[ExI] Anti-deterrence weapons

[Dan]

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> So in that scenario, 
>>> THAAD has saved Hawaii and North Korea.
>> 
>> I bet North Korea doesn't have the capability
>> period...
> 
> Betting Hawaii?  Plenty of people are making that bet
> Dan.  Good luck Hawaii.

I don't see Hawaiian fleeing the islands for the mainland.  Nor, does it seem, South Koreans, Taiwanese, or Japanese have started evacuating just in case the nutcase starts lobbing missiles.  It seems to me, the people afraid of this are NOT acting on their fears -- so perhaps, in this case, their actions should speak louder than their words.  (Of course, we don't have a free market in defense, so it's hard to say whether Hawaiians would spend more on countering a North Korean threat.  My guess is, under a free market, there'd be no threat since almost no one outside of Korea would spend money to put troops on the border or otherwise antagonize North Korea.  This doesn't mean North Korean is an innocent victim of such antagonists, but, rather, that it'd be a localized problem -- as it truly is.)

>> Yes, 
>> it can fire a missile that can go probably as far as
>> Hawaii, 
>> but it lacks the capability to hit a target.  My
>> guess is 
>> they probably would, at best, get something within a
>> few hundred miles of the target... Dan
> 
> This notion is what I read in the press.
> 
> In an earlier post, I mentioned that long range navigation,
> guidance and
> control of a rocket is a remarkably difficult technical
> problem.  Assuming
> the old time techniques, I know for sure I couldn't do it,
> even given a
> dozen of my NG&C colleagues, chosen by me.  But
> assuming access to GPS
> signals, the problem becomes dramatically easier. 
> Hell I think I could
> write an algorithm that would suffice to drop a payload
> within about a
> coupla km CEP of a target, which would be accurate enough
> to raise holy hell.

You're also assuming that their guidance problems here are the only ones.  I don't think they've demonstrated reliability in all the other areas.  To wit, they might, say, use a state of the art GPS system, but if the rocket itself fails during launch or the stabilizers go 20 km up, or the re-entry is a bit off -- all things it seems to me previous launches of theirs have suffered -- that fancy, schmancy GPS guidance isn't going to matter.  (Let's not even mention that they haven't demonstrated the capability of putting a nuke on the top of their unreliable missile anyone -- much less delivering it with any accuracy.)

I think we're seeing a replay here of the early Cold War: the US analysts are presuming capabilities in excess of what are actually there.  Think for just a moment that I'm right.  Why would they do that?  Could just be erring on the side of caution, but cui bono?
 
> Looks to me like Hawaii is now in range and within accuracy
> of a guy who is
> threatening a firestorm of retaliation on the US if the UN
> does exactly what
> it says it intends to do.  Good luck THAAD, and good
> luck Hawaii.  The world is betting that you are safe.

A firestorm is his bluster.  He hasn't even demonstrated the capability of fielding more than one missile.

And I'm being forced to pay for THAAD -- whether it works or not, whether I agree with the interventionist policies that even make THAAD necessary!

Regards,

Dan