The Ship Model Forum

Answer: Terror.

US does need nuclear weapons. US doesn't need so many and should be reducing stockpiles in compliance with existing treaties.

Sigh...

The US does not need nuclear weapons to launch a decapitation strike.
The US does not need nuclear weapons to attack another nation's ballistic missle launch sites.
When you have many many conventional weapons with a low single digit meter CEP why do you need a nuke, with all its political baggage, to take out a target?

The US does need nuclear weapons to keep less than savory international players honest.

Chuck

Soviet bombardment platform was based on Mir 2 core module, designed to be man-tended, and believe it or not, it had a special recoilless gun to shoot at any kenetic interceptor. The first example was launched under the guise of a earth research satellite. There is no record of the US ever catching on to its real purpose during the cold war. Once these platforms proliforate and Soviet shuttles starts to visit them, it would be hard to disguise their purpose, but undoubtedly they will only trade it away in response to cessation of all work on SDI. Once they are functional, it is hard to imagine what tagging them can do. They are stealthy, which does not mean they are undetectable, but it does mean it will take a long time to find them if they do major orbit changes while out of your sight. Even if you can attack them after detecting them, it is also quite clear that you won't dare because:

1. By nature of orbits, only a small fraction will be within range at any time, so even if you are confident in your AST capability, you can still only engage a few and the rest will immediately do radical orbit changes.

2. An attack on an opponent's nuclear deterrent will be hard to explain except as an act of war

3. So the rest will probably attack, as will the rest of their country's nuclear arsenal

4. There is that gun to worry about. The Russians are not stupid or incompetent, at least not generally more stupid and incompetent than we are, and there is probably as much chance of that gun being effective against our AST weapon as our AST weapon or NMD being effective against it.

Part of the mission of th Soviet Space shuttle was to tend a fleet of such bombardment platforms. The detail of the gun is not clear. The platform is radar stealthy, and its lower surface is optically black so it is very difficult to detect by IR or visible light. It also had tremendouse fuel capacity and high thrust engine to facilitate radical orbital menuvers. It may or may not have an defense against an directed energy weapon, I don't know. One module was launched in 1988, but it was destroyed when the orbital insertion engine failed. Second launch was cancelled as it would have coincided with a summit meeting with the US.

The chances are the unlaunched plaform is still in existence. Russians space program seems to have kept much of the stuff built during the Soviet times but never launched. The completed and partially built members of soviet Shuttle fleet is still in existence, if not maintained at flight worthy status.

Incidentally the Soviets were completely convinced that the US space shuttle was at best a tender for a future space bombardment platform, and at worst a manned orbital bomber itself. US intention to launch the shuttle from Vendenburg AF clinched the Soviet conviction as the shuttle launch from California can be over Moscow in 1/2 orbit, and what better decaptiation weapon can there be than an orbital bomber whose launch can look entirely innocent and who can nevertheless wipe out Moscow with no possiblility of effective missile defense within 40 minutes of launch?

I suspect over the next half century, all the potential for a genuine nuclear space arms race unfulfilled during the coldwar may be fulfilled simply because it is the natural counter to missile defense, and in fact it requires considerably less technical sophistication than an effective missile defense itself.

Incidentally, another effect of SDI to set you skin crawling - The Soviets were confident the SDI was a step taken to enable the US to launch a preemptive de-capitating attack with considerable assurance of surviving a crippled counterstroke. To ensure any decapititating US first strike will still be met with the full weight of the entire soviet arsenal, they developed master missiles that, once launched, will use onboard systems to launch all the other missile in the inventory via datalink, bypassing the human launch operators of those other missiles. The master missiles themselves are wired to launch automatically when a system of seismic sensors detect unschedule nuclear explosions near vital areas of Soviet Union. A fully autonomous missile launch protocol, capable of eliminating the world upon a single critical equipment malfunction, is one result of SDI.

