LOL!!

Kinda makes you regret wasting time in iraq, rather than spending the half a trillion dollars on a missle system that might work...or y'know, building international good will to help keep NK in check, rather than let them sneek through the back door, while we are busy trying to clean up our own messes...money well spent folks.

Everyone who follows international politics knows that this is NK trying to get some face-time, they think they are being ignored, and just like an unruly child, you have to figure out a way to make them feel special again. We all know that we aren't going to give them security assurances, they know this too, but only the folks sitting around the six nation table know what they REALLY want. So quit getting your panties in a bunch, and pretending that a first generation ICBM is going to really provide a threat, even to a missle system that works 1/3 of the time; but don't think for one minute we are going to hang the albatross of Star Wars, or Spaceballs, or whatever Der leader is going to call it, around our necks...we will overcome as we have always overcome.

our alaska-based system would still leave kim il-jong free to incinerate tokyo...which he's threatened to do.

lefties please note that this threat is the direct result of (failed) "negoiations, sanctions, & diplomacy" which culminated in clinton's "food n fuel" fiasco in the mid-90's.

the fact is we couldn't even bribe them (food n fuel) outta their preferred course since they continued their R&D then simply removed the IAEA seals & went public.

the american left & their euro comrades think this same (failed) model will work w Iran.

think again...

You do realize that the anti-missile defense system doesn't work right? That we don't have the technology to pick missles out of the sky and shoot them down? That the only way can get ANY hits during our own testing is by using missiles that are marked with homing devices? And even then we only get some of them? It's BAD TECHNOLOGY!

And a waste of money.

And a stupid point to make.

Do you research your opinons at all before you form them?

Matt

Democrats are hoping our missle defense system fails.

I think we can question their patriotism now.

How does all this fit into the meme that lefties are afraid of dying and righties aren't? Seems a bit contradictory.

"I think we can question their patriotism now."

No, but it is time to question your honesty and/or intellect.

The author says that he believes neither the missle defense system nor the Korean long-range missle will work. He says that both the test and activating the defense missle system are "stunts," one designed to gain more leverage in political negotiations, the other designed to keep or increase funding for the missle defense program.

The author says he hopes both stunts fail, which for those with poor reading comprehension, means he hopes N. Koreans fail in gaining more negitiation leverage and that the Bush administration fails in keeping or increasing funding for this poor-functioning missle defense program.

Oh yeah, you're one to question anothers intellect since you obviously missed this statement.

"We have to hope that neither stunt succeeds."

Are you the least bit embarrassed by your stupidity?

"The author says he hopes both stunts fail..."

Who's missing statements here, CJ? Seriously, learn to read.

yeah, well, the author hopes both nations fails, meaning theorectically, he wants both north K and the usa to fail, meaning, aside from wanting north K to fail, he also wants the usa to fail, meaning he wants his own nation to fail, meaning that he could potentially be against the usa.

How does all this fit into the meme that lefties are afraid of dying and righties aren't? Seems a bit contradictory.

This system has a 50% success rate under a 'fixed' text (e.g., one where the system knows the route of the missile). In a real response, then, I would give us less than a 50/50 shot at actually hitting the missile.

If we were to try the system and fail, this would be a public relations debacle and would only hurt our already weakened standing in the world. Consider, in the span of a few years, we would have shown the world that our high-tech army could be bogged down by a low-tech insurgency, AND our high-tech weaponry would be shown not to work.

As usual, you've put out some good tough talk, but not really thought through the implications. I suppose if we tried our defense system and it failed, you could just blame the media. That's worked well with Iraq, right?

Ricorun,
Well, you lefties will get all of those virgins and become martyrs! Why would such warriors be fearful? No contradiction there! Enjoyed seeing your superwarrior in Europe, Cindy. And all of your lard ass naked warriors in SFran!

On the other hand, I would not mind dueling any of you chicken......s.

Kitty,

He is not hoping the US fails. He points out how flawed this missle program is and that it is not up to operational standards. Yet it is now operational.

Let's say odds are good that it does hit a missle. It's only functional in case of an attack of 1 or 2 missles -- without any decoy missles to throw it off.

The author clearly doesn't think N. Korea's missle will get anywhere near the US. Thus, we'll never get a chance to see how well the missle program works against a single missle. He believes the stunt is that the defense will not be needed, but by activating this poorly functioning missle defense program, it will help it gain support in Congress and the public, and thus get more funding.

He is not against the US but against this missle program.

"Star Wars" does not now nor has it ever worked, even after the billions spent. The USA has always had a missile defense system, since the late 40's. This is just another attempt by the "liars" to muddy the waters again. If a North Korean missile is shot out of the sky it will be done by American ships designed for that purpose 50 years ago. Those ships have nothing to do with Star Wars. Peace

SEW,

Come on down to Florida, we can Indian leg wrestle, or piss on eachothers legs, or grunt at eachother; or whatever it is you guys do in your basements to prove your bravado to eachother.

TEO,
Hopefully the Florida flight training schools are on the lookout for anyone with 3 crossed eyes. However, forget leg wrestling, my 1st move on you would be castration. You know, help for future generations!

These missiles can only reach the west coast. Since so much of THAT coast hates the military, I question even protecting them. Maybe they can chant anti-republican sayings in San Francisco and see if that stops a missile.

International good will to stop North Korea? TEO that is the dumbest thing you have written. Tell me how good will stops Kim Jong Il from starving his people?

Kitty

I don't know why Dumb Shipley doesn't get it, but he just doesn't. We'll just have to keep drilling it in.

If you don't want the U.S. to succeed in its missile defense program, then you ARE against the U.S., plain and simple.

Look, in a time of war we don't have the luxury to cherry-pick between successful programs and unsuccessful ones. If our government is for a program, then we as good Americans are for that program.

To dispute this is about as un-American as it gets. Why is it liberals like Shipley and Castro and the author of this article always want America to fail?

Despicable.

Kahn said: "These missiles can only reach the west coast. Since so much of THAT coast hates the military, I question even protecting them."

Remarkable. CttC, is there anything you want to add to this? Lol!

SEW said: "Well, you lefties will get all of those virgins and become martyrs! Why would such warriors be fearful? No contradiction there!"

Perhaps you missed the point, SEW. My point was that if Dems are afraid of dying, then sheer logic dictates that they would be in favor of the missile defense system. But they aren't. So it seems to me that one part of the argument or the other has to be mistaken. Period. Any additional assumptions made were made by you alone.

But while we're on the subject, I don't understand your logic, either. Are you saying that lefties aren't afraid of martyrdom?

I'm not sure how much your offer to duel applies to me, but you seem to think it does. So fine. And since you threw down the gauntlet I get to choose the weapons, right? I choose facts and logic. Be sure to come armed -- if you can.

The Democrats gutted the military in the 1970's and would do it again if given the opportunity. You cannot trust any Democrat on National Security issues. Clinton was offered Bin Laden and did nothing. He should lose his Presidential pension.

If you don't want the U.S. to succede in its missile defense program, then you ARE against the U.S., plain and simple.

This is why I became a liberal. I got tired of hearing that we were't good Americans if we didn't blindly follow the Idiot-in-Cheif. You can be a good American, but dissent against bad policies, you know.

I don't know much about this weapon defence system, and i'd like to hear both sides tell me what's up, but CttC its time you gave up your simplistic black and white mentality because

a. nothing is EVER black and white, there's always a shade of grey and

b. it's that type of rhetoric that's turning moderate America away from the President and from the Republican Party.

TL

Well, the point is we should try. The lefties don't want us to try because if we (the United States) succeeds, it's bad for them.

I've often wondered how that would feel. Rooting against your own country simply so you can regain power.

If it's a 50/50 shot, I say don't try. And I don't think they will.

The only reason to try and shoot it down would be for posturing purposes. "You have a long range missle, well we have something that will shoot it down."

Again, if it's 50/50, and we miss, then N. Korea has a long-range missle and we can't shoot it down, which puts them in a more powerful position.

I don't think they will try and shoot it down for that reason alone. We're in a powerful enough position as it is. No reason to take a risk like that.

Tom,

I've been familiar with SDI since the 1970's - comes with having a mother who was a physicist and a father who is a ballistics expert; the trick to SDI - hitting an incoming ballistic missile - is actually not all that hard, and we've learned vast amounts on how to do it over the past 23 years, while you on the left have asserted since day one - without a scrap of evidence - that it simply cannot work.

My bet is that we'd fire a spread of missiles at it to ensure target destruction - and I think we should, because it will be a boon all around. I am wrong about one thing - it won't shut up the critics of SDI, but it will make it so that all rational people pay them no mind.

The missile defense system has worked 5 of 8 times so far in tests. So when you libs say it doesn't work you would be right if you are looking at 100% engagement.

Then again, if those 5 missiles were headed to your city you might just say it works.

Why in hell are you guys always so gloom and doom 24/7? No wonder so many people can't stand the left. It's a amazing they all haven't comitted suicide they are so depressed.

"If it's a 50/50 shot, I say don't try. And I don't think they will."

Uhm...ok Tom. So if there are two missiles in bound and we build a system that can take one of them out and spare one city...you're not for it.

Sanity check...aisle 9 please. Shipley needs a labotomy.

Why is it that with a military budget of over 400,000 million dollars a year, we are all in fear of attack? The 400,000 million dollars we spent in 2001 didn't protect us on 9/11. What makes anyone think that just by throwing money at a problem we will become safer? For the money we spend on our military why haven’t we gotten anything, like security, in return?

If we are to be policemen to the world, what would we do if NK decided to invade SK? What would we do to stop China from invading Taiwan, or Japan? With this stupid petro-imperialistic war this administration has going in Iraq our military is much less effective in stopping any other “real” aggression in the world. Maybe if a second conflict starts somewhere in the world the “patriotic” republicans would step up and institute a draft for all good “patriotic” republican young men and women to go and fight. You know we liberal democrats are afraid to die.

But really, it is John Kerry and John Murtha and I who saw combat and know what war is all about. It’s all about killing and dying, something the chickenshit Chickenhawks who are running this country know nothing about. They are happy to send other people’s kids to die for their imperialistic agenda. It makes me sick.

Our security has been undermined by this unending war in Iraq. The president said just the other day that there would be no withdrawal for Iraq while he was in office and the republicans controlled congress. He has said in the past that ending the conflict “would be for another president and another government” to do. He has already washed his hands of the killing and dying, dropped the war just like he’s dropped everything else that was hard for him, like military service. He makes me sick.

BTW, where's bin Ladin? Looks like W's dropped that one too.

Warrior, we're talking about shooting down a test launch, not an attack on the US.

If we miss and N. Korea's test is successful, then IF they truly have the will to attack, they will be emboldened to do so sooner rather than later, as they will see that our missile defense system is not working as it should.

Personally, I doubt that N. Korea truly has the intent to attack us. But if they did, a miss would embolden them, and possibly act sooner rather than later.

Weighing the risk/reward benefit of a counter launch on a test flight, I don't think it's a good idea to try and shoot down the test. And I don't think they will.

Why is it that with a military budget of over 400,000 million dollars a year, we are all in fear of attack? The 400,000 million dollars we spent in 2001 didn't protect us on 9/11. What makes anyone think that just by throwing money at a problem we will become safer? For the money we spend on our military why haven’t we gotten anything, like security, in return?

If we are to be policemen to the world, what would we do if NK decided to invade SK? What would we do to stop China from invading Taiwan, or Japan? With this stupid petro-imperialistic war this administration has going in Iraq our military is much less effective in stopping any other “real” aggression in the world. Maybe if a second conflict starts somewhere in the world the “patriotic” republicans would step up and institute a draft for all good “patriotic” republican young men and women to go and fight. You know we liberal democrats are afraid to die.

But really, it is John Kerry and John Murtha and I who saw combat and know what war is all about. It’s all about killing and dying, something the Chickenhawks who are running this country know nothing about. They are happy to send other people’s kids to die for their imperialistic agenda. It makes me sick.

