As I have mentioned before, the United States faces a crisis of “strategic insolvency” with regard to the imbalance between its foreign and military policy commitments and the resources it has allocated to meet them. Rather than addressing the problem directly, the nation’s political leadership appears to be opting to “muddle through” instead by maintaining the policy and budgetary status quo. A case in point is the 2017 Fiscal Year budget, which should have been approved last year. Instead Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) that keeps funding at existing levels while its members try to come to an agreement.
That part is not working out so well. Representative Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), earlier this week warned that the congressional budget process is headed for “a complete meltdown” in December, Sidney J. Freedberg, Jr. reported in Defense One. The likely outcome, according to Smith, will be another year-long CR in place of a budget. Smith vented that this would constitute “borderline legislative malpractice, particularly for the Department of Defense.”
Smith finds himself in bipartisan agreement with HASC chairman Mac Thornberry and Senate Armed Services chairman John McCain that ongoing CRs and the restrictions of sequestration have contributed to training and maintenance shortfalls that resulted in multiple accidents—including two U.S. Navy ship collisions—that have killed 42 American servicemembers this summer.
As Freedberg explained,
What’s the budget train wreck, according to Smith? The strong Republican majority in the House has passed a defense bill that goes $72 billion over the maximum allowed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. That would trigger the automatic cuts called sequestration unless the BCA is amended, as it has been in the past. But the slim GOP majority in the Senate needs Democratic votes to amend the BCA, and the Dems won’t deal unless non-defense spending rises as much as defense – which is anathema to Republican hardliners in the House.
“Do you understand just how fricking stupid that is?” a clearly frustrated Smith asked rhetorically. A possible alternative would be to shift the extra defense spending into Overseas Contingency Operation funding, which is not subject to the BCA, as has been done before. Smith derided this option as “a fiscal sleight of hand [that] would be bad governance and ‘hypocritical.’”
Just as politics have gridlocked budget negotiations, so to it prevents flexibility in managing the existing defense budget. Smith believes a lot of money could be freed up by closing domestic military bases deemed unnecessary by the Defense Department and canceling some controversial nuclear weapons programs, but such choices would be politically contentious, to say the least.
The fundamental problem may be simpler: no one knows how much money is really needed to properly fund current strategic plans.
One briefer from the Pentagon’s influential and secretive Office of Net Assessment told Smith that “we do not have the money to fund the strategy that we put in place in 2012,” the congressman recalled. “And I said, ‘how much would you need?’…. He had no idea.”
Two THAAD interceptors and a Standard-Missile 3 Block IA missile were launched resulting in the intercept of two near-simultaneous medium-range ballistic missile targets during designated Flight Test Operational-01 (FTO-01) on September 10, 2013 in the vicinity of the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/ Reagan Test Site and surrounding areas in the western Pacific. The test demonstrated the ability of the Aegis BMD and THAAD weapon systems to function in a layered defense architecture. Photos taken by Missile Defense Agency. (Photo Credit: Missile Defense Agency)
On 3 September, North Korea tested what it claimed to be a thermonuclear warhead which can be mounted on a ballistic missile. While analysts debate whether the device detonated actually was a deliverable thermonuclear bomb, it is clear that the regime of Kim Jong Un is making progress in developing the capability to strike the United States and its regional allies with nuclear weapons.
Is there anything that can be done to halt North Korea weapons development and mitigate its threatening behavior? At the moment, there appear to be few policy options, and each of them carries significant risk.
Launch a preemptive military strike.
Enlist or coerce China into reigning in North Korea’s adventurism.
Accept the fact that North Korea is now the ninth nuclear power in the world—with the capability to strike the U.S. and its regional allies with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles—and adopt the Cold War approach of containing it militarily and limiting its nuclear arsenal through negotiation.
Would attempting to shoot down forthcoming North Korean ballistic missile test launches be a viable policy alternative for the U.S. and its allies? Geof Clark proposed this option in a recent post:
I would argue that the U.S. use the United Nations as a forum to define the parameters for any possible North Korean missile launch that should be intercepted with allied BMD [ballistic missile defense] assets If, for example, a North Korean missile looks likely to hit close to Tokyo, based upon the trajectory identified by Aegis ships at sea, then BMD should shoot it down. By making our rules of engagement public, this would provide a clear signal to China and Russia that the U.S. and its allies intend to use their BMD capabilities (and potentially learn from any failures) against live enemy missiles, but also temper the risk of escalation into any further missile volleys between any parties.
A number of commentators questioned why the U.S. or Japan elected not to attempt to intercept North Korea’s 29 August ballistic missile test that flew directly over Japanese territory. A variety of technical and political issues were cited as justification for restraint. The U.S. and Japan resorted to the usual mix of condemnation and calls for further economic sanctions.
What are the arguments for and against a policy of intercepting North Korean missile tests?
Pros:
The main argument in favor of this is that it could change the narrative with North Korea, which goes like this: Kim’s government stages some provocation and the U.S. and its allies respond with outraged rhetoric, diplomatic moves to further isolate Kim’s regime, and the imposition of a new round of economic sanctions It is hard to see how much more isolated North Korea can be made, however, and the vast majority of its trade is with a benevolent China across a porous border. This story has played out repeatedly, yet nothing really changes. Shooting down North Korea’s missile tests could change this stale narrative by preventing it from conducting provocations without consequence.
It would send a strong message to North Korea.
It is not out of line with the provocations North Korea has done over the years (for example: sinking a South Korean patrol boat in 2002).
It is a step short of a preemptive strike by the U.S. and its allies.
It could stall North Korean missile development (especially the ballistic cap, which the North Koreans still have not developed).
It could provide the basis for negotiations.
It is a credible threat (unlike threatening trade sanctions against China to coerce it into restraining North Korea).
It would embarrass Kim’s government by demonstrating that its threats are no longer effective.
Intercepting a North Korean test flying over Japan or into international waters would likely be interpreted by Kim’s regime as a deliberate escalation of the conflict. Such an act would probably extinguish what some have seen as signals from North Korea of a willingness to engage in diplomatic talks, and could precipitate counter-provocations in what is already a highly tense stand-off.
Some have speculated that the North Koreans may attempt to launch a ballistic missile carrying what many believe to be a recently-tested thermonuclear warhead. The consequences of an attempt to intercept such a test would inevitably be dire.
What about targeting North Korean short-range ballistic missiles, or long-range missile tested at short ranges? Intercepting these tests would pose formidable technical challenges for U.S. and allied BMD systems. The risk of failed intercepts would increase and the level of provocation to the North Koreans would be very high.
China might interpret an attempted intercept as a violation of North Korean sovereignty. Although the Chinese have expressed frustration with North Korea’s behavior, it remains a Chinese client state. While certainly provocative, North Korea’s missile tests over Japan are not a clear cut violation of international law. China remains committed to defending North Korea against foreign threats. Intercepting an allegedly “peaceful” ballistic missile test could easily bring China to North Korea’s overt assistance. This would run contrary to the Trump administration’s avowed policy of enlisting the Chinese to restrain Kim’s government and raises the potential for a direct U.S/China confrontation.
It is not at all clear that key U.S. allies South Korea and Japan would support a policy of intercepting North Korean missile tests not aimed at their territory. The U.S. needs permission from these countries to deploy its theater BMD systems within range of North Korean missiles. South Korea is already ambivalent about hosting U.S. BMDs and Japan has indicated that it will maintain its own policy regarding intercepting potential threats. An aggressive U.S. policy could risk damaging or splitting the alliance.
