The High Ground

[MKSheppard]

http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/mi ... 240843.asp

The High Ground
The next missile-defense battle heats up in space.

Sometime between now and the end of September, President Bush will tell Americans that the United States finally has a rudimentary missile-defense system. The announcement will come shortly after the Pentagon activates a handful of interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. They'll be advertised as capable of stopping a limited ICBM attack from the likes of North Korea.

Democrats then will repeat their standard arguments about why it's better to have no missile defenses at all. They'll say that it costs too much, won't work, threatens to ignite a new arms race, and so on. They'll also accuse the president of playing politics, because it isn't fair to make John Kerry explain his party's views in public so soon before an election.

The real agenda, of course, is to pull the plug on missile defense entirely. That's what happened in 1975, when the military deployed Safeguard, a limited missile-defense system permitted under the rules of the ABM Treaty. One day after it went on alert, Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to withdraw funding. Six months later, Ted Kennedy led the Senate in doing the same. The program died in its infancy.

As a senator, Kerry has voted against missile-defense programs more than 50 times. As a president, he might very well try to dismantle what otherwise promises to be one of the most important accomplishments of the Bush administration.

If this initial round of missile-defense deployments survives, the six interceptors at Greely and four at Vandenberg will be just a start. There could be a total of 20 interceptors online by the end of 2005 and even more after that.

Missile-defense advocates — normally unified because they're so embattled — are now starting to argue about what comes next. The chief dispute centers on how soon space-based missile defenses will become feasible.

The best time to shoot down a missile comes right after its launch, when it is big, slow, and hot — as opposed to later, when it's small, fast, and cold. The problem with a "boost-phase" attack is that it requires an almost immediate response. Interceptors based in Alaska can't strike ICBMs until they're well into their trajectories. There's simply no way they could hit North Korean rockets unless they were stationed very close to the launch site. A space-based interceptor, however, essentially could look down on the enemy's blastoff, giving it a huge advantage over other countermeasures.

That's the theory, anyway. The challenge is turning theory into reality.

"Space provides great advantages, but it is also complicated," says Air Force Lt. Gen. Ron Kadish, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. "This is difficult technology. The idea that we can make rapid progress without evolutionary steps is immature thinking."

Kadish has called for funding an intermediate program called Kinetic Energy Intercept, which would develop land and sea-based interceptors that would aim to reach their targets during their boost phase or shortly thereafter. Many of the country's most outspoken supporters of missile defense, such as Henry Cooper of High Frontier and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, have called this a huge mistake.

One of the chief weaknesses of KEI, they say, involves the basing. To target an ICBM launched from Iran, for instance, interceptors would have to be stationed in the region. Is it wise to invest billions in a new missile-defense system whose sine qua non may become the friendly cooperation of future regimes in Uzbekistan?

"I recognize that there's concern over this, but it's the right approach," insists Kadish. "Boost phase is hard, but space is much harder."

Last December, the Pentagon awarded a $4.5 billion contract to Northrup Grumman to begin developing KEI. Current plans call for spending more than $22 billion on it between now and 2014. At the same time, proposed funding for space-based interceptors has been cut by more than $5 billion over the next five years.

"This makes no sense," says one defense-industry source. "It will turn one of President Bush's signature national-security issues into a forgery. We should be going hard into space."

The technical aspects of space may not be as difficult as Kadish suggests. In the first Bush administration, the Pentagon drew up plans for hundreds of mini-satellites, sometimes called "Brilliant Pebbles." During an ICBM strike, they would shift their orbits into enemy flight paths. The ensuing collision would destroy both the interceptors and their targets.

Best of all, say advocates like Cooper, the technology behind Brilliant Pebbles was proven during NASA's Clementine mission to the moon several years ago. The system would not require starting from scratch.

One reason why some in the Pentagon may resist proposals like Brilliant Pebbles is because the foes of missile defense will label them "space weapons" and demand that the United States forsake the "weaponization" of space. This is a canard, because space was weaponized long ago. Every ICBM leaves the atmosphere and thereby becomes a space weapon.

The main difference with Brilliant Pebbles is that the mini-satellites would be based in space, rather than on the ground. The fact that they're meant strictly for defensive purposes won't stop arms-control liberals from calling them "weapons."

