What Missile Defense?

Barack Obama's administration has characterized its new missile defense plan as a more judicious alternative to George W. Bush's expensive (but untested) Eastern European-based interceptor system. Writing in the Financial Times last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program," noting it will be deployed faster and less expensively, so as "not [to] waste time or taxpayer money." That may sound like a winning combination, but in reality, the main difference between the old and new plans is that the latter doesn't step on Russia's toes. Otherwise, it will be just as strategically ineffective as the original.

Speaking broadly, missile defense comes in two different flavors. The first is tactical missile defense, such as the U.S. Patriot system, which protects a theater of battle against short-range conventional rockets. The second category is strategic, or national, missile defense: systems meant to guard against adversaries' nuclear-tipped missiles. While the first of these types is conceptually sensible, the second is not and may even make the world a more dangerous place.

The reason for this is quite simple. A 70 percent effective tactical missile defense (to pick an optimistic number) makes a lot of sense. If 10 conventional missiles are headed your way, stopping seven is undeniably a good thing. Stopping seven of 10 nuclear warheads, however, is less decisive since even one will visit unacceptable devastation upon the United States. Just one nuclear-tipped missile penetrating your missile shield is about the equivalent of a million conventional missiles making it through.

So even after the United States has set up and activated a national missile-defense system, it still will not have neutralized the perceived threat from Iran. Not only that, but Washington's strategic calculations toward Tehran will remain unaffected: The United States will still need to be just as worried about Iran's missiles, since the destruction of even one U.S. city or region is simply too high a cost to bear. For that security equation to change, national missile defense would need to intercept 100 percent of incoming nuclear warheads -- an unattainable goal for any piece of machinery.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

MED

8:01 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Interesting

This is coming from the guy who was debunked in his theory of how ASAT test of america on usa 193's a fake, and thus proven wrong. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1077/1 this link thoroughly debunks the man's theories on hydrazine vaporization (also http://www.jamesoberg.com/usa193_emailexchange_yb_nj.pdf between nasa and Dr. Yousef Butt). As for his current article, while i agree it is slightly strategically ineffective as the last Missile approach, it is considered by and far the best of the programs being tested for defense (SM-3).
The US Patriot System as you define is incorrect. It is a missile system for Medium to High Air defense. Now its primary mission is Anti-Ballistic Missile (as a PAC-3), which acts against nuclear, chemical, and so on. You don't have to go far on google to figure this out. Wikipedia this stuff. Even Go to FAS if you are that skeptical. So while your premise of one system is tactical and the other strategic is debatable, to say the least, we will move on to your premise of a nuke getting through.
For any defense analyst to believe that a weapons system will work 100% of the time is naive. Our oldest weapon's (guns, knives, rocks) don't work 100% of the time. That doesn't mean we don't improve those weapons platforms or systems. It's like saying 'oh damn my gun jammed, lets not use it when i need to; and oh oh they are now building stronger bullets to reach further than my gun". There is definite room for improvement in any weapons system, but that doesn't mean they are to work 100% of the time. Which inevitably means that America would expect a nuke making it in a horrible war like that (doesn't mean we shouldn't protect from it).
As for it emboldening countries to build different nukes or bigger or better nukes. That is simple weapons evolution between defensive systems and offensive, everybody wants the edge. We had the sword, so there was the shield, than metal sword, than metal shield. Why didn't they stop at that, why did they make metal body armor and than chain mail? Because simply, weapons evolution. So it goes with missiles.
To compare catastrophic Human Nuclear war, with hurricane insurance is cheeky. Why not compare it with car insurance 9car accidents kill more)? or Health insurance (since there is a debate about this anyway)? America had a nuclear weapon way before China and Russia, and yet did not use it at that time to push its agenda when they knew there was no risk of immediate and present harm, or how did you put it 'covered'.

SIR_MIXXALOT

10:04 PM ET

ineffective defense against a nonexistent threat

No, if you pay attention, instead of being locked in your worldview you may learn something.

There is a difference between knives and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are used for deterrence -- we don't pull one on each other everyday. Nuclear weapons are not used, unlike conventional weapons. Or have not been since we used them in Japan. I think what the author is saying -- and i think it is convincing -- is that our strategic deterrence equations will not be changed with missile defense in place: we will still -- correctly -- need to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, even with any incarnation of missile defence. I think though that the author should not have used Iran as an example, since there is no clear evidence that Iran is moving towards a nuclear bomb...neocon fearmongering aside.

To put it another way: what good will missile defence do? Will you really feel safer? -- if so, the author is correct: that feeling of being safer is a false sense of security. Missile defence will never be 100% effective, so there is no reason you should feel safer. Also, the author does not mention the large technical barriers to getting an effective missile defence, nor does he mention the fact that missile defence is untested. If anything, the article is being generous to missile defense: giving it the benefit of the doubt in even assuming a 70%(!!!) kill rate. We will be lucky to get a 15% kill rate.

BTW, As far as I can tell the author correctly pointed out the flaws in the government's story regarding USA-193: it appears that the NASA study itself showed that the satellite would not have been a concern if it landed.

I am trained engineer and I concur with the author e.g. take the time to read:

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/technical-comments-the-us-satellite-shootdown

(the actual NASA report is there, btw)

I opened the link that you gave to Mr. Oberg's website: in the letters exchange, it appears to me that the guy from NASA is hiding behind the excuse of secrecy. There is absolutely nothing there that argues that the government had any real reason -- the guy (Nick Johnson) keeps making excuses about how or why he cannot show the truth. The letter exchange exonerates Mr. Butt and implicates Mr Johnson.

In fact, it is Mr Oberg who is not technically qualified and his work has been shown to be fairly shoddy and amateurish:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1200/1

Basically, I find the author's argument about the fallacy of missile defence compelling, but I would argue that Iran is not even a big threat to the US so that the whole missile defense brou-ha=ha is tempest in a teapot. Missile defense will be an ineffective defense against a nonexistent threat!

11:24 PM ET

Read my comment carefully

Mr. Mixalot, neocon aspirations and your ad hominem attacks aside, I will point out again that I said missile defense is ineffective. To think that Nuclear weapons are a deterrence and not a weapon/tool for war and policy is not a viable statement. Otherwise we might as well put all our land based missiles on our home soil instead of putting quite a bit in Europe, since we have the capability of launching them this way that. Deterrence it might be, but a threat it definitely is; single-handedly making it closer to human destruction, in regards to the Dooms-day clock. BTW we do you use nuclear weapons on almost a daily basis in war, in the form of depleted uranium (known to cause radiological damage in human). Dr. Butt's use of terminology of weaponry and their positions as tactical/strategic was wrong, thereby severely undermining his argument. To say it gives a false-sense of security, i agree, i made no mention of it in the contrary. But, so does any other weapon. To make rational decisions based on false-senses of security is an oxymoron. To say that European or American Policy will suddenly change to that of even more belligerent warmongering based on false-sense of security, is surely a stretch of the imagination. Knowing that the weapons platform is currently ineffective and will be for sometime, and that the price is high for any war, nuclear or otherwise, would make any rational government think twice (neocons aside) about going to war or 'adventures' based on this knowledge.
As for the rebuttal of the usa 193, further study shows most articles point back to Dr. Yousef Butt's work on the idea, while there are many an author who state otherwise. For one America does not need to prove ASAT works, they already tried it out in 1985. Secondly, similar satellites of that size have failed and were not broken up on the way down, thus being a potential threat. 1978 re-entry of Cosmos 954 and P78-1 or Solwind of 1979 (this had to be shot down as well, and it was 850 kg compared to the 5000kgs of 193). While your sites are interesting and point taken, allow me to reiterate, I disagree with the good Dr. Butt's opinion as well as your for the reasons mentioned above.

CHRIS_T

3:22 PM ET

October 22, 2009

Jim-O ("MED") -- give it a

Jim-O ("MED") -- give it a rest man. We all know about your feuding w. the author re. usa-193, which was resolved in his favor. You made some mistakes, no big deal. We don't need a re-hash here -- most of us are frankly sick of hearing about it. Try to stick to the subject of the post here.

Yes, there is a version of Patriot missiles that are not strictly tactical in nature, but calling Patriot missile defense system "tactical" is perfectly acceptable. Even wiki sez so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense

"Tactical missile defense: Targets short-range tactical ballistic missiles, which usually travel at less than 1.5 km/s (3,400 mph). Tactical ABMs have short ranges, typically 20-80 km (12-50 miles). Example of currently-deployed tactical ABM: MIM-104 Patriot, S-300V."

OK?

It is idiotic to suggest that because Dr. Butt did not get into all the gory details, and specify exactly what type and version of Patriot system he was talking about in a layman's OpEd that: "Dr. Butt's use of terminology of weaponry and their positions as tactical/strategic was wrong, thereby severely undermining his argument."

Firstly, they are not wrong -- they are just not as wonky as you'd like them to be -- too bad for you. This is not AW&ST, this FP. Secondly, even if it were, it does not undermine anything. I kind of like the overall argument. It is different from the normal bickering that happens over missile defense. I would state it thus: national missile defense does not buy us security since even one nuclear missile making it thru is unacceptable. This is in contrast to the tactical missile defense case where one missile making it thru is not unacceptable.

If having NMD does not change they we calculate our strategy, then it has not bought us much -- especially when you consider how it can make things worse, as outlined in the article.

MARK3383

9:23 PM ET

logic people!!

Okay, so what if China, Russia, or North Korea "accidentally" launches a single missile at us? This could be a true accident or possibly a local lunatic getting control of the launch codes. Would the author of this article rather have no defense in place or a 70% chance of knocking it down? That 70% percent chance might prevent a nuclear holocaust from happening. Plus, even a limited defense might make some idiot think twice about taking a potshot at us with a missile or two they bought on the black market. If a defense encourages nuclear wannabes to build even more missiles - so what? We're not any worse off than before.

Mark Morris - Chicago

7:04 AM ET

October 23, 2009

Logic

Cool. Proponents of NMD are subscribing to logic now. Hope springs eternal.

I suppose there is real desperation in their ranks if the best argument they can come up with is "accidental" launch -- let's examine this:

1. It is, indeed, a legitimate concern. However, if you are worried about that you probably don't want to set up a missile defense system that will likely force Iran to increase their arsenal to compensate for the defense neutralizing a (likely small) fraction of their missiles.

2. Why worry just about Iran? What if the French accidentally launch their missile towards us? How about the real problem child -- Pakistan?

3. If you are really scared from Iranian missiles and their _alleged_ nuclear weapons program, perhaps the way to eliminate that is to tell Israel to eliminate their nuclear weapons and work towards a middle east free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear arms race in the middle east has been started by Israel, btw. Member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed recently to call for a Middle East free of nuclear arms.
At the IAEA's annual general conference, 103 countries voted in favor, none against.

Only four abstained - including the US and Israel.

So the US and Israel appear to be part of the problem of possible accidental launch of possible future Iranian nuclear weapons.

4. Spending another few trillion dollars on a system designed to stop the possible future accidental launch of Iranian weapons that don't even exist is not a good use of my tax dollars. But you go ahead and send however much you want to Uncle Sam, I'd rather hang on to my money. Frankly, I'm sick of the tax-and-spend (on military) republican mindset. We've wasted enough money on Republican toys and wars that don't work and are actually counterproductive.

You want more logic Mark Morris from Chicago?

Maybe this letter in the Boston Globe will help you understand the origin of the problems we have:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/10/04/us_israeli_threats_do_more_harm_to_world_peace/

8:11 AM ET

huh?

Hello Chris T from an indeterminate location. I would indeed be worried if France accidentally sent a missile our way. Not sure how Israel gets tied into this argument. As if Iran would quit their program no matter what Israel did. Pardon me while I scoff .

10:08 AM ET

You are right -- sorry

Sorry. I eat my words. It is indeed smart to set up a missile defense system that will encourage Iran to field more missiles and increase the risk of accidents.

In addition we should surround France and UK and Russia and China with SM3 interceptors. And Israel and India and Pakistan too. Which will in turn make them all increase their stockpiles too.

We should also surround our own missiles with SM3 missile defense interceptors since we may accidentally shoot our own feet.

You are a sensible and logical person. I hope to meet you if the Swiss consulate here grants me a US visa.

You win the argument.

Chris,
Tehran.
Islamic Republic of Iran,
Earth.

PS: You are right Israeli nuclear missiles in the region have nothing to do with Iranian calculations.

PPS: Yes, please spend another trillion of my taxes of something that does not work. I enjoy Raytheon getting welfare $$$$$ from poor Americans.

PPPS: If you are writing from your basement in Chicago, you may be getting radon poisoning of your brain.

10:45 AM ET

apology accepted

Chris, we save our trillions for needy bankers, health care entitlements, and poorly run car companies. Missile defense systems are a relative bargain by comparison. If they prevented one nuclear strike, they would pay for themselves a few thousand fold. Russia sure believes they might work or they wouldn't have such an allergic reaction every time someone mentions it. However flawed your reasoning, your rants are entertaining!

12:20 PM ET

Aren't you embarrassed to be

Aren't you embarrassed to be so consistently wrong? Russia objectED to MD when we had a footprint in Eastern Europe. I wonder if we would object if Russia made a base in Cuba?

Oh, shoot, yes, we've been there.

11:32 AM ET

OMG! you are right! LOL!

Yes, missile defense will really help protect us by forcing Iran, North Korea and Russia and China to build more missiles and warheads, and increase the chance of accidents.

That is a much better use of taxes than making schools and having healthcare.

We Iranians will squeeze you into the stone age without firing a single missile.

Allaah akbar!

Foreign Policy Magazine

What Missile Defense?

Missile defense will be strategically useless against the nuclear threats from Iran -- or anywhere else.

BY YOUSAF BUTT | OCTOBER 21, 2009

(11)