I was waiting for someone else to notice before I posted. Did anyone notice the disappearance of the floating golf ball at the same time the first threat came down? Coincidence? 

Sea-based X-band Radar (SBX-1): "The U.S. military is sending its most advanced radar system to the Pacific region ahead of North Korea's expected launch of a long-range missile in mid-April, according to a senior U.S. Navy official."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/navy-ships-out-radar-system-ahead-of-north-korea-launch/

Thanks for the article. So we still don't know if the shipped it out due to the threat or due to the expected missile launch? As the article said, they won't give us an answer.

BMD intercept can be accomplished in any of the three phases of flight of the target missile: boost phase, midcourse phase (subdivided into ascent and decent phases), and terminal phase.

1.  Is the Aegis BMD system a Mid-Phase or Terminal Phase interception system? Aegis BMD typically intercepts in the Midcourse Ascent Phrase, thereby classifying it as a Midcourse-Phase System.

2.  Many media reports indicate that N. Korea is incapable of carrying out strikes against Guam, Hawaii, and the West Coast of the U.S. Many of these reports are based upon the media's understanding of N. Korea's land-based missile launch capabilities. Contrary to these media reports, I understand that PacCom has stated that N. Korea currently possess land-based missile systems (2-stage or 3-stage configured Taepo-Dong 2) capable of delivering low-yield nuclear payloads to Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast of the continental U.S.  Additionally, doesn't N. Korea possess SLBM capabilities? Don’t want to discuss this question but Pyongyang is ~7400 km or ~4022 nm from Honolulu, which would require an ICBM delivery system capable of handling a nuclear payload (see graph below).



3.  If N. Korea possesses missile systems capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast of the continental U.S., is the Aegis BMD system capable of defeating such missile systems? Theoretically yes IMO, during the midcourse phase. Depending on the attacking rocket propellant (solid or liquid), the midcourse phase begins after the rocket (s) finish firing (~180-240 sec) and the missile is on a ballistic trajectory toward its target. During the early part of the midcourse stage, the missile is still ascending toward its apogee, while during the latter part it is descending toward Earth. During this stage the missile’s warhead(s), as well as any decoys, separate from the delivery platform. This phase takes place in space (exoatmospheric > 100 km).

Midcourse defense adapts in real time to defend whatever is threatened and still has sufficient engagement opportunities to deal with threats and correct any potential system malfunctions or operator issues. However, it must also contend with exoamospheric countermeasures, such as decoys and possibly other countermeasures that may include simultaneous launches and/or attacks on key elements of our defense, particularly sensors.

4.  If the Aegis BMD successfully intercepts a missile carrying a nuclear warhead, would the interception cause the warhead to detonate? Depends but key word you mentioned is Aegis BMD, so assumption is the intercept occurs during Midcourse Ascent Phrase, in which case intercept occurs in space (exoatmospheric) at distances greater than 100 km. IMO intercept must take place after burnout of the threat booster and also after it reaches a velocity that would pose no threat to protected areas. Since midcourse-phase intercept is likely to destroy a nuclear warhead, the debris would be fragments of the attacking rocket and not intact (unarmed nuclear weapon).

5.  N. Korea wouldn't actually need to detonate a nuclear warhead directly above Honolulu to achieve its objective of bringing harm to U.S. and the State of Hawaii, correct? Wouldn't the detonation of a nuclear warhead in the atmosphere, still hundreds of miles away from Honolulu, have crippling effects on the entire State of Hawaii (and any nearby orbiting satellites), a la Operation Starfish Prime? IMO the warhead would have to detonate in the Terminal Phase (endoatmospheric) to produce significant infrastructure damage or inflict human causalities (injury or loss of human life). This would mean that any and all potential boost or midcourse defense opportunities were unsuccessful.

Lastly, a deliberate attack, jamming, or destruction of our satellites is always a concern that our operational commanders take into consideration. It’s advantageous for our adversaries to potentially interfere, spook, degrade or destroy our command and control infrastructure. I don’t want to discuss this in detail but there are many countermeasures, which can be used to reduce or eliminate threats and enhance satellite survivability.

