Current Events > AP Twitter: If NK sent missiles towards Guam or US, should US shoot them down?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/ap/status/895834358015283200

Lol

wtf
---

dotdotdot
---

The fuck


Nah just let them nuke our people
---

Could, maybe. Should? We damn well should try.
---

lmao
---

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.
---

https://apnews.com/839865501c6e4d8084c5f5258fb7f656/Pyongyang-challenge:-Should-US-shoot-Kim's-missiles-down?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

A failed intercept would likely embolden the North to move ahead even faster. It could also have a chilling psychological impact on allies like Japan and South Korea, which might seek to build up their own nuclear forces independently of Washington. Rival powers China and Russia, meanwhile, might see the exposed weakness as an opportunity to push forward more assertive policies of their own.

Even if it were successful, a policy of shooting down missiles would undoubtedly raise tensions, and put an uncomfortable squeeze on American allies on the front lines.

Worst of all, if American intentions aren’t clear, an attempt to intercept a missile might be misinterpreted by Pyongyang — or Beijing or Moscow — and escalate into a real shooting war.

On a technical level, just as the North learns valuable information on its capabilities with each launch, so does the U.S. military. Shooting down the missiles would cut that intelligence off.

___

BOTTOM LINE

If the U.S. were to pursue this strategy, it would have to be hugely confident of success. And it would definitely want its allies fully on board.

wut
---

So the general idea from the article is that if we do attempt to intercept them and fail, then we appear weak
Not to mention that NK could misunderstand the intercept and actually try and hit us

The above is under the assumption that they will be trying to hit the water near Guam, not Guam itself

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed\

that our defense don't work
---

Yeah, lets allow NK missiles to be lobbed at our territories. The problem isn't letting them kill our civilians or show us as weak, the problem is IF we miss we might look bad!
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.
---

If we are going to fail to intercept, it is better if it is because our systems aren't good enough yet than because we don't want to use them. We can see what we did wrong and improve our missile defense with a failed intercept.
---

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.

if they shoot a missile and hits and blows up Guam

they aren't gonna think "gee, if we shot at California, they might use those interceptors so we better not!"
---

uwnim posted...

If we are going to fail to intercept, it is better if it is because our systems aren't good enough yet than because we don't want to use them. We can see what we did wrong and improve our missile defense with a failed intercept.

You can do that on test ranges without the whole world watching.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.

if they shoot a missile and hits and blows up Guam

they aren't gonna think "gee, if we shot at California, they might use those interceptors so we better not!"

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

if they shoot a missile and hits and blows up Guam

AP makes it clear they are assuming that NK is aiming for the water, not the island

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.

Um, yeah it does. It means either our systems were too bad to detect the missiles in time, we didn't care enough to try and stop them, or we were afraid of giving away our defenses being weak.



On top of the fact people will die if NK hits the mark. There is no positive to not trying.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

https://apnews.com/839865501c6e4d8084c5f5258fb7f656/Pyongyang-challenge:-Should-US-shoot-Kim's-missiles-down?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

A failed intercept would likely embolden the North to move ahead even faster. It could also have a chilling psychological impact on allies like Japan and South Korea, which might seek to build up their own nuclear forces independently of Washington. Rival powers China and Russia, meanwhile, might see the exposed weakness as an opportunity to push forward more assertive policies of their own.

Even if it were successful, a policy of shooting down missiles would undoubtedly raise tensions, and put an uncomfortable squeeze on American allies on the front lines.

Worst of all, if American intentions aren’t clear, an attempt to intercept a missile might be misinterpreted by Pyongyang — or Beijing or Moscow — and escalate into a real shooting war.

On a technical level, just as the North learns valuable information on its capabilities with each launch, so does the U.S. military. Shooting down the missiles would cut that intelligence off.

___

BOTTOM LINE

If the U.S. were to pursue this strategy, it would have to be hugely confident of success. And it would definitely want its allies fully on board.

wut

---

Don't worry. We promise to hit the water and not the island itself.

Xelltrix posted...

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.

Um, yeah it does. It means either our systems were too bad to detect the missiles in time, we didn't care enough to try and stop them, or we were afraid of giving away our defenses being weak.



On top of the fact people will die if NK hits the mark. There is no positive to not trying.

All I can say at this point is thank god you're not in charge of military strategy. No point in pushing further since you're not going to get it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.

you trust their word?
---

lmao well if they promise to shoot at the water and not Guam then we'll be cool

oh

wait
---

Canuklehead posted...

Don't worry. We promise to hit the water and not the island itself.

lmao
---

s0nicfan posted...

Xelltrix posted...

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Read the article. Their main point is if we try to intercept them and fail it causes a LOT of problems globally for the US. The "should" is considering what's best given the possibility of failure to intercept, which is a very real possibility.

not shooting them down because we are afraid we would miss sends the same signal to NK as if we tried and missed

No it doesn't. It objectively doesn't. You're trading a possibility for a certainty. They wouldn't know if we could if we don't, making it riskier to target real things like cities. If we try and fail, they'll know for certain we can't.

Um, yeah it does. It means either our systems were too bad to detect the missiles in time, we didn't care enough to try and stop them, or we were afraid of giving away our defenses being weak.



On top of the fact people will die if NK hits the mark. There is no positive to not trying.

All I can say at this point is thank god you're not in charge of military strategy. No point in pushing further since you're not going to get it.

Likewise if you really think just ignore nuclear missiles heading towards citizens is ever a good idea.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.

you trust their word?

The entire AP article is discussing whether we should counter assuming the missiles are actually heading towards the claimed target. If we detect that the trajectory of the missile is headed for a city post-launch, obviously we should try to stop them. Read the fucking article before you decide to participate in stuff like this.

EDIT: @Xelltrix if you're going to tag-team stupidity with darkphoenix181, then I suggest you also follow the advice above.
---

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.

you trust their word?

The entire AP article is discussing whether we should counter assuming the missiles are actually heading towards the claimed target. If we detect that the trajectory of the missile is headed for a city post-launch, obviously we should try to stop them. Read the fucking article before you decide to participate in stuff like this.

EDIT: @Xelltrix if you're going to tag-team stupidity with darkphoenix181, then I suggest you also follow the advice above.

Repeat, heading towards civillians. Shoot it down. Literally no positive to not doing it because you're giving off the exact same vibe by not shooting it down. The impression that you're afraid you'll miss or the impression that you can't detect the threat.
---

s0nicfan posted...

uwnim posted...

If we are going to fail to intercept, it is better if it is because our systems aren't good enough yet than because we don't want to use them. We can see what we did wrong and improve our missile defense with a failed intercept.

You can do that on test ranges without the whole world watching.

We do, problem is the testing isn't fully simulating real world conditions.

Failing to use our systems says we have no actual confidence in them.
---

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.

you trust their word?

The entire AP article is discussing whether we should counter assuming the missiles are actually heading towards the claimed target. If we detect that the trajectory of the missile is headed for a city post-launch, obviously we should try to stop them. Read the fucking article before you decide to participate in stuff like this.

EDIT: @Xelltrix if you're going to tag-team stupidity with darkphoenix181, then I suggest you also follow the advice above.

what is the standard deviation of error for trajectory detection?

is it better than the accuracy of missiles we fire that wind up hitting civilian houses accidently hmm?
---

My goodness. People are actually cucks now.
---

Instead of mocking, better to realize there really aren't any good solutions to this situation we've all been put in

realistically:

GMD is not mature enough to shoot down the NK "ICBM", and THAAD is not designed for threats with a terminal velocity comparable to it

i would put intercept probability well below 50%

sm-3 blk IIA has a better chance (despite being an IRBM tool) but it's only just now entering production
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Except they're not aiming AT Guam right now, they're aiming at the shallow waters off their coast.

you trust their word?

The entire AP article is discussing whether we should counter assuming the missiles are actually heading towards the claimed target. If we detect that the trajectory of the missile is headed for a city post-launch, obviously we should try to stop them. Read the fucking article before you decide to participate in stuff like this.

EDIT: @Xelltrix if you're going to tag-team stupidity with darkphoenix181, then I suggest you also follow the advice above.

what is the standard deviation of error for trajectory detection?

is it better than the accuracy of missiles we fire that wind up hitting civilian houses accidently hmm?

What's easier? Figuring out where a baseball is going to land or arcing a baseball to hit a specific target?
---

sounds like a question somebody from neogaf and tumblr would ask.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

wut

tl;dr

They're saying if NK shoots the waters (not Guam itself) and we try to intercept and fail to intercept, it'll send the message that we literally don't have the ability to intercept and clear the way for ICBM nukes knowing that we can't shoot those down either.