"The notion that defensive space-based interceptors will somehow weaponize space is intellectually dishonest," said Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, in March. "And we shouldn't be using the phrase 'weapons in space.' Space is already used by militaries and of offensive missile in space is no less using space than its defensive interceptor."

Nonetheless, many on the Left are calling for the United States to demand an international treaty banning weapons from space. John Kerry is one of the leaders of this movement. He has called space weapons "very disturbing." A few years ago, he proposed "to offer the world the potential of a treaty that says, 'We will only use space for peaceful purposes.'"

So even if a President Kerry acquiesces in his career-long goal to prevent the United States from deploying a bare-bones version of missile defense, like the one now taking shape in Alaska and California, he's ready to fight the next battle. The question is whether the supporters of missile-defense will agree to meet him there, or whether they'll concede the high ground.

[Darth Wong]

I love the name "Brilliant Pebbles". It makes me laugh.

But anyway, while I do appreciate some of the arguments made in favour of a missile shield (or more properly, made against the somewhat extremist arguments against it), the notion of the US putting armed satellites over other countries with the ability to fire on a missile as it takes off does sound a helluva lot like a space-based weapon platform rather than a purely defensive system.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Brilliant Pebbles, Excalibur, Thor and all of the other Teller ideas are cool. But I don't see the need for such an expensive system right now with money needed for other more conventional tasks like in Iraq.

[SirNitram]

While the mechanics behind it are cool, missile shields are only as valuable as the threat they are deployed against. Someone wanna fill me in on when North Korea became a threat requiring billions spent on these things, or is there some new NUCLEAR TERROR(tm) rising somewhere with ICBMs I just happened to miss?

[MKSheppard]

or is there some new NUCLEAR TERROR(tm) rising somewhere with ICBMs I just happened to miss?

Gee, don't you recall the Chinese General a few years ago saying
that "Americans would never sacrifice Los Angeles for Taiwainese
Independence"?

[Rogue 9]

or is there some new NUCLEAR TERROR(tm) rising somewhere with ICBMs I just happened to miss?

Gee, don't you recall the Chinese General a few years ago saying
that "Americans would never sacrifice Los Angeles for Taiwainese
Independence"?

Remember it all too well. I also remember that China has absolutely jack and shit for ability to deploy the PLA to Taiwan. They simply can't do it. Not enough amphibious capability.

[SirNitram]

or is there some new NUCLEAR TERROR(tm) rising somewhere with ICBMs I just happened to miss?

Gee, don't you recall the Chinese General a few years ago saying
that "Americans would never sacrifice Los Angeles for Taiwainese
Independence"?

China would never sacrifice China for Taiwan.

So the theory is that China will has dozens of ICBMs pointed at us, so we better throw money at this instead of any of the other numerous problems that exist now, and pray like hell the system actually does it's job.

[Elfdart]

So what? I can't imagine China sacrificing Beijing in order to get Taiwan back.

Once one side goes for its nuke, it's like a brawler in an Old West saloon going for his hog's leg: everyone else will go for theirs, too. Since neither China nor Uncle Sam much fancies seeing their cities turned into smoldering, radioactive ruins, an atomic donnybrook is unlikely -even without SDI.

[Elfdart]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

[MKSheppard]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

So, would you rather nuke an entire country to ashes over a missile salvo that destroys Los Angeles, rather than shooting down the missiles?

NMD gives you more options other than "take strike, lose hundreds of
thousands of people", and "retalitate massively, obliterating an entire
country"

[SirNitram]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

So, would you rather nuke an entire country to ashes over a missile salvo that destroys Los Angeles, rather than shooting down the missiles?

NMD gives you more options other than "take strike, lose hundreds of
thousands of people", and "retalitate massively, obliterating an entire
country"

Sheppard, do you honestly think the PRC is that suicidal? Stop for a moment and actually think about whether China would willingly get itself incinerated over this.

[The Aliens]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

So, would you rather nuke an entire country to ashes over a missile salvo that destroys Los Angeles, rather than shooting down the missiles?

His original point is that it would never happen, rendering the missile shield an expensive waste of resources.

