No, I'm not confusing the systems. You're response was directly in response to someone asking why we didn't shoot down a missile that had a SRBM or MRBM trajectory (regardless of NK's claims of theoretical distance)...you said you read an analysis about that, and also just said "missiles". Please re-read your post with the quoted post above and you will understand my post:

Also, almost any IRBM/MRBM goes into "outer space" like you say, that's not the difference between it and an ICBM...maybe you're the one who doesn't understand (and why get personal if its not your opinion?) Ballistics missiles of varying ranges are not "completely different" by any stretch of the imagination.

Lastly, that you think NK has an ICBM that can "change direction in mid flight" really says something about your understanding of this all.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: eyeeatingfish on August 30, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.

I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.

This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.

The missile stuff is ridiculous. Everybody wastes so much money on that crap so that they never have to use it. That's the definition of deterrent. Guys in the industry just figured out that people will buy whatever you got if it means being slightly less afraid. It's all one huge scam.

My response was to EEF in regards to the missile that was launched and flew over Japan. That missile was determined to be an ICBM. Sorry if that wasn't clear. All I was referring to was an analysis of that missile launch and the consequences of what might happen if we shot it down.

The THAAD system is not designed to shoot down ICBM's. It is a different system that we have that so far has only been 50% effective against ICBM's. It is still under development and testing. The THAAD system has been deployed in South Korea because it can be hit by NK by missiles that are only short and medium range. I am not sure what you are saying about trajectories but ICBM's travel in space for long distances and come in faster and harder than short and medium range missiles do. That is a very different trajectory than a short/medium range missile. My understanding is this is why THAAD is not capable of hitting an ICBM. The system we have in Japan that is used for ICBM's is only deployed in Japan, Alaska and parts of the mainland. And it has only been effective 50% of the time. So the analysis that I read is quite accurat in my opinion.

I am not sure what you took personally, but what I wrote was not meant to be personal. I cannot help it if you took it that way. But I will apologize for whatever it is I said that you took personally as it was not meant to be personal.

Deception? Lol. Here are your EXACT words: "I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight." Sometimes I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.

I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet.

I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.

This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.

My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.

I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.

Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.

The most knowledge I can claim is having actually been to PMRF and having worked on projects to design and construct THADD and other similar/related facilities. 

Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.

He just wants to be the first person to publicly posit the hypothesis (long held by many posters here I'm sure) that "Inspector" and "eyeeatingfish" are in reality the same person. Go on...fess up! 

The rest of my arguments are still the same, but Well, I'll be. You are %100 right and I am wrong that  I mistook that 1 sentence for yours. In one of my posts the words did get put together somehow, and I was going from that. My apologies for that error.

Was offered a job at PMRF back in 2008 but turned it down for lack of any sort of moving assistance.  The pay cut I could have tolerated, but no moving help and the wretched housing situation on Kauai did it in.

Was offered a job at PMRF back in 2008 but turned it down for lack of any sort of moving assistance.  The pay cut I could have tolerated, but no moving help and the wretched housing situation on Kauai did it in.

I guess I can't change your opinion, bro but if it means anything I worked on the three major arms of the missle defense system for over 10 years, nothing else, while I was in DoD. As for capabilities the public has been given just enough info to keep them entertained, no more. If the system was or is a scam I would have been the first to admit it, believe me. Sure it's not perfect yet but it's getting there. The technology, both terrestrial and in space is a marvel of science. It's much further along than J.Q. Public has been told and hopefully you understand why. I can't say anymore but the system will have its test by fire soon enough. You'll be surprised! Think of it as shooting. You don't hit the target every time at first but thru practice, you will. Anyway, it's in the Lords hands. We ain't in control.... God bless!

Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.

Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.

I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.

I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet.

Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.