Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Renovation Blog
Condo for rent or lease
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Truck for Sale
Reconstruction Blog
|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence
| It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #217611] |
Fr, 23 Juni 2006 12:09 |
|
For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #218689 ] |
Mi, 28 Juni 2006 10:29 |
|
In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>
> What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>
> Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
> the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
incident.
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #220419 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 07:02 |
|
HanKookJin wrote:
> For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>
> What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>
> Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
> the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
Koreans are inferior compared to ordinary humans.
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #220496 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 18:23 |
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
wrote:
>In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
>> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>>
>> What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>>
>> Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
>> the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
N. Korea.
>The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
>our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
>that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
>incident.
Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
reasons:
(1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
report simply tell us what we want to hear?
(2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #220498 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 19:59 |
|
"Hugo S. Cunningham" <checkwebsite [at] cyberussr.com> wrote in message
news:rs4la2d7ibcn3c3k837dcamvevbp7o4nda [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
>>> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>>>
>>> What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>>>
>>> Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
>>> the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
>
> Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
> because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
> N. Korea.
>
Not really. The US "Star Wars" missile defense has several layers. The ship
borne systems have a 90% success kill rate while land-based is only at 50%.
Then there is the Patriot III and SM-2.
>>The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
>>our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
>>that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
>>incident.
>
> Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
> reasons:
>
> (1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
> report simply tell us what we want to hear?
>
> (2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
> we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
>
> The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
> interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
> international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
> territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
> the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>
>
Since China has publicly asked Kimmy not to fire the missile, any firing
could have big consequences for NK. You don't bite the hand that feeds you
and Kimmy only stays in power as long as China allows him to.
The whole key to shutting down the world-wide-wierdos association is to get
Russia, China, the EU and the US to act as one. If that happens, guys like
Kim Jong Il and Ahmadeenajad are history.
BTW...What's the purpose of Chinese-Russian wargames? Who do they expect to
fight? In any conflict, the EU is already neutralized since they are now
essentially energy slaves of the Soviet...ooops...uhhh...I mean Russian
empire.
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to testout Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #220520 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 22:03 |
|
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>"HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
>>> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>>>
>>>What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>>>
>>>Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
>>>the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
>
>
> Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
> because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
> N. Korea.
>
>
>>The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
>>our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
>>that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
>>incident.
>
>
> Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
> reasons:
>
> (1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
> report simply tell us what we want to hear?
>
> (2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
> we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
>
> The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
> interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
> international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
> territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
> the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
>
>
I am reasonably sure that the missile control system used by the
North Koreans has been penetrated by US sig int. So I think that
they should record all the telemetry and then send the missile
its abort signal. Of course I wonder how vulnerable the US
launches eg the shuttle are to that kind of attack.
E.g. Serwad lives in Florida :)
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #221124 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 22:59 |
|
Word has come that the NK'ans have test fired 3 missiles today. Their big
one apparently failed.
But let's see what the US, Chinese, Japs and SK'ans come back with.
Appeasement and phoney rhetoric?
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #221144 ] |
Di, 04 Juli 2006 23:48 |
|
Oopla wrote:
> Word has come that the NK'ans have test fired 3 missiles today. Their big
> one apparently failed.
>
> But let's see what the US, Chinese, Japs and SK'ans come back with.
> Appeasement and phoney rhetoric?
What's the big deal when N. Korea launched their routine Scud missile ?
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #221168 ] |
Mi, 05 Juli 2006 01:41 |
|
"Y. H. Park" <yparkrrhad [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152049735.966717.109980 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oopla wrote:
>> Word has come that the NK'ans have test fired 3 missiles today. Their big
>> one apparently failed.
>>
>> But let's see what the US, Chinese, Japs and SK'ans come back with.
>> Appeasement and phoney rhetoric?
>
> What's the big deal when N. Korea launched their routine Scud missile ?
>
Apparently they have no control over where they go once they're fired. The
Palestinians look like NASA by comparison. Anyway, it wasn't so much their
crud-scuds as their Taipo-dung-2 missile.
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #228629 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 19:45 |
|
In article <rs4la2d7ibcn3c3k837dcamvevbp7o4nda [at] 4ax.com>,
Hugo S. Cunningham <checkwebsite [at] cyberussr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
> >> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
> >>
> >> What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
> >>
> >> Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
> >> the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
>
> Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
> because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
> N. Korea.
>
> >The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
> >our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
> >that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
> >incident.
