Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned defense seen unable to destroy U.S.-bound N. Korean missiles
Kyodo News International ^ | 5/2/2010 | Kyodo News International

Posted on 05/08/2010 11:15:18 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld

next-generation missile interceptor being co-developed by Japan and the United States would not be able to take out U.S.-bound North Korean long-range ballistic missiles flying over Japan, senior Defense Ministry officials said Sunday.

This is because the range of the interceptor, dubbed the Standard Missile 3 Block 2A, would not allow an Aegis-equipped ship deployed off Japan to target high-flying missiles, the officials told Kyodo News.

The outlook could affect debate in Japan over whether to exercise the constitutionally banned right of collective self-defense so as to shoot down U.S.-bound missiles flying over the country.

With an estimated range of 200 to 300 kilometers, the current SM-3 is known to be unable to intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Some military analysts had argued that the SM-3 Block 2A would be capable of doing so, though its range has not been made public.

An advanced version of the SM-3, the SM-3 Block 2A, will have a longer range and higher targeting accuracy. The United States plans to begin deploying it in 2018.

As the new model will be able to counter decoys or multiple warheads, one Aegis-equipped vessel with the interceptor is expected to be sufficient to defend Japan, instead of the two presently needed.

Despite the outlook for the next-generation interceptor, the Defense Ministry officials said it might still be able to knock out ballistic missiles bound for Hawaii if activated in seas near the U.S. Pacific island state just before the missiles reenter the atmosphere.

According to a ministry report about North Korea's missile launch in April last year, the missile flew more than 3,000 km after passing 370 to 400 km above northeastern Japan. A missile bound for Hawaii, about 7,000 km away from the reclusive nation, would fly at an even higher altitude.

(Excerpt) Read more at istockanalyst.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abm; aegis; ballisticmissile; boostphase; japan; missiledefense; northkorea; sm3

1 posted on 05/08/2010 11:15:19 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

This is why we need a boost phase ABM system. Drop the Norks garbage right back on their heads.


2 posted on 05/08/2010 11:17:58 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

The ABL would do the job.


3 posted on 05/08/2010 11:18:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld ("I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution."-Dr.Wernher Von Braun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

If we can’t Stop it ... we can fix it so that they are Unable to launch a 2nd.


4 posted on 05/08/2010 11:24:56 PM PDT by gwilhelm56 (The one thing we learn from history is .. People REFUSE to Learn from History!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

Our current president would apologize for the damage our territory did to the North Korean missile.


5 posted on 05/08/2010 11:30:31 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

The democrats plan: Obama and Kerry talk it to death before it lands.


6 posted on 05/08/2010 11:30:56 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Question: Will their defenses be able to stop our retaliatory strike? They take out one of our cities, we take out their whole country...poof...no more NK problems. At least it would finally, and offically, END the Korean Conflict.


7 posted on 05/08/2010 11:56:20 PM PDT by FrankR (Standing up against tyranny must start somewhere, or the future will belong to the tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

bflr


8 posted on 05/09/2010 12:30:32 AM PDT by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013- The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Obama authorize a retaliatory strike? Unlikely I think. Maybe Dwight Eisenhower Obama, but not Barack Hussein Obama.


9 posted on 05/09/2010 2:42:17 AM PDT by KingLudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson