North Korea’s reported plans to test a long-range missile capable of reaching parts of the United States may be another effort by leader Kim Jong Il to get attention and improve his country’s negotiating position. But the test could have dangerous consequences beyond the communist country, analysts warn. North Korea is a weapons supplier, and a successful test launch could make its intercontinental missiles more marketable to Iran and other buyers.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
22 Comments
how ’bout an official statement that if they want to ‘test a long-range missile capable of reaching parts of the United State’ we will consider that an act of hostility towards us and we will treat it as such.
The first missle and no more Kimchee in my diet!
I’m sure glad we went after the real danger to America, Iraq, first. I’m a lot more worried about the east coast being attacked by RC airplanes of mass destruction than some silly old nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Yes sir, I feel so much safer knowing that Iraq won’t be using their masive stockpiles of WMD on us.Why, I’ll bet them North Ko-reans are probably lying about their nuclear weapons and missles. They probably can’t get those rockets to go any further than California. What would be the loss if they hit California? They’d just save republicans the trouble of killing all them God hating, Gun hating tree-Huggers and Gays.
Don’t start worrying yet XXX!
President Bush pushed forward with our Anti-Balistic Missle Defense system when he took office.
We have been introducing several different methods of missle interception into service since President Bush took office.
Yet another issue the President had to endure the typical liberal opposition to.
Sorry Nathan. Top physicists in the United Stateshave concluded missile defense is a dumb idea.
“Intercepting missiles while their rockets are still burning would not be an effective approach for defending the U.S. against attacks by an important type of enemy missile. This conclusion comes from an independent study by the American Physical Society into the scientific and technical feasibility of boost-phase defense, focusing on potential missile threats from North Korea and Iran.
Boost-phase defense (disabling ballistic missiles while they are still under power) has recently received much attention as one possible element of a National Missile Defense system.
However, the report shows that issues of timing severely limit the feasibility of this approach. The short time window available for disabling an enemy missile means that interceptor rockets would have to be based close to enemy territory to have a chance of intercepting the missile in time, if it is possible at all.
The study found that defending the United States against solid-propellant ICBMs would be impractical in many cases, because of their short burn times. According to the U.S. intelligence community, countries of concern could deploy such ICBMs within 10 to 15 years, about the same time the study judged would be required for the United States to field a boost-phase defense against ICBMs.
Even against the longer burning liquid-propellant ICBMs that North Korea or Iran might initially deploy, a boost-phase defense would have limited use due to the requirement that interceptors be based close to potential missile flight paths.
“Only two to three minutes would be available to achieve a boost-phase intercept, even assuming substantial improvements in systems for detecting and tracking missiles,” said Study Group co-chair Frederick Lamb.
“Consequently, even fast interceptors could have difficulty catching liquid-propellant ICBMs and would be unable to catch solid-propellant ICBMs in time. In the most optimistic scenarios, the defense would have only seconds to decide whether to fire interceptors and could be required to make this decision before knowing whether a rocket launch were a space mission or a missile attack.”
However, boost-phase defense against short- or medium-range missiles launched from ships off U.S. coasts appears technically possible, provided ships carrying interceptors could stay within about 40 kilometers of the threatening ships.
“This study was conducted for the American Physical Society by a group that included recognized experts on missile defense. The group assessed the feasibility of boost-phase intercept in terms of fundamental science and engineering requirements,” said APS President Myriam Sarachik.
“It is crucial that decisions about large-scale investments in weapons systems take into account their technical feasibility. The APS hopes this report will help in evaluating whether to build boost-phase defense systems.”
The APS Study Group looked at boost-phase defense systems utilizing land-, sea, or air-based interceptors, space-based interceptors, or the Airborne Laser.
The effectiveness of interceptor rockets would be limited by the short time window for intercept, which requires interceptors to be based within 400 to 1,000 kilometers of the possible boost-phase flight paths of attacking missiles.
In some cases this is closer than political geography allows. Even interceptors that were very large and fast and that pushed the state of the art would in most cases be unable to intercept solid-propellant ICBMs before they released their warheads.
A system of space-based interceptors, also constrained by the short time window for intercept, would require a fleet of a thousand or more orbiting satellites just to intercept a single missile. Deploying such a fleet would require a five- to tenfold increase in the United States’ annual space-launch capabilities.
The Airborne Laser currently in development has the potential to intercept liquid-propellant ICBMs, but its range would be limited and it would therefore be vulnerable to counterattack. The Airborne Laser would not be able to disable solid-propellant ICBMs at ranges useful for defending the United States.
“Few of the components exist for deploying an effective boost-phase defense against liquid-propellant ICBMs and some essential components would take at least 10 years to develop,” said Study Group co-chair Daniel Kleppner.
“According to U.S. intelligence estimates, North Korea and Iran could develop or acquire solid-propellant ICBMs within the next 10 to 15 years. Consequently, a boost-phase defense effective only against liquid-propellant ICBMs would risk being obsolete when deployed.”
Although a successful intercept would prevent munitions from reaching their target, live nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads could strike populated areas short of the target in the United States or in other countries, shows the study. This “shortfall problem” is inherent in any boost-phase defense and difficult to avoid.”
Brian, you didn’t identify the source of the information you quoted. But if this report is correct, we would seem to have no alternative but pre-emptive action against those who might launch against us. Certainly we can’t count on assured destruction to deter the likes of North Korea and Iran.
Is Bush an axis of evil?
Out,
Just type in American Physical Society and missile defense and you should come up with several web pages dealing with the APS position paper.
With regard to your comments about preemptivefirst strike, how about constructive engagement?? These countries are certainly not looking to use these weapons as a first strike capability. They are looking for a means to engage the US from a position of perceived strength. The administration and State Department should look at this as a problem in abnormal psychology rather than as a true offensive threat. North Korea wants security assurances, food, access to energy, etc. Iran wants a say as a regional power in the shape of the Middle East.
Why not engage them on these issues? Our best chances of “winning” an engagement lie in convincing the populations of these nations that Americans and American culture are “good” and “trustworthy”. Over time, engagement will lead to a lessening of tensions naturally..look at China…cultural revolution in the 60s…upcoming economic powerhouse now. You’re much less likely to risk things if life is becoming more comfortable rather than less.
Israel is adamant about attacking Iran and Dummy and Rummy have been instructed to consider it a must on the to-do list of the “Project.”
Cheney/Rove say it’s the bottom line, so it’s the bottom line.
Rove doesn’t mind a “cut and run” from Iraq, as long as it’s in an easterly direction.
Crude is still bouncing over 70 dollars, so the “Project” is still loaded in the breach….waiting.
Nathan,”President Bush pushed forward with our Anti-Balistic Missle Defense system when he took office.”
Isn’t that the same Anti-Balistic Missle Defense System that can’t hit a target, blows up on the launch pad, or doesn’t take off?
“Several tests have failed, including one conducted as recently as Feb. 14, 2005. A U.S. interceptor missile did not launch from the Ronald Reagan test site in the Pacific Ocean to stop a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska.”"The previous test, on Dec. 15, 2004 also failed. Lehner said on that occasion there was a problem in the rocket itself.”
Oh well, I guess I’m ok with that, as long as the defense companies make a lot of money.
“interceptor missile did not launch from the Ronald Reagan test site in the Pacific Ocean to stop a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska.”"
Of course it didn’t: it forgot what it was supposed to do.
Coming soon to a war theatre near you:
Star Wars, the next military industrial fantasy.
This promotional trailer paid for by your tax dollars.
Our next feature?
Um, what other discredited, wack job reagan era idea can the military resurect?
Coming to a war theatre near you
With additudes like yours we wouldn’t have gone to space, the moon, flown helicpoters…etc…
Failure always comes before success.
Why do you think things are tested, retested and then tested some more?
Just answer me these questions honestly:
Do you support the development of a missle defense system?
Because, regardless of how much any of us post links to tests or studies about it, the question remains do you support it?
I could waste my time showing you the benifits of it or it’s success, but if you are opposed to a missile defense regardless of how well it works, it doesn’t really matter.
Nathan,
When the best scientific minds in the country conclude that there is no currently available technology, nor is such technology on the horizon, and someone STILL wants to push on, then that person is living in a fantasy world. Further, she/he is funneling away much needed funds that might actually be put to use on R&D that has a chance for success.
There is a disconcerting anti-intellectualism in the US. In spite of the limits put on technology by the laws of nature and in spite of the the best considered opinions of the best scientific minds, some people just think they’re right and the laws of nature or opinions of those in the know are just frivolous annoyances.
Brian,
Would you support missile defense even if it worked?
Yes…if it were cost effective.
What is “cost effective?”
Come on, Nathan. Specifications can be laced on any item you wish to build. Consider building a combat jet: I want it to go Mach 3, have stealth technology, turn on a dime, have a range of 50,000 miles, carry a 50 ton payload, etc., etc.,
Each of these technologies is probably available, but combining them into awhole that doesn’t cost the US GDP per unit would probably be an impossibility.
You must always compromise on what you’re willing to pay for what you get.
In the arena of missile technology, it is extremely easy to launch hundreds or thousands of “drones” in addition to the actual warheads. Distinguishing the real thing from the drones if exceedingly difficult. If you choose to build one interceptor for each item the enemy launches, drone or real, then you would quickly realize that your opponent could have you spend yourself into oblivion for a very modest sum on your part. Drones are very cheap…if you have to build an interceptor for every drone…good luck.
So, “cost effective” means that the price paid for the system is “reasonable” gven the availability of funds, the reliability of the system itself, etc., etc.
This is not a pipe Brian.
Dont ya love how nathan is antiscience until he is not? Then he is proscience?
heheheheh
Your turn at the brick wall.
KFG,
Whn you’re on a roll, you’re on a roll! I admire your quick wit. I have what the French call “the wit of the staircase”. If I do come up with something clever to say it’s usually about 2 hours AFTER I could have used it. :-))
Thanks Brian. I think nathan calls it a “hasty” wit though, not a quick one. heheheheheheh. Glad some of you are here to do the heavy lifting on science. It is not my long suit.
Anyone catch the moronic post in opinion line blaming N.K.’s acquiring nukes, on Clinton?