Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Space Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: DPRK launches its rocket.
Herald12345    4/4/2009 11:39:44 PM
No further firm data. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
EvilFishy       4/5/2009 7:05:31 PM

Warping, I was under the impression the hunk of junk splashed down in the Pacific. Where these reports inaccurate?

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    White Elephant   4/5/2009 7:11:31 PM
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/white_elephant_media/WhiteElephantLogo3x3Highlighted.jpg" width="350" height="350" alt="" />
 
I'm not sure everybody appreciates this but lets take a cursory look at this in the temporal sense. Why might no not be inclined to support an intercept attempt if I'm the USA or Japan?


#1, it could potentially destabilize the North Korean government unless they act out on their word to retaliate if we shoot it down. That could lead to a violent clash or full scale war that right now, the USA isn't in the best position to fight. We are supporting to major wars with OIF/OEF. I mean people are actually debating on whether or not a few additional C-17 sorties are "straining" the USAF airlift capability. In otherwords, by retaliating for a shootdown, the North could put us in a position of disadvantage. Not that I don't think we couldn't ultimately defeat them. But it would be really difficult if push came to shove to shift resources and assets to Korea either to fight a war or even as a show of force.


#2, We are in a huge economic crisis that has the attention of the rest of the world. A conflict or major internation incident with North Korea right now is probably not in our interest as the political opponents of the G-20 leaders could claim that this is a distraction from what should be a primary concern. This is important because it is a POTUS or any foreign leaders job to remain popular enough to move forward with an agenda. We really don't need a distraction like that if avoidable.


#3, We knew very shortly after launch that there was no danger to our homelands. Also, the North Koreans could legitimately claim that we attacked a peaceful satellite launch which would take some of the steam out of building the kind of coalition necessary to retaliate if the North escalates.


#4, A big issue that the POTUS is currently dealing with right now, is the issue of BMD with the Russians who have made such technologies a a key issue in negotiating our differences. A live shoot down could frighted them such that the Russians themselves react in ways that make our operations in Central Asia and Europe very unpleasant. 


Again, I'm not saying I would not have liked to see it blasted out of the sky. But I think these considerations suggest that for now, that would not be the best option.


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    White Elephant   4/5/2009 7:11:37 PM
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb159/white_elephant_media/WhiteElephantLogo3x3Highlighted.jpg" width="350" height="350" alt="" />
 
I'm not sure everybody appreciates this but lets take a cursory look at this in the temporal sense. Why might no not be inclined to support an intercept attempt if I'm the USA or Japan?


#1, it could potentially destabilize the North Korean government unless they act out on their word to retaliate if we shoot it down. That could lead to a violent clash or full scale war that right now, the USA isn't in the best position to fight. We are supporting to major wars with OIF/OEF. I mean people are actually debating on whether or not a few additional C-17 sorties are "straining" the USAF airlift capability. In otherwords, by retaliating for a shootdown, the North could put us in a position of disadvantage. Not that I don't think we couldn't ultimately defeat them. But it would be really difficult if push came to shove to shift resources and assets to Korea either to fight a war or even as a show of force.


#2, We are in a huge economic crisis that has the attention of the rest of the world. A conflict or major internation incident with North Korea right now is probably not in our interest as the political opponents of the G-20 leaders could claim that this is a distraction from what should be a primary concern. This is important because it is a POTUS or any foreign leaders job to remain popular enough to move forward with an agenda. We really don't need a distraction like that if avoidable.


#3, We knew very shortly after launch that there was no danger to our homelands. Also, the North Koreans could legitimately claim that we attacked a peaceful satellite launch which would take some of the steam out of building the kind of coalition necessary to retaliate if the North escalates.


#4, A big issue that the POTUS is currently dealing with right now, is the issue of BMD with the Russians who have made such technologies a a key issue in negotiating our differences. A live shoot down could frighted them such that the Russians themselves react in ways that make our operations in Central Asia and Europe very unpleasant. 


Again, I'm not saying I would not have liked to see it blasted out of the sky. But I think these considerations suggest that for now, that would not be the best option.


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Speculations are not supportged by data.   4/5/2009 7:28:10 PM
If any of those suppositions had the faintest bit of substance, then ignoring the event would be the correct counter. Instead, the interregnumist went out of his way to draw attention to it, so far as to give this ridiculous speech at 4 AM EST this date.
 
 
The statement the interregnumist gave was, vapid, foolish, and meaningless in the context of the event, so why bother?
 
He wanted to use the event in this news cycle to distract from something else, like his mounting current domestic and foreign failures. .   
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/5/2009 7:37:41 PM

If any of those suppositions had the faintest bit of substance, then ignoring the event would be the correct counter. Instead, the interregnumist went out of his way to draw attention to it, so far as to give this ridiculous speech at 4 AM EST this date.

 


 

The statement the interregnumist gave was, vapid, foolish, and meaningless in the context of the event, so why bother?

He wanted to use the event in this news cycle to distract from something else, like his mounting current domestic and foreign failures. .   


 

Herald


Nothing I said was speculation in the least. They are FACTS which have to be considered. Moreover, I'm not going to respond to politically inspired emotional post. If you think something the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES said was "foolish", then try to add a bit of analysis to support that so we don't waste a lot of time arguing points of view rather than data. 

