New system to prevent nuclear weapons

[rahulb]

The IAEA Chiefs comments of the need for a new system to prevent the nuclealisation by about 20 to 30 states is most relevant. It is a stark admission that the present system in which some powers hold nuclear weapons while denying the right to own them to others may be considered as unfair by many and hence a large number of nations as Iran and North Korea are attempting to justify their proliferation. What this system is and how it will be effective and reduce nuclearisation deserves some debate. thaks

 

[Sea Toby]

Its hard to cap the Genie in his bottle when others use nationalism to pry the cap off. While I never have had much concerns with democracies, I do have concerns with military regimes having the Genie.

Fortunately, for the past sixty years they've discouraged another World War. But if too many tiny dictators get them, I'm afraid we'll blow ourselves up.

 

[Grand Danois]

Fortunately for most of us, we'll sit high and dry in the future behind ABM defenses and credible nuclear deterrents, whilst every two-bit dictator can have a go at each other with their brand new multibillion dollar toys.

But very tough luck for the countries outside of those defenses.

Nuclear weapons don't equalize or correct injustices. They just cost money. And the two bit despots won't be able to gain leverage on industrialized countries anyway. ABM, and credible nuclear deterrents will be the new strategic weapon in the world of oddball nuclear programmes for every country.

And tough on the poor of those countries. They will have to see billions go down the drain for reasons of nationalism, ambitions of regional hegemony etc.

 

[schering]

The IAEA Chiefs comments of the need for a new system to prevent the nuclealisation by about 20 to 30 states is most relevant. It is a stark admission that the present system in which some powers hold nuclear weapons while denying the right to own them to others may be considered as unfair by many and hence a large number of nations as Iran and North Korea are attempting to justify their proliferation.

The IAEA Chief's comments are typical of an ideologue. If over 120 countries - all democracies - are perfectly happy not being nuclear powers and feel not slighted in the least by this alleged "injustice", then the problem most obviously lies elsewhere, namely with the potential proliferators themselves.

P.S. the research of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear states is not a "right" (strange concept coming from an IAEA chief); as a matter of fact, it is even prohibited by the NPT - long considered the most sacred of treaties - to which most potential proliferators have freely become bound.

 

[rahulb]

What are the alternatives?

I think what are the options to restrict and restrain prospective nuclear powers as Iran and North Korea from going fully nuclear should engage us. While the issues raised by IAEA Chief may not be all agreed to, the principal concern which he has raised is of evolving a regime which can control proliferation needs consideration. Any suggestions here?

 

[Grand Danois]

I think what are the options to restrict and restrain prospective nuclear powers as Iran and North Korea from going fully nuclear should engage us. While the issues raised by IAEA Chief may not be all agreed to, the principal concern which he has raised is of evolving a regime which can control proliferation needs consideration. Any suggestions here?

Well, NK is absolutely determined, as a function of the paraoia permeating that country and the leadership in particular. And when they are so determined, there really ain't that much to do about it.

Iran is different. Oh, Ahmedinejad is a nutjob for sure, but Iran is a much more faceted society with excellent knowledge to the outside world. If things begin to tighten up I don't expect the population to be in unison behind a bomb. Not that I am expecting a coup, but there is a small hope that good sense prevails.

Anyway, I think the Iranian nuclear programme is much farther away from a bomb than it appears in the media reports. For instance, the uranium they have been enriching in small quantities lately is from a relatively small quantity of Chinese raw material supplied in the '80s, which Iran can't produce in sufficient good quality on its own.

And the Chinese cut off that source decades ago.

In reality there may not be a developed Iranian nuclear programme for the Americans to bomb. So, mostly Ahmedinejad is playing the "external enemy" card. And to ensure attention, well, a nuclear programme is an efficient way of doing that. He can do so free of charge even if there is no programme.

Let's see how it plays out.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Well, NK is absolutely determined, as a function of the paraoia permeating that country and the leadership in particular. And when they are so determined, there really ain't that much to do about it.

Iran is different. Oh, Ahmedinejad is a nutjob for sure, but Iran is a much more faceted society with excellent knowledge to the outside world. If things begin to tighten up I don't expect the population to be in unison behind a bomb. Not that I am expecting a coup, but there is a small hope that good sense prevails.

Anyway, I think the Iranian nuclear programme is much farther away from a bomb than it appears in the media reports. For instance, the uranium they have been enriching in small quantities lately is from a relatively small quantity of Chinese raw material supplied in the '80s, which Iran can't produce in sufficient good quality on its own.

And the Chinese cut off that source decades ago.

In reality there may not be a developed Iranian nuclear programme for the Americans to bomb. So, mostly Ahmedinejad is playing the "external enemy" card. And to ensure attention, well, a nuclear programme is an efficient way of doing that. He can do so free of charge even if there is no programme.

Let's see how it plays out.

Cheers

With all the help Iran got from Pakistan, NK and China, and down under even from some Russians (beyond the civilian nuclear programme Russia is running in Iran), I am much more worried that Iran may be very close to having its first bombs... although the industrial structure needed to build a sufficiently credible stockpile is probably still several years away.

:shudder

 

[dioditto]

Fortunately for most of us, we'll sit high and dry in the future behind ABM defenses and credible nuclear deterrents, whilst every two-bit dictator can have a go at each other with their brand new multibillion dollar toys.

But very tough luck for the countries outside of those defenses.

Nuclear weapons don't equalize or correct injustices. They just cost money. And the two bit despots won't be able to gain leverage on industrialized countries anyway. ABM, and credible nuclear deterrents will be the new strategic weapon in the world of oddball nuclear programmes for every country.

And tough on the poor of those countries. They will have to see billions go down the drain for reasons of nationalism, ambitions of regional hegemony etc.

Don't put your bet on it.
By building a shield, there is always a way to penetrate or bypass the shield. Whether it is through conventional vector or asymmetrical vector. Take for example, the US's drive to develop and improve stealth technology - stealth cruise missiles (AGM-129) or Russians's newest ICBMs (SS-27 / Topol-M). In the future, stealth technology will be readily avaliable due to the flattening effect of knowledge shared through decentralised network means.

This is compound by the fact that it is far more economical (and easier) to build an offensive weapon to penetrate the shield than building a shield. It is like trying to stop the river with your hand.

 

[Grand Danois]

Don't put your bet on it.
By building a shield, there is always a way to penetrate or bypass the shield. Whether it is through conventional vector or asymmetrical vector. Take for example, the US's drive to develop and improve stealth technology - stealth cruise missiles (AGM-129) or Russians's newest ICBMs (SS-27 / Topol-M). In the future, stealth technology will be readily avaliable due to the flattening effect of knowledge shared through decentralised network means.

This is compound by the fact that it is far more economical (and easier) to build an offensive weapon to penetrate the shield than building a shield. It is like trying to stop the river with your hand.

I think the BMD will work. You're right about asymmetry. The answer to that is the same the Soviets got regarding their suitcase nukes. If we discover one on our soil, or discover an attempt at entering, it is an act of war. For states like Iran = you're dead. Besides, That kind of nukes are very unwieldy and have low yields.

Cruise missiles. Sure, but we're talking distances that only BM's can cover. So if that's the delivery mode, you'll have to preposition those. Airborne surveillance are evermore a priority because of this threat.

Stealth. BM radars already discriminate between objects the size of warheads and debris/decoys. Stealth applied to a BM... Well, there are some problems with that, but who knows. Let's see. Russia is also part of the industrialized world.

Offense has an advantage over defense. Yes. But in this case the defense has 100 x the resources. If not 1000 x.

 

[dioditto]

I think the BMD will work. You're right about asymmetry. The answer to that is the same the Soviets got regarding their suitcase nukes. If we discover one on our soil, or discover an attempt at entering, it is an act of war. For states like Iran = you're dead. Besides, That kind of nukes are very unwieldy and have low yields.

I don't think the BMD will work, because one only need to increase the speed of the missiles and the defense would fail. The modern control system cannot cope with extremely high speed of terminal descend of a ballistic missile. That's why the rationale of forward positioning of BMD to intercept the missiles at boost phase when it is SLOWEST.

Cruise missiles. Sure, but we're talking distances that only BM's can cover. So if that's the delivery mode, you'll have to preposition those. Airborne surveillance are evermore a priority because of this threat.
Stealth. BM radars already discriminate between objects the size of warheads and debris/decoys. Stealth applied to a BM... Well, there are some problems with that, but who knows. Let's see. Russia is also part of the industrialized world.

The threat of cruise missiles proliferation does not mean in the future, cruise missile advances stays at present spec. The advances in technology could possibily blur the line between ICBM and CM. (perhaps into a new term.. "ICCM") Couple with the fact that stealth/low visibility cruise missile is a reality, I think the fact that stealth was invented to evade the Airborne surveillance should be clear to everyone.

Offense has an advantage over defense. Yes. But in this case the defense has 100 x the resources. If not 1000 x.

I think you are wrong in this respect. US pour far more resources into offensive capabilities than defensive. I think it's even safe to say every military in the world put far more if not 1000x more in offensive than defensive capabilities.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't think the BMD will work, because one only need to increase the speed of the missiles and the defense would fail. The modern control system cannot cope with extremely high speed of terminal descend of a ballistic missile. That's why the rationale of forward positioning of BMD to intercept the missiles at boost phase when it is SLOWEST.

There are no plans nor concepts to use missiles to intercept in the boost phase. However the ABL is intended for that role.

Optimal intercepts are done in midcourse by SM-3A/THAAD types, were the BM is relatively low on kinetic but high on potential energy. Relatively low speeds. Btw, any ABM missile stationed in the CONUS has to be ICBM capable, because nothing else can reach the CONUS.

Terminal phase intercept systems like PAC-3 and perhaps SM-2 blk IVA should be able to deal with low end ICBMS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm2.htm

Aster/SAMP/T will has ABM qualities and is designed from the beginning to exoatmospheric intercepts. Though an ABM variant has gone off the public view.

These systems are proliferating with an initial European ABM system from early next decade.

Contract Award for NATO’s Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Programme

Deployment of U.S. Missile Defense in Europe Is Threat to Russia - Military Chief

Note the dates.

The threat of cruise missiles proliferation does not mean in the future, cruise missile advances stays at present spec. The advances in technology could possibily blur the line between ICBM and CM. (perhaps into a new term.. "ICCM") Couple with the fact that stealth/low visibility cruise missile is a reality, I think the fact that stealth was invented to evade the Airborne surveillance should be clear to everyone.

That seems to me to be inside the envelope of existing systems.

Re: Stealth = force multiplier - not miracle solution. Take a look at the NATO AGS, for instance. Or SAMPSON or etc.

There is also this little issue wrt RAM vs friction in the atmosphere and small missiles with little RAM vs huge airborne X-Band AESA radars.

I think you are wrong in this respect. US pour far more resources into offense capability than defense. I think it's even safe to say every military in the world put far more if not 1000x more in offense than defense capabilities.

The US generally has an doctrine for defense that is offensive in nature ie how would the US protect its troops from air attack? - Answer: Wipe out the enemy air force.

You just don't register force protection/national defenses the same way, it's just that you see offensive wars. But it is the enemys inablity to do anything about it that is protection. Also, the ability to defend enables the offense.

Anyhow, I was not referring to the US in particular. I used the term industrialized nations as opposed to developing. And the resources available to those defenses are 1000 x whatever Iran, NK, Saudi Arabia or Egypt will ever have.

And those systems already fielded or about to be fielded are adequate until the next generation of defenses are rolled out.

It is not as if what is fielded today or in the immediate future will have to face something 30-50 years down the development path of Iran. By then we will have something else.

 

[Grand Danois]

I just realized this...

Why, oh why did NATO think AMTI was not a necessary capability for TCAR? Is it not an obvious way of detecting low-flying stealthy cruise missiles?

Is it not so, that this specific capability is an increment 1 item on the spiral development of the MP-RTIP? The thinks it is worth it on their E-10A...

I hope NATO corrects this when it gets time for an E-3A replacement.

:mad3