Print 109 comment(s) - last by Tavoc.. on Oct 21 at 4:34 PM

A Northrop-Grummond built DSP satellite. These current satellites only detect ballistic missile launches, rather than shoot them down.
New $5M study is first allocated since work was halted 15 years ago.

Congress recently approved a $5 million grant to begin study of space-based missile defenses. This marks the first time money has been allocated to the program since work on space-based systems was canceled in the 1990s by President Clinton. Two years ago, Congress rejected a similar proposal.

According to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the threat of missile proliferation has grown rapidly since the 1990s. A total of 120 nations now have ballistic missile technology, he said, and nations like North Korea and Iran are not only developing the technology, but selling it on the open market. Missile defense systems are growing as well; 27 nations now have some form of missile defense.

The most recent annual report from the Pentagon highlighted the growing threat of accidental or intentional launch of ballistic missiles, as well as the vulnerability of U.S. satellites to attack, as evidenced by China's 2007 missile test, which destroyed a satellite in orbit.

A defense official commenting on the proposal told the Washington Times that space-based ABM systems are necessary for global, rapid defense, "It's really the only way to defend the U.S. and its allies from anywhere on the planet". The official said such defenses were last considered during the late 1980s, as part of the Global Protection Against Limited Strike, or GPALS, a multi-prong system which used ground and sea-based interceptors, along with space-based platforms. The plan was cancelled by the Clinton Administration, which focused all work on short-range missiles only.

The U.S. announced last year that its ground-based Star Wars' missile defense system was operational and ready for use, though capable at present of covering only parts of the U.S. Plans to expand the system in Europe are under way.

Despite claims to the contrary, China is also apparently working on similar proposals, says China military affairs specialist Richard Fisher. The program, which China says it halted in the 1960s, has apparently been restarted with such systems as the SC-19 anti-satellite missile. According to Fisher, China is also trying to deploy space-warfare weapons, aircraft carrier groups, and a much larger MIRV'ed version of its nuclear ballistic missile arsenal.

Fisher, author of the new book, "China's Military Modernization: Building for Regional and Global Reach", says that by 2020, China "will be well on their way to assembling all the elements of global power that [the U.S.] has today".

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Sounds great but...
By Sumanji on 10/17/2008 2:04:40 PM , Rating: 3
lol maybe we should ask Japan to invade China again and see how the fare second time round?

I don't think they will have as much luck as 1937 ;)

RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/17/2008 9:47:44 PM , Rating: 5
Well, let's see. To expand on your cute little joke:

We ask Japan to invade China.

They tell us that they have no offensive military, per the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and that we, the U.S. handle all of their Offensive military capacity.

They we say "Oh."


The Japanese weren't working on luck, they were working with a superior military, which has for the most part been dissolved into a small defense force which is bolstered by several US bases throughout the Far East. In the time of China (which for those who don't know, started several years ago), any country in the world who would attempt to invade China, including the U.S. would be squished like a bug. Look at how overextended we are already with just the Middle East. If we, and every other ally we have poured every available troop into China, they would make Vietnam look like the battle of 2004 Red Sox vs Cardinals (and I'll tell you we aren't the "RED" Sox in this battle.)

The only way we could hope to win in China would be a massive nuclear launch, which would be the worst Genocide in U.S. History, topping the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Slave trade, and of course the Extermination of the Native Americans.

But something tells me if it did go down, it wouldn't go down either of these ways. I find it more likely that China will just become the Economic center of the world in future years, with a well educated youth which has focused on strong ethical/moral values.

We should be worried more about the education, stabilization and infrastructure of Africa and the Middle East, which is the biggest threat IMHO.

RE: Sounds great but...
By masher2 on 10/18/2008 2:09:25 AM , Rating: 3
> "We should be worried more about the education, stabilization and infrastructure of Africa and the Middle East, which is the biggest threat IMHO"

Middle East aside, I'm curious how you regard an Africa lacking both education and infrastructure as a serious threat to the US.

RE: Sounds great but...
By bfonnes on 10/18/2008 8:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Any region that is not stabilized can be used a base for an attack. Maybe not a physical attack, but there are much more ways to cause mayhem than just physical attacks in today's internet world. It'd be naivete not to think so. Respond if you like and I'll respond and tell you how.

RE: Sounds great but...
By kenji4life on 10/18/2008 8:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
I meant the middle east as a global threat, and the poor education/infrastructure of Africa south of the middle east more as a regional problem. Thanks for bringing my attention for the need for clarity. But you don't disagree with me do you?

RE: Sounds great but...
By LeftSide on 10/18/2008 7:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to China? I know they boast a million man army, but most of them are untrained farmers. Once you get past the main army, the rest of them were trained with sticks. Unless they have gone through a massive overhaul of their training program in the last 2 years, I wouldn't be worried.

Numbers mean nothing. The U.S. didn't take out the entire Iraqi Military by shooting every one of them, they took them out strategically . They took out their communications, then sent out pamphlets giving instructions on how to surrender. It was very effective. The actual war was very, very short. Its the Rebuilding of Iraq that is taking so long. I don't think the U.S. is going to war with China anytime soon, but I also don't think every Nation is afraid to invade based on numbers.

RE: Sounds great but...
By bangmal on 10/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sounds great but...
By Ryanman on 10/19/2008 4:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah... your "mom with a baseball bat" rant holds up, especially since we've killed something like 20k insurgents.

Your entire post should be focused on how the war in Iraq is unjust, not how much ass coalition forces kick.
I'm sure whichever country you're from has a much more effective army than us.../sarc

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki