BUSH MISSILE “DEFENSE” IN ALASKA
IS NOT “STAR WARS”
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
www.rmbowman.com
The Bush Administration has just
deployed its anti-ballistic missile (ABM) interceptors in silos in Alaska. Initially, the system includes five interceptors at
Fort Greeley, Alaska. Their plan (should they
be reelected) is to deploy four interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, by
the end of this year and another eleven additional interceptors at Fort Greeley next year.
This is not “Star Wars.” Basically, it is an updated version of the old
Safeguard system deployed at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in the early 1970s. Safeguard was deployed as the single ABM site
allowed under the 1972 ABM Treaty with the Soviet Union.
The day after it was declared operational, Congress voted to scrap it. Its effectiveness was judged to be so low that it
wasn’t worth the cost of maintaining it.
Under pressure by the Republicans,
President Clinton in the 1990s approved a new ABM system.
Called “National Missile Defense (NMD),” it was to be deployed no sooner
than 2005. Like Safeguard, it was
ground-based, confined to a single site (Fort Greeley, Alaska), and in compliance with the
ABM Treaty. But it was to take advantage of
improved technology to allow its interceptors to hit incoming warheads sooner, even before
they reentered the atmosphere. That would
allow the single site to protect a much larger area (most of the continental United
States) instead of just a small circle around the site, like the Safeguard.
But to do this requires vastly
improved detection and tracking systems. To do
this, the Clinton Administration proposed several new radars, including a powerful X-band
radar to be built on Shemya Island in the Aleutians. In
theory, such a radar could pick out the nuclear warhead from among its accompanying cloud
of decoys, allowing the interceptor to be directed to the right target.
Bush’s new system (currently
called Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD) is a modification of Clinton’s plan. The modifications seem designed primarily to
violate the ABM Treaty, giving President Bush an excuse to withdraw from the Treaty (which
he did). The new plan makes the X-band radar
mobile by putting it on ships, and a second site was added (Vandenberg). Neither of these modifications would have been
allowed by the ABM Treaty.
The development of the X-band radar is
about two years behind schedule, and the flight testing for the interceptor rocket and its
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) is about four years behind. As a matter of fact, the interceptor now deployed
in Alaska has never been tested at all. The
last flight test (two years ago) used an old booster rocket because the new faster one
hadn’t been built.
It went after a lower, slower target than would be encountered with an
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) warhead. It
was told in advance what the target would look like. The
target carried a C-band transponder sending out a continuous radio signal telling the
interceptor system where it was. The target
was not accompanied by realistic decoys. The
interceptor knew in advance exactly when the target dummy warhead would be launched and
exactly where in space it was to meet it. In
other words, the “test” was rigged for success.
It failed! They haven’t tried
again since.
Even if the interceptor rockets and
EKVs could work, the X-band radar which is supposed to guide the whole mess won’t be
built for another couple of years. Yet the president says, “Let them fire their missiles at
us. We’ll shoot them down.” Shades of “Bring ‘em on!”
So $32 billion has been spent on a
weapon system which has been deployed even though it is completely untested and highly
unlikely to work. Fortunately, it is designed
to counter a non-existent threat. Neither
North Korea nor Iran has a missile capable of reaching even halfway to the continental
United States. The CIA has repeatedly told
Congress and the executive branch that ballistic missiles are the LEAST likely means of
delivery of a weapon of mass destruction to the United States. That $32 billion would have been better spent on
ways to detect and stop weapons from entering the country in aircraft, boats, shipping
containers, and suitcases.
But Bush’s GMD system in Alaska
is not “Star Wars.” It does not
involve actual weapons in space. It cannot be
used in a purely offensive mode. It is
unlikely to get us into a nuclear war. It is
just an incredible waste of our money. Compared
to the war in Iraq, it is hardly worth bothering about.
But if there’s a second term, then watch out.
Bush has plans for true “Star Wars” weapons. Fortunately, they’re even further behind
schedule than his Potemkin Village shell game in Alaska.
“Star Wars” weapons are
theoretically designed to intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in
their boost phase, as they rise out of their silos. To
do this, they must be deployed over or near the missile fields. All the candidate weapon systems have to get within
300 miles of the enemy missile silo to do their job. Thus,
for example the Aegis destroyer carrying interceptors has to cruise just off shore,
perhaps in the South China Sea.
Another boost phase intercept weapon
is the Airborne Laser (ABL), a modified Boeing 747 with a high power oxygen-iodine
chemical laser. It must fly in circles near
the enemy missile fields waiting for the ICBMs to be fired.
Finally there are space-based
weapons (laser battle stations or “brilliant pebbles” or whatever. They have to operate in low orbit (under 300
miles).
The point is that all these
“Star Wars” weapons are extremely vulnerable and would only be useful to an
aggressor with the element of surprise on their side.
They could also be used as pure offensive weapons, shooting at “enemy”
satellites, aircraft, limousines, or what have you. That
is what distinguishes them from Bush’s GMD
and makes them more dangerous. They are much
worse than just a waste of money. We will
continue to work against their deployment, whoever is president.
Return to: Space & Security News
Home Page