Who would know if we fired at the Nork missile and missed?

If we could knock it out of the sky, it would take a lot of wind out of Kim Jong (mentally) Il's sails. But the down side would be the black eye and seeming impotence if the world knew that we tried to and couldn't.

So does Russia have radar that would see an interceptor launch over, say Alaska? If not, does anyone else? And if not, what would we have to lose in taking a shot? If we take it down, it's a huge coup, and if we miss, we just don't mention that we even attempted it.

I should note that I would think the chances of failure small, since we'd presumably be sending multiple interceptors, rather than the single ones we've used in previous failed tests. The fact that we have had successful single-shot tests would indicate to me that chances of success for a multi-shot attempt should be pretty high.

By the way, here's a good overview of the current missile defense situation.

I recall back in the eighties, when people were poo pooing the concept and saying that even if we could knock down some missiles, we couldn't get them all in a massive Soviet strike. One rejoinder to that (in addition to the fact that even getting half of them would put enough doubt into a Soviet commander's mind to perhaps preclude the attack at all) was that we needed it against rogue states. Like North Korea. This would result in scoffs by the anti-BMD folks.

"Why would they build a missile that we could shoot down when they could just smuggle the bomb into a container ship?"

I guess that Kim didn't listen to them. Fortunately, neither did we. At least ultimately, though it's taken much longer than it should have to deploy, as a result of years of obstruction from the port side of the political spectrum.

[Update on Wednesday at noon]

There's a long discussion in comments to a post by Jonathan Adler over at Volokh's.

Russia's radar warning systems are a complete mess, which is actually a serious problem. (They don't have much time to discern false alarms from actual incoming missles, which means they are always running on a hair trigger. Since we have no intent to ever actually fire a first strike against them, it's best for us if they have a good radar view of anything approaching their territory, so they have more time to realize that whatever they are seeing is only a false alarm.)

More relevant to this, though, is their capability to remotely detect the IR signature of a launch from Alaska. I don't remember what the status of their launch detection satellites is, but FAS & the Union of Concerned Scientists have documents describing the system, IIRC, so someone with some free time (not me right now! :) could find out.

Of course, they might detect a launch the old fashioned way: a "fishing" trawler "coincidentally" in the neighborhood. :)

Personally, I'd only take a shot at the missle if I was absolutely sure noone else would detect the interceptor's launch. But, I'd also keep our launch secret, irrespective of the outcome. If their missle fails, they won't know whether their missle sucks, or our interceptor works. :) More importantly, it's best to keep a lot of mystery with regard to an interceptor system.

Personally, though, I think the missile defense system is beyond stupid, but also that, if we're going to waste the money on it, it's better if the rest of the world knows as little as possible about what it's capable of.

I think there's no chance that we'll actually shoot it down unless it manages a trajectory that will take it over our airspace, and that's unlikely. For all that it would make us feel good, not splashing it (but making it clear that we could) scores us more political points, and that's what the game with Dear Leader is played with.

I propose a variant of the action suggested by the first commenter.

Shoot it down. Then send Mr. Kim a check, along with a note: "Thanks, that was fun! Do it again."

Regards,
Ric

Yea first I heard of them fueling their missle I immediately thought about how badly I wanted the Airborne Laser to be fully functional.

3....2......1 ZZZZZZzzzzzzzoooooot BOOOOMM!

An opportunity for a live test. Shoot it down.

Since we do not know when they are going to launch exactly, a single ABL plane won't do us any good. Also, unlike the limping midcourse system we have now, ABL is not even tested yet.

The Big D would do well to take a big Earth globe and stretch a string between Phenyang and San Francisco, just so he has an idea where the big circle lays. Actually, a small globe may work.

I am not familiar with the characteristics of the currently deployed system, so I do not know if multiply attempts on the same target are possible. The article Rand linked does not tell. It mentions intriguing possibilities of the terminal phase intercept though.

