Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama being tested


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
30 replies to this topic

#16 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,324 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:29 PM

Really, Russia has invaded another country?
Instituted martial law in other Republics?
Stationed missile boats off of NYC?
When you say "everything it can" do you know that means?


North Korea has every right to fire a rocket. Just like everyone else on the planet. If they shoot at someone else, that's another matter. Does NK have the right to shoot down anything we want to put up?


There are certain rules involved in firing a missile. If I remember correctly, the last time the NK fired one, they didn't follow the rules. They are suppose to file a Notice to Mariners, and a Notice to Airmen. They have in the past, at times neglected to do so. This time they did do file the proper notices, which is of course why our ships are there.

The US ships will try to shoot it down, if it appears to be headed towards a land target such as Japan or the US. But the real reason our ships are there is twofold. We will test our own ability to track and conduct simulated engagements of the missile. And we will use the ships to collect intelligence against them. Those Aegis cruisers are excellent intelligence collection platforms. We will use them to monitor NK activity prior to, during, and after the launch, along with any items we can collect from the missile itself. Along with the Aegis cruisers, there is likely a Cobra Ball aircraft somewhere in the area that will be monitoring the launch.

In reality, while the administration is complaining about the upcoming launch, the Navy is probably happy about it. Not that they want the NK to actually shoot it at a real world target, but the test launch gives them an excellent opportunity to test the ships capabilities against a real world target.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 31 March 2009 - 02:33 PM.


#17 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,639 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:55 PM

All that is fine. Tracking flying objects has been a fun activity for militaries for many years.

As far as the notices go, as long as they did do file them, all is good I guess. But shooting down anything thats not coming to kill you is not really a great precedent to set. When NK sneaks a sidewinder in a waterproof tube to Cape Canaveral to hit the shuttle because it thinks that it might be carrying a satellite detremental to their interests, is that going to be all ok?

Obtuse...Meat, that word....I do not think it means what you think it means. I in fact do not know as well as you that someone will shoot down that missile. If so, it should not be us unless it is headed towards us, or we have a treaty that specifically allows us to make a "preemptive strike" and not just provide aid to an attacked ally.

#18 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,324 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:32 PM

Well, like I said, they are only going to shoot it down if it appears to be headed towards Japan or some other nation. And honestly, as much trouble as they have had with the things accuracy and reliability wise, I can understand the caution. It could very well head towards Japan without that being the intention of the NK. But most of the complaints are typical diplomacy that happens all the time in these situations.

#19 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:48 PM

Obtuse...Meat, that word....I do not think it means what you think it means.


Obsequious? Oblong?

#20 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,556 posts

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:57 PM

And the Taliban's leader in Pakistan took the unusual step to come out and say a specific attack on a specific city is coming. I'd say that's cause for alarm, but call me crazy.


Did you not hear there is no more "War on Terror"? It is now called the "Overseas Contingency Operation". Gosh, we don't want to offend the Taliban.

#21 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,767 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:53 PM

There's just one little thing that bugs me. Wouldn't it be more effective for the Taliban to just attack instead of say they'll attack? If you were in their shoes and knew you couldn't 'launch' an effect attack wouldn't you just threaten one? After 911 the effect is the same...

#22 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,003 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:54 PM

maybe they could just say that they already did attack and people will be wandering around wondering what the fug happened and why didn't anyone tell them.

#23 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,003 posts

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:55 PM

wow, that was a beautifully crafted sentence right there.

#24 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,256 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 02:57 PM

I had to read it thrice

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,639 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 03:06 PM

Did you not hear there is no more "War on Terror"? It is now called the "Overseas Contingency Operation". Gosh, we don't want to offend the Taliban.


If I was a terrorist, I'd be more offended by being referred to as a contingency operation. On the totem pole of crazee, you are more like the reserve kicker of badass people.


Duh.

#26 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 03:12 PM

If I was a terrorist, I'd be more offended by being referred to as a contingency operation. On the totem pole of crazee, you are more like the reserve kicker of badass people.


Duh.


What an obtuse comment.

#27 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,003 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:09 PM

I had to read it thrice


Just sayin, it would be alot more efficient if they focused on claiming responsibility for all the bad things that happened instead of trying to make more bad things happen.

#28 engine9

engine9

    shoota muhfukkaina minute

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:14 PM

wow, that was a beautifully crafted sentence right there.


better than most you offer.

#29 Scrumtrilescent

Scrumtrilescent

    I aim to misbehave.

  • Administrators
  • 8,696 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:33 PM

I just hope it's multiple choice, and not essay.

#30 engine9

engine9

    shoota muhfukkaina minute

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:20 PM

:rolleyes5:


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com