April fool's my little chickadees. It does work.
Offered as an addendum to Pejman's earlier thoughts on things that go boom.
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last weekend, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has been one of the staunch supporters of the Ballistic Missile Defense program, said that the system still had limited capacity and that he wanted to wait for the results of a test to take place yesterday to assess its capabilities, leading some in the media to report that he didn't think it would work. We will set aside for a moment the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld said no such thing. He discussed in some detail the threats we face, not just from North Korea but also Iran and other rogue nations. He noted that enormous progress had been made with the system. But, being naturally cautious, he said he would like to see the results of the test before making an unnecessary prediction. Gleaning this information, however, would have necessitated reading more than the first four sentences of the briefing. And why read any further? So isolated, Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks can be made to confirm a venerable "Known Fact" about missile defense. Critics of the concept of a satellite system designed to intercept a hostile missile after it has been fired towards the United States have long held that it is literally pie in the sky. That SDI, BMD, Star Wars--what ever you want to call it--is a grotesque example of the right inflaming the fears of a gullible populace with promises of a ultra high-tech system that can shoot danger from our skies--and all the while they know the technology isn't there. The only function of this program for lo these many years has been to further enrich fat-cat defense contractors and to politically undermine brave liberal truth tellers who have insisted until they were blue in the face that there was no way this could ever work. And look, even Donald Rumsfeld, the great champion of BMD, thinks it isn't going to work. Let's give Fort Greely back to the caribou!
April fool's my little chickadees. It does work.
Read on...
On Friday, a test missile fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska was destroyed by an interceptor fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California several hundred miles from its launch point. This sort of test, over such distances has a much greater chance for failure than earlier tests, in which the target and interceptor were fired in much greater proximity. This does not mean, however, that work on BMD is over. As Lt. General Trey Obering (Air Force) said in his Pentagon briefing yesterday, this successful test facilitates ever more challenging tests as the data from the launch is analyzed and additional complications inserted into future efforts. But the General noted that short of the North Koreans firing on us yesterday, this test was as "real" a simulation of the system's effectiveness that we could attempt. And it worked. All kidding aside, that's a good thing for our country and this isn't a partisan issue. I for one would rather eat crow than be hit by a missile, and the system doesn't discriminate--it protects Democrats as readily as it protects Republicans. The result? We're all safer this Labor Day weekend.
Speaking of the North Koreans, according to the Washington Post, they do not like this development one bit. You can see it from their point of view--having beggared their country in the pursuit of a military wildly out of line with their resources and needs, it would come as something of an unpleasant surprise to find that one large and very expensive aspect of that military was in danger of being rendered useless by the superior technology of the enemy. You might expect them to screech and squwak a little. But while we might empathize with their dilemma, it seems to me that it would be the height of foolishness to scuttle BMD now to appease Pyongyang. Incentives have not worked on this regime. Negotiations have not worked. So let's try a little arms race and see how they like that.
After all, it worked with the Soviets...
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Our Last Chance — Comments (19) »
April fool's my little chickadees. It does work. 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You're right, I probably should have written "This doesn't have to be a partisan issue."
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
"This doesn't have to be a partisan issue."
I most certainly does have to be a partisan issue. And the sooner the vast majority of Americans realize it the better.
If it were up to the Democrats we'd be completely disarmed and the military would have been disbanded. This would allow us the use all that money for welfare programs --- for the 30 minutes that we remained a sovereign nation.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
and this test is indeed a nice step forward. It's been a long time coming -- the technology wasn't there (or, if you prefer, didn't work) until relatively recently. If they can make it work with a high success rate with realistic chaff and evasive maneuvering I'll be even more impressed, although I don't know that most incoming missiles are likely to be all that sophisticated anyway.
Whether it was a good use of the money is another question entirely. It's a holdover from the cold-war era; there's a pretty good case to be made that the greatest threat we face these days comes from terrorist groups rather than hostile nations (yes, there is some overlap here), and that this threat is more likely to be realized in the form of a chemical or biological weapon detonated on the ground in NYC or DC (or some other form of a local attack) rather than a missile that is unlikely to have comparable impact and invites massive retaliation.
However, the money is already spent, so it's probably not worth refighting that battle. The goal now should be to make the most efficient use of the money we haven't yet spent. This means honestly assessing the capabilities and potential of the interceptor system, determining the priority it should receive in our overall defence spending, and deciding the scale at which we want to implement this project accordingly.
