Star Wars: Why We Need a Missile-Defense System

www.CapitalismMagazine.com ^ | June 9, 2003 | Edwin Feulner

[Tailgunner Joe]

Let’s face it: Perfect safety doesn’t exist. No matter what we do, there will always be those who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms, because they hate freedom, or just because they hate Americans.

That’s why we need a missile-defense system -- today more than ever.

The Bush administration knows this. It recently issued “National Security Policy Directive 23,” which makes missile defense the law of the land. In it, the president ordered the Pentagon to deploy long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California by September of next year.

My colleagues and I at The Heritage Foundation have supported missile defense for more than 20 years. And though the threats are different today than they were when we first proposed it, in many ways they are greater.

For decades, our main adversary was the Soviet Union. Moscow had thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States -- and we were ready to fire back with thousands of our own. But that was all we could do: Fire back. An attack would lead to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), a catastrophic scenario in which millions on both sides would die.

President Reagan envisioned a world where Americans would be protected from attack, and the Strategic Defense Initiative was born. The Soviets had no answer. They could only spend and spend on more nuclear weapons, until their entire system collapsed.

Today’s threats come from terrorists and from rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Syria. We know that all these countries have, or are developing, weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Yet we remain defenseless. A single nation or terrorist group could hold the U.S. hostage if it pointed a nuclear missile at one of our cities.

MAD won’t work against a terrorist group. As the 9/11 hijackers showed, they’re often willing to give their lives to kill Americans. We could always respond with a barrage of nuclear weapons. But the terrorists would consider our counter-attack a small price to pay if they could wipe out a U.S. city or two.

Japan’s prime minister understands this. Junichiro Koizumi recently told reporters that North Korea shouldn’t be allowed to blackmail the international community with nuclear weapons, and that his country should weigh the benefits of missile defense.

But under the White House’s plan, Tokyo won’t have to build its own umbrella. When it’s fully deployed, our missile defense system will consist of layers of protection and will be extended to protect our allies and our troops overseas, not just our own soil.

Of course, some will say investing in missile defense is a waste of money, because such a complicated system can never work. They’ve been saying that for years, even in the face of a series of successful tests.

Now they have to ignore real-life evidence, like the Iraqi al-Samoud missile that was brought down near U.S. military headquarters on March 27. An army analysis shows the missile would have landed on or near our Coalition’s ground operations center.

Such a direct hit would have been disastrous. Ground forces commander Lt. Gen. David McKiernan and many of his top lieutenants were at the headquarters, along with an embedded CNN crew.

Instead, a Patriot missile destroyed the Iraqi weapon. It was close. Some debris landed on the roof of the war room. But all inside were safe -- thanks to an effective missile-defense system.

Since 9/11, we’ve aggressively pursued our enemies. We’re on the right track, but we must be ready to play defense, too.

An effective missile defense ensures that if our enemies do attack, we can defuse the threat, and move forward unharmed. In a dangerous world, that’s about as close as we can get to perfect safety.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Testing continues with the engineers working hard!

[maestro]

Star Wars: Why We Need a Missile-Defense System

Yankee 'common sense'.......adds up!

(Finally,....'Wisdom U.S.A.')

[Poohbah]

We've needed a NMD for decades.

However, we need to make some very hard decisions:

1. Do we do defend of hardened targets (missile silos, LCCs, and command posts) or urban-industrial targets?

That question is non-trivial Terminal defense of hardened targets is relatively easy--the atmosphere screens decoys out nicely, and you simply identify those RVs that are actually going to hit close enough to damage a protected asset. You also have acceptably wide failure parameters--one warhead leaking through does not equate to absolute mission failure.

Any sort of urban-industrial defense is going to be expensive. First off, terminal defenses can't be TOO terminal--endo-atmospheric defenses can't go below a certain altitude, or you might as well let the weapon actually hit the target if you're using a nuclear-tipped interceptor. That makes your decoy-screening job a LOT harder.

Second, the keep-out circle (that circle where the defender MUST engage an incoming RV because it's coming at a high-value target) gets a LOT wider--so wide that in many areas (between Boston and the Chesapeake comes to mind), they overlap, and the entire region becomes a keep-out zone. Cities are soft, very soft. A warhead in the hundreds of kilotons can level a very large urban area, or it can kill one missile silo if it drops down right next to it. And losing a major urban area would be a national catastrophe.

In city defense, failure is not an option--but it's also a lot more likely to happen.

2. How big a threat are we talking about dealing with?

If you're just trying to stop a North Korea-to-China sized threat (1-100 warheads), it's doable at a reasonable price. If you're trying for protection against accidental or rogue Russian launches, that's also doable at a reasonable price. If you're trying to stop a large-scale Russian attack, the price tag will make a lot of people faint--especially since a large-scale Russian attack is likely to go against both counterforce and countervalue targets at the same time. If the Russians shoot at only 20 major cities (not likely), and the system has a 95% intercept rate, you've just saved 19 cities--and the loss of the 20th city is a national catastrophe of the first order, likely to inflict more fatalities in that one attack than the US has suffered in all of its wars since the American Revolution.

Despite these problems, it's far better to do something than to do nothing.

[demlosers]

Hello Pooh,

Do you know the latest progress on the airborne laser, and when it might be deployed?

[Poohbah]

The plan is for IOC in 2007. Right now, they're doing basic flight integration testing--making sure that the laser and its associated hardware doesn't adversely affect the flight characteristics of the Boeing 747.

Mind you, the Airborne Laser requires a completely permissive air supremacy/SEAD environment to be used.

[Filibuster_60]

President Reagan envisioned a world where Americans would be protected from attack, and the Strategic Defense Initiative was born. The Soviets had no answer. They could only spend and spend on more nuclear weapons, until their entire system collapsed.

That's what Reagan said but in reality he merely envisioned a world where the Soviets would bankrupt themselves trying to maintain the parity of MAD, which is exactly what happened. There's no way we would've built something that would render all Soviet ICBMs incapable of striking US territory.

[Filibuster_60]

I think that in the optimistic scenario, missile defense will be good enough to dissuade smaller countries from even acquiring ballistic missiles. But with the big boys, it'll have an opposite effect. The Chinese will increase their arsenal at least ten-fold, MIRV their ICBMs, and like the Russians (maybe in collusion with them), develop various countermeasures. So far none of the successful NMD tests have incorporated countermeasures that the Russians and Chinese would likely employ, which lends credence to the claim that NMD is meant for rogue states.

[Brett66]

NMD could also be useful in situations where a tactical nuclear exchange is possible. Let's say we have several carrier fleets between Taiwan and China and China has threatened a nuclear strike against them. That would no longer be an option for them, it would constrain potential future adversaries. I also think we can upgrade our capabilities to include denial of airspace. If we can shoot a missile down, then we can also shoot an aircraft down. Instant no-fly zone when and where we choose.

[Filibuster_60]

On the question of which targets should be defended, I have this to ask: Who are we going to defend against? If it's a few rogue states, obviously they're looking to take out as many civilians as possible. Their missiles won't be accurate enough to hit strategic targets anyway. With Russia and China on the other hand, we'll probably see attempts to knock out hardened installations. While the margin for error is much greater in the latter case, it'll be cancelled out by the fact that we'll be facing more capable adversaries.

One thing's for sure: Should either Russia or China launch nuclear strikes against us, one of their main targets will be the nodes of the NMD system itself. Russia has more than enough ICBMs to do this, and only a fool would assume that China's not working towards it, now that they have the technology. A first strike by them would most likely consist of 50-100 MIRVed missiles against the main kill-vehicle and radar sites of the NMD network, coordinated with attacks on our satellites. That'll leave enough of a second-strike capability for them to make us think twice about launching our own ICBMs.

