Your opinion on what the USA should do about the North Korea issue.

[hipsterdufus]

What we need to do is develop a time machine so we can go back and stop Clinton from appeasing them while they built their nukes in the first place. :mrgreen:

Ah.
Q. Did North Korea have nukes during Clintons term?
A. No
:spin:

 

[Kandahar]

The NMD is 5 for 10 in hit to kill tests.
5 kills
4 misses due to failures in surrogate systems
1 miss due to afailure in ground control.

How is this "poor preformance"?

5 for 10 stinks, especially when the tests use the dumbest missiles that exist. Surely any country that wanted to attack us would fire something smarter than that. In other words, 50% of the time the NMD failed even the tests that were geared toward its success.

 

[Goobieman]

5 for 10 stinks,

Did you see why the other 5 missed?
4 of them missed because of failures in the surrogate systems.
1 missed because of a non-NMD ground control problem.

especially when the tests use the dumbest missiles that exist. Surely any country that wanted to attack us would fire something smarter than that.

Like NK, who apparently cannot clear Japan with their BEST missile?
Steerable RVs are very high-tech and are thus far well beyond the capability of those the NMD is designed to protect us against -- I'm not sure that even China has them.

In other words, 50% of the time the NMD failed even the tests that were geared toward its success.

Support the notion that the tests were "geared for success".

 

[Goobieman]

Ah.
Q. Did North Korea have nukes during Clintons term?
A. No
:spin:

You are correct -- your post is nothing but spin.

 

[Goobieman]

5 out of 10. I've heard the term "close enough for government work" but this is one case where such odds are unacceptable. You didn't cite any sources, btw. Got any?

Most of our SAM systems have a hit rate of 70% or so.
How is 50% for the NMD (during testing) "Unacceptable"?

Anyway...
For whatever reason, people here dont see the significance of "missed becaise of failures in the surrogate systems".

Lets put it this way:
You just rebuilt your engine.
You put it in another car to road test it.
That car's transmission fails as you pull it out of the garage.
Thus, your road test failed.
Does this failure have any bearing on the performance of the engine?

Of course not.

 

[Kandahar]

Did you see why the other 5 missed?
4 of them missed because of failures in the surrogate systems.
1 missed because of a non-NMD ground control problem.

I'm sure those excuses will comfort people when missiles have a 50% chance of getting through AFTER we've spent hundreds of billions on a NMD.

Like NK, who apparently cannot clear Japan with their BEST missile?
Steerable RVs are very high-tech and are thus far well beyond the capability of those the NMD is designed to protect us against -- I'm not sure that even China has them.

I'm not talking about the distance it can travel or how well you can steer it. I'm talking about anything with more evasive capabilities than a simple projectile.

Support the notion that the tests were "geared for success".

The tests are conducted using a single "enemy" missile. The tests are conducted using missiles with no evasive capabilities. The tests are conducted in a designated spot at a designated time (the US is quite large if you hadn't noticed).

 

[Goobieman]

I'm sure those excuses will comfort people when missiles have a 50% chance of getting through AFTER we've spent hundreds of billions on a NMD.

You're being obtuse on purpose, because you can't be this obtuse in real life.

The systems that caused the misses arent part of the operation NMD system -- how does their failure in a test, where they stood in for something not yet built, indicate that the NMD doesn't/won't work, of that it can be expected to have only a 50% hit rate?

The 50% success rate during testing is wrongly skewed to the failure side by the fact that the failures were caused by surrogate systems.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm not talking about the distance it can travel or how well you can steer it. I'm talking about anything with more evasive capabilities than a simple projectile.

Yep. Thats a steerable reentry vehicle.

The tests are conducted using a single "enemy" missile. The tests are conducted using missiles with no evasive capabilities. The tests are conducted in a designated spot at a designated time (the US is quite large if you hadn't noticed).

And this is relevant, because...?

 

[Kandahar]

You're being obtuse on purpose, because you can't be this obtuse in real life.

The systems that caused the misses arent part of the operation NMD system -- how does their failure in a test, where they stood in for something not yet built, indicate that the NMD doesn't/won't work, of that it can be expected to have only a 50% hit rate?

The 50% success rate during testing is wrongly skewed to the failure side by the fact that the failures were caused by surrogate systems.

Why is that so hard to understand?

You'd think that if the Pentagon's collective heart was really into this project, they wouldn't count failures due to other problems. 5 out of 5 looks a lot better than 5 out of 10. Also, if it's so effective surely they can run some more tests to bolster their case? After all, 5 is not a very large sample size.

So either the Pentagon doesn't really care that much about NMD, or the other 5 out of 10 truly were NMD failures in some sense, or they don't understand politics/statistics. I strongly suspect one of the first two.

And this is relevant, because...?

Because any country that wanted to attack us with missiles knowing that we had a WMD is probably going to launch more than one, or launch some decoys to confuse the WMD. Also, I doubt they'll give us the heads-up as to exactly when and where they'll be launching it so that we can deploy our NMD to that spot.

Covering the entire United States is much more difficult and expensive than covering a small area to test the system.

 

[Lazel]

Over the past week or so, I've heard various mentions of the heating situation with North Korea.

Some of the discussions seem to be about:

Should discussions between North Korea and the US or a group of other countries be unilateral or multilateral?

How much of a threat North Korea actually is, in regards to its actual or assumed capacity to launch missiles at the US and other targets. It would seem to me that closer targets such as South Korea and Japan would be in much more danger, unless higher capability missiles are developed by North Korea.

The USA's real or assumed capacity to defend itself against missile attack.

The poll here is not the main point of this thread, but just to incite further debate. I am looking for each posters take on all or some of these issues, as well as introduction of their own POV on additional issues.

IM GOING TO PUT THIS IN BIG FONT SO EVERYONE CAN SEE (MAINLY THE LIBERALS) LIBERALS HAVE POTENTIALLY MESSED UP THE WAY WE ARE AND WILL DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA, THIS IS BECAUSE THEY BASHED THE PRESIDENT FOR 3 YEARS OVER THE WAY WE HANDLED IRAQ (MAINLY PREEMPTION) THEREFORE OUR PRESIDENT WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER PREEMPTION BECAUSE OF THE LIBERALS. IF WE DO GET ATTACKED OR OTHER NATIONS, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE SLAMMED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH ABOUT NORTH KOREA, THEREFORE THE LIBERALS WILL BE CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES.

 

[Kelzie]

IM GOING TO PUT THIS IN BIG FONT SO EVERYONE CAN SEE (MAINLY THE LIBERALS) LIBERALS HAVE POTENTIALLY MESSED UP THE WAY WE ARE AND WILL DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA, THIS IS BECAUSE THEY BASHED THE PRESIDENT FOR 3 YEARS OVER THE WAY WE HANDLED IRAQ (MAINLY PREEMPTION) THEREFORE OUR PRESIDENT WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER PREEMPTION BECAUSE OF THE LIBERALS. IF WE DO GET ATTACKED OR OTHER NATIONS, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE SLAMMED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH ABOUT NORTH KOREA, THEREFORE THE LIBERALS WILL BE CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES.

And see here I thought he wouldn't consider preemption because NK has nukes. Silly me, I guess it was us liberals' faults.

 

[Lazel]

Silly you, we thought Iraq had WMD's, and we went in (The Funny thing is is that it turned out to be true, but the liberal media isnt running it of course.)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Full fledged nuclear first strike like we should have done to the Russians following WW2 cold war 2 is on it's way.

 

[Billo_Really]

We have more nukes and better ways to launch them than any country on earth. I don't think, in the nuclear arena, we have anything to fear.

 

[Kelzie]

Silly you, we thought Iraq had WMD's, and we went in (The Funny thing is is that it turned out to be true, but the liberal media isnt running it of course.)

Nukes are a far, far cry from the WMD we thought Saddam had. We certainly couldn't land any ground troops in North Korea and most likely Seoul would cease to exist. That is absolutely not acceptable. Saddam had no where near that much power.

 

[Goobieman]

You'd think that if the Pentagon's collective heart was really into this project, they wouldn't count failures due to other problems. 5 out of 5 looks a lot better than 5 out of 10. Also, if it's so effective surely they can run some more tests to bolster their case? After all, 5 is not a very large sample size.

So either the Pentagon doesn't really care that much about NMD, or the other 5 out of 10 truly were NMD failures in some sense, or they don't understand politics/statistics. I strongly suspect one of the first two.

Changing the subject, eh?

I guess you agree that misses due to surrogate failures do indeed skew the results of the testing.

Because any country that wanted to attack us with missiles knowing that we had a WMD is probably going to launch more than one, or launch some decoys to confuse the WMD.

The NMD, when fully deployed, is designed to deal with up to 50 missiles with 'enhanced penetration aids'. It deal with decoys it can't distinguish from actual warheads by shooting them.
So - what's your point?

Also, I doubt they'll give us the heads-up as to exactly when and where they'll be launching it so that we can deploy our NMD to that spot.

This is just silly. You arent this stupid.
The interceptors are already deployed to 2 specific spots. When a missile is launched, we will know within minutes and can quickly determine its trajecotry.

That is -- it doesnt matter that we dont know when/where they will ahead of time.

Covering the entire United States is much more difficult and expensive than covering a small area to test the system.

