Deployment of THAAD: News & Discussions

[Aepsilons]

THAAD is relate to nuke, why not discuss?

THAAD is a defensive platform, much like the SM-3s, SM-2s, which may be found on ground and on ship based systems. These systems are not designed for offensive , but for defensive strikes. And as already mentioned in this thread -- THAAD may be effective against NK's missiles, but against nations such as China or Russia -- it may not be as effective due to the saturation component, that said, there is on context to China in THAAD procurement by the South Korean Government.

Lastly, let us not entreat discussion on nuclear strikes --- such zero sum discourse provide no intellectual stimulation, coupled with the fact that it won't ever happen.


Thanks.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

lol, the US also did not force China to respect Human Right, just warning of the consequence if they don't lol. Can you then not say US meddling Chinese affair??

US has no capability neither to force China to do anything but just talk,and what is the consequence if we don't respect the Human Right...can you explain? and we dont have the problem of reciprocate when come to claim of meddling internal affaire of each other...and we China have alot to learn from US human right violation.

 

[Genesis]

Neutralize the threat of North Korean missiles, not Chinese. The fact that some Chinese posters are claiming that these pose a threat to China just troubles me and many others who read this thread. Can they not differentiate Pyongyang (The North Korean Regime) from themselves ? Such questionable postings leads many South Koreans to suspect China's own goals.

Come on, that's unfair, I doubt you can't see why some sees it as such.

As to the government's words, I have said it before, these sort of action needs responses, that's the way things works.

To illustrate something on the other end, including Japan.

China has every incentive to make AIIB work | afr.com

AIIB, with more members will dilute China's voting rights, AIIB, being a first step for China, China is highly unlikely to step out of the line. The Asian infrastructure market is huge, and thus the bank can pick and choose, and so much more.

But Furusawa, the vice finance minister for international affairs, told Jin that Tokyo is “not convinced.” He also cast doubt on the necessity of the bank, given that the Asia Development Bank already plays that role, they said.

Japan reluctant to join China-led investment bank | The Japan Times

There are more examples, like Japan openly questioning the "motives" behind the move, but you get the point.

Let's call the deployment a de facto "threat" on China
It is using DPRK as disguises for the serious impact of the operation on China's defense

I am not an expert or what so called "saturate a force"
By having the THAADs deployed, the US and allies can literally neutralse most if not all of counter attacks and then they can launch their own missile / other strikes

My opinion is this changes nothing, US was always going to find a way to deploy something like this, even if they had to put it into their new or old AEGIS ships. Increasing capability, especially something like this a lateral move at best, since it's something US already have, means little.

China needs to deploy weapons that can by pass it whether it is in Korea or Mars. I'm obviously talking hypersonic vehicle.

What has changed that cannot be reversed, or easily reversed is the fact China is a 10 trillion economy and going, China is spending more and more on military(R&D under different name and budget, for all we know the toilet paper budget is J-31).

China is more and more capable of creating new weapons that's far more deadly and pretty much irreversible, unless the US finds a way to double it's economy again soon.

Bottomline, the only thing that's changed for the US is the location of THAAD, in broad terms, China has came from a poor backwards nation that can't make a lamp to save its life to, well now.

 

[Víðarr]

I'm obviously talking hypersonic vehicle.

Don't be so quick to discount THAAD or SM-3 IIA's ability to down hyper-sonic glide vehicles as well.

THAAD-ER - I can't post a link, you can search on your own.

While not currently in the US arsenal, if it's being proposed, then it has demonstrated the capabilities necessary to be considered for operational use.

If it exists, we have or are developing a countermeasure for it. THAAD-ER is just a few pencil-pushes away from being an operational US military system that is deisgned to down HGVs, MIRVs, MARVs (very similar to HGVs in their flight profile: see Pershing II) and ballistic missiles.

This is the 1980's advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle of the US military.

Other devices and countermeasures are being developed too. Since China's HGV program is still developmental, it's a race to see which comes first: countermeasure or measure.

Come on, that's unfair, I doubt you can't see why some sees it as such.

As to the government's words, I have said it before, these sort of action needs responses, that's the way things works.

To illustrate something on the other end, including Japan.


AIIB, with more members will dilute China's voting rights, AIIB, being a first step for China, China is highly unlikely to step out of the line. The Asian infrastructure market is huge, and thus the bank can pick and choose, and so much more.

There are more examples, like Japan openly questioning the "motives" behind the move, but you get the point.

This is a discussion for a different thread, let's not inject it into this one.

Bottomline, the only thing that's changed for the US is the location of THAAD, in broad terms, China has came from a poor backwards nation that can't make a lamp to save its life to, well now.

That's a rather strange argument. You're comparing a short time-frame, the deployment of THAAD, to China's economic progress over the last 20 years? That's not an equivalent comparison.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

THAAD is a defensive platform, much like the SM-3s, SM-2s, which may be found on ground and on ship based systems. These systems are not designed for offensive , but for defensive strikes. And as already mentioned in this thread -- THAAD may be effective against NK's missiles, but against nations such as China or Russia -- it may not be as effective due to the saturation component, that said, there is on context to China in THAAD procurement by the South Korean Government.