Our security has been undermined by this unending war in Iraq. The president said just the other day that there would be no withdrawal for Iraq while he was in office and the republicans controlled congress. He has said in the past that ending the conflict “would be for another president and another government” to do. He has already washed his hands of the killing and dying, dropped the war just like he’s dropped everything else that was hard for him, like military service. He makes me sick

Third Eye Open

You compare North Korea to an "unruly child." With all due respect, North Korea is one of the most dangerous threats to American national security in the world today. It would be better to liken them to a military power house which is capable of vast destruction and is capable of defeating the United States. This is especially so, when we factor in the input of their allies of China, Russia, Iran, and the terrorist organizations. North Korea has already threatened to turn Seoul "a sea flames." North Korea is capable of doing this. It would be best to evaluate them as the military power house they are and not as an unruly child. If the folks negotiating with them are seeing them as merely an unruly child, we are in worse shape than I thought!! Evaluate them as the militarily powerful country who can defeat the US that they are. Once we understand the threat posed by North Korea, we can move forward on a strategy for dealing with the threat. You seem to indicate that they want face time. I think it is more than this. Marxists and Islamic Extremists have expressed solidarity with each other in the past. Russia, the leading Communist country, is the biggest supporter of both Iran and North Korea and Iran is North Korea's largest military customer. I think the North Koreans are doing this to divert our attention from their Iranian allies. In addition, their actions may be part of a diversionary tactic to assist their "insurgent" allies in Iraq. The more threats that the Islamic Extremists/Marxists alliance can create, the more difficult it will be for America and the Western world to deal with them. Please understand I'm not saying I think the strategy being pursued by the Bush administration is necessarily the correct one, however, North Korea is not merely some "unruly child." If the administration believes this, we are facing more difficulty than I thought. With Iraq I think we under estimated the power of an enemy. I would prefer not to repeat that mistake with North Korea.

Ricorun,
My point is I can't tell the difference in your "logic" and the "logic" of the jihadists. Call it logic if you like but you sound like a jihad parrot.

And why does a desire to intercept WMDs indicate a fear of dying? Seems like a desire to preserve America and its future to me, illogical to a jihadist with 72 virgins I'm sure.

Ricorun

"Kahn said: "These missiles can only reach the west coast. Since so much of THAT coast hates the military, I question even protecting them.

Remarkable. CttC, is there anything you want to add to this? Lol!"

LOL, indeed.

I think Kahn is right to question whether to defend the Left Coast, but in the end we must remember that --- warts and all --- that is still part of America. If nukes took out Los Angeles or San Francisco, it would make America look weak.

No, better to defend those who enjoy the comforts of America while they subvert the government by opposing missile defense systems. Paradoxical, but true.

Teenage Illiterate

"Nothing is EVER black and white, there's always a shade of grey"

What color is the sky in your naive little world, teenage illegitimate?

While there is gray area in some realms, there are times of black and of white.

(btw, it is "gray" in America, not "grey." We find your Candian spelling a bit gey)

Black = Evil = Osama = Hitler = Satan = Saddam = liberal America-haters = Candians = Death Incarnate

White = Good = Republicans = Jesus Christ = GWB = Ice Cream

See? It really is simple if you just allow logic to takes its natural course.

The dems are always wrong. That's whats so right about them. Whatever they say or do, just think or do the opposite.

Mark said: "the trick to SDI - hitting an incoming ballistic missile - is actually not all that hard, and we've learned vast amounts on how to do it over the past 23 years"

This statement kind of ignores the obvious, doesn't it? Specifically, how do you explain 23 years of trying with little success if it isn't all that hard? And how many tens of billions has it cost so far?

Don't get me wrong, a missile defense system would be a great thing. But at what cost? And what, exactly, do we get for that cost? Do your parents have any inciteful references they'd like to share?

It would be nice if the money supply was infinite. In fact, it appears many people here assume it is. But it isn't. And thus, hard decisions have to be made. The more money you throw at a missile defense system the less money is available for other things. And the important question in all of it is... for what? What kind of bang are we likely to get for what kind of bucks?

Said in a slightly different way, who exactly are we trying to protect ourselves from? Is it Russia and China in addition to NK? Given what I know about the available missile defense technology (such as it is), I doubt it. My understanding is that, at least in the foreseeable future, we can only hope to protect ourselves from relatively small rogue states such as NK, not someone with thousands of warheads. So in practical terms, we are protecting ourselves from NK and future idiots of that ilk.

So here's the question... obviously, we know when NK is fueling their rockets. Thus, we know where they are. Just offhand, does a cheaper alternative occur to you? A certain question keeps popping into my mind -- what would Israel do? Lol!

SDI = corporate welfare, plain and simple.

Are we going to be scared into ponying up trillions more in needless, unworkable defense pork?

Does anyone in their right mind believe NK has anywhere near the technological ability to launch a ballistic missile? Do you know what that requires?

It is one thing to lob a sub-ballistic bomb towards nearby Tokyo - it is quite another matter entirely to build a multi-stage rocket to send a payload outside the atmosphere, have it re-enter 8,000 miles away and land anywhere near the hemisphere of the world where it was intended. There is even some question as to whether the US could actually successfully deliver an ICBM payload with some accuracy (never been tested over the poles). NK? fuhgetaboutit.

Rocket science is... well, it's rocket science. The technological hurdles to achieving a multi-stage ICBM with navigation systems sophisticated enough to steer a re-entry vehicle are enormous. NK can hardly build a reliable coo-coo clock, much less something as incredibly complex as a multi-stage ICBM.

This Typo-Ding-Dong missile has no credibility. NK will never even attempt to test it - not because the US is threatening grave consequences if they do, but because they know it is likely to either explode on its way up or go wildly off course. The proposed anti-balistic missile system can only hit targets as they approach re-entry on the downward side. It is highly doubtful the Taepo-Ringalinga-Ding will ever make it that far.

But it suits both Pyonyang and US defense corporations to pretend that NK has something on the launch pad, ready to go. NK is obviously blackmailing to secure concessions and additional foreign aid, while defense contractors are trying to get taxpayers to subsidize a ridiculously expensive new system. But mark my words: NK will never actually attempt a test of this thing - much too high a liklihood of an embarassing and credibility-obliterating failure.

And any country that does have the substantial technological capability to create an ICBM by default also has the far simpler technology needed to easily foil an anti-missile "shield". Any anti-missile system is unable to distinguish between the multiple dummy warheads that may easily be released on the same payload.

But of course, that won't prevent you all from lathering yourselves up into a hyper-alarmist tizzy, while defense contractors laugh all the way to the bank with what little is left of our treasury. We saw exactly this kind of capabilty/threat inflation during the cold war in order to justify outrageous defense appropriations. Turns out the Soviet Union had no where near the capability the US military-industrial complex wanted us to believe. And NK is in the stone age compared to the old USSR as far as technology.

Ricorun -

great post!

CttC said: "I think Kahn is right to question whether to defend the Left Coast, but in the end we must remember that --- warts and all --- that is still part of America. If nukes took out Los Angeles or San Francisco, it would make America look weak."

Damn, CttC, that puts you somewhere to the left of Kahn. You libbie pinko you. Anyway, I'm sure people like Arnie, and Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, and Brian Bilbray (among the other 15 million or so other Republicans inhabiting the Left Coast states) will be happy to hear of your largesse.

By the way, more California residents have died fighting in Iraq than residents of any other state. That probably goes without saying (since CA is the most populous state), but it is nonetheless worth remembering. It might also be worth keeping in mind that more than a few of those killed were not US citizens. But I guess that's a gray area.

Third Eye Open

You refer to NK as "unruly child." With all due respect, North Korea is one of the most dangerous threats to American national security on the planet. They need to be evaluated as a miliary power house who is capable of inflicting destruction on a massive scale and is probably capable of defeating the US. They are especially capable of defeating the US when their allies are factored in. They are allied with the likes of Russia, China, and the various terrorist organizations. The Marxists and Islamic Extremists have shown solidarity in the past. Russia, the leading communist country, is closely allied with North Korea, Iran, and China. In addition to this, Iran is North Korea's number one customer for weapons. North Koreea has already threatened to turn Seoul into "a sea of flames." North Korea is very capable of doing this. I'm not suggesting that I think the approach being followed by this administratio is necessarily the correct one, but North Korea needs to be evaluated as the militarily powerful contry who is capable of defeating the US that it is and not as an unruly child. With Iraq, I think we made the mistake of underestimating the power of an enemy. Former regime elements make up much of the "insurgency." They have proven to be a very capable fighting force. We underestimated the power of Iraq. I would prefer not to make the same mistake with North Korea.

I think we need a missle defense system. I do agree with some of the sentiments expressed on this thread that we need to make sure we are building something that will actually work and not some pork barrell project.

Third Eye Open

You suggest that the actions taken by North Korea are for face time. I think it is much deeper than that. They may be trying to divert our attention from their Iranian allies and their "insurgent" allies in Iraq. The Islamic Extremists/Marxists alliance may think the more distractions they can create the better for them in their plans.

B.Poster -

"The Islamic Extremists/Marxists alliance may think the more distractions they can create the better for them in their plans."

Which is one of the best arguments I've ever read for not invading secular Iraq. You better believe that Osama and Kim Jong-Il are quite delighted that the US decided to get bogged down in this Iraqi side-show.

Liberals and their posts get nuttier by the day.

Nothing has changed. Even with reality staring them in the face, liberals can't see it.

Anyone who votes to put America's security in the hands of a bunch of looney liberals is voting for suicide.

Sure glad today's high performance cars, planes, missiles, computers, advanced weapons, and most of the other things we take for granted worked right the first time and in exactly the configuration we see and use them today.

Sure glad they all just "popped" into production -- instant gratification -- without years of design, re-design, improvements, trial-and-error, improvements, and newer models replacing older less effective ones.

Anyone ever look at the history of aircraft, from the early attempts to jump off bridges, multi-winged versions that collapsed, and many, many others.

Sure glad a bunch of leftist liberals weren't around to encourage the Wright Brothers. Any liberals could have told them that they were wasting their time and money. Any liberal could have told them that it would be totally and utterly impossible for anything to fly at multiple times the speed of sound or carry hundreds of people from coast to coast or continent to continent in only a few hours.

Anyone with any brains at all knows that something as big and heavy as a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet cannot possibly fly! How stupid do you think we liberals are. You can't fool us with a trick question like that!!!!!

Any good liberal could have told them that the horse and buggy worked just fine and those other people were just wasting time and money on some fantasy like a modern airplane, or modern car, or modern computer, or modern rocket, or space shuttle, etc., etc., etc.

It may take some time to develop and billions of dollars that liberals need to buy votes... but it will work -- hopefully by the time we need it... and we will need it at some time!

How much is it worth spending on a system to protect millions of Americans and our cities? If we listen to our looney liberals -- not one single dollar. Liberals believe we have already wasted too much and we should just shut 'er down, sit back, and wait for big mushrooms to spring up around the country-side. Of course it would be Bush's fault!

What is it worth? What is one or possibly more cities like Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., Houston, Denver, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc. worth? (Well, let's exclude San Francisco!)

And for our friends like the Japanese, South Koreans, and others that includes Tokyo, Seoul, and their cities as well. (As for Canada, axis and CO... go talk to the French!)

What's worth if one of those cities happens to be one where you, your spouse, your children, family, and friends live?

To me, it's worth every cent it takes to develop and field the system and do it as fast as possible with rogue nations rapidly developing weapons like North Korea, Iran, and maybe others in the future!

And when we need it, we need it! There won't be any lead-time to debate, build, and test it by the time looney liberals finally see that we need one. If it were up to the looney left, we would be investigating the remains of some major cities while they discuss the devastation and blame others for why we didn't or couldn't see the need for something as obvious as a missile defense system in today's world!

As for the next test in our development series...

Send up the target North Korea!!!

AAR

Raygun's Star War System was an attempt to militarize space. The ABM Treaty, that bush broke, was preventing that from happening. The Left is tired of the pro-zionist,corporatist, warmongers in charge of our foreign policy. In addition, the defense budget should be cut by 50%, which will get rid of most of the waste. Peace

AAR, perhaps you should rein in your enthusiasm for an NK launch, because GMD is not ready to go. Interceptors are in their silos sure but the radars are still in Hawaii being tested not in Adak where they need to be.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1111/missile-defense-may-be-on-but-theres-nobody-home

Mr. Noonan, you need to explain to the dolts at RAND that ICBM interception isn't that hard, they apparently think its quite a feat.

http://edefense.blogspot.com/2005/11/ground-based-midcourse-defense-against.html

I am a loony liberal who thinks the US would be better off with a more transparent, accountable defense procurement process. I have no problems spending billions, I just want the damn thing to work better than 5/10 before its fielded without the ability to detect a threat.

So the Left has the situation all boxed in.

Option 1: We try to shoot down the missle and we fail, which means the entire system is a failure and always will be and is forever hopeless and they are thrilled to the point of wetting themselves

Option 2: We try to shoot down the missle and we succeed, which puts the Left spin machine into overdrive---it was just one missle and doesn't prove anything, all we did was make NK mad, no wonder every single person in the world hates us because we are just big bullies, etc. No credit for anything positive accomplished.

Option 3: We do nothing, as per their demands, and then when/if we are attacked by a missle from NK they drag out the PROOF THAT BUSH KNEW ABOUT IT ALL ALONG AND DID NOTHING. (Accompanied by "scientists" and "experts" who actually heard the sound of detonations at the sites of the missle strikes, thereby proving that we had actually wired them beforehand with explosives to go off at what were probably fake missle attacks anyway so we could kill a few thousand Americans and go to war to get richer.) All of which would thrill the Lefties to the point of making them wet themselves.

And Bush simply cannot do the right thing, because they have him so bracketed that anything he does will be wrong.

As for what is best for America? That's not the point, never was, never will be. It's all about how the Left can get back in power---and, failing that, how they can FEEL powerful by undermining the efforts of those who really can do things.

Shipley...I don't care if it only hits 10% of the real missiles...that's still 10% less hitting their targets.

I mean you can't be serious to say that something that is less than 100% effective is a failure...can you? Are you REALLY saying this?

How absurd.

If people like you were around in the 1960's we would have never made it to the moon either. People said it couldn't be done, we had many early failures, etc, etc.

Why are you guys 24/7 doubters, unbelievers, haters, etc? Why? Is is something you're trained at or are you born with it?

Almiranta...bingo.

These people...ahhhhhh...I would kill myself if I was wired like these people. Just from the sure depression they spill on here every day. They are so unhappy and so incredibly depressing. No wonder why they want gov't handouts, there is no way with their lack of "can do" attitude they could ever succeed in this society.

It's all becoming quite clear with their comments on a daily basis. They are miserable failing creatures.

Aarontime

I have said many times that the Iraq war may have been a strategic error. The problem I have with leaving Saddam in power is he had extensive ties to terrorists. In fact, Senator Hiliary Clinton spoke of these ties in the run up to the war. The problem with Saddam is he, like Kim Jong II, had thrown his lot in with terrorists. The main problem I have with the Iraq war is in its execution and I'm concerned we have not learned anything. Obviously our intellegence was wrong the WMD stockpiles are not where we thought they would be, we underestimated the strangth of the insurgency, and we overestimated our power. Also, we have been unable to fully determine what was transferred to Syria prior to the war.

Btw, I suspect Iraq was chosen ahead of other countries because we had already fought the Gulf War with them, they were in violation of the cease fire entding the Gulf War, they were in violation of numerous UN resolutions, and they provided safe harbor for terrorists including some of those who particpated in the WTC bombing in 1993. All of these factors made it far easier to assemble a coaltion to deal with Iraq than it would have been to assemble a coalition to deal with an Iran or a North Korea.

Finally, if you leave Saddam in power you will have to re work the sanctions. According to the Iraq Survey Group, Saddam had already achieved a de facto end to the sanctions by early 2001. Saddam had used his oil weapon quite effectively. Unfortunately allot of people liked their oil contracts so much that they were willing to sell out American national security. I wouldn't doubt that some Americans benefited from this as well.

All of this being said, if you had told me in March of 2003 that on 6/21/06 we would have caputred Saddam and American deaths, while tragic, were only around 2,500 to date I would have been thrilled. I expected a far greater number of Coaliton troops to be killed and there was no guarantee that we could remove the former Iraqi government.

Fianlly, I am concerned about our image around the world. Countries like Russia, Venezueala, and Mexico are growing stronger and more beligerent by the day. Someday we may need help to deal with these threats. I hope and pray we can do something to repair our image around the world. This is our long range problem we need to address.

Almiranta, you forgot Option 4: Blow the damned thing up in its silo before it ever gets off the ground. That is, if you really think it's a big deal.

And by the way, what do you think the odds are of your Option 3?

AAR: I understand your point. And I don't know if you were directing your most recent comment to me, but it if so, my larger point was that the current missile defense technology is based on kinetic weapons -- i.e., things that have to be launched, then go boom and are supposed to take whatever is in the immediate area with them. As I understand it, such weapons have inherent limitations. Namely, no matter how efficient the assembly line ulimately becomes, it's still far cheaper for the other side to overwhelm the system with additional warheads.

More importantly, the amount of technology transfer they afford to other types of technologies is also inherently limited. And perhaps more important than that is the fact that the most obvious alternative -- some kind of high energy weapon -- has fundamental limitations of its own. For example, a high energy weapon has to be launched well before an imminent strike. It has to be constantly maintained in space, and it is susceptible to electromagnetic spikes. Such a spike could be delivered by an atomic explosion somewhere in the general area -- a fairly broad general area, in fact. And if that happens the whole installation is rendered non-functional.

AAR, the bottom line is this: the comparisons you offer are tantamount to comparing apples with oranges -- or comparing developments in rocket technology with developments in internal combustion engine technology, or even jet engine technology. And even that's not a fair comparison. Actually, a better comparison would be between advances in rocket technology and advances in laser technology, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with each other. Capiche?

Another thing... you and others appear to want to spin the question into one of (1) do everything possible, regardless of the cost, or; (2) do nothing at all. The argument being that anything anywhere in between is an example of libbie "bracketing". Think about you're doing -- you're allowing the libbies to define the landscape, and allowing them to lay claim to essentially all of the reasonable solutions to the problem. It's not a black/white issue. Very few are.

Actually, there have been eight tests of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System bewtween 2003 and 2005, with seven of the tests successfully destroying the target. That would be about a 87.5% success rate. Sounds like a reasonablely effective program.

Bottom line: We need a missle defense system or we need to change our policies. The policies we would need to change are 1.) Withdraw all support for Israel. 2.) Withdraw all support for Taiwain. 3.) Stop supporting South Korea. 4.) Leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the former regime elements and their terrorists allies who make up the insurgency. 5.) At some point, someone will have to restrain an imperialistic Russia. This job will probably fall to the USA. I don't consider any of these 5 options very palatable. Generally speaking doing that which is right will be harder than simply going along to get along. Regarding point 4, I think there is a significant risk that a democratic Iraq could become an Iranian puppet, however, this is not often reported by the msm who think Bush is the greatest threat to the planet. We may also have to come to terms with the fact that we may not be powerful enough to realistic pursue all of these worthy goals. Hard choices may need to be made.

The missle defense system we get needs to actually work. Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not by what they wish to accomplish. I remember reading that the Russians employ a missle defense system. The explosive that the Russians use for the "kill vehicle" contains a nuclear war head. If we were to use something like this, the "kill vehicle" might not have to score a direct hit. If the incoming war head were destroyed high in the atmosphere, the environmental damage possibly could be kept to a minimum. Only Westerners worry about things like environmental fall out. Russians and Chinese do not appear to concern themselves with such things.

The possiblity of taking out the missle before it launches has been mentioned. I have thought about this. To actually attack the missle before it is launched would likely be viewed by North Korea, North Korea's allies, and the international community as an act of war. To shoot the missle down would likely be viewed as a defensive act by the international community. I think we are trying to avoid war with North Korea. If we were to dsstroy the missle on the launch pad, the North Koreans might make good on their threat to turn Seoul into "a sea of flame." To destroy the missle on the launch pad, our allies would need to have the stomach for war. Right now I don't think it is there. Besides there is no guarantee we could actually win a war against North Korea. This is especially so, when North Korea's allies are factored in.

After working as an R&D design engineer in the defense industry for a decade, I suggest that the typical American has little understanding of missle defense and how effective it needs to be to act as a deterent to attack. A missle screen is effective if it raises the uncertainly of the attackers strike to such a level that he may assume that his first strike will do little damage, while his country will be destroyed. A bit different than MAD, which was a good idea until the MIRV technology was introduced. After MIRV, the balance actually shifted to the first strike as possible and doable.

Ricorun,

I disagree. We work with what we have and improve as we go.

The military are working on, or considering, several options, from ground based, to space based, to lasers (ground, air, and space based), and possibly others. Each has it's limitations -- some of which you pointed out -- and obviously none have been perfected. Each test, however, provides more information, better hardware, better computers, better software, and improved capabilities. Yes, our current system is very limited. Yes, it isn't 100% accurate. That's why it's deployment has been limited. But it's the best we have while working on others.

Yes, a nation can deploy multiple war heads and multiple launches. The current system would not be effective against a full scale launch from nations like Russia or China. It is not intended to protect us from an attack like that. It does have a good chance, however, of stopping a limited launch if a terrorist or mentally deranged person or group manages to gain control of some missile sites and fire off a couple of rounds. It has a good chance of shooting down a limited launch from a rogue nation like North Korea -- a deterrent against possible blackmail -- or suicide by North Korea. By the time North Korea has multiple warheads and more missiles, and by the time Iran can develop missiles and nuclear warheads, hopefully our system will have improved to the point it can keep pace with their capabilities. There are other nations too like Pakistan and India which are working on longer range missiles. A fanatical regime could take control of a country like Pakistan and give us more problems to worry about at any time.

As to "allowing the libbies to define the landscape, and allowing them to lay claim to essentially all of the reasonable solutions to the problem", I don't see it that way. I don't see anything reasonable that libbies have proposed for anything. I don't trust anything proposed by the liberals -- especially as it relates to our military, security, and defenses. Libbies can't even stop their anti-American, anti-war propaganda which is encouraging the terrorists we are fighting. I won't rehash the whys and wherefores again now.

Liberals don't want America to remain a superpower. Liberal want the money for their welfare programs so they can keep Americans chained to the welfare system rather that working to support the economy. Liberals don't want any system developed. They believe everything can be solved by talking and negotiating. It can't! America can't sit by and "hope" that diplomacy will work, where it hasn't in the past. Considering the possible consequences, it would be irrational not to do all we can to protect America against those possibilities we can.

The very fact that Korea "may" already have a missile capable of reaching American cities and those of our allies is proof that we must continue working with what we have now and improve on or replace it with better and more effective systems as we develop them.

Capiche (capisc, capeesh -- I haven't heard that one in a few years), but I don't agree.

I wouldn't trust a liberal on anything... especially our defense! The more I read some of our looney liberal posts -- like axis, teen, and others -- the more it confirms my opinions!

AAR

Warrior,

If you go back a read what I have posted, I have not called the missile system a failure. I have given my opinion on

A) Whether the person who wrote the article CJ wrote is unpatriotic

and

B) Whether it's a good idea to try and shoot down the N. Korean test launch.

Given the odds that we can miss a successful launch, do you think we should try and shoot down any Korean test launch?

TS,

If the shoot-down attempt isn't successful, it doesn't mean that the North Koreans have a long-range missile we can't shoot down, it just means we didn't on that attempt.

I would also question the 50/50 prediction. When the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System was tested between 2002 and 2005, the system achieved an intercept in seven of eight tests, an 87.5% success rate.

B. poster,

Sorry for the simplification, i understand the threat a nuclear NK presents, and I understand that they have capabilities to turn their neighbors into parking lots. The point i was trying to make was that while we are bogged down fighting a 1 1/2 front war, with little or no international help, we have allowed a regime like NK to sneak in the back door to try and assert itself.

IMO, if we can figure out a way to extricate ourselves, and build a solid base of international support, we can beat them back into their box, and not have to provide the security assurances they are looking for, but the key is to rebuild our standing on the international stage, and that is going to mean eating some crow in regards to iraq, setting goals for the international community, and force the Iraqi government to stand up, and reign in the religious in-fighting.