Werner wrote:Warheads in orbit have their own problems. First, the command channel from home could be jammed or perverted; ground based lasers could damage or move the vehicle off course, and there is the inevitable "wear out factor" of the warhead itself. You would have to recover or abandon your orbital weapons within five years, or you would likely have no big bang when they do hit their targets.

I'm fairly certain the USAF ASAT weapon was a contingency counter to such a system. NORAD examines all satellites by telescope. It would be hard to imagine them not discovering and tagging a weapon of this type.

Conventional ASAT weapons would have almost zero capability against any orbital bombardment platform for a variety of reasons. Of the ASAT weapons tested in the past, US efforts are amongst the lowest energy and therefore the farthest away from being able to intercept a platform that must have radical orbit changing capability. The Soviets were fully confident that an orbital bombardment platform, while not undiscoverable, can be sufficiently stealthy and possess sufficient orbital menuverability so that it can not be attacked in the couple of orbits leading up to weapon release. The only way to attack such a weapon would be destruction at launch, which invites immediate nuclear war, or pre-emptive attack on such weapons in orbit, which not only can not succeed 100% due to routine preemptive orbit changes, also invites immediate nuclear war.

So orbital bombardment platform is immensely destabilizing precisely because it is uncounterable and it can launch attacks with just 2-3 minutes warning.

Warheads in orbit have their own problems. First, the command channel from home could be jammed or perverted; ground based lasers could damage or move the vehicle off course, and there is the inevitable "wear out factor" of the warhead itself. You would have to recover or abandon your orbital weapons within five years, or you would likely have no big bang when they do hit their targets.

I'm fairly certain the USAF ASAT weapon was a contingency counter to such a system. NORAD examines all satellites by telescope. It would be hard to imagine them not discovering and tagging a weapon of this type.

Seasick wrote:Arguments and logic have no bearing on Kim Sung. He will just shoot where he thinks the US can't shoot it down. Fire it over China at Israel?

Orbital mechanics say ballistic missiles can not be fired in arbitrary directions and still hope to hit the original target in the ballistic mode. You have to either fire in the direction of the great circle route to the target, or exactly 180 degrees from the direction circle route in order to hit the same target. No ICBM yet built has the range to hit a target by actually going 180 degrees from great circle route. (notice all ICBMs have range <20,000 km, which is the minimum required to hit any target at all by going against the great circle route). So if you have an normal ICBM, you've one direction to go to hit each target.

The alternative is to build a missile capable of sending a warhead bus into low-orbital. It is more difficult than straight ballistic missile, but not so difficult that the big 5 nuclear power, or anyone else with some satellite launching experience, can not do it. Orbital missiles allows you to fire a missile in random direction disguised as a satellite, and then have the warhead suddenly drop of out the sky on target with almost no warning and almost complete immunity to interception. If orbital missiles are deployed, that means any satellite launch could be a first strike, and any satellite in earth orbit could potentially be a missile bus ready to drop warheads anywhere on your country with 2-3 minutes warning during any orbital path. This was considered so destabilizing that neither the US nor USSR had the balls to deploy it eventhough both could have done it in by mid 1960s. However, it was clear that Soviet Union was going to deploy this as response to SDI during the late 1980s, and it would have been an almost complete antedote to ground based missile interception. In 1989 the Soviet test launched an orbital bombardment platform that was radar and optical stealthy so it can menuver to attack without giving undue warning, and is capable of dropping 2 dozen warheads on the US. It was destroyed by booster failure, and Gorbachev cancelled it in response to arms talk with the US. But the basic technbology in volved can be duplicated by any country with substantial satellite and booster industry, certainly by China.

There's an argument of support coming from the UK.

The theory goes, the USA would be very unlikely to use it's ICBMs to protect the UK unless the USA was under a missile-proof umbrella. So, if the US program goes ahead, Britain will be safe abandoning the Trident Sub program (read: scrap the subs and use the money to improve the National Health System).

If you don't think this kind of reasoning isn't hot at No. 10, you haven't been paying attention to what they have been doing to the RN lately.

As far as the ABL is concerned, flying 24 hour alerts is no new story for the USAF; besides, even from a READY-5 runway state they could be at altitude sufficient for a mid-course shootdown.

What I find troubling as an uninformed US citizen is that we are getting all sorts of people upset with us by our unilateral actions.

Surely, the Russians should have been consulted before our announcing any deployment of such missiles. I think it is in our best interest to make sure that Russia is a friendly country. Too many countries hate us these days, including some of our allies. We have been going it on our own too much. The elder Bush was smarter in lining up consensus of world opinion. The world has already forgotten that we suffered an unprovoked attack on 9/11. I think the negociations with NK are a step in the right direction. Perhaps, with time NK will feel less threatened and will stop rattling its saber. No point in aggravating them so much and to the point when they think they will have to do something crazy.

Guest wrote;

I totally agree that these are just the first steps on an evolutionary process. However, with the nature of the weapons I don't think its necesarrily a wise path to travel down. ABM systems will only create more lethal ICBMs or better cruise missles. As the defense evolves so will the offense. It is foolhardy to think we can arms control everything away, but at what point do these systems for security result in us putting the gun to our own heads?

IMHO Unfortunately in today's world, we have nations who potentially would not hesitate to to use ICBM's. Ignoring that fact and not doing anything to defend against ICBM's is a greater risk than worrying if more lethal ICBMs/cruise missiles would be developed. In fact there are several countries developing more lethal ICBM's, etc. (this without the influence of ABM's)
Arms Control is like the League of Nations and it's replacement, the United Nations. While the signatories to a Arms Control treaty will more than likely honor it, what about the non signatories? The UN is unable to control weapons building by any nation, thus not preparing an ABM system(s) in the current world politcal climate would be violating the Principle of the 7 P's (Proper Prior Planing Prevents P*ss Poor Performance). Neville Chamberlin and Munich was and is a very powerfull example of believing that a piece of paper would solve everything and look at the results of that fiasco.
In an ideal world all nations would co-exist peacefully, however this is not an ideal world and it shows no signs of ever becoming so. Look at Iran, North Korea, China and the potential risk to peace in the world from those nations.

I totally agree that these are just the first steps on an evolutionary process. However, with the nature of the weapons I don't think its necesarrily a wise path to travel down. ABM systems will only create more lethal ICBMs or better cruise missles. As the defense evolves so will the offense. It is foolhardy to think we can arms control everything away, but at what point do these systems for security result in us putting the gun to our own heads?

As for the YAL, what is the range of the laser? It does not seem that it would be a very effective weapon against a suprise attack unless they are on 24 hour alert. I could understand if they are meant to operate when the threat of hostilities is emminant, but is the range sufficiant to keep a lumbering 747 away from an enemies interceptors?

The YAL-1 has demonstrated it's shoot down ability. Second generation systems are already in development, including tactical systems which would be useful against artillery, rockets and mortar rounds.

Honestly, we're the dreamers here. Why does the system have to arrive like Venus, fully grown and ready? I think a hundred years ago you'd all be arguing against the practical uses of aircraft in warfare.

. . . it seems rather impudent to spend such large sums of tight money on a system that is not even expected to defeat a top shelf opponent.

Thats an understatement. WBush, Cheney, and formerly Rummy had their priorities messed up since January 2001. Afganistan needed to be completed before Iraq was started.

Also, it seems rather impudent to spend such large sums of tight money on a system that is not even expected to defeat a top shelf opponent. How long after we develop this system is the counter system developed? Its a story as old as war.

To say that we would take 3 ICBM hits and then be deterred by 5 does not give our deterrent much credit. As for the airborne laser, I have my doubts here

Arguments and logic have no bearing on Kim Sung. He will just shoot where he thinks the US can't shoot it down. Fire it over China at Israel?

I disagree. This system was put in place primarily as a political counter to North Korean and Iranian long range missiles, which are only useful if the attacker can guarantee a hit on US or allied soil. If you're Kim and you have 8 missiles and the USA has no interceptors, 3 launched against the USA would probably do damage. You'd still have 5 missiles left for deterrence or blackmail. On the other hand, if you are up against 10 interceptors, there is a substantial chance you will throw away your nuclear arsenal and do no damage.

Remember, also, there are three ABM systems. Pressing forward on all three is a typically American approach to bulldozing through any technology issues that may arise in development.

Turns out all three systems work fine.

Army: Ground-based interceptor
Navy: AEgis/SM-3
USAF: YAL-1 -> AL-1A

Neo-Conservatives aren't true Conservatives. The WBush administration has been pushing this project along with pleanty of funding while trying to fight Iraq on the cheap. This project has been pushed along for the sake of spending the money. This system is like trying to fight off a saturation attack on a CVN with a single Leahy NTU.

The way to defeat the land based system is to launch a saturation attack in the first wave against the system's fixed installations. Five warheads against each 10 launching base in three initial waves. The USAF perfected this tactic mathmatically while Nixon was president. Take your ICBMs take off the 3 big warsheads and replace them 8 smaller faster warheads.

I fail to see the usefulness of 10 land based interceptors. The system seems too small to be effective against a real nuclear threat, and to think a country would launch an attack with a force the system could possibly defeat seems more then irrational considering the size of the return strike, conventional or nuclear, coming back at them. The sea based system howver does seem to be more reasonable considering the flexibility it offers and protection it gives to carrier groups from IRBM strikes in a littoral environment i.e defending Taiwan.

Washington Times wrote:By John E. Carey
Published May 1, 2007

On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced from the Oval Office, "I've reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in the 21st century." He explained his vision -- and his defense budget's inclusion -- of the first funds to go toward this nation's missile defense effort.

Liberals, and most of the media, derided the president's project as "star wars." Since 1983, America's Missile Defense effort has become a multinational, multi-system effort: and it has come down to earth and the sea.

Many of the once dreamed of new space systems are gone. Instead, Missile Defense today is a collage of ground, sea, air and space sensors and weapons.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense Agency did something never before accomplished. The U.S. Navy cruiser USS Lake Erie demonstrated the capability of the ship systems and combat team to simultaneously detect, track and engage both a cruise missile target and a ballistic missile target.

Both targets were destroyed.

The event was conducted at the Pacific Missile Range Facility which is a fully instrumented range capable of squeezing all the needed engineering data out of an event like this.

"Today's test demonstrates the true flexibility and depth of capability inherent in the Aegis BMD Weapon System," said Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, the Missile Defense Agency's Aegis BMD program director. "The simultaneous engagement highlights the flexibility and power of the SPY-1 radar and the weapon system's capability to manage and prioritize the engagement of the two threats."

For the Navy and the AEGIS Weapon System, this was the eighth successful ballistic missile intercept in 10 attempts. The Aegis BMD has also successfully supported more than 15 ballistic missile defense system tracking tests since June 2004.

Also on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed as "ludicrous" Russian concerns that Washington's plans to deploy anti-missile defenses in Europe would endanger Moscow's nuclear arsenal.

After more than a decade of discussions and planning, the U.S. plans to install radar scanners in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. This would counter possible ballistic missile threats from a place like Iran. Moscow has objected, saying the plan somehow threatens its nuclear deterrent. "Let's be real about this and realistic about this. The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it," Miss Rice told reporters.

Ballistic Missile Defenses give options to military people and politicians facing a wider threat of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of unpredictable or belligerent world leaders.

Last July 4, North Korea test-fired a long-range missile and five shorter-range missiles. Though the long-range test failed within a minute, it highlighted ongoing efforts to achieve longer-range missiles. North Korea next tested a nuclear weapon.

And in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad practically makes daily pronouncements about his nuclear ambitions. Iran has already demonstrated a missile capable of striking regional neighbors and potentially reaching into Europe.

Meanwhile, thanks to Ronald Reagan's strategic vision, American and allied Missile Defense efforts are moving ahead and making progress every day.

The "Gipper" would be proud.

John E. Carey commanded an AEGIS ship, served in President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) and is a frequent contributor to The Washington Times.