Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “What Goes Up Must Come Down... But How?”

« Revenge Killing? Hardly | Main | To Bag Or Not to Bag »

June 20, 2006

What Goes Up Must Come Down... But How?

Hatched by Dafydd

So here is the syllogism; you supply the conclusion:

North Korea insists that it has "the right" to launch a test of its new ICBM, the Taepodong-2.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has no intention of abiding by any treaties it may have signed against the proliferation of missile technology; and they are known to be working hard on a nuclear warhead (with a lot of help from the mad Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan) and may indeed already have a few. Now they say they have a right to missiles that can carry those warheads thousands of miles:

North Korea declared Tuesday it has a right to carry out long-range missile tests, despite international calls for the communist state to refrain from launching a rocket believed capable of reaching the United States.

The bristling statement from North Korea to Japanese reporters in Pyongyang came as France and the U.N. secretary-general raised the alarm over what are believed to be the reclusive nation's preparations for a test of the Taepodong-2, with a range of up to 9,300 miles.

In a totally unrelated move, the United States has decided to make a minor change in our defense posture:

The United States has just activated our ground-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, in addition to the sea-based Aegis BMD system.

We have tested the Aegis extensively, and it has been considered fully operational for a long time now... despite not having been used yet in actual combat, so far as I know:

Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday.

The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.

All right, so they launch; but where do they launch? What direction, and over what countries?

The DPRK is not likely to launch an ICBM -- even as a test -- west across China or north across China and Russia; that leaves only east over Japan (which they have done before) or south over Taiwan and the Philippines, all three strong and vital American allies.

So put the three together, and what conclusion do we draw about our course of action? You guessed it:

One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors....

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment when asked if shooting down a launched missile was being considered as an option.

I suspect the only real question here is how likely we are to succeed: attempting to shoot down the Taepodong-2 and missing would be much worse than not trying in the first place; but trying and succeeding might reap huge dividends, as the generals behind North Korean leader Kim Jong Il probably think our BMD system is "all chopstick and no rice" (much like the DPRK food supply).

Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that we really have it and it actually works might shock them out of their nutty idea that they can threaten us with nuclear missiles and back into at least a working definition of sanity.

But it's a gamble; let's not kid ourselves. Our tests so far have been controlled, in that we've been shooting at American missiles launched by American troops as part of a controlled engineering experiment -- as we should be; that's the correct way to develop a new weapons system. But making the shift to knocking down an actual enemy missile is a whole 'nother layer of complexity.

I believe it will work, so we should do it; still, none of us has access to all the classified data the president does.

But jeepers, would I love to see the collective gasp of a billion people if the NoKos were to launch -- and we were to swat their Taepodong out of the sky like it was a slow-moving fly. It would make my decade!

Sometimes the best thing to do in a "no-win" situation is to give the box a vigorous shake and see how the pieces realign themselves.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 20, 2006, at the time of 5:10 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/877

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Goes Up Must Come Down... But How?:

» To Bag Or Not to Bag from Big Lizards
Talk continues to swirl about the possiblity that if North Korea makes good its threat to launch a test of its Taepodong-2 ICBM, we might just shoot it down. And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea already appears to be... [Read More]

Tracked on June 21, 2006 5:15 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

But jeepers, would I love to see the collective gasp of a billion people if the NoKos were to launch -- and we were to swat their Taepodong out of the sky like it was a slow-moving fly. It would make my decade!
Sometimes the best thing to do in a "no-win" situation is to give the box a vigorous shake and see how the pieces realign themselves.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 20, 2006, at the time of 05:10 PM

It's tempting but would also have to be weighed against giving the PRC information on how the system works.

Still you could be right it might be an eye opener for Peking too.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at June 20, 2006 5:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive

Yes, shooting down a Long-Dong would send signals about our anti-missles to anyone with satellites and signal-gathering capabilities. However, after our long series of tests of the BMD and Aegis systems, we can presume that the eavesdroppers already have data on them.

So why not take a shot at it? A hit would not only afflict the comfortable NoKos, but comfort all the afflicted countries who lie within 9200 miles of Pyongyang - as well as damp the quacking of the MSM to a few impotent squeaks. And a miss would be a fine incentive to immediately put some resources into improvements before there erupts a skyfull of Long-Dongs.

The above hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive at June 20, 2006 7:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Hmmm.... high stakes gambling with (potentially) Nuclear ICMBs. Not my kind of game...

But then any result (short of nuclear explosion, of course) could be used to our benefit. Hit the missile, flex a muscle. Decide to NOT hit the missile, play the 'secure enough to let it land in the sea' card. Miss the missile, and the terrorists could rely on a Missile strategy, and put less men/material towards terror cells. Okay, it's a long shot, but that's what we have diplomats for, right?

Bleah. In most cases I have all of the answers that our leaders need to make the world a perfect place. But in situations like this, I defer to the experts and thank the Benevolent God Above that John Kerry et al are not in the White House this year.

A big 'Thank You' to the voters as well... a bit close for comfort back in November 2004, but man am I glad you made the choices you did. *whew*

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at June 20, 2006 8:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: L'Supreemo

Press Conference, Tony Snow speaking:

"Their missile works. Our missile works. Any questions ?"

The above hissed in response by: L'Supreemo at June 20, 2006 9:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Linked from What if the U.S. tries to shoot down NK’s missile — and fails?

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at June 20, 2006 9:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: RRRoark

Why does anyone expect to know for sure what happens? Let's see:
********** fires his missle.
a. it malfunctions - we claim credit & he says malfunction
b. it completes mission (hope it's not armed) - he says we missed & we say we chose not to fire
c. we shoot it down - we claim credit & he says malfunction

Later actions will be the best guage of the truth.

[RRRoark, please don't use well-known slurs against Asians here. Thanks, the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: RRRoark at June 21, 2006 6:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: RRRoark

Let's see:

Missle is fired
1. It blows up in flight - we claim credit, they say malfunction
2. It completes mission (hopefully not armed) - we say "chose not to fire", they say we missed

We only find out the truth by analyzing subsequent actions. Probably the best indicator will be our own politicians. The ones screaming the loudest can be counted on to be lying.

The above hissed in response by: RRRoark at June 21, 2006 6:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

"Sometimes the best thing to do in a "no-win" situation is to give the box a vigorous shake and see how the pieces realign themselves."

Hmmm. That vigorous shake is usually called "war".

Still and all, I'm all in favor of twisting that nearsighted tiger's tail. Conflicts usually just get worse with avoidance.

If we do shoot it down, I hope to god it is the Aegis system that does the work. Then we have MOBILE ABM. I imagine the South Koreans and Japanese might be interested in a purchase.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at June 21, 2006 9:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

While the Chinese might decide to encourage the North Koreans to go ahead and shoot, if the shot gets the Chinese military a free look at a "real" test like this one, I agree that risk of a shot (after all- does anyone really know how good their guidance system is?) has to be weighed against the enormous relief a sense of relative security would bring to the Japanese and the Taiwanese, were we to succeed in shooting the darn thing into little pieces. Better watch out here Dafydd-- we might just get what you're hoping for, it almost makes so much sense for all concerned.

The above hissed in response by: MTF at June 21, 2006 9:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

I don't know about the South Koreans, but the Japanese already have our Aegis system on many of their ships.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 21, 2006 2:17 PM