CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Pardon me?
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 3779
Location: Nashua, NH

8/9/17 5:05 AM

I suspect that the first step...

...is that we'll start shooting down everything they launch from here on. It's something we should have done a while ago in order to prevent them from getting valuable information from their tests. It will also give us real-life test data on the THAD system, so we can continue to improve it. Once they see that they will not be able to do anything to us or anyone else with the limited number of ICBMs they can build, perhaps they'll realize that their exercise in belligerent stupidity has reached the end of the line. Perhaps.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6113
Location: Westchester/NYC

8/9/17 9:15 AM

That would amounts to a declaration of war (shooting down another country's missile in international air space).

How would North Korea react is anybody's guess.


Last edited by April on 8/9/17 10:11 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3507
Location: Brooklyn, NY

8/9/17 10:09 AM

And the accuracy and reliability of antimissile systems are sketchy, at best.

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4227
Location: metro-motown-area

8/9/17 11:46 AM

dr. strangetrump

april is right, shooting down missiles that are not threating CONUS or our territories or our fleets/bases is a bad idea.

<img src=https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/q85/s480x480/20638497_10212540037127807_6052833544816528409_n.jpg?oh=06e490d17e02ac9ce468df75eec62207&oe=5A30A727>

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4227
Location: metro-motown-area

8/9/17 12:27 PM

fwiw...i believe NK is decades away from developing an operational nuke that can be successfully delivered on their long range missle platform.

reliably launching a missile with enough range to actually reach CONUS is but one part of the weaponization puzzle.

does NK have a viable nuke warhead that fits their longest-range missile platform?

can the missile actually actually be guided accurately enough to hit the intended target at full range?

can a nuke warhead be successfully integrated with the missile thus turning it into a weapon?

can the warhead and guidance system survive the launch and boost phase?

there are so many very complex factors that NK is decades away from solving as to make this all somewhat irrelevant.

similarly, both china and russia aspire to have aircraft carriers to offset our carrier fleets. sure...they now both own carriers, but have no experience effectively using them militarily. they're big expensive show-boats that can launch/retrieve planes, with little military relevance today. maybe in 20-30 years they'll be able to operate a carrier battle group with some level of competence.


Last edited by walter on 8/9/17 12:53 PM; edited 3 times in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 15856
Location: Portland, OR

8/9/17 12:48 PM

The Cheney adminstration would have already declared war and started an offensive...


"accuracy and reliability of antimissile systems are sketchy, at best."

Doesn't it just make the 'sender' just send extra presents at the same time. Let's say the system has some effetive value that is maybe X percent. X percent of 10 incoming, if you get my drift.


Last edited by Sparky on 8/9/17 12:59 PM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6113
Location: Westchester/NYC

8/9/17 12:58 PM

Walter, a few minor points.

With nuclear warhead, it doesn't have to hit the intended target. It only need to hit somewhere nearby.

More over, if (which is still somewhat an if) the North Korea does have a functional nuclear warhead, it can easily reach South Korea.

The biggest worry may be, the North Korea madman misunderstood the empty threat Trump was tweeting and launch a preemptive strike of their own with whatever nuclear weapon they have towards South Korea!

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3507
Location: Brooklyn, NY

8/9/17 12:58 PM

Latest reports say that NK has miniaturized nukes to the point they can be used in a missile warhead. The issue seems to be the heat shield technology needed to preserve the warhead during reentry.

Some think that Russia has been feeding technology to NK. NK has come pretty far pretty quickly.

I think we can figure out pretty quickly after a missile launch where it is headed, based on the trajectory, speed, length of thruster burn, etc.. If it is headed toward a US target, we have every right to try to knock it out of the sky.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 15856
Location: Portland, OR

8/9/17 1:01 PM

With 15 US military bases in SK, that is close and target rich pretty much.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 2857
Location: Springfield

8/9/17 3:35 PM

Seoul, a premier high tech center of the planet with a population of 25 million within artillery range, who needs nukes?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3507
Location: Brooklyn, NY

8/9/17 4:10 PM

And Seoul is too close for nukes. Too much risk of fallout getting to the North.

