Posted on 12/14/2017 5:22:33 AM PST by Kaslin
Thirty-three minutes. That’s all the time we’d have to respond to an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile from anywhere in the world.
Roughly half an hour to avert disaster – if we’re lucky.
Sure, that isn’t the most cheerful thought to entertain, especially at Christmas time. But with all the saber-rattling coming from North Korea these days, not to mention other global hotspots, we don’t have the luxury to pretend this threat doesn’t exist.
A successful nuclear strike would carry an unthinkable toll. The bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 had an explosive yield of 15 kilotons of TNT. North Korea’s nuclear test in October? 250 kilotons.
According to the documentary film “33 Minutes,” the 9/11 attacks resulted in 3,000 deaths and $80 billion in damage. A nuclear bomb dropped on Manhattan would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties, and trillions in damage.
That’s not the only way a nuclear bomb could be used against the U.S., however. An electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, is another likely method of attack. In this case, a nuclear bomb isn’t dropped on the targeted area, but detonated hundreds of miles above it. This would emit a wide-ranging burst of electromagnetic radiation.
Goodbye, electric grid. Nearly everything powered by electricity, from telephones, Internet service and electric power, to car batteries and airplane controls, would be disrupted or permanently damaged. And not just in one city, but across the continental United States. In a flash, we’d be set back more than a century.
But wait, you may be thinking. You said we’d have 33 minutes to respond. We could counteract such an attack, right? Stop it from happening?
If you’re thinking of missile defense, you’re right. We do have a way of responding, and we could stop a missile with a missile. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that the missile-defense system we have isn’t as comprehensive and well-developed as it could and should be at this stage. We have a revolver, when we could have an automatic rifle.
Nearly 35 years ago, President Reagan first called for a way to render the threat of ballistic missiles “impotent and obsolete.” Yet today, thanks in part to opposition from those who consider missile defense both unworkable and destabilizing, we have only one system capable of shooting down long-range ballistic missiles headed for the U.S. homeland: the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system.
We can do better, though. The GMD system is the only system we have capable of intercepting an ICBM in the mid-course phase of its flight. With a system that includes sea- and space-based interceptors, we could target ICBMs earlier in their flight – during the boost or ascent phase, when they’re traveling more slowly and are easier to hit.
Now’s the time, as the Trump administration conducts its own missile-defense review, to reverse the cutbacks that occurred under the Obama administration. Defending ourselves on the cheap is unwise. With the right budgetary priorities, we can ensure that we get more than one shot at destroying an incoming missile.
North Korea, after all, isn’t the only threat (as if it wasn’t enough). Iran has a large ballistic missile arsenal and an active nuclear program, and it remains a dogged opponent of U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Then there’s our old Cold War nemesis, Russia. Thirty years ago, it signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (IMF) Treaty with the U.S. But “Russia has violated the treaty at least twice,” writes defense expert Michaela Dodge. “The U.S. government’s 2017 report identifies a Russian ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile 3N-14 that can potentially carry a nuclear warhead.”
President Trump has called the tax-cut bill before Congress “a big, beautiful Christmas present” for the U.S. With the work of the administration’s ballistic-missile defense review coming shortly thereafter, what better way to follow up this gift than to make 2018 the year when we finally get serious about protecting ourselves?
Have to make sure we got the launch sites. Contrary to popular belief, nukes are not all destroying weapons. Annihilating an entire country is difficult.
And we would have to be sure that the Norks have not smuggled in bombs or concealed them off our coast.
““The U.S. government’s 2017 report identifies a Russian ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile 3N-14 that can potentially carry a nuclear warhead.””
Frankly, if the Russkies can hit Europe, let Europe defend themselves.
There is no indication that the Sov, er, Russkies have any intentions toward Europe, except to get the best prices they can for oil and natural gas.
One of those that should be done immediately is bring back development of the SM-3 Block IIB. It builds on the proven SM-3 base, and it *would* be able to intercept ICBM class threats. Launched from ships, SM-3s can be stationed nearly anywhere without need of permission or tricky/fickle basing rights.
They also need to build up and deploy THAAD - that is a very capable missile. Finally, we need to get back into going after threats in the boost phase - midcourse and terminal systems are a good idea and demonstrably within our current technological abilities. Boost phase is (would be) even better. Gives us a longer engagement envelope, and puts the problems over enemy territory, not ours. The airborne laser was a great research tool, time to take it to the next level.
The current Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV-CE-II)
The Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) will not be tested until 2019
The multi-kill vehicle (MKV) program was killed by Zero and will, if restored, not be operational until 2030 at the earliest.
p
Great find
Other missile defense systems, including Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot, are generally classified as “regional” systems, and are geared toward short to intermediate range ballistic missile threats. While some may have homeland defense applications in certain circumstances, they have much smaller coverage areas as compared to GMD, and generally much less capability, if any, against ICBMs.
Conversely, GMD is not capable of shorter range, regional defense missions. North Korea’s short and medium range missiles threatening South Korea and Japan, for example, fall outside of GMD’s engagement envelope. These threats require other solutions, such as Aegis, THAAD, or Patriot.
Working to make these articles make more sense, since they too often leave out important stuff and are often totally mystifying to many who are not military inclined. Hope these posts help the understanding of what these missiles are and what they can and cannot do.
It cannot be stressed how important these systems are given that we have, under Zero, eliminated many of the capabilities we once had and, that Russia is now about to undergo a major military re-arming and modernization of all forces including newly-designed nuclear warheads of all sizes down to 1kt (think cluster munitions using nuclear, not chemical explosive), as well as neutron warheads.
We, on the other hand, according to a poster elsewhere, maybe be unable to make any new thermonuclear warheads. So we could well be stuck with old designs which may no longer actually work in the field.
In case some are wondering how the Russian plan to take out our missiles - they have, since the 1960s, had missiles that use 5kt nuclear warheads for that purpose. They are, and always have been, in non-compliance with the anti-ICBM Treaty; only the US, idiotically, complied.
They certainly is....;-) couldn't help myself.
Paging the grammar freaks....hey....over here......
Nice concept picture. Now for a bit of missing history. This is sort of Grandson of Ronnie’s Star Wars. Clinton pretty much ended that research to collect his peace dividend. Due to his belief that the best defense is no defense, soon a real Chinese nuclear treat and a potential future North Korean threat appeared. Late in his regime, plans for a missile defense system in Alaska were initiated. Turns out that the way God created the earth, Alaska is on the great circle route from China and North Korea to the US and is the best place to try to intercept incoming missiles. W inherited mostly nothing, but quickly installed the GMD system, bypassing the lengthy Congressional authorization requirements by designating it a “Test System”. The primary midrange radar (#5) for this is an x-band radar sitting out at the end of the Aleutians built to monitor the blurp part of the Soviet missile test range during the cold war the 70s, installed by Nixon.
The system really needs a somewhat similar radar in the mid-Aleutians. It is sitting in Pearl Harbor (#8). The radar was not built in the Aleutians due to construction costs. Instead early in W’s career, the military bought a retired North Sea oil rig built by Russia an x-band radar on it on the Gulf Coast. It sailed around South America for tests in the Pacific. The big 0 pretty much retired SVX before it became operational. We hope Trump has it turned on when needed.
I think much of what you wrote is on another page at the site were it details the history and states of the various parts of the system.
The problem with the article is it praises ABMs as a kind of silver bullet and condemns IRBMs as a prohibited weapon.
The truth both are illegal under treaties and the latter deployed to counter the first.
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.