Here is a nice link on what our Aegis class can do with SM-3 missiles. Kinda looks like we might be able to do this with (almost) off the shelf Navy stuff.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/nmdimg.html

Err, I'm very aware of what the shape of the planet is and where the countries are located on it, thanks.

My comment regarding the trajectory was not limited to just the inclination (hint: many eastern inclinations point towards our territory). If the missile doesn't make a trajectory that will carry it this far, it isn't an immediate threat. If it does, then we have to determine whether to engage.

Our best shot will be BPI via SM-3, since those actually have a good track record. Unfortunately, that means we have to nail down the trajectory and make a shoot/watch decision rapidly.

One really cool thing about the Aegis / SM-3 system is that the idea came from a Doobie Brothers guitarist. Like hey, if our rock musicians can do a better job than the defense establishment, what does that say about alt-space and NASA?

Link and Link

Land based Aegis / SM-3 systems are certainly feasible for Japan, Alaska and select Pacific atolls and possibly the southern tip of South Korea.

Might be an immediate and less expensive solution to throttle NK's ballistic missile plans. Less money for the primes, which may or may not be a good thing.

= = =

Anyway, if the trajectory of that NK missile gives the Navy a shot, well "Shoot!" say I.

And, Go Navy!

Well I'm just a right wing nutter but I would be all up for destroying the missile right now where it sits on the pad.

Well I'm just a right wing nutter but I would be all up for destroying the missile right now where it sits on the pad.

Actually, that might be more effective and less expensive than deploying national ballistic missile defense. /snark

Well I'm just a right wing nutter but I would be all up for destroying the missile right now where it sits on the pad.

Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation for the mysterious explosion in North Korea a couple of years back?

My father did work on the Aegis radar system (systems analysis, error budgets, procedures for calibrating the radar and compensating for errors electronically rather than with shims). I hope he would have been gratified to see the use it is being put to today.

Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation for the mysterious explosion in North Korea a couple of years back?

One of Fearless Leader's hairspray shipments went critical.

The problem with blowing it up on the pad is that it would be an attack on NK soil, which is much more provocative than shooting down a missile in international airspace (or over Japanese airspace). We don't want to blow it up on the pad for the same reason we don't want to blow up their nuclear facilities--because Seoul is within artillery range of a lot of hardened and rifled bores.

I am not familiar with the characteristics of the currently deployed system, so I do not know if multiply attempts on the same target are possible.

Quite possible. You just have to fire them all at the same time.

If an attempt to shoot down the missile failed it could just be passed off as a deliberate miss, that was intended to make a point without causing a full-scale diplomatic incident.

The problem with blowing it up on the pad is that it would be an attack on NK soil

Not if it's taken out by a 'cylindrical shaped tungsten meteorite'.

My, wherever did THAT come from...

If an attempt to shoot down the missile failed it could just be passed off as a deliberate miss, that was intended to make a point without causing a full-scale diplomatic incident.

Given the poor track record of the system, no one would buy that.

At the very least, I think we may safely assume that if a launch comes over the horizon of any US land or sea based anti-missile radars (and other relevant sensors), they'll treat it as a full-scale 'as if' exercise, and take the opprotunity to learn the flight characteristics and other 'signatures' of a Taepo-Dong missile, and possibly do everything *but* shoot.

Even the modest uncertainty of launch time, plays into our desire to examine our own readiness and response times, under circumstances where there's no serious penalty for failure...

I've been commenting at Volokh. The comments here look vastly different. Bill White and I even agree on this topic.

I've been commenting at Volokh. The comments here look vastly different. Bill White and I even agree on this topic.

Rand has said when he and I agree, that is sufficient cause for him to reconsider his position.

Cheers! :-)

Yes, Bill. Reconsider. Not automatically reverse it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day... ;-)

On a similiar note, I may have to change my mind about striking the launch site before launch. Clintons former DOD chief William Perry is advocating in the Washington Post a pre-emptive strike on the launch site.