Posted on 10/09/2011 9:05:46 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
In his speech on defense and foreign policy at South Carolina’s Citadel Military Academy on October 7, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said: “I will begin reversing the Obama-era missile defense cuts and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic-missile defense system.” If conservatives hold him to this promise, it will be a significant step towards fulfilling the goal of making nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete” that Ronald Reagan laid out in his famous March 1983 “Star Wars” speech.
The key word that Romney pronounced, which heartened missile-defense advocates and almost certainly disturbs the opponents of such defensive systems, is “multilayered.”
Once launched, a long-range missile such as an ICBM creates three basic opportunities for a missile-defense system to knock it out. The first and most important is the “boost phase,” just after launch, when the missile is firing its rocket engines and giving off a large amount of easily detected heat. The second targeting opportunity is the “mid-course phase,” when the missile has deployed its warheads and its decoys. This is the most difficult targeting problem that a defense system must solve. It is also the phase during which our currently deployed interceptors, the ones in Alaska and California, are designed to work. The third and final phase is called the “terminal phase,” when the warhead enters the atmosphere and dives toward its target. This is the second-hardest missile-defense problem to solve, because the warhead may maneuver as it approaches its destination.
A multilayered missile defense will use a variety of different systems to try and kill the missile and its warhead during each of these phases. Obviously, if a missile is caught and destroyed during the first phase of its flight, the result is better for all concerned. During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, this goal led to the so-called Brilliant Pebbles program of space-based heat-seeking interceptors, designed to hit missiles in the boost phase. The program was canceled by Bill Clinton and Les Aspin in 1993. At the time, Aspin reportedly said that he was going to “take the stars out of Star Wars.”
Since then, there have been several efforts to develop a non-space-based boost-phase interceptor system. None of them have been satisfactory, since they all require the interceptor to get as close as possible to the target missile and then chase it after it has been launched. As they used to say in the days of sailing navies, “a stern chase is a long chase.”
From orbit, however, an interceptor does not have to follow its target; instead, it dives onto it. Brilliant Pebbles relied for its effectiveness on the law of gravity, not on having a bigger rocket engine.
George W. Bush never revived Brilliant Pebbles, as the arms-control establishment, liberals in Congress, and the forces of inertia inside the Defense Department successfully blocked any attempt to restart the program. Bush was content to fund the Clinton-designed, ABM Treaty–compliant National Missile Defense mid-course intercept system, which is what we have now. If Romney is elected, and if he is serious about defending the homeland from missile attack, he will have to be ready to spend considerable political capital, as well as time and money, to make it happen.
One promising program, the Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKV), which was intended to be launched in large numbers from the ground, was killed by the Obama administration. But a space-based version of MKVs, which are about the size of a loaf of bread, could make space-based missile defense a reality within the first term of a Romney presidency.
Earlier this year, Rep. Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) persuaded the House Armed Services Committee to allocate $8 million for the Defense Department “to conduct a study examining the technical and operational considerations associated with developing and operating a limited space-based interceptor capability.” It is doubtful that this will survive the legislative process, and even if it did, the forces inside the Pentagon that have long opposed space-based missile defense will fight hard to ensure that the results of the study will be negative. Still, the mere fact that a few gutsy members of Congress have not given up on effective missile defense shows that if Romney wants to fight this fight, he will not be without allies.
Make no mistake: If Mitt Romney is serious about a multilayered national missile defense, he is going to have a major struggle ahead of him. He will have to be prepared to junk Obama’s National Space Policy on January 21, 2013, and will have to fight hard against the arms-control establishment, the liberals, the Russians, the Chinese, and probably also the Europeans. (Officially, the EU is terrified of a so-called and much-hyped “Arms Race in Space.”)
Even before the election, Romney will come under serious pressure to promise not to deploy weapons in space, which means conservatives will have a chance to see how he stands up under liberal assault. This should be interesting.
This is nonsense on stilts, whether Reagan said it and believed it or not. A defense system that worked effectively would make ICBMs obsolete, not nuclear weapons. The nuke is what goes boom, the ICBM is just one of many possible ways of getting it to the target. Nobody is going to give up the big boom simply because one of the delivery systems becomes obsolete.
The primary effect of an efficient missile defense system would be to promote the development of alternative delivery systems.
Anybody care to discuss nuclear weapons smuggled in via shipping containers, or concealed in ships in our harbors? How about launched via short range surface to surface missiles from 12 miles offshore? Or from subs? Or low-flying cruise missiles? Chicago would probably be relatively safe from such attack, but Washington, NY and LA would be utterly vulnerable.
An ICBM attack allows for something in the vicinity of 30 minutes to react and defend. The "response time" for the attack types I mentioned above varies from zero to probably less than 5 or 10 minutes, a huge difference.
Taking ICBMS out of the equation is probably still a good idea, as their use is the only way to effectively launch a massive first-strike attack in sufficient force to destroy the enemy's capability to retaliate. Which removes much of the incentive to launch a first strike.
I am ignoring here the possibility of a cyber-attack to take out the inevitably computer-controlled missile defense system, even for a very brief period of minutes. This would allow a first strike with ICBMs. It could be combined with a cyber-attack to immobilize the retaliatory attack.
Elimination of ICBMs would probably benefit Russia more than the USA, as the USA's population and infrastructure is located on average MUCH closer to the vulnerable coastline.
Effective defense against missiles does not mean the nuclear era would be over.
I suppose that Romney thinks he’s authenticating himself as a conservative by this speech on military spending. I don’t think he really understands conservatives.
Sounds like Romney is positioning himself as serious on defense. Hopefully Cain’s camp can go toe to toe on this.
I am a huge fan of Ronaldus Magnus, the greatest president of the 20th century, as Lincoln was of the 19th and Washington of the 18th.
But his notion that the Star Wars program would make nuclear weapons obsolete was the silliest position he ever took.
“Effective defense against missiles does not mean the nuclear era would be over....”
::::::::::::
Understatement and true. One of our greatest deterrents to Communist China, North Korea and Russia is the nuclear missle submarine fleet. Improving our missle capability improves our defensive capabilities — it does not do away with our nuke capability. Frankly, that would be stupid.
“But his notion that the Star Wars program would make nuclear weapons obsolete was the silliest position he ever took.”
Yea, absolutely INSANE. But it did scare the crap out of the Soviets, who no doubt had enough spies around telling them that not only could we do it, but it would work.
Personally, I trust the Soviet reaction to the plan, rather than the Reagan-hating Mainstream Media.
-—————————————>
Ditto!
I could never understand why we stopped upgrading our MDS in Eastern Europe-we got nothing from Russia other than there continuing to build their defense arsenal against us and bringing some of allies into their fold.
The only true strategic purpose of a missile defense program would be to deter and defend against an all-out first strike by the Russians, the only country with sufficient nukes to even contemplate launching such an attack.
Fairly obviously such an attack is a great deal less likely today than it was 30 years ago. For one thing, as I understand it the Russian missile forces are much less reliable now than they were then. And with the ideological issue pretty much removed, it’s hard to see what the Russian motive for launching such an attack might be.
A nuclear attack on the USA today is much more likely to be terrorist-type attack that would take out one or possibly a dozen or more cities, not an attempt at a first strike that would prevent us from hitting back. While horrific, such an attack would not destroy the USA in the same way a successful mass first strike would.
IMO, such an attack would be much more likely to use one or more of the “sneak attack” type methods I’ve discussed above than ICBMs launched from Iran or China, or Russia for that matter.
I suggest that spending a great deal of money to defend against a threat that doesn’t really exist in an acute form any more might not be the best use of defense funds.
Absolutely!!!
