US touts successful missile-defense test

[Cornellianintel]

Post-facto rationalization. Is a small-scale nuclear ransom likely to come by conventional means (ballistic missiles) or unconventional means (smuggling a suitcase bomb into the US, for example)? If a country really did have both the wherewithal to develop ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons AS WELL as the irrationality to use them... what's to stop them from going to option b? Hardly "incredibly valuable".

And so, what does their primary deterrent become? A country with hundreds of nukes is reliant on the idea that they can deter us the same way we can them, right? What does the world become when deterrence is a one-way street and mutually assured destruction is no longer 'mutual'? Wasn't that the whole problem with that business in Cuba back in the 60s... you know, it threatened our deterrent strategy?

SDI was a great idea when it was just scary enough to force the Russians into an arms race they couldn't afford but unrealistic enough that it didn't threaten anyone's deterrent strategy overnight.

First, I can't really speak authoritatively to the likelihood of an enemy trying to smuggle a bomb into the country, but I will offer the opinion that it seems fairly unlikely that they would have an easy time secretly developing and delivering a device (or devices) capable of causing significant damage to the U.S.. Perhaps you can offer some evidence that our borders and shores are truly that poorly defended, but I think it's a tough sell. The very reason that missiles are the vehicle of choice for nuclear warheads is that it just isn't that simple a process to clandestinely smuggle in a nuclear bomb. If it were, we would have simply stashed them all over Russia (and they all over the US) in case the shite hit the fan. Hell, they couldn't even sneak a few missiles into Cuba without us picking up on it (yes, I know a "suitcase bomb" is smaller than a missile, but it wouldn't be undetectable). Furthermore, you're a little strident in assuming that anybody can competently put together a nuclear device capable of fitting inside a suitcase. The only nation suspected to have produced such bombs is the former Soviet Union. According to a position paper put out by the Center for Non Proliferation Studies (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm) the only nations capable of developing such complex devices would have to have advanced nuclear capabilities. Without regular maintenance, it is widely believed that the bombs would have little to no yield in a span of only two years. It's not the type of thing that you can build and warehouse in some sandy cave. Even well maintained bombs would not have a yield comparable to the crudest earliest nuclear devices. In other words, missiles and planes are still going to be the way nukes are delivered well into the future.

Second, their (a real Nuclear power) primary deterrent and our primary deterrent wouldn't change. As I stated before, any shield currently being developed will not be capable of interceping hundreds of Nukes. A real nuclear power could still count on a reasonable policy of Mutually Assured Destruction with the United States. Rogue states and even non-state actors who develop or acquire one, two, or even perhaps a few dozen nukes, however, will not be able to play that hand with us.

Last, I'd like to re-emphasize that the defense shield will not (yet) threaten the deterrent strategy of any world power--at least not overnight. It will, however, ensure that our hands are never tied by nations, organizations, and individuals who have shown themselves willing to act with apparent disregard for the consequences. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that nuclear technology is proliferating at a disconcerting rate to third world nations. It would be incredibly imprudent to believe that they won't possibly end up in the hands of organizations and people whom we can't negotiate or reason with, or credibly deter with our own arsenal. I'm not saying that it's inevitable, but if and when one of these organizations decides to go balls to the wall because we can't really retaliate against an enemy with no borders, you'll be glad that someone thought that limited missile defense was a good idea.

Great post. If I had any qualms about a so-called impenetrable defense shield, they would (like yours) primarily revolve around fear of a new arms race and an ill-considered disregard for the status quo. Since this isn't that type of deal, I'd say let's cross that bridge when we come to it. The proliferation that we are dealing with now is, perhaps, as destabilizing and threatening as a world in which we were truly a military hegemon.

Best,
cac

 

[Cornellianintel]

Yeah, I am a critic. I am tired and about to go to bed so this will be short.

I unfortunately have to deal with MDA in my current job on a regular basis. Notwithstanding the fact that they are some of the most arrogant bunch of people who we work with (I need that asset and I don't care what else it is doing, I want it now I will will have it! :icon_rage ), they are building the modern day equivilant of a Maginot Line. But instead of wasting our entire defense budget like the French before WWII, we only pour a paltry $10 billion a year into this black hole we call MDA. And while the Navy has hit the mark several times with the SM-3, the regular inteceptor has not even gotten off the ground the last two tests. It as yet to complete a full test.

If we actually do finish the MDA and it tests well, what is to prevent someone from just bypassing the missile defense shield with a suitcase bomb? Or a short range missile launched from a merchant vessel 100 miles off of the coast?

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/pentagon_eyes.htm

In August 2004, “we launched a Scud from an ocean-going platform, and it was not hard,” [Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering, the MDA's chief] said.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/nov05-26.php

Congratulations, our Ardennes. An interceptor in Cali or Alaska ain't gonna help defend Norfolk, DC, Miami or NYC from a threat like that.

There are a lot better things to doing with our money than to build something that still has not worked after numerous tests and approxiamately $300 billion dollars down the drain.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about the technical obstacles, but judging by some of the things this nation has accomplished, I'm inclined to believe that it's doable. I guess we'll see, heh.

Best,
cac

 

[Punk]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about the technical obstacles, but judging by some of the things this nation has accomplished, I'm inclined to believe that it's doable. I guess we'll see, heh.

Best,
cac

You dump enough money into anything, and it'll work. Well, almost anything.

I gotta agree that I think this is a waste of money. Yes yes, I know we're not really threatened by anyone at the moment, so we must always be ready for the next threat. I just can't see this as something that's accomplished overnight. A nuke in a backpack may not be easy to put together, but then again, neither is a ICBM. Sure, a SRBM is not that hard. But where are they gonna launch if from? Sure as hell not Canada. We've already seen what happens in the Caribbean. An earlier post here said to launch one from a boat. Well, wouldn't it be easier just to sail one into a harbor and detonate it there? Christ, you could wipe out Seattle alot easier that way then with an ICBM.

The point of this program was a launch from a rogue state. So we're talking a few missiles at the most. We've been working for years on this, and we're having enough problems taking down one missile that we know where and when its coming from. Now start talking about a missile which is coming from an unknown direction. Obviously, the pole would be atleast one logical choice. Current doctrine is to launch two SM's at a target threatening our fleet (just your average run of the mill target, not talking a ballistic missile). So how about an ICBM/SRBM? How many intercept missiles are we gonna have to launch for a decent Pk? I haven't any research into this in a while, but how many missiles are talking about before this umbrella of protection is considered complete? 20? 30? 80? Not a cheap answer.

IMHO, too many other things are too great of a threat now for this to be sucking up the money it is. The money could be doing a much better job in other places in the military.


PS: the best analogy I heard of the techical difficulty of this is trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet, 10 miles away

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Just what do you guys think SM's are for anyway?

 

[kmac]

Steve, protecting mom so I still have a job.

 

[Brett327]

Alright now, it's late on the left coast, so I'll be brief:

Flash and Punk - besides being dead wrong, you guys are a disgrace to the Prowler community. Amplifying data to follow.

Brett

 

[fc2spyguy]

I'm intentionally staying out of this conversation. I will however give you a nice video link that you may or maynot have seen of the SM-3.
http://www.raytheon.com/feature/stellent/groups/public/documents/legacy_site/cms01_044334.wmv

Here is also an interesting link on the SM-3. I realize it's raytheons website and thus biased. But it's still good info.
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055769.pdf

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Steve, protecting mom so I still have a job.

Protecting mom from what?

 

[wink]

PS: the best analogy I heard of the technical difficulty of this is trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet, 10 miles away

You guys are probably too young to remember, but that is what they said about CIWS when it was in development. That system seems to have worked pretty effectively for years.

It was briefly mentioned before but deserves highlighting. This isn;t all about a Soviet style missile attack on the US. It is largely about our allies. That is the biggest reason the Navy is a player. We can move our system around to where the threat is. By nuke ransom it isn't meant to imply that some one will ask the US to let terrorist prisoners out of GITMO or they will let a nuke go. The scenario is China making a move on Taiwan and telling the rest of the world, most notably the US "back off or else" while holding their finger over the button. Same same for Korea, Iran, or God knows who else in the near future. That is why we have allies in those regions that participate in the research and development of the TMD and MDA programs. For those that point out that any currently envisioned system would not provide complete coverage to the US, I have a question. Are you willing to sacrifice the defense of even a few of our greatest cities, industrial and financial centers just because we can't guarantee that Cedar Rapids, IA or Orlando, Fl could not be protected as well?

 

[Punk]

You guys are probably too young to remember, but that is what they said about CIWS when it was in development.

Maybe if CIWS fired a single round, but that's the not the case. What we're talking about here is orders of magnitude more difficult than what CIWS does.

Concerning the rest of your post, unless they have changed how this system works, this wasn't something we could move around. These are missiles that will be housed in silos (I thought so) or if not, from fixed launched sites. I never heard these things were going to be on TEL's. Not exactly mobile.

Mentioning that we could export this, Taiwan would be a hell of alot easier to defend from an SRBM attack the the continental US. But that seems atleast 10-15 years away before we even have the kinks worked out of the system.

So back to my original point, how many missiles is going to take to 1.) provide a pretty complete umbrella over the US 2.) following on with that, a decent Pk for any incoming missiles. I would hope with as something as serious as a nuke raining down on our heads, we would fire more than one interceptor to guarentee a hit.

So lets say that China, or Iran, or NK is holding their finger over the button threatening to launch on us if we get involved. Shall we revisit the MAD principle now? I'm not advocating we should just sacrifice a city and millions of people, but this has worked before.

Now TBMD, I'm all about that. Hell, it even works. Besides, the probability of using that TBMD is much much greater than having a missile defense shield over the US.

But for arguments sake, lets say we complete this defense umbrella. It's still much easier to drive a nuke abroad a ship into a harbor and detonate it there than launching an ICBM. Right now, besides our "allies", only China and Russia have ICBM's. An ICBM is not that easy to develop. And in the case of China, if they did hold that ransom over us, they would be firing more than one, ergo our missile defense shield would be easily overwhelmed. Back to MAD for that.

 

[Punk]

Let me clarify my position alittle better. I'm not entirely against a ABM defense. However, I think that the current plan to make a total umbrella over the US will be way too expensive and impratical.

With what wink said of the importance of protecting a few important areas, I'm all for that. Afterall, if looney leader decides to launch his one or two missiles at us, what will he target, not Des Moines or Orlando, but Washington, NY, or LA probably. So fine, lets make a defense for those areas. Lets scale down this plan a tad. The really is no point in defending Orlando. The only time that would be targetted is if we got a bunch of warheads inbound, and in that case, our ABM shield would be useless anyways.

But China targetting Guam or Japan for example seems like a much more realistic scenario. Not a mainland attack. So lets defend the few areas that are of vital importance, I'm all for that.

 

[Brett327]

Let me clarify my position alittle better. I'm not entirely against a ABM defense. However, I think that the current plan to make a total umbrella over the US will be way too expensive and impratical.

But China targetting Guam or Japan for example seems like a much more realistic scenario. Not a mainland attack. So lets defend the few areas that are of vital importance, I'm all for that.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on what systems are out there. The "current plan" is not an SDI style umbrella over the entire US. Even though some testing and development is being done in that area, it is by no means the main thrust of missile defense as a whole. Wink makes a good assesment of the issues at hand, and you can bet that if Kim Jong Il has three nuke missiles, they're all aimed at Japan. This is why they've been onboard with funding and technical development of theater style systems that can be deployed to cover both Japan as well as Taiwan as needed. I think smart people understand the technical challenges of SDI type missile defense, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some very important capabilities on the horizon which will enable us and our allies to increase our deterrent influence on "rogue" style nations. Yeah, missile defense doesn't protect against a suitcase bomb - roger that. That argument is like saying that you shouldn't wear your seatbelt because it won't protect you if a carjacker shoots you in the head when you're at a stopsign. There is a ton of great open source stuff available on the web about the variety of systems out there. Read up!

Brett

 

[Punk]

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on what systems are out there. The "current plan" is not an SDI style umbrella over the entire US. Even though some testing and development is being done in that area, it is by no means the main thrust of missile defense as a whole.

Brett

Like I said Brett, I'm not against a missile defense program/system/whatever. What I think will be a gianormous waste of money will be trying to make an umbrella over the US, and THAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL.

Reading comprehension seems to be lacking here, so let me restate, a TBM is a much needed system. I even said the possibility of a strike against Japan, Guam, etc is a much more viable threat than a warhead raining down on US soil. That's where I think the majority of the money for this system should go, not in making an impratical umbrella.

So yes, I'm onboard with a TBM defense system. Never said I wasn't. I'll say this for the third goddamn time b/c too many here just read what they want of posts and don't read the whole post, I AM NOT AGAINST AN TBM SYSTEM, JUST AN IMPRATICAL ONE THAT "MIGHT" COVER THE US. Let's deal with the real threats first, covering the areas that could be hit, not here. Once we get that system fully operational, then lets take the next big step and covering our own asses. But that's atleast 20 years down the line.

capiche?

 

[wink]

Lets be sure what kind of system we are talking about here. It isn't hard. (even if you like the bullet on bullet analogy) to hit any missle, even an ICBM, when it is in boost phase. Nice big hot target. The focus of ABM systems during the 90s, however, was to stike war heads in space well after the boost pahse. That is a more difficult prospect. Some folks charged that the Clinton administration changed the focus of the ABM program from boost phase to outer space because it was technically more difficult and it slowed development. The hope then was it might be killed by congress due to test failures and cost, saving the president from making a tough decision on national defence.

Bottom line. Not all proposed ABM systems are as difficult as you would be led to believe.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Just what do you guys think SM's are for anyway?

Do you think I say this just to hear (see) myself talk? NO, I don't. There is a point to the question. Think about what the possible answers are before you conclude that BMD won't work.