 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . |  |
. |
BMD Focus: ABM system limits
Washington, April 15, 2008 Anti-ballistic missile interceptors can work well against rogue states, but their weakness is the cost and time it takes to make them. Skeptics and nay-sayers to the contrary, the U.S. ground-based mid-course interceptors are slowly but steadily moving towards fulfilling their mission of being able to destroy ICBMs in flight. But they will not be able to destroy more than half a dozen or a dozen ICBMs that could be launched now and at the most may be able eventually to deal with a threat from a nation with an ICBM force the size of China's, but not Russia's, with its more than 2,400 warheads. That is because destroying an intercontinental ballistic missile in mid-flight is an infinitely more difficult task than destroying an orbiting satellite in orbit. Consequently the Achilles heel, or vulnerability of GBI interceptors, is not that they cannot do the job, but that it takes so much effort to make a single one of them that can do the job. After seven years in office, and after making ground-based missile defense a priority from its earliest days in power, the Bush administration can still today count fewer than 20 GBIs deployed in all at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and around Fort Greeley, Alaska, to guard the United States from the threat of nuclear-armed ICBMs being launched by so-called rogue states such as North Korea or Iran. Disastrous development and testing decisions by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies slowed down the program disastrously. It has since moved back on track. However, the underlying reason for the slowness is that it is an immensely difficult business to build an ultra-fast BBI interceptor capable of flying at 18,000 to 20,000 or more miles per hour to destroy an ICBM flying at speeds of at least 15,000 miles per hour and possibly even faster. That involves making an interception at combined speeds that total 16 to 19 times the velocity of a speeding bullet. Yet the GBI must be guided by fragile and ultra-sophisticated electronics that will not be damaged by the tremendous acceleration forces to which they are subjected. The abstract physics of conceiving an anti-missile defense interceptor is therefore quite easy. But the blood and sweat engineering required to make the system work reliably every time is immensely slow and hard. GBIs, therefore, are incredibly complex and expensive weapons to build. It is far cheaper to build lots more ICBMs for any nation that has the technology and the resources to do it. Russia -- though not, so far, China, India, North Korea or Iran -- also has the option of installing lots of countermeasures or multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles on its ICBMs, because by sheer weight of numbers they will be able to overwhelm the limited number of GBIs that even the United States can build to defend against them. This cost and production problem does not mean that GBIs cannot or should not be built. But it does put realistic constraints on the circumstances under which they could be used. The American pubic and it policymakers also need to be able to make the distinction between the dream of an absolute defense against any number of nuclear ICBMs being fired at the United States and the already existing reality of a limited defense that promises to be effective against one or several missiles that might be fired against American cities with nuclear warheads. A comprehensive or "astrodome" defense against ICBMs remains a pipe dream more than a quarter-century after President Ronald Reagan made his famous "Star Wars" speech. But a limited defense against much smaller numbers of incoming ICBMs is a practical and achievable goal, and tens of thousands of dedicated U.S. Air Force and defense industry men and women are working flat out to make it so. Community Email This Article Comment On This Article Related Links Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com All about missiles at SpaceWar.com Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com
Outside View: ABMs for Europe -- Part 1
Moscow, April 15, 2008 The results of the Bucharest NATO summit, the NATO-Russia Council meetings, and talks between U.S. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi have been summed up in what has now become a standard comment: The NATO summit made up for suspending the Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia with the full support for the deployment of an American missile shield in Europe. (Nikita Petrov is a Russian military analyst who writes on military issues for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) |
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2007 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |
