BaptistLife.Com Forums.

It may surprise some here, but I think Trump’s retaliatory threats to North Korea are good. And I hope serious backchannel diplomacy is occurring as Maddis has claimed.

I also believe our defenses of Guam (THAAD), Hawaii (GBI), South Korea and Japan (PAC-3), Alaska (GBI), and the Continental US (GBI) are ready. Aegis helps as well in post-boost phase.

Mr. ABM weighs in.

William Thornton wrote:Mr. ABM weighs in.

Mr. MDA (retired almost exactly 3 years ago). “ABM” is 35-50 years old, organizationally.

I do miss going to see the latest intel and am curious about 2 or 3 technical decisions about the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) Program and the Battle Management aspects. But I feel it is ready to be used. Don’t know as much about THAAD or Aegis, but they are also playing roles.

Are these no longer called "anti-ballistic missiles"? Curious.

MDA...Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Thanks.

William Thornton wrote:Are these no longer called "anti-ballistic missiles"? Curious.

MDA...Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Thanks.

"Anti-ballistic missiles” (ABMs) is outdated terminology. Active in the 60’s/70’s and thus the "Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)” Treaty of 1973 that forbade testing of ABM systems. I got involved in 1979.

I have always felt that offensive nukes/biological warheads on missiles are what should be limited, not defensive systems aimed at shooting the offensive missiles down. I say let the defensive systems grow and end the offensive missiles.

MDA stands for Missile Defense Agency managed primarily here in Huntsville. Read about MDA here

OK. One of these missiles, deployed in Guam or wherever. What is it called.

Just trying to get the lay terminology straight.

William Thornton wrote:OK. One of these missiles, deployed in Guam or wherever. What is it called.

Just trying to get the lay terminology straight.

THAAD is on Guam. The THAAD system comes with its own radar and battle manager unit as well as an 8-pack of interceptor missiles mounted on a truck (for easy mobility). It's radar and missile are sized and sequenced to handle incoming offensive missiles of an intermediate range. Thus on Guam THAAD is good to intercept (that is shoot down) missiles from North Korea. These THAAD interceptors come with the ability to seek and home in an incoming offensive missile. It could not handle longer range offensive missiles (e.g. North Korea to US mainland) which are going very fast near a planned intercept point. For those you need a Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) with a Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that separates from the interceptor and thus has more maneuverability. On the lower end of offensive missile ranges, THAAD could not react quick enough to handle shorter range missiles, for which one would need a Patriot upgrade called PAC-3. Thus PAC-3 are more tuned to defend against shorter range missile (e.g. some longer NK missiles into South Korea). All this is unclassified. You could have read about this by poking around the MDA link I gave you.

None of this is new, including North Korea's threats to fire missiles into the water around Guam. What's different is that we've always had a president with the maturity and common sense to read the signals for what they were, and handle them on that basis. Now we don't, and that's a real problem. Thanks, Keith, for the missile defense information. That clarifies a lot of what I've read the past few days.

So here's the United States taking a position that puts millions of people in countries that are supportive allies at risk because our president can't handle a little bit of taunting, and doesn't have an intelligent grasp of the situation. Wonder what Biblical justification his evangelical supporters can come up with for this.

This is all very interesting and informative. My question was very pedestrian. It is accurate in a lay sense to call all of the missiles from the various systems, ABM missiles? That's what I read in media, sort of a generic term for such things.

...but you be sure and stay clear of the classified leaks probe. Don't want see you on TV.

William Thornton wrote:This is all very interesting and informative. My question was very pedestrian. It is accurate in a lay sense to call all of the missiles from the various systems, ABM missiles? That's what I read in media, sort of a generic term for such things.

...but you be sure and stay clear of the classified leaks probe. Don't want see you on TV.

I have not heard the term ABM in the media but when they do, I suppose defense systems is what is meant. In my circles, "ABM missiles" is an antiquated term. But it used to mean (before my days in the field which started in 1979) the same thing as an “interceptor missile” which today come in several varieties.

Classification concerns. That’s why I gave you the MDA website - the official unclassified source - and did not stray from what is said there.

Sandy wrote:None of this is new, including North Korea's threats to fire missiles into the water around Guam. What's different is that we've always had a president with the maturity and common sense to read the signals for what they were, and handle them on that basis. Now we don't, and that's a real problem. Thanks, Keith, for the missile defense information. That clarifies a lot of what I've read the past few days.

So here's the United States taking a position that puts millions of people in countries that are supportive allies at risk because our president can't handle a little bit of taunting, and doesn't have an intelligent grasp of the situation. Wonder what Biblical justification his evangelical supporters can come up with for this.