A nuclear attack could also be made at ground level. You can set one up in a suitcase. That is why, sadly, this is not a solution to the Iranian threat. I wish it was.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
But it does help. Once (take your pick of crazy people that might get nukes) gives a nuke to (take your pick of other crazy people that would consider it an honor to blow themselves up) its no longer their nuke. The nuke belongs to the hezbos, hamas, muslim bros whatever. Once they have a nuke theyre no longer two bit suicide bombers. And, unless you have alot of nukes, you can't have your nuke and use it.
So I seriously doubt even someone as loony as kim jong ill would trust other people with his nuke. At the very least they would realize giving away a nuke makes the person who gets it a significant player.
How much would a state trust any individuals with their hard-earned nukes? How do they know they won't be double-crossed? It would also be political disaster if their people were intercepted upon entry and the plot was reported worldwide.
If they are trying to bring about an apocalypse scenario (Iran) or if they feel threatened militarily (NK), they might resort to this. It is much safer to sell a nuke to terrorists than it is to use one yourself. You may not see any retaliation at all... and you certainly won't see immediate retaliation. And whatever the evidence, half the world will believe you when you say you are being set up by the "Great Satan." Maybe they'll manage to get UN sanctions through against you... but then again, maybe not.
Another problem with this... if you already have enough nukes to form an effective deterrent, what do you really have to lose by selling one? Your remaining arsenal will make people think very long and very hard about attempting retaliation.
In the final analysis, I don't happen to think we'd retaliate with strategic nuclear arms, even if we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt what the orgin of a nuclear device set off in the US was.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
A nuclear device cannot be made to fit inside a suitcase... they are bigger than that. One could be set up inside a pickup truck bed, but that is significantly bigger than a suitcase or briefcase... much harder to smuggle in and use, though still a threat with the sad state of our southern border. If they can drive vans and SUVs with thousands pounds of marijana or a dozen illegal aliens across the border, they could drive one of these across the border as well.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: You can set one up in a suitcase
There is no such thing as a suitcase nuke. They are bigger and heavier than that, if only because they require shielding in order to escape detection.
However you do have a point: you could certainly have an atomic version of McVeigh and his Ryder truck.
The goal now should be to make the most efficient use of the money we haven't yet spent. This means honestly assessing the...
I'm good with assessing the relative, outgoing effectiveness of missle defense as long as we can do the same with Social Security, Medicare, the Departments of Education and Agriculture and HUD.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
that this makes the whole business of building or buying IRBM a lot less profitable? That maybe one leg has been kicked from under the nuclear proliferation stool? That maybe allies within range of IRBM from North Korea and Iran have a little more security?
This war on terror isn't all about us.
This successful test is very welcome news. We are apparently sharing our anti-missile technological progress with Japan, which will have the double strategic benefit of blunting the NoKor threat (to Japan anyway) and greatly reducing China's strategic ability to bully Japan.
Combined with seaborne and airborne anti-missile platforms, this could also alter the Iranian equation for the better.
SoKor, however, is just too close to NoKor to install anti-missile units with anything like the efficacy with which Japan could be protected. Perhaps some improved variant of the US Patriot or Israeli Arrow system could be relevant to proximate targets like SoKor, the Emirates or Saudi Arabia?
Bellinghamster
From the press conference linked in the story:
So this continual progression will proceed. We think we're on the right track. Just a reminder, though; this is a major portion of our missile defense system, but it is not the only portion of our missile defense system. And in fact, this intercept now is the fourth in the last 90 days of a hit-to-kill intercept using our ballistic missile defense system.
Last June we launched a sea-based interceptor that was successful in intercepting a separating warhead.
In July we launched a land-based terminal-phase interceptor, the Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense, or the THAAD, interceptor, successfully intercepting the target.
In August, just yesterday, we had a successful Patriot-3 -- PAC-3 -- intercept that was conducted by the U.S. Army in collaboration with Missile Defense Agency.
And then today the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.
I'm sure streiff or one of our other military guys have better info, but with thousands of arty tubes in reinforced bunkers, the NoKos have the ability to create "metal rain" on most of the populated parts of SoKo. Our ability to interdict those sites is, at best very limited.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
To Japan, say. Maybe even Seattle or San Francisco. (Los Angeles is immune because Kim Jong Il is a film buff).