I don't like the idea of showing our cards, with regard to SDI, just ONE mistake, and we have pretty much de-clawed ourselves, politically, and strengthened the position of an NK in negotiations. It would be much more "safe" for us to send a show of force to the area, and let them know we have no problem mobilizing a reaction force to any acts of aggression...it may be just a show, but when you see the US Navy in your neighborhood, it's a damn clear message.

Third Eye Open

Thanks for the reply to my post. With regards to Iraq I think there are three basic goals, post Saddam. 1.)Establish a democratically elected government. 2.)Establish a pro American Government. 3.)Bring stability to the Iraq. We may have to come terms with the fact that we don't have it within our power to achieve all three goals. We could probably ahieve two of them. We have to pick which two we want to try and achieve. I don't think we are at that point yet.

I don't think we "allowed" North Korea to do any thing. We gave them nuclear technology during the Clinton years but this is past tense and they used it to acquire nuclear weapons. Some people are proposing a similliar deal with Iran. Some people never seem to learn from past mistakes. This includes politicians on both sides of the aisle. I think the Western world has neglected its military spending for far to long. The US, while it has high tech weaponory does not have enough "boots on the ground." We need a larger military. GW Bush should have called for this after 911 but this is past tense. Hopefully the next president will get to work on this. No international support for Iraq? If you mean by Russia, China, and France you would be correct. They were in to deep with Saddam. I don't think they ever would have helped us. At the start we had 30 or so nations assisting us. Currently assisting are countries, such as britian, Austrailia, and Japan. They count as international assistance, however, as said previously the West has neglected its military spending for far to long. I suppose it was far easier to allow the US to do it. Finally with regards to North Korea I think we should be prepared for the fact that China and Russia are not going to help us here.

Third Eye Open

Thanks for your reply to my post. Little or no international support? We don't have the support of France, Russia, or China. They were in league with Saddam from the beginning. I don't think they were ever going to help us no matter what with regards to Iraq. We have had about 30 countries assisting us at various stages during Iraq. The big problem is the Western world has neglected its military capability for far to long. The US, while it has high tech weapons, does not have enough "boots on the ground." We need to increase the size of our military. President Bush should have called for an increase in the size of the military post 911. I don't think we "allowed" NK to do anything. The Clinton administration gave them nuclear technology which they used to make nuclear weapons but this is past tense. Unfortunately some people seem intent on making the same mistake with Iran. Politiicans, Republican and Democrat alike, seem to have trouble learning from their mistakes.

Our goals in Iraq appear to be the following. 1.) Bring forth a Democratically elected government. 2.)Achieve stability in Iraq. 3.)Establish a Government that will be allied with the US. As part of our "eating crow" we may have to accept that all three goals may not be achieveable. We may have to choose two of these worthy goals and decide which two we want to pursue. We will have to be certain that the former regime elements and their terrorist allies can never return to power in Iraq. "Setting goals for the international community." We do not set goals for the international community. We work with them to try and represent our best interests. Sometimes we have constructive dialogue and sometimes we don't. "Force the Iraqi government to stand up and reign in religous fighting." They are trying reign in this fighting, as I'm writing this. We do not "force" the soverign government of an ally to do anything. They will try and establish security because it in their interest and ours. I hope and pray they succeed. Btw, the main issue I see with trying establish democracy in Iraq is we have little control over whether it succeeds or not. This will largely be up to the Iraqis.

If the military thinks they can do shoot down an NK missle, I hope they try but I suspect the government won't authorize it. Our negotiating position is weak irrespective of Iraq. NK has Russia and China behind them. All we have are Japan, South Korea and the EU behind us. Russia and China were the primary supporters of the former Iraqi government. They are going to oppose us no matter what. with Russia and China behind them, I don't NK is very worried about the US Navy. This is especially so, given the fact that the Western world seems to lack the stomach for war or for hard sacrifices.

P.S. - There may be a double post on this. I apologize for this.

I hope and pray war with North Korea can be avoided.

B. Poster,

You last post about sums up my feelings, the last thing I want is to be back into Korea for round 2.

I don't want to nitpick here, but our colation of the willing was basically us and Britain; Japan was doing engineering duties and australia, poland, and much of the rest of the countries had little or no military forces stationed there, but that is besides the point.

We have "forced" iraq to do a lot of things, such as move past their roadbloack on Al-Jafri, and the infighting with regards to the constitution. To say we have handed over sovereignty to them, is nothing more than wishful thinking, we still run their security, since their own apparatus is dysfunctional at best. IMO, if we set a time-table of atleast a year for removing 90% of our forces (which most of them being support staff anyways) we can force them to move past the facade of religious instability, and make them deal with the natural-born insurgents, if that involves them doing their own "cleansing" (i hate to use that term) then so be it, but one way or the other, they are going to have to get their own peopl ein line, or we risk 20 years bogged down, trying to make this government viable outside of the greenzone.

We need to have a counterbalance to the iranian influence, Sadr and Al-Sistani need to have viable counterparts, hopefully secular ones, but that might be asking too much.

In regards to NK, I wish I had a better answer to the question of what to do, we have painted ourselves into a corner with this war in iraq, we can't realistically present a reactionary force to an agression, without cutting from iraq, and leaving a serious vacuum, so the question remains...how much ground do we give, or can we afford to give to them? The western world can stomach just about anything it wants, but it's gonna have to be done in the best interest of those involved, sans France, China, Russia; Europe can handle most any responsibility it has to, but you have to make your case to the populations, not the way we went about iraq.

We did influence the Iraqis regarding the Al-Jafri situation and the constitution but the final decisions are made by the Iraqis. For that matter, other countries influence us. It goes both ways. At present, we do handle Iraq's security needs. We also keep large numbers of troops in South Korea and Japan but they are in charge of their countries. "Wishful thinking." Actually I wish we had more control than we do. The trouble with this democracy thing in Iraq is we have so little control in how it turns out. This will be up to the Iraqis. We have transferred sovereignty to them. We can help them along the way but we don't control it. As for a time to withdrawl, the Iraqis seem to indicate they can be ready for us to fully withdraw by 2008.

