Missiles Flying!

wars-why.jpg
 
What to do about the existing inventories in order to get them "modernised"?


What if North Korea used some Fake missiles first in order to consume as many THAAD as possible, before actually using Real ones? How has the US prepared for this possibility? I am just wondering/worrying!

8632c79c53c95a12b8389d2e54c63228
This 2015 photo shows a terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor being launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean. Picture: AFP/DOD


North Korea nuclear weapons: Is THAAD enough to protect the world?

IT’S the missile defence system designed to help South Korea and US military forces stationed on the Korean peninsula. But is it enough?

Debra Killaleanews.com.au@DebKillalea

news.com.au
April 27, 2017

http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...d/news-story/fc35f24ecda160c465a60014393b1436

IT’S the controversial missile defence system designed to help South Korea and US military forces stationed on the Korean peninsula.

But while the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence system (THAAD) can potentially shoot down a North Korean ballistic missile, it may not be enough protection against the military might North Korea showed off this week.

According to Brendan Thomas-Noone, a research fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, the THAAD is unlikely to defend Seoul against dozens of missiles fired from the sea which Pyongyang has been working on.

Mr Noone, an expert in nuclear deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, told news.com.au the THAAD adds a level of uncertainty for the North Korean regime.

It also deters North Korea from firing one or two missiles from a certain direction towards South Korea.
 
What if North Korea used some Fake missiles first in order to consume as many THAAD as possible, before actually using Real ones? How has the US prepared for this possibility? I am just wondering/worrying!

This 2015 photo shows a terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor being launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean. Picture: AFP/DOD

That is a good question....but it wouldn't be a smart thing for them to do.
Because the results would be the same.
Massive retaliation on Kim Jung Un's house and nuclear missile site.

If someone robs a 7-11 with a fake gun or a banana, it's still armed robbery and it's still 10 years in prison.

We don't need permission to bomb them, we have been at war since 1950, it's just been a ceasefire since 1953.
 
What if North Korea used some Fake missiles first in order to consume as many THAAD as possible, before actually using Real ones? How has the US prepared for this possibility? I am just wondering/worrying!

8632c79c53c95a12b8389d2e54c63228
This 2015 photo shows a terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor being launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean. Picture: AFP/DOD

The point is how about if North Korea sent unlimited number of Fake ones (or 10:1, 20:1, 30:1 fake:real ratio) first until ensuring no more THAAD is operational due to the US would probably have just limited number stationed in South Korea. Just too expensive per each in reality!

Then the real ones will be fired afterwards, targeting South Korea, Japan, Australia, any US territories, etc.

Most likely Kim will be definitely hiding, under protection and safe.

BTW, did the US win last war(s)?
 
Last edited:
BTW, did the US win last war?


The Korean War from 1950-1953?

We had it won for a while. The Communists had been completely routed from the peninsula and many of them fled to China. MacArthur wanted to pursue them into China......that probably would not have been a good idea.

Then, those rascally commies from Mao Tse Tung's army moved south and flooded North Korea like roaches looking for a free lunch and we got pushed back to the DMZ.

Yes, it was won by us until the Red Chinese interfered.
 
The US now would have to know/trace where the North Korea's Subs, that could be used for planting sleeping mines, are every day - without sleeping!

The mines (hopefully not nukes) once planted could be anywhere reasonably near/close to the US' coastline.



https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...ike-u-s-aircraft-carrier.308897/#post-4447178
I don't agree. They have ballistic missiles. They have fairly advanced subs. They have nuclear weapons. They probably get sat intell from china or are able to hack it.

They could plant sleeping mines that are acoustically triggered. For all we know they have long range acoustic tracking torpedoes and sub-launched cruise missiles.

I know a carrier group will be protected by cruisers with sophisticated missile defense systems but they are not foolproof and can be overwhelmed by a volley of missiles. If they managed to somehow lob a nuke in the vicinity of the carrier task force, you can wipe them all off the board.

I don't know how to measure the threat, but it is not insignificant.
 
All that artillery. All those missiles. About one million soldiers.

All worthless if they never receive their commands. You can bet the USA would vaporize virtually all of the command and control infrastructure in the first moment of any engagement. Unless they are issuing commands via smoke signals it would be very difficult for the Norks to engage.
 

McCain: Attack North Korea once it points nukes at US

by Pete Kasperowicz | Apr 27, 2017,

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...ea-once-it-points-nukes-at-us/article/2621431

"When I say last option, that is when we are convinced that North Korea has that capability to launch a missile that could strike, with a nuclear weapon, the West Coast of the United States," he added.

When pressed, McCain said he would recommend that the U.S. attack North Korea once it is sure that country had a nuclear-armed missile pointed at the U.S.

"If it were up to me ... I would probably say a missile on the launch pad that we knew for sure had a nuclear weapon on it," he said.

"I don't think we could wait til launch," he added. "We do have defensive capabilities that can intercept missiles, but to count on that alone I think would be very risky business."
 
Back
Top