The American Dream
December 4, 2003 :: The Economist :: News
The Economist magazine carries a fairly favorable, and faily sound, story on missile defense. While it correctly assesses that the system to be deployed in 2004 does not “make Americans invulnerable,” it does note that it is a step in the right direction.
The Economist sets the right framework for the discussion, namely that missile defenses try to undo the doctrine of mutually assured destruction which allowed politicians to abandon the imperative to provide for the common defense.
At the same time, the magazine notes that common criticisms of the Bush administration’s plans are often ill founded, in part from misconceptions about their relation to more ambitious, but also more effective, outlines of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative.
Mr Reagon’s famous exhortation has contributed to two popular misconceptions about America’s current missile-defence effort. One is that it will be based in space; the other is that it will be able to thwart a multiple missile strike by China or Russia.
As for the assessment of the system to be deployed, The Economist calls it “more or less what was proposed by Bill Clinton—whose plans were lambasted for years by Republicans for being insufficiently ambitious,” and cites Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, as quipping that the system should be named after Mr. Clinton, since much of the necessary spending was done on his watch. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Congress Approves 9.1 Billion MD Budget
October 2, 2003 :: Arms Control Today :: News
Congress today approved the $9.1 billion missile defense budget request by President Bush. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Budget, Policy
Russian General on the Extent of Russian Missile Defenses Instructive of US Policy
September 2, 2003 :: Pravda :: News
Why should one be concerned that the United States is not doing enough on missile defense? Because the Russians are not, either. A story in Pravda cites Lieutenant-General Vladimir Grigorkin as lamenting that the Russian missile defense system now covers “only” thirty percent, as compared to the Soviet days when it protected substantially all of Soviet territory. Grigorkin is praised for his own work on the now old SS-18 “Satan” ballistic missile which was designed to overcome then-potential American defense efforts. The same general is also cited as not being “anxious” about American ballistic missile defenses for the simple fact that they do not pose any threat to Russia’s own offensive deterrent. Critics of President Bush sometimes complain that he is abandoning the policy of mutually assured destruction, and that this is a bad thing, and dangerous to “strategic stability.” In fact, these critics have nothing to complain about, as this does not seem to be the case.
Long before the Buran project, Vladimir Grigorkin participated in construction of launchig pads for different rockets. “I worked for a year in Siberia as the head of a department building silos for the world’s most powerful ballistic rockets. NATO called the rockets “Satans”. They could challenge the US’ most modern anti-missile defense system. One rocket of this type carries up to ten self-guided high-power warheads. On board, the rocket has a considerable number of false targets to mislead the enemy. It’s a pity that it was realized too late; it was important to keep the weapon in operation. The majority of rockets of the type were liquidated. even though they were still operable.”
When Vladimir Grigorkin became the head of the special construction department of the Defense Ministry, the silos were being built across the Soviet Union. Now, we have such rockets in Russia only.
The general is not that anxious about the disputes concerning the so-called anti-missile defense. Some time ago, Vladimir Grigorkin participated in creation of an anti-missile shield around Moscow. He says that nowadays only 30 per cent of Russia is protected from attacks of aerospace vehicles, while in the Soviet era the missile shield covered the whole territory of the country. The general is indignant at the fact that the national defense has such large breaches that we may notice attacks of an enemy on some territories only when we see nuclear explosions over these territories.
