web hosting short URLs photo sharing

Jason Perry

Formal Research Paper

M.L. Riley

Research Paper A4

December 5, 2000

National Missile Defense

For more than forty years, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were caught in a bloodless conflict of cat and mouse. Continued escalation of nuclear weapons by both sides brought the world on the brink of a war on the scale that it has never seen. However, despite the tight bipolarity of the U.S./NATO and the U.S.S.R./Warsaw Pact, war never came. The fear of nuclear war and a program of détente prevented an exchange. Ten years ago, that Cold War ended for the most part peacefully but the threat of nuclear war remains. The potential for war does not come from the former Soviet Union, but from China, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Within ten years, these countries may have the potential of reaching the United States with nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles or ICBMs. Due to the multipolarity of the threat, the previous policy of mutually assured destruction may no longer apply. Rather than submit to the strength of country smaller than most of our states and who can barely feed most of their people, the United States must build a physical system to prevent missiles from attacking American soil. A National Missile Defense system should be built to protect Americans and their allies from long-range missile attack by rogue nations, to protect our deployed troops from short-range missile attack, and to give Americans a sense of security based on their current public opinion.

The idea of an anti-missile system has been around for 17 years, ever since Reagan announced to the nation his intention of implementing a program called the Strategic Defense Initiative or SDI. This program was mostly a research program designed to test technologies needed for such a system. SDI was for the most part space-based, requiring space lasers, giant mirrors, railguns, ground-based interceptors, space sensors, and kinetic energy weapons (Boffey 98-9). Because of the fancifulness that many people saw the system as, SDI was dubbed Star Wars after the space fantasy movie trilogy of the same name.

Recently the idea of a National Missile Defense or NMD has risen again. Unlike Reagan’s SDI, this system would be largely land-based. The National Missile Defense system would use ground-based interceptors, X-band radar, early warning radar, and satellites (Pike). Together, they would defend the United States and Canada from small missile attacks from rogue nations. According to the Federation of American Scientists web site maintained by John Pike, the objectives of the National Missile defense are to:

• "Field an NMD system that meets the ballistic missile threat at the time of a deployment decision"
• "Detect the launch of enemy ballistic missile(s) and track"
• "Continue tracking of ballistic missile(s) using ground based radars."
• "Engage and destroy the ballistic missile warhead above the earth’s atmosphere by force of impact."

There will be no x-ray lasers, no giant mirrors, and rail guns.

There are other similarities and differences between the current National Missile Defense and Reagan’s SDI. The systems would protect the United States from two different sources. The Strategic Defense Initiative would have protected the United States from a large-scale missile attack from the now defunct Soviet Union. The new National Missile Defense system would protect the United States from small attacks from rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, and South Korea (Pike). However, like the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Russians (now the Russian Federation) and the Chinese have shown reservations to the proposal and are refusing to work out an arms reduction treaty until the United States drops the idea (Nebehay).

What threats warrant such a defense? Unlike the bipolar world of ten years ago, there is no evil empire that the United States must be protected from. Today, however, there is also a rising threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons to so-called "rogue states" like North Korea and Iran. Russia is still with us, though much weaker economically, as well as China which is a fast-growing military and economic power. What are rogue states? According to the Central Intelligence Agency, a rogue state is a nation that supports terrorism. According to the Department of Defense, a rogue state is a nation unfriendly to the United States and supports international terrorism. However, in June 2000, Madeline Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, announced in a call-in radio show that the term rogue state "no longer considered the term an appropriate one" (Martin). Now these nation are called "states of concern" but the terms mean the same (Rogue).

Two countries with a current missile threat to the United States, but are not states of concern, are Russia and China. Russia was for more than 40 years an advisory to the United States, a button’s push away from nuclear war. However, now that the cold war is over, the missiles that they had during the cold war are slowly being dismantled. China is a rising threat to the United States who currently has missiles capable of reaching the western United States.

In addition to these established threats to the United States, three countries, considered states of concern today, could be potential threats to the United States by the end of the decade. The first is North Korea. This communist country does not have any missiles capable of reaching the United States yet but may test some soon. Iran and Iraq have tried testing missiles and weapons of mass destruction but have so far been unsuccessful (National Intelligence). Iran and Iraq have been adversaries of the United States for 21 years and 10 years, respectively. However, the feud between the United States and Iran has begun to thaw in recent years.

What capabilities do these countries have to attack the United States? The threat that each of these nations pose can be divided into three categories: missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons. Missiles are the most common way of delivering a payload, in this case a weapon, between point A and point B in as little time as possible. The kinds of missiles that pose the most threat to the United States are Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or ICBMs. ICBMs are defined as ballistic missiles with ranges over 5500 km or 3450 miles. ICBM-class missiles would be required for a missile launched from Iran or Iraq, or North Korea for that matter, to reach the United States.

Russia’s supply of ICBMs is dwindling due economic problems (National Intelligence). Financially they are unable maintain the missiles they have so they are being dismantled. Despite these problems, Russia still has a sizeable missile force with 1000 strategic missiles and 4500 warheads (National Intelligence). However, if the START II treaty, which bans missiles with multiple warheads, is ratified in the Russian Duma, then the number of missiles will be cut to comply with the treaty (National Intelligence). Russia has several kinds of missiles capable of reaching over 10,000 km. The SS-11 Sego has the largest range of all at 13,000 km. Over the next ten years, the threat posed by Russia will decrease, but due to its sizeable missile threat, it will remain more of a threat then any of the rogue states.

China is considered a major rising in the world today. China has 20 missiles called the CSS-4 with a range of 13,000 km, competing with the Russian SS-11 Sego in range (National Intelligence). These missiles are capable of reaching the United States. The CSS-4 is not yet in service and so far has only been tested (Ranger). China will develop other ICBMs during this decade that will be capable of reaching the U.S. They include the JL-2 SLBM and the DF-31. These have ranges of 12,000 and 8,000 km, respectively, and are capable of reaching the United States.

Currently none of the rogue states have capabilities to reach the United States with a missile (National Intelligence). However, each country has the possibility of producing missiles capable of reaching the United States within the next fifteen years. In particular, North Korea has the technological know-how to build an ICBM with the power to strike the U.S. Currently, North Korea has two major kinds of missiles in the testing phase or in development. Figure 3 shows both missiles side by side. The Taepodong 1 is currently in the testing phase. This missile is a medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,000-km (Ranger). A test of this missile in August 1998 showed that this missile was capable of reaching Japan when the missile flew over Japan and crashed into the Pacific 300 km east of the Japanese island of Honshu (McIntyre). Another missile in development is the Taepodong 2. This missile is reported to be capable of reaching 3,500-4,300 km. However, according to the Rumsfield Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States from 1998 said, "light-weight variations of the TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin. These variants of the TD-2 would require additional time to develop and would likely require an additional flight test" (Rumsfield). So given enough time to test, variation of the Taepodong 2 could reach the United States. The TD-2 in its current configuration could reach Alaska and parts of Hawaii (National Intelligence). Another possiblity is for North Korea to add an additional stage to the TD-2 which would make it capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear missile.

Figure 1 - The sizes and ranges of the Taepodong 1 and 2 compared (Vick).

Iran and Iran currently do not have ICBM technology. However, in the next 15 years, both nations have the capability of developing ICBMs (National Intelligence). Iran has the potential to follow many paths to develop ICBMs capable of reaching the United States. Iran could uses Russian technology, which would put the on track to being able to strike the United States by the end of the decade (National Intelligence). Iran could also use something similar to a three-stage Taepodong with the help of North Korea (National Intelligence). Finally, they can use their satellite booster and convert it into an ICBM (National Intelligence). What ever path they choose would lead to Iran developing an ICBM capable of reaching the U.S. by the end of this decade or in the first half of the next (National Intelligence). Iraq could develop an ICBM along the same lines but like Iran, Iraq would need foreign help (National Intelligence).

Currently, of the 5 countries discussed in this paper, only Russia and China are officially members of the nuclear club (Countries). However, Iran and Iraq are considered countries seeking nuclear weapons capabilities (Countries). In 1995, North Korea agreed in Geneva to freeze its nuclear weapons program (Nuclear). In return, the United States agreed to reduce the economic sanctions against it. In 1997, the United States confirmed that North Korea did have enough plutonium to make one nuclear bomb (Nuclear).

Because North Korea, Iran, and Iraq currently lack nuclear weapons, they have looked into other weapons of mass destruction, namely biological and chemical weapons. These weapons would use virus and deadly chemicals to kill large numbers of people. Iran and Iraq have a history of using these kinds of weapons. In the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran and Iraq are believed to have used various chemicals, including mustard gas, tabun (a nerve-gas), and tear gas (Robinson). This was in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 that said, "Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world". That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition" (Geneva). North Korea is believed to have biological and chemical weapons (North).

U.S. relations with these countries have been sour at times. For forty years, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a cold war, each side trying to beat each other in various races. U.S. relations with China and North Korea have been sour because of U.S. fears of proliferation of communism in Asia. Relations with Iran have been pour ever since the Ayetollah Khomeini took power in Iran and U.S. embassy workers in Tehran, Iran were taken hostage in 1979. Relations with Iraq have been sour ever since the Gulf War in 1991.

U.S./Russian relations have been on a roller coaster in the last century. During World Wars I and II, Russia and the United States were both fighting against Germany and its allies. However, in the 45 years after the Second World War, the United States and Soviet Union tried to one up each other, first in weapons, then in space. During this time, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came close a few times to nuclear war. Despite the ever-presence fear of annihilation, or perhaps because of it, the United States and the Soviet Union signed several treaties designed to ease tensions. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War was over.

In the last ten years, the United States and Russian Federation have worked out deals to reduce the number of warheads. In addition, relations between the two countries have thawed. Russia and the United States are now both capitalist, free democracies. However, old feelings die hard and espionage between the two countries, common during the cold war, continues to this day.

Relations between China and the U.S. are no where near as bad as the Soviet Union and the U.S. during the Cold War. In fact, market reforms in China have led to the increase of U.S. company investment in China. The most obvious sign of this is China’s fast growing economy and the sight of McDonald’s restaurants in Beijing. In addition, parts of China have now converted to capitalist markets, especially near the former British colony of Hong Kong. However, the relationship between China and the U.S. is not all it’s cracked up to be. Much of China’s missile development program is geared toward making missiles capable of reaching most of the United States. Also, China has plans to start a manned space program with the goal of going to the moon by 2015. This has Space Race II written all over it.

Relations between the United States and North Korea have been sour ever since the Korean War. However, there are signs that North Korea and the United States may be starting to talk, especially about the end of North Korea’s missile program (Struck). Sadly, talks between the two countries broke down in November 2000 (Perlez).

Relations with Iran have been rocky since 1979 when U.S. embassy workers were taken hostage in the Iranian capital of Tehran following the ousting of the shah. Ayetollah Khomeini led the revolution that helped oust the shah. He convinced his followers that the United States was the Great Satan and that god believed that America should be wiped off the face of the earth. This of course led to diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Iran for nearly two decades. Even though distrust remains between the two countries, Iran’s new democratic government may lead to decreased tension.

Figure 2 - Diagram of National Missile Defense (Closer)

Even though relations between the United States and many of these countries are improving, the multipolarity of the international politics today, as far as the availability of weapons of mass destruction makes it necessary that a missile defense be built. But is it feasible? First, how would this system work?

Figure 2 shows a diagram of the system. As stated before, the major elements of a national missile defense are the early warning satellites, X-band radar, upgraded early warning radar or UEWR, infrared-sensing satellites, command centers, and the actual interceptors. Each part of the system architecture is necessary for the system to work. To demonstrate how the system works lets use a hypothetical situation that may confront a possible national missile defense. Smaller missile defenses work in much the same way but on a smaller scale.

In this hypothetical situation, an intercontinental ballistic missile launches from North Korea. When the missile exits the troposphere, early warning satellites detect the missile. Right now, Defense Support Program satellites would be used as early warning satellites. DSP satellites "are comparatively simple, inertially fixed, geosynchronous earth orbit satellites with an unalterable scan pattern" (Early 1). In a few years, these satellites would be helped by and eventually replaced by the Space-Based InfraRed Satellites or SBIRS. These satellites would also "detect the bright plumes from a missile’s booster and determine its approximate trajectory" as well as track the "missile targets throughout their flight with sufficient accuracy" (Gronlund 38). These satellites are being developed by the Air Force and would be in place in the 2011 timeframe (Gronlund 38-9). Twenty-four would be launched and they would be placed in low-earth orbit (Gronlund 38). On the ground, X-band radar and upgraded early warning radar would track the satellites with high-resolution radar. Upgraded early warning radar (UEWR) placed in Marysville, Calif., Alaska, Cape Cod, Mass., England, and Greenland are surveillance systems designed "to detect and track ballistic missiles targeted at the United States" (Early 1). X-band radar systems use a radar beam with a large frequency range (~ten GHz) to detect missiles at high resolution (Gronlund 37). This allows for the detection of the warhead, decoys, and debris (X-Band 1). This is important in determining the target of the interceptor. Figure 2 shows a conceptual drawing of an X-band radar site. The dome houses the radar system.

Figure 3 – Image of an X-Band Radar site (X-Band 1).

