Closing Velocity

Video: Iran Tests Longest Range Missile, "Leaves North Korea Behind"

Iran continues unimpeded toward perfecting an indigineously designed ICBM:

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran announced Wednesday it successfully test-fired an upgraded version of its longest-range missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe and which it said is now faster and harder to shoot down.

Wednesday's test was for the latest version of Iran's most advanced missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometers). That range places Israel, Iran's sworn enemy, well within reach, as well as U.S. bases in the Gulf region and parts of southeastern Europe.

The two-stage Sajjil-2 and is powered entirely by solid-fuel while the older, long-range Shahab-3 missile uses a combination of solid and liquid fuel in its most advanced form.

Reporting on the Sajjil-2 breakthrough last August, former head of Israeli missile defense Uzi Rubin predicted the Iranians would be able to hit London very soon:

"If they push it -- put all the budget, put all the engineers -- three or four years" is all it would take to give Iran's existing ballistic missile a range of 3,900 kilometers (2,438 miles), enough to hit London ... "The predictions (about Iran's growing missile reach) are coming true, perhaps sooner than anyone thought," he added in reply to a question after a presentation. "I think there was an underestimation of Iranian capability."

With today's launch, folks should be listening to Rubin:

First, Iran made a quantum leap forward with its missile technology.  The predecessor to the Sejil was the Shahab missile, which was a liquid-fueled single-stage rocket, copied from the North Korean Nodong missile.  The Sejil shows that Iranian engineers have left North Korea behind and are producing indigenous missile technology.  Rubin says the Iranian missile capability has jumped from the type of missiles the U.S. had in the 50’s to the type the US had in the 60’s.

This test also shows Iran ’s aggressiveness with the missile program. “The advance rate is phenomenal,” says Rubin, noting that Iran has now conducted three missile tests in 13 months. It shows just how high a priority missile technology is for the Shiite regime.  Rubin says, “They need to keep testing to prove their past successes were not spurious.”

Back to the Iranians, their defense minister takes a victory lap (AP story):

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi vowed that the Sajjil-2 would be a "strong deterrent" against any possible foreign attack. He said the new version can be fired more quickly and flies faster than previous ones, though he did not give further details.

"Given its high speed," he said, speaking on state TV, "it is impossible to destroy the missile with anti-missile systems because of its radar-evading ability."

Impossible to destroy? No, not really.

But intercepting the Sajjil-2 is certainly more challenging, especially with a stripped-down European missile defense architecture that focuses exclusively on short- and medium-range missiles. Yesterday's announcement that the US is planning an unprecedented missile defense test against an Iranian ICBM could not be more timely. It will be the first time we've wargamed our longest-range GBI interceptor against an Iranian threat rather than our traditional North Korean scenarios.

And again, one of the two reasons President Obama discarded long-range GBI interceptors in Europe was because of an intelligence assessment claiming the Iranians would not produce ICBMs any time soon. How's that working out for you?

Iranian TV video:

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir, Ace headlines and No Runny Eggs.

Long-Range Missile Defense To Be Tested Against Iranian Threat

Secretary of Defense Gates inspects a GBI at Ft. Greely, AK

Unlike the recent massive Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise which tested our ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) against short- and medium-range Iranian missile threats, the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will soon conduct an unprecedented test:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will test its core missile defenses for the first time in January against a simulated long-range Iranian attack, a top Pentagon official said on Monday, amid tensions with Tehran.

Speaking at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the head of the Missile Defense Agency, said the roughly $150 million test was a departure from the more standard scenario of a North Korean attack.

There is a reason that our longest range interceptors, the 3-stage Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs), were first deployed in Alaska and California. Ever since the late 1990s, the North Korean ICBM threat has always been the most immediate one to CONUS. The systems engineering, wargaming, and eventual deployment of GBIs exclusively on the West Coast were specifically executed to counter this growing threat.

Which makes this upcoming test so very remarkable:

It also would be more difficult testing the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system against a missile that would be faster and more direct as it races toward the United States than a simulated strike from North Korea.

"Previously, we have been testing the GMD system against a North Korean-type scenario," O'Reilly said.

"This next test ... is more of a head-on shot like you would use defending against an Iranian shot into the United States. So that's the first time that we're now testing in a different scenario."

Now wait one damned minute.

A mere three months ago, President Obama decided to scrap our long-range interceptors in Europe (again, specifically designed to counter Iranian ICBMs bound for the US east coast) because the long-range Iranian threat no longer existed:

The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3, is developing more rapidly than previously projected.  This poses an increased and more immediate threat to our forces on the European continent, as well as to our allies. On the other hand, our intelligence assessment also now assesses that the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in 2006.

If Iraninan ICBMs are no longer a threat, why this test?

Well, the easy answer is we plan these tests years in advance, and this GBI test was laid down long before Obama's pronouncement. That said, there are some disconcerting optics here. Conducting an expensive test against a recently rubbished threat just doesn't look good.

Besides having been on the slate for a while, there's another possible reason for this test.

As I have argued before, Obama's new European BMD architecture may do an adequate job defending Europe from Iranian missile threats, but it does nothing to protect the Eastern United States. Only the long-haul GBIs have the horsepower to engage fast, high-flying ICBMs. While Aegis-based SM-3s and THAADs do an excellent job against short- and medium-range missiles, they simply can't beat the massive GBIs in the ICBM scenario.

Therefore, I'd bet some smarty at MDA doesn't exactly discount the Iranian ICBM threat as readily as the President and the SecDef do. With European-based GBIs now off the table, American-based GBIs must fill the defensive void. Nothing else can do the job, so they damned well better work.

Rather than the standard NK simulation where we fire the target ICBM from Kodiak Island, Alaska and intercept with a GBI from Vandenberg AFB, California, this target will come screaming across the Pacific from Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll:

The test would fire an interceptor missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at a simulated incoming missile, launched from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. An aide to O'Reilly estimated the cost at about $150 million.

Experts compare the simulation to a bullet hitting another bullet in space. O'Reilly said the goal was to destroy the target over the north central Pacific when the missiles had a combined closing speed of more than 17,000 miles per hour.

"Whenever we have a situation where we're taking on a missile more head on than from the side, that increases the challenges," O'Reilly said.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE (12-16-09): Stay tuned, indeed! --- the Iranians just tested their longest range missile, "leaving North Korea behind." HotAir links.

Japan Considers Formalizing Missile Defense Against North Korea

In the lead up to April's Taepodong-2 launch that overflew its territory, Japan had a hectic debate about what defensive measures it was legally allowed to take under its pacifist constitution to defend itself from an illegally-fired, UN-condemned North Korean ballistic missile (how's that for contrast?).

While it put it's forces on alert and deployed several missile defense assets (Patriot PAC-3 batteries and its entire fleet of Aegis BMD ships), Japan went to great lengths to describe its missile defense deployments as contingencies against ... accidental debris:

Japan took pains Friday to explain that it is preparing for a possible accident, not for an attack. Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said he issued orders "to prepare for an event in which a North Korean projectile falls onto our country in an accident."

The Taepodong-2 ICBM sailed over Japan, landing harmlessly in the Pacific. Keeping with tradition, North Korea proceeded to test salvoes of shorter range missiles over the coming weeks, culminating in two missiles fired on July 2 and seven more on July 4.

With all of this up tempo North Korean missile testing, new revelations about its chemical weapons program, and Japan's previous last minute legal scrambling, the Japanese appear to have realized that perhaps it's a good idea to finally codify their official missile defense policy:

The prime minister, Taro Aso, has been advised by his defence advisers to review the constitution to allow Japan the right to exercise collective self- defence to protect the country amid rising security issues in the region.

The controversial proposal was among a number of steps relating to Japan's military position proposed as part of a five-year government defence plan which is scheduled for completion by the end of the year.

