New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

fredmoore - 10:26pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14485 of 14512)

However, PAC-3 is geared to intercepting slower-moving incoming missiles at very close range, over a relatively small area, and cannot provide a basis for a NMD shield. Upper-tier options Among the new 'upper-tier' systems under development, the greatest efforts have been devoted to Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD). The concepts and technologies involved in this army programme are much more advanced than those of PAC-3. THAAD is designed to intercept targets at a much greater range - including outside the atmosphere - and over a much larger area. According to advocates, the system could be integrated with a full spectrum of space-based sensors, enabling it to intercept incoming warheads at ranges of up to several hundred kilometres. To date, however, THAAD's reach has consistently exceeded its grasp. Despite prodigious budgetary allocations throughout the 1990s, THAAD tests failed six times in a row. The latest failure, in late March 1999, led many observers to question the programme's viability. This provides the ship-based Navy Theatre-Wide (NTW) system with a major opportunity. NTW supporters argue that the system is more flexible and more capable than THAAD, and obviates the need for possibly controversial deployments on allied territory. It has been designed with a more rapid interceptor, and will purportedly be able to cover a wider area than THAAD. Cohen's announcement on 20 January 1999 increased funding for the NTW programme. The intention is to accelerate testing of both THAAD and NTW over the next few years, allowing for early evaluation and a decision on which will be the lead 'upper-tier' programme. The goal is initial deployment of that system in 2007. The prospect of advanced TMD deployment seems almost certain to trigger major expectations and concerns in other countries. These include Japan, which must balance compelling security needs against its fear of worsened relations with China. For Taiwan, TMD presents an opportunity substantially to augment defence collaboration with the US while reducing China's strategic advantage. This is, of course, what worries Beijing. Chinese analysts are sceptical about America's ability to develop an NMD capability, but they are very concerned that a greatly enhanced US TMD system in East Asia, including Taiwan, would seriously tip the existing strategic balance against China. Beijing has made it clear that moves in this direction will worsen Sino-US relations. But it is precisely because an East Asian TMD system may have a realistic chance of limiting Chinese power - which many Americans see as increasingly threatening - that further US moves in this direction seem inevitable. Capability and cost of main theatre missile defences System name Type of warhead Approx. radius of defended area Units Date of initial deployment Acquisition cost

Lower-tier (Point) defences Patriot PAC-2 (army) Blast fragment 10-15km 2,247 missiles modified 1991 US$0.3bn Patriot PAC-3 (army) Hit-to-kill 40-50km 1,200 missiles, 54 fire units 1999 US$6.2bn Navy Area Defence Blast fragment 50-100km 1,500 missiles 2000 US$6.2bn (Navy lower tier) Upper-tier (area) defences THAAD (army) Hit-to-kill A few hundred km 1,233 missiles, 2006` US$ 12.8bn 77 launchers, 11 radars Navy Theatre-Wide Defence Hit-to-kill A few hundred km 650 missiles on 22 Aegis cruisers -- US$ 5.0bn

Thanks to bluestar for some worthy input.

lchic - 10:39pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14486 of 14512)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" Do not use one-sentence paragraphs. http://learnline.ntu.edu.au/studyskills/as/as_es_ba_es.html

lchic - 10:44pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14487 of 14512)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

http://www.defencejournal.com/may99/us-missile.htm

lchic - 10:46pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14488 of 14512)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Interestingly One Sentence Paragraphs are favoured in the original document.

bluestar23 - 11:09pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14489 of 14512)

"Thanks to bluestar for some worthy input."

....and a good post by fredmoore giving a overview of the system architecture and some of its strategic implications. The THAAD part of the program, or "third tier" has the most problems...but the Navy program has also suffered a setback I hear... it is not on track, or a part of it isn't.....

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense