New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks

• missile defense
• Missile Defense Agency
• missiles
• Pentagon
• security

The sign next to the door is not an omen. It shows a bright red figure in a protective suit, the kind of full-body gear you might wear when handling dangerous pathogens. Or, in this case, when entering a building housing an operational three-stage ballistic missile, freshly plucked from its silo. The sign is a reminder of the danger posed by the nearby missile’s fuel tank, which can release a toxic plume if damaged. Through the door is a small room filled with pipes, gauges, air-quality sensors and another doorway. “Okay, get ready,” an Army public-affairs officer says before leading the way. “This is one of those ‘wow’ moments.”

The door opens to reveal a 58-ft missile, its nose aimed at whomever enters the room. The missile, a ground-based interceptor (GBI), is not designed to deliver nuclear weapons, but rather to stop them while they are in flight. If North Korea or Iran launches an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the United States, one or more of these GBIs are ready to take flight.

When an interceptor escapes the Earth’s atmosphere, its booster stacks fall away, leaving a tiny spacecraft to finish the suicide mission. This 152-pound, 55-in.-long kill vehicle hurtles through space, using lateral thrusters to steer toward a blunt-force collision with the enemy warhead. “You’ve probably heard it said that we’re trying to hit a bullet with a bullet,” says Col. George Bond, who coordinates Missile Defense Agency (MDA) operations in the Alaska region. “But this is really a brilliant bullet, backed by some of the most powerful radars in the world and a very sophisticated communication system.”

Although the radar platforms and command centers that track enemy missiles are positioned around the world, the backbone of ICBM defense is here at Fort Greely, an Army base more than 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. All but four of the 30 planned ground-based interceptors fielded by the MDA will be located at Greely; the others will be stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. GBIs are the only way the U.S. can stop ICBM warheads in space from reaching their targets. From Alaska, interceptors can be sent over the Arctic to destroy enemy missiles headed for either coast of the continental United States.

It has been 25 years since President Ronald Reagan first proposed a missile shield, dubbed Star Wars, to counter the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal. The Soviets, though, had the ability to overwhelm such defenses with the sheer number of their ICBM-launched warheads. Now, as ballistic-missile technology proliferates, potentially hostile nations like Iran and North Korea are gaining the ability to launch long-range ballistic missiles at the U.S. coastline, overseas military bases or American allies. But these rogue regimes do not yet have Soviet-size stockpiles of warheads or missiles. This more limited threat enables a functional missile shield—based on the ground, instead of in orbit—to become a reality.

Some analysts question whether the system would be effective against even a lone rogue missile, and dispute whether fear of such an attack requires spending billions of dollars a year. Others argue that 100 percent effectiveness is not the issue. Here at Greely, under the strangely jaundiced lights of a room that’s colder than the 57-degree August day outside, is the core of a system that may not necessarily be called on to intercept anything. Its job is simply to exist and thereby prevent attacks. Like the 25 other GBIs here at the base, the missile I’m looking at is a technologically advanced, multimillion-dollar deterrent.

14. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
This type of defence may sound great to some--particularly the corporations who build these systems--but in fact this is typical of "generals fighting the last war". A much greater threat comes not from intercontinental missiles, but from trucks or freighters carrying a WMD into the US. Why would any country launch an attack from it's own soil from which it could be traced? It is wise to remember how the US "won" the Cold War...the Soviet Union spent itself into oblivion. We are well on the way to doing the same, squandering the nation's treasure on useless military hardware. The World Trade Center was brought down by 19 guys with box cutters. That is a lesson that has been learned by our adversaries.

13. RE: #5
This is the real world, so wake up! How exactly do you plan to convince these rogue nations to give up their nuclear programs? I guess that you're one of those liberals that feel we should do away with our armed forces and everyone should stand around the campfire singing Kumbaya. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!!!!!!!!

12. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
I sure hope that someone has thought of this and is taking appropriate action. But don't all these missiles (Indeed, most of our air and space weapons)depend on a reliable satellite tracking? What happens if they go for the satellites first? I know the Democrats think that the best defense is no defense, but I'm hoping that someone still has some sense.

11. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
#3, you are making the mistake of assuming that 'people are the same everywhere.' We are not willing (and should not be willing) to sacrifice Los Angeles or San Fransisco to further our agenda. Do you think a man like Kim Jong Il is above sacrificing his entire people for his agenda? If he wasn't, why are his people eating flies and tree bark for dinner? This is less about deterring a rogue state as it is nullifying their deterrent against us.

10. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
Page two, Paragraph six: The first and last sentence mention orbit and orbital debris. ICBM's and these interceptors are suborbital weapons. They do now quite achieve orbital velocity. An orbital ICBM would never impact the surface and be useless. There is not orbit and there is no orbital debris. Replace orbit with space (not the same thing) and orbital debris with falling debris field.

9. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
#7 - The SM3 ABM you're referring to is intended to knock a missile down in its early stages of flight, not midcourse. 2 different missiles with 2 different target zones - both needed. And yes, the SM3 interceptor has proven to be very successful in its testing. Then again, so has the GBI in all of its latest tests.

8. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
Quote from another post: "Let's stop burning cash on this fantasy system and start convincing rogue nations they'll be much better off without the bombs in the first place." By all means, please go have tea in Tehran and tell them to stop building missiles. No doubt you could convince them to drop the nuclear program too. Gee, thanks. Why didn't anyone else think of this before?!?! Get a clue. This program is designed specifically to convince rogue states that it's not worth pursuing advanced missiles. A defense that is only 50% effective still radically changes the game decision to launch a first strike at a stronger enemy. But by all means, you go ahead with your diplomatic mission and report back to us with your progress :) Please stop in Pyongyang on your way home and talk some sense into Kim. Cheers!

7. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
GBIs are the only means of defense against rogue nukes? Give me a break! Has this author ever heard of the U.S. Navy and its successful SM3 ABM program?? It has far more success than the Army's GBI program, and is even in the stage of being exported to other countries for their protection.

6. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
Maybe today there is not a real threat of ICBM's being sent from across the ocean, but things change very fast. We don't know what other countries will have ten years from now. If we let our GBI technology slip, we could be in danger in the near future. Plus, there is no such thing as wasted money when we are pushing the bounds of technology. Even if we never use these missiles, the knowledge and experience gained from there development will and have helped build weapons to defend against the current threats.

5. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
This is a Cold War program that has almost no practicality today. If a big nuclear enemy, like China or Russia, launched a real attack, we wouldn't have enough interceptors to help us. And the likelihood of Iran or N. Korea launching missiles advanced enough to have "decoys" (much less reach our airspace) is nil. Let's stop burning cash on this fantasy system and start convincing rogue nations they'll be much better off without the bombs in the first place.

4. RE: Alaska Army National Guardsmen
Website: http://americanconservativeparty.org/
Re first comment: No, not "eventual", whatever that's supposed to mean, a governor is the CinC over the guard and all state militia without any sort of delay.

3. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
These stories always sound good, but what country is going to launch from their territory? I guess we have to plan for that, but a launchable missile would more likely come from a freighter at sea, or a semi driven across the border to another country, or a shipping container trucked to the Mexican desert. But the easiest and hardest to track would be a dirty bomb on a freighter in a major port or trucked to any location via our expansive highway system. America likes these expensive, sexy, high-tech solutions like GBI's. Let's hope they put as much effort into the unglamorous, 'pounding the pavement' work of stopping the more-likely attack from within our boarders.

2. RE: ANG under Palin
The Alaska Army National Guard (ANG) is commanded by Gov Palin as their Commander in Chief (similar to role of Us President as Commander in chief of all Armed Forces. The unique element of these specific ANG soldiers is their role when on duty defending against ballistic missiles. These soldiers are essentially on lone to the US Army when they are actually on duty with their fingers on the "buttons". When on duty, Gov Palin does not direct them, because they are under the command of Commander, US Northern Command which has the responsibility for defense of the US from Ballistic Missile threats. this is an agreement made between Gov Palin and the US Army. There is a similar agreement made between Us Army and Gov Ritter from Colorado t=for those soldiers that also execute this mission from Colorado Springs, CO.

1. RE: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
I notice that these men are "full-time Alaska Army National Guardsmen." That would put them under Governor Palin's eventual command, right?

Comment Title
Your Name
Email Address
Website	make public
Comment
Please enter the characters shown below:
	Make sure your comment is relevant to the topic discussed. Comments not relevant to the topic will be deleted. Neither you nor Popular Mechanics has the ability to make your e-mail address public. However, we ask that you submit your e-mail address to us just in case we need to contact you. Thank you for your understanding--The Editors.