Let me abuse the comment section for an addendum to my article. A friend just wrote me:
"Are the Israeli Iron Dome and our anti-missile systems in Ukraine effective and how do they affect your argument? And your argument that anti-missile defense development encourages more offensive missile development seems undermined by the development of hyper speed missiles by us, Russia, China, and N. Korea. As you point out the current investments in anti-missile defense have produced bupkis, yet the hyper speed offensive missiles are proceeding rapidly towards deployment."
I answered:
Great points. As I briefly note in the article, defenses against short-range missiles makes sense. We can hit this weapons because they are slow, fat and hot. But intercepting long-range weapons means hitting warheads in space, where they are fast, small and cold. We have not been able to solve the technological problem of seeing them, distinguishing them from decoys, chaff and jammers, and hitting them consistently.
The surge of interest in hyper-velocity missiles is part of the defense-offense competition. All ICBMs are hypervelocity. That is, they move at many times the speed of sound. It is part of what makes them so hard to hit. As defenses against short-range missile have proven effective, militaries want to increase their speed. Most of the hypervelocity weapons under development are for regional conflicts where they'd be launch from relatively short- or medium-range. It illustrates the main strategic point: deployment of defenses (that either work or are perceived to work) promotes an arms race with newer and more offensive weapons.
I thought some of you would be interested in this exchange. Thanks for reading!
In the 1980s, the case against long-range strategic missile defense wasn't anywhere near this clear. The program did drive a lot of important technological innovation in computers, navigation, and sensing. However, after the Cold War ended and the technical problems with launching interceptors with enough coverage and reliability to stop most or all of a strategic ICBM attack were clear, this and similar programs should have been ended. The resources could have been redeployed to better use in hypersonics and short- and medium-range missile defense.
You write, "It was an enticing vision, presented with all the sincerity and skill that made Reagan one of the most persuasive presidents of all time."
Reagan did get closer to a breakthrough than anybody else. Star Wars probably helped. Certainly his charm did. He blew it in the end, but still, credit where credit is due.
You write, "In order to limit and then reduce offensive nuclear weapons, we had to limit defensive systems."
True. But reducing offensive systems doesn't accomplish anything too meaningful unless there is a credible plan to reduce them to near zero. What's the real difference between being hit with 1,000 nukes and 100,000 nukes?
The danger in reducing offensive systems marginally is that it can persuade the public that the situation is under control when that's not at all the case. Limited reductions get the politicians off the hook so that they can go back to ignoring the threat.
Well, at least Reagan had a vision and a plan, so that's better than what we've got.
Well, here's a plan of sorts. The next detonation.
Ideally, a nuclear weapons accident in the United States. Such an accident would create the possibility of escaping the culture of denial, and wouldn't start a new war.
Second best option, a single low yield terror strike. Washington DC seems the most likely location given what an incredibly rich target it remains more than 20 years after 9/11. Inexplicable....
It's either a small event or a big one, so here's hoping for an event big enough to wake us up but small enough not to prevent learning and change.
I also have a secret plan. Joe Cirincione as a single issue candidate for Congress, addressing no issue other than nukes. Gotta get the wife on board somehow... :-)
Seriously, not a single elected national leader works full time on the single biggest threat to the survival of America of a nation. We are a strange species indeed.
Let me abuse the comment section for an addendum to my article. A friend just wrote me:
"Are the Israeli Iron Dome and our anti-missile systems in Ukraine effective and how do they affect your argument? And your argument that anti-missile defense development encourages more offensive missile development seems undermined by the development of hyper speed missiles by us, Russia, China, and N. Korea. As you point out the current investments in anti-missile defense have produced bupkis, yet the hyper speed offensive missiles are proceeding rapidly towards deployment."
I answered:
Great points. As I briefly note in the article, defenses against short-range missiles makes sense. We can hit this weapons because they are slow, fat and hot. But intercepting long-range weapons means hitting warheads in space, where they are fast, small and cold. We have not been able to solve the technological problem of seeing them, distinguishing them from decoys, chaff and jammers, and hitting them consistently.
The surge of interest in hyper-velocity missiles is part of the defense-offense competition. All ICBMs are hypervelocity. That is, they move at many times the speed of sound. It is part of what makes them so hard to hit. As defenses against short-range missile have proven effective, militaries want to increase their speed. Most of the hypervelocity weapons under development are for regional conflicts where they'd be launch from relatively short- or medium-range. It illustrates the main strategic point: deployment of defenses (that either work or are perceived to work) promotes an arms race with newer and more offensive weapons.
I thought some of you would be interested in this exchange. Thanks for reading!
Joe, this is outstanding and your contributions on Substack will benefit a lot of people. Keep up the great work!
Welcome to Substack Joe, happy to see you here.
In the 1980s, the case against long-range strategic missile defense wasn't anywhere near this clear. The program did drive a lot of important technological innovation in computers, navigation, and sensing. However, after the Cold War ended and the technical problems with launching interceptors with enough coverage and reliability to stop most or all of a strategic ICBM attack were clear, this and similar programs should have been ended. The resources could have been redeployed to better use in hypersonics and short- and medium-range missile defense.
You write, "It was an enticing vision, presented with all the sincerity and skill that made Reagan one of the most persuasive presidents of all time."
Reagan did get closer to a breakthrough than anybody else. Star Wars probably helped. Certainly his charm did. He blew it in the end, but still, credit where credit is due.
You write, "In order to limit and then reduce offensive nuclear weapons, we had to limit defensive systems."
True. But reducing offensive systems doesn't accomplish anything too meaningful unless there is a credible plan to reduce them to near zero. What's the real difference between being hit with 1,000 nukes and 100,000 nukes?
The danger in reducing offensive systems marginally is that it can persuade the public that the situation is under control when that's not at all the case. Limited reductions get the politicians off the hook so that they can go back to ignoring the threat.
Well, at least Reagan had a vision and a plan, so that's better than what we've got.
Well, here's a plan of sorts. The next detonation.
Ideally, a nuclear weapons accident in the United States. Such an accident would create the possibility of escaping the culture of denial, and wouldn't start a new war.
Second best option, a single low yield terror strike. Washington DC seems the most likely location given what an incredibly rich target it remains more than 20 years after 9/11. Inexplicable....
It's either a small event or a big one, so here's hoping for an event big enough to wake us up but small enough not to prevent learning and change.
I also have a secret plan. Joe Cirincione as a single issue candidate for Congress, addressing no issue other than nukes. Gotta get the wife on board somehow... :-)
Seriously, not a single elected national leader works full time on the single biggest threat to the survival of America of a nation. We are a strange species indeed.