North Korea has apparently successfully tested an ICBM, the Hwasong-14.

[muttbutt]

(CNN)North Korea has announced that it has successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile on the orders of the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, according to state media.
Tuesday morning's missile test exceeded an altitude of "well over" 2,500 km (1,550 miles), according to the Japanese Ministry of Defense.

The missile flew into waters east of the Korean Peninsula and may have landed in Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline, Takahiro Hirano, public affairs officer from Japan's Ministry of Defense said.

Rest at the link
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/03/asia/north-korea-missile-japan-waters/index.html

 

[Flyaway]

North Korea claims successful test of intercontinental ballistic missile

David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said the initial assessments of the flight time and distance suggest the missile might have been launched on a “very highly lofted” trajectory of more than 2,800 km.

The same missile could reach a maximum range of roughly 6,700 km on a standard trajectory, Wright said in a blog post.

“That range would not be enough to reach the lower 48 states or the large islands of Hawaii, but would allow it to reach all of Alaska,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/04/north-korea-launches-ballistic-missile-japans-defence-ministry-says

 

[sienar]

Pics from the propaganda vid broadcast on NK tv just a few minutes ago. They only showed stills.

 

[bring_it_on]

Good then that the US House of Representatives added $500+ Missile Defense programs over the MDAs request (For the Arrow, Iron Dome and David's Sling )

 

[Flyaway]

If flown in a more typical trajectory, the missile would have easily traveled 4,000 miles, potentially putting all of Alaska within its range, according to former government officials and independent analysts. A missile that exceeds a range of 3,400 miles is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.

“This is a big deal: It’s an ICBM, not a ‘kind of’ ICBM,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “And there’s no reason to think that this is going to be the maximum range.”

This bit caught my eye as I had been wondering about this.

While U.S. intelligence officials have sought, with some success, to disrupt North Korea’s progress, Pyongyang has achieved breakthroughs in multiple areas, including the development of solid-fuel rocket engines and mobile-launch capabilities, including rockets that can be fired from submarines. Early analysis suggests that the Hwasong-14 uses a new kind of indigenously built ballistic-missile engine, one that North Korea unveiled with fanfare on March 18. Nearly all the country’s ballistic missiles up until now used engines based on modifications of older, Soviet-era technology.

“It’s not a copy of a crappy Soviet engine, and it’s not a pair of Soviet engines kludged together — it’s the real thing,” Lewis said. “When they first unveiled the engine on March 18, they said that the ‘world would soon see what this means.’ I think we’re now seeing them take that basic engine design and execute it for an ICBM.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/experts-north-koreas-missile-was-a-real-icbm--and-a-grave-milestone/2017/07/04/554bb81e-60da-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_missile-explainer-145pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2703387024ce

 

[Foo Fighter]

I wonder how long it will be before a special delivery comes through MR Kims front door. If they timed it right the USA, China and the Russians could all arrive together. If a bit breathless.

 

[sferrin]

I wonder how long it will be before a special delivery comes through MR Kims front door. If they timed it right the USA, China and the Russians could all arrive together. If a bit breathless.

Doubt it. L'il Kim pulled off something the US hasn't done in decades, and has probably forgot how to do - develop a NEW ICBM. Russia and China are both cheering him on while "tut tutting" him in public.

 

[phrenzy]

Question is if they have the technology to EMP garden all aspects of the thrive me electronics and the throw weight to range. So far as well know their nukes still take most of a shipping container to set off under a mountain. Not that you can ever assume that.

Still, makes it harder for Russia to argue that small numbers of advanced ABM systems are just an excuse to target them. I think we can legitimately say they have a real threat in the DPRK and Iran. It would be pretty obvious that it wouldn't threaten the existential test that Russian strategic forces pose.

As long as the DPRK doesn't get involved with something they could riskly screw up just playing with, like a North Korean Status-6 clone... What could go wrong, a meltdown with warheads on board... Can't sink it without ceasing a bucket disaster... The world is becoming a dark place...I'm buying gold.

 

[Flyaway]

Some analysis here.

North Korea Finally Tests an ICBM

As with most of North Korea’s recent long-range missile tests, this one used a so-called “lofted” trajectory to keep the missile from overflying neighboring countries while still demonstrating high performance. If the data is correct, preliminary trajectory reconstructions indicate that if the missile were fired on a more efficient trajectory it would reach a range of anywhere from 6,700 to 8,000 km. David Wright, who provided the 6,700 km figure, acknowledges that his early analysis did not include the effect of the Earth’s rotation and the performance would probably be higher if the missile were launched in an easterly direction. The United States, of course, is to the east of North Korea. By any standard, this is the performance of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Fired from North Korea, it probably couldn’t reach the contiguous United States, but Hawaii and Alaska would be within reach.

Another key difference is that the upper stage and particularly the reentry vehicle have been reshaped. The original blunt reentry vehicle of the KN-14 has either been redesigned, or enclosed in a hollow payload fairing. A payload fairing would modestly improve the aerodynamics of the missile in early flight, giving a small increase in performance. Payload fairings on ICBMs are also used to cover multiple warheads and/or decoys and other penetration aids, but this missile does not have the performance to carry multiple warheads or more than a very minimal set of decoys.

It is probably reasonable to consider this missile a variant of the previously-displayed KN-14, rather than an entirely new missile. At a minimum, it is part of a common family with the KN-14 and KN-17. We can speculate on whether this test was successful or partially successful. It was probably at least partially successful. But we don’t know whether the North Koreans were hoping to reach a greater range. If their propaganda threats reflect their targeting plan, then they still can’t reach places like the US naval base in San Diego and certainly can’t come anywhere near the East Coast of the United States—at least not with this missile in its current form.

If it was only partially successful, that may mean the North Koreans have other homework to do, particularly if the missile didn’t reach its expected degree of accuracy. A missile needs to shut down its engine in a precisely-controlled fashion to hit even as large a target as a naval base or a city, and that needs to be tested. If instead the missile runs out of fuel even a few seconds early, another test is required. Irregular performance of the heat shield on the reentry vehicle is also common in early ICBM testing; it is rare for the warhead to actually burn up, but common for it to be thrown far off course. It will probably require additional testing to correct for that. If, in addition to a warhead, North Korea hopes to include even a minimal system of decoys and penetration aids, those will likely need a very extensive test program and may not be available in the first operational version of the missile.

Finally, a single test cannot demonstrate a missile’s reliability. And it isn’t just the missile’s reliability that needs to be demonstrated. The launch crews will need to demonstrate that they can reliably launch the missile on short notice, under combat conditions and possibly with US or South Korean missiles already on the way. They will need to train and practice operating the missile’s transporter and associated support systems at remote sites and conduct very hazardous propellant loading operations without the facilities of a missile test range. Having done this with some degree of success, once, under ideal conditions, doesn’t mean they can do it in the middle of a war tomorrow.

But it probably won’t take them more than a year or two to learn how to operate this missile reliably and accurately in combat, and to incorporate whatever design modifications or performance enhancements this test may call for. We had thought that we would have until perhaps early 2020 to prepare for a North Korean ICBM capability, but it turns out they were working on a different timetable. That has serious strategic, diplomatic and political implications for the very near future. For instance, starting today, US military commanders cannot be 100 percent certain that a war on the Korean peninsula won’t stretch at least as far as Hawaii or Alaska. Soon, US allies will wonder if this is going to affect US commitments to defense and stability in the region. And the US political leadership is going to have to figure out what to do about that.

http://www.38north.org/2017/07/jschilling070517/

 

[phrenzy]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

 

[Rickshaw]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

Don't worry, our "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific will protect us. :

In reality, the DPRK is not going to waste a precious nuke on an Australian city for a long, long time. They will be reserved for more immediate threats like the US mainland and of course, Japan and the ROK. Perhaps even for the PRC, if the PRC decides that the Dear Leader is "looking rather tired, Comrade..." with the offer of a nice holiday in Tibet.

 

[stealthflanker]

Well good to hear they made a brand new rocket engine.

 

[phrenzy]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

Don't worry, our "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific will protect us. :

In reality, the DPRK is not going to waste a precious nuke on an Australian city for a long, long time. They will be reserved for more immediate threats like the US mainland and of course, Japan and the ROK. Perhaps even for the PRC, if the PRC decides that the Dear Leader is "looking rather tired, Comrade..." with the offer of a nice holiday in Tibet.

Thing is if you want to prove and use a nuke sky instant nuclear retaliation Darwin, or if their CEP is good enough pine gap. Get the American marine base when it's fully loaded, but I have triglycerides believing that Australias protection under the nuclear umbrella would be used in such a case.

Gosh knows we should be but I'm not sure if Australia can count on it at all, much less for what in Washington is considered a secondary staging area with a few Australian civilians in it.

 

[Rickshaw]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

Don't worry, our "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific will protect us. :

In reality, the DPRK is not going to waste a precious nuke on an Australian city for a long, long time. They will be reserved for more immediate threats like the US mainland and of course, Japan and the ROK. Perhaps even for the PRC, if the PRC decides that the Dear Leader is "looking rather tired, Comrade..." with the offer of a nice holiday in Tibet.

Thing is if you want to prove and use a nuke sky instant nuclear retaliation Darwin, or if their CEP is good enough pine gap. Get the American marine base when it's fully loaded, but I have triglycerides believing that Australias protection under the nuclear umbrella would be used in such a case.

Gosh knows we should be but I'm not sure if Australia can count on it at all, much less for what in Washington is considered a secondary staging area with a few Australian civilians in it.

We have yet to see what the CEP is for a DPRK ICBM. The idea of them getting close enough to either Pine Gap or the Marines' base is not likely. Darwin is, to the rest of Australia pretty much a forward warning outpost. If it gets struck, not much is lost. It is still long, long way from a major SE city. Indeed, Pine Gap and the Marines' base are a long, long way from Darwin.

As for whether or not the US would retaliate on our behalf, well, that was always a difficult question to ask. The A**US Treaty only suggests that we should consult if an attack occurs on either of our forces in the Pacific Area (which of course, begs the question how John Howard "activated the A**US Treaty" in 2001 over a Terrorist attack in New York). However, if they don't then it might be time to look to Beijing instead of Washington.

 

[sferrin]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

Don't worry, our "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific will protect us. :

Come on, don't sugar coat it. Tell us all how you really feel about the US. :

 

[phrenzy]

They are vital and true allies, but technically we in the same boat uber the ANZUS treaty with regards to the US nuclear umbrella. Whatever our disagreements or distaste for American domestic politics (though so my US friends are much more vitriolic about them then any Australian ice ever met), at the end of the day we stand together and always have even truth the body unpopular wars.

What worries some is that with the exception of maybe one or two systems we have no strategic systems and are covered by the US Bucher umbrella and there's fewer concern that the US using Mike's in response to a WMD attack on Australia simply won't happen. That being the case we should be assisting our defence priorities add showing accordingly, but we live in a fantasy land that if we get into a one on one fight drug China or the DPRK that US bombers will launch nukes on our behalf and I think it's reasonable to question that.

Also with modern inertial navigation and piggybacking on glonasd and GPS signals I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that aDPRK nuke could in a years time have a CEP of 1km, enough for any target I described.

We also have no ABM coverage, allied or otherwise, so we're a soft target so I don't think it's so crazy to think that an Austrian target is such a stuff idea if you only have one nuke light enough for the the weight of your ICBM and Darwin or Brisbane is just as good a symbolic target as any other non-us western City, so.

 

[Rickshaw]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class. It has one of the most advanced naval radar systems in the world.

As for the US, if the pooh starts flying, I don't doubt that Washington will reply in kind. I simply cannot see Kim Jung Un wasting a missile or missiles on Australia when he has much more pressing targets in the United States/Japan/ROK/PRC to worry about. These are weapons of last resort, not first and if P'yong-Y'ang gets pressed sufficiently to want to use them they will use them on more immediate threats than a city in far flung downunder. We are a long, long way down their shopping list. Rhetoric is cheaper than the small number of bomb armed ICBMs they will be able to field for the next decade or so.

My question is - how is this any different than when the fUSSR supposedly targeted Australia? We have lived under the threat of nuclear fire for over half a century and everybody just gets on with their lives. Have another beer and relax and watch the Footy.

 

[Rickshaw]

Hearing surprisingly little about this in Australia, Darwin and Brisbane are in range and we're only about 10% away from Sydney...

Don't worry, our "great and powerful friends" across the Pacific will protect us. :

Come on, don't sugar coat it. Tell us all how you really feel about the US. :

Oh, dear, is the poor little American Cold War Warrior feeling upset? :

 

[phrenzy]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class. It has one of the most advanced naval radar systems in the world.

As for the US, if the pooh starts flying, I don't doubt that Washington will reply in kind. I simply cannot see Kim Jung Un wasting a missile or missiles on Australia when he has much more pressing targets in the United States/Japan/ROK/PRC to worry about. These are weapons of last resort, not first and if P'yong-Y'ang gets pressed sufficiently to want to use them they will use them on more immediate threats than a city in far flung downunder. We are a long, long way down their shopping list. Rhetoric is cheaper than the small number of bomb armed ICBMs they will be able to field for the next decade or so.

My question is - how is this any different than when the fUSSR supposedly targeted Australia? We have lived under the threat of nuclear fire for over half a century and everybody just gets on with their lives. Have another beer and relax and watch the Footy.

We might see it coming, but there's nothing in the VLS, rim-66 our otherwise that will take it an ICBM..
Australia is a reasonable target because everything else in range is under done soft of ABM protection. Australia isn't, you can't fire the ICBM against South Korean targets are too close for a minimum range (it wouldn't be setup to fly so high as to allow for a range uner 1000km odd). Every other country or potential target (US bases in the Pacific) it Alaska are under advanced ABM protection. If you only have one or two shots to make a point against the West you aren't going to fire them against places covered by GMD or the like.

Not saying it's likely, just that we're more vulnerable than most.

 

[Rickshaw]

That is not how nuclear targeting is usually undertaken. You assign the most missiles to the most valuable targets. Kim Jong Un is not, despite how he is portrayed by the MSM, an idiot. He knows he has a limited number of missiles to play with and would assign them where they would have the greatest political-military effect. You would use SRBM/IRBM missiles against the ROK/Japan/PRC. You save your ICBMs for the US. A long way down the list is Australia. The greatest effect would be to place them on Washington, followed by New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Hawaii and so on, down by order of size. Darwin? Brisbane? Completely useless from a military viewpoint. From a political viewpoint, of marginal value.

The DPRK has been playing this brinkmanship game for a long time and has been encouraged by the reactions of Seoul, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing. He has to be careful to not upset the PRC as they represent the greatest threat to his regime. Seoul/Washington/Tokyo would be deterred by the possible use of nuclear warheads. However, if they did use them, then you can say goodbye to the DPRK. No one would be overly concerned if a nuke was let off over P'yong-Y'ang.

What is required is for Beijing to get upset and suggest it is time for him to take a holiday as he is "looking tired." He will be careful to avoid that.

The US does have an advantage in its ABM system. As long as the DPRK does not develop MIRV'ed warheads. Washington may lose patience but it's actual ability to invade the DPRK is less than many (in the USA) appear to believe. It's ability to win in a conventional war against the DPRK is also less than many believe, if the DPRK goes into insurgency mode.

 

[sferrin]

Oh, dear, is the poor little American Cold War Warrior feeling upset? :

Not at all. You're exactly the type of person I thought you were.

 

[sferrin]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

 

[Triton]

"Exclusive: U.S. plans to test THAAD missile defenses as N.Korea tensions mount"

by Phil Stewart

July 7, 2017

Source:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-plans-test-thaad-missile-defenses-north-korea-204538395.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States plans to carry out a new test of its THAAD missile defense system against an intermediate-range ballistic missile in the coming days, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday, as tensions with North Korea climb.

Despite being planned months ago, the U.S. missile defense test will gain significance in the wake of North Korea's launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on July 4 that has heightened concerns about the threat from Pyongyang.

The test will be the first of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), one of the officials said. The THAAD interceptors will be fired from Alaska.

The United States has THAAD interceptors in Guam that are meant to help guard against a missile attack from a country such as North Korea.

The officials who disclosed to Reuters the precise nature and timing of the upcoming test spoke on condition of anonymity.

Asked by Reuters, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) confirmed that it aimed to carry out a THAAD flight test "in early July."

Chris Johnson, an MDA spokesman, said the THAAD weapon system at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, would "detect, track and engage a target with a THAAD interceptor."

"The test is designated as Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18," Johnson said. He did not elaborate.

Still, in recent testimony to Congress, Vice Admiral James Syring, then the director of the Missile Defense Agency, said FTT-18 would aim to demonstrate THAAD's ability to intercept a separating IRBM target.

MDA said THAAD had a 100 percent successful track record in its 13 flight tests since 2006. After previous tests, the U.S. military has publicly disclosed the results.

SOUTH KOREAN DEPLOYMENT

THAAD is a ground-based missile defense system designed to shoot down short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

Lockheed Martin Corp, the prime contractor for the THAAD system, said it has the ability to intercept incoming missiles both inside and outside the Earth's atmosphere.

This year's U.S. deployment of THAAD in South Korea to guard against North Korea's shorter-range missiles has also drawn fierce criticism from China, which says the system's powerful radar can probe deep into its territory.

Earlier this month Moscow and Beijing, in a joint statement, called on Washington to immediately halt deployment of THAAD in South Korea.

The statement said Washington was using North Korea as a pretext to expand its military infrastructure in Asia and risked upsetting the strategic balance of power in the region.

THAAD's success rate in testing is far higher than the one for America's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD), the system specifically designed to shoot down an ICBM headed for the U.S. mainland.

That GMD system has only a 55 percent success rate over the life of the program. But advocates note that the technology has improved dramatically in recent years.

In a key development, the GMD system successfully shot down an incoming, simulated North Korean ICBM in a test in May.

That led the Pentagon to upgrade its assessment of America's ability to defend against a small number of ICBMs, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters.

MDA told Congress in June that it plans to deliver 52 more THAAD interceptors to the U.S. Army between October 2017 and September 2018, for a total of 210 since May 2011.

In a sign of U.S. congressional concern about missile defense, several lawmakers filed amendments to a sweeping defense policy bill on Friday that addressed North Korea. Republican Representative Don Young, whose home state Alaska is seen as especially vulnerable to the North Korea threat, asked for more ground-based interceptors for his state, and a study of potential additional sites on the East Coast or Midwest.

Democratic Representatives John Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee, along with Republican Walter Jones, filed an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act saying that nothing in the bill should be construed as authorizing the use of force against North Korea.

The full House of Representatives is due to consider the bill, and its amendments, next week.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and James Dalgleish)

 

[Airplane]

Time to use some of those mystery jets we all know we have and pay the fat ass a visit early one morning. There is no more road to kick the can anymore. I hate left coast liberals, but dropping a nuke on my country ain't an option. Nor is an emp burst.

 

[Rickshaw]

Oh, dear, is the poor little American Cold War Warrior feeling upset? :

Not at all. You're exactly the type of person I thought you were.

Really? A person who can argue his case effectively and without resorting to personal attacks?

 

[Rickshaw]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

 

[sferrin]

Oh, dear, is the poor little American Cold War Warrior feeling upset? :

Not at all. You're exactly the type of person I thought you were.

Really? A person who can argue his case effectively and without resorting to personal attacks?

I'm afraid I have some bad news...

 

[sferrin]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

 

[Rickshaw]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

Ah, but as I have said, we rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting that is not protection enough? :

 

[DWG]

We have yet to see what the CEP is for a DPRK ICBM.

CEP - Continental Error Probability?

 

[Rickshaw]

We have yet to see what the CEP is for a DPRK ICBM.

CEP - Continental Error Probability?