>
> Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
> reasons:
>
> (1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
> report simply tell us what we want to hear?
>
> (2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
> we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
Telemetric information sent down by the kill vehicle plus US sea, and
ground radar should be enough to tell what happened. Its not as if we
don't have the monitoring capability, or the Koreans can jam our data
down links.
>
> The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
> interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
> international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
> territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
> the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
I agree we should not say anything about the test of our system,
successful or not. It is just a real would test that can be done at a
much smaller cost than setting up our own target vehicle, and it comes
from exactly the place the system is intended to be effective.
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to test out Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #228634 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 20:06 |
|
In article <wTzqg.41887$EX2.13259 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urjlew [at] bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>"HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
> >>> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
> >>>
> >>>What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
> >>>
> >>>Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
> >>>the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
> >
> >
> > Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
> > because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
> > N. Korea.
> >
> >
> >>The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
> >>our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
> >>that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
> >>incident.
> >
> >
> > Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
> > reasons:
> >
> > (1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
> > report simply tell us what we want to hear?
> >
> > (2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
> > we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
> >
> > The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
> > interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
> > international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
> > territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
> > the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
> >
> > --Hugo S. Cunningham
> >
> >
> I am reasonably sure that the missile control system used by the
> North Koreans has been penetrated by US sig int. So I think that
> they should record all the telemetry and then send the missile
> its abort signal. Of course I wonder how vulnerable the US
> launches eg the shuttle are to that kind of attack.
>
> E.g. Serwad lives in Florida :)
Its not that easy Hugo. Even if you have the make and model of the
garage door opener chip they used for the destruct system you would have
to have a mole deep enough to get the serial number of the transmitter
chip its programed to. Those garage door opener chips are very
sophisticated designs nowadays not like the tone detectors of the 1960s.
--
Mike Swift
Two things only the people anxiously desire, bread and circuses.
Decimus Junius Juvenalls
|
|
|
| Re: It is a good opportunity for both the USA and her foe to testout Uncle SAM's missile defence [message #228650 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 22:22 |
|
Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <wTzqg.41887$EX2.13259 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urjlew [at] bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:43:23 -0700, Mike Swift <tomswift [at] cruzio.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1151057395.469850.202190 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>"HanKookJin" <bora_park_2004 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss
>>>>> http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes216.htm l
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you think ? Will US interceptors miss or hit ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if the missile is intercepted it doesn't mean anything thing since
>>>>>the N.K missile is inferior comparing to Russian or Chinese missile.
>>>
>>>
>>>Intercepting the missile would be a huge achievement for the US,
>>>because the current system is intended only for smaller threats like
>>>N. Korea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The N.K. test would be a great vehicle to test out system. Just program
>>>>our interceptor to miss by a programed distance, and if the miss is by
>>>>that amount its as good as a hit without causing an international
>>>>incident.
>>>
>>>
>>>Such a programmed miss would be less effective than a hit for several
>>>reasons:
>>>
>>>(1) Would we really know the miss was that close? Or might the
>>>report simply tell us what we want to hear?
>>>
>>>(2) Even if the reported programmed near-miss was accurate, how could
>>>we be sure the warhead would have exploded at the right time?
>>>
>>>The "international incident" need not be a big deal, if the
>>>interception takes place over friendly territory (eg. Japan) or
>>>international waters. (On the other hand, interception over N. Korean
>>>territory would be a big deal.) If interception is planned, however,
>>>the US should discourage publicity, both before and after.
>>>
>>>--Hugo S. Cunningham
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I am reasonably sure that the missile control system used by the
>>North Koreans has been penetrated by US sig int. So I think that
>>they should record all the telemetry and then send the missile
>>its abort signal. Of course I wonder how vulnerable the US
>>launches eg the shuttle are to that kind of attack.
>>
>>E.g. Serwad lives in Florida :)
>
>
> Its not that easy Hugo. Even if you have the make and model of the
> garage door opener chip they used for the destruct system you would have
> to have a mole deep enough to get the serial number of the transmitter
> chip its programed to. Those garage door opener chips are very
> sophisticated designs nowadays not like the tone detectors of the 1960s.
>
I realize that your older brother Tom was the boy genius.
But sound and tone detectors dont' work too well in the vacuum of space
and at the distances involved here. However, don't you believe in the
technical skills of US signals intelligence with their probable use
of human operatives from the Moonies.
But this particular opportunity has now expired anyway.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Mai 27 11:35:00 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11446 Sekunden |