A review of the ban on the exercise of Japan's right to collective self-defence was recommended to enable the nation to shoot down ballistic missiles launched by North Korea and targeting the US.

.

Defector: North Korea Tests Chemical Weapons On Disabled Children

US airmen during chemical attack drill, Osan Air Base, South Korea

In a sickening report, a North Korean army officer and commando who defected to the South ten years ago finally reveals a monstrous secret --- which many claim is common knowledge in the DPRK:

When Im Chun-yong made his daring escape from North Korea, with a handful of his special forces men, there were many reasons why the North Korean government was intent on stopping them.

They were, after all, part of Kim Jong-il's elite commandos -- privy to a wealth of military secrets and insights into the workings of the reclusive regime.

But among the accounts they carried with them is one of the most shocking yet to emerge -- namely the use of humans, specifically mentally or physically handicapped children, to test North Korea's biological and chemical weapons.

"If you are born mentally or physically deficient, says Im, the government says your best contribution to society... is as a guinea pig for biological and chemical weapons testing."

Even after settling into the relative safety of South Korea, for 10 years Im held on to this secret, saying it was too horrific to recount.

But with Kim's health reportedly failing, and the country appearing increasingly unpredictable, Im felt it was time he spoke out.

Of course, claims of human testing is not new. Popular Mechanics reported on the North's utilitarian use of political prisoners in 2007:

Former prisoner Lee Sun Ok described one such test before the U.S. House Committee on International Relations: "In February 1990, I was asked by the chief guard to follow him to an administration warehouse ... He ordered me to check out six bundles (five pairs in each bundle) of gas masks with rubber gowns, which looked like a sea diver's kit. When I returned to my prison chamber, a total of 150 prisoners, several from each unit, were selected and separated from the other[s]. The selected prisoners were mostly crippled and weak women who had less labor value."

Later, said Lee, "I saw many prisoners lying on the slope of a hill, bleeding from their mouths and motionless, enveloped by strange fumes and surrounded by scores of guards in the gas masks ... I delivered earlier in the morning."

Why are these atrocities being reported here on a missile defense blog?

While many defense analysts are fixated on North Korea's pursuit of nuclear warhead miniaturization, less attention has been given to their other WMDs --- namely chemical and biological weapons. Tipping their intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with nukes is a significant challenge (one report claims they have already achieved this feat). But swapping a standard high explosive SCUD warhead with a cannister of toxins? Easy:

Arms experts say at least 30 per cent of North Korea's missile and artillery systems are capable of delivering such [biological and chemcial] weapons. With each successive test, they warn the North's accuracy improves, and so too its range.

The UN Security Council now says it believes three of the seven missiles tested by the North on July 4 were Scud-ER missiles, which are known to be more accurate and have a range of 1,000km.

Tokyo is roughly 1,160km from the base on North Korea's east coast from where the missiles were fired, while other parts of Japan are closer.

So while it can certainly be more sensational to talk about a nuclear ICBM bearing down on Hawaii, the more immediate --- and fully developed and operational --- threat is the potential for toxic missile attacks on the extremely dense population centers in South Korea and Japan.

UPDATE: Commenter 2Hotel9 found a video report of this story on Al-Jazeera:

UPDATE: Welcome, HotAir (thanks, Ed).

Medvedev Resets The "Reset Summit"; Again Threatens NATO With Russian Missiles

Whatever...

It sure didn't take long for Obama's glow to fade in the eyes of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

In sharp contrast to his positive words during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow earlier this week when the two reached broad agreement on nuclear arms cuts, Mr Medvedev used a news conference at the G8 summit to return to Russia's earlier tough rhetoric on arms control.

Referring to an order he gave earlier this year to prepare deployment of short-range Russian missiles in the western enclave of Kaliningrad to answer to any US deployment of a missile shield in central Europe, Medvedev said:

"If we don't manage to agree on the issues, you know the consequences. What I said during my state of the nation address has not been revoked."

It appears a certain Russian President got taken to the woodshed by a certain Russian Prime Minister since Obama left Moscow:

Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself.

During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone".

But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia".

Aaaaand we're back to square one --- reset indeed.

As I noted earlier in the week, the Russians are giddy that they pried loose a key concession from Obama in the form of linking strategic nuclear cuts to missile defense. Charles Krauthammer observes that not only is this linkage a terrible idea, but that Obama's faith in the power of anachronistic arms control mechanisms is comical ... and quite dangerous:

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.

That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers —- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) —- induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs.

Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

It really is amazing that Obama would think that the sterling example of nuclear arms treaties between the US and Russia would somehow have any influence on intransigent, sanction-riddled international scofflaws and pariah states like Iran and North Korea. They have no use for their own agreements with the international community, much less the chirpy "role model" agreements between the US and Russia.

BREAKING: No North Korean ICBM Launch This Independence Day

According to Newsweek:

U.S. government experts are monitoring what may be preparations by the North Koreans to assemble another Taepodong II for launch. However, the rocket is still in pieces, according to the two officials (who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information) and would take days or even weeks to put together. Even after such a missile is assembled on a launch pad, the officials added, the North Koreans would then need several more days to load it with liquid fuel. The entire process of assembling and fuelling such a rocket would be easily visible not only to secret spy satellites and aircraft operated by the U.S. and other Western governments but also to picture-taking satellites operated by commercial companies, one of the officials noted.

In celebration of a Nork ICBM launch not ruining another one of my vacations, I'm off to buy an extra case of fireworks for this weekend!

North Korea Threatens US With A "Fire Shower Of Nuclear Retaliation"

Some weapons grade sabre rattling from North Korea:

The North "will never give up its nuclear deterrent ... and will further strengthen it" as long as Washington remains hostile, Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said.

In a separate commentary, the Rodong blasted a recent U.S. pledge to defend South Korea with its nuclear weapons, saying that amounted to "asking for the calamitous situation of having a fire shower of nuclear retaliation all over South Korea."

But hey, today is a special day for the Norks --- June 25 is officially "Anti-US Day" (no, really), known to the rest of the world as "the day North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950." And such a special holiday entails some special activities, like, say, heckling a boat:

North Koreans participate in a rally held to commemorate the June 25 anti-U.S. Day in front of the Pueblo, a U.S. spy ship that North Korea seized 41 years ago, in Pyongyang. (in this story's picture gallery)

So, any US attack on North Korea will invite a nuclear response. Let me remind you that includes airstrikes on ICBM's as they fuel on launchpads. Which is why it's good we have a backup plan with missile defense. 

Russia: Hey, We'll Shoot Down That North Korean Missile

Unlike the Obama Administration's tepid (non)reaction to the lead up to last April's Taepodong-2 launch, the Russians just throw this out there:

North Korea is unlikely to fire a missile rocket in the direction of Russia, but if it does, the anti-missile defense system would destroy the missile in seconds, Russia's General Staff of the Armed Forces said Friday, as Japan voiced concerns that North Korea may be preparing for new missile launches.

“We are sure the rocket will not go in our direction,” deputy head of the General Staff, Alexander Burutin, was quoted by news agencies as telling reporters on Friday.

But if it does, he added, Russian radars are capable of registering North Korea's rocket in the very first seconds of its launch, and its missile defense systems would immediately destroy the missile.

Unless the North Korean ICBM is headed straight for Red Square and the antique A-135 missile defense ring around Moscow, Russia won't have a chance to live up to this bravado. And even if it were headed for Moscow, Pravda(!) says that Russian missile defense around their capital is "poor":

Anatoly Kornukov, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, and Leonid Ivashov, the former chief of Russia’s Military Staff, believe that Moscow’s air defense system is outdated and therefore incapable of executing its goals. Mr. Ivashov believes that Russia needs to either make huge investments in the development of its air defense system or move the capital to the east of the country.

