Darth Avlectus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Interjection: Kim Jong Il's mental state...I can't say since I am no psych expert. But to my experience, instability is what to watch for sane or not. If he's backed into a corner he may lash out like a ferocious animal. However, that is not the case. Also there is a difference between crazy and insane. One still has conscious awareness, the other does not and cannot (rationally anyway) connect consequence to its actions. "If I know I'm going crazy........I MUST NOT BE INSANE" --Dave Mustaine, Megadeth song Mary Jane As to craziness, there is smart and stupid. I think it involves taking risks and weight of outcomes plus certain measures of delicacy either way. Still, I cannot speak as to KJI's stability or rationality. Supposing NK actually got the delivery capabilities, where would they have gotten it? From whom? While I'm not sure that is the case...mmm, best be safe than sorry I suppose. @ mimartin: ehh, for lack of better term let's endeavor to say fluff'dup like a turkey--deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Also there is a difference between crazy and insane. One still has conscious awareness, the other does not and cannot (rationally anyway) connect consequence to its actions. "If I know I'm going crazy........I MUST NOT BE INSANE" --Dave Mustaine, Megadeth song Mary Jane Neither 'crazy' nor 'insane' are the appropriate medical terms. If one is psychotic, they don't process reality the same, whether they're conscious of it or not. We don't give psychotics knives, guns, or assorted other tools that can be used on themselves or others, because they're not going to use those things in a rational manner, and they represent an extreme danger to themselves and anyone in contact with them. We should be likewise very concerned about any WMDs in the hands of someone who is psychotic. As to craziness, there is smart and stupid. I think it involves taking risks and weight of outcomes plus certain measures of delicacy either way.I'm not sure what your driving at with your point here. I'm not a mental health expert, so I can't definitively diagnose Jong Il, but his behavior is certainly indicative of someone whose sanity is in question. A lot of psychotics are extremely smart, but they still do dumb things because the disease doesn't allow them to process information correctly. @ mimartin: ehh, for lack of better term let's endeavor to say fluff'dup like a turkey--deal?As long as you keep the language clean, I don't care what euphemism you choose to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 ..... I can't definitively diagnose Jong Il, but his behavior is certainly indicative of someone whose sanity is in question. A lot of psychotics are extremely smart, but they still do dumb things because the disease doesn't allow them to process information correctly. But is he? He's learned as far back as the 90s that he can manipulate the US and gloabal "community" to gain concessions. His father held an American naval crew for ~13 months...an arguable act of war...back in the 60s. The one thing many of these tyrants learn is how far they can push the envelope before anyone responds. I think "crazy like a fox" is probably the term of choice here. He knows that the PRC is a kind of trump card, so as long as they don't come down on him, he has a pretty free hand to cause trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This reminds me of a term from the movie "Speed." "Remember, he's crazy, not stupid..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 ^I think that sums up what I'm saying... Edit: Forgot to say it - excellent post Commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 "Remember, he's crazy, not stupid..." I couldn't have predicted at any time in the past that one day I'll agree 100% with a line from that movie, but there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 Neither 'crazy' nor 'insane' are the appropriate medical terms. If one is psychotic, they don't process reality the same, whether they're conscious of it or not. We don't give psychotics knives, guns, or assorted other tools that can be used on themselves or others, because they're not going to use those things in a rational manner, and they represent an extreme danger to themselves and anyone in contact with them. We should be likewise very concerned about any WMDs in the hands of someone who is psychotic. No argument there. I'm not sure what your driving at with your point here. Generally smart crazy vs stupid crazy: neither are rational (granted), but smarter ones takes survey of things if rather intensely, stupid ones are simply noisemakers. Recognizing risk taking and recognizing outcomes/consequences ultimately stemming from actions taken. Relative mental disquiet within the individual. He has shown penchant for behaving the way he has in past to get what he wants. Perhaps it's a power trip. He's crazy, but a smart crazy. Still smart enough to recognize he'll end up badly if he "goes there". It is a question of how willing he is to just do it. Not as likely if there is insurmountable evidence he'd be crushed like a bug under a heel. Which there is. So while he is war-whacky, I guess I'm on about this because it would seem like another manipulation. Maybe not the most stellar or effective, but manipulaiton nonetheless. He still seems to recognize outcome. I see more manipulation than likelihood. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Until then: "We'll see". However, if it makes you feel any better, I'd say this is hardly reason to take it easy. You're a martial artist, so you know obliviousness and letting down your guard is the most foolish thing you can do even when you believe they won't act. I'm not a mental health expert, so I can't definitively diagnose Jong Il, but his behavior is certainly indicative of someone whose sanity is in question. A lot of psychotics are extremely smart, but they still do dumb things because the disease doesn't allow them to process information correctly. I'm basically in agreement with you on this. Where I beg to differ is the degree to which it is the case here with KJI. To me it appears he's rattling his cage to get what he wants. He still processes that much. He's trying to make you afraid of him that way to get what he wants. As long as you keep the language clean, I don't care what euphemism you choose to use. I'll PM you--you'll get a laugh, sorta. But is he? He's learned as far back as the 90s that he can manipulate the US and gloabal "community" to gain concessions. His father held an American naval crew for ~13 months...an arguable act of war...back in the 60s. The one thing many of these tyrants learn is how far they can push the envelope before anyone responds. That's the criminal mindset. Once they learn, 1) you are afraid, they will keep picking at you and pushing the envelope. 2) that you are not afraid of them, they rethink it. Probably will try again, but if they feel every time they do that they will come off the worse for it if they follow through...well, they don't act. I think "crazy like a fox" is probably the term of choice here. He knows that the PRC is a kind of trump card, so as long as they don't come down on him, he has a pretty free hand to cause trouble. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 @Kyp: @CQ: Kims motives: 1: getting a nuke makes him immunity: invasions. 2:grabing resources, cash or whatever carrot is offered. 3:setting the stage for Kim V 3.0. 4: the positive effect on his popularity by showing the world the middle finger. That's 4 just from the top of my head. That is one link I found concerning missile defense. There were a few others, but I chose this one. Now I understand that you may not completely believe anything the US says concerning these type of tests, but you asked for a link, and I believe this one may help. 7 out of..I believe 8 tests were successful. This may differ in a real combat situation, but NK's pocket nukes would probably be at about the same difficulty without decoys. Since I doubt anyone else have much info from th tests... I'll take what I can get. One difference from NK's nukes is that if one of those is launched, it'll be out of the blue, not in a test where everyone is prepared and know where it'll land. Also, I still dislike that they insist on destroying on impact, sure, it looks better but it's like tying one hand behind your back. And of course it's the issue of the tests (afaik) being against single missiles without decoys. This doesn't render the missile defense unreliable, as I did read on one test that used a single decoy{a very small test} and the dummy missile was destroyed, evading the decoy. Problem is, baloons don't exactly take up much space, or weight much, so it'll be much more than one decoy pr missile. Not that this matter much, NK don't have ICBM's Originally psted by ULD ^He's insane and he's actually thinks that nuclear weapons are the best way to bargain... Insane: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. With NK so far having bargained successfully using nukes, I'd say he expects the same result. While I don't mean to be contradictory...but don't you think that Hitler was insane? Without a definition of "insane" I find it hard to answer this. And while Kim Jong Il isn't following some crazy plan to destroy a race (that we know of), he has followed many of the same patterns that we've seen in Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin, etc. by failing to understand - after several years of sanctions and international shunning - how the world really works... If he doesen't know how the world "really works", then why have he been constantly benefitting from his "tantrums"? I'd say if he don't know how the world works, then we better fire just about every guy who have dealt with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I'm with mur'phon on the notion that shooting down a ballistic missile, or, more importantly, the warhead(s), is no mean feat. It would be far more preferable (and make a lot more sense) to shoot it down during the ascent and coast stages of its flight when it's all in one piece, than to try to shoot down it's warheads (and decoys) after they've deployed. I think that all of this confidence in the present missile defense system is completely unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I think that all of this confidence in the present missile defense system is completely unfounded. I could not agree more with anything written on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 While I agree that there's no definite way you can stop a missile...I do believe that the US has the best ability out of any country in the world to fend off an attack...just my honest opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 The Patriot missile has proven effective in combat at intercepting missiles and I imagine that is what would most likely be employed by the US in Hawaii. Some US Navy ships also carry the Rolling Airframe Missile and the Sea Sparrow missile both of which are anti-missile defense as well as the CIWS(close in weapon system) which is a high velocity mini-gun used for close in missile defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 ^Yeah. While the Patriot missile has been criticized in the recent decade, I still believe that it is the most advanced missile defense system on the planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 ^^I agree. The Patriot Missile must be one of the best out there. But still, we can't entirely rely on it to solve our problems in a nuclear crisis, almost anything can happen at this point. Our country needs to be prepared in more then just defence, speak softly and carry a big stick. Perhaps we can reach an agreement, but I doubt that, as Kim Jong Il doesn't look like the negotiating type... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Patriot was designed more than 25 years ago to intercept aircraft and SRBMs traveling at little more than mach 3 at the most. It was not, repeat, not designed to intercept MIRVs reentering the atmosphere at mach 8. Big, big difference, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Patriot was designed more than 25 years ago to intercept aircraft and SRBMs traveling at little more than mach 3 at the most. It was not, repeat, not designed to intercept MIRVs reentering the atmosphere at mach 8. Big, big difference, folks. Quoted for emphases. It would be a statistical miracle to stop any of those incoming warheads. Our "missile defense" is designed to stop the missile from ever getting that high to deploy, as once they are let go they will be traveling too fast and in too much of a random fall to stop. The Patriot would be used, if given the time, to shoot down the missile before leaving the atmosphere. There is not a chance in hell of it hitting a warhead as it falls, as Qliv said, at speeds upward of mach 8. Considering these can be shot up and easily make it to another continent, the chances of intercepting an unexpected launch are laughable at best. A missile net at Hawaii means nothing if this type of missile is fired, as it can only truly be stopped on its way up, which would be far, far from Hawaii. Technologically superiority means nothing if your target is smaller than a car and traveling at 5280 mph, over 7 times the speed of sound. You'd be lucky to see them re-entering at the speed they would hit. It is the existence of these in multiple countries, however, that guarantees your survival. Not a missile net around Hawaii. If anything (and this is under the asumption that Kim isn't completely insane) be glad he has one as this is, in a strange twist of irony, one more country aiding world peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I found this breakdown of NK's missile capabilities or at least known missile capabilities: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Northkorea/Missiles.shtml Pretty interesting stuff actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Patriot was designed more than 25 years ago to intercept aircraft and SRBMs traveling at little more than mach 3 at the most. It was not, repeat, not designed to intercept MIRVs reentering the atmosphere at mach 8. Big, big difference, folks. I'm fairly certain our technology has been updated since 25 years ago. There is so much we don't know about as far as our military is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile The article talks about the evolution of the missile system and planned upgrades as well as the basics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I'm fairly certain our technology has been updated since 25 years ago. There is so much we don't know about as far as our military is concerned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile We do have anti-ballistic missiles. Most have been shelves, the current being the updated Patriot Missile, the SM-3, and the Arrow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_missile_SM-3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_missile These are all fairly untested and underfunded, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD THAAD is currently being worked on to destroy incoming ballistics. Problem is, these missiles, programs, and so on are designed to take out single ballistics. Their main weakness is that there is only a limited amount that can be fired, and they are some of the most expensive missiles ever built. The MIRVs launch multiple war-heads, so the problem still stands of multiple ballistics coming down at Mach 8. Not only would you have to know what was coming, but you'd have to have ships/missile defence ready in a minute or so it would take for them to hit the ground. This is, in my opinion, unrealistic. Anti-ballistic missiles and so on are great when you know what is coming, but a surprise MIRV would be almost guaranteed a hit. Its just countries blowing more hot air at each other. Realistically, it wouldn't be that hard to nuke a country into dust. Just don't expect to be standing when the dust clears, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I think you're probably right Avery, North Korea is simply trying to do what it has done in the past which is threaten the rest of the world to get what they want. I don't think they would intentionally start a war with the U.S. and I would like to think, as I said before, that President Obama is smart enough not to initiate a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. – The Air Force says it has successfully launched an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile from a California base, firing it to targets in the Pacific Ocean. Lt. Raymond Geoffroy (JEFF-rey) said the ICBM was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 3:01 a.m. Monday. He said it carried three unarmed re-entry vehicles that hit their targets near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 4,200 miles away. On clear mornings, missile launchings from Vandenberg can be seen as far away as Los Angeles, 140 miles to the southeast, but fog along the coast made Monday's launch difficult to see even in the immediate area, Geoffroy said. The Air Force said the launch was an operational test to check the weapon system's reliability and accuracy. Test data will be used by United States Strategic Command planners and Department of Energy laboratories. -From the AP via Yahoo! News Anyone else think this might not be just a test? Perhaps a message to our buddy Kim in North Korea? "Hey guess what, we can do it too" Maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 ^^Hmm, that is indeed interesting, but I think we're just practicing, though a demonstration of our power would definately be a product of this. This is probably just-in-case the worse should happen practice run, so rest assured, if we are attacked, then North Korea has 'awakened a sleeping giant." Hopefully, Kim Jong Il is paying attention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah...I was thinking we'd be more likely to use our submarine launched missiles in response to any attack. We could get them closer, and wouldn't be shocked if they aren't already in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Well, I should hope they are, it would enable us to strike faster, and not wait for the NK to land the first blow. But if they were in use, we wouldn't know about them until a form of war started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.