While we have decreased the time that we can attack over a battlefield with the use of UAV drone like the Reaper, they are not really useful for the challenge of trying to prevent the launch of a nuclear missile or to attack targets in places where we do not control the air space. This of course leaves aside all the of ethical arguments about the use of this type of weapon, but that is another post.
The only weapon that we type we have that can be launched anywhere in the world on short notice is one that we dare not use, namely our ICBM's. Even if we took the time to load them with conventional warheads, no power could take the chance that we were not kicking off a preemptive nuclear strike (thanks to the Neo-Cons for the Bush doctrine which made the world even less safe!).
This might be changing with a new weapons system which the Obama Administration is considering developing. It is called the Prompt Global Strike. The New York Times is reporting today that President Obama will shortly decide to go with the development program or shelve this technology as too destabilizing.
A PGS weapon could be considered kind of a super-cruise missile. The big difference between it and a traditional ICBM is where the ICBM leaves the atmosphere and then follows a ballistic curve the it's target, the PGS would never go into space. It would be boosted to Mach 5 by a heavy rocket and then maintain that speed as it heads to its target.
At 3,600 miles an hour it is six and a half times faster than the Tomahawk. Another major difference is the way it would destroy a target. While it will carry an explosive warhead, just the impact of this missile on a target will be enough to do incredible amounts of damage, just from the kinetic energy of a 15ft long object traveling five times the speed of sound.
This missile also has the advantage of being fueled with jet fuel instead of the more dangerous and harder to handle rocket fuels. It would be able to be launched form ground based sites or from B-52's (with a significant reduction in range from the loss of the larger booster). All in all a bit of high tech wizardry, no?
No. The problem with this weapon is that is actually solves too many problems which are relied on to keep the major powers from feeling like they have to be hair triggered all the time. This system, as currently proposed, could very easily carry a nuclear warhead. Since it is very fast (it could cross the Pacific Ocean in less than an hour) and does not go out of the atmosphere like a ICBM it could a devastating First Strike weapon, which most defenses are not geared to look for.
This type of weapon has the Russians so concerned that they insisted in the new START treaty that we decommission a nuclear weapon for every one of these we put into service. Their basic feeling is that they would have no way to tell, once one of these was launched, whether we were attacking them on a strange flight path or not. When you are dealing with nuclear armed competitors that level of uncertainty is a bad thing.
Perhaps more troubling is the affect deploying such a weapon would have on rogue states. For all our bluster about the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, one of the reasons they feel they need these weapons is to protect themselves from threat of conventional warfare. This may be a (I think it is) a completely phantom threat, but there are those in each of those countries who believe it.
The ability of the United States to strike a fueling nuclear missile in less than an hour anywhere in the world can be looked at in two ways. It could be seen as a reason not to pursue this type of weapon since it is unlikely that it could be used or, if one is rather fearful and more than a little paranoid, it could be the justification for building as big an arsenal as possible to overcome this problem. Any guess which of those two paths Iran and North Korea might take?
The final problem with having this type of weapon is the temptation to use it. If we have the capability to hammer, with near nuclear results, the Iranian underground complexes, in a way that does not risk U.S. pilots lives, that makes it more likely that we would take the chance of doing so. This leaves us (and the Iranians) at the mercy of the least stable and peaceful Administrations.
I wish I could say with any confidence that the Obama Administration will not decide to start development on these weapons (there are some materials and guidance issues that would take a few years to finalize). Unfortunately this type of weapon is probably too tempting to resist. It has battlefield applications, for major set piece style battles, and it is sexy in terms of technology. These combined with a far too cuddly agreement with Bush Administration war thinking make it likely we will be hearing about PGS weapons in the near future.
The floor is yours. |
