Posted on 06/20/2006 6:29:23 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon
As the tension mounts over a possible North Korean ballistic missile test, the United States leaked indications Tuesday that it has activated its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report printed in the Washington Times that the United States has switched the system from testing status to operational status. Realistically, the BMD system becoming "operational" is less likely than an actual North Korean missile launch -- but like the North Korean launch preparations, perception is more important than reality.
The BMD system consists of an integrated series of early warning and tracking radars and interceptor missiles. If a missile launch against the continental United States (CONUS) is detected, interceptors fitted with "kill vehicles" -- based at Fort Greely and Kodiak Island, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California -- can be launched to intercept the hostile missiles midway to their targets. Once in the path of the re-entry vehicle, the kill vehicle (which carries no explosive) hits it at a combined speed of over 15,000 miles per hour, destroying them both. This process has been described as analogous to shooting down a .22 caliber bullet, fired from one end of a football field, with another .22 caliber bullet fired from the other end.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
Isnt this the system the Dummiecrats said we didnt need?
Well ya know, I've been thinking about this since they started posturing with the possibility of the test. What a perfect opportunity to have an ABM test of our own. If it worked, the Koreans would need pants changed.
Should it make it off the pad they'll abort. The very last thing they need is for the U.S. to manage to shoot it down, and if it goes far enough that's exactly what we'll do - it'd be an expensive drone at that point. Should we succeed in doing that they won't be able to sell it. And that's what they're after.
There are at least a couple of critical questions the US needs to ask itself BEFORE the missile is launched.
One: given that our radars will immediately project the missile's ballistic flight path, do we attempt to intercept it even if it isn't going to hit the US or Japan? (if it is going to hit either of those, then the decision to attempt an intercept is a no-brainer).
Two: if the answer to the question above is "yes," then are we prepared to accept the embarassment if our intercept attempt fails? After all, the MD system has a track record of multiple failures, sometimes even under ideal (i.e., unrealistically easy) conditions. Given the lack of reliability/confidence in the system, is it worthwhile to employ it against a NK missile that isn't going to hit the US or its allies anyway?
There might be some degree of political embarassment if an intercept attempt fails, but on the other hand, it would provide the R&D teams with a significant amount of data from a real-world situation to improve the system.
The flip side of the question is, can either the Japanese or the U.S. decline to respond given NK's history of increasingly provocative action? NK will happily sell these things to two other parties who seem to enjoy provocation for its own sake: Chavez and Ahmadinejad. How far do we let it go?
I think our MD system is too new and unproven to attempt an intercept of this NK missile outside of certain narrow conditions. If the NK missile works and ours doesn't,
it will be a big embarrassment and divert attention away from the issue at hand, which is North Korea's nuke and missile programs. If we don't try to shoot it down, the BMD budget gets a big boost, without firing a shot.
Besides, what if there is a DPRK satellite involved, or at least plausible deniability based on the trajectory? Then the DPRK can rant on about how we shot down their civilian satellite, etc. That makes things worse for Japan and the United States, again diverting attention.
The only caveat I'll add is if this thing appears headed straight for Tokyo. Then it's obviously worth taking a shot in self-defense. The problem here, of course, is that the window to determine trajectory/likely destination and still have a chance to hit the thing is very narrow. We'll need to empower our people in the field (actually, I'm sure we've already done this) with some parameters...if it looks like "A", then hold off, but if it looks like "B", you have permission to shoot. My guess is that "B" is a very limited scenario that we are not likely to see...even if Pyongyang decides to send one off (which is still not clear). My odds are 60-40 in favor of a test, 90-10 against a U.S.-Japan BMD response.
The NKs have always done everything with the utmost secrecy.
This "missle launch" is almost comical with it's daily updates to include launch and fuel container updates. Not to mention missle range.
Wacko Kim is probably having great fun with this.
"After all, the MD system has a track record of multiple failures, sometimes even under ideal (i.e., unrealistically easy) conditions. Given the lack of reliability/confidence in the system, is it worthwhile to employ it against a NK missile that isn't going to hit the US or its allies anyway?"
Don't be naive. You really think that BMD program has been "series of failues?" LOL get real.
"Failure" means that the Kinetic Kill vehicle has missed a collision. We cry and call it failure, shame on us bad American, bad toys.
Laser-equipped airplanes, kinetic kill vehicles, all this is window dressing and nonsense for the real program.
The real program is 100% effective for killing incoming missile, can never be tested, and is a violation of treaty. Any person with half a brain knows what the REAL payload will be on a suborbital missile kill vehicle. And if you do not believe in this, ask the Easter Bunny to explain it to you.
"I think our MD system is too new and unproven to attempt an intercept of this NK missile outside of certain narrow conditions. If the NK missile works and ours doesn't, it will be a big embarrassment and divert attention away from the issue at hand, which is North Korea's nuke and missile programs. If we don't try to shoot it down, the BMD budget gets a big boost, without firing a shot."
NO no no no. The payload is older technology than missiles. And it is 100% effective. The problem is breaching a treaty unilaterally. We do not want to do this on a "test missile" which is why we are concerned. If it had known nuclear payload, we could breach the treaty.
What do you think they mean by "Missile Defense is getting readied," anyway? How long do you think it takes to "get ready?" The problem is Activating the defensive Payload, which is a decision and operation which must be made and ordered by POTUS alone.
Nickey, I infer from your comments that you believe our MD system relies on a nuclear warhead to destroy incoming missiles. Is that what you believe?
That is logical.
I think there is a fair chance NK has observed our capitulation and subsequent rewarding of Iran with economic incentives on the enrichment issue as an opportunity for NK to get some good ole US cheddah to fund their failing regime...
Diplomatic blackmail. Our reward for negotiating with Iran.
"Nickey, I infer from your comments that you believe our MD system relies on a nuclear warhead to destroy incoming missiles. Is that what you believe?"
Let me state the opposing argument which I call the "Friends of the Earth" argument.
The United States has spent billions of dollars over twenty years on a program which includes a Kinetic Kill Vehicle, which can occasionally strike a "bullet with a bullet." It more often "fails" and passes within a few dozen yards of the target even under optimal conditions.
The "inaccuracy" has not improved over years of testing. There are other fancy techniques such as airplane-based-lasers and those sort of things that are also developed.
The "Friends of the Earth" point out that the Star Wars defense is a wasteful boondoggle by the Military.
Thousands of military and mil-industry developers have worked on the Kinetic Kill Vehicle. It has occurred to NONE OF THESE scientists and engineers and other bright people over TWENTY YEARS to place a small nuke on the KKV, which would broaden the "cross-section" of the KKV from a yard to a kilometer, making an effective kill 100% CERTAIN. Just never thought of this.
Or if they thought of this, the idea was denied because an effective defense of the United States from incoming missiles would reveal that we had violated the treaty on nuclear weapons in space. Awful idea, it is, to violate a treaty, even if there is a broad-scale thermonuclear attack against our country. Better for United States to die a thermonuclear death, than violate a treaty!
Is that what YOU believe? Or anyone else, please respond?
Why was this not announced? It is better for anticipatory defense for the United States to look clumsy, making things that do not work, than to announce abrogation of nuclear treaty in space. Politically embarrassing. Keep it quiet until the missiles fly.
Now that we are challeged and the missile may fly, we are worried that our plan will get known, and without a true thermonuclear exchange, the treaty issue seems to be bothering those who worry about treaties.
That is why we need to kill the bird in the nest, so that we do not tip our hand about Missile Defense.
That is what I think. Do you believe me, or the Friends of the Earth?
OK, you've expressed your belief adequately. Got it.
However, you are quite wrong. Our MD system does not include a nuclear warhead component -- whether you believe such a fact is logical or not.
"However, you are quite wrong. Our MD system does not include a nuclear warhead component -- whether you believe such a fact is logical or not."
I am sorry, Mr. Poundstone, but I do not understand your answer. I have presented a hypothesis and given logical evidence to support a high probability that I am in fact correct. I am ready to supply more facts to support my argument.
And you say, "NO." Just "NO." I am confused where to go next. If I might be so rude, what is the reason you say "NO."? Is there something to support your opinion, or does your opinion stand for itself?
I do not mean to be rude, but I have not come across this approach before. Please respond.
I said "no" because I know. I am a government official with intimate knowledge of the architecture of our MD systems.
Okay. But using reason and common sense, thanks, would not any "government official with intimate knowledge of the architecture of our MD systems" say the same thing, regardless of truth?
And why do you follow this on the board? Are you official Government observer? Is this discussion and all the identities going to N?S?A?
"I said "no" because I know. I am a government official with intimate knowledge of the architecture of our MD systems."
And thank you I quit this site I do not like watchers. Bye all.
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.