I don't think so? I'm not well versed in this stuff though. This graphic from lockheed martin doesn't help much...
Ah, i took the "Terminal" part too literally.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Guardian: US military considers shooting down North Korea missile tests
- Thread starter Barzul
- Start date
- Status
Ah, i took the "Terminal" part too literally.
Why would NK shoot missiles at SK though when they can just use mortar and artillery?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I imagine a last resort for NK would be to send an ICBM at a carrier group. But I'm not an expert at any of this, just a thought.
Nuclear attacks for example. Or using chemical weapons against seoul (NK has a relatively big stockpile).
Seoul is definitely within range of NK artillery. That's why an attack is so dangerous.
Seoul is ~30 miles from the DMZ and 120 from Pyongyang.
Seoul is 160 miles away from the DMZ, no artillery in the world can fire that far. It would take a full-scale land invasion from NK to do this. If this happened, US and SK air superiority would be like the wrath of god coming down. It would be hell, but nowhere near as bad as a nuclear strike against Seoul.
edit: oh shit i was wrong its only 35 miles. Still, http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/ suggests artillery isn't the destructive force you might think.
Of both the North Korean missile and the US Aegis SM3 interceptors (which have been spotty even given pre-planned trajectories)
training the koreans on how to beat it
Netherscourge
Banned
That's really not how these work.
Well it could get them information on how to electronically scramble THAAD missile guidance (If their cyberforces are up to it).
Oh, there's also THAAD ER (Extended Range)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SMs_IR1vc
No doubt, this will get funded now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SMs_IR1vc
No doubt, this will get funded now.
uncredited male
Member
What could possibly go wrong?
Knowing this administration they'd probably bomb South Korea by accident.
Or Australia.
34/41 attempts with BMD at sea with only 1 failure since 2015. Most of the fails early on. Not sure what more the naysayers want.
Unclass: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#Flight_tests_to_date
Unclass: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System#Flight_tests_to_date
Marky Mark
Member
What if the unsuccessful launches are due to US hacking and so for this one they just let it work so they can blow it out of the sky. Didn't think of that? THAAD!
lastplayed
Member
Or shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane by mistake.
The vast majority of the tests were on pre-defined trajectories, against air launched targets. The first fully successful test of a intercepted re-entry of unknown launch time and direction was in 2013. They've not actually ran many more of those tests (1 more I believe)
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Sounds like a bad a policy to me.
Well it's working. He is up since his Syria middle strike. American loves going to war.
Are you implying that we shot down MH370?
lastplayed
Member
lol I'm implying that Malaysia Airlines has incredibly bad luck.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
I think most people identify Ground-based Mid-course Defence (GMD) as the problem child when it comes to the US anti-ballistic missile technology. PAC-3 - latest Patriot Missile -, the Aegis equipped Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga's and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) all have a better test history. Though as you pointed out, some have taken issue with the test methodology.
Even if you take these numbers that's a 83% success rate which isn't stellar considering we're talking about potential nukes it's supposed to intercept.
Probably not possible for two reasons:
1) high chance a carrier battle group is within the minimum range of an ICBM if it is actually conducting air operations in NK.
2) very hard to target something moving with an ICBM. They have non-trivial travel time, and trying to hit a moving target at a specific spot at a certain time requires really precise timing, and requires the battle group not to change its course and speed. This might be an ok assumption during take off and landing operations, where the carrier has to drive for the wind, but is a bad assumption any other time.
It's not necessarily that the success rate is "bad" it's just that if, you're doing this as a show of force and there is a 10-20% chance of straight up missing the missile, you probably have the opposite outcome of what you wanted to achieve.
20% chance of embarrassing the shit out of yourself seems like it might not be worth it.
Nah, all were surface launched targets launched at a certain trajectory. The fact that the ship knew the trajectory is moot when it comes to this mission as real BM's like the kind from NK are pretty well known where they are coming from based off intel, etc. Its pretty hard to hide a liquid fueled rocket and while you can do a 'head fake', its difficult and plans are made accordingly.
Unfortunately we can't talk more in depth about it but the system is rather good. We also have some of the smartest people on the planet working on these kinds of things.
Exactly.
Anyone other than the administration of bigoted buffoons making these decisions.
Nah, based in SK,they would be highly accurate and would likely attempt a shootdown outside o NK airspace, usually over water. Check out Israel Iron Dome, Russian S-500 and new US Aegis system coupled with THAAD. North Korea does not have supersonic or hypersonic missile technology yet.
Amen
North Korea has 1.2 million active military, 600,000 reserves, and, this is the big thing: 6 million paramilitary.
Almost every single able-bodied male in North Korea has military training. Do you remember how tenacious the Iraqi insurgents were, and how easy it was for feelings of resentment towards the US to thrive and prosper once Iraqis were faced with a foreign occupation? Do you remember how troublesome it was to deal with insurgents?
We do not know the morale of the People's Army. But it is 6 million strong. If we were to attack North Korea, if we were to invade, it would validate the propaganda the North Koreans have been hearing for decades from their government, and, overnight, they would go from conscripted laborers to defenders of the nation against the foreign invasion they all were told would eventually come.
How do you liberate a country of 25 million people when 8 million of them are trained to fight against you? The other 2/3rds of the population isn't going to just accept liberation while their families are defending them.
And it isn't true at all that the South Koreans would be on board with this - they largely see the north Koreans as neighbors and distant relatives they would like to grow alongside, but not unify with.
The best course of action is to try to open up relations while waiting for north korea to collapse from within, and fortify defenses against possible north Korean military action in the pacific. A pre-emptive strike or invasion is absolute madness.
Abstrusity
Member
Against all odds, the North Korean regime has continued, and in some ways, grown stronger. Nothing you say is wrong here, except from my point of view the assertion that they WILL collapse from within. They have had slight backing from China. Every time they pull a stunt like this, they get concessions from the international community in food
and goods. They still have back-alley transactions across Asia and even stretching into Europe. They're getting information on missile technology, they're getting craftsmanship and parts from outside the country, the upper echelons are granted better ways of life, in exchange for undying loyalty, while everyone else starves, in labor camps, prisons, or even outside of them.
People are born and die in their prisons and labor camps. And still, there is little sign of a 'collapse from within.' This is not the house of cards we'd like it to be.
All of this, while we're talking about ballistic missiles, how much artillery is dialed in for the major population centers in Soeul? How do we shoot down artillery? The answer is that we don't, and this is one reason why we haven't dealt with them definitively.
Furthermore, we also have the question of who is going to take in millions of brainwashed, unskilled, starving people when their paltry meal ticket is gone. Individual countries are still acting like it will all be their responsibility alone, when the international community might make short work out of caring for them. ...Except for the whole 'all they've ever known is propaganda' thing that may make them extremely dangerous, especially everywhere but China.
And then we have China, who at all costs wouldn't want Western-backed or Western-allied powers on their immediate border anymore than we'd want to be there.
It's not as simple as 'bombing 'em all and let God sort 'em out" or "wait until they collapse."
- Status