Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "Pentagon explains why it didn't shoot down North Korean ICBM" video.

  1. They didn't shoot it down simply because that would have been an escalation.
    7
  2. I think its far more simple , shooting somebody's missiles down is a massive escalation which would only lead down the path of conflict.
    1
  3. It was a political choice to not shoot down the Norths Missiles as well as a technical one. Every North Korean missile which disintegrates into the pacific is scooped up and poured over with a fine tooth comb under American analysis. We know how their missiles tick, what they are capable of and what they cannot do / lift in terms of payload. There is also the very real concern that the Chinese and Russians are sitting waiting for the US Military to attempt an intercept which will inform their own defence planners, defence intelligence apparatus on how to counter BMD undrr real operational conditions. Politically, shooting down another country's missiles is a huge escalation which could spiral out of control. Either way I think eventually the North will receive a very bloody nose, conflict is inevitable because of the path they have chosen. North Korea will lose.
    1
  4. Explain.
    1
  5. US BMD can easily handle MRBMs and can handle IRBMs designed and built by the North. This isn't a technical admission of failure its a political decision. Shooting down missiles is a direct escalation, not a path we want to tread.
    1
  6. The fact is PAC-3 and SM-3 could only engage the threat if the threat was within their missile engagement zones, which it wasn't since the threat was aimed at a spot 2,000 km away into the ocean nowhere near Japan. Thats the tech side, politically, its an escalation if you decide to destroy equipment belonging to another country.
    1