Image Source: Getty
On 27 January, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to build an Iron Dome-style missile defence system to shield the United States against the “threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks.” He called on the Pentagon to submit a comprehensive architecture of the programme within 30 days.
The ‘Iron Dome’ analogy is slightly misleading considering the eponymous Israeli-US anti-missile shield is designed to only defend a relatively small area against short-range, low-flying missiles and projectiles. Its real forebear is the ‘Star Wars’ shield that President Ronald Reagan had sought to build in the 1980s to intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles aimed at the US and its allies, travelling seven times faster. Responding swiftly, the US Missile Defence Agency (MDA) hosted an “Industry Day” on 18 February to gather market intelligence and assess the technological readiness of this programme. By 28 February, the MDA expects American defence firms to submit the relevant documents demonstrating their respective capabilities, technical maturity, and the cost estimates associated with the programme. The MDA wants details on ideas that can be demonstrated and delivered in two-year tranches—from 31 December 2026 to 31 December 2030, and then subsequently beyond this period as well.
Since Star Wars could not quite live up to its apparent hype, Trump has called for a ‘next generation’ missile defence system to deter “foreign aerial attacks on the Homeland” and guarantee a second strike capability for the US. As per this order, the US Defense Secretary must submit the project’s architectural plans, requirements, and implementation strategies by the end of March.
The MDA wants details on ideas that can be demonstrated and delivered in two-year tranches—from 31 December 2026 to 31 December 2030, and then subsequently beyond this period as well.
While a system of such capacity is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars, it will also have to overcome enormous technological challenges. In its boost phase, the system would be required to deal with the missiles before launch, once more in space, and then finally once they descend to their targets. It would also require a dedicated network of space-based sensors and interceptors equipped with lasers, as well as lower-altitude interceptors. However, a laser technology efficient enough to be deployed over hundreds of kilometres simply does not exist.
A key element of the new plan is to accelerate the development of capabilities that have been underway over the past years. These include the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (HBTSS) Layers, designed to be integrated with the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture, constituting a network of military satellites, “capabilities to defeat salvoes prior to launch, non-kinetic missile defence capabilities and under layer, and terminal phase interception capabilities.”
Despite achieving several technical advances in the Star Wars project, the US failed to come close to the one that the former President Ronald Reagan had envisaged. Ever since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, it has ensured the development of a limited capability armed enough to deal with North Korean threats and accidental launches of missiles.
The current US ground-based mid-course missile defence programme consists of interceptors based out of Alaska and California, targeting a limited number of missiles launched from North Korea. These are augmented by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system to take care of the lower-level threats. In the US, while the MDA develops missile defense systems, the US Space Command is responsible for the operational employment of space forces and the integration of military space power. There is little doubt that any forward movement in the Iron Dome project will require restructuring or a merger of these two organisations.
Despite achieving several technical advances in the Star Wars project, the US failed to come close to the one that the former President Ronald Reagan had envisaged.
Some anti-ballistic missile technology has been demonstrated in Ukraine, where US Patriot Systems and Germany’s Iris-T have shot down Russian ballistic and hypersonic missiles. However, these are conventionally armed, and some of them have gotten through, causing a great deal of destruction. Such vulnerabilities would not be acceptable for a system designed against nuclear-armed missiles.
A leading expert on anti-ballistic missile technology, Theodore A. Postol, argues that the current US anti-missile system would struggle to intercept a Russian attack in real-time war situations. As for the Russians, they have a limited space-based constellation, dependent majorly on a land-based radar system located across ten sites as part of a system to protect Moscow. Russia has also stated that any large-scale nuclear attacks against it would trigger the automated retaliation systems, including the Poseidon, a robot with the largest nuclear warhead ever built. Postol’s remarks last June referred to the current, limited missile shield. Retired Admiral James Stavridis, a proponent of Trump’s plan, believes this reason is important enough for the US to go ahead with the “Iron Dome” project. Although the estimated costs may seem high, he believes they must be weighed against “the cost of the potential loss of American lives and treasure” that an effective missile shield such as this could prevent. In his view, the system would require three elements—space-based sensors and interceptors, artificial intelligence to knit the space and ground sensors with interceptors based in space or on the ground, and finally and most importantly, the development of lasers for intercepting missiles and warheads.
Russia has also stated that any large-scale nuclear attacks against it would trigger the automated retaliation systems, including the Poseidon, a robot with the largest nuclear warhead ever built.
Stability among nuclear weapon powers comes through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). A country that can neutralise its adversary’s capabilities can destabilise the deterrence equation. It may, like the Americans, be motivated by national security and defence, but in essence they will be disarming their adversaries, a prospect the latter may not view with equanimity.
America’s principal adversaries, China and Russia, have not been sitting still. As of now counter-measures they need are simple—increasing the number of warheads and decoys on existing missiles, manoeuvring hypersonic glide vehicles, and cruise-missiles. In future they could use mirrored surfaces to foil laser beams, or warhead shrouds with liquid nitrogen to mask the temperatures of incoming warheads against infra-red detectors.
Aside from their Moscow protection system, Russia has also developed the S-400 (which India is in the process of inducting) providing limited defence against missiles. Their S-500 system has been claimed to provide defence against all types of hypersonic weapons.
China is currently equipped with ballistic missile defense capabilities, with operational systems like the HQ-9, HQ-19, HQ-26 and HQ-29 already in place. However, they are limited when compared to of Russia or the US. In this context, India has a 2-phase programme that deals with missiles within the 2,000–5,000 km range. Phase I of the system has already been deployed to protect New Delhi, while phase II is still under development.
Another country with an effective ABM system is Israel, harbouring the original Iron Dome system as well as the ‘Arrow and David’s Sling’ which can intercept medium to long range missiles. These systems performed reasonably well during the recent conflicts with Hezbollah and Iran, though it is to be noted that the area of defence is relatively smaller compared to the demands of India, US, Russia, or China.
Even though all countries are prohibited from placing nuclear weapons in outer space, the provision of an Outer Space Treaty does not ban the use of conventional systems in space.
In the contemporary landscape, even though all countries are prohibited from placing nuclear weapons in outer space, the provision of an Outer Space Treaty does not ban the use of conventional systems in space. While there could be an ambiguity in justifying the use of nuclear reactors to power space-based laser weapons, in the Trumpian context, any state party to the treaty could choose to withdraw.
Presently, none of the missile shields can approach a 100 percent effectiveness. Israel’s Iron Dome, albeit defending a small area, has interception rates between 80 to 90 percent, making it the most effective system in place till now.
Nonetheless, the world’s foremost technological power is now set to embark on its second journey to build an impervious shield. Though since its last attempt, technology has advanced enormously, it still does not guarantee a workable solution. This effort in itself, however, is enough to majorly destabilise the entire global system.
Manoj Joshi is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