Lastly, let us not entreat discussion on nuclear strikes --- such zero sum discourse provide no intellectual stimulation, coupled with the fact that it won't ever happen.

Thanks.

THAAD is aimed to take care of strategical NUKES, when enemy has confident to defend themself agaisnt NUKES they will be less worry of the consequence if they decide to use NUKES...of course you can keep continue to claim that THAAD is aimed at N korea...as we Chineses claim that we're aiming at nobody with NUKES, it's purely a defensive weapon unless someone want to start first...we're peace loving country.

 

[Víðarr]

THAAD is a defensive platform, much like the SM-3s, SM-2s, which may be found on ground and on ship based systems. These systems are not designed for offensive , but for defensive strikes. And as already mentioned in this thread -- THAAD may be effective against NK's missiles, but against nations such as China or Russia -- it may not be as effective due to the saturation component, that said, there is on context to China in THAAD procurement by the South Korean Government.

Lastly, let us not entreat discussion on nuclear strikes --- such zero sum discourse provide no intellectual stimulation, coupled with the fact that it won't ever happen.


Thanks.

THAAD is a counter for medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles, nuclear or not, but many here seem to think it is designed as an ICBM shield to thwart a China's missile strike against the US. Can THAAD stop an ICBM? Well, the US has ICBM test missiles, so, possibly.

You have the right Idea, this conversation is pointless and any attempted, actual, thwarted or aborted nuclear launch against the US will yield a counter response.

I second your proposal, let's step away form this discussion of nuclear weapons and back to the intended purpose of THAAD.

 

[Genesis]

Don't be so quick to discount THAAD or SM-3 IIA's ability to down hyper-sonic glide vehicles as well.

THAAD-ER - I can't post a link, you you can search on your own.

While not currently in the US arsenal, if it's being proposed, then it has demonstrated the capabilities necessary to be considered for operational use.

If it exists, we have or are developing a countermeasure for it. THAAD-ER is just a few pencil-pushes away from being an operational US military system that is deisgned to down HGVs, MIRVs, MARVs (very similar to HGVs in their flight profile: see Pershing II) and ballistic missiles.

You are not getting me, one weapon, ten weapons isn't going to change anything.

What does it matter if you can counter hypersonic vehicles, I assume one day it could, that's not the point.

The point is that, 30, or even 5 years ago, China had neither the funding nor the expertise to counter anything American. At that time, THAAD can be on the moon and the difference would be minimal.

Now we do have the capability to go one on one with America, you got paper we make rock, you make paper we make scissors.

We would have to counter something like THAAD anyways, at some point, even if it's not this, it be something else.

That's a rather strange argument. You're comparing a short time-frame, the deployment of THAAD, to China's economic progress over the last 20 years? That's not an equivalent comparison.

In the broad picture, what changed the strategic landscape more, a couple of missiles in Korea, or China's ascendance into a great power.

 

[Genesis]

You're not getting the picture! THAAD isn't aimed at China, That's what the problem is! That is what @Nihonjin1051 is trying to tell you and all of the others here injecting China into this discussion. China's fears are grounded, China's fears are not warranted. South Korea will make its decision based on its threat assessment, and after China's outburst, a THAAD deployment is even more likely than before.

If you continue with this irrational and baseless claim of China and THAAD than this discussion is finished. I'm not arguing conceptual or theoretical with you. If you can offer me a single credible link, I don't care where it comes from, that states THAAD is aimed at Chinese ballistic missiles, nuclear or otherwise, I'll continue with this discussion.

If you can't, kindly don't quote me or waste my time with generalities, conceptual idea/theories or discussions that are not relevant to the thread topic.

If I receive an alter notifying me that you quoted me, I'm expecting supporting evidence. Otherwise, don't waste mine and your time.

It seems you don't want to debate capabilities, you are just telling me America isn't aiming THAAD at China, I never said America is, in fact if you read the part where you said it is irrelevant, I specifically mentioned, that's the reaction, states have with things like this.

Like the Bank with US and Japan, I doubt Japan and US thought this bank was going to be the end of Western power as we know it, but you guys can't openly support it.

That's what's happening here.

This is word for word what I said.

As to the government's words, I have said it before, these sort of action needs responses, that's the way things works.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

You're not getting the picture! THAAD isn't aimed at China, That's what the problem is! That is what @Nihonjin1051 is trying to tell you and all of the others here injecting China into this discussion. China's fears are grounded, China's fears are not warranted. South Korea will make its decision based on its threat assessment, and after China's outburst, a THAAD deployment is even more likely than before.

If you continue with this irrational and baseless claim of China and THAAD than this discussion is finished. I'm not arguing conceptual or theoretical with you. If you can offer me a single credible link, I don't care where it comes from, that states THAAD is aimed at Chinese ballistic missiles, nuclear or otherwise, I'll continue with this discussion.

If you can't, kindly don't quote me or waste my time with generalities, conceptual idea/theories or discussions that are not relevant to the thread topic.

