A Sensible Response To Iranian and North Korean Missiles
What happens if Iran goes nuclear and puts a warhead on a missile? What can Japan, South Korea, and the US do if North Korea deploys nuclear-armed intermediate range missiles, or ICBMs? Sure– pray for success in political negotiations, and retain “offensive options” — slang for attacking the rogues’ nuclear sites. But a defensive capability is also very useful. We’re not talking Reagan-era Star Wars with hundreds of Soviet missiles arcing over the Pole. An Iranian or North Korea “missile pulse” would probably consist of six to twelve missiles (at the most). A “thin shield” anti-missile defensive system could handle this type of “limited” attack.
To do that, however, means increasing the range of inteceptors. According to Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, the THAAD anti-missile program managers intend to explore increasing the missile’s range. THAAD is still very much in the developmental stage– it has a flight test scheduled for this fall.
The Aerospace Daily site requires registration and full articles require a subscription. (This is a great site– I recommend it.)
I’ll quote the article’s key points:
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report August 18, 2005
… The U.S. Missile Defense Agency is considering upgrades to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system that would dramatically expand the area the system could protect…
While it is currently projected that nine THAAD batteries would be needed to defend a U.S. coastline against a short-range ballistic missile fired from offshore, the potential improvements would allow a single battery to protect the coastline, said Army Col. Charles Driessnack, THAAD’s program manager. A battery consists of nine launchers and a fire control system.
One of those upgrades would allow THAAD to tap data from satellites and other non-THAAD sensors to complement the information collected by THAAD’s own radar…
Because the data collected by non-THAAD sensors would be less precise than that of the THAAD radar, the THAAD missile would get a “kick stage,” or extra fuel, to ensure it could adjust its course as needed…
MDA is looking at pursuing such upgrades in 2010-2011.Driessnack stressed that the upgrades are only in the proposal stage and may not become a reality. But he said the proliferation of short-range ballistic missiles is occurring “like there’s no tomorrow,” putting pressure on the program to find ways to use the system more efficiently.
…Meanwhile, the basic THAAD system is gearing up to conduct its first flight-test …Driessnack indicated a year ago that the system also would be capable against longer-range targets, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (DAILY, Aug. 20, 2004).
And Iran, Iran so far away In recent days there have been signs there might be an effort underway to prepare a foundation for possible action against Iran at some point in the future. Whether this action is military, economical, or diplomatic remains to be seen.
Trackback by Peace Like A River — 8/18/2005 @ 4:11 pm
But is that what Iran really has in mind? It doesn’t take a strategic genius to see that if you really want to take down the USA you cut off the oil. Much more final than frying downtown Chicago or some place. So you run a holy war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, acquire the Arabian Pennisula. Wouldn’t hurt to whoop up the faithful in the Caspian Sea area and annex those its energy resources. The Chinese will be happy to buy. And to keep the USA from being able to do a damn thing about it, you acquire nukes. Don’t have to launch them. You just point them outwards, like porcupine quills, and watch the Great Satan shrivel. Somebody think of something, please.
Comment by chickenhawk little — 8/18/2005 @ 4:23 pm
I’m sure S.K. has some old freighters that can stand off the coast of any country and launch short range missles. It’s available, it’s cheap and it would work. Papa Ray West Texas USA
Comment by Papa Ray — 8/18/2005 @ 6:54 pm
I’m more worried about an EMP attack using a low yield crude Iranian nuke (Thank you China, Norks, and AQ Kahn) lobbed by a shipped launched Scud (Thank you China and Norks) from one of the cargo ships of AQ’s “ghost fleet” off the Northeast US. Detonate it about 100K above the Northeast power grid and standby. Do we know where AQ’s ships are?
Comment by Ron Wright — 8/18/2005 @ 8:00 pm
National security planning tends to roll through time, looking backward a certain distance and forward a certain distance. This makes defense planning flexible but it also tends to focus attention on likely events within a timeframe in which the goalposts are constantly shifting. Missile defense and missile threats are particularly good examples of technologies that may look one way from the standpoint of the next five years but quite another way three of four decades from now. There could be opportunities as well as dangers in a changed technological environment. The scenarios I have seen coming out of official thinking do not go much beyond fifteen years; am I (as I hope) mistaken? I would be interested to know of any that take a longer view.
Comment by David Billington — 8/19/2005 @ 5:31 pm