Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    North Korean officials have apologised for launching their Musodong missile at downtown Tokyo... apparently they misheard Mr Kim say

    "It is time for lunch"



    :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    I find it questionable (rude?) that a Secretary of State is meeting the President of China - surely, the POTUS should be meeting the Chinese President? :confused:
    I think because he visited him it tends to make it alright. Had the president of China gone to the States and not been met by Obama you might have issues. Clearly China is fine with it though or they would not have allowed the meeting
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think because she visited him it tends to make it alright. Had the president of China gone to the States and not been met by Obama you might have issues. Clearly China is fine with it though or they would not have allowed the meeting
    I think you meant he?

    I just think that it should be more about projecting an image rather than being pedantic - i.e. some would feel like the POTUS isn't taking things seriously. Or maybe they don't NK is much of a threat?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    I think you meant he?

    I just think that it should be more about projecting an image rather than being pedantic - i.e. some would feel like the POTUS isn't taking things seriously. Or maybe they don't NK is much of a threat?
    Nothing more than standard practise. When Leaders go over it becomes a State visit and basically just tourism, when Secretaries of State/Foreign Secretaries/whatever their title go over it's more about the issues. We do exactly the same thing and have done for a long time. Nothing to see here, move on.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Nothing more than standard practise. When Leaders go over it becomes a State visit and basically just tourism, when Secretaries of State/Foreign Secretaries/whatever their title go over it's more about the issues. We do exactly the same thing and have done for a long time. Nothing to see here, move on.
    I'm just saying...

    It's akin to a division manager of one company meeting the CEO of another, whilst the CEO of the former company stays at home and....plays golf? :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    I think you meant he?

    I just think that it should be more about projecting an image rather than being pedantic - i.e. some would feel like the POTUS isn't taking things seriously. Or maybe they don't NK is much of a threat?
    A state visit to China by Obama would have been a hell of a lot of hassle for both sides though. And yeah I'm still thinking it's clinton not Kerry
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    When and how do you think North Korea will be liberated? Do you think anytime soon or will it take many of years?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luckylaurax)
    When and how do you think North Korea will be liberated? Do you think anytime soon or will it take many of years?
    If China or the United States do not put extreme pressure on North Korea (possibly even through military means) or seek to solve this maturely, then NK will continue in the same vein it has been in and will also be potentially more dangerous and powerful (especially when it is a full nuclear power). North Korea, when it is a full nuclear power, may in the future even seek to use its improved nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the US or South Korea to invade SK (if SK hasn't gotten nukes by then).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    If China or the United States do not put extreme pressure on North Korea (possibly even through military means) or seek to solve this maturely, then NK will continue in the same vein it has been in and will also be potentially more dangerous and powerful (especially when it is a full nuclear power). North Korea, when it is a full nuclear power, may in the future even seek to use its improved nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the US or South Korea to invade SK (if SK hasn't gotten nukes by then).
    The United States and Russia didn't go through the whole Cold War without developing anti nuclear technology you know. They would need a very large amount of nuclear missiles to hit the US or Japan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luckylaurax)
    When and how do you think North Korea will be liberated? Do you think anytime soon or will it take many of years?
    I'd guess it will come internally.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luckylaurax)
    When and how do you think North Korea will be liberated? Do you think anytime soon or will it take many of years?
    They have taken virtually every possible measure to establish a stable equilibrium in international relations so that their regime persists. Their recent belligerence may well have upset that equilibrium, but if they gain nuclear capable missiles, equilibrium will be re-established with strategic balance in their favour.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The United States and Russia didn't go through the whole Cold War without developing anti nuclear technology you know. They would need a very large amount of nuclear missiles to hit the US or Japan.
    You'd be surprised... While Russia has long since had ABM batteries located around Moscow the US has only really gotten into the game since the 90/91 Gulf War and re-programming the Patriot missile system. Knocking out an incoming ballistic missile is incredibly difficult and certainly not something to be just assumed will happen, no matter what the defences set up in front of it are.

    To give you some idea of the scale of the issue, imagine the following scenario;
    You're in London and an object the size of a dart (standard pub-type dart) is thrown at you from Edinburgh. This dart is travelling fast enough that it will cover that 400mile distance in around 2 minutes. When that dart is at the tip of it's ballistic arc and heading back down towards you it's travelling at around 10 times the speed of sound. You are then using an object about half the size of a standard pin (half the length and half the diameter) to attempt to knock it out of the sky. Not only does your pin have to travel equally as fast, but it has to engage the incoming object almost precisely head on and compute all this when the closing speed between the two objects is roughly 20 times the speed of sound. Or about 15-18,000mph. Sure, you might shoot 5 or 6 pins to be extra hopeful of a hit, but the odds are astronomical.

    By far the better hope is to not have the dart thrown at you in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You'd be surprised... While Russia has long since had ABM batteries located around Moscow the US has only really gotten into the game since the 90/91 Gulf War and re-programming the Patriot missile system. Knocking out an incoming ballistic missile is incredibly difficult and certainly not something to be just assumed will happen, no matter what the defences set up in front of it are.