A vow to intercept North Korean missile tests would place enormous pressure on U.S. and allied BMDs to perform effectively, a capability that remains highly uncertain. While theater BMDs have performed better in tests than the U.S. intercontinental Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, it is unlikely they can intercept every potential target. Any weaknesses demonstrated by theater BMD increases the political effectiveness of North Korea’s putative ballistic missile capability. The current ambiguity works in the favor of the U.S. and its allies. Dispelling the uncertainty would be a high price to pay in any circumstance but defense of U.S. or allied territory.
It is not evident that suppressing North Korean missile tests at this point would have a significant impact on its capabilities. North Korea has already demonstrated that its ballistic missiles work well enough to pose a clear threat to the U.S. and its allies. Further testing would only refine existing technology to reduce the probability of technical failures.
Like the other available policy options, this one too carries a mix of potential benefits and risky downsides. The consequences of attempting to implement it cannot be completely foreseen. What does seem clear is that the existing approach does not seem to have worked. Successfully resolving a problem like North Korea is likely to take time, patience, and no small amount of imagination.
An understanding of the people and culture of the host country is an important aspect of counterinsurgency. Here, 1st Lt. Jeff Harris (center) and Capt. Robert Erdman explain to Sheik Ishmael Kaleel Gomar Al Dulayani what was found in houses belonging to members of his tribe during a cordon and search mission in Hawr Rajab, Baghdad, Nov. 29, 2006. The Soldiers are from Troop A, 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment. (Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Sean A. Foley)
As the United States’ ongoing decade and a half long involvement in Afghanistan remains largely recessed from the public mind, the once-intense debate over counterinsurgency warfare has cooled as well. Interest stirred mildly recently as the Trump administration rejected a proposal to turn the war over to contractors and elected to slightly increase the U.S. troop presence there. The administration’s stated policy does not appear to differ significantly from that that proceeded it.
Fisher and Taub addressed the question of the seeming intractability of the Afghan war. “There is a reason that Afghanistan’s conflict, then and now, so defies solutions,” they wrote. “Its combination of state collapse, civil conflict, ethnic disintegration and multisided intervention has locked it in a self-perpetuating cycle that may be simply beyond outside resolution.”
The article weaves together findings of studies on these topics by Ken Menkhaus; Romain Malejacq; Dipali Mukhopadhyay; and Jason Lyall, Graeme Blair, and Kosuke Imai. Fisher and Taub concluded on the pessimistic note that bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan may be on a generational time scale.
Burke looked at a more specific aspect of counterinsurgency, the relationship between civilian casualties and counterinsurgent success of failure. Separating insurgents from the civilian population is one of the central conundrums of counterinsurgency, referred to as the “identification problem.” Burke noted that the current U.S. military doctrine holds that “excessive civilian casualties will cripple counterinsurgency operations, possibly to the point of failure.” This notion rests on the prevailing assumption that civilians have agency, that they can choose between supporting insurgents or counterinsurgents, and that reducing civilian deaths and “winning hearts and minds” is the path to counterinsurgency success.
Burke surveyed work by Matthew Adam Kocher, Thomas B Pepinsky, and Stathis N. Kalyvas; Luke Condra and Jacob Shapiro; Lyall, Blair and Imai, Christopher Day and William Reno; Lee J.M. Seymour; Paul Staniland; and Fotini Christia. The picture portrayed in this research indicates that there is no clear, direct relationship between civilian casualties and counterinsurgent success. While civilians do hold non-combatant deaths against counterinsurgents, the relevance of blame can depend greatly on whether the losses were inflicted by locals for foreigners. In some cases, counterinsurgent brutality helped them succeed or had little influence on the outcome. In others, decisions made by insurgent leaders had more influence over civilian choices than civilian casualties.
While the collective conclusions of the studies surveyed by Fisher, Taub and Burke proved inconclusive, the results certainly warrant deep reconsideration of the central assumptions underpinning prevailing U.S. political and military thinking about counterinsurgency. The articles and studies cited above provide plenty of food for thought.