 

[sferrin]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

Ah, but as I have said, we rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting that is not protection enough? :

Your claim was you have missile defense in the form of Aegis ships. You don't. At least be grown up enough to admit you were wrong. Again. :

 

[kaiserd]

Time to use some of those mystery jets we all know we have and pay the fat ass a visit early one morning. There is no more road to kick the can anymore. I hate left coast liberals, but dropping a nuke on my country ain't an option. Nor is an emp burst.

The option of a quick straight forward military solution re: Morth Korea's nuclear & missile programmes is a illusory fantasy only shared by a small number of ill informed US right-wing usual suspects.
A US president looking to adopt such an option would likely have zero support within his own military or with his/her international partners and allies.
No apparent reason why you felt a need to share re: your hatred for specific groups of people; you should consider discussing that with a suitable qualified professional or at least on a different website.

 

[kaiserd]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

Ah, but as I have said, we rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting that is not protection enough? :

Your claim was you have missile defense in the form of Aegis ships. You don't. At least be grown up enough to admit you were wrong. Again. :

To add some facts to this discussion HMAS Hobart and other ships of this class are equipped with Aegis (hence are technically "Aegis ships"). I didn't know this before, took me 15 seconds to find out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_(DDGH_39)

 

[JFC Fuller]

To add further facts:

Simply having Aegis does not give a warship ABM capability- especially not against ICBMs.

Every country whose nuclear infrastructure has been attacked whilst attempting to develop a nuclear capability has subsequently failed to develop such capability. These include Libya, Syria and Iraq. The historical analysis is clear, pre-emptive strikes against nuclear infrastructure work.

 

[kaiserd]

To add further facts:

Simply having Aegis does not give a warship ABM capability- especially not against ICBMs.

Every country whose nuclear infrastructure has been attacked whilst attempting to develop a nuclear capability has subsequently failed to develop such capability. These include Libya, Syria and Iraq. The historical analysis is clear, pre-emptive strikes against nuclear infrastructure work.

I appreciate that Aegis systems don't automatically give warships ABM capabilities; I never said that they did.

On the premptive attack point unfortunately the likes of Iran and North Korea have also learned from history. They have have taken measures to decentralise and "harden" their programmes to make any premptive attack far less effective. Specifically re: North Korea they can also deter such an attack purely via their existing non-nuclear capabilities to attack and devastate Seoul within hours.

Illusory simple "force" solutions may be comforting for some but they are not really available.

 

[kaiserd]

And in the mean time targeting and munitions have improved. With sufficient application of force both countries programmes could be degraded to irrelevance- as has been done to others in the past. Nothing illusory about that reality.

So if this is the case why no premptive attacks already made on North Korea, or at least repeated loud public pleading by the likes of South Korea or Japan for such an attack?
It's because none of the relevant stakeholder considers such an attack worth the risks given its limited chance of success and the near certainty of terrible retaliation.
Some on this discussion are overly fond of ascribing the lack of solutions to specific international situations to lack of determination/ resolution/ will by US and their allies.
The truth is more complex and nuanced but that doesn't fit some contributors own agendas.

 

[sferrin]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

Ah, but as I have said, we rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting that is not protection enough? :

Your claim was you have missile defense in the form of Aegis ships. You don't. At least be grown up enough to admit you were wrong. Again. :

To add some facts to this discussion HMAS Hobart and other ships of this class are equipped with Aegis (hence are technically "Aegis ships"). I didn't know this before, took me 15 seconds to find out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_(DDGH_39)

You should have spent 15 more and figured out exactly what the discussion was about. That they're Aegis ships should have been obvious by the discussion. Aegis alone does not convey ABM capability. One must also have a suitable missile. Which Australia does not. Thus endeth today's lesson.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Probably because they are overcome with the sort of feebleness that has allowed the NPT to slowly but surely become a joke. As for "certain retaliation", the North Korean regime is interested in little more than its own survival- engaging in some form of massive retaliation as a response to a targeted strike against its nuclear facilities would greatly reduce its chance of survival and so such a thing is highly unlikely.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/time-to-shoot-down-a-north-korean-missile-former-top-us-general-says/article/2627993