Well I do not fault Trump (on this matter). Kim Jong Un needs to be warned explicitly, imo. Any response should be proportional. But claiming truly that the US has a very big stick, is appropriate.

True, South Korea and Japan could get bombarded with convention and perhaps nuclear/biological warheads in any exchange. But I do not see that that would be our fault. It is a touchy situation, I don’t trust Trump to make the right decision as much as say Obama or Bush, but I can’t fault him to date (on this matter).

As far as Jeffress (Trump’s most vocal “evangelical” supporter) goes, he is an demagogue pandering to a RW religious fringe. He claims biblical support but misuses it badly. Using Romans 13:1-7 to support a particular action (pre-emptive strike) by a government official (before he even makes it) is not valid exegesis to say the least. Better biblical response is to support the government leaders (when possible) and obediently and honestly pay taxes (Romans 13:6-7). I’ll add (from a broader biblical perspective) we should promote fairer/more effective tax systems and challenge bad government officials when they are obviously acting badly - save those complaints for when they we are quite sure they are in the wrong (Trump’s strong words directed at Kim Jong Un is not one of those times, imo). Trump's inadequate response to Charlottesville is one of those.

Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

Ed: Keep in Mind it was Democrat, Harry Truman who fired MacArthur, to Keep him out of N. Korea. IMHO, had Truman kept hands off we wouldn't have this mess.

JE Pettibone wrote:

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

Ed: Keep in Mind it was Democrat, Harry Truman who fired MacArthur, to Keep him out of N. Korea. IMHO, had Truman kept hands off we wouldn't have this mess.

To explain what Ed is referring to, here is some history about McArthur being fired in April 1951.

Yeah our current situation is all a Democrat’s fault in Ed's what-if history.

JE Pettibone wrote:

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

Ed: Keep in Mind it was Democrat, Harry Truman who fired MacArthur, to Keep him out of N. Korea. IMHO, had Truman kept hands off we wouldn't have this mess.

That's just speculation. Even MacArthur's military estimates showed a significant level of American casualties that would have been required to make the military investment necessary to get the Chinese out of North Korea and unify the peninsula, with no guarantees that it would happen. Once the nuclear genie was out of the bottle, the inevitability that some rogue country would get their hands on some capability has always been a risk, and sooner or later, interventionist foreign policy of the western democracies, led by the US, would produce the kind of opposition that would find the threat of developing a nuclear capability as a means of survival. It's not likely that things would have been different now if MacArthur had remained in command.

The ability to curtail nuclear development in undesirable places is limited, and requires the effort of more than just US diplomacy. I'd be far more comfortable with just about anyone else in charge, even Pence, than the insane, incompetent Trump.

Sandy wrote:

So here's the United States taking a position that puts millions of people in countries that are supportive allies at risk because our president can't handle a little bit of taunting, and doesn't have an intelligent grasp of the situation. Wonder what Biblical justification his evangelical supporters can come up with for this.

So Un is just taunting, sorta like Obama and his red lines in Syria...or his actual unprovoked, illegal and deadly attack on Libya (up to 100,000 dead [est.]). Which tack is Un taking, bluff or action? Suppose he fires a missile that comes close to Guam, as he has “taunted.” Would you do like Obama and wait for Putin to cover your derriere a la Syria, or would you do something sensible? As for biblical justification, check out Jesus's admonition at the Last Supper regarding swords and even his check to see how many were already available. Naivete has its consequences.

Jim wrote:

Sandy wrote:

So here's the United States taking a position that puts millions of people in countries that are supportive allies at risk because our president can't handle a little bit of taunting, and doesn't have an intelligent grasp of the situation. Wonder what Biblical justification his evangelical supporters can come up with for this.

So Un is just taunting, sorta like Obama and his red lines in Syria...or his actual unprovoked, illegal and deadly attack on Libya (up to 100,000 dead [est.]). Which tack is Un taking, bluff or action? Suppose he fires a missile that comes close to Guam, as he has “taunted.” Would you do like Obama and wait for Putin to cover your derriere a la Syria, or would you do something sensible? As for biblical justification, check out Jesus's admonition at the Last Supper regarding swords and even his check to see how many were already available. Naivete has its consequences.

My guess is that THAAD will use the opportunity of the purported 4 NK IRBMs to sites around Guam as “target practice”. This would be done no matter who is President. Given the possibility that one of those NK launches is assessed (through its impact point prediction - IPP) to land on Guam (or other nearby islands e.g. Saipan, Tinian) it could be actual defense of a bio or chemical or perhaps even a nuclear warhead. I would not put it past Un to sneak a real one in within a guised non-warhead set of 4 missiles. Nor do I really believe that launches toward Guam will happen; could be launched to anywhere in any limited numbers.

I agree that Obama's incursion into Libya’s Civil War (much advocated by Hillary Clinton) in 2011 was ill-conceived and illegal from the start. But no where near 100,000 have died since 2011. Estimate is 4,600 since 2011 not all due to US involvement.

KeithE wrote:My guess is that THAAD will use the opportunity of the purported 4 NK IRBMs to sites around Guam as “target practice”. This would be done no matter who is President. Given the possibility that one of those NK launches is assessed (through its impact point prediction - IPP) to land on Guam (or other nearby islands e.g. Saipan, Tinian) it could be actual defense of a bio or chemical or perhaps even a nuclear warhead. I would not put it past Un to sneak a real one in within a guised non-warhead set of 4 missiles. Nor do I really believe that launches toward Guam will happen; could be launched to anywhere in any limited numbers.

I agree that Obama's incursion into Libya’s Civil War (much advocated by Hillary Clinton) in 2011 was ill-conceived and illegal from the start. But no where near 100,000 have died since 2011. Estimate is 4,600 since 2011 not all due to US involvement.

I would agree that there won't be any missile launches at Guam. This isn't a new threat. The only difference now is that we had a sensible position under a sensible, intelligent president for the past eight years, and now we have a president who isn't as intelligent or sensible as Un.

Libya might have been ill-advised, though there was a lot of pressure from Republican politicians to push for going in, so it wasn't all Obama and Clinton. There was also pressure from US allies nearby, particularly Tunisia, who was worried about possible unrest in their own country as a result Of course, you don't expect Jim to come up with any facts or reliable information, either.

Sandy wrote:

KeithE wrote:My guess is that THAAD will use the opportunity of the purported 4 NK IRBMs to sites around Guam as “target practice”. This would be done no matter who is President. Given the possibility that one of those NK launches is assessed (through its impact point prediction - IPP) to land on Guam (or other nearby islands e.g. Saipan, Tinian) it could be actual defense of a bio or chemical or perhaps even a nuclear warhead. I would not put it past Un to sneak a real one in within a guised non-warhead set of 4 missiles. Nor do I really believe that launches toward Guam will happen; could be launched to anywhere in any limited numbers.

I agree that Obama's incursion into Libya’s Civil War (much advocated by Hillary Clinton) in 2011 was ill-conceived and illegal from the start. But no where near 100,000 have died since 2011. Estimate is 4,600 since 2011 not all due to US involvement.

I would agree that there won't be any missile launches at Guam. This isn't a new threat. The only difference now is that we had a sensible position under a sensible, intelligent president for the past eight years, and now we have a president who isn't as intelligent or sensible as Un.

Libya might have been ill-advised, though there was a lot of pressure from Republican politicians to push for going in, so it wasn't all Obama and Clinton. There was also pressure from US allies nearby, particularly Tunisia, who was worried about possible unrest in their own country as a result Of course, you don't expect Jim to come up with any facts or reliable information, either.

Agree about Jim’s stats, and Republican urge to war in Libya (certainly less support among Republicans than Democrats). And it could be that Kim Jong Un is faking a 4 missile launch towards Guam - but maybe not.

OFF TOPIC

Sandy - Where in rural western PA do you reside? My wife will be in J'town in a few weeks. I served in the Conemaugh Valley Baptist Association (pre G-Kids). Still have some good friends in that area.

Jon Estes wrote:OFF TOPIC

Sandy - Where in rural western PA do you reside? My wife will be in J'town in a few weeks. I served in the Conemaugh Valley Baptist Association (pre G-Kids). Still have some good friends in that area.

Between Pittsburgh and Erie, right on I-79, about 15 miles south of where I-80 crosses it. I'm about the mid-point between Butler and New Castle. It's about 90 miles to Johnstown from here, a trip which I make every soccer, volleyball and basketball season.

KeithE wrote:

Jim wrote:

Sandy wrote:

So here's the United States taking a position that puts millions of people in countries that are supportive allies at risk because our president can't handle a little bit of taunting, and doesn't have an intelligent grasp of the situation. Wonder what Biblical justification his evangelical supporters can come up with for this.

