[ExI] Anti-deterrence weapons

[Dan]

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, spike <spike66 at att.net>
> wrote:
> > >> ...research whose immediate
> > >> purposes are of a military nature remains way
> better that 
> > no research 
> > >> at all... Stefano Vaj
> > > 
> > > Ja.  If THAAD missiles prevent a nuclear war,
> then research of a 
> > > military nature remains better than ALL research
> at all.
> > 
>> That depends on the context.  If THAAD and
>> similar tech is 
>> widely distributed, yes, it might stop a missile
>> exchange -- 
>> presuming no one finds a way to get missiles around
>> this.  
>> What would it do against suitcase bombs or other mass
>> casualty weapons? Regards, Dan
> 
> 
> All good questions, but I will just deal with one. 
> THAAD was originally
> developed with emerging nucular* powers in mind.  It
> takes a hell of a lot
> of sophistication to make a plutonium implosion bomb that
> can be carried in
> a suitcase, but a uranium bomb is not difficult to
> make.  A uranium bomb is
> far too heavy to be carried by hand.

I'm using "suitcase bomb" to mean land delivery.  It doesn't literally have to be something one can lug around in an American Tourister.  It could be something one puts in a pickup truck and drives near the target.  The point is THAAD and similar technology won't do much against that.  It will, however, do much for the P&L statements of the Merchants of Death and make for nice budgets for the military.

> So every country
> would go thru a stage
> where they have uranium bombs and long range missles, but
> not plutonium or
> hydrogen bombs.  
> 
> When it comes to missiles, the technically most difficult
> part is the
> navigation, guidance and control.  The actual rocket
> hardware is not so
> complicated, and can be bought on the international market,
> but nations
> which have developed accurate NG&C algorithms will
> seldom let those out.
> But with GPS, that task has become far easier to do. 
> So I anticipate that
> if the norks launch a missile, the US will temporarily turn
> off GPS, to see if it goes awry.  
> 
> If they fire one that goes toward Hawaii, I don't know what
> will happen.  I
> assume we would nuke NK, but actually I suspect that the
> norks won't fire at
> Hawaii because they don't know if they can penetrate the
> THAAD shield.  They
> wouldn't want to suffer blanket nukes on a chance they
> might take out one
> state.  So in that scenario, THAAD has saved Hawaii
> and North Korea.

I bet North Korea doesn't have the capability period.  Yes, it can fire a missile that can go probably as far as Hawaii, but it lacks the capability to hit a target.  My guess is they probably would, at best, get something within a few hundred miles of the target.

Also, I doubt they could do more than one launch quickly.  So, the whole North Korean threat is, IMO, being systematically overstated -- either because the folks doing the analysis are paranoid (and hence not to be trusted) or have other motives (and hence not to be trusted).  Some of these are, no doubt, reading from the same playbook that overstated Soviet capabilities during the Cold War.  Cui bono from such flawed analyses?

And a far easier policy with regard to North Korea would be: pull US troops out of the region and tell the locals they're on their own.  Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Russia could then be left to handle their local problem -- instead of making a pathetic tin pot dictatorship into the equivalent of a global menace.  My guess is Russia and China would handle it quickly for fear of any of the other regional powers (especially Japan) deciding to pursue the excellent, well tried policy of nuclear deterrence.  (Said policy seems to have worked between the US and Soviets, between the Soviets and Chinese, and between Pakistan and India.)

> *It should be spelled nucular.  Easier to say.

For some.

Regards,

Dan