Bush warns Canada could be a target of North Korean missiles

[FoverF]

The 747-based YAL-1 was designed to knock out missiles shortly after launch, when their speeds are sub-sonic, they are large targets full of fuel, and they fall on the bad-guy's turf. The aircraft also need to be close (maybe 100km or so as a good educated guess, although the USAF guesses are more optimistic) to the launch site. Close enough that the aircraft would have to be in orbit INSIDE North Korean airspace 24 hours a day to provide coverage.

On the other side of apogee, ICBMs and IRBMs are coming down closer to Mach 10 (give or take about 5 mach numbers). And they're much smaller (anything that can hit Canada from overseas will have to discard some stages on the way), and much harder to kill. There's no possible way an airborne laser (of this generation) can kill an incoming missile. It's not something airborne lasers were designed to de.

The USA's missile defence system is likewise completely useless, for a large number of reasons. First and foremost is the fact that all you have to do to defeat it is fire another missile. The system is planned to defend against 2 or possibly 3 missiles at a time (provided all of the intercepts are successfull... this has not been the case so far). All NK has to do to defeat this ridiculously expensive system is to wait until they've got that fourth missile. Not much of a challenge.

Not to mention the (no apologies here) IDIOCY of using a kinetic kill 'warhead'. The interceptor vehicle (moving high supersonic) has to actually physically contact the missile (which is moving hypersonically), in order to kill it. No warhead, no explosion, nothing. Just relying on the ability of a missile to directly 'plink', head-on, into another missile, at high hypersonic speeds.

And a major consideration from a Canadian perspective:

Let's say (hypothetical scenario) North Korea fires ten ICBMs at North America. One of them seems to be off-course, and will likely land in Canada. Anyone want to take odds on the chances of this missile being given a higher priority than the one aimed at the Los Angeles basin? Heck, if *I* was in charge at Cheyenne during the same scenario,, I'd say screw Canada too. At that point it boils down to a numbers game of saving lives, and Canada is going to lose that game.  So the chances of us getting ANY use out of the system is essentially nil.

Unless someone expects North Korea to actually fire ONE missile, and ONLY ONE missile. And that it will land in Canada. They are both extremely unlikely events. Even more unlikely is the chance that NK can actually develop a functioning nuclear weapon that can fit in their ghetto ICBMs in the next 20 years anyways, which kind of moots most of this discussion anyways.

I think we should co-operate with the Americans on their BMD system,, maybe let them put radars on our turf, be good friends and good neighbors about it, but they can cover the tab themselves.

I don't think Canada really has any need for a missile defence system (*YET*. This will change as technology changes). But Canadian forces overseas will/do have this need. A ship-based system will be able to provide this a lot of the time, and might be able to provide some protection to coastal cities.  Modified SM-3s or something along those lines on future destroyer/frigate platforms can offer at least some protection for coastal areas, and can provide the much more likely to be needed task of protecting friendly forces deployed overseas from IRBM/SRBM attack as well.

There are other options, though (Japan is responding to the NK threat with Patriot PAC-3s, which is the best western system for the job), but I don't realistically see ANY of them happening. I think having an existing system (such as AAW destroyers) provide some sort of protection is the ONLY type of BMD system that the Canadian government or public will buy. And realistically, thats probably all we need.

 

[a_majoor]

If we want to look at hard numbers, an incoming IRBM/ICBM needs to be moving at sub orbital velocity, which is basically > Mach 25. The fact that this generation of USAF interceptor rockets has had a 50% success rate in tests indicates a very impressive level of technical sophistication, since they are flying through the atmosphere and accelerating to almost orbital velocity to hit the target at the maximum practical altitude (somewhere in the upper atmosphere, where decoys and "penetration aids" are being stripped away by air friction).

A collision with anything at all at a combined speed of under Mach 50 will vaporize virtually anything human technology can make (and those aliens better watch out as well!), and we don't know just how the kinetic energy interceptor actually works. A reasonable guess is it might open up like an umbrella at the last moment, or perhaps eject material and allow the enemy warhead to fly through a cloud of ball bearings. Missiles like the BaE Javelin and Thales Starstreak really are designed to physically impact the target (a missile at supersonic speed trying to hit an enemy aircraft also moving at supersonic or high subsonic speed and capable of manoeuvre) so an ABM interceptor designed to do the same thing is not a complete stretch.

