• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Telegraph the Anti-Missle Missle Test?

And the "libruls" were right. "Star Wars" didn't work and we stopped the pursuit of space weapons but not before experiencing the highest deficits in history up to that time. A lot of money was spent and there was little to show for it but I guess the Russians fell for the bluff. Remember that a "defense" system that stops all missiles is the ultimate offensive weapon and the pursuit of it will be viewed and responded to as such by others. You are partly right in that high defense spending was one of the internal problems that brought about the collapse of the USSR. That is something we should be thinking about now that Trump wants an increase in that spending don't you think?


I am well aware that you as a liberal do not want to admit Reagan did anything right, however at the time it was research and development....not a finished product. And it never was a bluff. Research and development continued and still does today. And the Russians unlike the libruls were smart enough to work out that SDI did not have to be perfect to be effective and change the balance of power. According to Russian Generals who later defected to the US, SDI was the straw that broke the camels back. It finally convinced the Russian leadership that they were not going to be allowed to win an arms race with the USA. It was at that time that they started negotiating seriously on START Treaties where compliance would be verified on both sides. Previous treaties were just show case documents tat had little real meaning.
 
The reason you announce a launch ahead of time is that if you suddenly fire what appears to be a nuclear missile without warning everyone kinda freaks the **** out.
 
The reason you announce a launch ahead of time is that if you suddenly fire what appears to be a nuclear missile without warning everyone kinda freaks the **** out.

Not to mention it was not the first such test. This particular test was meant to deliver a message to the insane fat boy in North Korea.
 
Not to mention it was not the first such test. This particular test was meant to deliver a message to the insane fat boy in North Korea.

I was very glad to see this test was a success. I had heard weeks ago that it would take place soon, from a report that a special ship the U.S. uses to gather information on missiles in test flights had been seen docked in Hawaii.

The test was part of a larger show of force to North Korea. Another part is the deployment of the Nimitz carrier strike group. Nimitz and two destroyers left Washington two days ago, and will join two more destroyers and a cruiser at San Diego. The Navy announced that from there, the group will sail to the Western Pacific--almost certainly the waters near Korea. It will probably replace the Vinson[ strike group, which is at the end of its usual deployment period.

Assuming the Nimitz and Reagangroups will soon be on station near Korea, their eight destroyers and two cruisers in those groups will bring a total of 1,012 missile cells to those waters. Many of those cells carry missiles designed to shoot down aircraft or some ballistic missiles. But some cells are reserved for offensive weapons, and it 30% of them are loaded with Tomahawk cruise missiles--that was about the proportion in the case of the two destroyers which launched the attack on the Syrian airbase--the surface ships in the two strike groups are carrying more than 300 Tomahawks. The converted ballistic missile submarine (SSGN) Michigan conspicuously called at Busan about five weeks ago and joined in exercises with South Korean ships. If Michigan is still near Korea, which seems likely, it adds as many as 154 Tomahawks. And at least one attack submarine (SSN), even if it is not identified, invariably accompanies each carrier strike group. Adding the twenty-four Tomahawks aboard two attack subs would bring the grand total to about 480.
 
An anti-missile system is old news so not too many would be interested about it.

On the other hand, if someone came up with an anti-anti missile missile missile, then I'm sure more people would take notice of it. :mrgreen:
 
I was very glad to see this test was a success. I had heard weeks ago that it would take place soon, from a report that a special ship the U.S. uses to gather information on missiles in test flights had been seen docked in Hawaii.

The test was part of a larger show of force to North Korea. Another part is the deployment of the Nimitz carrier strike group. Nimitz and two destroyers left Washington two days ago, and will join two more destroyers and a cruiser at San Diego. The Navy announced that from there, the group will sail to the Western Pacific--almost certainly the waters near Korea. It will probably replace the Vinson[ strike group, which is at the end of its usual deployment period.

Assuming the Nimitz and Reagangroups will soon be on station near Korea, their eight destroyers and two cruisers in those groups will bring a total of 1,012 missile cells to those waters. Many of those cells carry missiles designed to shoot down aircraft or some ballistic missiles. But some cells are reserved for offensive weapons, and it 30% of them are loaded with Tomahawk cruise missiles--that was about the proportion in the case of the two destroyers which launched the attack on the Syrian airbase--the surface ships in the two strike groups are carrying more than 300 Tomahawks. The converted ballistic missile submarine (SSGN) Michigan conspicuously called at Busan about five weeks ago and joined in exercises with South Korean ships. If Michigan is still near Korea, which seems likely, it adds as many as 154 Tomahawks. And at least one attack submarine (SSN), even if it is not identified, invariably accompanies each carrier strike group. Adding the twenty-four Tomahawks aboard two attack subs would bring the grand total to about 480.

To put it bluntly, if that insane fat boy NK dictator crosses the line, the north Korean regime and military will be engaged in a suicide mission. They will be utterly destroyed without a single nuke being fired and probably in one day. My only concern is the initial destruction that the North could inflict on Seoul in a first strike.
 
An anti-missile system is old news so not too many would be interested about it.

On the other hand, if someone came up with an anti-anti missile missile missile, then I'm sure more people would take notice of it. :mrgreen:

Please. Your anti-anti missile missile missile would never be a match for my anti-anti-anti missile missile missile missile.
 
To put it bluntly, if that insane fat boy NK dictator crosses the line, the north Korean regime and military will be engaged in a suicide mission. They will be utterly destroyed without a single nuke being fired and probably in one day. My only concern is the initial destruction that the North could inflict on Seoul in a first strike.

I doubt even two carrier strike groups would be nearly enough, by themselves, to present the North Korean regime with a credible threat of a surprise attack. But the F-22 can be used as a small stealth bomber, and the U.S. probably has 100 or so--five squadrons--available at any time. Each F-22 can carry eight 250 lb. guided bombs ("SDB"} internally, so that they do not make it any easier for radar to detect. These bombs are guided, and they have wings of a sort which allow them to be launched several dozen miles from their targets. They can pierce the several feet of concrete of a hardened aircraft shelter and then explode inside it. If forty F-22's were moved to South Korean bases, the 320 SDB's they could carry would place all of North Korea's front-line aircraft at risk of being destroyed on the ground.

Even 700 or so 250-and-1,000 lb. bombs would not be enough for a surprise attack, though, assuming its purpose was to destroy North Korea's air defenses and ballistic missile capabilities, and possibly to neutralize its nuclear weapons (this last job might also involve special forces). There might be as many as 100 targets, with an average of a dozen or so bombs required for each one. But B-2's, which can carry large loads of both 500 lb. bombs and much heavier ones, could add several hundred more to the mix. Three or four might be moved up to Guam, where they from time to time have been temporarily based. With enough refueling, though, B-2's can hit any target in the world from at their home base in Missouri.

I'm not saying the U.S. may, or should, move these forces because it has already determined to use them. I am not calling for Pearl Harbor, American-style. But the credible threat of an attack which would ruin the opponent's military, and which he knows he could not defend against, is the very thing that sometimes removes the need to use any force at all. I think the U.S. has to give Mr. Kim reason to be afraid rather than defiant, which it so far has not done. The U.S. forces in South Korea, powerful as they are, were designed to prevent a repetition of the 1950 invasion. Since Kim has no such thing in mind anyway, they are no threat to him. Moving a force of the kind I described into position to disarm North Korea by surprise, any night, would give him good reason to be more cautious and compliant.
 
Last edited:
I doubt even two carrier strike groups would be nearly enough, by themselves, to present the North Korean regime with a credible threat of a surprise attack. But the F-22 can be used as a small stealth bomber, and the U.S. probably has 100 or so--five squadrons--available at any time. Each F-22 can carry eight 250 lb. guided bombs ("SDB"} internally, so that they do not make it any easier for radar to detect. These bombs are guided, and they have wings of a sort which allow them to be launched several dozen miles from their targets. They can pierce the several feet of concrete of a hardened aircraft shelter and then explode inside it. If forty F-22's were moved to South Korean bases, the 320 SDB's they could carry would place all of North Korea's front-line aircraft at risk of being destroyed on the ground.

Even 700 or so 250-and-1,000 lb. bombs would not be enough for a surprise attack, though, assuming its purpose was to destroy North Korea's air defenses and ballistic missile capabilities, and possibly to neutralize its nuclear weapons (this last job might also involve special forces). There might be as many as 100 targets, with an average of a dozen or so bombs required for each one. But B-2's, which can carry large loads of both 500 lb. bombs and much heavier ones, could add several hundred more to the mix. Three or four might be moved up to Guam, where they from time to time have been temporarily based. With enough refueling, though, B-2's can hit any target in the world from at their home base in Missouri.

I'm not saying the U.S. may, or should, move these forces because it has already determined to use them. I am not calling for Pearl Harbor, American-style. But the credible threat of an attack which would ruin the opponent's military, and which he knows he could not defend against, is the very thing that sometimes removes the need to use any force at all. I think the U.S. has to give Mr. Kim reason to be afraid rather than defiant, which it so far has not done. The U.S. forces in South Korea, powerful as they are, were designed to prevent a repetition of the 1950 invasion. Since Kim has no such thing in mind anyway, they are no threat to him. Moving a force of the kind I described into position to disarm North Korea by surprise, any night, would give him good reason to be more cautious and compliant.

I am not sure the N.K. leader is of sound mind enough to work out how far he can go before he crosses the line.
 
"An anti-missile system is old news so not too many would be interested about it." PS #32
Any enemy or prospective enemy with missiles would be absolutely RIVETED by it!

Tiny scraps of intelligence can be a $gold $mine to prospective military adversaries.

Examples:
- How many missiles can the U.S. missile defense defend against?

- What happens if the number of missiles in a missile attack exceed that number? Do the number of missiles above that max. defense capability get through?

- Can the missile defense distinguish decoys? Or might the missile defense expend a $multi-$million $dollar anti-missile warhead on a $12.oo enemy warhead-shaped balloon / decoy?

Do not misunderestimate the value of military intelligence.
 
Any enemy or prospective enemy with missiles would be absolutely RIVETED by it!

Tiny scraps of intelligence can be a $gold $mine to prospective military adversaries.

Examples:
- How many missiles can the U.S. missile defense defend against?

- What happens if the number of missiles in a missile attack exceed that number? Do the number of missiles above that max. defense capability get through?

- Can the missile defense distinguish decoys? Or might the missile defense expend a $multi-$million $dollar anti-missile warhead on a $12.oo enemy warhead-shaped balloon / decoy?

Do not misunderestimate the value of military intelligence.

From the information in this thread,how many of these questions can you answer?
 
Any enemy or prospective enemy with missiles would be absolutely RIVETED by it!

Tiny scraps of intelligence can be a $gold $mine to prospective military adversaries.

Examples:
- How many missiles can the U.S. missile defense defend against?

- What happens if the number of missiles in a missile attack exceed that number? Do the number of missiles above that max. defense capability get through?

- Can the missile defense distinguish decoys? Or might the missile defense expend a $multi-$million $dollar anti-missile warhead on a $12.oo enemy warhead-shaped balloon / decoy?

Do not misunderestimate the value of military intelligence.

Not to change the subject, but I suspect some of those questions you ask were answered very clearly by the 59 SLCM launch last month. The Russians and Syrians seem happy that less than half struck the target.
 
The problem is not so much missles. The concern is convential artillery aimed south. Neither the US or ROK have the capability of neutralizing 100% of that threat.

Over 25 million people in the greater Seoul area......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul
 
Not to change the subject, but I suspect some of those questions you ask were answered very clearly by the 59 SLCM launch last month. The Russians and Syrians seem happy that less than half struck the target.

Once again Thoreau exposing just how gullible he is when it comes to anything he thinks makes America look bad. Tell us why do you believe garbage websites whose own editors admit they simply make crap up.
 
It used to be that way. No one knew about the F-111 Stealth until we used it.

Uhhh, F-111 is not a Stealth aircraft, and it was well known before it was announced.

Now if you meant the F-117, still wrong. It was unveiled to the public in 1988. And even then it was not much of a secret, it had been featured in video games and model kits for years. The only real secret was the name, the F-117 and not the F-19.

And it was used operationally the next year, 1989 in Panama. So it was not only known but publicly acknowledged.

Now, as to why announce something like this?

Well, for a great many reasons. We have had an agreement with Russia for decades now that we both announce our missile tests in advance if they exceed a short distance. Testing rockets like PATRIOT or MLRS, does not matter. Test away, they are no threat. But once they have the capability of going orbital we announce them to prevent the other side from panicking.

And for the other, you really can not keep such launches secret. Every other nation on the planet with launch detection capabilities are going to know of it, so why bother hiding it?
 
"why bother hiding it?" Of #43
The U.S. brandished NASA projects Mercury and Apollo during the Cold War, to intimidate the Soviets with our superior technological prowess.
"why bother hiding it?" Of #43
For NK / KJU?
In hope of concealing their manifold failures that result from their inferior technology. It is unwise to telegraph ones incompetence to ones potential adversaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom