Posturing
I sincerely hope this is posturing on the part of some unnamed spokesmen. Supposedly, the administration is considering an attempt to shoot down any North Korean missile launch. If it works, it reveals our capabilities. If it doesn't. it reveals a weakness.
I do not see an upside here.
Frankly, if North Korea were dumb enough to actually launch a nuke at the US, it would take all of three seconds, give or take, to make South Korea an island.
I don't see a downside to telling the North Korea that, either.
By Zelsdorf Ragshaft III, June 21, 2006 @ 7:08 am
Explain the upside of allowing them to fire a missle in our direction? I would never count on the sanity of the leaders of North Korea. If they have to fuel a missle, with our ability to spy on them from space, they cannot sneak an attack. When is the US going to stop babying these rogue nations that threaten us? I say, if they fire one at us, we fire one at them.
By Blackhawk, June 21, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
I’m not sure about engaging it either, Gaius. The Soviets…er, Russians, have been talking smack about new missile technology that can evade our intercepts and other such stuff.
Now this may just be a lot of Krushchev-like shoe-pounding, but this nK launch could be loaded with sensors, and intended to provoke an engagement from us. Possible, but not likely. Certainly, the USSR and ChiComs will be paying attention to our reactions.
I think we should engage it with all passive measures and simulate the rest.
As for responding in kind, well, some folks (like lil’Kim) just don’t understand any other language.
If we choose to drop this thing, then I think we should do it over the Pacific, where only we can recover the remains.
By Gaius, June 21, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Yeah, like I said, I can’t see an upside. I really don’t think the NKs are crazy enough to actually believe they’d get away with actually trying to hit us.
By Holmwood, June 22, 2006 @ 2:29 am
I mostly agree with your analysis. I certainly agree with the downside. I also agree with Blackhawk.
I will say this, though. If we had a deniable mechanism with which to engage it, that would be rather interesting. E.g., a low-observable countermissile. (’stealthy’ if you will).
Then, if the interception fails, no harm. If it succeeds, we shrug and say “Fortunate that the NK missile’s third stage failed so spectacularly; there seem to be some stability problems they’ve not yet solved. This should put them another 2-3 years out from deployment”.
NMD is a lot about psychology.
-Holmwood