Star Wars

Kate Roach

December 2001

President Bush's announcement, in May 2001, that the US would revive its Star Wars missile defence programme took centre stage in the media. The public were polarised, and Russia and China openly voiced their disapproval. But does this project justify the controversy it has generated? After all, isn't it a defence system, and isn't defence better than offence?

Bush's defence programme has been dubbed 'Son of Star Wars' because it's similar to the abandoned 'Star Wars' initiative of Ronald Reagan from 1983. The current president prefers the more sober title of National Missile Defence (NMD) for the new project. although this incarnation is not as extensive as the original, the plan is for a nationwide protective umbrella against intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack.

The grand plan is to protect over six million square miles of US mainland against incoming ballistic missiles. The National Missile Defence Organisation (NMDO) website boldly proclaims the altruistic aim of defending the USA's allies as well.

Son of Star Wars is America's most costly venture yet – the proposed budget just for the year 2002 is $8.3 billion. It will employ the most ambitious military defence technology ever. Killer satellites, nuclear-powered lasers and interceptor missiles are some of the sci-fi technologies that are proposed for the mammoth battle defence system.

Ballistic missiles

Literally speaking, a ballistic missile attack could be anything from a stone hurled by a high-spirited kid, to a flaming arrow or massive rock launched from an ancient military catapult. All ballistic weapons, old and new, share one fundamental property – they move under the force of gravity. However, those that concern Bush are long-distance, warhead-carrying rockets that complete their trajectory under gravitational force after an initial powered and guided phase.

There are three flight phases of a ballistic missile. The first, 'boost phase', is the ascending part of the missile's flight that is engine-powered. although the largest of missiles, ICBMs can climb 201km (125 miles) in just 3-5 minutes, at mind-boggling speeds. Next, the missile begins the longest part of its flight, known as the 'mid-course phase'. Here it is coasting or free-falling towards its target. This phase can last as long as 20 minutes, depending on the distance between launch and target. Many missiles are designed to shed their rocket motors in the mid-course phase, lightening their load and increasing their range. The final 30 seconds of a missile's flight is the 'terminal phase'. In the terminal phase descent, the bigger warheads can blast down through the clouds at speeds exceeding 2,000mph.

Who has ballistic missiles?

Many countries across the globe possess ballistic missiles, although currently Russia is the only state that possesses enough to really threaten the USA. The nations that the US administration purports to be concerned with are the so-called rogue states. The term 'rogue states' lumps together seven nations – Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Iraq. The assumption is that traditional deterrence will not work on these countries because they have unstable, irrational leaders. But, CIA intelligence has it that these countries view their ballistic missiles as strategic tools of deterrence rather than weapons of war. In which case, the leaders of these nations would seem to be perfectly rational players in global politics rather than irrational outsiders.

In any case, NMD could readily be bypassed by true rogue states who are more likely to carry nuclear, chemical or biological agents in suitcases than to send them in missiles. However, anxieties have been raised in the US over the low accuracy of ballistic missiles that are being developed in Asia and the Middle East. Poor accuracy together with high cost makes them viable only if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction – chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Implications of Star Wars

Whilst defensive systems are morally more acceptable than offensive systems they will never be totally effective and could well do more harm than good. Indeed, the NMD's focus on space-based technology could initiate an arms race in space as well as on the ground. Allied to this fear is the fact that in developing this programme the US will be contravening the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972, which it signed along with USSR. When the Treaty was signed, both the US and USSR were rapidly building their nuclear strategic defences. Since the cold war has ended, the Bush administration seems to see no relevance in the treaty. In fact some believe it has hindered necessary research on space-based defence systems.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972 along with the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty 1972 were negotiated together as complementary strategies. One to restrict defensive measures and the other to decommission offensive weapons. These treaties have been recognised by other nations, like China, as a force for stabilising arms control. To pull out of such a key treaty now, could weaken arms control globally, especially in sensitive areas like China, India and Pakistan. Of equal concern is that NMD will be a bar to progress on future arms control agreements.

Proponents, on the other hand, believe that missile defence could be helpful to arms control and could even encourage nuclear restraint. The argument goes that the NMD project could reduce the incentive for hostile states to obtain a few ballistic missiles because a few might not be enough to cause significant damage. Hostile states would need to deploy a large number of missiles in order to have any impact on the target nation. The cost of such a missile program could discourage a state from developing long-range ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons at all.

But it's difficult to imagine a situation in which one side takes up shields and the other gives up the fight altogether.

Defending against ballistic missiles

First, a missile launched, perhaps thousands of miles away, must be detected, by radar or satellite. Then, detection systems must co-ordinate the launch of anti-ballistic missiles that will smack into the incoming missile warheads minutes before they hit the US mainland (or Europe, Israel or other allies). All this must happen within the 25 or so minutes between launch and strike.

Each phase of ballistic missile flight provides a distinct target for interception. The chances of smashing enemy missiles out of the sky are increased by attacking them at every phase: boost, mid-course and terminal. This is called a 'Layered Defence System'. How feasible is it?

Boost phase interception

In boost phase, the bright flame of a burning rocket, viewed against the dark background of space, provides a much clearer target than it would do later in its flight. But the boost phase only lasts for 3-5 minutes so no interceptor could catch a missile launched from a site thousands of miles away. This means that boost phase interceptors could not reach missiles launched from the interior of large nations, such as China or Russia (space-based interceptors could but they remain decades away). One proposed solution is to locate boost phase interceptors just outside the borders of rogue states. What rogue states will do about this has not been made explicit. The current favoured interceptor seems to be an airborne laser, mounted in a modified Boeing 747. But how the plane will arrive in the right place at the right time without being shot down is not clear.

None of the boost phase interceptors currently planned will be able to destroy the warhead itself — they can only knock off the booster engine. This is because the warhead is designed to withstand the high temperatures it experiences at the fringes of the earth's atmosphere. High temperatures concentrated on the missile by current laser technology would have no effect on the warhead.

Destroying only the booster could leave a warhead careering across the sky, essentially out of control. Where it would land would depend upon where the booster was destroyed. This means that a nuclear warhead fired from the Far East could drop on Alaska or Canada. And one fired from Iraq could strike somewhere in Europe.

Ted Postol, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of NMD's most serious critics. He has pointed out the need for extreme speed if boost phase interception is to be effective. NMD will have to pick up signals from a warning satellite, relay them back through a command system and out to a navy or land-based defence system in a couple of minutes. Little room for error. And no time to involve the President or Secretary for Defence, should the situation require it.

Mid-course phase interception

One of the biggest problems for mid-course defence is that ballistic missiles are likely to be accompanied by identical-looking decoys, sent up to confuse an anti-ballistic system. It would be difficult enough to track a fast-moving object even without the complication of the decoys. Data overload could be a problem, as computers must analyse huge quantities of information as they seek to identify a real target amid decoys.

There have been five mid-course phase tests from ground-based interceptors so far, though none have involved decoys. Simulated missile attacks have been launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and fired upon by interceptors based on the Marshall Islands in the central Pacific Ocean. Three of the five tests were successful. But in one of the successes, the high-resolution x-band radar that tracked the missile 'froze' about 64 seconds before the interceptor struck its target. Now researchers don't know if the test worked by chance or by design.

Terminal phase interception

Because this phase is so brief, interceptors can only be employed against short or medium range missiles. These interceptors form part of the program known as the 'Theater Defence System' (TMD), designed to protect deployed troops in foreign parts. TMD has received less opposition than the 'Strategic Intercepting System' (designed to protect against long-range missiles). TMD is less controversial because it focuses on short and medium range ballistic missiles and for that reason is less likely to induce a global arms race. Germany, Italy, Japan and Israel are all currently developing TMDs, alongside the USA.

Coordination

Thus far, land-based missile interceptors are due for housing and testing in Fort Greely, Alaska. Still in the research and development stage is a space-based laser and a concept for a space-based 'kinetic kill' device. All these components must eventually be tested and integrated into a comprehensive 'Battle Management System', with early warning and tracking radars. Integrating the whole system with command, control, and communications networks will prove to be the test of all tests. In the face of so many unanswered questions many scientists remain sceptical about the workability of the whole project.

Find out more

Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of third party sites

Websites

Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation
www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/terminal.html
Images, news and explanations of the technology involved.

Pugwash
www.pugwash.org
Pugwash is an anti-nuclear organisation and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for its role in negotiating arms decommissioning. Site contains articles and debates on NMD.

US Department of State
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms
Includes excellent glossary of terms and several articles both for and against the project.

HG Wells biography
Life and work of visionary author of War of the Worlds.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
www.cnduk.org/briefing/nmd.htm
CND article asking basic questions about Bush's 'Son of Star Wars' project. Lists key points of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972 between the US and Russia.

Defense Link
www.defenselink.mil/
US Department of Defense site provides links to all the US services. Offers the latest official press releases, reports from the Defense Community and news from the American Forces Information Service.

European Defence
www.european-defence.co.uk
Offers a directory of the major players and comprehensive information on defence and security issues. Go to the features archive for an article on National Missile Defense, looking at the major debates and the implications to European and world security.

Federation of American Scientists
www.fas.org/
A comprehensive resource for news and articles on global security resources, emerging technologies and initiatives by FAS. Go to 'Strategic Security Project' for links to information on the US ballistic missile defence programme, space policy, arms control agreements and a military analysis.

Heritage Foundation
www.heritage.org
Right wing think tank, promoting a strong national defence of the US. Contains comprehensive links to media articles on related political opinion, including the reaction generated by Iran and North Korea's missile tests last year.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
www.mit.edu/
Contains an archive of published debates on National Missile Defense, its strategies and technologies. Plus news reports concerning Professor Postol, lecturer in Science, Technology and National Security.

Albert Einstein biography
Well known for his contributions to science, the man was also an active humanitarian and pacifist.

Channel 4 News
News reports on the Star Wars project.

Books

The Phantom Defense: America's pursuit of the Star Wars illusion by Craig Eisendrath, Melvin A Goodman and Gerald E Marsh (Praeger Publishers, 2001) £21.50
Contends that rather than enhancing national security, these doomed efforts would undermine it by provoking a new arms race and alienating key allies.

Hit to Kill: The new battle over shielding America from missile attack by Bradley Graham (PublicAffairs, 2001) £19.99
An account of the politically charged revival of the national missile defence project.

Defending America by James M Lindsay and Michael E O'Hanlon (The Brookings Institution, 2001) £18.50
Written for a general audience, this book analyses the missile defence debate. It assesses the current and future missile threat to the United States, examines relevant technologies and discusses how America's friends and foes react to the national missile defence programme.

Rockets' Red Glare: Missile defenses and the future of world politics by James J Wirtz, Jeffrey A Larsen and John Warner (Westview Press, 2001) £19.99
Accepting that some kind of missile defence system is inevitable, this study examines debates ranging from the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972, to the possibility that a vigorous US missile defence system will aggravate the problem of proliferation of arms.

Pursuit of the Shield by K Scott McMahon (University Press of America, 1997) £30.50
Examines the history of the strategic defence debate, the threat profiles and the defence technologies. It proposes a way forward that combines limited ballistic missile defences with comprehensive arms control.

Seeking New World Vistas by Roger Handberg (Praeger Publishers, 2000) £43.95
As we approach an era when military powers will routinely station weapons in space, this study discusses proposals for policy changes and offers conclusions regarding their implications.

top ^