tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post4005063371567431220..comments2024-03-29T14:20:26.555+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: Missile Threat to Japan Perilous - TalksPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-16720056636587912572017-01-16T11:20:14.823+11:002017-01-16T11:20:14.823+11:00Hi MHalblaub
The star of https://youtu.be/iDYpRho...Hi MHalblaub<br /><br />The star of https://youtu.be/iDYpRhoZqBY?t=2m27s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsey_Grammer<br /><br />most famous for playing the soft, sensitive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frasier_Crane doesn't have the manner of a general at all :)<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-13621682439844190622017-01-16T11:13:22.309+11:002017-01-16T11:13:22.309+11:00HI KQN
I have to admit I'm not much up on the...HI KQN<br /><br />I have to admit I'm not much up on the various anti-missile missile systems, so can only learn from your comments. <br /><br />THAAD's record of only 4 successes and 7 failures might only encourage North Korea's(NK's) leader Kim. If only one NK nuclear tipped ballistic or cruise missile gets through to a South Korean (ROK) or Japanese city that's one too many. <br /><br />The promise of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has a much longer record of success. In that regard whether a "America First" US (soon in range of NK nuclear missiles) will be prepared to go to MAD over third countries (eg. ROK or Japan) is a curious issue.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-92142700597744444582017-01-15T21:58:08.852+11:002017-01-15T21:58:08.852+11:00The THAAD testing somehow reminds me of the first ...The THAAD testing somehow reminds me of the first minutes of this movie:<br />https://youtu.be/iDYpRhoZqBY?t=2m27s<br />(Also somehow of the rest...)<br /><br />A missile fired from North Korea to Tokyo might be to high to intercept with a PAC-3 on the northern coast line. A PAC-3 somewhere in the center of the Island could intercept but the "fallout" will hit Japan. A THAAD system makes sense to keep the Japanese islands clean.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaub<br /><br />MHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-66752465011396034282017-01-15T13:56:24.883+11:002017-01-15T13:56:24.883+11:00Your article is timely as Japan Defence Minister w...Your article is timely as Japan Defence Minister was visiting Guam to take a look at THAAD. THAAD deployment in Guam was mainly driven by timetable since AEGIS ashore can easily do the same.<br />In my view, unlike ROK, THAAD may not be as suitable for Japan as one will need to deploy many more batteries than AEGIS Ashore. Plus Japan co-funded and participated in the R&D of the SM-3 block 2. That said, the issue for SM-3 is the minimum ceiling of ~100km and that basically excludes defenses against <1000km BM where THAAD could.<br />I believe a viable and lower cost alternative to THAAD is the Israeli David's Sling for endo-atmospheric intercepts.<br />I agree that Japan currently using land based PAC-3 is inadequate. I am sure the US will be pushing a longer range Patriot as an alternative to THAAD is cost is an issue. <br />during the validation phase, THAAD records was not stellar, 4 successes and 7 failures. The maths say it all if that stands in a real shooting war.<br />KQNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com