Why Are We Still Rocket-Vulnerable?

Forbes ^ | 8/21/06 | Steve Forbes

[bruinbirdman]

North Korea's July 4 missile tests and Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied rocket reign of terror against Israel underscore why the U.S. must quickly ramp up its missile defense efforts. Four years ago President Bush withdrew the U.S. from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it severely hobbled our development efforts. Yet, since then, there has been a strange lack of urgency to rapidly develop a robust series of systems that can destroy missiles of any size at any phase of deployment. Yes, we are developing ground-based missile defense sites in California and Alaska, and we do have ship-based Aegis missile defense systems that theoretically could shoot down a North Korean missile. But given the growing threat of terrorist forces getting their hands on more and more sophisticated rockets, with greater ranges and the ability to carry chemical or biological warheads, and given that North Korea and Iran will in the not too distant future have ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. shores, a crash program should be of the highest priority.

The Independent Working Group (IWG) on Post-ABM Treaty Missile Defense & the Space Relationship, formed in 2002 to examine missile threats to the U.S. and its allies and what we should be doing to meet those threats, recently released a sobering report. IWG encompasses a dazzling and impressive group of experts.

While diplomatically worded, the report's bottom line is simple: We are not doing nearly enough. It lists a variety of recommendations, including reviving the early 1990s Brilliant Pebbles system, which entailed deploying an array of small, advanced kill satellites in space. It was to be a cheap, effective way to destroy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.

Naturally, the Clinton Administration put Brilliant Pebbles in the deep freeze for fear of being accused of "militarizing space." The Bush Administration should defrost, develop and upgrade this system immediately. We should, among other things, also fund a system to defend against shipborne SCUD missiles launched off our coasts at U.S. cities.

Democrats will howl about increased military spending. But the American people would overwhelmingly support such an accelerated effort. The nightly news reminds us that the day of our vulnerability to terrorist missiles is nigh.

[quantim]

Because Reagan wasn't elected 20 years earlier than he was.

[Spktyr]

Here's why we're still vulnerable:

[gcruse]

Because since the USSR collapsed there has been no urgent need for missile defense. That gave us a green light to throw billions and billions of dollars at the program to get Americans to stop smoking pot, in the process driving the street price of drugs ... uh,... lower than they were before.

[kinoxi]

Star Wars could not have helped the US 20 years before it was initiated. The real time computing power was not there.

[familyop]

That's a good and timely piece by Mr. Forbes. Will he seek the Republican nomination for presidential office?

[Dutch Boy]

Just review the tapes.... The dems stopped it at every turn. They mocked it, they despised it, and they feared it would offend our enemies. There is no doubt in my mind that if not for that and the GOP's spinelessness to fight en mass for it the missile defense system would be in place.

[quantim]

I was suggesting the Reaganesque 'stick' approach leaving the carrot behind, not a technology per se. We all know who developed Fat Man and Little Boy.

[kinoxi]

I was referring to Patriot missiles etc. Part of the actual legacy of the initial program.

[donmeaker]

We can't do brilliant pebbles until we get a lot better rockets.

The cost/pound is way high. If you have 24 hour orbit over hot spots, you are way high. If you are in low earth orbit, you need a bunch of sensors and shooters.

The best we ever did was the Saturn V, and that was the equivalent of an aircraft carrier for each one time launch.

[Myrddin]

A bunch of my co-workers were assigned to Brillant Pebbles tasks. Shortly after Clinton took office, the hallways on my floor looked like a ghost town. There was a mad scramble to refocus efforts on commercial contracts as the DoD spending rapidly dried up. It's too bad because it is difficult to gather a team of people with the right skills and clearances to do that kind of work. You can't just cough up a pile of money and expect such work to resume like the flick of a light switch. Many of the key staff have retired in the last 10 years.

[ozzymandus]

Thanks again, RATS!

[Centurion2000]

We can't do brilliant pebbles until we get a lot better rockets.

We had a lot better rockets planned and ready to go. Dust this off and let er rip.

SEA DRAGON

Manufacturer: Truax. LEO Payload: 450,000 kg (990,000 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 90.00 degrees. Liftoff Thrust: 350,000.000 kN (78,680,000 lbf). Total Mass: 18,000,000 kg (39,000,000 lb). Core Diameter: 23.00 m (75.00 ft). Total Length: 150.00 m (490.00 ft). Launch Price $: 300.000 million. in: 1962 price dollars.

[Centurion2000]

This puppy could ALMOST lift a four of the Shuttles (minus boosters, weight 250,000 pounds) into orbit where they could then fly off and do other stuff.

I'm sure we can make an interplanetary craft that could be assembled in orbit and pop it up there with a few launches of these things.

Nothing is stopping us from getting anywhere in the solar system except lack of will.

[The Duke]

"Why are we still rocket-vulnerable?"... Because I convinced a generation of naieve "yuppies" that you couldn't hit "a bullet with a bullet"!

[bruinbirdman]

"The real time computing power was not there."

I think it was there or close but installing it, upgrading, testing, in the Toon's opinion, and our enemies opinion, would violate the ABM treaty.

yitbos

[chilepepper]

vulnerable? not me! i put up a bag of water and the light reflecting through it confuses the missles and they go elsewhere...

[kinoxi]

You actually think that we(the USA) could have intercepted ICBM's from the USSR?

[bruinbirdman]

"could have intercepted ICBM's from the USSR?"

The question was "computing power". I think we had the knowhow but needed to test and refine it. We never got a chance.

It's like ordering 500 B-52s and buying 450. Boeing closes down the plant and throws away the blueprints. Just about the same with ABMs if you do nothing with the concept for 8 years.

yitbos

[kinoxi]

The computing power was not there. The current tests prove it.