Given that any likely missile attack will come from the West or the north, the current locations of the GBI sites is already optimal.

 

[dragonslayer]

Why don't we send them some food. How come we are spending so much time on North Korea, and ignoring Iran? Now we need to watch Israel. I have always supported Israel, but they seem to be acting more insane than Bush, and that takes some doing.

Maybe a hydrogen Bomb or two on Syria, Lebenon, and Iran.
If anyone protests, we can nuke them too. Then we can nuke Israel for good measure, then nuke, Bush's ranch in Texas. Now Iceland is a real threat to the world. We could nuke that whole nation with one little bomb.

Us Right Wing Neo Conservatives, want to kill, kill, kill, and laugh.

 

[Lazel]

Why don't we send them some food. How come we are spending so much time on North Korea, and ignoring Iran? Now we need to watch Israel. I have always supported Israel, but they seem to be acting more insane than Bush, and that takes some doing.

Maybe a hydrogen Bomb or two on Syria, Lebenon, and Iran.
If anyone protests, we can nuke them too. Then we can nuke Israel for good measure, then nuke, Bush's ranch in Texas. Now Iceland is a real threat to the world. We could nuke that whole nation with one little bomb.

Us Right Wing Neo Conservatives, want to kill, kill, kill, and laugh.

Unfortunately. . . .Because there is a Fascist regime there, we cant really send in food, they would take it away, same thing happened in Somalia, it isnt our responsibility to feed the world thats why the U.N is there, but of course its full of die-hard liberals.

By the way I would rather trust someone that is willing to fight rather than some lazy pacifist. Because if you had any brains Diplomacy doesnt work with Fascist regimes. Use your head.

 

[dragonslayer]

Unfortunately. . . .Because there is a Fascist regime there, we cant really send in food, they would take it away, same thing happened in Somalia, it isnt our responsibility to feed the world thats why the U.N is there, but of course its full of die-hard liberals.

By the way I would rather trust someone that is willing to fight rather than some lazy pacifist. Because if you had any brains Diplomacy doesnt work with Fascist regimes. Use your head.

Great if what your saying is true, We have fascist regimes in Israel, and the USA. where are the other fascists regimes besides here and Israel.

 

[Kelzie]

Great if what your saying is true, We have fascist regimes in Israel, and the USA. where are the other fascists regimes besides here and Israel.

People aren't going to take you seriously if you say things like that.

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now let's see. Does either Israel or the US have or attempt to have state control over political, social, cultural, or economic life? No. Does the US or Israel regulate of control the means of production? No. Does the US or Israel say the nation is superior to the individual? No. No loyalty to a single leader, no populism. Actually, ha, (the irony is great here) do you know what state this does sound like? North Korea. Good stuff. Now, the next time you want to bash the US or Israel, why don't you do it with facts instead of making stuff up.

 

[dragonslayer]

People aren't going to take you seriously if you say things like that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now let's see. Does either Israel or the US have or attempt to have state control over political, social, cultural, or economic life? No. Does the US or Israel regulate of control the means of production? No. Does the US or Israel say the nation is superior to the individual? No. No loyalty to a single leader, no populism. Actually, ha, (the irony is great here) do you know what state this does sound like? North Korea. Good stuff. Now, the next time you want to bash the US or Israel, why don't you do it with facts instead of making stuff up.

Kelzie, what should I do? Lie? I too have looked up Fascism in the encyclopedia, and I can only see the strong resemblence between the NeoCons and Fascist.

 

[dragonslayer]

Kelzie, what should I do? Lie? I too have looked up Fascism in the encyclopedia, and I can only see the strong resemblence between the NeoCons and Fascist.

Now let's see. Does either Israel or the US have or attempt to have state control over political, social, cultural, or economic life? yes. Does the US or Israel regulate of control the means of production? No.controlling the means of production is socialism not fascism. Does the US or Israel say the nation is superior to the individual? yes. No loyalty to a single leader, no populism. Actually, ha, (the irony is great here) do you know what state this does sound like? The United States under the unneeded Patriot Act, Bush, if NeoCons had their way.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Now let's see. Does either Israel or the US have or attempt to have state control over political, social, cultural, or economic life? yes.

How so?

Does the US or Israel regulate of control the means of production? No.controlling the means of production is socialism not fascism.

No that is fascism as well.

Does the US or Israel say the nation is superior to the individual? yes.

Umm no we don't in fact that would be the libs not the cons.

No loyalty to a single leader, no populism. Actually, ha, (the irony is great here) do you know what state this does sound like? The United States under the unneeded Patriot Act, Bush, if NeoCons had their way.

lol I would have said North Korea but hay I guess your right I mean it's pretty often when I see Reps running around yelling heil Bush our dear leader.:roll: