U.S. Weighs Shootdown of N. Korea Missile

[warpedskydiver 0]

U.S. Weighs Shootdown of N. Korea Missile
By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago


This is an Orbview-3 satellite image provided by GeoEye ...
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is weighing responses to a possible North Korean missile test that include attempting to shoot it down in flight over the Pacific, defense officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Because North Korea has made it a practice not to announce its missile tests in advance, U.S. officials say they cannot be sure of the government's intentions. Under that circumstance, the Pentagon is considering the possibility that it might need to attempt an interception, two defense officials said.

The officials agreed to discuss the matter only on condition of anonymity because of its political sensitivity.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he could not say whether the multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile defense system might be used in the event of a North Korean test. That system, which includes a handful of missiles that could be fired from Alaska and California, has had a spotty record in tests.

Although shooting down a North Korean missile is a possibility, the Pentagon also must consider factors that would argue against such a response, including the risk of shooting and missing and of escalating tensions further with Pyongyang.

Signs of North Korean preparations to launch a long-range, ballistic missile, possibly with sufficient range to reach U.S. territory, have grown in recent weeks, although it is unclear whether the missile has been fully fueled. U.S. officials said Monday the missile was apparently fully assembled and fueled, but others have since expressed some uncertainty.

Also unknown is whether the missile would be launched for a flight-test or to place a satellite in orbit.

Bush administration officials have publicly and privately urged the North Koreans not to conduct the missile test, which would end a moratorium in place since 1999. That ban was adopted after Japan and other nations expressed outrage over an August 1998 launch in which a North Korean missile overflew northern Japan.

At the time of the 1998 launch, the United States had no means of shooting down a long-range missile in flight. Since then, with the investment of tens of billions of dollars, the Pentagon has developed a rudimentary system that it says is capable of defending against a limited number of missiles in an emergency.

Quote

I think we should shoot it right out of the sky, early enough to make it land in North Korea so that they can have it back.

• Quote

[skydyvr 0]

It has been a mistake not to spend more on developing Space Based Laser (SBL). This would be a nice chance to use it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[miked10270 0]

Quote

U.S. Weighs Shootdown of N. Korea Missile
By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago

Quote

I think we should shoot it right out of the sky, early enough to make it land in North Korea so that they can have it back.

Or... Y'All could do the charitable, Christian thing...

Send them one that definitely works? That'll save them having to test theirs!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

• Quote

[Michele 1]

I'm not terribly conversant in missle testing technologies, but was wondering; is there an actual concern that this test would hit the US, either in Alaska or the west coast? How close should we let it come? 100 miles? 500? What is a decent middle ground between testing the missle (even though it's breaking a moratorium), and allowing it to create a danger to those in the US?

Anyone have any idea how this typically works?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I'm not terribly conversant in missle testing technologies, but was wondering; is there an actual concern that this test would hit the US, either in Alaska or the west coast? How close should we let it come? 100 miles? 500? What is a decent middle ground between testing the missle (even though it's breaking a moratorium), and allowing it to create a danger to those in the US?

Anyone have any idea how this typically works?

Ciels-
Michele

Well, when we wanted to test H-bombs in the Pacific, we just went ahead and did it regardless of what anyone else wanted. So I guess the precedent is to thumb your nose at protests.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ExAFO 0]

Kewl! Ops test for the YAL-1!!!

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,119]

>How close should we let it come? 100 miles? 500?

There's no question that we should not let it come within 100 miles of the US. I strongly suspect they are smart enough to choose a polar or mid-pacific trajectory. This accomplishes two goals of theirs - proving the technology and demonstrating their prowess as a military power - without the risk of an immediate retaliation by the US.

The shoot-down thing is mostly bluster by the US. Our current system is a midcourse kinetic kill system, which isn't that effective against shorter range tests that don't come near us. We won't dare use it on a polar trajectory; it is very unlikely to work, and the political fallout from a successful DPRK missile test in conjunction with a failed US missile-defense demonstration will be too ugly to contemplate.

[mccurley 1]

"Well, when we wanted to test H-bombs in the Pacific, we just went ahead and did it regardless of what anyone else wanted. So I guess the precedent is to thumb your nose at protests. "


Very much like the French!!

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[champu 1]

Quote

Also unknown is whether the missile would be launched for a flight-test or to place a satellite in orbit.

Shooting down, or attempting to shoot down, what turns out to be a space-launch vehicle would certainly be a shithead thing to do.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

"Well, when we wanted to test H-bombs in the Pacific, we just went ahead and did it regardless of what anyone else wanted. So I guess the precedent is to thumb your nose at protests. "


Very much like the French!!

Nah, the French bomb the protesters then drop the bomb, and of course the French are still at it even in our 'progressive' era.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/pkbomb.html

[billvon 3,119]

>Shooting down, or attempting to shoot down, what turns out to be a
>space-launch vehicle would certainly be a shithead thing to do.

The most likely trajectory for an orbital launch would take it initially in our direction, but the spacecraft would pass well south of the US on its first orbit. Unfortunately that would also take it directly over Kwajalein, where our antimissile test-launch facility is.

[champu 1]

Quote

>Shooting down, or attempting to shoot down, what turns out to be a
>space-launch vehicle would certainly be a shithead thing to do.

The most likely trajectory for an orbital launch would take it initially in our direction, but the spacecraft would pass well south of the US on its first orbit. Unfortunately that would also take it directly over Kwajalein, where our antimissile test-launch facility is.

You're right, and I have no idea what their intended orbit would be, it would depend on the mission of the spacecraft. My point was that "shooting first and asking questions later," even assuming we hit the thing, is a really terrible idea right now.

[billvon 3,119]

>I have no idea what their intended orbit would be, it would
>depend on the mission of the spacecraft.

Given that they have (at best) an underpowered booster stage, it would almost have to be an eastward trajectory. That gives it the greatest speed advantage.

[SpeedRacer 1]

The Japanese would be a much closer target.

I hear they're getting pretty pissed off about this.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[champu 1]

Quote

>I have no idea what their intended orbit would be, it would
>depend on the mission of the spacecraft.

Given that they have (at best) an underpowered booster stage, it would almost have to be an eastward trajectory. That gives it the greatest speed advantage.

So they'd be aiming for an orbital inclination of... say...30deg or less? Their aim would either have to be for Russia/Alaska, or the Marshall Islands. I guess it's not too hard to decide on that one.

The more I think about it though, the more I wonder, if it is a space launch attempt, why don't they just say so?

[billvon 3,119]

>The more I think about it though, the more I wonder, if it is a
>space launch attempt, why don't they just say so?

They lose less face if it fails. If they have to destroy it 30 seconds into flight, they can just claim it was a short range test.

[champu 1]

I guess I could see that.

Heh...

If this thing goes in the drink, I wonder which of the dozen countries with their eyes on this launch will get to the debris first.