| Submit your comments on this article | |
| China-Japan-Koreas | |
| U.S. Navy to Deploy Ships Near N. Korea | |
| 2004-09-24 | |
| In the first step toward erecting a multi-billion-dollar shield to protect the United States from foreign missiles, the U.S. Navy will begin deploying state-of-the-art destroyers to patrol the waters off North Korea as early as next week. The mission, to be conducted in the Sea of Japan by ships assigned to the Navy's 7th fleet, will help lay the foundation for a system to detect and intercept ballistic missiles launched by "rogue nations." Washington hopes to complete the network over the next several years. "We are on track," Vice Admiral Jonathan Greenert, commander of the 7th Fleet, told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday aboard the USS Coronado, which is based just south of Tokyo. "We will be ready to conduct the mission when assigned." The deployment will be the first in a controversial program that is high on President Bush's defense agenda. Bush cleared the way to build the system two years ago by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned ship-based missile defenses. He said protecting America from ballistic missiles was "my highest priority as commander in chief, and the highest priority of my administration." The project — likened to hitting a bullet with a bullet, only at three times the speed — is exceedingly complex, prompting many critics to argue that it will never be reliable or effective. It is also expensive, with an estimated price tag of US$51 billion over the next five years.
| |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #22 As I remember, I think the most lethal blast to surface ships is an underwater blast because it kicks up a tidal wave. I doubt that the Norks would be able to build a missile that could be programmed for sub-surface, air and contact blasts. I am kind of baffled about why the writer is so sure that shooting down a missile with another missile is such a technically impossible challenge. I served on a Coonz class DDG and felt pretty safe from enemy missiles. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-25 3:24:53 AM |
| #21 I second your frustration Zenster but there is no immediate solution to the WOT. This is gonna be a long drawn out affair. The enemy has been at us for 25 years and we've just gotten around to firing our 1st shots. Better buckle down for the long haul. And, I have no doubt that Islam will have the riot act read to it...eventually. We can't quibble about the cost when we're talking survival. AIDS and other privations are part of the human condition. No amount of money will cure those ills. Some may be eased true, but in no way does it warrant us abandoning our current course in the WOT. Now that's not to say there can't be a debate on effective means of fighting the WOT, by all means there needs to be - but that should be the sole focus. Rex, please do not think for one minute that I wish to relegate the war on terrorism to a back seat. Preventing their intended WMD attacks upon America is of primary importance. It is exactly because of the persistent nature and easily anticipated, inevitably endless supply of jihadist terrorists which Islam will supply that I advocate investigation of some truly effective solutions into any sort of continued activity by those who pursue such nefarious ends. Islamism must be stopped. No options and no alternatives. We need to take those resouces currently diverted by these murderous psychopaths and redirect them towards the ends they should rightfully be intended for. At some point Islam must assume responsibility for the monstrous destruction they wreak upon our world. Why wait any longer? The evidence is clear and the results are more than disgusting. What are we waiting for, a terrorist nuclear attack upon America or any other nation? Make Islam pay the piper now, or we shall pay him later. What other alternatives exist? Please tell. PS: Thank you for the link, Kalle. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-25 12:15:42 AM |
| #20 I wonder what would happen if the North koreans decided to take out parts of the 7th fleet with a successful nuke launch? Pretty much anything launched in the direction of a 7th Fleet asset is going to cause a reaction. If it's nuclear, then pretty much all bets are off. Ships have the advantage of a) being mobile, b) having pretty good sensors and data systems, c)fair to decent countering systems, and d) being at sea. It's a lot harder hitting or having an effect on a moving target that's aware of a launch in a marine environment, than hitting a city or port. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-09-24 11:31:56 PM |
| #19 Zenster, the best I've seen was this 2001-Sep-13 article by E.G.Ross at The Objective American -- doesn.'t factor the war in Iraq, but who could have told that less than 36 hours after the 9/11 massacre. We could work it out more precisely now. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-09-24 8:18:58 PM |
| #18 I second your frustration Zenster but there is no immediate solution to the WOT. This is gonna be a long drawn out affair. The enemy has been at us for 25 years and we've just gotten around to firing our 1st shots. Better buckle down for the long haul. And, I have no doubt that Islam will have the riot act read to it...eventually. We can't quibble about the cost when we're talking survival. AIDS and other privations are part of the human condition. No amount of money will cure those ills. Some may be eased true, but in no way does it warrant us abandoning our current course in the WOT. Now that's not to say there can't be a debate on effective means of fighting the WOT, by all means there needs to be - but that should be the sole focus. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-09-24 7:11:20 PM |
| #17 A conservative estimate of the cost to the USA of the WTC destruction on 9/11, the murder of 3,000 highly productive people, the immediate economic slow-down, as well as increased security spending is $500b. Kalle, do you have a link to where this information is cited? This is something I've been saying for some time now. Terrorism is simply bleeding far too many resources, both financial and military, for its impact to be ignored. People in Darfur are dying due to America's burdensome committment in Iraq. And countless others are starving to death, dying of AIDS and suffering innumerable other privations that those untold billions could help to prevent. If America alone is out 500 BILLION, the world is probably out an entire ONE TRILLION dollars. Just think what that sort of money could do for other intractable global issues. At some point, the Islamic countries will need to be read the riot act. Their support, harboring and financing of terrorists are killing far more than just the victims who perish in their hideous atrocities. Their diversion of vitally needed funding claims hundreds of lives every day. A 3-11 Madrid atrocity is collectively happening every 24 hours and it is time for Islam to pay the piper for the havoc they are wreaking upon the remaining world. We need to consider taking the Arabian shrines by force, decapping the governments that support terrorism or something of equal deterrance. I'm f&%king sick to death of watching a tiny fraction of this earth's population gobble up the resources necessary to heal so many of its wounds. Should this state of affairs continue much longer, I will be forced to advocate the nuclear attack of those nations and populations that promote this suffering. Terrorism claims many more victims by far than just those it murders. And there is no possible way for those who condone it to justify the massive scale of death and destruction that terrorism brings about. At some point, much more permanent solutions will need to be considered if Islam refuses to clean its vermin infested house. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-24 6:48:17 PM |
| #16 There's no such thing as a measured response to a nuke attack. And neither should there be. The only upside would be how such a response will serve impossible-to-ignore notice to Iran and other Islamic countries of just how serious the consequences are of using nuclear weapons against Americans. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-24 6:28:45 PM |
| #15 I don't think it is possible to destroy the 7th Fleet with a nuke launch. They have theater missile defense systems, and the advantage of being able to cruise at roughly 30 knots, away from wherever the missile was aimed. Besides, how would they know where the 7th Fleet was? The Chinese had no idea that 2 aircraft carriers were in the Taiwan Straits in 1996 - they learned about it on CNN. In addition, a nuclear attack would be met with the physical annihilation of North Korea. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-24 6:21:51 PM |
| #14 A conservative estimate of the cost to the USA of the WTC destruction on 9/11, the murder of 3,000 highly productive people, the immediate economic slow-down, as well as increased security spending is $500b. Spending $50b over five years to prevent a nuclear attack on American soil is peanuts compared to that. I'll gladly pay for such life-enhancing peanuts. Further, the fact of the system's existence serves as an impediment and a threat to our enemies. There may be doubts or flaws in the shield, but the enemy had better not try it out, lest they be utterly annihilated after one of their missile is harmlessly (to us) popped in outer space. Having said that, I'd also like to see an offensive capability developed to threaten to destroy missile bases wherever they may be (Syria, Iran, NoKo, China, Pakistan, ...). CCDEM |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-09-24 6:21:20 PM |
| #13 There's no such thing as a measured response to a nuke attack. God help'em. |
| Posted by: BH 2004-09-24 5:58:47 PM |
| #12 The US Navy's resposne would be swift, certain, surgical, and devastating to the Nork military. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-24 5:33:00 PM |
| #11 I wonder what would happen if the North koreans decided to take out parts of the 7th fleet with a successful nuke launch? Would we totally commit to the destruction of the north or wait for a "measured" response out of our 'merciful nature'? |
| Posted by: smn 2004-09-24 5:11:00 PM |
| #10 Fred, badanov: Excellent exit strategies. Mind if I barrow? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-09-24 4:32:47 PM |
| #9 I have worked on the missle track correction motors, this system does work. Like all other new complex systems and machines, it will take some time to mature. It works |
| Posted by: Comanche Man 2004-09-24 4:20:04 PM |
| #8 When I die and there is so much as a drop of wine left in the house, then I have failed. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-24 4:10:47 PM |
| #7 I guess you all know that 'norks' is Aussie slang for 'breasts'. I just hope we don't end up having to nuke the norks. |
| Posted by: Nork by Nork West 2004-09-24 4:09:03 PM |
| #6 Fred, A beautiful ambition. Brought tears to my eyes. I always find it amusing when non-engineers tell the rest of us what is and isn't possible. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2004-09-24 3:52:23 PM |
| #5 "But for now, tracking and monitoring are as far as the mission can go. The interceptors won't be fully deployed at the American bases until next year." In the meantime, firing anything worth intercepting could result in exceedingly ugly retribution. Kimmie needs reminding of the firepower of just one of our subs. We need to be in his face with the "Our Nukes / His Nukes" Ratio. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-24 3:49:07 PM |
| #4 Are they in the East Sea, the West Sea, or The Sea of Fire? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-09-24 3:48:28 PM |
| #3 While Fred's approach is certainly not without merit, I'd also like to see our boats provide a strategic blockade of all naval traffic going to or from North Korea. All shipments should be boarded for inspection and interception of any military or dual-purpose technology. As Frank so sagaciously notes, sea launched missile interceptors wouldn't be such a bad idea either. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-24 3:48:07 PM |
| #2 If the missile defense system saves one city from nuclear destruction, it has paid for itself, and then some. As to hitting a bullet with a bullet, these guys must not be familiar with the fact that unlike bullets, ballistic missiles are pretty large things and have to travel for at least minutes before arriving at their destinations. Note also that if military lasers do come into production, that the speed of light is 50,000 times faster than that of ballistic missiles, making it theoretically possible for a single laser to destroy large numbers of missile in-flight, assuming that they can be made powerful enough to penetrate different environmental conditions. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-24 3:45:09 PM |
| #1 skeet shooting coming up in 5....4....3... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-24 3:38:38 PM |