Print 93 comment(s) - last by JameelaMOA.. on Nov 24 at 9:17 AM

The U.S. Defense Department claims that its Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems make the U.S. homeland invicible from ballistic missile attack. These claims are insane, say two of the nation's top security experts.  (Source: Nato Source/Atlantic Council)

The security researchers claim drone-based interception over the enemy nation is the only reliable way to shoot down ballistic missiles.  (Source: DARPA/Boeing)

Iran is reportedly designing fin-less ballistic missiles that could outwit current U.S. interceptors. Iranian defense officials are pictured here unveiling their new drone bomber, which they nicknamed "the messenger of death".  (Source: Reuters)
They suggest a drone based solution would fix the flaws presented by a ground-based system, using only existing tech

The United States recently followed Israel's claims that it was ready to shoot down any nuclear missile aimed its way, with similar claims of its own.  The U.S. has begun reexamining space-based defenses and has also been quietly upgrading its ground-based missile-defense shield, even as U.S. President Barack Obama pushes his vision of global nuclear disarmament.

A new study, though, published in the 
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, insists that the U.S.'s claims of security are very flawed.  Authored by two top American security authorities, the study argues that despite recent upgrades and breakthroughs, America assertion that its homeland is safe from any airborne nuclear threat is a "dangerous fantasy".

George N. Lewis, a physicist and associate director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, and Theodore A. Postal, a physicist and professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT, authored the new report.

The report specifically targets an April 2010 U.S. government resolution that declared the U.S. to be safe from ballistic missile threats from hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea, thanks to its US Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) and Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems.  According to Professors Lewis and Postal, though, this new declaration is based on a "technical myth" as Iran is thought to be developing countermeasures to make its ballistic devices harder to shoot down.  Other hostile nations may be working on similar countermeasures.

But the pair of professors isn't just griping about what they view as an ineffective strategy -- they're proposing what seems like a sensible solution.  They advise that rather than rely on what they call a "ineffective, untested, and unworkable" GMD system, that funding instead be put into developing a constantly airborne fleet of stealth drones over the airspace of hostile nations.

That way, rather than trying to shoot down missiles that have already reached the United States, Northern and Western Europe, and Northern Russia -- and likely are deploying countermeasures -- the drones would instead launch fast interceptors taking out the missiles over the hostile country's own airspace, preventing them from deploying effective countermeasures.

The plan would also be kosher with the New START arms reduction treaty, recently signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  That treaty set a limit of 1,550 ready-to-use ballistic warheads (each) on the U.S. and Russia's respective arsenals.  It also contained language limiting certain missile defense strategies.

The current systems, according to the pair of researchers, are ineffective for two reason.  The first is simple physics.  Interceptors, in their current form, can only accurately predict and target regular trajectories from finned missile designs.  Iran is reportedly designing fin-less designs that would likely cause interceptors to miss.  They could also employ tumbling missile designs, similar to those used to defeat the Patriot Missile Defense in the Gulf War of 1991.

Secondly, decoys can also hinder proper shoot-down.  U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles are equipped with decoy warheads, so that once in space, the real warhead launches amid a swarm of identical dummy warheads, making interception an increasingly impossible task. There's no reason why Iran, North Korea, or others would be unable to develop similar technology.

The authors take special issue with the U.S. Defense Department's claims that the U.S. is already defended from nuclear threats, pointing out that they have no evidence supporting that the system would work in combat.  Professor Lewis comments, "These claims are fantastical, audacious, and dangerous."

A drone solution they say would provide a full answer to the problem and would not require new technology.  Further, shot down warheads would fall on enemy territory should they still manage to activate after being hit by an interceptor.

Professor Lewis concludes, "The situation is urgent, as Iran is already demonstrating countermeasures in flight tests that would render both the GMD and SM-3 long-range missile defense systems ineffective.  If we, as a nation, refuse to confront the fact that our chosen defense system is not reliable, and if we fail to build a robust and reliable alternative system using existing technology, we will have only ourselves to blame if the continental United States suffers a catastrophe as a result of the successful delivery of a nuclear weapon by long-range ballistic missile."

Comments     Threshold

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

By Randomblame on 11/1/2010 4:05:53 PM , Rating: 0
So now iran has nukes. Great. Speak softly and carry a big stick - Seems like obama dropped the stick. I say we strike now while we still can. Once they have operational missiles things start getting dicey. They decided to test us - how will we answer?

By tng on 11/1/2010 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
If you remember in his campaign, he said he would talk to What's His Name in Iran directly and not be like Bush and provoke him.

Well he tried and got told basically to stuff it by Iran, no one there wanted to talk to him. Basic rookie when it comes to foreign policy, but it sounded good to allot of naive people out there, it is the "We just need to talk out our differences" thing that all these guys think will work.

By roykahn on 11/1/2010 7:27:41 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, do you have any idea how hollow any words coming from American leaders and military are to non-Americans? The history of deception, lies, and lawlessness may be quickly forgotten by the American public, but not by others. Are you also going to believe that America has been trying to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine? Any so-called peace talks by the US are only in the economic and strategic interests of the US and possibly its allies. If we knew the truth about any "negotiations" that the US has had with Iran then we'd see how ludicrous they were. It's almost guaranteed that they involved demands for Iran to stop any nuclear development and to accept that other countries (especially Israel) be encouraged to continue their nuclear WEAPON developments. Have a look to see which countries have and haven't signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. I don't think it's been proven that Iran even has any nuclear weapons yet. Why is there such attention on Iran compared to other countries that not only have such weapons, but have not signed the NPT and are much higher threats? It's absurd.

Once again, don't be fooled into thinking that any discussions involving the US are about world peace.

By Reclaimer77 on 11/1/2010 7:44:36 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, do you have any idea how hollow any words coming from American leaders and military are to non-Americans? The history of deception, lies, and lawlessness

Sounds like you are talking about the UN, not just the U.S.

By R3T4rd on 11/2/2010 4:48:36 AM , Rating: 2

By tng on 11/2/2010 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
to accept that other countries (especially Israel) be encouraged to continue their nuclear WEAPON developments.
Last time I checked, no leader in Israel was telling the West in English that their nuclear ambitions were peaceful and the next day in Hebrew claiming they were going to wipe Iran off the map. Iran's president does this all the time, knowing that what he says in Farci(?) is not translated by the Western press.

Also I don't think that Israel plans to use any nukes it may have as a first strike weapon like Iran hints at almost monthly.

You can talk about all of the treaties you want but that is what it comes down to.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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