US, Japan Jointly Test New Interceptor Missile

Navarro

Power Poster
"The US and Japan have passed a crucial test for missile defense, shooting down a medium-range ballistic missile with a new interceptor launched from a guided-missile destroyer. The US Missile Defense Agency announced that the USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked and took out the target ballistic missile using its onboard Aegis Missile Defense System and a Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor. The test took place Friday night off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. ... 'Today's test demonstrates a critical milestone in the cooperative development of the SM-3 Block IIA missile,' the director of the Missile Defense Agency ...'The missile, developed jointly by a Japanese and US government and industry team, is vitally important to both our nations and will ultimately improve our ability to defend against increasing ballistic missile threats'"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/us-japan-aegis-missile-defense-test/
 

Drumboy44

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
Navarro said:
"The US and Japan have passed a crucial test for missile defense, shooting down a medium-range ballistic missile with a new interceptor launched from a guided-missile destroyer. The US Missile Defense Agency announced that the USS John Paul Jones detected, tracked and took out the target ballistic missile using its onboard Aegis Missile Defense System and a Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor. The test took place Friday night off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. ... 'Today's test demonstrates a critical milestone in the cooperative development of the SM-3 Block IIA missile,' the director of the Missile Defense Agency ...'The missile, developed jointly by a Japanese and US government and industry team, is vitally important to both our nations and will ultimately improve our ability to defend against increasing ballistic missile threats'"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/us-japan-aegis-missile-defense-test/


China on Monday called on the U.S. and Japan to deal with anti-missile issue with "great care" as the two countries jointly launched a missile on Friday, a move Chinese experts said will break global strategic balance and trigger arms race.
"China always believes that the anti-missile issue bears on global strategic stability and mutual trust among major powers, and therefore shall be approached with great care," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing on Monday.
Lu said that "All countries, while preserving their own security interests, shall also respect the security concerns of others, follow the principle of maintaining global strategic stability and compromising security of no other nations."
Lu called for all countries to "jointly build a peaceful and stable international security environment where everyone enjoys equality, mutual trust, and win-win cooperation." He also reiterated China's firm opposition to the deployment of the U.S.-backed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea.

Yao added that the successful missile test not only posed threat to China's military security and but also breaks the global strategic balance, including the balance between the U.S. and Russia.

http://www.ecns.cn/m/2017/02-08/244465.shtml
 

Navarro

Power Poster
Drumboy44 said:
Friday, a move Chinese experts said will break global strategic balance and trigger arms race.
I suspect PRC would be at a disadvantage if they engaged USA in an arms race, for technological reasons particularly.
Drumboy44 said:
"China always believes that the anti-missile issue bears on global strategic stability ... also reiterated China's firm opposition to the deployment of the U.S.-backed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea ... not only posed threat to China's military security and but also breaks the global strategic balance, including the balance between the U.S. and Russia.
This has been an ongoing narrative for nearly two decades now. The position is legitimate, but I question whether or not they truly believe it. Statements as these hint at the "use 'em or lose 'em" incentive, where America's nuclear adversaries must perceive the ABM shield to be an existential threat in that upon being effectively developed and deployed, PRC and RF will be unable to strike USA with sufficient nuclear weapons to achieve the amount of destruction they theorize to be necessary. This means they'll be unable to launch an effective preemptive strike, and they'll also be unable to effectively retaliate if USA launches a preemptive strike. This would not only nullify their offensive capabilities, but also their nuclear deterrent. Eventually, America could in theory annihilate them without suffering unacceptable losses (probably 30%) resulting from retaliatory strikes. To allow such a threat would be to entrust the future of their nations to their mutual nemesis in America. As such, it may be logical to attack America now, while they still can.

However, if this was their thinking, then it would be logical to announce that perception to the world. Not doing so would be like possessing a "dead hand" or "doomsday weapon," then keeping that a secret. This would make no sense, as the point of such a system would be to assure ones adversary that Mutually Assured Destruction is in fact assured. It's a deterrent, and so it shouldn't be a secret. If America's ABM shield will inevitably force them to attack, then they should say so. If not, then it makes no sense to complain about "strategic balance." America won't stop its ABM development because its adversaries are complaining, but it might cease the deployment of the shield if its adversaries declare they're being forced to attack.

Why deploy an ABM shield intended to limit the destruction one would suffer during the course of a nuclear war, if the shield's deployment guarantees a nuclear war, where inaction does not? I can only conclude that Russia and China are in truth confident that they can develop systems capable of overcoming the shield, or confident in the current counters, and so what they're truly complaining about is the great expenditure America is forcing them to undertake - a strategic arms race. More nuclear weapons, better delivery systems, to counter and overwhelm America's ABM shield. They still may very well later conclude that America's future ABM developments could be impossible to defeat, and as such, once again, they're forced to strike before such a credible ABM shield can be effectively deployed.

I continue to think it was a mistake to play this game.
 
Top