Posted on 01/10/2017 11:09:44 PM PST by BenLurkin
Mr Carter said on Tuesday in his final press briefing that if a North Korean long-range missile is ever deemed to be threatening, "it will be intercepted".
"If it's not threatening, we won't necessarily do so. Because it may be more to our advantage to, first of all, save our interceptor inventory, and, second, to gather intelligence from the flight."
Mr Carter is due to step down as Pentagon chief when President Barack Obama's administration ends on 20 January.
But the top US military officer, Marine General Joseph Dunford, who will remain as Mr Trump's top uniformed military advisor and was at the event, agreed with Mr Carter.
On Sunday, North Korean state news agency KCNA quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying that a missile "will be launched anytime and anywhere" as determined by Pyongyang, despite efforts by the US to contain them.
North Korea has conducted two nuclear tests over the last year - five in total - raising fears that it has made significant nuclear advances.
It has never successfully test-fired long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but experts estimate it may be able to do so within five years
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
This kind of stupid statement only invites more contempt from N. Korea. Don't say a word unless you draw a clear red-line and are willing to back it up with real action.
That scenario is pretty clear cut. The more interesting scenario is what if the missile will impact harmlessly in the ocean well off shore, but it will be on a flight path where we could intercept it. Should we? Reasons for intercepting it anyway include: making a political/military point, and not just to NK. Also, it would represent a great real-world test of our systems, relatively cheaply. Those target missiles and range safety setups etc probably cost millions. If NK supplies the target, big savings for us. Intercepting would also deny them telemetry and data from the final portions of the flight.
However, there are some good reasons not to, if we don't have to. Interceptors aren't cheap. They are also a finite resource with a fairly long lead time to replace. If we intercept, we also deny ourselves the opportunity to learn more about their missile technology in mid course and terminal phases. If we launch, we give our adversaries, not just NK, a chance to observe and learn more about our capabilities. A successful intercept shows them even more. An unsuccessful attempt reduces confidence in the system, and may also embolden our enemies.
If they launch by Jan. 19 against Israel that would be considered non-threatening?
The idiot making the statements no longer has any impact on such things and has exactly nothing credible to say on how things may or may not be dealt with once Trump is inaugurated.
Carter is an idiot appointed by a scumbag. That should be kept in mind when reading on what he says about anything.
I don’t understand why we’re not knocking every single one of their missiles right off the launch pad, sending the unambiguous message: Don’t even think about it.
Plus it is unknown if NK has the guidance to hit a target or even have a sucessful reentry.
Save our inventory?!?! Are they talking about the ones based in Alaska or Standard Missiles on a ship? If either are true, I’d say we better freaking up the inventory.
Launch pads are stationary and blow up real nice. Rocket factories make great smoldering craters. Bomb making facilities don’t move around either
When do we FINALLY end this whole North Korea bullsh*t?
As a practical matter that is the correct answer. US anti-missile platforms will not always be in the correct position for an intercept. The tracking software will quickly arrive at an impact area. And why would you want to ‘waste’ an expensive interceptor missile to take out a low-tech, cheap ballistic missile if you determined that it was going to land in some empty expanse of the North Pacific?
North Korea is still at war with the UN, technically. Their cease-fire violations are testing the limits of “the Peace” - if you can call it that. But it is assumed that the Chinese have NK’s back, and the American-public will be quick to blame our side if we fire first unless there are lengthy political preparations on our side.
The US did prepare the ground for Operation Iraqi Freedom based upon Saddam’s numerous cease fire violations. But a year later the Media twisted that resolution into “it was all about WMD’s” and a presidency was crippled. And of course this all resulted in the election of Barak Obama.
If you intercept it don’t announce it. Leave them guessing....
Why can't he just utter a simple sentence, "If it is going to hit U.S. territory, it will be shot down," in a matter-of-fact fashion, without any qualification attached to it? This whole thing smacks of publicity stunt gone bad. So typical of Obama Admin..
That would be good -- there's a lot of it missing from the Pentagon these days...
Ash could put some of his best and brightest LGBT specialists on it!
“The tracking software will quickly arrive at an impact area”.
There’s not much to track in the early launch phase, when it’s easiest to take out...so I’m not cool with giving the Norks the benefit of the doubt.
“And why would you want to ‘waste’ an expensive interceptor missile to take out a low-tech, cheap ballistic missile if you determined that it was going to land in some empty expanse of the North Pacific?”
It’s not cheap, even for the Norks, to build a missile that makes it 1000 miles. As to why, I’d rather not give them the benefit of a completed test, as that’s how they further develop their capabilities.
Completely agree. The way the outgoing administration phrased the statement gIves the wrong impression to Low Information Voters (would they do that? LOL), not to mention allies & adversaries.
In a few hours...? http://morungexpress.com/north-korea-may-readying-missile-test-timing-unclear-u-s-officials/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.