Missile defense in place in Alaska, but will it work?

The Seattle Times ^ | July 17, 2005 | Alex Fryer

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[sukhoi-30mki]

Umm,the figure of 18-20 ICBMs for the PLA has been floated around for the past decade & honestly,it is starting to sound dated esp with China having unveiled a new road mobile ICBM as well as sea launched variant of the same.The number of landbased ICBMs will probably have neared 50 now
& add to this IRBMs as well as cruise missiles & airlaunched nukes which can hit US facilities in the Pacific & South East Asia,China probably has atleast 120-150 nukes painted at US targets.That will increase all the more when the JL-2 SLBM gets deployed.

China is estimated to have anywhere between 350-550 nukes.

[xrp]

Thanks champ.

[Southack]

"The number of landbased ICBMs will probably have neared 50 now & add to this IRBMs as well as cruise missiles & airlaunched nukes which can hit US facilities in the Pacific & South East Asia,China probably has atleast 120-150 nukes painted at US targets.That will increase all the more when the JL-2 SLBM gets deployed. China is estimated to have anywhere between 350-550 nukes."

The latest intel (June of 2005) says 24 ICBM's capable of reaching us, up from the 18 that I mentioned earlier. Here's the source and the data:

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=hticbm&base=hticbm&Prev=0&BeginCnt=51

China’s nuclear arsenal is still mostly concentrated on short-range systems. At present, they have 575 CSS-6/7/8 missiles, with ranges of 180 to 600 kilometers, and a single warhead (usually 350 kilotons). They also have some longer-rage missiles (48 DF-21, 40 DF-3A, 12 DF-4). The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and a 300 kiloton warhead. The DF-3A can reach 3000 kilometers and has two payload options: The first is a single warhead of up to three megatons, the second is three warheads each with a yield of up to 100 kilotons. The DF-4 has a range of 4,750 to 7,000 kilometers with a single three megaton warhead. China also has 24 DF-5 missiles, with a 13,000 kilometer range and a single warhead, either a 2 megaton warhead or a 5-megaton warhead. China’s sole Xia-class SSBN carries 12 JL-1 SLBMs, which have a range of 1700 kilometers and a single one-megaton warhead.

[sukhoi-30mki]

I really don't like to trust a site which is usually on the spot only about American weaponry & issues & has appeared amateurish on most non-US facts.

[Carry_Okie]

The Army does not have environmental permits to launch experiments.

I want to see the citation from the DOS for the authroity to preclude launch tests on the basis of any environmental treaty.

After $31 billion, I don't buy it.

[Southack]

If you have a more reliable site for Chinese nuclear numbers, by all means post it.

[familyop]

Here's one on a recent successful test (of several). The "dummy" (as the journalist put it) was hit outside of our atmosphere while it was in descent. The interceptor was launched from a ship.

US Downs Dummy Ballistic Missile in Successful Test
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350575/posts

[familyop]

"These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?"

No. They had to be built to hit with kinetic energy (collision) to avoid pre-detection and prevent detonation.

[I_dmc]

These systems can down enemy missiles while they are still over enemy airspace.

That's the part I like.  Let them deal with the effects of a destroyed ICBM overhead.

[I_dmc]

Right, no warhead. "Smart rocks". China is enthralled by the promise of "Smart Rock" technology. Its how they plan to take out all of our satellites at once, when it all starts. They don't even have to be hyper-kinetic to be usable kill vehicles.

[PLMerite]

"But no one is certain whether the interceptors at Fort Greely actually work."

Well, let's *not* do it and see how well *that* works.

[Gipper08]

Thanks!

[dmartin]

We should be glad they didn't give out the exact coordinates given the fact that they root for our enemies.

[null and void]

With Little Kim, it matters if it works. He's too loony to care about effectiveness of his attack or possible retaliation.

Still makes a difference. Suppose the 18 interceptors "only" take out 6 incoming missiles. Thats 6 nuclear explosions that don't happen over US cities.

No matter how much that system costs, I'd say it's a bargain.

[ArrogantBustard]

These interceptors we have now use conventional explosives? right?
No. No explosives at all. They're impact kill. At near orbital speeds, the kinetic energy in the warhead and the interceptor is more than enough to vapourise both.

Would they not be more effective if they had nuclear tips?
Not really. Anti-aircraft of anti-balistic-missile nukes were intended for wiping out large formations with one shot. The downside is that your defensive nuke sets of an EMP over your own territory.

[ScreamingFist]

.

[dimk]

Would be not easier to hit the enemy warhead with "close-enough" nuclear detonation then hitting dead on? I have no idea what is "close-enough" in this case but probably 1km radius at least? EMP should fry any electronics in the re-entry vehicle?

About setting off EMP over US, these interceptors supposed to hit enemy missiles before re-entry which is far away from continental USA.

The whole Kinetic destruction program sounds a bit PC inspired. I can see the value in a plane based laser anti missile system for theater defense, but attempting to hit enemy missile that probably has countermeasures, decoys and might carry MIRV just seems unreasonably hard.

The atmospheric ban treaty shouldn't be that much of a problem from underground test result it is easy to build a model of what warhead will do in space or in atmosphere. Then just test missiles trying to bring them close enough to the target, test triggers etc without a live nuke. This sort of system sounds much more practical.

[GipperGal]

Thanks for the ping!

And once again the elites are proven very, very wrong. They all thought Ron was crazy...