Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shutting Down Hostile ICBMs (MILITARY TECH)
StrategyPage.com ^ | 6/2/2006 | Harold C. Hutchison

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: icbm; militarytech; miltech; missledefense; sdi
Getting sick of the board FILLED with BS infighting and immigration threads, so I'm doing something about it.
1 posted on 06/02/2006 9:49:29 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

I'm with you.

Many people working hard on this technology ...


2 posted on 06/02/2006 9:52:44 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

How many illegals are on each sub??? :@)


3 posted on 06/02/2006 9:53:31 AM PDT by Bommer (Attention illegals: Why don't you do the jobs we can't do? Like fix your own countries problems!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

The ninth Boeing interceptor has been installed at Greeley and the rusted hinge problem has been fixed.


4 posted on 06/02/2006 9:54:57 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
My fav quote on the subject comes from my fav guy in Washington... Mr. Don Rumsfeld.

smHillary was questioning him on the subject, was just after 3 tests and 1 or 2 didn't work out I think. She was complaining about "why are we spending all this money if it doesn't work... whats the point?"

Rumsfled: "If one waited to do anything, until one could do everything, nothing would end up getting done"

Such concise logic... I just love it.
5 posted on 06/02/2006 10:04:13 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon (Success is not final; Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
THANK YOU! I wasn't aware that we had such an extensive network set up for missiles from N. Korea. This would explain why US officials are no longer making statements to the effect of a crisis with N. Korea. Do you think at this point we have sufficiently eliminated them as an immediate threat?

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!

6 posted on 06/02/2006 10:04:41 AM PDT by The Blitherer ("These are great days—the greatest days our country has ever lived." – W. S. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
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.

One problemo with this scenario... the Chinese, thanks to their virtually uncontested espionage program, now have the ability to detect our SSNs and possibly even our SSBNs.
7 posted on 06/02/2006 10:12:07 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

When this technology was brought into R&D under Reagan it was riduculed ad-nauseaum.


8 posted on 06/02/2006 10:18:24 AM PDT by SamAdams_Lite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

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.


9 posted on 06/02/2006 10:26:46 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams_Lite
Yep... I mean the tech wasn't there at the time, so it was an easy liberal / emotional argument to make at the time.

Of course, I quoted Rummy giving the PERFECT response to that argument.

But it works so much better when the project starts to bear fruit, than back in the early 80s when we were just brainstorming and coming up with theoretical ways to accomplish what we knew we wanted to do.

In that atmosphere "we have to start somewhere" just invited more criticism as you know.
10 posted on 06/02/2006 10:27:03 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon (Success is not final; Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
One problemo with this scenario... the Chinese, thanks to their virtually uncontested espionage program, now have the ability to detect our SSNs and possibly even our SSBNs.

That's not the impression I get from military forums. Navy people are pretty confident about accomplishing their mission with minimal losses against the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy). China's military is big, but really, really backward.
11 posted on 06/02/2006 10:31:26 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
"One problemo with this scenario... the Chinese, thanks to their virtually uncontested espionage program, now have the ability to detect our SSNs and possibly even our SSBNs."

Oh you think so eh. ;-)
12 posted on 06/02/2006 10:33:12 AM PDT by reagandemo (The battle is near are you ready for the sacrifice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reagandemo

Best thing to do to finish off the Asian component of this is to put a dozen or so missile batteries in Taiwan.


13 posted on 06/02/2006 10:40:39 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Democrats - The reason we need term limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
...the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty (which it had signed with Russia in 1972)...

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.

14 posted on 06/02/2006 10:42:30 AM PDT by Jonah Hex ("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei; reagandemo

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.


15 posted on 06/02/2006 11:14:31 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
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.

Another proud moment for the Clinton Administration.

16 posted on 06/02/2006 11:44:43 AM PDT by The Blitherer ("These are great days—the greatest days our country has ever lived." – W. S. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

Don't even get me started... I think that gutless bastard, and his wife, should be boiled in oil.


17 posted on 06/02/2006 11:46:41 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

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?


18 posted on 06/02/2006 11:50:23 AM PDT by reagandemo (The battle is near are you ready for the sacrifice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reagandemo

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.


19 posted on 06/02/2006 11:57:17 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
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.

The guy provided some really high-level concepts - all of which has been declassified, which was why he stayed out of jail. If high-level concepts alone could help us put together advanced weapons systems, we wouldn't be spending $100b a year on weapons acquisitions. Note that this information is available to everyone else, including the Russians, who are the primary arms suppliers to the Chinese. Has it made a difference? It's really hard to tell. My impression of Russian weaponry is that it has nice specs, but always seems to fall short of those specs in actual use.
20 posted on 06/02/2006 2:08:41 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson