Poll: Should we bomb North Korea's missile before they launch it?

ex-Clinton officials say this is the prudent thing to do. Is this act prudent against North Korea in your opinion? Should the US attack first to preclude any attack from North Korea regardless of what happens after? Is this really the prudent thing to do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1481933

edit: fuck?

I think that would be a reason to learn how to play nice, not bomb accurately.

It refers to this article:
"Clinton Defense officials: Strike Korean missile before it can be launched"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1481933

and my comment was "what the fuck?"

like W did.

Sure, I'm all for it if they know without a doubt that it is pointed at us. If it's only a test and not aimed in our direction, then the US shoots it down...well, that could make things a tad worse.

I don't. It's all rhetoric.

It's been shut down twice since 2004 and was only recently undergoing poor quality control issues. Hell, the missiles never even left their silos.

This is from their own reports, IRRC. I'll find the article.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reports that North Korea is preparing to test fire a long-range missile have drawn renewed scrutiny of U.S. efforts to build a reliable system to intercept such missiles, which is still not fully working.

Washington has built up a complex of interceptor missiles, advanced radar stations and data relays designed to detect and shoot down a North Korean warhead, but tests of the system have had mixed results.

The Pentagon's testing office said in January it may offer only "some" protection, despite about $10 billion a year in development spending under President George W. Bush.

In eight intercept tests of the ground-based missile defense system, the interceptor has hit a mock incoming warhead five times. Testing was suspended after interceptors failed to leave their silos during tests in December 2004 and February 2005 -- failures blamed on quality-control issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060616/pl_nm/korea_north_shield_dc

:nuke:

China knows what game Korea is playing and they are laughing at the how Bush is using it to scare American people. China's intelligence is real, not anything like our politically driven mess.

Have you learned nothing in the last six years?

China just warned them not to test it. China's an economic juggernaut, the last thing they'll stand for is Pyonyang destabilizing the area.

This could turn into a horrific situation. This article actually concerns a preemptive strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities. Now this current issue is slightly different. But, I suspect the consequences are pretty much the same.

but lets not underestimate what could or would likely follow:

Military Options for Dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Program
Phillip C. Saunders<1>

link: http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm

"The biggest military concern in striking North Korean nuclear facilities is the threat of North Korean counter-attacks. Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles.<7> Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours.<8> Finally, if North Korea does have one or two deliverable nuclear weapons, nuclear retaliation (or nuclear threats) would also be available to North Korea leaders.

Even if U.S. strikes on North Korea nuclear facilities are successful, North Korea would still have the capability to inflict massive damage against South Korea and the 37,000 U.S. troops based there. Retaliation might be gradual, or North Korea might resort to large-scale strikes quickly. Efforts to invade the South are less likely, but cannot be ruled out entirely (especially if U.S. military forces are preoccupied in the Persian Gulf). The decision about how to respond would be up to North Korean leaders, who would have a range of military options and the ability to escalate the conflict over time. Although the United States would likely win an all-out war, the damage to South Korea would be tremendous and U.S. forces would sustain large casualties. One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.<9>

Given these possible military responses, attacks against North Korean nuclear facilities would need to be accompanied by measures to prevent or limit retaliation, such as efforts to degrade North Korean military capabilities, defend against counter-attacks, and deter military responses.

Because North Korea has a wide range of military means (including artillery, missiles, and ground-force operations) that can inflict significant damage on the South, pre-emptive strikes could not destroy all of North Korea's weapons before they could be used. Pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require South Korean cooperation and the deployment of additional U.S. aircraft, reconnaissance assets, and artillery. Counter-battery artillery fire and air strikes could be used to target North Korea artillery, but would be unable to prevent North Korea from doing considerable damage to Seoul. The number and mobility of North Korea artillery pieces and ballistic missile forces make them particularly tough targets. Many North Korean artillery pieces are protected in caves and would be difficult to destroy; North Korean missiles are mounted on mobile launchers that are hard to locate and strike. As mentioned previously, any North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be hidden in hardened underground facilities. Because pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require striking targets throughout the country, they would quickly escalate the conflict into a wider war. For this reason, pre-emptive strikes would be unlikely to accompany surgical strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities, but would be held in reserve in case North Korea began to retaliate with missile and artillery attacks."

full article:

http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm

this kind of shit without using sticks and clubs.

...NO! Unless the missile is targeted at Japan or other nations, it should not be bombed just for testing. The US tests missiles all the time. What hypocrisy. Just because NK is a totalitarian basketcase doesn't mean it should live under different rules from the US or other countries.


And no, it wouldn't be prudent.

possibly not even able to make to Alaska, let alone the continental US?

I don't think it's much of an issue.

North Korea is believed to have an arsenal of ballistic missiles and has claimed to have a nuclear weapon. It isn't believed to have a nuclear bomb small and light enough to be carried by a missile. A look at some of the missiles the communist nation is believed to control.

- TAEPODONG-2: Believed to be North Korea's most advanced missile, with a range as long as 9,320 miles. Experts estimate it could potentially hit the mainland United States with a small payload. However, the missile is unlikely to be accurate.

http://www.gambling911.com/North-Korea-long-range-missile-testing-062106.html

US: bombs missile facility
KOR: rebuilds missile
US: Oh shit, more missiles.
KOR: Takes hint from W and drops rebuilt missile on highly populated Seattle/Portland.

(I should note that I live very near Seattle and my family live both in and very near Portland)

unlikely, but still provides enough sphincter-pucker-potential to think twice in my mind.

I'm not near there, but my sphincter control is damn near gone as it is because of these assholes.

laboratory technique, safety and instrumentation to college chemistry and physics students. How does this relate to this post? I'll explain:

There are mature students and there are less than mature students. Then, there are students that just plain aren't ready.

Korea falls into the "just plain not ready" category.

As a teacher, you have to be dynamic in dealing with some folks in this category; some will accept your criticism as constructive and focus on developing more specialized skills (and you can help them). Others, the more problematic, feel that the advanced responsibility is their right by default (how I see Korea), and must be "gently guided" through an appropriate pathway to learning what it is they think god gave them genetically. This is 'facultative' instruction, and it should be Socratic, completely.

It takes finesse, skill and dynamic response to gently guide the more troublesome and less mature students to achieve their technical "self-actualization", or maturity.

Now, I'm not saying that this job should be the responsibility of the US, but at the same time, the US certainly shouldnt be the complementary "class bully" antagonist (the one that leads to the immature student's ultimate downfall).

The relationship must be maintained, vigilantly and appropriately - and growth will happen (maybe?).

Excellent observation! :thumbsup:

Because I am fair and I would have demanded nothing less that absolute, sterling excellence from you.

:D

I'm was a jerk about grading when i taught chem classes.

Of course, these were all grad classes in advance theoretical stuff. If you don't belong in that field, someone has to weed you out. I figured that was my role!
The Professor

that I crack a long whip and swing a heavy hammer.

my students work; from day one they appreciate that chemists are mathematicians who do dishes. by the end of Spring Q, I've got 65 developing chemists. They're safe, for the most part they have great technique, theyre creative and they leave the lab cleaner than they found it. (I made them wax their benches, much like marines sleep with their rifles).

Students amaze me. However, youre right, and I am certainly more of an experimental lab guy than a theoratician.

/gkd

US: bombs missile facility
KOR: drops nuke on Seoul or Tokyo using proven short or mid range missile.

why I am supposed to be afraid of North Korea.

Let me get this straight. They "may" have a missle that "may" be able to reach the United States. OMG!!! TIME TO START DIGGING THE BOMB SHELTER!!!!

Excuse me, but I lived through the cold war and the Cuban Missle Crisis. I refuse to be frightened by a third rate whacko leader and his missle test.

From halfway around the world? Trembling in my boots, lemme tell ya.

It is good to let them know that we still have better weapons than they do, regardless of whether they arm them with nukes or not.

equivalent would be affective against these missiles at all.

This is little more than an oversized bottle rocket. They don't have a small enough warhead to mount on it, they most likely don't have a guidance system accurate enough (they can't even keep the lights on, fer cryin' out loud), and they have ONE.

Bush owes Kim a cold one, for the distraction.