U.S. Approves $1.5 Billion Ballistic Missile Defense Deal With Japan

[Aepsilons]

True...As a side note, normal missiles do not like to fly or even hang out in the silos with depressed missiles precisely because of those unpredictable behaviors. Worst case scenario is that a depressed missile may go off just for the hell of it. The US is working hard to recruit and train psychoanalysists to deal with depressed missiles at the back end, while working with manufacturers on the front end to identify areas that maybe the cause or causes of mental deficiencies that gave US depressed missiles.

The US is also giving cultural sensitivity to missileers regarding the negative stigma associated with mental health issues with these depressed missiles. There is always an officer, keyboard readied, at the launch panel ready to talk to any depressed missile. Understanding and compassion are paramount, after all, we dealing with highly explosive entities here.

LMFAO!!!!!!!

One of the best responses I've read so far.

 

[vtnsx]

Nice, Japan will be a good target practice of China.

Sometimes I wonder, which side are you on?

 

[Blue Marlin]

True...As a side note, normal missiles do not like to fly or even hang out in the silos with depressed missiles precisely because of those unpredictable behaviors. Worst case scenario is that a depressed missile may go off just for the hell of it. The US is working hard to recruit and train psychoanalysists to deal with depressed missiles at the back end, while working with manufacturers on the front end to identify areas that maybe the cause or causes of mental deficiencies that gave US depressed missiles.

The US is also giving cultural sensitivity to missileers regarding the negative stigma associated with mental health issues with these depressed missiles. There is always an officer, keyboard readied, at the launch panel ready to talk to any depressed missile. Understanding and compassion are paramount, after all, we dealing with highly explosive entities here.

funny. hahaha now go do some research and some back with something constructive.

 

[hans]

SM6 intercepted a ballistic missile does not means it can effectively intercept missiles..
nowadays major modern air defense missiles have the capacity to intercept ballistic missiles.
But in real wars, only specified missiles like SM3 that can intercept effectively.
Other missiles have very limited reaction time or fire range that make the interception not so effective.

you can only detect short range and tactical ballistic missiles. and those missiles must have a depressed trajectory for sm-3 to take it down. the df-21d is has a range of 1500km so thats a medium range thermospheric missile. its more of a warning o the Us that they can take down there aircraft carrier if they want to. but they wont unless its a full scale war. upon research the sm-3 is claimed to have capabilities of shooting down an irbm. i would assume this is when its very early in flight.


the sm2 is a short/ medium range sam
the sm6 is a long range sam- modified versions successfully intercepted a ballistic missile
the sm3 is an abm its designed for intercepting ballistic missiles

 

[Blue Marlin]

SM6 intercepted a ballistic missile does not means it can effectively intercept missiles..
nowadays major modern air defense missiles have the capacity to intercept ballistic missiles.
But in real wars, only specified missiles like SM3 that can intercept effectively.
Other missiles have very limited reaction time or fire range that make the interception not so effective.

you should notice how i don't mention my opinion about the missile. the only thing i mentioned about liking is the arrow 3 missile from Israel.

the sm6 is a waste of time against mrbm, irbm and advanced srbm's in my opinion

and agreed the sm3 can effectively intercept effectively against aircraft not missiles, regardless of future variants being able to intercept tactical missiles.

 

[hans]

All right..
Maybe I misunderstood that...

you should notice how i don't mention my opinion about the missile. the only thing i mentioned about liking is the arrow 3 missile from Israel.

the sm6 is a waste of time against mrbm, irbm and advanced srbm's in my opinion

and agreed the sm3 can effectively intercept effectively against aircraft not missiles, regardless of future variants being able to intercept tactical missiles.

 

[Sam.]