Update: The January 23, 2004 edition of Itar-Tass quotes a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry that The United States and Russia “are ready to cooperate in non-destabilizing missile defense.” This is entirely keeping with the non-threatening nature largely characteristic of those American missile defense systems proposed since the fall of the Soviet Union. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy, Russia, Russian Missile Defenses
Miller on Edward Teller
July 23, 2003 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Upon the recent award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, “the nation’s highest civil honor,” to physicist, nuclear strategist, and long-time champion of missile defense Edward Teller, National Review Online republished this September 30, 2002 piece by John Miller detailing Teller’s achievements and courage. (Article, Link)
» White House on Teller Award
» 1990 Interview with Teller
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
Scientists Issue Report on Boost Phase Systems
July 16, 2003 :: Washington Post :: News
Scientists with the American Physical Society issue a report on the technological limitations of systems such as the air-borne laser to effectively intercept missiles during their most vulnerable stage of flight, the boost phase. This report points to the admitted problems of such half-hearted systems such as the ABL which has a very limited range, while ignoring the potential and desirable solution of space-based lasers. (Article, Link)
» American Physical Society Boost Phase Report
» Scientist Richard Garwin disputes APS report’s contention boost phase missile defense is impractical
» More stories on: Air, Policy, Space-Based Systems, Technology
» Missile system details for: Airborne Laser (ABL)
US Continues Talks with Australia to participate in Missile Shield
July 12, 2003 :: The Courier Mail (AU) :: News
The United States and Australia have been in negotiations about whether and to what extent Australia would also be interested in acquiring missile defense systems. Such participation would also likely include missile defense cooperation with Japan. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Policy
National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense Fact Sheet
May 20, 2003 :: SpaceRef.com
Restructuring our defense and deterrence capabilities to correspond to emerging threats remains one of the Administration’s highest priorities, and the deployment of missile defenses is an essential component of this broader effort. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Miller on the Enemies of Missile Defense
April 4, 2003 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
John Miller on the recent performance by the Patriot terminal missile defense systems (PAC-2 and PAC-3) in the Iraq war. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Policy
» Missile system details for: Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2), Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
Anniversary of Reagan’s SDI
March 21, 2003 :: Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy on the observation of the twentieth anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy
Popular Science: Dawn of the Air Borne Laser
March 1, 2003 :: Popular Science :: News
Popular Science magazine presents an inside-look at the Air-Borne Laser missile defense system.
Here’s how it will happen: Six infrared sensors positioned on the fuselage will constantly scan all directions for hot missile exhaust plumes, which they can do autonomously or at the prompt of launch-detecting satellites. When one, or several, is located, the ABL’s multiple separate lasers will swing into action—-all within seconds. A laser ranging pod atop the plane’s cockpit, right now almost four stories above us as we stand on the ground, will spin around to face the first missile—-the one the computer has determined is most threatening —-and measure its distance with a carbon dioxide laser. The track illuminator laser, fired through the 12-inch aperture of the Wall of Fire and into the nose turret, will compensate for aircraft vibration and then pinpoint a specific area of the missile to aim at. The beacon illuminator laser, also fired through the nose turret, where a cassegrain reflector telescope expands the beam’s dimensions to 1.5 meters, will then use the beam-and fire- control unit’s adaptive optics to characterize the missile’s dimensions. (These optics, standard equipment on all the ABL’s turret-fired lasers, extend their range with mirror-flexing technology to compensate for atmospheric turbulence.) Finally, the computer will fire the high-energy laser, which will focus down from 1.5 meters in diameter to a much smaller spot of light by the time it reaches the target. As the laser dwells on the missile’s flank for 2 or 3 seconds, the oxidizer or fuel tank will rupture and the missile will explode.
The article quotes Ted Postel, longtime opponent of missile defenses, with some interesting observations about the ABL:
Others think the laser itself will work but could fail in its prime mission; in other words, that the ABL may be better suited for attacking long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites than short-range weapons that operate within relatively compact geographic areas. “Theater ballistic missiles have shorter-powered flight time at lower altitudes where the atmosphere is denser,” says Ted Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Going against an ICBM would be easier because the missile undergoes longer-powered flight, and the intercept would occur in less atmosphere.”
Postel’s observation is interesting for the following reason: he points out the weaknesses of the ABL—incidentally begun under the Clinton administration as an excuse for not doing more serious missile defenses—and in so doing makes the case for other systems which would be more effective. Longer range ICBMs are indeed more vulnerable than shorter theater ballistic missiles, but for this very reason a space based laser would make additional sense. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Air, Policy, Technology
» Missile system details for: Airborne Laser (ABL)
