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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Samurontai posted...

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?

we have no way of knowing the difference besides believing what they say or not
---

Samurontai posted...

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

do you know anything about the R-27? anything about missile science at all?

as to their actual military--the data in public domain does not paint a picture of a force that would hold up against modern US air to ground strike capabilities. the issue is more what they'd get off against seoul before being wiped out.

thronedfire2 posted...

we have no way of knowing the difference besides believing what they say or not

correct--the only interceptor we have would impact at apogee of the trajectory, long before final path could be determined. assuming they even have mobility capacity on the RV.
---

I just straight up can't possibly imagine how anyone could think NOT responding to someone firing a missile near you is in anyway a positive tactical move.
---

Xelltrix posted...

I just straight up can't possibly imagine how anyone could think NOT responding to someone firing a missile near you is in anyway a positive tactical move.

yeah, I don't think there's much of a choice. It would be like if we just did nothing after 9/11
---

If someone throws a brick at you and misses, you gonna let that slide?
---

Xelltrix posted...

I just straight up can't possibly imagine how anyone could think NOT responding to someone firing a missile near you is in anyway a positive tactical move.

mainly because the only response we have is not ready for deployment and responding with overwhelming force afterward (even if it's nuclear) dooms the population of SK
---

Darkman124 posted...

Samurontai posted...

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

do you know anything about the R-27? anything about missile science at all?

No need for the pretentiousness

I know enough about it to know that it isn't just a "smaller" version of the hwasong 14
---

Samurontai posted...

No need for the pretentiousness

I know enough about it to know that it isn't just a "smaller" version of the hwasong 14

i doubt that very much.

they're both unsymmetric hydrazine-fueled, two stage rocket motors of nearly identical diameter. the two launched of a hwasong-14 we have seen have had an 'unknown' payload, which strongly implies "no" payload given the distance flown.

r-27 is an IRBM (technically the zyb variant is SLBM, but ~3000km range). all data disseminated to the public about h-14 'operational' range has assumed it had a payload during the past tests.

given its size, optimistic estimates of its inerts, and staging, i can all but guarantee those launches had either no RV at all, or an empty RV with no payload mass.

missile tests that are designed to actually test operating capabilities and not serve as PR use a dead weight payload.

that's why they're talking about hitting the waters around guam and not alaska.
---

There's also the fact that North Korea's military is not only hideously outdated, it's poorly supplied and even worse trained.

Their airforce is so old at this point they don't give pilots any real flight time anymore, they sim train them.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Xelltrix posted...

I just straight up can't possibly imagine how anyone could think NOT responding to someone firing a missile near you is in anyway a positive tactical move.

mainly because the only response we have is not ready for deployment and responding with overwhelming force afterward (even if it's nuclear) dooms the population of SK

Using it and failing to intercept has as much impact and not using it out of fear except it at least shows the US isn't so afraid of losing face that they'll just watch their people have bombs lobbed at them. There is absolutely no conceivable way the US would just sit there and do nothing if NK launch a nuke at one of our territories. And they rightly shouldn't.
---

Xelltrix posted...

Using it and failing to intercept has as much impact and not using it out of fear except it at least shows the US isn't so afraid of losing face that they'll just watch their people have bombs lobbed at them. There is absolutely no conceivable way the US would just sit there and do nothing if NK launch a nuke at one of our territories. And they rightly shouldn't.

ultimately, i agree that attempting the intercept is important

but you should understand that these tests are crazy expensive for us and if we don't, the program's development stage and associated cost are going to be the drivers of why it doesn't happen

interceptors are many times more expensive than threat delivery vehicles as the on-board sensor systems for the kill vehicle are way more sophisticated. it's one thing to hit an island (or not hit in this case). it's another thing to hit a hypersonic vehicle the size of a car.
---