North Korea's dong flops

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

North Korea attempted to test fire a new version of their Taep'o Dong-2 ICBM earlier today. It failed less than a minute into the flight.

 

Is this just sabre rattling, or should it be construed as an act of aggression? Is the US foreign policy towards North Korea effective, or is it putting us all in harm's way?

[doG]

We should encourage them to shoot some more so we can shoot them down. Maybe then Kimmee boy will learn that his attempts are futile....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Unless, of course, our missile-defense system (which is still in testing) fails, in which case he gets to stick his tongue out at us and laugh.

[doG]

Unless, of course, our missile-defense system (which is still in testing) fails, in which case he gets to stick his tongue out at us and laugh.

I wasn't really thinking about using the missile defense system. Put a carrier in the neighborhood when he's ready to launch and let a couple of Navy birds shoot it down as soon as it's in international air space....

[Aardvark]

I wasn't really thinking about using the missile defense system. Put a carrier in the neighborhood when he's ready to launch and let a couple of Navy birds shoot it down as soon as it's in international air space....

 

'Navy birds' don't have the capacity to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles flying outside the atmosphere. That's why the US government has spent so much on developing the missile defence system in the first place.

[doG]

'Navy birds' don't have the capacity to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles flying outside the atmosphere. That's why the US government has spent so much on developing the missile defence system in the first place.

Don't the missiles have to fly from the ground up to space to begin with? Shoot it down at 30,000 feet then...

[bascule]

'Navy birds' don't have the capacity to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles flying outside the atmosphere. That's why the US government has spent so much on developing the missile defence system in the first place.

 

I guess you don't understand how the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System works then...

[Pangloss]

I thought it was interesting the way they kept shooting off scuds after the two-stager flopped. It seemed like a PR move, so they could say "we shot off a bunch of missiles yesterday and most of them worked". Obviously irrelevent internally -- they can just tell their own people whatever they want. But externally that might carry some weight in some quarters.

 

Whatever the case may be, I took great joy in the fact that on the Fourth of July, their missile failed completely, and our "missile" (the shuttle) went off like clockwork.

[Jim]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

North Korea attempted to test fire a new version of their Taep'o Dong-2 ICBM earlier today. It failed less than a minute into the flight.

 

Is this just sabre rattling' date=' or should it be construed as an act of aggression? Is the US foreign policy towards North Korea effective, or is it putting us all in harm's way?[/quote']

 

I do not know whether we could have a more effective policy re N. Korea. They seem determined to go there own way.

[Forensicmad]

It says that the missile landed 200 miles away after its 40 second flight.

It must have been going pretty quick.

If they did aim it at the US, i wonder how long the West Coast would have to react. Scary huh?

[TimbaLanD]

i am lost!! how many missiles does the US have?

[silkworm]

i am lost!! how many missiles does the US have?

 

We can move a warhead, don't worry, and while we can only do sub critical tests, we still have a working arsenal of nukes.

 

The smartest thing we can do is take over their media for awhile and show all the people of North Korea how badly their missles have failed, sponsored by Viagara. I'm sure he's telling them something different than what actually happened.

 

Everybody seems to forget a few things about ICBM's. The first of course, is they have to leave their continent of origin before they can be considered "intercontinental". The rest amount to, it's not the easiest thing in the history of the world to build one, and is actually more difficult than building a warhead.

 

Luckily, the only regime apparently more incompetent than the American one is the one in North Korea. We're in luck. Only 2 more years everybody, and we can get a regime in there capable of handling this problem.

[Sisyphus]

I think North Korea is one of those things where you just have to wait for it to collapse on its own. Trying to bully them is extremely counterproductive, something neocons can't seem to grasp. N. Korea has never claimed, either internally or externally, that their nuclear program is anything but a deterrant. Whether this is true or we've just handed them a convenient (and valid, frankly) excuse is irrelevant.

 

Instead, make sure they know what will happen if they try anything aggressive (and they do), take any opportunity for some democratic/capitalist propaganda (although they're so insular that is very difficult) and otherwise leave them alone. South Korea is the only nation that can really deal with them, since both nations seem to want eventual peaceful reunification, and there is a lot of mutual sympathy there.

[Jim]

We're in luck. Only 2 more years everybody, and we can get a regime in there capable of handling this problem.

 

What should be done now to handle this problem?

[YT2095]

it`s dreadfull when your Dong flops at the wrong moment.

they have my sympathies

[Pangloss]

I think North Korea is one of those things where you just have to wait for it to collapse on its own.

 

Unfortunately when we try to leave it alone we get criticized even more and accused of doing even more "bullying". "Leaving it alone" to the International community means continuing to send NK vast amounts of financial support and listening to them blather their ideological nonsense across a completely meaningless "negotiations" table.

 

This is the kind of Catch-22 that really annoys American taxpayers.

 

That having been said, annoyance and all, I'm more or less forced to agree. That's the situation and you're right in saying that it's something that South Korea has to take the leading role in working out. Perhaps it's better that we (the taxpayers) look at it as an investment in peace rather than a payment to a brutal regime.

 

But it's still pretty annoying, not to mention risky given the ICBM developments.

[Aardvark]

I guess you don't understand how the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System[/url'] works then...

 

If you check what i wrote you will see that i made a clear distinction between 'navy birds' and the ballistic missile defence system, which i pointed out had been developed with so much effort.

 

Simply parking a carrier between North Korea and the USA isn't going to provide any defence, despite the 'navy birds'. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System , part of the defences i refered to, are still being developed and are not considered fully operational despite some promising test results.

 

If N Korea were to really lauch an attack on the USA the Aegis system would not provide any great surety of security.

[Aardvark]

South Korea is the only nation that can really deal with them, since both nations seem to want eventual peaceful reunification, and there is a lot of mutual sympathy there.

 

You are right that both Koreas share very deep ties, but i fear you are too generous in your assement of the North Korean regimes attitude. It is fully aware that any peaceful unification would lead to the immediate ousting of the North Korean regime from power. Instead its only hold on power is to deliberately enhabce the tensions and hatreds that justify its immense military build up that enable it to maintain its control.

 

Peace and reconciliation would destroy the North Korean regime, therefore its policies must be aggressive and dangerous.

[5614]

There are few armies that will actively do anything about this for several reasons. For starters there are not many armies that would invade another country. Those which will are mainly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Considering that there are few armies who would even consider invading another country.

 

I have little confidence in a political solution - just my personal view. Lets hope I'm wrong, but my true feeling remains the same for the moment.