Hypothetical question.

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: mk378
A country's military shooting at something that belongs to another country's military without their permission is the definition of war.

There are rules as to when such action is justifiable national defense. An unarmed test missile flying to the middle of an ocean is not one of those cases.


that's pretty much how it normally goes.


The risk that arises for not shooting it down can cost many lives. For instance, if said nation has made threats about destroying other nations...AND fires those missles in the direction of those nations....there is no way of verifying that those missiles aren't carrying a live warhead. Especially if said nation fires those missile and the route they take is directly over a nation such as...oh, I don't know....let's say JAPAN. The act of war would then be upon the nation that FIRED the missile...not the defending nation.

 

[mk378]

Within a few minutes of launch is possible to for a superpower to predict the rather small area where an ICBM could potentially land-- and therefore know that the rest of the world is safe.

If the missile is shot down, it is not possible for any third-party independent observer to confirm whatever a superpower claimed about the missile's alleged trajectory was true or not. If the missile is allowed to land, then such confirmation is obvious.

Without superpower intelligence facilities or an admission by the state that fired the missile, it is not possible to be certain if a missile contains a live warhead versus a practice shot.

 

[Alfred_B]

@andrewg, I'm sure you are aware that the NK test missile shot over Japan was 478 miles above the Earth. The corporate media forgot to mention that part.

 

[mk378]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@andrewg, I'm sure you are aware that the NK test missile shot over Japan was 478 miles above the Earth. The corporate media forgot to mention that part.

Exactly. Even if it had a warhead, it couldn't possibly come down on the island. And the military knew that almost immediately from the missile's direction and speed observed by radar as it went up.

Stuff like this needs to be VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED to TV audiences. The days of expecting most adult Americans to know at least a little basic science are long over.

 

[andyd]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@andrewg, I'm sure you are aware that the NK test missile shot over Japan was 478 miles above the Earth. The corporate media forgot to mention that part.
Hmmn Yah, I didn't realize it was 478 mile high over Japan. Sovereignty-wise, is there an altitude limit?

 

[mk378]

"Outer space" is considered international under a treaty written in the 1960's and signed by almost all nations (including NK, USA, and Japan). The altitude where "outer space" begins is not strict but it is generally considered to start where the atmosphere is non-existant enough that an object can remain in orbit, which is about 60 miles.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
@andrewg, I'm sure you are aware that the NK test missile shot over Japan was 478 miles above the Earth. The corporate media forgot to mention that part.


On NBC Nightly News, they said it's apogee was 3000 miles above the earth, and 6xx some miles down range.

On a flatter trajectory, it could theoretically reach the US east coast.

 

[andrewg]

Unbelievable to me the level of excuses and apologetic rhetoric given to a "hypothetical" nation. Especially considering this nation has given full intentions of using nuclear weapons to obtain it's goals. Just remarkable how folks think such a "hypothetical" nation isn't a HUGE danger to the world. I'm sure then that many of you would take no issue if a violent and oppressive neighbor of ours would fire a missle directly overhead.

 

[Timo325]

Originally Posted By: andyd
Thank you again Timo. Before this discussion, I was wondering why X's noise was being tolerated. Mostly because, it is just noise, I guess

Make no mistake they are a very real threat to some of our partner nations in the region. They have many TBM's..

They still have the potential to cause regional and global instability.

GCM does have a 50% intercept rate, but we have enough to counter what country "X" has for the near term (as I said earlier ~2017).

A few more years and both hypothetical countries will have better developed options and more missile availability.

 

[andrewg]

My guess is that said hypothetical nation will soon (within two years at most) acquire fully functioning and capable ICBM nukes. This will be due to the lack of will of other nations currently able to prevent that eventuality.

 

[PumpPusher]

How warning do we have if North Korea sends us a nuke? How do we know if the one that is launched is meant for us?

 

[dnewton3]

And we're done here ...