Skip to comments.Shutting Down Hostile ICBMs (MILITARY TECH)
Posted on 06/02/2006 9:49:26 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon
While the war on terror has been grabbing a lot of public attention, the United States has quietly been in the process of neutralizing the missile arsenals of China, North Korea, and even Iran. This is probably one of the most important stories concerning the strategic balance, yet one of the least covered.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty (which it had signed with Russia in 1972), and began development of a national missile defense system. Research into missile defense had begun in earnest in 1983, but after withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, deployment was possible and became a priority.
The first phase of this deployment has covered the Pacific Rim, specifically with an eye towards neutralizing China's ICBM force. This is understandable, since on two occasions, Chinese generals have been quoted as having threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States. The Chinese ICBM and SLBM forces are both very small (24 DF-5 ICBMs and 24 JL-1 SLBMs total). China's future plans for their SLBM force will center around two Jin-class SSBNs (the Type 094), each with 16 JL-2 SLBMs. China hopes to get as many as 60 ICBMs by 2010.
Dealing with the Chinese SSBNs is easy. American SSNs probably wait off the coast of China, and trail Chinese subs. This was the routine with Russian subs during the Cold War, and the Americans are pretty good at this sort of thing. If hostilities with China start, their SSBNs are likely to have an exciting wartime career short and exciting. The ICBMs are a slightly different matter. The United States is deploying two clusters of ground-based interceptors, at Fort Greeley in Alaska (at least eight interceptors deployed) and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (at least two interceptors deployed). Deployment of the interceptors is ongoing.
The North Korean missile threat is somewhat more different, and easier to deal with. Japan and the United States are both fielding the SM-3 missile, which has already proven it can intercept incoming ballistic missiles. The SM-2, also in use by both the U.S. Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, recently carried out a successful intercept of a ballistic missile in the terminal phase. Both Japan and the United States also use land-based Patriot PAC-3 missiles. The result is a multi-layered system that will be able to blunt any North Korean attack.
Plans to counter the Iranian missile threat are also in motion. The United States is already looking into sites in Poland and the Czech Republic for a cluster ground-based interceptors. The SM-3 and SM-2 could also be used from naval vessels in the Persian Gulf. The United States and Israel both use Patriot, and the Israelis also have the Arrow anti-ballistic missile in service.
These systems are not at the point where they can stop every inbound missile. The thing is, they still provide a deterrent against launching attacks because a country that does decide to launch missiles at the United States or any of its allies protected by a missile defense shield will not know which of its missiles will fail to reach their targets. This uncertainty increases as the United States continues to deploy more ground-based interceptors, and looks into more systems. Ultimately, the uncertainty about the success of an attack created by the deployment of missile defense systems combined with the certainty that an attempted attack will bring a response, will be one of the biggest reasons for a country to decide not to push the button.
Harold C. Hutchison
I'm with you.
Many people working hard on this technology ...
How many illegals are on each sub??? :@)
The ninth Boeing interceptor has been installed at Greeley and the rusted hinge problem has been fixed.
It's very interesting watching the development of our relationships with Russia and former USSR states with regards to the (likely) upcoming showdown with Iran. Little things- like Cheney's statements on democracy in Russia- seem isolated, but they are all part of a larger strategy to ultimately neutralize the threat from Iran.
If hostilities with China start, their SSBNs are likely to have an exciting wartime career short and exciting.
This is a great quote!
When this technology was brought into R&D under Reagan it was riduculed ad-nauseaum.
Quote: "Getting sick of the board FILLED with BS infighting and immigration threads, so I'm doing something about it."
Well, never fear the MSM has begun beating its anti Iraq drum again and this board is becoming more united in purpose.
Best thing to do to finish off the Asian component of this is to put a dozen or so missile batteries in Taiwan.
Quibble... the U.S. signed that treaty with the Soviet Union, not with Russia. Since the Soviet Union collapsed into a commonwealth of independent states, that treaty was no longer valid; therefore, the U.S. had no obligation to comply with the treaty. In other words we didn't withdraw from the treaty, since the treaty was void.
As I recall, that was the administration's argument at the time.
Peter Lee is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Taiwan. Lee worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1984 to 1991, and for TRW Inc., a contractor to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, from 1973 to 1984 and again from 1991to 1997.10
Lee has admitted to the FBI that, in 1997, he passed to PRC weapons scientists classified research into the detection of enemy submarines under water. This research, if successfully completed, could enable the PLA to threaten previously invulnerable U.S. nuclear submarines.
Lee made the admissions in 1997 during six adversarial interviews with the FBI. According to Lee, the illegal transfer of this sensitive research occurred while he was employed by TRW, Inc., a contractor for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The classified U.S.information was developed by Lawrence Livermore as part of a joint United States-United Kingdom Radar Ocean Imaging project for anti-submarine warfare applications.
Consider what China's harvest of U.S. military technology will enable China to do. Through cooperative satellite launch programs China acquired the technology for accurate staging and orbital placement of large rockets, as well as multiple satellite release. The Clinton Administration licensed the sale of a McDonnell Douglas manufacturing facility. This means that China will be able to build a force of big, mobile, accurate, multiple warhead missiles better than the ones we designed nearly two decades ago. It may take them a few years to do it, but when they start it will escalate rapidly. As for warheads, through the efforts of Wen Ho Lee at Los Alamos, China apparently got the entire dump on design and manufacturing of all our major nukes, including the W-88 warhead: 150 Kilotons delivered to within about 80 yards. Through Peter Lee at Livermore, China apparently got the key to testing these warheads through simulations and in a camouflage mode.
That was nearly a decade ago. If you think that China's military is totally backward, you're sorely mistaken. We may still have a comparative technological edge over them in many areas, but that gap is closing far in advance of every Pentagon study.
Another proud moment for the Clinton Administration.
Don't even get me started... I think that gutless bastard, and his wife, should be boiled in oil.
I agree that there has been a narrowing of the gap. However, remember that it being nearly 10 years ago that this happened. Don't you think we have been moving to counter act whatever damage was done in new and better technologies?
I do; however, consider what will take longer to create and implement...
A) Design, build, test, and deploy an entirely new class of propulsion system (the detection system was based on microwave radar identification of the submarine's acoustical signature) and the submarine which must be designed around it;
B) A detection system for which you already have the blueprint.
My guess is, overwhelmingly, B.
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.