Anyway, defense systems create uncertainty in the minds of the attackers. If there is a 50% chance of an intercept, they may have to devote two missiles to a critical target, which means there is one less missile available for other targets. In this game, a rich and technologically sophisticated nation like the United States can crank out interceptors far more easily than the Koreans or Iranians can crank out offensive missiles. Worse yet, each step the enemy take to evade the ABMs costs in terms of extra weight, volume and cost, meaning the missiles carry fewer or smaller warheads. (BTW, this is the same calculation made in the 1980s, which made President Reagan confident that some form of the SDI or "Star Wars" system could defeat a mass launch by the USSR).

It also seems there are a whole raft of potential ABM systems and technologies on the horizon, so once again, the attacker has to devote more and more resources to try to overwhelm the defense, and loses more and more offensive capability as he adds countermeasures to defeat the different defense mechanisms.

The United States had pledged to pay for the bulk of the system themselves, and "we" have control of the system through NORAD (the DComd is a Canadian officer, for example), so initially this is a sweet deal for us. As responsible adults, we should pick up some of the tab and some of the responsibility, including buying and basing an ABM wing on Canadian soil to cover the West Coast and the High Arctic (say one Squadron in BC, and one each in the Yukon, NWT and Navuat). If Iran becomes a nuisance, then a further Squadron in Goose Bay might become a requirement as well.

Given the evolving threat of mobile launchers and the need for theatre defense, I would say the sooner a space based system is in place, the better, since that gives us global coverage without having to screw around with ships, planes, ground bases and so on. The space based C4I infrastructure is very useful for all other branches of the Armed Forces. Google G-PALs  (Global Protection Against Limited Strike) for an example of what could be done.

 

[Enzo]

You're advocating the militarization of space?

 

[JackD]

Just an aside here, I must say that I find this thread interesting in that historically speaking,  this thread seems to be re-arguing the debate on the Bomarc system of the late 50's - early 60's. Ironic isn't it?

 

[paracowboy]

You're advocating the militarization of space?

do you honestly think it isn't already "militarized"? Where do you suppose the satellites we use for imagery is located?

Do you actually think that as humanity makes more and more forays into the 'final frontier' (thank you, Mr. Roddenberry) we aren't going to bring our political/religious differences with us?

 

[GAP]

Does anyone seriously think we would have gotten even above the clouds without the militarization of the process. It always has been about militarization. There is no other major source of funding that would have seen the project through. That applied to BOTH the US and CCCP, and others.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You're advocating the militarization of space?

Three words...okay, letters... G...P...S... 8)

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You're advocating the militarization of space?

CAUTION!!!  UNINFORMED HIPPIE ALERT!!! CAUTION!!! UNINFORMED HIPPIE ALERT!!!

 

[a_majoor]

Space has been militarized by recce and support satellites, and the United States and former USSR made many studies of military space systems.

The USSR actually had military flight hardware, such as space stations armed with a cannon and provisions for missile launchers. They also had a flight capable anti satellite system as well. This link is a good starting point: http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm and the Astronautix site has lots of historical data about many strange and wonderful projects considered by both sides.

 

[Centurian1985]

What with all the conglomerates, unions, consortiums, and private enterprises out there nowadays, its almost easier to ask 'who hasn't militarized space?

 

[1feral1]

There are a lot of countries out there that could launch a missile at our country, but there must be a 'motive' for them to do so.  In regard to North Korea, that currently does not exist.

What about the North Koreans selling this missle to some nutcase terr org? Seeking an easy western target? This is a real possiblilty, not far fetched.

Should they ever target the USA, Canada could be the fallout zone when the thing falls short or is destroyed by the Yanks.

Cheers,

Wes

The threat is serious.

 

[Enzo]

Nice one Zip; I don't resemble that comment.  ;D

The militarization of space began as soon as German scientists came over to assist with the rocketry programs of the late 40s, early 50s; maybe even sooner. I made an error and I wasn't precise with my choice of wording. In recent times, militarization of space in the lexicon has become synonymous with arming and that was where I intended to base my comment. US Space Command has been operational since the early 80s, military personnel have been involved with all facets of the space program for not only the American, but other nations agencies since their incorporation, and, as has been pointed out, civilian companies are involved in all aspects of this growing industry. GPS and intelligence gathering satellites are the norm to the point where what was once confidential is now commonplace, i.e., recreational navigation, Google Earth, etc.

The arming of space. That is a door that hasn't been opened, as far as I know. Should it? I can't say. Will it? Of course, it's inevitable. I am simply curious as to the mindset of those who express themselves in this forum so that I know how to respond in kind.

Off topic: I have a tendency to assume the role of the devils advocate with the intention of inspiring thought. It is a shame that the best a differing viewpoint often produces is ridicule.

 

[tamouh]

What about the North Koreans selling this missle to some nutcase terr org? Seeking an easy western target? This is a real possiblilty, not far fetched.

I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.

