North Korea, here we come?

[sleepyjeff]

I still remember the ol Reagan detractors rolling their eyes at the idea saying " you can't hit a bullet with a bullet"...

....never say never

[Alex]

Of course, that assumes it works. Which, unless there have been secret successful tests (and it is hard to secretly launch a ballistic missile to see if you can shoot it down) isn't a sure thing by any means.

[sleepyjeff]

Very true.

[€uroMeinke]

Like most deterents, your opponant merely has to think they work to be effective

[sleepyjeff]

Is that from the Art of War?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Is that from the Art of War?

No, just an observation

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I was thinking today....I sure am glad we continued with an anti missile defense system even when it was said that the current threats to the US did not have intercontinental ballistic technology. It's good to be prepared.

If I have this right.. In order to shoot down the missile the following would have to happen:

1. The rocket has to be real and have a functional third stage. Something they have NOT tested yet.

2. They would actually have to launch

3. The launch would have to work

4. They would have to launch it on a trajectory close enough to the US for us to justify a counter.

5. The Pres. would have to approve the intercept

6. The Intercept would have to work

Add in the potential embarrassment of missing and thereby showing the bluff of a "working system" and/or the embarrassment to North Korea if their big weapon is plucked from the sky....

Nope. It ain't gonna happen.

It's just saber rattling on both sides.


Oh, and I see you found my "Welcome back" thread I created just for you...

[scaeagles]

So...The Patriot anti missile system worked pretty well a decade ago against short range missiles, but with advances in technology over the last decade we can't shoot down a long range missile?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So...The Patriot anti missile system worked pretty well a decade ago against short range missiles, but with advances in technology over the last decade we can't shoot down a long range missile?

Define pretty well"

Originally Posted by U.S. House of Representatives testimony

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992

refrence

[scaeagles]

I guess we can play this all day.....from the same link, in reference to action seen in 2003 during the initial invasion of Iraq -

Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate intercepting Al Samoud-2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.

So, improvements over 12 years led to a higher success rate. I see that as progress. So hitting a bullet with a bullet can be done.