-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
South Korea expects North to launch ICBM on Saturday; Protests at US THAAD deployment
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
So basically people just want NK to be allowed to provoke and any attempt to build defenses against this are looked upon as destabilizing the region?
Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.
Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.
THAAD shoots down short and medium range missiles. So NK test launches an ICBM that THAAD cannot shoot down.
SuperBanana
Banned
How is THADD an environmental and health problem? I thought it was just a radar and mobile missile launchers.
The big problem with that is if the THAAD system misses, it reveals to NK it's a paper tiger and they not only take it as provocation, but they are also emboldened as they've seen the THAAD system is unreliable.
At first, such systems seems like a good idea. I mean, you wouldn't want to be completely defenseless, right? Citings things such as health problems are also ridiculous compared to the environmental and health impact if a missile hits target.
The main problem other governments (like China) have with THAAD is that it relies on sophisticated detection techniques to detect the incoming missiles. But since the system is 24 hours a day operational, this makes it a prime espionage system that can track any military movement and possibly intercept communication in the neighbouring countries.
And another problem with THAAD is the reliability. The chance of actually succesfully disarming a missile in flight is like 50%. The most recent tests were succesful yes, but there were even more insuccesful tests before that and nobody actually really knows what the real reliability is outside a controlled test environment. NK could still launch four missiles and THAAD could let one or two through. Thus the real question is, does it still matter that you have it? Main opponents of THAAD just really advocate for the peaceful option, that is to prevent the launch of a missile whatsoever. The deployment of these systems can be seen as provocative and gives an opportunity to NK to want to 'test' these systems. So it's not really as easy as deploy this and we're safe from harm.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Hmm, this will be interesting as I'm flying up to Sapporo on Saturday.
TrueDefault
Member
Shit. How did they come up with September 9 tho? NK spies?
IIRC its a holiday in NK
shira
Member
Horrible timing so close to 911 and Irma
I'm not convinced either way on THAAD. I get the arguments against it, but at the same time I still feel like you'd want some sort of missile defense with NK right there. Hoping for no launch, or a dud launch, or a no-harm launch. It stopped being funny a long time ago.
9/11 was 16 years ago? And there's natural disasters all the time somewhere on the planet?
9/11 was 16 years ago? And there's natural disasters all the time somewhere on the planet?
If this happens it has 0% to do with propaganda, and 100% to do with US belligerence/aggressiveness. South Korea doesn't have this chummy 'we love China' mentality and certainly want to keep them at arm's length. But they are at least invested in avoiding a massive body count in the region. The US uses n. Korea to play political games, as a version of political terrorism on the fearful. Everyone knows the US is in no danger from N. Korea, everyone knows they have no intention of actually first striking anyone. Any escalation is purely theater of fear, and this sort of idiocy is why they are moving towards China.
How can THAAD "possibly intercept communications in neighboring countries"?
THAAD cannot "track any military movement" in China or anywhere. THAAD has no ground detection ability and very limited low airspace detection ability. The only increased tracking that THAAD provides with respect to China is the detection of Chinese ballistic missile launches marginally sooner than existing and more distantly deployed radars already can.
THAAD does not have a ~50% success rate in tests--that's GMD. THAAD has a 100% success rate across 14 tests.
Hitlersaurus Christ
Banned
I can understand the protests. THAAD might protect them, but its presence definitely increases the chance of an attack by the North.
dragonelite
Member
When you come at a point to choose which hegemon you want to Ally with then going with the upcoming regional hegemon is the smarter choice. You already see it with the Philippines.
Personally I think China is in its Monroe doctrine time period and trying to eject the USA out of Asia slowly. The south China sea can be seen as the Caribbean of the China.
Wow that's a really terrible reason to oppose this.
Sure you can argue whether it's effective or an escalation etc, but a few people complaining about being inconvenienced by a system designed to save millions of (other people's) lives is just kind of disgusting.
No idea if THAAD is the right answer or not, sounds necessary from my very limited knowledge.
butzopower
proud of his butz
Don't worry guys, nothing to see here, this happens allllll the time.
Perhaps the nations that have had to actually live in proximity to NK's conventional and nuclear weapons should have some say over a Republican US government. NK pursues nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime change, the rhetoric and actions of hawks within the US government only escalates NK's justifications.
No, THAAD isn't designed for ICBMs, which travel much faster than the missiles that THAAD is designed to intercept.
I thought so?
No. GMD is the system designed for intercepting ICBMs, and it has a much lower success rate than THAAD.
Possibly in the initial boost phase, before it goes ballistic?
It's the opposite. The T in THAAD is for Terminal, so it's designed to be the last ditch attempt to shoot down missiles before they land.
llien
Member
The whole "don't provoke NK" talks, when NK is boasting it made hydrogen bomb that it can mount on a missile, while launching missiles left and right, is weird.
It's hard to see how presence of missiles that can stop the attack increase likelihood of the attack.
If anything, there should be new anti-missile systems surrounding NK and shooting down any missiles flying out.
It's hard to see how presence of missiles that can stop the attack increase likelihood of the attack.
If anything, there should be new anti-missile systems surrounding NK and shooting down any missiles flying out.
THAAD isnt designed to intercept ICBMs.