It's really difficult to discuss any of this with some of you because you have so much hatred for the man that you do not respect the position enough to discuss the actions taken objectively.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Deconstruction:   4/5/2009 7:58:45 PM


 
I'm not sure everybody appreciates this but lets take a cursory look at this in the temporal sense. Why might no not be inclined to support an intercept attempt if I'm the USA or Japan?

Meaning that we begin to speculate;.

#1, it could potentially destabilize the North Korean government unless they act out on their word to retaliate if we shoot it down. That could lead to a violent clash or full scale war that right now, the USA isn't in the best position to fight. We are supporting to major wars with OIF/OEF. I mean people are actually debating on whether or not a few additional C-17 sorties are "straining" the USAF airlift capability. In otherwords, by retaliating for a shootdown, the North could put us in a position of disadvantage. Not that I don't think we couldn't ultimately defeat them. But it would be really difficult if push came to shove to shift resources and assets to Korea either to fight a war or even as a show of force.


Where is the data that indicates the DPRK would initiate hostilities if the rocket was destroyed?: Where is the war reserve? What capabilities do they posess that would not result in regime suicide? Where os the proof that KJI wants to commit suicide?  And how does a few C-17 sorties affect forces and stocks already in place? I want to hear how that logistics nonsense statement is explained.

#2, We are in a huge economic crisis that has the attention of the rest of the world. A conflict or major internation incident with North Korea right now is probably not in our interest as the political opponents of the G-20 leaders could claim that this is a distraction from what should be a primary concern. This is important because it is a POTUS or any foreign leaders job to remain popular enough to move forward with an agenda. We really don't need a distraction like that if avoidable.

Then why did the interregnimist exploit the distraction at all? Circular logic does not prove an assertion. He gave a political speech to a Czech audience to rabble rouse over it-instead of just sending a demarche' to address it.

#3, We knew very shortly after launch that there was no danger to our homelands. Also, the North Koreans could legitimately claim that we attacked a peaceful satellite launch which would take some of the steam out of building the kind of coalition necessary to retaliate if the North escalates.
 
You know nothing of the kind. As I remarked earlier (for those of you paying attention  the foirst stage fell short of Japan by less than 100 kilometers.).the difference between a fall in the ocean and an impact event on Jaoanese soil was less than eight seconds burn. That is something we in the business refer to as a fact, as opposed to an opinion. 

#4, A big issue that the POTUS is currently dealing with right now, is the issue of BM
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Deconstruction II:   4/5/2009 8:10:51 PM
Nothing I said was speculation in the least. They are FACTS which have to be considered. Moreover, I'm not going to respond to politically inspired emotional post. If you think something the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES said was "foolish", then try to add a bit of analysis to support that so we don't waste a lot of time arguing points of view rather than data. 
 
Assertion is claiming something as fact and then failing to sustain a chain of proof to establish the assertion as true.
 
Relying on the UN and the world community to give words meaning is just stupid to the point of insanity after an EW battle  in the Sea of  against the PRCs which we just barely won^1, don't you think? 

It's really difficult to discuss any of this with some of you because you have so much hatred for the man that you do not respect the position enough to discuss the actions taken objectively.
I don't hate.  That is a waste of time. I just recognize plain incompetence in our interregnumist and political Maskirovka to mask it, when I see it.
 
^1 We lost the EW battle in the 2006. We were snookered by Russian style radar masking of the rockets when the DPRK pulled this stunt the first time. That took POWER and the resources of a great nation state to pull off. The PRCs were the ones who supplied both THEN. 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Buggy board.   4/5/2009 8:20:10 PM
What happened to Sea of Japan? I type it out and the word disappears?
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/5/2009 8:31:48 PM

Herald, do you think Obama is using this as a distraction for things he is doing or things he is about to do?

I know the question is horrifically vague but I have to wonder.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Shrug.   4/5/2009 8:59:19 PM
He has to kill the following in this news cycle:
 
1. The rebuke he got from Merkel and Sarkozy over his proposal to get them to superheat their economies like he did ours.
2. The lingering gaffes from his protocol mistakes starting with Merkel, then Brown, then the Queen, then Sarkozy's wife who disrespected him in front of the world, to this last gaffe he made with that fat Saudi thug, and then he has the bank revolt;
 
 
3. and some weird legislation that is worming through Congress as I write this;
 
 
plus dozens of other catastrophes and mistakes that he is busy setting up or committing too numerous for me to track.

But that is off topic. He is simply making noises about this incident to sound tough without really doing anything constructive to address the problem. We aren't powerless here. we can squeeze the DPRKs in ways that will hurt that doesn't require us to bray like a jackass, or put us on a collision course to international confrontation.
 
That demarche' (letter of eniumerated consequences as a result of disapproved international law violation action) would have been a good quiet start.
 
US sanctions can be tightened by simply using the US machinery we have. No one else need be involved or consulted in this: Banking restriuctions,. currency controls, right up to economic trade blockade and even putting KJI on the FBI most wanted list as a wanted counterfeiter and drug pusher are options just off the top of my head. You just have be imaginative and cause massive loss of KJI face so that it becomes profitable to someone to KILL HIM. KJI is stupid; but he is not so stupid that he'll be a scjhill of it means that he winds up dead.  
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics