Re: "U.S. set to down Korean missile"


Allen Thomson wrote:
ppp@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hollow US defense for an empty threat
By David Isenberg
June 24, 2006
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HF24Dg01.html

[snip]

According to Victoria Samson, also of the Center for Defense Information,

[snip]

Furthermore, Samson notes, the radar system that is needed to help detect missile launches, the sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX), is still undergoing tests outside Hawaii - nowhere near its home port of Adak, Alaska.

[snip remainder]

++++++++++++++


This is interesting if so, because at last report SBX set out for Adak
on 4 May and was expected to get there in 6 to 8 weeks, conducting
unspecified activities along the way.

(As noted in an earlier posting, direct transit time at five knots
would only take around three weeks.)

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1111/missile-defense-may-be-on-but-theres-nobody-home

I think you picked this up in your separate SBX post.

Missile defense may be on, but there's nobody home
posted by victoria samson under missile-defense

Victoria Samson here, commandeering ACW for a bit (per Dr. Wonk's
approval, of course) to talk a bit about the activation of the U.S.
missile defense system. According to the WashTimes' Bill Gertz, the
U.S. military is getting all systems ready to go in case they need to
shoot down an errant Taepodong 2 ballistic missile. Sounds good, right?
Finally getting something for the estimated $92 billion that we've
spent on missile defense in the past 20+ years?

Er, no. There are a couple of small problems with this scenario.

1. The system in question is the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
program. It has nine interceptors in the ground in Ft. Greely, Alaska,
and two more in Vandenberg AFB, Calif. This system has a wonderful
track record of making five intercepts out of ten attempts. I don't
know about you, but that sort of testing history makes me feel all
secure and warm inside. And this was done during heavily scripted
scenarios where we knew when the test target was going to fly, what it
was going to do once launched, what it would look like, and how it
would behave. It's doubtful that the North Koreans will be as
obliging as to give us all that information.

Plus, the last test intercept was made back in October 2002. The past
two times - December 2004 and February 2005 - the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) tried to attempt an intercept, the U.S. rocket didn't
even leave the launch pad. (For the latter, it turned out that the arms
holding the missiles up in their silos weren't properly built for the
salty environment in which they were fielded, so the MDA is having to
replace those components in all the silos.) MDA had to back up and in
December 2005 hold a flight test where their major goal was to get the
rocket off the ground. That, they were able to do.

2. The radar system that is needed to help detect missile launches, the
sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX), is still floating around and undergoing
tests outside of Hawaii - nowhere near its home port of Adak, Alaska.
The satellite network being built to track missiles once they're
launched - the Space-Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) -
isn't planning its initial launch of two test satellites until next
year, with the goal of getting the system up and running somewhere
around 2012. That is, if they can keep on target despite getting their
funding for the program cut this year. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended a $67 million drop for STSS in the FY 07 budget
debate, as they were concerned that MDA was jumping ahead of itself
with the program. And the command and control system necessary to link
everything together was cited in a recent report by the Pentagon's
Inspector-General's office as having such poor network security that
it very well could be hacked.

3. Looking at the other side of the equation, we're uncertain as to
what the North Koreans are planning. If it turns out they're
launching a satellite, the United States might be a bit embarrassed at
having attempted to shoot down someone else's space assets. That
might set off a nasty precedent that we, who depend so heavily on our
space hardware, would suffer from the most.

4. But let's say that magically all these issues were resolved. What
exactly does it mean that the system is on? Good question. Short
answer: no idea. The MDA, having apparently better lobbyists than the
rest of the Pentagon, is free from having to do boring things like
create operational requirements, lifetime costs, or schedules for its
programs. While it has been saying since the end of the 2004 that the
United States has a "limited" defensive system deployed, no one has
been able to wrestle an exact definition of what constitutes an
operational system out of them. Is it when GMD has passed operationally
realistic tests? If so, then missile defense may never be considered
operational.

In these particular circumstances, when we say that missile defense is
"on," maybe it's that the troops at the deployment sites are on
full alert. Maybe it's that we have ships in-theater monitoring the
situation. Or maybe it's that, like with much of missile defense,
we're relying on smoke, mirrors, and vaguely worded statements to
mask what we can't do.

NB: Noah at Defensetech.org has been on fire in following this issue.
Mosey on over there and check it out.

and

Best line: " Pyongyang has a long history of staging elaborate hoaxes,
in order to get the world's attention."

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2006_06.html
Perry: Strike Korea Now, Get Intel Later (Updated)

Clinton defense secretary William Perry is ready to attack North Korea,
now.

Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and
armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic
missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?... If North
Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should
immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North
Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

But there's a teeny-tiny fact Perry seems to have overlooked: We have
no idea, really, whether North Korea is preparing a missile. Or what
that missile is capable of doing.

The hype kicked into high gear when the New York Times claimed that the
Norks "completed fueling a long-range ballistic missile" over the
weekend. But the report is getting fishier by the second. The Norks
generally rely on a highly corrosive gasoline-kerosene mix for their
missile fuel, and an oxidizer containing nitric acid. It's nasty,
metal-eating stuff. And once fueled up, the missile has to be launched
quickly -- two or three days, I've been told -- or else the missile is
basically ruined.

It's now been four days. [as of 21 June, it is 26 June today] And
there's been no launch. Which means it's becoming increasingly unlikely
that a missile has been fueled. So much for Perry's demand "to strike
the [missile] if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out."

And, of course, there may not be an ICBM at all. Remember, the North
Koreans have launched exactly one intermediate-range ballistic missile,
in 1998. The thing -- a combination of smaller, Nodong and Scud
missiles -- went about 2,000 km or so. Now, U.S. intelligence assumes
the Norks have been working on strapping together more Nodongs and
Scuds (or, at least, their engines) for an ICBM -- something that can
reach three to five times further, and hit the U.S. But no one has
actually seen the weapon. Even how many the stages the mystery missile
has in unknown; some folks say two, others say three.

Plus, as the Post mentioned a few days back, Pyongyang has a long
history of staging elaborate hoaxes, in order to get the world's
attention.

A year ago, the world was on edge after reports that North Korea
might test a nuclear weapon -- and one report even suggested the
evidence showed that viewing stands had been built. No test took place.

Now, what happens if we strike North Korea -- and there's no missile to
hit? What does that do to American standing, then?

UPDATE 11:47 AM: "South Korea's defense minister said Thursday that
Seoul believes North Korea's missile launch is not imminent despite
concern in the region that the communist nation would test-fire a
long-range missile." (AP, via FP Passport)

UPDATE 5:36 PM:Even *** Cheney -- *** Cheney, fer chrissakes! -- is
pouring cold water on the Nork missile threat. Check out this interview
with CNN's John King:

KING: Do we know what's on that missile? Is it a satellite? Is it a
warhead? Is it a test?

CHENEY: We don't know. That's one of the concerns, that this is a
regime that's not transparent that we believe has developed nuclear
weapons and now has put a missile on a launch pad without telling
anybody what it's all about -- as to put a satellite in orbit, or a
simple test flight. They will, obviously, generate concern on the part
of their neighbors and the United States to the extent that they
continue to operate this way.

As the president's made clear, this is not the kind of behavior
we'd like to see, given the fact the North Koreans do have a nuclear
program and have refused to come clean about it.

KING: What do we know about their capabilities? Some have said this
new longer range missile could reach Guam, perhaps Alaska. Others say,
no, it might be able to reach Los Angeles. And there are some who think
maybe even right here, Washington, D.C. What do we know?

CHENEY: We -- this is first test of this particular Taepo Dong II
missile -- we believe it does have a third stage added to it now. But
again, we don't know what the payload is. I think it's also fair to say
that the North Korean missile capabilities are fairly rudimentary.
They've been building Scuds and so forth over the years. But their test
flights in the past haven't been notably successful. But we are
watching it with interest and following it very closely. (emphasis
mine)

National Security Adviser Steven Hadley says the same thing, basically:
"In terms of North Korean intentions, you know this is a very opaque
society, and very hard to read." Then he adds this little gem about our
mighty missile defense system:

"We have a missile defense system ... what we call a long-range
missile defense system that is basically a research, development,
training, test kind of system," Hadley said. "It does ... have some
limited operational capability. And the purpose, of course, of a
missile defense system is to defend .... the territory of the United
States from attack."

(big ups: RC)
June 22, 2006 11:06 AM | Missiles, Strategery | Discuss

.