    To give you some idea of the scale of the issue, imagine the following scenario;
    You're in London and an object the size of a dart (standard pub-type dart) is thrown at you from Edinburgh. This dart is travelling fast enough that it will cover that 400mile distance in around 2 minutes. When that dart is at the tip of it's ballistic arc and heading back down towards you it's travelling at around 10 times the speed of sound. You are then using an object about half the size of a standard pin (half the length and half the diameter) to attempt to knock it out of the sky. Not only does your pin have to travel equally as fast, but it has to engage the incoming object almost precisely head on and compute all this when the closing speed between the two objects is roughly 20 times the speed of sound. Or about 15-18,000mph. Sure, you might shoot 5 or 6 pins to be extra hopeful of a hit, but the odds are astronomical.

    By far the better hope is to not have the dart thrown at you in the first place.
    You'd be surprised, evidence shows that Israel was able to knock out SCUD missles with patriot batterys. This was many years ago, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the United States does not have the capability to knock down a ballistic missile, given the evidence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    You'd be surprised, evidence shows that Israel was able to knock out SCUD missles with patriot batterys. This was many years ago, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the United States does not have the capability to knock down a ballistic missile, given the evidence.
    ICBMs travel at about 4km per second on re-entry, a maximum speed of approx Mach25. The Scud systems topped out at about Mach5. That's a colossal difference.

    While systems have improved in the meantime, it is still not accurate to say it's an easy fix. Sure, if everything went exactly according to the best case scenario for such things, a US Patriot from an AEGIS-class radar would take one out. But in this case those perfect conditions are not something to be guaranteed. Tracking them is not an issue these days, but hitting them is still not easy. And then you've got to wonder whether or not they will reliably destroy any inbound. An successful engagement would at best guarantee a huge area of ground would be showered with heavily radioactive shrapnel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    ICBMs travel at about 4km per second on re-entry, a maximum speed of approx Mach25. The Scud systems topped out at about Mach5. That's a colossal difference.

    While systems have improved in the meantime, it is still not accurate to say it's an easy fix. Sure, if everything went exactly according to the best case scenario for such things, a US Patriot from an AEGIS-class radar would take one out. But in this case those perfect conditions are not something to be guaranteed. Tracking them is not an issue these days, but hitting them is still not easy. And then you've got to wonder whether or not they will reliably destroy any inbound. An successful engagement would at best guarantee a huge area of ground would be showered with heavily radioactive shrapnel.
    NK does not have ICBMs, NK does not have missiles that travel anywhere near Mach 25
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    ICBMs travel at about 4km per second on re-entry, a maximum speed of approx Mach25. The Scud systems topped out at about Mach5. That's a colossal difference.

    While systems have improved in the meantime, it is still not accurate to say it's an easy fix. Sure, if everything went exactly according to the best case scenario for such things, a US Patriot from an AEGIS-class radar would take one out. But in this case those perfect conditions are not something to be guaranteed. Tracking them is not an issue these days, but hitting them is still not easy. And then you've got to wonder whether or not they will reliably destroy any inbound. An successful engagement would at best guarantee a huge area of ground would be showered with heavily radioactive shrapnel.
    I'm sure hitting MIRVs is an exercise in almost unachievable precision, but I always assumed the goal would be to take out the missile during the boost or mid-phase.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure this contains a spelling error, but...

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    NK does not have ICBMs, NK does not have missiles that travel anywhere near Mach 25
    The estimated range of the Musudan is only just shy of the range typified by ICBMs and would be the prime candidate for any successfully engineered warhead that they may or may not be capable of making. It is prudent to work on the worst case scenario.

    In the meantime, suggesting it is simple to take out such missiles - whether long or short range - is churlish. It is an oversimplification of a very tricky problem. While people are confident they can engage and eliminate anything coming in, that's a very different prospect to being 'certain' of successful interception. And it still doesn't negate the fact even in the event of a successful interception you'd have many fragments of possibly radioactive missile falling on your head.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I'm sure hitting MIRVs is an exercise in almost unachievable precision, but I always assumed the goal would be to take out the missile during the boost or mid-phase.
    In an ideal world, yes, but these systems had always been based on taking out a Chinese or Russian style missile; where they will be launched from thousands of miles away and getting in close wasn't an option. So they are very much based on the engagement during re-entry phase.
    With smaller Scud-type missiles this isn't that tricky [still not simple, though it is at least something they've had practise at], but obviously gets harder when it's MIRVs, decoys, etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    In an ideal world, yes, but these systems had always been based on taking out a Chinese or Russian style missile; where they will be launched from thousands of miles away and getting in close wasn't an option. So they are very much based on the engagement during re-entry phase.
    With smaller Scud-type missiles this isn't that tricky [still not simple, though it is at least something they've had practise at], but obviously gets harder when it's MIRVs, decoys, etc.
    I see. That explains why the US are acting as though a north korean missile is so much of a bad scenario.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2013
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.