« The Hero of Chappaquiddick | Main | Two More Reasons to Dump the UN »
January 28, 2005
1970's Redux?
In the spirit of detente the United States largely stopped building nuclear delivery systems in the 1970's. The Soviet Union, seeing detente in a different light, continued it's buildup. The trend was finally reversed by Ronald Reagan. Are we seeing the same thing today? Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough report this morning on the status of some of the other nuclear powers;
We obtained a copy of the latest report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center on ballistic and cruise missile threats. The report concludes that the missile threat is growing "in number and variety.""The availability of weapons of mass destruction for use on ballistic missiles vastly increases the significance of this threat," the report states.
The report notes that Russia, despite U.S. aid to reduce its nuclear arsenals, has or is building four new types of ICBMs, including 30 SS-27s that are deployed with "countermeasures to ballistic missile defense systems."
Another new ICBM is in the works that will be deployed in both silos and road-mobile launchers, the report said.
Russia's other new long-range missiles include two new submarine-launched ballistic missiles known as the SS-N-23 Sineva and the Bulava-30, which will be deployed in a new missile submarine known as the Dolgoruky class.
The report also notes that China is building up its long-range missile forces with two new ICBMs, the 4,500-mile range DF-31 and the 7,000-mile range DF-31A. "The number of warheads on Chinese ICBMs capable of threatening the United States is expected to expand to 75 to 100 over the next 15 years," the report said.
The report also warns that work on North Korea's ICBM, the Taepo-Dong-2, is continuing, and the missile "may be exported to other countries in the future."
Iran's missile program was described in the report as "ambitious" and includes the 800-mile range Shahab-3 and plans for two longer-range missiles, the Shahab-4 and Shahab-5. "Iran could have an ICBM capable of reaching the United States before 2015," the report said.As for land-attack cruise missiles, the report states that the threat is growing, with at least nine nations building the ground-hugging, hard-to-detect systems.
Both China and Russia are building new cruise missiles that can be armed with nuclear or conventional warheads. "The majority of new [land-attack cruise missiles] will be very accurate, conventionally armed and available for export," the report said. "U.S. defense systems could be severely stressed by low-flying, stealthy cruise missiles that can simultaneously attack a target from several different directions."
The answer however, should be different this time. In the 1980's we responded by building the MX, B-1b, and adding the D-5 missile to the Navy's Trident boomers. We also initiated the Strategic Devense Initiative. It was SDI that truely scared the Soviets, and was one of the primary factors that led to their demise. This time we need not make significant alterations to our nuclear forces.
Russia is the hardest of all to deal with. The good news is that unless they undergo a significant shift they are not a threat to us anymore. Weapons by themselves are not a threat, it is the intention to use them against us that becomes threatening. We have some economic leverage with Russia, and we should use what we have.
I see it as unlikely that China will use their weapons against our mainland no matter what happens with regard to Taiwan. They might use them against our forces in the Pacific region if we get into a no-holds barred shooting match with them over the island republic. Here, missile defense will be of some, though limited, use. The Chinese can simply overwhelm any defense we currently have planned. China plans on using their weapons primarily as an intimidation factor. They want hegemony in their region of the world and see nuclear weapons as one means of achieving it. To counter them we must 1) make sure Taiwan is properly armed, 2) maintain good diplomatic/military relations with our friends in the region, and 3) increase our own military (primarily naval) strength in the region, something that the Bush administration unfortunately does not seem inclined to do.
The "rogue nations" require yet another answer. With them, we should concentrate on these three efforts; 1) nonproliferation, 2) missile defense, and 3) Preemption when all else fails.
Although nonproliferation efforts have at best a spotty track record, negotiations, if coupled with strong economic sanctions and a credible military threat, can have at least a delaying effect.
Missile defense will never be 100% effective, but it need not be to be effective. All we have to do is to stop a few missiles fired by a madman, who may not be disuaded by traditional deterrance.
Either way, the end of a bipolar world significantly complicates our choices.
Posted by Tom at January 28, 2005 9:22 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/239