 

[Armymatters]

a_major:
Just to let you know, the probability of making a successful intercept is, as you have stated (and shown in tests) 50%, but 2 attempts at intercept does not equal 100%. Basic high school math: when you flip two coins, the outcome of the first coin is not affected by the outcome of the second coin, and vice versa. The same goes for ABM's: the probability of success with each ABM by itself is only 50%. The concept is called Statistical Independence. So in short, you may need more than two ABM's to intercept even one ICBM.  This also means that you can expend all the ABM's you have, and there is still the mathmatical probability that ALL ABM's miss the target, as each attempt only has a 50% chance of success. I am a bit rusty when it comes to probability, but I still remember this stuff.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Off topic: I have a tendency to assume the role of the devils advocate with the intention of inspiring thought. It is a shame that the best a differing viewpoint often produces is ridicule.

You did inspire thought.  Five posts shot down your open-for-interpretation comment.  Thanks for being inspiring. 
Perhaps the ridicule comes from the perception (at least on my part) that you don't think there should be anything in orbit that can shoot downwards and provide people with a missile defence.  I never understood this bass ackwards thinking in the 80's when the original SDI was being tossed about.  Who gives a crap where the weapons are, if they render nukes obsolete?  I can understand why the USSR didn't want it, because nukes are all they had going for them for a while there.  But now, with gearboxes like Kim Jong running around farming out missile tech to anyone who can afford it, coupled with the former Soviet states having an apparent lack of ability to keep a grip on their old nuclear weapons, wouldn't now be a good time to get back on the wagon and have some quality space based weapons?  Instead of trying to play catch up after someone lobs one of these things in our general direction? 
Maybe we could piggy back a couple of ozone quality sniffers or an earth temperature monitor just to appease the enviro-weenies.

 

[paracowboy]

I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.

they don't need the entire missile. Just the part that blows up and scatters nasty stuff around. But, they certainly can purchase the entire thing and find a nation willing to support them for a price. Off-hand, I can think of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, a couple of the 'Stan-type countries, RhodesiaZimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan, in fact most of Africa.

Transport is easy. If entire villages of people can be smuggled into western nations on alert, how difficult is a missile and EIS. Especially if broken up and smuggled over months or years?

You need to either wake up, or shut up.

 

[tamouh]

they don't need the entire missile. Just the part that blows up and scatters nasty stuff around. But, they certainly can purchase the entire thing and find a nation willing to support them for a price. Off-hand, I can think of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, a couple of the 'Stan-type countries, RhodesiaZimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan, in fact most of Africa

If Taliba, Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, a country and a government also closely connected with Pakistan knew before hand the US was planning to attack them, yet they couldn't purchase any types of missiles, I have strong doubt any country is willing to provide them with that sort of technology.

There is more risk in terr. hijacking a nuclear warhead in-transport than able to obtain it. I also think it is far fetched any country in the world will attempt to launch a missile at the US unless they're seeking nothing but complete destruction including their own government.

 

[KevinB]

:

The Taliban was not nec close with the Pakistani Gov't but the ISI - the Pakistani (extremist) Inteligence service (who have made attempts on Musharef)

tamouh -- your also making the mistake of assuming that non-host nation terrorist organizatiosn care about retaliation -- some thrive on it for they realize it will cause people to flock to them...

 

[paracowboy]

tamouh,

did the Palestinian invaders care what happened to the Lebanese people when they used Lebanon to attack Israel? Did the Taliban, most of whom were Pakistanis, care about the Afghan people when they sheltered Al Queda? Do the Iranians (Jordanians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al) care about the Iraqi people when they launch their attacks on the Coalition forces?

Groups like this invite retaliation from their enemies as a means of promoting their own agenda.

 

[tamouh]

did the Palestinian invaders care what happened to the Lebanese people when they used Lebanon to attack Israel? Did the Taliban, most of whom were Pakistanis, care about the Afghan people when they sheltered Al Queda? Do the Iranians (Jordanians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al) care about the Iraqi people when they launch their attacks on the Coalition forces?

PLO definitely used Lebanon as a base to launch their attacks. Talibans are not Pakistani, they are Pashtu, however, they were supported by Pakistan.

The Iranians,Jordanians,Saudis,Kuwaitis......I hope you're not referring to the countries. If you meant individuals, then you proved my point. No soverign nation would want to involve itself in a losing battle against the US. Even N.K. regime knows that very well. All what they want is more money, money and money.

Such nations might use bulley tactics to try and provoke the US, but they'd not dare to directly attack the US with missiles.

Most tyrant regimes in the mid-east or south east-asia do not care about their people, but they care ALOT about the power they have over these people.