We can't be certain of course, but I think had we not intervened in Iraq when we did Iraq would now be armed with WMD. Perhaps he already was. We still don't know for certain what was transferred to Syria, Iraq's close ally, before the war. We would have an the NK problem plus a stronger Iraq. As I said, we can't be certain of what would have happened. Hindsight affords us 2/20 vision. I think we do agree that Iran needs to be contained.

We did not force Iraq to move past the Al-Jafri roadblock or the to resolve issues regarding the constitution. They resolved them and we influenced them along the way. Other countries influence us to. It goes both ways. We do handle Iraq's security right now. We also keep large numbers of military in South Korea and Japan but they are in charge of their countries. The same with Iraq. We help them with security but they are in charge of the country. The biggest problem I have with this democracy thing for Iraq is how little control we have over its outcome. This will be up to the Iraqis. "Wishful thinking" What is wishful thinking to me is I'm wishing we had more control over the situation. As for a time to withdraw, the Iraqis say they expect to be able to fully handle their own security by 2008.

We can't be certain of course but I think had we not intervened in Iraq when we did Saddam would still be in power and he would be armed with WMD. He may have been before we got there, as there are still unanswered questions regarding what was transferred to Syria, Iraq's close ally, prior to the war. I think we would have the issues with North Korea that we currently have along with an even larger Iraq situation. As I said, we can't be certain of what would have happened. Hindsight affords us 20/20 vision.

Tom....it's a great question. Today in the Washington Post, Clinton's former Secretary of Defense (Perry) said we should shoot down the missile. He also said we should look into bombing the missile right on the launch pad.

Rather interesting don't you think?

More GOOD NEWS for America's security... BAD NEWS for DimOcrats!

U.S. Navy Test Intercepts Missile Warhead.

"...A U.S. warship has successfully knocked down a short-range missile fired from Hawaii, the Pentagon has said, amid global concerns about a possible North Korea missile test."

"The latest test of the U.S. missile defense program is the seventh time in eight attempts the military has successfully shot down a target with a ship-based interceptor..."

"A Japanese warship took part in the exercise ... the first time a U.S. ally has taken part in a sea-based missile defense test after Tokyo agreed to develop missile defense technology with America last year."

"Sea-based missile defense tests have been more successful than tests of the land-based interceptor system ... That system has had five successful tests out of 10..."

"...Pentagon officials say the technical problems that plagued more recent tests have been resolved ... system has 'some limited operational capability.'"

AAR

AAR,

we arent worried about shooting them down with ship launched missles, its the MDS that has everyone worried.

TEO,

Liberals aren't worried about shooting anything down. Liberals aren't interested in pre-emptive or defensive actions to protect Americans and American cities -- BEFORE THEY AND THEIR CITIES ARE DESTROYED!!!!!

Liberals will sit back and WAIT for American cities to be destroyed and millions of Americans to be killed. Then they will call for more of their silly investigations and work to blame someone else. They will "demand" that those responsible be given "fair trials" and demand that those responsible are given soft, comfortable, and cushy "accommodations" and access to a team of ACLU lawyers! Liberals will demand that no one use loud music, sleep deprivation, or uncomfortable temperatures to make the murderers tell about other cities about to be destroyed!!!

BTW what was MDS? It's probably obvious, but it's just not coming to me right now.

I still have more opinions and thoughts on this thread later.

AAR

Any unilateral action against North Korea would be a dumb idea at best - our agressive foreign policy has hurt our standing in the UN enough. But the ABM Treaty was a relic of the Cold War - it has no meaning today. I'm glad we have a reliable missile defense in the form of Aegis - but anyone with the chutzpah to fire a missile at us is going to need one hell of an alibi to keep us from retaliating. It would be suicidal for North Korea to launch a missile at us - better to simply sell a weapon to some religious zealots and have them do Kim's dirty work. I can't see why we insist on building ground based defense systems though, when we already have Aegis. I'm too lazy to look it up, but are ground based ABMs capable of something Aegis isn't?

TEO,

By MDS, do you mean ONLY the land based system?

Does MDS to you mean only those missiles physically located in the 50 states?

Does that mean the ship based systems that shoot down missiles aren't a "missile defense system"?

Does that mean that if we place missiles on ships located off the coast of North Korea to shoot down their missiles which might be aimed at the United States, those missiles aren't part of our "missile defense system" as you seem to be defining MDS.

What about systems we may install in countries like Japan, South Korea, and Israel? Would those not be part of a "missile defense system"? And, if they shoot the missiles down before our U.S. based missiles, aren't they part of the MDS as you seem to define it?

Just trying to learn everyone's definitions!

AAR

Bong,

The U.S. Missile Defense System is a complex, multi-faceted, and evolving system that will eventually include and integrate many different systems and components.

Here are a few quotes I pulled from the Internet:

"Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis BMD) will provide an efficient and highly mobile sea-based defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their midcourse phase."

"... [Aegis BMD's] role in missile defense evolves as the Missile Defense System (MDS) evolves. For the initial MDS, Aegis BMD’s role is that of a forward deployed sensor. Aegis BMD Destroyers are forward deployed to extend the battle space and provide early warning of an intercontinental ballistic missile launch and transmit tracking data to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GBMD) command center via the MDS. This Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) capability assists in the defense of the United States, including Hawaii and parts of Alaska, by providing tracking data to cue other MD sensors and initiate a GBMD engagement."
"Starting in 2005 through 2006, Aegis BMD’s role will be expanding to include an engagement capability. Aegis BMD cruisers will be armed with the Standard Missile-3, capable of intercepting short-range, medium-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. As missile and radar capabilities increase, Aegis BMD’s role in the overall missile defense mission will also increase."

"The system will integrate the U.S. Navy’s existing fleet of Aegis cruisers (Ticonderoga class) and Aegis destroyers (Arleigh Burke class) with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor currently under development. The system will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to move its defense capabilities close to enemy launch sites, thus providing a critical 'layer' to the broader Ballistic Missile Defense System."

"At present, each Aegis cruiser and destroyer is outfitted with the Aegis Weapon System—the heart of which is the AN/SPY-1 radar system. AN/SPY-1 sends out beams of electromagnetic energy in all directions, thus allowing Aegis ships to track up to 100 targets simultaneously, while still retaining the ability to counter other ai