Should the U.S. shoot down Guam-bound North Korean missiles?

>>34835720

In theory, absolutely

In practice, since the reliability/effectiveness of our deterrents (THAAD and whatever else the Navy has) aren't 100% proven, IF it were to be made public that we tried and failed it would make us look a lot worse than if we let them hit and then retaliate

>>34835839
it will be a serious embarrassment if it misses which may empower North Korea to be more aggressive

>>34835720
No

Missiles did nothing wrong. They were good guys turning their life around.

Maybe like a third of them.

>>34835921

Until they realize the gravity of their situation then as always they crash and burn.

>>34835905

Right, that's what I'm getting at

>>34835839
>>34835905
>Shooting and missing is worse than than letting missiles hit fucking Guam

I mean for one thing, everyone knows we're tracking missile launches. So if we didn't fire everyone would either think we tried to intercept and failed and don't want to admit it, or we didn't think it would work. So not firing is as bad or worse than firing and missing (worse because if it ever got out we had a shot and didn't take it there'd be freaking riots).

For another, it's fucking Guam, a US territory, of course we're going to defend it.

>>34835720
Test firings to demonstrate the range of their missiles? Nope. Lose face if ABM fails to intercept, and potentially deny intelligence folk information about Nork missiles if they do succeed.

Missile actually aimed at inhabited American soil, continental or otherwise? The time to think about face-saving and spying has passed; damned well better take the shot if it has any chance of success.

>>34835905
Deliberately not attempting to prevent an American naval and air base from being nuked? Probably more embarrassing.

>>34836526
The Nork plan calls for 4 missiles to be fired into the sea about 40 kilometres from the coast of Guam.

>>34836638
We won't know their exact trajectory until the terminal phase. If a guy promised you he was only going to shoot right next to your head, you wouldn't just stand there.

>>34835720
SHOULD?

Probably. It depends, a non-nuclear strike would be a convenient causus belli, while a "miss" from our ABM would be an embarrassment relative to a dozen lives. If we think it's nuclear, absolutely we should try. Not worth losing the base. A lightly cratered runway? Sure, acceptable loss and we can have it back in action quickly. A complete loss of the airfield? no.

CAN??

It depends.

No because the NAP hasn't been violated yet.

File: 1487573375968.png (350KB, 848x790px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 848x790px

US should shoot down the missiles then bomb the launch pads.

Kim Fat Un won't do shit after that.

the Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that if five warheads were headed to the U.S., and each interceptor had a 50 percent chance of hitting its target, there would be a 28 percent chance that one warhead would get through.