Highly unlikely scenario presented considering our capabilities but we’ll play it out. The altitude at which the transition from midcourse to terminal defense occurs is somewhat ambiguous, with light decoys being slowed appreciably relative to reentry vehicles (RV) at altitudes between 70-100 km and appreciable aerodynamic forces on the RV occurring at altitudes below ~40 km. Intercept would occur relatively late in flight, and in my view, the RV would already have sufficient velocity to continue on a trajectory that could extend into the original target area, or at least into friendly territory, and produce a nuclear detonation on impact.

IMO a kinetic-kill boost-phase interceptor could be deployed to impact the RV containing the warhead, but ensuring such impact would be challenging at best, because of uncertainties regarding the position of the RV relative to the hot rocket exhaust, which is guiding the interceptor. Also, a properly aimed laser kill mechanism would probably not be powerful enough to destroy a warhead carried on an RV hardened to survive reentry. Neither of these measures to mitigate shortfall are likely to be fully effective, but the consequences of a nuclear detonation on land and/or in the Terminal Phrase would be highly unlikely and any potential damage would be mitigated/minimized by other strategic assets. Basically if we end up in this highly unlikely situation, we have a serious problem.

NOTE: All technical information contained has been publicly released and is available in the public domain.

I was waiting for someone else to notice before I posted. Did anyone notice the disappearance of the floating golf ball at the same time the first threat came down? Coincidence? 

If there is an exoatmospheric detontation of a nuclear warhead (still several hundreds of miles away from Honolulu), wouldn't this generate an EMP that would effectively "shut down" much, if not all, of the State of Hawaii, much like the effects seen during Operation Starfish Prime? IMO a nuclear detonation at high altitudes (~40–400 km) would likely not inflict human causalities from the explosion and heat but would generate an EMP that would likely cause significant damage to critical infrastructure, such as electric power grid, electronic control systems (water, oil, gas), distribution systems, communications, transportation, financial institutions, etc. There are many factors in the equation to consider, such as the altitude of detonation, weapon yield and design, latitude and magnitude of the local geomagnetic field, electromagnetic shielding of assets, etc.

Keep in mind there are three subcomponents (E1, E2, E3) that comprise EMP and in order to fully understand the effects, it’s important to comprehend the associated pulses and specifications. Also, in addition to High altitude EMP (HEMP), there is Super-EMP and System Generated EMP (SGEMP), so it’s important to know which type (s) of threat we are dealing with. 

Since this topic is about the North Korean threat, IMO a Super-EMP attack is more probable and would likely cause significant damage to key infrastructure. The recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea are indicative of a Super-EMP weapon. A Super-EMP warhead is a low-grade weapon that does not create a big explosion but does generate the EMP effect. The missile does not have to be accurate because the EMP field is large and has a devastating impact to critical infrastructure. Also, the warhead does no require an RV because the detonation occurs above the atmosphere at high-altitudes.

It seems that all branches of the armed forces are becoming increasingly reliant upon electronic devices, and if an EMP were to disrupt electronics, how effectively would we, as individual family units, as a City, as a State, and as a Nation be able to respond? Can’t speak for the civilian population and local government but DoD has multiple layers of communications but certainly there would be an impact to command and control. However, this is nothing new to the military and communication disruption or destruction of primary communications is routinely incorporated into training and exercises. The military abides by strict EMP standards to include electromagnetic shielding, as well as certification processes, so the impact will be significantly different than the civilian infrastructure. This is especially true for critical DoD C4I nodes.

There is a ton of unclassified info available on the topic if you’re interested in a deep dive into the subject, which will give you a pretty good basic understanding of the subject. I personally don’t believe a scenario of North Korea nuking Hawaii or any part of the U.S. would ever play out but hypothetically, it would fall nicely in the 2a “doomsday thread”, as far as being prepared for a SHTF scenario.

Can you imagine the pandemonium and bedlam that would occur if the entire State of Hawaii went completely powerless?? It’s bad enough when Hawaii loses power during a hurricane or short power outages. I could imagine pandemonium just as you say.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/04/us-working-diplomatic-channels-to-resolve-n-korea-standoff-amid-shows-strength/

Yay!!

Let's reward this fucking guy's irresponsible and belligerent behavior on the world stage by ramping up military presence in the area, then backing down and showering his already destitute country with millions of dollars in foreign aid money, which he will promptly allocate to further building his military and developing his nuclear ambitions.

Maybe a stupid question, but does the US Foreign Policy playbook include, "Ignore," as a viable option?