My friend @Armstrong the US made mistakes in the past like everyone else. But we do make up for it. In Europe we are partners to almost everyone out there. Yes they do have the EU now but at the end of the day we will always be there for our European brethren no matter what. Same to all our allies in Asia. And as i remember Pakistan is a Major Non NATO ally. Unless there is something i dont know. You are allies with China i know but in the end we are here to stay buddy. And will always side with Pakistan as we did in the last 70 years or so...

we will haunt you and make you eat our chilly food. Beware of dragon farts.

 

[James David]

we will haunt you and make you eat our chilly food. Beware of dragon farts.

its called politics brother everyone has to play it!!! high stakes poker!!

 

[gambit]

SM6 intercepted a ballistic missile does not means it can effectively intercept missiles..
nowadays major modern air defense missiles have the capacity to intercept ballistic missiles.
But in real wars, only specified missiles like SM3 that can intercept effectively.
Other missiles have very limited reaction time or fire range that make the interception not so effective.

Even with modern day firearms, it takes hundreds of rounds to hit -- not necessary kill - someone on the battlefield, so that does mean we should do away with the rifle ?

 

[hans]

That is why we have guided cannons, missiles and weapons.
Rifles are last thing to use in the war.
If you have more effective method, why spend too much resource on these not so effective items..

Even with modern day firearms, it takes hundreds of rounds to hit -- not necessary kill - someone on the battlefield, so that does mean we should do away with the rifle ?

 

[gambit]

That is why we have guided cannons, missiles and weapons.
Rifles are last thing to use in the war.
If you have more effective method, why spend too much resource on these not so effective items..

You missed the point, that was expected, of course.

Your criticism insinuated the effectiveness of missile intercept as dubious. I used the rifle to illustrate the flaw in your criticism. It does not matter if the rifle is used last or first. In the early days of warfare with firearms, it took literally thousands of rounds before someone was hit. Not that one person fired thousands of rounds, but that many many men fired continuously before one man was hit. But we did not abandon the rifle, did we ?

I doubt that you ever shot anything in your life. You do not know what it is like to lug an actual person weapon, one that was called for by the military specifically for war. You do not know what it is like to carry 30-40 kgs of gear on your back and walk for kms. So please stop making declarations about subjects you know nothing about. Ask questions, yes. But stop making declarations.

 

[Blue Marlin]

You missed the point, that was expected, of course.

Your criticism insinuated the effectiveness of missile intercept as dubious. I used the rifle to illustrate the flaw in your criticism. It does not matter if the rifle is used last or first. In the early days of warfare with firearms, it took literally thousands of rounds before someone was hit. Not that one person fired thousands of rounds, but that many many men fired continuously before one man was hit. But we did not abandon the rifle, did we ?

I doubt that you ever shot anything in your life. You do not know what it is like to lug an actual person weapon, one that was called for by the military specifically for war. You do not know what it is like to carry 30-40 kgs of gear on your back and walk for kms. So please stop making declarations about subjects you know nothing about. Ask questions, yes. But stop making declarations.

i get your analogy with the rifle. but don't you think that if for example a warhead is descending at terminal velocity. and a missile is sent to intercept it . the warhead can move to evade it but also the missile can also move to intercept it.
personally the concept sounds great, but it's flawed. the warhead will be traveling at mach10+ whilst the missile is traveling at mach 7+ so the missile seeker can't move to intercept it and change its course whilst the warhead is changing its direction and traveling much faster, so a guaranteed a hit is very unlikely. so i would imagine multiple missiles being launched to intercept the missile. which is where the ww2 idea of using multiple riffles to hit a target comes into practice.

 

[hans]

The intercept missile is much slower than incoming ballistic missile warhead.
It is not possible for intercept missile to chase after the warhead.
But ballistic missile has a fixed ballistic path that cannot be changed.
You need to detect the ballistic missile first, calculate the ballistic path, and prepare the interception at the path of warhead.
That is why early warning and ballistic path calculation is very important..

For SM6 it can reach 33KM height max.
For a ballistic missile of 10 march, it only take 10s to reach ground.
SM6 can reach 160KM or more, leave around 50s to prepare intercept..
Also SM3 has heat sensor and radar that can effectively recognize the warhead and hit it.
While SM6 has only radar. less effective for ballistic missile...

i get your analogy with the rifle. but don't you think that if for example a warhead is descending at terminal velocity. and a missile is sent to intercept it . the warhead can move to evade it but also the missile can also move to intercept it.
personally the concept sounds great, but it's flawed. the warhead will be traveling at mach10+ whilst the missile is traveling at mach 7+ so the missile seeker can't move to intercept it and change its course whilst the warhead is changing its direction and traveling much faster, so a guaranteed a hit is very unlikely. so i would imagine multiple missiles being launched to intercept the missile. which is where the ww2 idea of using multiple riffles to hit a target comes into practice.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Till the day the DF-21 actually sinks a moving target at sea its a bluff actually.Sinking a static defenseless carrier size target on the open gobi desert and comparing it to moving us carrier battle group at sea is just meh.DF-21 is more of a propaganda weapon currently.

 

[gambit]

yes the citizens changed, but the elite don't.

The Mirage that is Japan …

I came across an article in Asia Times on Japan’s WWII surrender that I thought was very well written. It is important because within that surrender lay the seeds of today’s historical revisionism. But more important than that, it is a good case study on what Japan is NOT.

Too often, many in the West think of Japan as this enlightened, modern, forward-looking, peace-loving society. But when the West seems to have misunderstood Japan’s nuanced and conditional surrender for a real unconditional one akin to Germany, then it is time to what Japan is in reality, and what Japan is headed to be.

Here I offer two articles, first as a context, and second as a case study.

First is that article in Asia Times on Japan’s WWII surrender.

August 1945: Japan’s Hirohito conceded, he did not surrender
By George Koo on August 4, 2015

Geeezz...

Mr. Koo DID NOT brought on anything new. What Hirohito said in that speech have been dissected to death. I heard of this story of how 'technically speaking' Japan did not surrender because of nuances in Japanese language...blah...blah...blah...when I was in high school in Hawaii, which is dominated by Japanese descents, and I graduated in 1982, which should tell you how old is this story. Koo wrote it in his own way but the core of what he wrote is old and essentially discarded by historians as insignificant.

Assume that Hirohito meant by way of these nuances in the Japanese language that Japan did not really surrender but conceded. What now ? What can modern day Japan do ? Tell the world that 'we did not really surrender' ?

August 1945: Japan’s Hirohito conceded, he did not surrender | Asia Times

It’s customary for victors to write the history. Japan is proving to be the exception to the rule. Whether deliberate or simply inhibited by his cultural upbringing, the ambiguity of Emperor’s concession speech –certainly not a legitimate surrender proclamation — has allowed Japan to begin revising history. It’s as if denying all the brutalities committed in the past can exonerate the present from any collective guilt. Just the opposite is true. The people of Asia will continue to remind Japan until there is only one version of the tragic history of World War II.

Did the US sided with Japan all these decades that Japan was the victim in WW II ? The US was the victor, right ?

So what you are saying is that since Hirohito did not really surrender in the context of the word 'surrender' in English, this subtlety have allowed the Japanese all these decades to convince themselves, or at least their 'elite', that Japan was in the right in starting WW II, first by invading mainland China, then in attacking the US. Even before the age of the Internet, what Koo today claimed to be revelatory have been dismissed by simple virtue of the Japanese interactions with the rest of the world. The Japanese themselves knew that one version of WW II. They knew of the infamous Unit 731, of the atrocities committed by Japanese Imperial Army troops, not just in mainland China but all over Asia. There is no way that any of these Japanese 'elite' can convince the peoples of Asia and of their fellow Japanese citizens of any other versions of WW II.

George Koo does not speak for Asia, if he believes he does, then he is no different than the Japanese of yesterday who thinks one Asiatic group somehow have the divine right to speak for all Asians. I guess today, that would be the Chinese, right ?