 Reply to topic    

Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1027
Location: South of Heaven

8/9/17 6:40 PM

Current issue, released last Thursday. Highly recommended reading. For the T administration, I hope they are a student of history and read up on Nobel laureate John Von Newmann and Oskar Morgensterns' work on game theory and brinkmanship.
(Apologies for butchering the spelling of their names)

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6113
Location: Westchester/NYC

8/9/17 7:06 PM


quote:
I hope they are a student of history

Trump? Student of history?

You need prayer, more than just "hope"!

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 15856
Location: Portland, OR

8/9/17 7:23 PM

"Trump? Student of history?"

He won't even be a student of his own history. Which I am afraid he isn't done making...

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 2857
Location: Springfield

8/9/17 8:03 PM

John von Neumann, how could that man be of this Earth?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 3779
Location: Nashua, NH

8/10/17 6:31 AM

It's just a matter of time...

...until North Korea starts a war, whether intentionally or because one of it's test firings malfunctions and lands on Japan or another country. I really feel for the South Koreans, because regardless of what and how it happens, they will surely feel the brunt of the hostilities.

Obama buried his head in the sand when they were developing nukes (in fairness, so did much of the world) and now that they've developed delivery systems that have the potential to extend their reach dramatically, it's time to take action to prevent that from happening. The North Koren regime is batshit crazy and the likelihood of them ever stopping weapons development is essentially zero. They've progressed much faster than expected, which points strongly toward Russian assistance (talk about "playing with fire"!). While it's true that today the best they could hope for is that some of the debris from one of their re-entering missiles would fall on the US, it's not going to be much longer before they can deliver a deadly payload (conventional or nuclear).

Any action is going to be costly and ugly, but it's not going to get any better with time. Inaction will only postpone the inevitable and make the resulting carnage even worse. There are no good choices, only bad (now) or worse (later). It truly sucks to be in this position, but we have to be realistic about it. Until North Korea is brought to its knees, the threat they pose is only going to increase exponentially.

Those of you who think I'm wrong, please feel free to propose a peaceful solution if you actually think there is one. It's easy to say "war is not the answer", but unless you have an alternative, it's just a hollow sentiment. Sanctions haven't worked and it's unlikely they ever will. Unless the country is completely blockaded and only food and medicine are allowed in, there is nothing that's going to stop the Kim regime. If anything like that does happen (which is highly unlikely), the most probable outcome is that they will attack the south, as they will feel that they have nothing to lose.

I really don't see any good answer to this situation, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise. Anyone?

 Reply to topic    

Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1027
Location: South of Heaven

8/10/17 6:48 AM

I wote, Trump !!!!administration.!!!!..as in Rex Tillerson et al. Of course not the President.

I think the Obama and the rest of the world head in the sand comment is unfair.

Name a country that is determined to develop nukes that has been successfully convinced to do otherwise....

The best option is to contain North Korea. One once learned by the USA during the cold war. Hence the noting of John Von Neumann. If you study that (I have), as well as game theory, you will come to theconclusion that is the best option...as in least worst.

The recent Economist articles does a good job of providing enough depth of discussion on the topic. A 5 minute (if that generous) talking heads news piece is insufficient, even with experts at the helm.

 Reply to topic    

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3507
Location: Brooklyn, NY

8/10/17 6:59 AM

I'm not sure calling NK crazy advances the ball much. I read a private analysis a while ago that pointed out that making threats has served NK well in the past. By acting "irrationally", they were able to get to talks that have led to "concessions" on their part in return for aid and access to needed goods.

They may be playing the same game now, and finding that they're not getting the results that they want. We're getting into dangerous territory, particularly because I don't think NK knows any other game to play.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6113
Location: Westchester/NYC

8/10/17 8:24 AM

"Inaction will only postpone the inevitable and make the resulting carnage even worse. "

I disagree on that. You may call Obama and the rest of the world "head in the sand". But in reality, regime changes DOES happen from within. Look at Russia and China? Look at Cuba. So your predicted outcome is far from "inevitable". And inaction could very well be avoiding the inevitable peacefully.

Yes, it's relying on chance we have no control of. But that's balanced against the available "action" options we have in hand, which are ALL BAD.

