Slashdot Mirror
Critics Say US Antimissile Defense Flawed, Dangerous
Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times reports that President Obama's plans for reducing America's nuclear arsenal and defeating Iran's missiles rely heavily on a new generation of antimissile defenses which last year he called 'proven and effective.' Now a new analysis being published by two antimissile critics at MIT and Cornell casts doubt on the reliability of the SM-3 rocket-powered interceptor. The Pentagon asserts that the SM-3, or Standard Missile 3, had intercepted 84 percent of incoming targets in tests. But a re-examination of results from 10 of those apparently successful tests by Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis finds only one or two successful intercepts, for a success rate of 10 to 20 percent. Most of the approaching warheads, they say, would have been knocked off course but not destroyed, and while that might work against a conventionally armed missile, it suggests that a nuclear warhead might still detonate. 'The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever,' says Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Dr. Postol says the SM-3 interceptor must shatter the warhead directly, and public statements of the Pentagon agency seem to suggest that it agrees. In combat, the scientists added, 'the warhead would have not been destroyed, but would have continued toward the target.'"
The problems with anti-missile defense are more basic than that:
(1) Basic geometry -- you have to station a slew of defensive missiles every 20 miles along your borders. That's because you are not going to hit anything going Mach 12 across your path-- you need a close to head-on intercept angle.
(2) Cheap and easy countermeasures. Even if you bankrupt your country setting up (1), the bad guys just switch to using sub or boat launched cruise missiles. Or low-trajectory ICBM's. Or put the bomb on a freight or passenger plane. It's mighty foolish to spend a trillion $ and have all that effort counteracted by a visit to UPS and $187.54.
JR Oppenheimer did this math in his head in 1952 as he was testifying to a govt comittee. Nothing has changed since then.
This is like DejaVu all over again... There is a long history of overselling technology for political gain.
In 1972 the Salt II treaty resulted in the end of the ABM project for which Raytheon was a major contractor. In reality the project was doomed from the start. The incoming nuclear missiles would detonate prematurely. When people realized that the missile batteries near Andover MA, and Washington DC would result in detonations over those cities the goal became protecting the missile silos to allow retaliation. Cities and their residents would not be saved.
Raytheon then focused on Surface to Air Missile Version D (aka SAM-D). When it was completed it was re-named Patriot. It was intended to hit incoming Soviet bombers (think Soviet version of SAC). When bombers were no longer a threat the missiles were re-programmed for ballistic missiles (i.e. obsolete Soviet SCUD missiles). That didn't work so well.
"a warhead is pretty fragile and a lot of things have to work in unison and perfectly together to produce a nuclear explosion. if you hit it hard enough to damage it and prevent an explosion it's good enough"
Not really, this missile is targeting re-entry vehicles that must survive the shock of launch, the heat of re-entry, and frequently contain ground penetrating warheads (for use against hard targets like other silos or bases).
Glancing blows will only deflect the impact point.
You have four main weapon delivery mechanisms:
1. High altitude burst, for EMP, but you risk taking out your own equipment. (Taking out your recon satellites in the opening shot of a war)
2. Low altitude burst, maximum destruction of soft targets
3. Ground burst / laydown (deprecated somewhat in favour of ground penetrating), some hard targets, and maximum area denial (fallout)
4. ground penetrating, maximum damage to well protected hard targets or wide area damage to structures in solid ground (shock waves through the ground destroying foundations for quite some distance)
These warheads are complex, but hardly fragile.
then there's the part about falling...
yeah. i count two land wars in asia ongoing atm with two more imminent given that the factor distinguishing Obama's foreign policy from Bush's is "we won't use nukes if you don't already have them." But we'll still invade you to "liberate" your people and reduce the "threat" you pose us all the way on the other side of the globe. Just like the Bushies would have done.
More change plox Obama. The current amount is insufficient.
Oh, and i wonder how many more countries we can invade that neighbor China before they get rightfully paranoid. It's not like they don't have a history of being colonized by Europeans or anything. Something about the Boxer Rebellion. I can't remember. Neither can our current foreign policy wonks.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
and 1/3 were from a SCUD missile that landed on a barracks after being deflected from its target by a Patriot missile.
Incorrect. The Dhahran barracks were not hit by a "deflected" missile. No intercept of that incoming Scud was ever attempted. There was a software bug in the Patriot Missile system that caused the system clock to drift. The longer the system was kept running without being restarted the worse the drift got. As a consequence of this the system never detected the incoming threat and no intercept was attempted.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
US anti-missile missiles are not effective at destroying Iran's imaginary intercontinental nuclear missiles.
Both. They had 30% pure sarin instead of military-grade 95% (source: "War of nerves", J.B.Tucker). And yes, their dispersion method sucked too.
Pretty well. The Patriot carries a 200 lb (90 kg) warhead, which is easily enough to kill a soft target like an unarmored shipping container.
Plus, a container travelling at 25 knots (by ship) or less than a 100 mph (road or rail) is a very easy target to intercept.
Why, I'm surprised you'd even have to ask that sort of question.
~Idarubicin
Britains used the threat of nuking Argentina. France gave deactivation codes for Exocet missiles in exchange for Britain not nuking Argentina.
Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”
link.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
Interesting and providing the link was useful. It allowed me to find my own quote from that article:
The author freely admits that there is no way to back up his claims of what Mitterrand apparently said.
The Japanese tried the balloon trick alright, but they've loaded them with incendiary bombs, mainly to set off forest fires on US territory; not to deliver biological agents.