North Korea has their missile on the launch pad

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dphantom

Having been in AFSPC and a missile operator, I would love to see some of your papers. Links to where they are published? Or I can pm you an email address.

As for NK monitoring their missile, sure, but I wonder how accurately their instrument package would be in telling the difference between heating from an external source and heating from an internal source and knowing which caused the missile's destruction.

The papers were on ABM technology in general and they certainly aren't published works, they were undergrad papers. My point was that I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, and that Pro-Jo is basing his idea for what we should do on a video from the History Channel or whatever.

Nobody knows if their instrumentation can detect internal heating vs. external heating obviously, but if I'm not mistaken we have external temperature sensors on our rockets. With that in mind it's not unreasonable to assume they have them as well, particularly for ones still in testing as the Taepodong-2 is.

Well, that explains things. Nevermind, I have access to sources better than an undergrad paper.

So where are your published postgraduate papers? Purely out of academic interest of course...

Link

Not mine. I never said I had published, only that I had access to better sources.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
...willing to defend a brutal regime that starves and summarily executes its people.

Yes because that was EXACTLY what I was talking about, wasn't it? You people wonder why some of us are so fucking disrespectful toward you on this board? What a joke. :laugh:

Cool story, brah.

Actually you do that because you're a moron who can't formulate much beyond a couple emotional one-liners like you're some bearded idiot toting a sign at an ANSWER march. Just because you have a miserable life, hate our country and hate anyone who disagrees with you doesn't mean the rest of us do, you're in a teeny, tiny minority.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Problem is PJ, would it even matter if there was no evidence that the USA destroyed their missile? If there is a sudden catastrophic failure they'll probably blame the USA regardless just for the PR, I can already hear "The evil americans have destroyed our peaceful satellite launch, this is a unprovoked act of aggression". It'll also help keep their people in check telling them they are under attack from the rest of the world and their glorious leader will protect them.

Missile aside, problem with creating unneeded tensions with NK is that they have massive amounts of artillery and rockets pointed at Seoul with a population of over 10million. The only way to avoid massive civilian casualties is to launch a surprise preemptive strike to take out their artillery, otherwise Seoul will be leveled in the first few days of the war with hundreds of thousands to millions of civilian casualties.

ummm last time they tried this type of launch it failed. Don't recall Seoul being destroyed in the aftermath, but perhaps I missed that story.

There where no threats to destroy the missile then, there are now. As I said they would use it as a PR stunt.

I also attempted to separate the missile launch and tensions issue with the first two words of the second paragraph.

 

[compuwiz1]

I believe US has already vowed to shoot it down, if launched.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dphantom

Having been in AFSPC and a missile operator, I would love to see some of your papers. Links to where they are published? Or I can pm you an email address.

As for NK monitoring their missile, sure, but I wonder how accurately their instrument package would be in telling the difference between heating from an external source and heating from an internal source and knowing which caused the missile's destruction.

The papers were on ABM technology in general and they certainly aren't published works, they were undergrad papers. My point was that I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, and that Pro-Jo is basing his idea for what we should do on a video from the History Channel or whatever.

Nobody knows if their instrumentation can detect internal heating vs. external heating obviously, but if I'm not mistaken we have external temperature sensors on our rockets. With that in mind it's not unreasonable to assume they have them as well, particularly for ones still in testing as the Taepodong-2 is.

Well, that explains things. Nevermind, I have access to sources better than an undergrad paper.

Who doesn't?

 

[Fear No Evil]

So Hillary said today that any action by the NK's to launch this missle is going to be considered a provocative act and will have consequences. Interpret that as you may.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So Hillary said today that any action by the NK's to launch this missle is going to be considered a provocative act and will have consequences. Interpret that as you may.

Consequences being we'll stomp our foot and scold them not to do it again or else.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So Hillary said today that any action by the NK's to launch this missle is going to be considered a provocative act and will have consequences. Interpret that as you may.

Consequences being we'll stomp our foot and scold them not to do it again or else.

Even worse !
We will send them a nasty letter !

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I believe US has already vowed to shoot it down, if launched.

Admiral said he could but I don't think the US has vowed to do it.

So Hillary said today that any action by the NK's to launch this missle is going to be considered a provocative act and will have consequences. Interpret that as you may.

OK:

If you do this NK, we'll make a statement condemning it but ultimately it will scare us more so next time we have talks we'll give you more sh*t. Just please be nice to us. It makes us look impotent when you do these things and we cannot control anything you do and end up giving you aid and money anyway.

 

[SP33Demon]

Who cares if they shoot a missle? You can't stop the spread of technology, you can only hope that yours is better and we (including Japan) could easily mitigate this if needed.

 

[Modelworks]

Was just reading another article which states :
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-26-voa6.cfm

Chief Japanese Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura says the council is likely to approve an interception attempt. He says a shootdown order is expected to be issued before April 4, the earliest launch date announced by the North.

Japan, the United States, and South Korea have all vowed to seek new United Nations sanctions against the North if the launch takes place. However, permanent U.N. security council members Russia and China may choose to veto such a measure.

Park Seung-jae, a consultant to South Korea's Defense Ministry with the Asia Strategy Institute in Seoul, says even without U.N. sanctions, South Korea and Japan have options to punish the North.

So China and Russia are for a missile launch now ?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Who cares if they shoot a missle? You can't stop the spread of technology, you can only hope that yours is better and we (including Japan) could easily mitigate this if needed.

Isn't that the point of anti ballistic missles?

A real-world test is priceless.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Who cares if they shoot a missle? You can't stop the spread of technology, you can only hope that yours is better and we (including Japan) could easily mitigate this if needed.

Isn't that the point of anti ballistic missles?

A real-world test is priceless.

It's not a real-world test because it's not being aimed at us. Shooting down their little bottlerocket would only reaffirm what everyone knows, that we have the best technology. It's akin to a blackbelt master sensai roundhousing a student through the window while the student is in a corner of the dojo practicing his technique: expensive and proves nothing b/c the student never challenged the sensai. The only thing it does is give the student a reason to buy a glock and blow the sensai's brains out the next week.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Who cares if they shoot a missle? You can't stop the spread of technology, you can only hope that yours is better and we (including Japan) could easily mitigate this if needed.

Isn't that the point of anti ballistic missles?

A real-world test is priceless.

It's not a real-world test because it's not being aimed at us. Shooting down their little bottlerocket would only reaffirm what everyone knows, that we have the best technology. It's akin to a blackbelt master sensai roundhousing a student through the window while the student is in a corner of the dojo practicing his technique: expensive and proves nothing b/c the student never challenged the sensai. The only thing it does is give the student a reason to buy a glock and blow the sensai's brains out the next week.

I do enjoy your analogy but so far the US missile tests have been heavily scripted. If the US can take out a missile from NK it would be hugely meaningful.

If UN is going to have a resolution it should do it soon, as this missile could launch this month, not just after April 4. Why go based on when NK says it's going to launch? If you trust them on that, trust them on the satellite. It makes no sense.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Who cares if they shoot a missle? You can't stop the spread of technology, you can only hope that yours is better and we (including Japan) could easily mitigate this if needed.

Isn't that the point of anti ballistic missles?

A real-world test is priceless.

It's not a real-world test because it's not being aimed at us. Shooting down their little bottlerocket would only reaffirm what everyone knows, that we have the best technology. It's akin to a blackbelt master sensai roundhousing a student through the window while the student is in a corner of the dojo practicing his technique: expensive and proves nothing b/c the student never challenged the sensai. The only thing it does is give the student a reason to buy a glock and blow the sensai's brains out the next week.

I do enjoy your analogy but so far the US missile tests have been heavily scripted. If the US can take out a missile from NK it would be hugely meaningful.

If UN is going to have a resolution it should do it soon, as this missile could launch this month, not just after April 4. Why go based on when NK says it's going to launch? If you trust them on that, trust them on the satellite. It makes no sense.

We'll be able to tell when they will launch to within a roughly 72 hour window. Since the NK missile is liquid fueled, it cannot stay fully fueled for very long. At least using the technology they are. There is technology to allow liquid fueled missiles to remain fully fueled for very long periods of time.

 

[StageLeft]

Anybody know why, given how much NK has buried underground, this rocket is not underground?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Anybody know why, given how much NK has buried underground, this rocket is not underground?

Fueling difficulties, maintenance issues, the technology itself for launching a missile from underground. For a few...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Anybody know why, given how much NK has buried underground, this rocket is not underground?

Fueling difficulties, maintenance issues, the technology itself for launching a missile from underground. For a few...

So you don't think they have any underground big rockets/BMs? If not, then if the US does try and take this out and is successful doing so, that's a coup, because with satellite supervision I'm sure the koreans would be unable to get a rocket in place, fueled, and in the air without somebody else knowing about it, so the question is whether it can even be shot down or not.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Anybody know why, given how much NK has buried underground, this rocket is not underground?

Fueling difficulties, maintenance issues, the technology itself for launching a missile from underground. For a few...

So you don't think they have any underground big rockets/BMs? If not, then if the US does try and take this out and is successful doing so, that's a coup, because with satellite supervision I'm sure the koreans would be unable to get a rocket in place, fueled, and in the air without somebody else knowing about it, so the question is whether it can even be shot down or not.

Correct, I do not believe they have an underground launch silo capability. That is an opinion based on my experience in missile operations (20+ yrs) and my close following of open source material regarding nuclear proliferation.

As for our BMD, I think the Navy would have no problem using the Standard 3 package to take out this missile if it is on a ballistic trajectory and not a satellite insertion one.

 

[Fern]

Meh, I'd be inclined to let 'em launch it just to see what they have as far as capabilities go.

Fern

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I'd be inclined to let 'em launch it just to see what they have as far as capabilities goe.

Fern

That is what I think will happen at least for the US. We will know very quickly its trajectory and potential impact site if it is ballistic. Or we will know just as soon if it is on an orbital insertion path. In either case, my guess is we would see what they can do, not attempt a shoot down.

Japan will follow our lead, but will intercept if the trajectory intrusively crosses Japan airspace. SK will do nothing.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I'd be inclined to let 'em launch it just to see what they have as far as capabilities goe.

Fern

That is what I think will happen at least for the US. We will know very quickly its trajectory and potential impact site if it is ballistic. Or we will know just as soon if it is on an orbital insertion path. In either case, my guess is we would see what they can do, not attempt a shoot down.

Japan will follow our lead, but will intercept if the trajectory intrusively crosses Japan airspace. SK will do nothing.

So the US could detect in time its trajectory and if ballistic still have the opportunity to take it out?

When NK shot over Japan previously, was there no warning of Japan; was NK not being watched as closely? Can Japan take it out now when previously they could not? Is their missile defense as good as US for this kind of thing?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I'd be inclined to let 'em launch it just to see what they have as far as capabilities goe.

Fern

That is what I think will happen at least for the US. We will know very quickly its trajectory and potential impact site if it is ballistic. Or we will know just as soon if it is on an orbital insertion path. In either case, my guess is we would see what they can do, not attempt a shoot down.

Japan will follow our lead, but will intercept if the trajectory intrusively crosses Japan airspace. SK will do nothing.

So the US could detect in time its trajectory and if ballistic still have the opportunity to take it out?

When NK shot over Japan previously, was there no warning of Japan; was NK not being watched as closely? Can Japan take it out now when previously they could not? Is their missile defense as good as US for this kind of thing?

My understanding of the SM-3 and associated radar tracking systems is that there is enough time in the boost phase and the SM-3 has sufficient fuel so that a trajectory can be determined, and a launch and intercept take place.

Japan has received Aegis equipped destroyers so now has the capability. I don't think they had an operational ability during earlier launches. Japan would have difficulty taking it out as reaction time is much shorter, but think they still have a pretty good shot.

But, a liquid fueled missile is slower than a solid fueled missile. So at launch warning, there is more time to analyze trajectory data. Also, we would need to keep in mind NK has limited areas into which it can fire a missile on a ballistic trajectory while avoiding Japan and not threatening the US. These areas of the Pacific are known. So that helps in the analysis of where the missile is going.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So Hillary said today that any action by the NK's to launch this missle is going to be considered a provocative act and will have consequences. Interpret that as you may.

Consequences being we'll stomp our foot and scold them not to do it again or else.

Even worse !
We will send them a nasty letter !

Even worse, well offer to bail out their banks!

 

[K1052]

Navy moving some Arleigh Burkes into the neighborhood:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...ea.us.ships/index.html