Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Obama reverses course, expands US missile shield

  1. #1
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,797

    Default Obama reverses course, expands US missile shield

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...hreat-sources/

    The Pentagon is beefing up the nationís missile defense in the wake of provocative nuclear threats from North Korea and is set to deploy 14 additional ground-based interceptors at missile silos in Alaska and California, congressional and U.S. officials tell Fox News.


    The extra interceptors on the West Coast, designed to counter attacks from an intercontinental ballistic missile, would bring the total number of interceptors to 44, a plan originally proposed by the Bush administration. President Obama stopped the deployment of the additional interceptors when he took office in 2009, leaving the total number at 30.
    Related hypothetical: Would a failed attempt at a nuclear first strike on the United States by North Korea be grounds for nuclear retaliation by the United States?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post

    Related hypothetical: Would a failed attempt at a nuclear first strike on the United States by North Korea be grounds for nuclear retaliation by the United States?

    i would absolutely think so. whether that step is necessary is another question - no wants wants to actually _nuke_ the poor buggers i don't think. but whether or not a nuclear attack is successful is probably irrelevant to the response.

  3. #3
    Platinum Member Rattfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In a knife fight with a gypsy...
    Posts
    13,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post
    Related hypothetical: Would a failed attempt at a nuclear first strike on the United States by North Korea be grounds for nuclear retaliation by the United States?
    Yes. I don't like working in assumptions. Especially like "I assume they won't try again," or "I assume no one else will try if we do nothing in response."

  4. #4
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    45
    Posts
    15,351

    Default

    Well it would certainly be grounds for war. And not just a couple of airstrikes, but rather war until unconditional surrender. But nuking them back? Not sure on that one. Legally I'm fairly sure it would be in the clear.

  5. #5
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Leading maxima10 around by the nose.
    Posts
    23,809

    Default

    Interesting. 44 was but one of the numbers tossed out. At one time there were to be 3 x 20 in Alaska and 4 (or more) in California. They kicked around the idea of some on the East Coast as well.

  6. #6
    Member The Blues Brother - Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    I don't need to listen to no jive preacher.
    Age
    63
    Posts
    556

    Default

    If someone shots at you with a gun and misses can you legally shoot back?

    Don't think about it NK. Don't even think about it. We might shoot back.

  7. #7
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Leading maxima10 around by the nose.
    Posts
    23,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blues Brother - Jake View Post
    If someone shots at you with a gun and misses can you legally shoot back?

    Don't think about it NK. Don't even think about it. We might shoot back.
    The funny thing is a few years ago you had people scoffing at the notion of the scenario that's playing out right now.

  8. #8
    Member Laptop Hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Along the shores of the Sound
    Posts
    318

    Default

    From their 2013 budget:

    FY 2013 Plans[FONT=sans-serif]: [/FONT]
    [FONT=sans-serif]In the area of homeland defense in FY 2013, MDA intends to[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif][/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Maintain 30[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif]GBIs [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]and continue GBI F[/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]leet Upgrade program[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Deliver 5 operational GBIs[/FONT]

    C[FONT=sans-serif]ontinue sustainment and operations of GBI missile fields: 38 total GBI silos (34 at Fort [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]Greely, 4 at Vandenberg AFB)[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Initiate manufacturing of five additional GBIs for enhanced testing, stockpile [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]reliability, and [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]spares for a total of 57 GBIs[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Continue [/FONT]i[FONT=sans-serif]nterceptor and [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]g[/FONT]r[FONT=sans-serif]ound [/FONT]s[FONT=sans-serif]ystems software builds[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Initiate[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif]Fort Drum[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif]IDT[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif]construction[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Operate and maintain two forward[/FONT] [FONT=sans-serif]based AN/TPY[/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]2 radars (Shariki, Japan and Site K, [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]Turkey)[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Continue upgrade of Clear [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]Early Warning Radar in Alaska to a UEWR by 2016[/FONT]

    [FONT=sans-serif]Place the SBX in [/FONT][FONT=sans-serif]a limited test and contingency operations status
    [/FONT]

  9. #9
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor View Post
    Related hypothetical: Would a failed attempt at a nuclear first strike on the United States by North Korea be grounds for nuclear retaliation by the United States?
    There's a decent chance a retaliatory strike would be underway before the the outcome of an NK strike were known, depending on the circumstances of the attack.

  10. #10
    Ramblin Wreck. Spartan10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Metz, France
    Age
    27
    Posts
    7,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rattfink View Post
    Yes. I don't like working in assumptions. Especially like "I assume they won't try again," or "I assume no one else will try if we do nothing in response."
    Yeah, we'd pretty much have to hit them with something in order to maintain a credible deterrence. Otherwise our nuclear deterrence would be seen as a lie, and our bluff would be called again in the future.

  11. #11

    Default

    Well, the notion of a "failed nuclear attack" would indicate that they fired a missile...and it failed. I believe in most circumstances, the second one was airborne we'd begin the process of firing on them. Basically we wouldn't be waiting around to see if they succeeded/failed.

    If they did swing it fast enough and we killed it before firing our own in retaliation, I agree a state of war would immediately exist. The fellows up top would decide how best to proceed, and if a nuclear strike was deemed the most appropriate/tactically sound decision, we would.

  12. #12
    Senior Member [WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Making people mad...
    Posts
    7,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halidon View Post
    There's a decent chance a retaliatory strike would be underway before the the outcome of an NK strike were known, depending on the circumstances of the attack.
    A launch on warning due to a missile launch from North Korea? I doubt that. Any North Korean first strike would be against a city (countervalue strike) because their missiles aren't accurate enough for anything else, while if they were going for an EMP burst our nuclear launch gear is shielded anyways so such an attack would not destroy our C4i and ability to retaliate.

    No, the chances of a mistake are way too high for a launch on warning. We didn't even have that policy during the Cold War.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Astaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Eurogeddon
    Age
    30
    Posts
    4,891

    Default

    Out of curiosity: What about South Korea? Wouldn't any nuclear retaliatory strike against North Korea also effect South Korea due to the close proximity?
    I was also under the impression NK lacks the range to deliver a warhead across the Pacific, so could a NK first strike probably more likely be aimed at US forces in the region, like the ones in South Korea or on Okinawa and Guam?

  14. #14
    Member vonFyrkendahl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The land of high taxes and sharp axes
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astaran View Post
    Out of curiosity: What about South Korea? Wouldn't any nuclear retaliatory strike against North Korea also effect South Korea due to the close proximity?
    I was also under the impression NK lacks the range to deliver a warhead across the Pacific, so could a NK first strike probably more likely be aimed at US forces in the region, like the ones in South Korea or on Okinawa and Guam?
    Further, do the US forces in the region have tactical nukes at their disposal? Do the carriers have ASMP-style cruise missiles for their jets?

  15. #15

    Default

    Or a more proportional response? How about a dozen B-2s with bunker busters? That might be enough to convey the idea that the Evil Empire does not approve of your foolishness....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •