North Korea and The Pentagon's new toy

If North Korea and Iran achieve nothing else in their development of nuclear-weapons capabilities and long-range missiles, they will have at least saved the United States' expensive and unproven National Missile Defense Program.

The Pentagon has activated the defense system, it was reported last week, largely because of North Korea's threats to test its new long-range missile. The North Korean missile is believed to have the ability to reach the United States' West Coast. The defensive system has 11 interceptor missiles -- nine in Alaska at Fort Greeley and two in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Also, late last week, U.S. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., proposed that the United States move ahead with a nascent plan to build a third missile-interceptor base in Europe. Frist believes that to be a proper response to Iran's plans to develop its nuclear capabilities for what it says are peaceful purposes.

When last we checked in on the missile-defense program -- admittedly, some time back -- it was projected to cost $80 billion and its missiles could not be relied upon to hit their targets. Now, the cost projections are more like $100 million, and there still is no public evidence that the missiles can hit the broad side of a barn.
Source.

Could the massive amount of exposure North Korea's current weapons testing has attracted in the media somehow be designed to rally public support behind The Pentagon's as yet unproven missile-defence program; a program, that as you can see from the quote above could cost upwards of $100 million?

I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

[edit on 4/7/06 by Implosion]

Sounds like you have something here. What better way to sell the public on a defense system, then by proving that it is more than needed with all the "activity" by North Korea today. Sneaky, yet all the publicity they really need.

Actually, the ENTIRE missile defense system that was activated consists of several different systems. Some of which, are you ready for this? Really do work.

You have the Midcourse Guidance Radars, the Ground Based Interceptors (which are the ones that have had so many problems) and the Aegis BMD (which has hit in every test conducted but one).

Sea-Based X-band (SBX) Radar
Sea-Based X-band (SBX) Radar is the tracking and discrimination radar used for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. SBX will consist of a large X-Band half-populated radar mounted on a modified fifth-generation semi-submersible platform with Battle Management Command Control and Communications, which will include In-flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminals and associated communications; power generation; facility floor space; and infrastructure, similar to a fixed radar installation.

The SBX will provide detailed ballistic missile tracking information to the GMD system, as well as advanced target and countermeasures discrimination capability for the GMD interceptor missiles. The ability of the SBX to deploy to operating locations under its own power allows it to support actual GMD operations as well as realistic testing.

The platform will be approximately 390 feet long, with a 238-foot beam, and an operations draft of approximately 75 feet. The height from water surface to the top of the radar dome will be 250 feet. The deck area will be approximately 270 x 230 feet. The SBX has a displacement of 50,000 tons.

The SBX vessel, a self-propelled semi-submersible modified oil-drilling platform, will be modified and payloads installed at shipyards in Brownsville and Corpus Christi, Texas, and is scheduled to begin supporting GMD operations in late 2005. The initial sea trials will take place in the Gulf of Mexico to ensure maneuverability and control of the vessel. In addition, the sea trials may include full power operation for satellite and calibration device tracking. Following the sea trials, the completed platform will transit from the Gulf of Mexico to its primary support base at Adak, Alaska. SBX will perform tracking, iscrimination, and assessment of target missiles in support of missile defense tests, as well as, operation of the GMD system.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Ground Based Interceptor [GBI]
The Ground Based Interceptor [GBI] is the weapon of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Its mission is to intercept incoming ballistic missile warheads outside the earth’s atmosphere (exo-atmospheric) and destroy them by force of the impact. During flight, the GBI receives information from the NMD Battle Management, Command, Control, and Communications (BMC3) to update the location of the incoming ballistic missile, enabling the GBI onboard sensor systemto identify and home in on the target. The GBI would consist of a multi-stage solid propellant booster and an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. No nuclear weapons would be used as part of the NMD system.

The Ground Based Interceptor will have an acceleration profile and burnout velocity that maximize the interceptor’s reach, consistent with the long-range capability of the supporting sensors. The GBI payload will be an Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) equipped with a high-sensitivity infrared seeker and an agile divert system to support endgame intercepts of responsive threats at very high closing velocities. In addition, the payload will be hardened to elevated doses of X-rays to allow operation in nuclear environments. To limit the adverse effects of this environment on the interceptor, the defense battle management will distribute the engagements within the available battlespace; the larger the battlespace, the wider the separation, and the weaker the deleterious effects of a nuclear environment. Also, to achieve high confidence of success against all threat objects, salvos of interceptors may be launched against each credible threat object. These salvos will be spaced in time to reduce the likelihood of correlated errors among the intercept attempts.

The initial GBI site deployment would be 20 interceptor missiles. The GBI seeker is expected to be able to do discrimination against initial simple threat countermeasure and penetration aid, though it would require assistance from ground-based radars or space-based sensors to address more complex and sophisticated targets.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
Navy Navy Theater Wide [LEAP]
The Navy Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) Program is based on the existing AEGIS Combat System (ACS) which was developed for and deployed on 27 Navy cruisers and more than 30 guided missile destroyers. It is an evolutionary program which continues the development of the STANDARD family of guided missiles, begun more than thirty years ago. The Navy Theater Wide (NTW) Program will continue this evolutionary process to enable the ACS to defend a larger area against long range TBM threats and at greater range. The NTW Program is currently in the Program Definition and Risk Reduction Phase of development. The Navy intends to propose the two-phase approach . The first phase, Block I, will address the current preponderant TBMD threat. NTW Block II will be treated as a major acquisition upgrade to the Block I Program. The Navy and BMDO are exploring funding sources above the currently approved budget to accelerate development and deployment of the initial NTW Block I. The Block II NTW system is not completely defined or fully funded.

The Navy Theater Wide system is projected to add the same generic kind of upper-tier coverage capability as the THAAD system, again providing longer-range coverage and protecting a wider area. This system also offers ascent-phase and mid-course intercept capabilities in cases where the Aegis ship can be positioned near the launch point, and between the launch point and the target area.

The Vertical Launch System (VLS) places constraints on the size of the interceptor. The eight-pack VLS modules on Aegis Mk 41 ships have rectangular 21 inch wide cells. These can accommodate the SM-3 NTW interceptor, which with the LEAP kill vehicle can achieve velocities in the range of 3-4.5 km/sec. The Navy has studied a 26 inch wide six-pack missile cell module that would permit larger interceptors with velocities in excess of 5 km/sec, which could accommodate the NMD EKV.

The Navy Theater Wide system is less mature than the THAAD system. DOD restructured this program in 1996 and made it a pre-MDAP program and decided to proceed with concept definition and a technical demonstration. The Department reevaluated this program and have added about $220 million to it over the FY 1998 FYDP. This was intended to lower the risk for the flight demonstration and to accelerate the initial intercept test to first quarter fiscal year 2000.

The Sea- based Midcourse Defense (SMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) will provide the capability for US Navy Surface Combatants to intercept and destroy Medium Range to Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) in the midcourse ascent phase of the exoatmospheric battlespace while forward deployed or on Fleet Missile Defense Patrol in defense of the nation, deployed U. S. forces, friends, and allies. The SMD element builds upon the existing Aegis Weapons System (AWS) and the Standard Missile (SM) infrastructure. The SMD element objectives include: 1) continue testing and complete the Navy Aegis Light- weight ExoAtmospheric Projectile (LEAP) Intercept (ALI) Flight Demonstration Project (FDP) to demonstrate that LEAP technologies can be successfully integrated with the Navy’s Standard Missile and the AWS; 2) design and develop a Block 2004 ship- based component to be integrated with BMDS test bed; and, 3) initiate, in FY 2002, a Block 2006, 2008, 2010 sea- based midcourse capability against Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) and ICBMs in concert with the Missile Defense National Team efforts as defined by the concept definition.

The Department of Defense signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Japan Defense Agency in 1999 to conduct cooperative research to enhance the capabilities of the Standard Missile-3. The focus of research is on four components: sensor, advanced kinetic warhead, second stage propulsion, and lightweight nosecone. The Japan Cooperative project plans to flight test a jointly-developed component (lightweight nosecone) on a Standard Missile-3 in FY 2005 (Joint Control Test Vehicle (JCTV)- 1 and Joint Flight Mission (JFM)- 1). To assure midcourse segment BMDS meet the capability specifications across the full range of midcourse engagements, the program will conduct a structured concept definition effort leading to re-allocation of system capabilities among ground-based and sea-based products to achieve the best integrated segment performance at the lowest overall cost.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, the ENTIRE missile defense system that was activated consists of several different systems. Some of which, are you ready for this? Really do work.

Show me where they are deployed, and ready to strike down any incoming threat to the US. The question I am asking in this thread, is not "do they work?", but [are you ready for this?]:

Is the disproportionate ammount of media coverage the N. Korean testing has generated an attempt to rally public support behind continually pumping billions of dollars annually into a missile defence system?

The Pentagon is spending $10bn a year on the missile system, which was meant to be in operation by the end of 2004.
Source.

[edit on 4/7/06 by Implosion]

The Pentagon is spending $10bn a year on the missile system, which was meant to be in operation by the end of 2004.
[edit on 4/7/06 by Implosion]

Ronnie Reagans legacy to America.

USS Lake Eerie in the Korean region
USS Shiloh in Hawaii after a recent missile test
USS Paul Hamilton (only currently equipped for LRS&T but no SM-3s)
USS Milius (provides fire control and tracking)
There is also at least one Japanese ship equipped for LRS&T and POSSIBLY with SM-3s.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

Zaphod, if the missile defence system you helpfully outline above is, as you assert, operational, why is the future tense used in every one of your quotes? A few examples: "will consist " "will provide" "will be modified" "would consist of" "will continue this evolutionary process" "will conduct" "is projected to" etc, etc, etc. Sounds to me like they're talking about something that isn't ready yet.

Once more, from this link, which you yourself posted, on this page:

Aegis Ship-Based BMD
Country: USA
Basing: Sea
Status: Testing

Anyway, I'm now dragging my own thread off topic.




[edit on 4/7/06 by Implosion]

Because that link is only up to date as of last year, or maybe even 2004. And because of the fact that only two ships carrying the interceptors can hardly be called "fully operational". It TECHNICALLY is still in the testing stage, but it can, and has been deployed in an OPERATIONAL status.

If you read the quote, it talks about INITIATING in FY2002, so it's even older than I thought. But they've accelerated the program, and the test last month with the Shiloh (Her first) was against an advanced ICBM target.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because that link is only up to date as of last year, or maybe even 2004. And because of the fact that only two ships carrying the interceptors can hardly be called "fully operational".

Good to see we're still nicely off topic.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It TECHNICALLY is still in the testing stage, but it can, and has been deployed in an OPERATIONAL status.

Can you provide proof to back that claim up?

I didn't start this thread so you could talk about how nice and shiny Uncle Sam's six-shooters are, but to gauge opinion on the use of media manipulation to sway public opinion. Manufacturing consent through the way in which mass media reports the news. Disproportionate coverage of weapons testing carried out by a country far behind the technological capability of the United States, to manufacture support for billions of tax dollars being thrown into the missile defence system black hole. Maybe I was too subtle?

I can't find the link right now but USS Lake Eerie, and one other ship were part of Valient Shield and were depolyed off the coast of North Korea to monitor the missile tests.

US Spending on Missile Defence
During December the US Congress completed work on the Fiscal-Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1815/S. 1042). $7.8 billion was approved for research, development, testing and fielding of ballistic missile defence capabilities.

A new report from the US Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans and Alternatives: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2006, January 2006, provides an update of past and projected US missile defence spending. Total US investment in missile defence is expected to peak in 2013 at about $15 billion per annum and then decrease, as systems finish with the procurement phase and become operational. If, however, costs grow as they have historically, pursuing the programmes included in CBO's missile defence projection will cost an additional $3 billion a year, on average, peaking at about $19 billion in 2013.
Source.

Sure is a lot of tax payers money. The Military-industrial complex sure is lucky that a "viable" threat has reared its head. It is viable right?

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the multiple firings posed no threat to U.S. territory...

...Experts say that Pyongyang is developing long-range missiles to have the capability one day to deliver a nuclear bomb, but that it is years away from acquiring such a weapons system.
Source.

The Taepodong-2 long-range missile is estimated to have a range of between 5,000 and 6,000km, putting Alaska, Hawaii and parts of the west coast of the US within range.

But the first launch of the missile, in July 2006, appeared to be a failure after it crashed within seconds of launch - according to US sources.

If the missile was successfully launched, it is not thought to be particularly accurate or to be able to carry a large warhead. Like the Taepodong-1, it requires a fixed launch site.
Source.

Well, that almost makes you wonder what all the fuss is about now, doesn't it?

A word about the operational status of this thing as of 20 January 2006:

In late December, the MDA announced its first successful interceptor launch in more than a year. After two embarrassing back-to-back test failures in February 2005, MDA Director Lt. Gen. Trey Obering hailed the test launch from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean as a "tremendous success". However, the interceptor was launched against a simulated target and no actual intercept was sought. Trials slated for spring 2006 are expected to include a target missile, and further down the road ("within the next three years"), a "salvo test" is planned (firing numerous interceptors against numerous targets simultaneously).
Source.