[Filibuster_60]

Taiwan's off the Chinese coast and if there's any missile defense involved, it'll be TMD not NMD. In future I'm expecting CVBGs to be well-protected against ballistic missiles, but whether these defenses will be enough against the size and sophistication of a theater missile arsenal like China's is anyone's guess. I doubt they'll use nukes on our carriers as that'll really turn world opinion against them and just remember that ballistic missiles plunge at several miles a second, so even a conventional impact could be devastating for a flattop, or any other warship.

[Poohbah]

The Chinese will increase their arsenal at least ten-fold, MIRV their ICBMs, and like the Russians (maybe in collusion with them), develop various countermeasures.

China would have to take its ICBM force from 20 missiles to 200, AND put MIRV buses on 200 missiles. This would absorb a very large portion of the ChiComs' ability for high-technology manufacturing. If nothing else, it would give the rest of the world a chance to lock the ChiComs out of the global high-tech marketplace--and thus clobber their economy fairly rapidly.

Given that China is Enron with a UN Security Council seat, one might be forgiven for doubting their ability to execute that policy.

[Poohbah]

With Russia and China on the other hand, we'll probably see attempts to knock out hardened installations. While the margin for error is much greater in the latter case, it'll be cancelled out by the fact that we'll be facing more capable adversaries.

China's not going to get into a counterforce shootout with us for many years, because they don't have a

One thing's for sure: Should either Russia or China launch nuclear strikes against us, one of their main targets will be the nodes of the NMD system itself.

Absolutely. That's one of the beautiful things about NMD, it gives the enemy a large number of gotta-kill-it targets. Coupled with the present arms-control environment, it promotes stability--the enemy would have to waste warheads killing targets outside the urban-industrial category (i.e., post-war recovery would be more likely to go forward

Russia has more than enough ICBMs to do this, and only a fool would assume that China's not working towards it, now that they have the technology.

The Chinese may have the ability to build ICBMs at LRIP, but large-scale deployments are likely beyond their reach unless they want to repeat the experience of the USSR.

A first strike by them would most likely consist of 50-100 MIRVed missiles against the main kill-vehicle and radar sites of the NMD network, coordinated with attacks on our satellites.

For the Chinese to do that between 2010 and 2020 or so would be tantamount to self-disarmament--i.e., to get that many missiles reliably on target, they'd need to salvo their entire arsenal (remmeber, ICBM reliability is likely to be in the 50-60% range, and the NMD would be engaging incoming warheads as it was able)--and leave them at the mercy of an absolutely enraged America.

That'll leave enough of a second-strike capability for them to make us think twice about launching our own ICBMs.

So you're saying that the US would take anywhere from 150-300 nuclear warheads on its soil without retaliating AT ALL?

If a President decided to do that, he wouldn't be impeached--because by the time the House got finished drafting up their Articles of Impeachment, the President would've already been lynched by the angry mobs.

[Poohbah]

In future I'm expecting CVBGs to be well-protected against ballistic missiles, but whether these defenses will be enough against the size and sophistication of a theater missile arsenal like China's is anyone's guess.

That hypothetical sophistication would have to far exceed anything the ChiComs have done to date or have in the R&D pipeline. Hitting a moving target with a ballistically launched non-nuclear warhead is a nontrivial task.

I doubt they'll use nukes on our carriers as that'll really turn world opinion against them and just remember that ballistic missiles plunge at several miles a second, so even a conventional impact could be devastating for a flattop, or any other warship.

You'd have to use a missile with some sort of terminally guided MaRV--maneuvering reentry vehicles--and that means accepting a LOT less terminal velocity. First, maneuvering itself bleeds off speed, and second, any sort of precision guidance would either require sensors aboard the warhead that can look through highly ionized air and discriminate the target (very UNlikely) or the warhead itself would have to slow down enough to avoid ionizing the air around itself.