If I receive an alter notifying me that you quoted me, I'm expecting supporting evidence. Otherwise, don't waste mine and your time.

Relax, there's no need to get worked up! Just ignore and let the discussion move on.

...

About THAAD-ER, since you can't post the link.

Thaad-ER

China’s Hypersonic Ambitions Prompt Thaad-ER Push

...

China fears THAAD, but there is no supporting evidence to suggest THAAD is aimed at China. And no, saying that "it is and everyone knows it" is not an acceptable response. That has no basis, support and exists only as an opinion.

We can explore China's trepidation though:

Are China’s THAAD Fears Justified?

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

For me, it's so simple regardless of who ever claim that THAAD is not aim at China but S korea will be really sorry if it allow a third country to intercept Chinese missiles that is not aiming at S.K. they will have to buy the insurrance to cover the value that our missile is aiming at or pay the same price as the targeted country.

 

[Genesis]

@Genesis - be civil, keep the discussion relevant. This thread isn't about the AIIB, so stop adding to your posts. Second, please provide some evidence to support any claims relating to THAAD and China. I've notice that claim being made a lot, but have yet to see anyone support it. You're all members, not new members, and you can provide sources, please do.

It was a simple request (made angrily, I'll take care of that), if you can honor it, please do so. And don't belittle any other member here. When debating you need to provide evidence too, you haven't done so, so please refrain from targeting others or questioning their debating capabilities.

I'm getting accused of all sorts of things here, where did I say THAAD is aimed at China, specifically said that's just the response nations give, and why did I say that, if not for @Nihonjin1051 questioning why some people question why it is aimed at China.

in response to @Keel 's comment to this is a de facto threat, and I responded by saying it isn't, since even if that were true, which I specifically said, these responses are just what nations give, we would still need to face something of this nature anyways in the future.

Is that not what I said, how did you interpret it. The only place where I may have sounded like THAAD is aiming at China is my assertion that even if it were, it's not a big deal. The key being EVEN IF.


As to be civil. I have not seen where I have not been civil or responded to an ENTIRE post rather than parts of it to take it off course.

Evidence? The only thing I claimed in the entire argument is that China now has the capability to creating more and better capabilities, and that's based on GDP, industrial power, R&D budget, and military spending, who on here don't know these things.

 

[Aepsilons]

Come on, that's unfair, I doubt you can't see why some sees it as such.

As to the government's words, I have said it before, these sort of action needs responses, that's the way things works.

To illustrate something on the other end, including Japan.

China has every incentive to make AIIB work | afr.com

AIIB, with more members will dilute China's voting rights, AIIB, being a first step for China, China is highly unlikely to step out of the line. The Asian infrastructure market is huge, and thus the bank can pick and choose, and so much more.

Gen,

What has the AIIB anything to do with the subject matter we're talking about? Secondly, AIIB is a fiscal apparatus, this is separate from strategic alliance systems; if you haven't noticed -- the United Kingdom is considering joining AIIB, at the same time they are stringently linked to the Global Nato Alliance , and are a proud ally of the United States.

Mature nations, my friend, are able to divorce economic processes from strategic / security related systems.

So far, my point(s) remain.

THAAD is aimed to take care of strategical NUKES, when enemy has confident to defend themself agaisnt NUKES they will be less worry of the consequence if they decide to use NUKES...of course you can keep continue to claim that THAAD is aimed at N korea...as we Chineses claim that we're aiming at nobody with NUKES, it's purely a defensive weapon unless someone want to start first...we're peace loving country.

Again, I reiterate, THAAD is visaged for North Korea and not China. THAAD is for North Korea, any attempt to include China into this discussion is unnecessary, unproductive and a waste of energy in discoursing.

 

[Genesis]

Gen,

What has the AIIB anything to do with the subject matter we're talking about? Secondly, AIIB is a fiscal apparatus, this is separate from strategic alliance systems; if you haven't noticed -- the United Kingdom is considering joining AIIB, at the same time they are stringently linked to the Global Nato Alliance , and are a proud ally of the United States.

Mature nations, my friend, are able to divorce economic processes from strategic / security related systems.

So far, my point(s) remain.

I really should have used a Anti SAT, or Hyersonic vehicle, or something like that as an example. AIIB has nothing to do with this, just that an action has an reaction, even if it's something that isn't officially or unofficially targeted at you.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Again, I reiterate, THAAD is visaged for North Korea and not China. THAAD is for North Korea, any attempt to include China into this discussion is unnecessary, unproductive and a waste of energy in discoursing.

I said what I have to say, I think I have made my point.

 

[Aepsilons]

I said what I have to say, I think I have made my point.

Yes you have. And I will say that China should not be too concerned on what South Korea plans to do inside her borders. China, as much as it claims a non-interventionist policy, is meddling in the internal security affairs of South Korea, it should not. If the South Koreans decide deploying 5-10 THAAD batteries is necessary to counter Pyongyang's Nodong - Taepodong - Hwasong - Musudan delivery system(s), then they should have the right to do so without the interference of other nations in the region. Period.