I know, I know, that would just make Michael Moore complain that they were killing the wrong Americans.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
But if you look at DPRK order of battle it is kind of hard to see how this claim can be true. Seoul's suburbs are at the outer reaches of tube artillery and I think the ROK air force and the ROK army aren't going to be all that helpless.
It also implies that the DPRK will not provide reinforcing artillery fires to the rest of its army along the DMZ or even those in the Seoul corridor in contact along the Imjin River just so they can pound Seoul.
So color me a skeptic.
It has appeared to me that SDI could be a much larger chip in our negotiations over nuclear proliferation than is generally suggested. I'd like to hear others reactions to this.
A recent op-ed in the WSJ, "Lost in Space" (subscription), discusses how the space based satellite systems are the most effective (both technologically and cost) means of missile defense. Yet we have agreed not to pursue "Brilliant Pebbles" for political reasons.
What if we indicate to the UN security council members that we are going to change our policy and begin unilaterally pursuing Brilliant Pebbles unless the hard decisions are taken by SC members to remove the threat of a nuclear Iran and Korea?
John E.
a resolution condemning our actions. With threats of something or another. Maybe they would threaten to move out of NYC, thus damaging the economics of the high end restaurant industry and expensive hookers.
Oh well.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
First I laughed. Then analyzed.
No doubt we are sensitive to moral arguments, even from hypocrites. But it seems we have a pretty good answer given the current scenario, which is different from the scenario in which we originally bowed to international pressure not to pursue weaponizing space. Perhaps we can hold the moral high ground here, and after all, it is within their power to help us eliminate these threats by other means.
John E.
Also -- http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf -- think tank 2007 report on missile defense.
John E.
If we are not pursuing this for purely political reasons, that is unacceptable. If we think this will work and is doable for only $16bln we shouldn't even use it as a bargaining chip. Long term, we need a defense against a massive strategic strike. We also need something that can defend our allies from the same.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
And I think that yours is the point being made by the advocates in the report. Of course, unless there are other experts around here, we don't know how to take the $16 billion estimate for Brilliant Pebbles. However, anything remotely close to that figure seems cheap in light of the thoroughness of coverage and incremental cost per missile that it provides, the pebble being much less costly than a missile.
If their claims are true, then as you say, it would appear exceedingly magnanimous of us to offer to forgo developing this capability. I expect you might wish to substitute a pejorative there. However, do we not need to weigh that against the risks of weaponizing space and bearing the costs of the proliferation conflicts by ourselves?
John E.
...it brings me back to the fact that Reagan was a giant.
You know, for all that some people love to make fun of the fact that he wished hard for peace, he tried his hardest to make us just as strong as he could.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Do you guys honestly believe this test actually worked? You sure do have a lot of trust in this administration. Either that or you'll bite any propaganda hook they toss in the water. This is typical war-game stuff meant to rally the troops of positive thought...and more investment of tax dollars.
Give it time for the facts to come out and you'll find that the target coordinates were known by the interceptor. That may be progress, but it doesn't equal success.
Wow! For one year of appropriations for this program we could have all freight cargo inspected. Which one do you think is a more pressing concern? A missile from a rogue state? Or wmd shipped from overseas by an unconventional enemy?
Patriot missiles never stopped Saddam from launing an assault on Israel, and this system won't deter a country with more than 1 nuclear warhead, if they so choose to use them.
Have republicans ever seen a weapons system they didn't like?
It took you almost an hour to come up with that.
The mistake you are making is assuming the missile defense program even exists. Those funds are really being used by the NSA and FBI to investigate and intercept communications of those that post to sites like dkos. And, of course, to build the secret detention camps that these people will be sent to when they try to vote on a Diebold machine.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
So where are all of those opium funds from Afghanastan going? Oh that's right...to fund Negroponte's death squads.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
Dwight Eisenhower: April 16, 1953
And it worked. All kidding aside, that's a good thing for our country and this isn't a partisan issue.
While I probably agree with 99% of what you write, I must take exception here. Defeating missle defense testing and deployment has been a brick in the foundation of the Democratic Party since the evening Reagan went on TV to announce the development of SDI. Teddy Kennedy was in his best alcoholic dirge not 24 hours later, decrying "Star Wars" at a time when poor people didn't have health insurance.
The Party of Insignificance hasn't backed off one iota since. Left to Congressional Democrats, Star Wars would be dead and Mr. Kim the Benevolent would be in charge.
Hopefully, the Republicans will use this issue (among others) to nationalize the upcoming elections.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?