Posted on 06/20/2006 4:53:29 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon
WASHINGTON — Those in charge of the nation’s missile defense system have often said the interceptors based at Fort Greely could be used in a pinch. Today, amid reports that North Korea is about to launch a missile capable of reaching the United States, officials wouldn’t say whether that pinch has arrived.
“There are many options available, and we are simply not going to tip our hand as to what the possible response would be,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters on a flight to Vienna with President Bush earlier today. Snow’s comments were made to pool reporters traveling with the president and made available by the White House.
North Korea is reportedly in the process of fueling one of its Taepodong-2 missiles, which experts say have a range that put Alaska and the western U.S. within their reach.
Military spokesmen also declined to speculate about media reports quoting unnamed officials who say the missile defense system has been placed in “operational” status in response to North Korea’s threatened missile launch.
“The Department of Defense does not comment on the operational status of any weapons system,” said Pentagon spokesman Brian Maka.
Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said his agency is in charge of developing the system, not operating it, so he had no comment on whether it is now operational. Not that he could say anything anyway, he added.
“Anytime it’s ever been brought to operational status, it’s been classified,” he said.
If the interceptors are in an “operational” mode, as opposed to a “test” mode, it would mean several things, according to those who have studied and debated the system from outside the government.
Sensor systems such as radars and satellites will “essentially focus on the fairly well-known launch point of this missile,” said Baker Spring, a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Also, he said, “it means having the interceptor missiles in a position where they can be launched in accordance with what the sensors are telling them would be some kind of substantial threat to the United States.”
John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said the most noticeable difference would be that military personnel would start covering essential posts around the clock.
When the system is not in operational status, “they don’t have soldiers staffing it at all times, especially at the interceptor sites in Alaska and California,” Isaacs said.
Leslie Ozawa, public affairs officer at Fort Greely, said today that “we’re not doing anything different.” He said he could not discuss the status of the interceptors, nine of which, at last report, rest in silos at the post 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks. Two more interceptors are located at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
WWIII? Damn, wish I was ten years younger and a few pounds lighter.
Actually, I was still young enough to enlist (just) until January 2002- but we never went to war. At least not in the WWII sense. If the President had called for general mobilization, I was ready to go. I'd still go, if they needed me to clerk or drive truck or run construction equipment.
Last I heard they had about 20 land based ICBMs. I don't think they would leave their silos before we hit them.
I don't think the Chinese are that crazy.
NK is, but I don't think China is.
They hit us with one, we'd hit back and there would be no China.
If only Truman had listened to MacArthur...
hindsight is 20/20...
North Korean conventional forces have really deteriorated and get weaker every day; what little resources they have they're pouring into strategic weapons.
They'd have no chance of making any progress with any sort of land invasion of South Korea, and they know it. Or they would have tried it already.
The Chinese have no particular interest in any such a war happening; the overwhelming concern, from their perspective, is preventing millions of North Korean refugees from crossing their borders. They'd prefer to keep the DPRK around, of course, rather than having a unified Korea under Seoul's control, but they'd rather have that than the refugee problem.
Interestingly the ROK government really doesn't want a unified Korea and doesn't want to have to pay to rebuild the North, either.
I wonder though, might the Chinese be goaded into something should the Il one decide to go on his own?
Too bad MacArthur managed to get completely surprised by the Chinese intervention in the first place, despite numerous indications it was coming.
Similar to losing his Air Force on the ground in the Philippines the day after Pearl Harbor.
The Aegis BMD system with it's SM-3 missiles looks like a great system but probably doesn't have the range to take on the NK ICBM.
In fact the SM-2, SM-3 and PAC-3 systems all look like theater defense systems to me. Not clear that we would be close enough to the launch to take out the NK missile.
There is some good background information on the SM-3 and the Aegis system at this website
Here is a key paragraph:
The Aegis BMD weapon system went to sea September 30, 2004. Raytheon began delivering Standard SM-3 initial deployment missile rounds to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) October 22, 2004. Five additional missiles were delivered to MDA in December 2004 to support missile deployment on destroyers and cruisers. Aegis BMD will protect not only the United States, but also US allies and US troops deployed around the globe against short to medium range ballistic missiles. SM-3 has been under testing since January 2002 intercepting targets in space four times.
Note that the system is for short and medium range ballistic missiles. I think the NK missile is in the long range class. Hoping I'm wrong about this. I would love to see us take out that SOB's latest toy.
All the news speak about our readiness is meaningless. We are always demonstrating our "operational readiness" for Kimmy and others. It just doesn't make the news. Just last week we fired our own MMIII ICBM on the Marshall Islands, and in April we bombed a barge near Guam...from Montana I think. We are also always testing, for demonstration purposes of course, our missile defense systems. Good reading here: http://www.missilethreat.com/news/testingamerican.html
Can you help fill in the blanks? What systems do we have that could potentially take this baby out?
Yeah, that's the ticket...
WASHINGTON, D.C. White House spokesman Tony Snow admitted today that America's boost phase anti-ballistic missile defense system seriously malfunctioned, leading to the destruction of a North Korean missile in the pre-boost phase.
"The system was supposed to intercept the missile at an altitude of between, oh, 100 to 200 kilometers, or thereabouts," said Snow. "Instead the system intercepted the [32 meter tall] Taep'o-dong 2 missile at an altitude of approximately 0.016 kilometers."
"Sure we're embarrassed," conceded Snow. "But we're going to keep testing this system until we get it right!"
Thanks for the link and information. Having short and medium range defense missiles near enough to what we want to defend is key to their effectiveness. And although it's been public news in years past, many would be surprised to know of some of the places those defenses are already posted.
We might have difficulty in knocking that missile out of the sky, if it is launched toward the west (from N. Korea). ...say, toward western Iran, Russia or Beijing, for example. ;-)
"Maybe so, but the system was declared operational several months ago."
We have two fleets in the area 'doing exercises'.
We have more things 'ready' than anyone can imagine.
The current leader of NK is playing poker against a known winner.
The bluff is on. (Is this rocket launching warheads? Or something into space we don't want up there?)
"However, wouldn't it be great if this thing was lased into smoking lumps of metal, ten feet off the launch pad? We wouldn't confirm or deny anything, of course."
500 kt groundburst at launch site, with a lighter followup after the rubble lands at assembly site - with some EMR bombs to destroy the milcom connection with Pyongyang, and we might be able to show the world that tac nuclear weapons aren't just for show.
Nonnuclear is reasonable to just target launch site, but problem is with disrupting counterattack. Few small NW's with strategic placement and DPNK collapses.
Correction: I meant to write:
..say, toward Iran, western Russia or Beijing, for example. ;-)
Correction: I meant to write:
..say, toward Iran, western Russia or Beijing, for example. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.