Oh, and another [Please note the date: June 22, 2006]:

Two US Navy guided missile destroyers with sensors that would swiftly detect and track a missile's flight were operating off the North Korean coast, a Pentagon official said.

Also, as part of a long-planned exercise, the navy has three carrier battle groups operating near Guam in the western Pacific for the first time since the Vietnam War, along with dozens of aircraft, including several heavy bombers.

There are nine US interceptor missiles based in Alaska and two in California. They are at the core of a complex system that connects launch data from satellites and radars on land and aboard ships, and transmits it to command-and-control facilities, where commanders make decisions about whether to launch interceptors.

The system is yet to successfully intercept a missile in its current configuration.
Source.

And here, I think, the real crux of the matter:

In 2002, President Bush withdrew the US from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, and some elements of the defence system have now been installed in Alaska and California, though their effectiveness is in some doubt.

Funding for the system is running at nearly $8bn this year, more than double what it was in 1998.

"A launch of the Taepodong-2 would give a boost to those supporting missile defence in the US," said Mr Fitzpatrick.
Source.

[edit on 5/7/06 by Implosion]

U.S. Readies System For Missile Detection
By Thomas E. Ricks and Joohee Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 21, 2006; Page A15

There are nine interceptor missiles based in Alaska and two in California. They are at the core of a complex system that connects launch data from satellites and radars on land and aboard ships, and transmits the data to command-and-control facilities, where senior commanders make decisions about whether to launch interceptors. The system has not successfully intercepted a missile in its current configuration.

U.S. government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, played down the likelihood of the new anti-missile system being used in this situation because, they said, it is not yet clear whether North Korea will send a missile aloft -- or if it does, whether it would head anywhere near U.S. territory. Nor would the U.S. government want to risk an embarrassing failure of its system, they said, and it is possible that the missile could carry a satellite into space, rather than arc back to earth.

In Seoul, a South Korean official said his government is skeptical of U.S. intelligence indicating that North Korea is preparing to launch a new, larger version of the Taepodong-2 missile capable of hitting the West Coast of the United States. He said his government is not particularly alarmed by the situation and "doesn't understand why there is such fuss in other countries on this."
Source.

The original Washington Post article. Again you can see, the system has never successfully intercepted a missile. I also find that last paragraph to be most interesting. South Korea not worried? Well, if the next door neighbours aren't worried, neighbours who have had a long history of conflict, then why the US? Why now? It's almost as though they have some kind of agenda.

[edit on 5/7/06 by Implosion]

Hmmm.

I noticed an error in the initial article.

When last we checked in on the missile-defense program -- admittedly, some time back -- it was projected to cost $80 billion and its missiles could not be relied upon to hit their targets. Now, the cost projections are more like $100 million, and there still is no public evidence that the missiles can hit the broad side of a barn.

Nice thread, anyway, Implosion. I have been wondering the same things myself.

Originally posted by Communication_Burger
Hmmm.

I noticed an error in the initial article.

When last we checked in on the missile-defense program -- admittedly, some time back -- it was projected to cost $80 billion and its missiles could not be relied upon to hit their targets. Now, the cost projections are more like $100 million, and there still is no public evidence that the missiles can hit the broad side of a barn.

Nice thread, anyway, Implosion. I have been wondering the same things myself.

Yeah, I saw that myself, they must mean $100 billion?

Originally posted by Implosion
Yeah, I saw that myself, they must mean $100 billion?

Indeed they must.

So, what do you think? Are North Korea playing ball intentionally?

Originally posted by Communication_Burger

Originally posted by Implosion
Yeah, I saw that myself, they must mean $100 billion?

Indeed they must.

So, what do you think? Are North Korea playing ball intentionally?

At first I thought it was a possibility, now I'm more inclined to think that it's more to do with the focus of the media. For instance here are four stories from around the same time that I found no mention of on rolling news, nor heard any mention of on BBC radio:

Israeli aircraft attack Interior Ministry in Gaza

Talks to free soldier break down

Israeli planes strike Hamas camp

Russia to stop honoring WTO obligations if not accepted: Putin

I would have thought all four, especially the three directly concerning the current situation in Gaza, would be important world events.

Originally posted by Implosion
At first I thought it was a possibility, now I'm more inclined to think that it's more to do with the focus of the media. For instance here are four stories from around the same time that I found no mention of on rolling news, nor heard any mention of on BBC radio:

Israeli aircraft attack Interior Ministry in Gaza

Talks to free soldier break down

Israeli planes strike Hamas camp

I would have thought all four, especially the three directly concerning the current situation in Gaza, would be important world events.

I agree, and had arrived at the same conclusion myself. I mentioned this yesterday (or late last night) in another thread, and was completely ignored.

EDIT: Thanks for the links.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by Communication_Burger]

Commentary
Ronnie Reagan was not the dottering old fool so many of us Liberals thought. Edward Teller was a Hungarian emigree who did seminal work in nuclear bombs. He is generally regarded as the “father” of the hydrogen bomb.

Teller believed in and he convinced Reagan that the Strategic Defense Initiative - Star Wars - would work. It was then and it is now the same problem, “how do you shoot (hit) a bullet incoming at 25,000 mph, with your bullet outgoing at 5-10,000 mph?”

What Teller, Reagan and the American government did not tell us is the outgoing bullet (missile) will be armed with small hydrogen bombs which will make today’s “missed by a mile” miscues insignificant. Teller’s role in the SDI was to furnish both the amount of time needed to detonate an H-bomb and the diameter of an H-bomb’s killing zone. 25,000 miles per hour is 35,000 feet per second.

If the killing zone of an H-bomb in space is a spheroid 5 miles across, then we need to know for how many micro seconds will the incoming and outgoing bullets (missiles) be inside that zone? And, just how many micro seconds does it take for an H-bomb to “do its thing?” No one has exploded a nuclear device above the upper lawyers of our atmosphere - say 100 miles or more - ignoring the September, 1979 unexplained “double flash” characteristic of nuclear explosions detected over South Africa.

There is some concern over the potential harm a nuclear weapon exploded in space, called an EMP - Electric Magnetic Pulse - could cause. Our best defense right now is the old law of propagation of electro-magnetic energy, that it is in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source to the receptor.

Without knowing the exact quantity of energy we are dealing with - that is derived in other ways - we can say with absolute confidence that the level of the Sun’s energy at Venus is one fourth the amount on Mercury, assuming Mercury is 30 million miles out and Venus 60 million. Which by extension also means the level of sunlight energy at Earth is but 11% of the level on Mercury. Back to earth, the energy level of a EMP would diminish inversely according to the square of the distance away.

The Five Founding Members of the Nuclear Weapons Club, the USA, the USSR (Russia), the UK, France and China, have exploded over 500 nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. India and Pakistan one (device) each. Israel, maybe one, maybe not. At no time have I ever heard of an adverse consequence because of an EMP. This is not to say EMP should be ignored. But it is to say we can “harden” susceptible equipment as it is built new or replaces old. We do not need a crash program to harden every cell phone or iPod. Or more seriously, our national electric distribution grid system.

For some good info on detecting surreptitious nuclear tests, see www.llnl.gov...

Which means who is “watching" the watcher's? We “captured” Saddam and we were “given” Zarqawi. Both were betrayed. We don’t speak of that in either case. In an article dated May 13, 2006, the “India Daily” relates the Afghan Foreign Minister informed Germany’s “Bildam Sonntag” paper, that Osama bin Laden is living quietly in Pakistan, near the Afghan border.

I learned from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that when you come upon a crime scene and the perpetrator is not immediately known, you start your inquiry by asking, “Who is the beneficiary of this crime?”

I think anyone who claims objectivity will admit the primary beneficiary is the Pentagon, which makes the sinecure of both Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden safe!

See www.indiadaily.com...

And see www.indiadaily.com...

(I also learned India still refers to old Burma as Myanmar but the CIA Factbook does not.).

Originally posted by donwhite
I think anyone who claims objectivity will admit the primary beneficiary is the Pentagon, which makes the sinecure of both Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden safe!

I know what you're saying with regards to Osama, but am not aware of any links Kim Jong Il may have to the US; that is not to say they don't exist. However, I feel that you are going to get these situations in the world anyway, so many different countries, leaders, religions, ideologies [maybe that's naive]. If you didn't actually spark the event to work to your advantage in the first place, the next best thing IMO would be to spin it. To use it to your own ends, which is exactly what I think is happening right here, right now.

Western governments currently have forces firing live rounds at PEOPLE in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nobody bats an eyelid. The only time we ever hear of it, is when we lose another one of ours. N.Korea had the temerity to test fire some missiles into the SEA, and all hell breaks lose.