You could of course get lucky but its range is too limited to effectively intercept ICBMs on a regular basis.
Its designed for short to midrange missiles (like scuds).
How are they more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs?
I disagree. I don't think it's a particularly compelling deterrent, but it doesn't need to be.
North Korea knows that if it attacks Japan, Guam, Seoul, etc... that its military and leadership will be destroyed. It would literally be a suicide mission for them. Those that believe North Korea to be irrational mustache twirling villains (as opposed to somewhat rationale villains) think that will happen. Personally I don't. They want to develop nuclear weapons so that they further deter others from attacking them, not so they can preemptively start a war they're destined to lose.
If you were Kim Jong Un, after all, would your goal be to:
Inflict heavy casualties on Japan, Guam or Seoul knowing that it'll be the last thing you do
or
Continue to live comfortably with less risk of being attacked as nuclear powers are virtually never attacked?
I think the latter answer is much more likely than the former.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
South Korea has been living under the scopes of N.Korea just fine for however long. I think what they see in THAAD is unstable dick waving that may escalate and create the situation they don't want.
I know if the US was South Korea it would be a Warzone already, because of exceptionalism. But some countries are willing to live and let live.
I know if the US was South Korea it would be a Warzone already, because of exceptionalism. But some countries are willing to live and let live.
It's right there in the op
The problem is the threat not the deterrent but they don't see it that way because they support NK.
FreedomFighter
Member
South Koreans don't want THAAD and US should respect their wishes.
That's what the US says, yes. But countries like China just fear that it can do more than what the US claim. I'm not saying China is right, but that's a big reason why countries like them oppose the full-scale deployment and has to be taken into account into geopolitical discussions. Link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...deterring-north-korea/?utm_term=.9746171b743e
And seems like I confused to the two systems, sorry for that. Looks like the track record is positive, but I still think it would be better for everyone if it doesn't need be put under a true test. And the threat for ICBM still remains, especially if they carry a nuclear warhead, where even if the missile could get intercepted but the warhead still detonated could pose dangerous environmental impact.
Sure, that's what it's designed for.
What I meant, though, was that initial boost is going to be the only time when a hypothetical ICBM is going to be A: Within THAAD's engagement envelope, B: At a speed that it could potentially cope with, and C: Not actively MIRVing.
I have the impression that to SK thinks is fine as long NK can nuke Japan, it would be very happy with the result.
llien
Member
That's fair and all, but in free societies there are groups protesting against pretty much anything, so it's up to South Korean government to have final say.
They don't perceive NK as much a threat (it doesn't target them).
On the other hand, USA increasing its anti-missile capacities lessens their own means to hit USA.
Russia has about 1000 ICBMs.
China has estimated 45-65 ICBMs.
US plans to deploy 14 GMD interceptors. (this has nothing to do with THAAD though)
Scariest stuff that Russia is possessing (or still constructing, along with submarines that could carry them) is Cobalt-59 (to turn 60) based nuclear torpedo, that would create 500m high Tsunami and contaminate wide area on an enemy coast. Expected to have range of 10'000km and travel at speed of 100km/h.
The idea of such weapon is attributed to Sakharov, who actually suggested building a ship with Cobalt-59 hull and positioning them close to New York and the likes. In case of war, nuclear bomb explosion inside the ship would create highly radioactive Cobalt-60 (it's half life is relatively short, 5.5 years)
THAAD isn't a deterrent against ICBMs, so it's deployment only encourages NK to focus on ICBMs.
Your quote also doesn't indicate why it shows they think it is more important than NK building nukes and ICBMs.
If it misses it no longer matters since NK has just attacked someone and are now done.
Yes, it can be attempted both in the boost phase and the terminal phase, although as others say it's designed for slower/shorter range missiles primarily.
North Korea is many years away from MIRVs, so that's likely not something they're worried about at this point with them.
Unrelated:
The majority of South Koreans polled a year ago were in favor of THAAD deployment.
This has some good information for those looking to read up on the subject:
http://isdp.eu/publication/korea-thaad/
EYEL1NER
Member
Yep. That would totally be a 1:1 situation to what is currently going on.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
your referring to the USs icmb interceptors GMD, not THAAD which only does short, medium and intermediate missiles (theater range)
THAAD is much more reliable than GMDs midcourse interception as it attacks the missile in the terminal defense. All recent thaad tests have been successful even when the military tested missiles when it did not know they were coming (something they've not tested GMDs on I believe.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
it is the last phase but terminal defense isn't really "last ditch" it's actually easier to hit it in terminal than midcourse. Hitting it in the boosted phase would be easiest but they would require being close to launch. Though I imagine that's an area, especially with NKs ability the US will focus on developing. I expect trump to restart bushs laser, booster phase defense program
NYCmetsfan
Banned
But all and all it seems NK knows it will freeze it's program soon and is really trying to get its program to a point where it can freeze with an already proven and reliable ICBM that can hit the US. That gives it a ton of leverage to negotiate a better deal for itself.
I'm sure at this point a freeze would not be good enough to get anything. It would have to include dismantling.
llien
Member
US stopped it when a much more serious enemy with ICBMs that could not be intercepted tried it, why would it lead to "crying" this time?