I don't agree with it, I'm just trying to explain their argument.
---

Japan has already come out and said that they would intercept any missiles that would hit Guam

Because Japan is the true OG
---

KarmaMuffin posted...

The above is under the assumption that they will be trying to hit the water near Guam, not Guam itself

The thing is, their tech is so behind that if they missed and hit the water they'd SAY they were trying to hit it.
---

Their tech really isn't all that far behind

I don't get why people say this when they talk about countries like China, Russia and NK

Some of you guys act like their tech is obselete. It's really not that far behind at all.
---

Samurontai posted...

Their tech really isn't all that far behind

I don't get why people say this when they talk about countries like China, Russia and NK

Some of you guys act like their tech is obselete. It's really not that far behind at all.

the only long range missile defense tech japan has is the tech we have developed cooperatively with them

it is not deployed at present

they do have sm-3 IAs but those are not viable for a mission like this
---

Darkman124 posted...

Samurontai posted...

Their tech really isn't all that far behind

I don't get why people say this when they talk about countries like China, Russia and NK

Some of you guys act like their tech is obselete. It's really not that far behind at all.

the only long range missile defense tech japan has is the tech we have developed cooperatively with them

it is not deployed at present

they do have sm-3 IAs but those are not viable for a mission like this

I was talking about North Korea

And yeah, that's why Japans defense force is ranked in the top ten militaries of the world, despite not technically being a military
---

Shoot them down and retaliate to the utter destruction of DPRK
---

Samurontai posted...

I was talking about North Korea

And yeah, that's why Japans defense force is ranked in the top ten militaries of the world, despite not technically being a military

NK missile tech is very clearly a bastardization of whatever they are given access to. It lacks any of the sophistication of Chinese, American, or Russian systems. It has no indication of any maneuverability of the re-entry vehicle.

In the case of the hwasong-14, they clearly took a r-27--a 50-year old soviet rocket motor--and doubled the length.

that's it.

it is the classic example of the kind of 'easy' threat GMD is designed to be able to handle. GMD isn't going to shoot down a russian bulava ever but when development finishes and it is deployed it will absolutely be able to shoot down a hwasong-14. if it can't, the GMD program would be a total failure.

only reason we can't intercept now is GMD is not a finished program. development is ongoing.
---

Darkman124 posted...

In the case of the hwasong-14, they clearly took a r-27--a 50-year old soviet rocket motor--and doubled the length.

that's it.

And note that Soviet tech in many cases was behind us in terms of sophistication. They couldn't trust one large engine so they'd use a bunch of small engines. So if one failed instead of falling straight down, it would spiral off to who knows where.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

they'd use a bunch of small engines.

um, what?

are you referring to rocket motor staging?
---

Darkman124 posted...

Samurontai posted...

I was talking about North Korea

And yeah, that's why Japans defense force is ranked in the top ten militaries of the world, despite not technically being a military

NK missile tech is very clearly a bastardization of whatever they are given access to. It lacks any of the sophistication of Chinese, American, or Russian systems. It has no indication of any maneuverability of the re-entry vehicle.

In the case of the hwasong-14, they clearly took a r-27--a 50-year old soviet rocket motor--and doubled the length.

that's it.

it is the classic example of the kind of 'easy' threat GMD is designed to be able to handle. GMD isn't going to shoot down a russian bulava ever but when development finishes and it is deployed it will absolutely be able to shoot down a hwasong-14. if it can't, the GMD program would be a total failure.

only reason we can't intercept now is GMD is not a finished program. development is ongoing.

I wasn't talking about their missiles, I was more talking about their actually military capabilities, i.e. Infantry equipment, tanks, etc.

and even then, they didn't "double the length and that's it". That's a ridiculous assumption. I'm not saying it's super advanced, but it's beyond what you're implying lmao
---

what if they launch a missile at Guam and miss and just say 'we were aiming for the water anyway'

if we didn't respond they'd just be able to keep doing that forever and perfect their aim
---

thronedfire2 posted...

what if they launch a missile at Guam and miss and just say 'we were aiming for the water anyway'

if we didn't respond they'd just be able to keep doing that forever and perfect their aim

But what if they purposefully miss?
---