Everything I’ve read indicates that Reagan truly believed everything he said about missile defense, and while what he believed wasn’t true, it is probable his obvious belief and dedication to implementation scared the Russians more than anything else.
So while Star Wars didn’t and couldn’t “end the nuclear era,” one can make a good case it ended the Cold War with a US victory.
“IMO, such an attack would be much more likely to use one or more of the “sneak attack” type methods I’ve discussed above than ICBMs launched from Iran or China, or Russia for that matter.
I suggest that spending a great deal of money to defend against a threat that doesn’t really exist in an acute form any more might not be the best use of defense funds.”
I really don’t know what’s next. Perhaps the Russians won’t, but China has already threatened Los Angeles. And as we keep disarming, China keeps building, so I expect in another decade they will have a credible, and modern, first-strike capability.’
Sure we can ignore them, since they don’t pound their shoes at the UN. But they’re certainly not ignoring us.
Wasn't that the entire point of "Star Wars," since the threat Reagan faced was a nuclear-armed Soviet Union? I don't think it was ever intended to stop every single nuclear device. IOW, you might manage destroy NYC with an isolated nuke, but the rest of your day is going to truly suck when we retaliate.
Reagan was contending against a fairly sane and rational Soviet Union, not islamists with rabies.
it ankrupted the Soviets.
If we take sane economic practices against China, it will throttle them as well. They are currently using our own money to grow twards parity with us...though they still have a ways to go.
we are well along in laser and particle beam development and could make the Airborne Laser System operational anytime we had the will to do so. We could do the same in space for defensive purposes.
We could develop a shield strong enough to give a credible deterent to MAD. This is what scares our enemies...that we could actually survivie and win an exchange with much less damage to us and total anihilation to them.
Total to them preciesly because our offensive weapons triad would be so strong that they could not stop it, while we, if the shield were fully developed, would stop a lot of theirs. That's what Reagan wanted. Not so much that the wepaons themselves would be rendered obsolete...but that the MAD concept could be with him doing his constitutional job to protect and defend this nation.
The future cannot be predicted.
However, I believe that the future of defense (and offense) lies in space.
We need to get our space program back into operation for a host of reasons, with defense the most important.
However, I don’t think we’ll ever get back into space in a big way until we find a method of propulsion that doesn’t involve throwing stuff out the back door to move forward.
Advanced physics and a better understanding of how gravity works presents at least the possibility of such propulsion methods being developed.
Or.
Would this give an enemy an incentive to launch a last-ditch desperate first strike before our full defensive capacity comes on line?
I don’t believe any American administration would ever launch a first strike of its own.
But are you sure paranoid Russian and Chinese leaders agree? (Non-paranoid Russians and Chinese never make it to being leaders.)
Romney is like Obama you can’t believe a word he says...he is a liar and flip flopper.
I believe we should let China and Russia and the muslims put weapons in space. Using our technology no less!
We should abstain and show moral superiorty!
(Yeah, like that’s gonna’ work)
The state of the Russian arsenal is in very bad shape. The CHinese have a small arsenal whose qualty is not known, but probably far inferior to our own.
Both believe we would not risk any large fallout or destruction to any US cities...and they are right. Unless something warrants it, we will not launch a first strike.
OTOH, they both know, right now, that thier own attempts would be far from complete against us. We already have some parts (small) of the shield in place. They also know that our systems are very high precision and quality and would completely decimate them in return.
I do not believe a first strike will occur from them. More likely however if terrorists get a hold of, or are given weapons that they get into the US and set off in several places.
Tha is the m,ost likely scenario IMHO, and the shiled will not stop that...but oru LEO agencies are doing a GREAT job of wathcing and preventing that to date.
I believe, if we elect the right reps and president, that the shield can make great strides and pray that we will.
I would not trust Romney at all when it comes to defense and Russia. The Romney’s have been deeply embedded with high level Russians for several decades now, but are hiding there association.
Israel is supplying defense weapons to China.
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.