6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Are you quite sure that US missiles can intercept Kim's ICBM? The Pentagon has a record of publishing misleading reports about the tests. It would be pretty embarrassing if the missiles failed.

The missiles can be shot down. But not with a 100% guarantee. A high probability for sure.

2 hours ago, coconuthead said:

 

are you serious quoting the daily mail?

 

they are one of the biggest fake news fabricators in the UK

It's also discussed here. Better?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/japan-fears-the-once-distant-threat-of-north-korean-missiles-is-becoming-real

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The missiles can be shot down. But not with a 100% guarantee. A high probability for sure.

I seem to recall that the US didn't have a great success of shooting down Sadams Scud missiles that were fired on Israel, unless technology has improved big time of course?

4 hours ago, vogie said:

I seem to recall that the US didn't have a great success of shooting down Sadams Scud missiles that were fired on Israel, unless technology has improved big time of course?

Technology has improved big time.

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The missiles can be shot down. But not with a 100% guarantee. A high probability for sure.

For sure?  You know this how?

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

For sure?  You know this how?

http://pages.experts-exchange.com/processing-power-compared/

 

Exponential processing power growth. The calculations required to produce a intercept are I would suggest "very difficult". Ability of hardware to host more sophisticated programs to do the calculations and provide the horse power for them to be completed in time make it more likely that technology has improved the odds. HOWEVER still not sure I would trust the USA entirely as this is also a heaven sent marketing campaign for the THAAD system :)   

4 hours ago, flipflop99 said:

http://pages.experts-exchange.com/processing-power-compared/

 

Exponential processing power growth. The calculations required to produce a intercept are I would suggest "very difficult". Ability of hardware to host more sophisticated programs to do the calculations and provide the horse power for them to be completed in time make it more likely that technology has improved the odds. HOWEVER still not sure I would trust the USA entirely as this is also a heaven sent marketing campaign for the THAAD system :)   

It's not just a matter of processing power. In the case of tests in 2016 there were defective thrusters. A new thruster has been installed on new missiles but the defective thrusters are still in place on the older ones.

A troll post has been reported and removed.  

Not guaranteed,  but possible. Good article.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/asia/north-korea-missile-defense-guam/index.html

As I understand it, the best time to take out a ballistic missile is when it makes its turn to reenter the earth's atmosphere. So far only conventional explosives have been used. Is there any doubt that a tactical nuke can be used if the the incoming missile poses a serious threat? That makes it much easier than trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. A nuclear detonation outside of the earth's atmosphere is likely fairly safe.

2 minutes ago, Gary A said:

As I understand it, the best time to take out a ballistic missile is when it makes its turn to reenter the earth's atmosphere. So far only conventional explosives have been used. Is there any doubt that a tactical nuke can be used if the the incoming missile poses a serious threat? That makes it much easier than trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. A nuclear detonation outside of the earth's atmosphere is likely fairly safe.

What about EMP? Still, I guess EMP beats NH.

Edited August 17, 20178 yr by ilostmypassword

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Not guaranteed,  but possible. Good article.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/asia/north-korea-missile-defense-guam/index.html

Yes it was.

31 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What about EMP? Still, I guess EMP beats NH.

 

The EMP may be a good reason to use a small nuke. Hopefully it could destroy the missile's guidance systems if not the missile itself. If not properly guided, the missile could very well burn up in the earth's atmosphere.

1 minute ago, Gary A said:

 

The EMP may be a good reason to use a small nuke. Hopefully it could destroy the missile's guidance systems if not the missile itself. If not properly guided, the missile could very well burn up in the earth's atmosphere.

How could a missile burn up the earth's atmosphere. There were giant abovebround nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's. The atmosphere isn't currently flammable. It would take a lot more methane to make it so.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How could a missile burn up the earth's atmosphere. There were giant abovebround nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's. The atmosphere isn't currently flammable. It would take a lot more methane to make it so.

 

The friction from the air causes a tremendous amount of heat. A few years ago we nearly lost a shuttle because some of the heat shield tiles came off. A missile has no thick heat resistant tiles. The air resistance is what cause meteors to burn up before they hit the earth.

Just now, Gary A said:

 

The friction from the air causes a tremendous amount of heat. A few years ago we nearly lost a shuttle because some of the heat shield tiles came off. A missile has no thick heat resistant tiles. The air resistance is what cause meteors to burn up before they hit the earth.

This is a case of dyslexia on my part. I read "burn up the earth's atmosphere".

Why they just simply not take Kim out with drone?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

10 minutes ago, Xaos said:

Why they just simply not take Kim out with drone?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

A good thing North Korea's airspace is completely unprotected by antiaircraft missiles and such. Otherwise your plan would be a guaranteed failure.

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:12 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Reallly? Does anyone on the right remember Syria? How has Trump proved he walks the walk? He is known chiefly as someone who lies all the time.

Oh, you mean like drawing red lines?  Yeah, I remember that...

 

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh, you mean like drawing red lines?  Yeah, I remember that...

 

I thought Trump was supposed to be different..

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by ilostmypassword

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I thought Trump was supposed to be different..

Oh, he's drawing "red lines", too?

10 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh, he's drawing "red lines", too?

"North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won't happen!"

On 17/08/2017 at 0:07 PM, Xaos said:

Why they just simply not take Kim out with drone?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Or Mugabe, Trump, Putin, that guy in Thailand... Let's all just go round killing people we don't like; why not..?

4 hours ago, baboon said:

Or Mugabe, Trump, Putin, that guy in Thailand... Let's all just go round killing people we don't like; why not..?

Did Mugabe develop a nuclear weapon and then threaten to use it against the US? Even Putin hasn't produced a video showing the nuking of NYC.

 

Nice rant though.  LOL

I think Kim is fake news, just like Trump .