[Filibuster_60]

I don't think a big ICBM force is beyond China's reach. To begin with I don't believe they have only 20 ICBMs. They've produced their Long March rockets in much greater numbers, and given the urgent need for more ICBMs, I can't imagine why they haven't built more. They're not going to repeat the Soviet experience of maintaining 1,500 silos and a huge fleet of boomers on a totally soft economy. Building 200 ICBMs will cost only a few billion dollars - which is roughly the amount their foreign currency reserves are rising each month. The USSR went from 4 ICBMs during the '62 missile crisis to 600 in 1970. Their mistake was to keep adding more and more to maintain parity with us. China won't aim for parity. They're just looking for enough to overwhelm NMD and still maintain a second-strike capability. I don't expect them to launch ICBMs on US territory, even when it becomes clear to them that we're on our way to help Taiwan. But they have vivid memories of being threatened with nukes when they didn't have a deterrent, which is why they'll do the utmost to deny us invulnerability.

[Poohbah]

I don't think a big ICBM force is beyond China's reach.

Do you think we could have our present strategic force posture if we'd systematically jailed every engineer for a decade?

China did just that.

To begin with I don't believe they have only 20 ICBMs.

Believe into one hand, spit into the other, tell me which one fills up first.

They've produced their Long March rockets in much greater numbers, and given the urgent need for more ICBMs, I can't imagine why they haven't built more.

First, why do they have an "urgent need" for ICBMs? Not from your perspective, but from their perspective. They might have a different strategic vision from your own.

Second, there's a whole series of Long March missiles. The DF-5A is the ICBM of the family, and it's getting arthritic. (It's been on alert duty for 30 years now, and it's basically an inferior knock-off of the US Titan--which has been out of service for almost two decades.) They quit production back in the 1980s.

The DF-31 can cover Alaska, Hawaii, and part of Washington and Oregon, and it's supposed to hit IOC this year. However, the DF-31 was supposed to enter service in 1998--and didn't. It's supposed to enter service this year--which would make it only five years behind schedule. However, the last info I have on flight testing is that they're STILL having major problems.

The DF-41 ain't going to be in service until 2010 at the earliest--it's vaporware.

They're not going to repeat the Soviet experience of maintaining 1,500 silos and a huge fleet of boomers on a totally soft economy.

No, instead, they'll maintain an expensive land-based army on a totally soft economy.

Building 200 ICBMs will cost only a few billion dollars - which is roughly the amount their foreign currency reserves are rising each month.

You're assuming ALL of the money stays where it belongs and doesn't wander off into some Chinese official's secret bank account in the Caymans.

Also, only 200 missiles that means that China's only going to be in the countervalue business--you need a LOT more than 200 missiles to do hard-target counterforce attacks.

The USSR went from 4 ICBMs during the '62 missile crisis to 600 in 1970. Their mistake was to keep adding more and more to maintain parity with us. China won't aim for parity. They're just looking for enough to overwhelm NMD and still maintain a second-strike capability.

Stopping 200 missiles is a lot more feasible than stopping 1,500.

[The Pheonix]

Thanks for your excellent analysis

you are right on the spot, technically and logically

[The Pheonix]

If I may venture a guess

You are either an official with the DOD, Pentagon or defense think-tank

or you are very well-read and informed

[Filibuster_60]

A good chunk of their foreign reserves at present are used to buy overseas securities, including US Treasury bonds. The corruption is corrosive but it hasn't prevented the PLA from becoming what's probably the best-funded military outside the US, though graft is common in the army itself.

The DF-5A was last reported under construction in 1998, when 6 were supposedly added to the 18 already deployed. DF-41's already been cancelled in favor of the DF-31A which is a longer-range version of DF-31 that's MIRVed and rail-mobile. DF-31's last flight test was a MIRV test, a failure but there were enough successes before then for an initial unit to be formed, probably in early 2002. A MIRV test early this year succeeded but it was with a medium-range DF-21.

200 missiles is enough to overwhelm NMD as it's being advertised, even if plenty of them get intercepted. The ABL isn't likely to be of much use against deep inland Chinese launchers. The mid-course defenses still haven't resolved many of the technical issues relating to countermeasures.

"Urgent" from the Chinese viewpoint because, assuming they have only a handful of ICBMs, they'd better build more to preserve their deterrent. That's probably all they seek with respect to WMD.