After the target has been acquired and the threat has to the United States, an interceptor missile is launched from North Dakota or Alaska (Gronlund 38-9). The missile would be an old Minuteman II booster with three stages (Ground 2). The payload of this missile would be the exoatmospheric kill vehicle or EKV (Gronlund 37). The EKV is designed to destroy the warhead upon impact. It has a mass of 55 kg and a length of 1.4-m (Gronlund 37). The kill vehicle would contain many sensors; the most important of which is an infrared sensor:

Other instruments on the EKV include a solid-state accelerometer and an interferometric fiber optic gyroscope inertial measurement unit (Missile 1).

As the kill vehicle nears the warhead and it’s multiple balloon decoys, it uses its infrared seeker to separate the warhead from the decoys. It does this because the warmth of the nuclear material inside the warhead would distinguish it from the imposters. The kill vehicle would use thrusters to target itself toward the warhead. Upon impact, both the kill vehicle and the warhead would be destroyed.

Technologies still needed to be developed include the space-based infrared sensing sensors, the hit-to-kill vehicle or exoatmospheric kill vehicle, and X-band radar systems. Many of these systems require testing which make up a bulk of the Missile Defense Program’s budget. Currently, tests on the interceptor missile and EKV have been mixed. Two tests have proven successful but some have missed the dummy warhead.

On the current timeline, a National Missile Defense could be finished by 2011 (Gronlund 39). If a commitment to deploy is ordered by the president is ordered in 2001, then construction of the upgraded early warning radar and X-band radar sites could begin as early as 2001-2 (Pike). By 2005-7, 100 interceptors could be deployed in Alaska (Gronlund 39). By the time of final configuration in 2011, 125 interceptors could be deployed in Alaska as well as 125 in North Dakota. During this time frame, SBIRS satellites would be deployed by the Air Force. Finally, many more X-band radar sites would be constructed, including sites in South Korea, Hawaii, Greenland, Alaska, Massachusetts, California, England, and North Dakota.

In addition to the National Missile Defense, the Defense Department would like to implement a limited area missile defense to protect our troop deployments and our smaller allies like Israel and Taiwan. This missile defense system is called the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense or THAAD. The need for such a system was shown in 1991 during the Gulf War. During this war, the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was able to attack Israel using theater ballistic missiles. A system like THAAD could have been used to protect Israel from missile attack.

Figure 4 – Mellman Group Poll (Issacs).

Is the public behind this system? A study by the Mellman Group in July 1999 asked respondents what is the most important issue facing this country today (Issacs). Figure 4 shows the results of that poll. Only one percent of the people polled said that they believed that a National Missile Defense (NMD) was the most important issue facing this country today. However, according to a poll conducted by the Clairemont Institute, seventy-four percent of Amercians believe that we already have a missile defense system similar to the one Reagan proposed (BMD). The country does not think that a missile defense is important because the public thinks we already have one. This same group also asked those who thought we already had a missile defense whether or not they agreed it should be deployed. 70% agreed that it should be deployed (or should have been).

For forty years the United States was caught up in a conflict with the Soviet Union. We were able to prevent nuclear war through a policy of détente and mutually assured destruction. For forty years, we were equal in almost every way. When we found a difference, a race began. First it was over arms, nukes, and missiles. Then it was over space. Each time, each side would try to out do each other. These races could be sustained because for the most part, both sides were equal. However, in the end, the Cold War ended peacefully, without bloodshed or violence. However, in its wake, the world is left with one strong country and a host of other trying to take it down or to at least even the playing field. These countries include North Korea, China, Iran, and Iraq. Within the next 15 years, these countries will be capable of reaching United States with long-range missiles. N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq may not have nuclear weapons but their biological and chemical weapons capabilities make them grave threats. A program of détente and mutually assured destruction can not be maintained on five fronts. A national missile system is needed to defend our country from these potentially devastating threats. In addition to national security, the security of our allies and our deployed troops in Kosovo and the Middle East must be protected from short-range missiles from the states of concern. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea are particularly in a bad spot and warrant our additional protection, like we have provided for these countries for 50 years. Most of the American public has lived with a sense of security knowing that a missile shield protects them from the missile threats of the world. This is currently not the case. This is a false sense of security. The government has an obligation to rectify that, either by getting out the message and debunking this myth or by building a missile system. With a missile defense system, America can go forward into the 21^st Century knowing that the world is safe for democracy, again.

Appendix

A copy of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (BMD):

National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))

H.R.4

One Hundred Sixth Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "National Missile Defense Act of 1999".

SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.

SEC. 3. POLICY ON REDUCTION OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES.

It is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Work Cited