I'm pretty sure similar sentiment was circulating in the Whitehouse way back when Russia was testing their nuclear weapon. I'm quite sure there were talk about "striking now before they actually have a deliverable system". And I know that same thought reared its head again when China tested its first nuclear war head. But the decision makers choose peace then. Brian, , would you venture to guess we might have been better off had they gone ahead and strike back then?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 3779
Location: Nashua, NH

8/10/17 8:56 AM

Wishful thinking

Containment? Good luck with that! What evidence do you have that there's the remotest possibility of that working? Do you really think that if they're allowed to become a truly global nuclear threat that they're just going to sit there looking at what the rest of the world has and not try to take a piece of it? The only viable strategy to prevent that is to prevent them from building more nukes and the missiles to deliver them.

Regime change from within? Seriously? Considering the extraordinary level of brainwashing, isolation and deprivation that their civilian population has endured, do you really think there's any chance of that? Their government doesn't care about them or what they think, it tells them what to think. Sure, they can take their emaciated bodies and hurl a few rocks at the army before they're all killed, but what is that going to accomplish? It seems to me that the civilian population is more of nuisance to the government and military than anything else. The only realistic internal regime change scenario would be that the military takes over, which could be even worse than having Kim in charge. I'm not convinced that there is anyone in either their government or military that isn't completely delusional. I don't see this as them being "crazy like a fox", but rather just plain crazy.

As for Russia's and China's development of nukes, they are large countries with a wealth of resources. We couldn't have stopped them under any circumstances. Although we were seriously concerned that the Russians might actually use their nukes, it was obvious that China simply wanted into the "nuclear club" in order to be taken seriously on the global stage. They were never an actual threat to attack anyone, no more than India was.

North Korea is a small country with little in the way of resources other than coal. China basically screwed the rest of the world by providing them with resources and technology that started their arms development, which has become a runaway train. They created this problem and they're still not doing enough to rein them in. Perhaps there's really nothing they can do now, as it appears to be out of their control.

If we don't deal with the obvious North Korean threat, what message does that send to Iran? We can't forget about them, either.

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4227
Location: metro-motown-area

8/10/17 9:15 AM

"Obama buried his head in the sand"

serious question: can you give 3 viable alternatives to address NK's nuclear ambitions that US politicians and taxpayers would fully support? you can replace "US" with any other world power of your choosing for a more relevant scenario.

my assumption for the US is that pretty much every alternative was considered by obama's administration and pentagon, but the collective US did not have the will to invest dollars and lives in ANOTHER battle-front with 3 already in play -- iraq, afganistan, and the economic meltdown @ home.

if not for the first 2, we might have gotten something done -- thanks cheney!


Last edited by walter on 8/10/17 9:49 AM; edited 2 times in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6113
Location: Westchester/NYC

8/10/17 9:19 AM

Yes, wishful thinking it is ALL we're doing. We had been doing that for the past 50 years!

Let's talk about Iran!

What are our options? Sanction had not worked all these years. They've managed to be half way into their nuclear weapon development. Or perhaps they're already at a similar level as the North Korea. They just hide it better. Or they need a mad man to make that last step like North Korea now. (Don't ever think for a moment North Korea got so "quickly" into the nuclear age. The ground work had been going on all these years. It took the new rash leader for them to make that last step!)

So what's next, invade Iran NOW/SOON? So they don't become another North Korea before it gets to today's situation with North Korea? Aren't we "burying our head in the sand" with regard to Iran?

What other countries are on the list, just we haven't heard about in the public yet?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1027
Location: South of Heaven

8/10/17 9:37 AM

Containment meaning you assure the other party of their destruction/obliteration...that is the only deterrent. You cannot cite any history of preventing a country that is intent on developing them from stopping because there isn't any to my knowledge.

 Reply to topic    

walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4227
Location: metro-motown-area

8/10/17 9:41 AM

mossad/cia did it right in iran with stuxnet...

...but that's basically a 1 and done approach. not much in the way of repeatability.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 15856
Location: Portland, OR

8/10/17 9:48 AM

"you assure the other party of their destruction/obliteration...that is the only deterrent."

And NK just wants to be considered at that level it seems. Actual deployment will be the end, or at least a long vacation from being a world player. The second most juvenile world leader knows this. And this is where I get concerned, NK leader's ability has no mechanism to keep him in check. Imagine if we had the same problem.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity