« Operational Pause | Main | The Reasons We're Only Learning About the 500 Shells Now . . . »

June 20, 2006

The Rocket's Red Glare

The North Koreans are declaring their sovereign right to ballistic missile tests:

TOKYO - North Korea declared Tuesday it has a right to carry out long-range missile tests, despite international calls for the communist state to refrain from launching a rocket believed capable of reaching the United States.
There are rumors meanwhile that the US may shoot down any such missile launched:
The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act. . . .
Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday.
The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.
One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors.
There are several very good reasons to go ahead and down any missiles launched by North Korea: it would provide a real test of our incipient missile defense systems; such a shootdown would reinforce the doctrine of nuclear assurance as it applies to Japan, one of our staunchest allies; and tactically, denyng the North Korean military the advantage gained by telemetry and other such data gathered from the flight could play no small role in retarding the advancement of their military capabilities. But the most compelling reason to shoot down any test missiles is simple and scarier: how does one really know it is a test? This is no soubt what the Japanese are wondering. I was there in the 90s when the North tested their last missile, and it was . . . not well received.

For a detailed look at the US missile defense system, readers are encouraged to see Alan Dowd's piece in today's TCSDaily.

For a more in-depth look into ballistic missiles in general, missilethreat.com [h-t to Dowd] is a cornucopia of info on ballistic missiles and the threat they create. The scenario page there features high-quality animation of possible conflict scenarios involving ballistic missiles.

While it is tempting to view international terrorism and ballistic missiles as inhabiting two separate ends of the conflict spectrum, the one being non-state organizations employing low-tech and creative means, the other being a weapons system most likely produced and fielded by a state military, it might be better instead to view them both as features of our system of globalization: while murderous ideologies propagate through the globe like viruses, high-tech missile know-how does the same. As Dowd notes in his article, 30 years ago, only 8 nations possessed ballistic missiles, whereas now, by his count, there are 25 with ballistic missile arsenals.

When we envision Robert Kaplan's "coming anarchy", or Thomas Barnett's Gap, our mental images usually involve low-intensity warfare, pestilence, famine, resource scarcity, and crushing poverty, along with intractable conflicts. But these are images that, while scary, and needing to be contained if not rolled back, don't threaten the US imminently.

Adding to that picture the continued propagation of complex weapons systems like ballistic missiles adds a new urgency to our concept of the Gap, or the anarcy of the developing world and its failed states. Imagine another war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but with ballistic missiles; or a Rwandhan genocide with airstrikes. While it's true that roving bands of thugs probably don't have the training to maintain and operate exceptionally complex military hardware, it's not a safe bet that the threats of the Third World will always remain as roving bands of thugs.


Posted by Chester at June 20, 2006 10:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/869

Comments

Chester,

Good post and I fully agree we should attempt to shoot down anything they launch. I will say, however, that you didn't mention one very large downside risk to trying to shoot down anything they send up: we might miss. A failure may in fact encourage them, at least in the short run.

Again, I believe it's worth the risk, but you have to acknowledge the danger of failing. Historically, a similar concern led us not to warn Japan that we were going to drop the bomb on Hiroshima.

Glad the move went well. Welcome back.

Posted by: JPod at June 21, 2006 11:01 PM

I'm willing to risk a miss. There's no reason our miss needs to be public information, if the shot comes from an Aegis cruiser, it might be hidden from public view. On the other hand, if we have to engage with missiles at Vandenburg then everyone for miles around will know we did so . . .

Posted by: Chester at June 21, 2006 11:37 PM

Ahh sorry! Just read the Dowd piece again. The Aegis based missiles are for defense against anti-ship ballistic missiles, not ICBMs, which makes sense when you think about it. So a low-key launch option out from the spotlight seems unlikely. Hmmmm . . .

Posted by: Chester at June 21, 2006 11:48 PM

Interesting. I can't assess whether we could hide a shootdown attempt, but I thought I had read somewhere that Aegis ships could be used in our missile defense network. Maybe it's a future capability that's under development.

I am definitely willing to risk a miss. I just think that the fact that there is a potentially large downside to missing should be part of any CBA over making the attempt.

Posted by: JPod at June 22, 2006 8:58 AM

JPod,

I think we concur. No doubt about the miss being a part of the calculus.

Posted by: Chester at June 22, 2006 10:13 PM

Take a shot at it, If we miss it still gives us data to prefect our technology. If we do shoot it down the Noth Koreans may decide its not cost effective to keep launching targets for us. Of Course with us shooting at the missle we would also give Russia and China valuable intell about our capabiities. With the Aegis ships i think they would probably used for trcking to guide land based missles to the target.

Posted by: Sackett1000 at June 24, 2006 11:50 AM

I haven't heard anyone else talk about the theory that they are simply testing OUR capability -- time to react, accuracy, direction of fire etc that simply tells them more about us....

Know what I mean?

plus, i highly doubt a major attack would be preceded by a warning -- wouldn't it be smarter to launch an attack by surprise?

Posted by: klaus at June 26, 2006 7:37 PM

Why risk giving the Commies launch data (theirs and ours). We know the launch sites, drop some bunker busters and some JDAMs. Rubble don't make trouble, people.

Posted by: Howard Dean at June 26, 2006 10:13 PM