So Un is just taunting, sorta like Obama and his red lines in Syria...or his actual unprovoked, illegal and deadly attack on Libya (up to 100,000 dead [est.]). Which tack is Un taking, bluff or action? Suppose he fires a missile that comes close to Guam, as he has “taunted.” Would you do like Obama and wait for Putin to cover your derriere a la Syria, or would you do something sensible? As for biblical justification, check out Jesus's admonition at the Last Supper regarding swords and even his check to see how many were already available. Naivete has its consequences.

My guess is that THAAD will use the opportunity of the purported 4 NK IRBMs to sites around Guam as “target practice”. This would be done no matter who is President. Given the possibility that one of those NK launches is assessed (through its impact point prediction - IPP) to land on Guam (or other nearby islands e.g. Saipan, Tinian) it could be actual defense of a bio or chemical or perhaps even a nuclear warhead. I would not put it past Un to sneak a real one in within a guised non-warhead set of 4 missiles. Nor do I really believe that launches toward Guam will happen; could be launched to anywhere in any limited numbers.

I agree that Obama's incursion into Libya’s Civil War (much advocated by Hillary Clinton) in 2011 was ill-conceived and illegal from the start. But no where near 100,000 have died since 2011. Estimate is 4,600 since 2011 not all due to US involvement.

International Business Times (Oct. 2011):
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/libya-conflicting-death-toll-raises-questions-about-what-truly-happened-237895.

While many have already been buried without being registered in morgues, were left abandoned by their killers, or are still counted as missing, and with the Gaddafi regime accused of killing thousands of prisoners and then hiding their bodies, the number of dead and injured in the bloody civil war could top 100,000.

This has Obama's fingerprints (and Grandmother Clinton's), indelibly establishing him (them) as abetting genocide.

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

North Korea is moot now that the Trump Doctrine has prevailed. The little monster may actually have listened to a few generals who've lived long enough to have gray hair and understand what the landscape would look like if he tried something as utterly stupid as firing rockets at USA turf—anywhere. More likely, Un has been forced by the Chinese, who provide everything from food to fuel to his benighted country, to back off, having cut his swag from China by some say 90% (probably not that much but enough to get his complete attention). Both China and Russia voted to impose the latest sanctions, so he's twisting in the wind on his end of the evil empire. But, he bears watching 24/7 because a wing-nut with his hairdo may do anything, especially kill generals who are not sycophantic enough. Comparing Trump to Kim is like the usual mod-lib thing of comparing someone not to like with Hitler. You're better than that.

Jim wrote:

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

North Korea is moot now that the Trump Doctrine has prevailed. The little monster may actually have listened to a few generals who've lived long enough to have gray hair and understand what the landscape would look like if he tried something as utterly stupid as firing rockets at USA turf—anywhere. More likely, Un has been forced by the Chinese, who provide everything from food to fuel to his benighted country, to back off, having cut his swag from China by some say 90% (probably not that much but enough to get his complete attention). Both China and Russia voted to impose the latest sanctions, so he's twisting in the wind on his end of the evil empire. But, he bears watching 24/7 because a wing-nut with his hairdo may do anything, especially kill generals who are not sycophantic enough. Comparing Trump to Kim is like the usual mod-lib thing of comparing someone not to like with Hitler. You're better than that.

Since Jim didn't post any corroboration, or reference to facts, here are a few.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/worl ... ml?mcubz=1

The Trump Doctrine?

Sandy wrote:

Jim wrote:

Haruo wrote:Just hope Charlottesville doesn't distract the press from Korea so much that Kim thinks he has to do something really big to regain the attention of the world. He and Trump share so many unpleasant traits.

North Korea is moot now that the Trump Doctrine has prevailed. The little monster may actually have listened to a few generals who've lived long enough to have gray hair and understand what the landscape would look like if he tried something as utterly stupid as firing rockets at USA turf—anywhere. More likely, Un has been forced by the Chinese, who provide everything from food to fuel to his benighted country, to back off, having cut his swag from China by some say 90% (probably not that much but enough to get his complete attention). Both China and Russia voted to impose the latest sanctions, so he's twisting in the wind on his end of the evil empire. But, he bears watching 24/7 because a wing-nut with his hairdo may do anything, especially kill generals who are not sycophantic enough. Comparing Trump to Kim is like the usual mod-lib thing of comparing someone not to like with Hitler. You're better than that.

Since Jim didn't post any corroboration, or reference to facts, here are a few.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/worl ... ml?mcubz=1

The Trump Doctrine?

Quoting the New York Times is to admit to a gullibility unimaginable. Egad!!!