A missile defense system so poor that they have to consider moving their capital? That's worse than I thought. In any case, the Russians should be more worried about Moscow-reaching Iranian missiles.

Fortress Hawaii: THAAD Deployed, SBX Put To Sea, GBIs Ready

  From Left: THAAD, SBX, GBI

What a difference a few months of up tempo ballistic missile and nuclear weapons tests by North Korea makes. When North Korea last threatened to launch its longest range ICBM toward Hawaii earlier this year, the reaction from the Obama Administration varied, from the embarassing gullibility of our Director of National Intelligence:

"I tend to believe that the North Koreans announced that they are going to do a space launch, and I believe that that's what they intend," [DNI Blair] told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

To the clumsy diplomacy of Secretary of State Clinton as she prematurely discarded an important arrow in our quiver:

The United States has no plans to shoot down the North Korean rocket, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Jill Dougherty...

To the spectacle of Secretary of Defense Gates simply giving up on utilizing our missile defense assets even as our missile defense commanders proclaim confidence in our ability to down a hostile North Korean ICBM:

Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting host Chris Wallace to ask: "And there's nothing we can do about it?"

"No," Gates answered, adding, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."

And culminating in our most advanced missile defense radar, the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) Radar, being ordered to stay anchored at Pearl Harbor:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said.

Well, someone at Obama's Pentagon got the message, for Hawaii is being fortified with a new deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and the SBX is finally putting to sea:

Mr. Gates told reporters that the U.S. is positioning a sophisticated floating radar array in the ocean around Hawaii to track an incoming missile. The U.S. is also deploying missile-defense weapons to Hawaii that would theoretically be capable of shooting down a North Korean missile, should such an order be given, he said.

"We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile to the west, in the direction of Hawaii," Mr. Gates said.

Gates went on to say that the long range Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska --- slated to be cut by Obama, but-that's-not-important-right-now --- were also ready to engage:

Although Gates did not explicitly say that the U.S. would try to shoot down a test missile aimed in the direction of Hawaii, he noted that interceptor missiles in California and Alaska were ready.

"The ground-based interceptors are clearly in a position to take action," Gates said. "So without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say, I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary to protect American territory."

Perhaps the reality of missile defense is setting in on a few of the adults in Washington. Or more likely, perhaps someone's watching the polls:

A new Gallup Poll finds 51% of Americans saying North Korea currently poses a direct threat to U.S. security. That is the highest percentage seen for eight countries or territories tested in the poll whose political climates or ongoing conflicts present a threat to U.S. interests in the world.

Which, of course, makes this the perfect time to slash missile defense funding --- "Missile Budget Cut Still Stands":

An attempt Tuesday to restore money slashed from the missile defense budget failed to gain traction when an amendment that would have paid for additional interceptors in Alaska was defeated.

.

Gates At Greely: Saaaaay, On Second Thought, Maybe These GBIs ARE A Good Idea

Gates Inspects a Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) at Fort Greely, Alaska (photo credit)

As the ballistic missile threat to the US crisply materializes by the second, Secretary of Defense Gates begins to doubt his and Obama's spectacularly ill-timed budget cuts to missile defense:

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not ruled out pumping more funds into the nation's anti-missile defense budget if North Korea threatens the United States.

Gates was visiting Fort Greely which houses parts of the US anti-missile defense shield -- a land-based system with about 20 interceptors -- and said of Pyongyang that its "behavior has certainly alarmed people."

In the past Gates proposed slicing a billion dollars off the anti-missile system budget and freezing the development of interceptors at 30, instead of the 44 originally planned. But he indicated he might re-examine his proposal.

"My recommendation to the president was for the fiscal year 2010 budget, it's not a forever decision," the defense secretary said.

"And if capabilities in one of these rogue states should develop faster, or on a more worrisome way than anybody anticipates right now, then I think the way is opened in the future to add to the number of silos and interceptors up here."

Good thing it only took hectic North Korean missile and nuclear weapons testing to make Gates reconsider his stance. Geez.