You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
US weighs rules for any Korean missile strike
2005-05-13
The US Defense Department is weighing whether a decision to shoot down any suspected inbound North Korean missile should go all the way to the president, a top general told Congress on Wednesday.
Ummm... How's "no" sound?
Marine Gen. James Cartwright, commander of the Strategic Command that coordinates US missile defense operations, said the authorization would ideally come from the president and the secretary of defense, but there might not be time enough.
Jumped right on that one, didn't he?
"As you can imagine, getting the president, the secretary, the regional combat commander into a conversation and a conference in a three to four-minute time frame is going to be challenging," Cartwright told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on defense. "So what are the rules that we lay down? We are working very hard with the secretary to lay down those rules and understand the risks associated with those very quick and timely decisions that are going to have to be made ... when we deal with the North Korean threat," he testified.
I'd go with "shoot first and ask questions later." How about you?
North Korea, at odds with the United States over its nuclear programme, is believed to have the capability to mount a warhead on one of its long-range missiles, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress last month. Cartwright said the US missile defense system is designed to "characterize" a threat in its first three to four minutes of flight.
Posted by:Fred

#25  I liked Alas Babylon.
Still have a old old copy somewhere.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-05-13 22:31  

#24   IIRC, my older sister had to read Alas Babylon in junior high in California in the mid-70's. It's a conspiracy, Shipman!

Same time frame, I always figured Florida skools read it because it's set in Florida. Reading about a nuclear strike on McCoy was a little freaky.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-05-13 19:46  

#23  Plus ça change, plus ça meme.

Posted by: too true   2005-05-13 19:34  

#22  IIRC, my older sister had to read Alas Babylon in junior high in California in the mid-70's. It's a conspiracy, Shipman!

Re fatalism and On the Beach... I never understood why Shute didn't have the Aussies put a few thousand folks in mineshafts until the Co60 dissipated.

It also seems to me that we are entering an On the Beach kind of world. Shute's story involved massive nuclear proliferation. Nasserites start WWIII with a suicide nuke attack on Washington D.C. Kind of reminds me of something that happened a few years ago... hmmm.
Posted by: 11A5S   2005-05-13 19:31  

#21  Also had Psyco boy and dancing man in it.

The cold cruel fingers of age squish pheangs' headtop and remove any cookies or rememberance of movies past...
Posted by: Pheang Snereper8275   2005-05-13 19:25  

#20  first one with Ava Gardner, Gregory Peck, IIRC was a downer, but good
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-13 19:01  

#19  Going to have to lookup Alas Babylon...

Haven't read On the Beach for some time. Wasn't there a move made of it -- starring DeCrapio ?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-05-13 18:58  

#18  And required reading for 7th Grade Lit. in Florida.

/kidder you not.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-05-13 18:29  

#17  Counterpoint to On the Beach is Alas Babylon which is has a much more positive take on Nuclear Combat and humanity. :)
Posted by: Shipman   2005-05-13 18:28  

#16  On the Beach was great for its time. I re-read it again about a year ago and was struck by the fatalism, but even more by the acceptance of it all. Everyone just took their red pill when it was time. Somehow I doubt that would happen today.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-05-13 17:54  

#15  Dr Strangelove was funny On the Beach was shit scary.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-05-13 17:37  

#14  SMN,
Amusing footnote to your DR.Strangelove reference. Gen.LeMay hated the film and banned it from SAC airbases and informally made it known no SAC personnel should watch it. My dad was a KC-135 pilot based at Rapid City at the time,and when he took my mom to see a late showing,the theatre was packed w/nothing but base personnnel and their wives/girlfriends.
When the Cuban Missile Crisis got hot,there were a bunch of accidents from people fleeing Rapid City. My mom decided to stay and was going shopping,when my dad told her to just remember,we might not go to war and we'll have to actually pay the credit card bills.
In what at first glance seems a wonderful bit of military insanity,the war plans at time had the KC-135s based on East Coast fly into interior of US,while the KC-135s based in interior flew to East Coast,and then on to refuel the bombers. No doubt the logic was bases in the coastal States would get hit in a suprise attack,and any survivors would form reserve,while bases in interior hopefully had more warning and thus could support the first strikes better.(Incidentally,one plan had the KCs over Atlantic delivering so much fuel to bombers that they wouldn't have enough fuel to make it do bases in Norway. Unofficially,most of pilots told their crews they would keep enough to make it to a base.)
Posted by: Stephen   2005-05-13 16:13  

#13  MOTO
Posted by: Shipman   2005-05-13 16:02  

#12  All this is Pentagon fodder for public consumption. The system for "protocol" responding has been worked out long before 911. During the heydays of the movie "Dr. Stranglove..." when a lower ranked military officer was shown as 'commandeering' the US's nuclear launch triggering schemes; was such senarios thoroughly strategized. I surmise this at being propaganda for North Korean dissemination!
Posted by: smn   2005-05-13 11:27  

#11  One of the things I like about Bush, if a commander made the decision to blow up a incoming missle, Bush would support the commander. Unlike some Donks I know who would use the commander as a sacrificial lamb even if the commander made the right call.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-05-13 10:27  

#10  It sounds to me like the answer quoted was a debunk of a question along the lines of off 'Will the President make the decision to shoot down a Nork missile?' He can hardly say 'That's a stupid question.' He clearly states they are in the process of defining the rules of engagement, i.e. it will not be dependant on the decision of any specific individual.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-13 09:39  

#9  What possible reason could there be for not intercepting an inbound missile?

It's going to land on Ottawa?
Posted by: Steve White   2005-05-13 08:52  

#8  i agree with silentbrick
Posted by: Thraing Hupoluper1864   2005-05-13 06:05  

#7  Marine GEN Cartwright is indeed the commander of STRATCOM. He is an F-4 and F-18 pilot and has carrier logistics command experience. Both of those planes are multirole fighters used by the Marines for close air support of land/littoral combat operations as well as air-to-air combat.

His appointment to this command is not so surprising when you look at his experience, the kinds of conflict that are likely to percolate for the next 19-20 years and this SECDEF's focus on nimble, integrated ops that differ in several ways from the force-on-force conflicts of past major wars.

For similar reasons Marine GEN Pace has also been nominated for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Posted by: rkb   2005-05-13 05:33  

#6  The article has to have its facts wrong because how did a Narine General end up in charge of Strategic Defence? The Air Force,Army and Navy all have anti-missile programs,but not the Marines.I remember an article telling of how mediocre the current crop of Army Generals is,as evidenced by a Marine given Europe,but this? Was he a compromise between services,or are the Marines promoting the right people?
Posted by: Stephen   2005-05-13 04:30  

#5  If Cartwright denies the direct quotes or challenges the context, then you have a point.

If not...
Posted by: .com   2005-05-13 03:48  

#4  Err, this is the Paki Daily Times, hardly an authorative source.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-13 02:19  

#3  The only real question should be whether or not the president then authorizes the retaliation that turns NK a parking lot. Honestly, our nukes should be in the air even before we shoot down their incoming.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2005-05-13 02:12  

#2  Institutional Incompetence is all I can think of AZcat
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-05-13 02:10  

#1  What possible reason could there be for not intercepting an inbound missile?
Posted by: AzCat   2005-05-13 00:27  

00:01