1. Home
  2. ⏣ General Metalworking
  3. Korean missile ?
  4. Page 3

Korean missile ?

================== There is lots of metal content --- lets hope it is *NOT* scrap metal content?.

==> Its people like you that are a danger to the Republic, thinking -- always thinking.

This administration appears to believe they are this generation's "Blues Brothers" with a mission from god to tell everybody on the face of the earth how to behave and what to believe. This has reached a bazaar level of yada-yada-yada and bla-bla-bla. Not a day goes by that some administration spokesperson is not spouting off about something that is none of their business.

Before we go "over-speed" about the North Korean programs, we need to examine the facts. Korea was known as the hermit kingdom and became a cause of war because both Japan and Russia wanted it. Japan ruled Korea with an iron fist for 50 years. Koreans have long memories.

If not "black letter" law, it is certainly "a very dark shade of gray" law that you are not bound by an agreement to which you were not a party and in which you did not participate. If North Korea is not a signature to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, as a sovereign nation (and I don't think they are) they have every right to build nuclear weapons. If North Korea is not a signature to the Long-Range Missile Anti-Proliferation pact [which I have never heard of] they have every right to build as many missiles as they like. They have as much right to test missiles over international waters as anyone else.

Of course there is a downside to this, called M.A.D. Only in this case it is A.D.D. Not for Attention Deficit Disorder, but rather Assured Death and Destruction, if they miss-judge, as they are likely to be replaced with the new glowing North Korean sea and South Korea converted into an island nation. Of course China is putting their thumb in Uncle Sam's eye every chance that she gets. Examine history and see how China was treated. Google on "extra-territoriality," and "opium wars." The west is simply being paid back in its own coin.

From a historical standpoint Taiwan/Formosa was Chinese from about 700AD to 1590 when it was occupied by the Portuguese and then the Dutch. It was recovered in 1683 by China and held until

1894-1895 when it was occupied by Japan. The Nationalist/Kuomintang government fled there in 1949. Naturally the PRC regards it as part of China, having been so for roughly 1200 out of the last 1300 years. The United States has a far weaker claim to New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas.

PRC penetration into Africa and South America is awesome. Not only do these areas have the resources the PRC needs it also has the markets for their products. The major trading bloc in South America is Mercosur [Argentina, Brasil, Chile, and now Venezuela, as well as several small countries such as Paraguay and Uruguay - total five member and 5 associate states] See:

formatting link
and
formatting link
Mercosur stresses economic development not "free trade" and thus has far more in common with the EEC than NAFTA.

Another item of interest was the meeting of the OPEC oil ministers hosted in Brasil.

Yes, China is most likely using the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea as a distraction for Uncle Whiskers, but they are being helped every step of the way by our jabber-jaw officials, combined with our Enron-mafia-IMF banks [e.g. Argentina - see

formatting link
,
formatting link
about a million more left-wing sites that correctly identify theft as "theft." ]

Unka George (George McDuffee)

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. Letter, 15 Nov. 1913.

Reply to
F. George McDuffee
Loading thread data ...

================== There is lots of metal content --- lets hope it is *NOT* scrap metal content?.

==> Its people like you that are a danger to the Republic, thinking -- always thinking.

====== more response based on a Sunday news item =========

For more on how we "stick it to" China [and India] see

formatting link
No G-8 seat for China, other big economies

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 8, 11:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The G-8 summit that President Bush and seven other world leaders are attending next weekend in Russia is often billed as a gathering of the world's leading economic powers. It is not. Consider: China, now the world's fourth-largest economy and the nation with the most influence over renegade North Korea, is not a member.

In common with most failing managements, the less government can/will produce the more they talk and try to control.

China and the other emerging economies have apparently figured out that it is easier to by-pass and circumvent the institutions and organizations controlled by the west, and there is no reason to give the west "a piece of the action" of trade between themselves. Indeed, why should a sale between China and Brasil, or China and Niger have to be financed through a New York bank, with the goods insured by an English company, and shipped using a French cargo company?

Unka George (George McDuffee)

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. Letter, 15 Nov. 1913.

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Which ABM system? There have been many and many tests. Patriot and SM-3 both seem to work reasonably well. But both are short-range systems--did the North Korean missile come within a hundred miles of a Patriot site or an Aegis cruiser or destroyer?

Far more likely that the North Koreans just screwed up.

As for the airborne laser, it has been sitting at the Air Force Museum for more than 10 years.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Theatre defences are a possibility against North Korea's missile shoots. That is between the short range Patriot type systems and the long range strategic ones sitting in Alaska, etc. The midlevel designs are often ship borne and they are sitting offshore of North Korea right now.

The laser systems are certainly still being worked on and tested:

formatting link
quote "After years of development, the Pentagon is about to learn whether its investment of time and millions of dollars in the Airborne Laser missile defense system has paid off," Aviation Week notes.

The Airborne Laser -- a modified 747 that shoots chemically-powered beams of ultrahot light -- has been in the works since the Reagan years. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Air Force have been developing components for the plane's current iteration since 1996.

But during the course of the next year all those elements will have to be integrated to confront one major remaining challenge: shooting down a boosting ballistic missile over the Pacific.

What lies ahead in the coming months is expected to be a difficult engineering endeavor. Program managers recognize that they still have to overcome high hurdles, and indicate the shootdown attempt is likely going to occur in 2005, not late 2004. "It gets more and more challenging to hold to the 2004 date," notes ABL program director USAF Col. Ellen M. Pawlikowski.

The shootdown attempt should go a long way toward addressing the main questions hanging over ABL: can adequate laser energy be generated to overcome atmospheric absorption, can the energy be focused on a small enough point to damage a missile, and will the software-intensive battle management system work? Even a successful test won't convince all critics, since the first test will be at relatively close range, intentionally designed to demonstrate system functionality rather than determine if the ABL can accomplish its mission in a stressful setting. #end quote

Reply to
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.