[SirNitram]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

So, would you rather nuke an entire country to ashes over a missile salvo that destroys Los Angeles, rather than shooting down the missiles?

His original point is that it would never happen, rendering the missile shield an expensive waste of resources.

The original point is slightly more convulted. Because a NMD system renders more options to the attacked, it makes it more likely he'll be attacked. Sound crazy? Perhaps, but play it out.

No NMD. Only option is full retalitary strike. Only the dangerously, suicidally insane will attack.

NMD. Other options. You no longer have to be dangerously, suicidally insane to attack, because your complete annihilation is not guaranteed.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The chances of China nuking the US or her allies over such an event with everything to lose and nothing to gain is so small, I think I could express the probability in base ten.

[Illuminatus Primus]

or is there some new NUCLEAR TERROR(tm) rising somewhere with ICBMs I just happened to miss?

Gee, don't you recall the Chinese General a few years ago saying
that "Americans would never sacrifice Los Angeles for Taiwainese
Independence"?

And China will not sacrifice its entire self for Taiwanese reintegration into the PRC.

[frigidmagi]

This true also long as China knows that if they launch one nuke at us, we'll launch 100 at them, they'll sit tight... For now.

However it would be nice to move beyond MAD as the sole keeper of civilization.

[Rogue 9]

NMD. Other options. You no longer have to be dangerously, suicidally insane to attack, because your complete annihilation is not guaranteed.

Well, if your attack succeeds you are. Either the missile defense system will shoot down your very expensive ICBMs, wasting your deterrent and earning you a massive invasion on the bargain, or your attack will get through, at which point your complete annihilation becomes guaranteed. You'd still have to be dangerously, suicidally insane to attack and hope you succeed, because you'll likely die anyway even if you fail; it'll just take a few days to weeks rather than thirty minutes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sure the PRC would be so terrified of an invasion threat.

[Rogue 9]

I'm sure the PRC would be so terrified of an invasion threat.

They have the largest standing army in the world, but its an army of poorly trained and poorly equipped conscripts. Besides, we can inundate them with cruise missiles if you really insist. Kiss the Forbidden City goodbye.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sure the PRC would be so terrified of an invasion threat.

They have the largest standing army in the world, but its an army of poorly trained and poorly equipped conscripts. Besides, we can inundate them with cruise missiles if you really insist. Kiss the Forbidden City goodbye.

Cruise missiles are shitty for saturation bombing. We could never invade or occupy the PRC.

[Mr Bean]

Even if they were porley trained crap soliders, quanity has a quality all of its own as the say goings and a 90 to 1 manpower advantage(How much they can response with VS how much we can send) tends to scew things abit

[Rogue 9]

I'm sure the PRC would be so terrified of an invasion threat.

They have the largest standing army in the world, but its an army of poorly trained and poorly equipped conscripts. Besides, we can inundate them with cruise missiles if you really insist. Kiss the Forbidden City goodbye.

Cruise missiles are shitty for saturation bombing. We could never invade or occupy the PRC.

Fine then. The BUFFs still work. You really think that turning China into a parking lot is the only military option for dealing with them?

[Illuminatus Primus]

That depends on your strategic goal.

Absolute surrender and capitulation of the PRC without the use of our strategic nuclear arsenal is probably an impossibility.

[Sea Skimmer]

Besides, defensive measures like SDI, the Maginot Line, Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall instill defeatist attitudes in those who build them and is an important reason why they almost always fail. The surest deterrent isn't a suit of mail -it's a sharp sword.

When nuclear weapons enter the equation the sword often becomes useless, use it and you get nuked. Its called strategic Paralysis. The entire Cold War was a fine example of it; we now have the same problem with North Korea. But if you have a system, which can ward off that nuclear attack then things become much simpler. You can now afford to say risk bombing the enemy's nuclear missiles, even at the risk that a few might survive and be launched.

[MKSheppard]

Absolute surrender and capitulation of the PRC without the use of our strategic nuclear arsenal is probably an impossibility.

No it isn't. Teh Large population = rapidly industrializing country = teh
farmland disappearing.

China is no longer a net exporter of food I believe. Nor iis it one of Coal.

Send a few B-52s to sink every ship lined outside Australian coal ports
and you'll begin starving China into economic submission.