8 tracked tape!" era hardware.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: angeldoll

It's a lot more complicated than that. It depends on where we have ships at the time of launch, how many missiles are launched, if they're trying to hit targets on the ground, or going for an EMP strike....

The Aegis can't hit an ICBM in midcourse, or even late in the boost phase, but if it's close enough, during the early boost phase, it theoretically could hit it and destroy it at that point.

When it comes to missile defense there's a lot more to it than just "yes/no".

concerning that: the peninsula is really small and the surrounding waters are bumper to bumper aegis cruisers and destroyers. early boost phase intercept is not out of the question.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I'd be more concerned about a shipping container and GPS.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Tracking it from the ship isn't the problem. It's getting the kill vehicle to hit, ignoring the decoys, and all the other issues. The radar can see the missile easily.

Zaphod; this crap will be irrelevant in a couple of years. because of things like this:

welcome to aegis block 12:

nextbigfuture.com...