Servicemen of the U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (standing) train Ukrainian National Guard members during a joint military exercise called “Fearless Guardian 2015,” at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center near the western village of Starychy, Ukraine, on May 7, 2015. [Newsweek]
Last week, Wesley Morgan reported in POLITICO about an internal readiness study recently conducted by the U.S. Army 173rd Airborne Infantry Brigade Combat Team. As U.S. European Command’s only airborne unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade has been participating in exercises in the Baltic States and the Ukraine since 2014 to demonstrate the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) resolve to counter potential Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.
The experience the brigade gained working with Baltic and particularly Ukrainian military units that had engaged with Russian and Russian-backed Ukrainian Separatist forces has been sobering. Colonel Gregory Anderson, the 173rd Airborne Brigade commander, commissioned the study as a result. “The lessons we learned from our Ukrainian partners were substantial. It was a real eye-opener on the absolute need to look at ourselves critically,” he told POLITICO.
The study candidly assessed that the 173rd Airborne Brigade currently lacked “essential capabilities needed to accomplish its mission effectively and with decisive speed” against near-peer adversaries or sophisticated non-state actors. Among the capability gaps the study cited were
The lack of air defense and electronic warfare units and over-reliance on satellite communications and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) navigation systems;
simple countermeasures such as camouflage nets to hide vehicles from enemy helicopters or drones are “hard-to-find luxuries for tactical units”;
the urgent need to replace up-armored Humvees with the forthcoming Ground Mobility Vehicle, a much lighter-weight, more mobile truck; and
the likewise urgent need to field the projected Mobile Protected Firepower armored vehicle companies the U.S. Army is planning to add to each infantry brigade combat team.
The report also stressed the vulnerability of the brigade to demonstrated Russian electronic warfare capabilities, which would likely deprive it of GPS navigation and targeting and satellite communications in combat. While the brigade has been purchasing electronic warfare gear of its own from over-the-counter suppliers, it would need additional specialized personnel to use the equipment.
As analyst Adrian Bonenberger commented, “The report is framed as being about the 173rd, but it’s really about more than the 173rd. It’s about what the Army needs to do… If Russia uses electronic warfare to jam the brigade’s artillery, and its anti-tank weapons can’t penetrate any of the Russian armor, and they’re able to confuse and disrupt and quickly overwhelm those paratroopers, we could be in for a long war.”
While the report is a wake-up call with regard to the combat readiness in the short-term, it also pointedly demonstrates the complexity of the strategic “identity crisis” that faces the U.S. Army in general. Many of the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s current challenges can be traced directly to the previous decade and a half of deployments conducting wide area security missions during counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The brigade’s perceived shortcomings for combined arms maneuver missions are either logical adaptations to the demands of counterinsurgency warfare or capabilities that atrophied through disuse.
The Army’s specific lack of readiness to wage combined arms maneuver warfare against potential peer or near-peer opponents in Europe can be remedied given time and resourcing in the short-term. This will not solve the long-term strategic conundrum the Army faces in needing to be prepared to fight conventional and irregular conflicts at the same time, however. Unless the U.S. is willing to 1) increase defense spending to balance force structure to the demands of foreign and military policy objectives, or 2) realign foreign and military policy goals with the available force structure, it will have to resort to patching up short-term readiness issues as best as possible and continue to muddle through. Given the current state of U.S. domestic politics, muddling through will likely be the default option unless or until the consequences of doing so force a change.
The Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz identified the concept of friction in warfare in his book On War, published in 1832.
Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war… Countless minor incidents—the kind you can never really foresee—combine to lower the general level of performance, so that one always falls far short of the intended goal… Friction is the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper… None of [the military machine’s] components is of one piece: each part is composed of individuals, every one of whom retains his potential of friction [and] the least important of whom may chance to delay things or somehow make them go wrong…
While recognizing this hugely significant intangible element, Clausewitz also asserted that “[F]riction…brings about effects that cannot be measured, just they are largely due to chance.” Nevertheless, the clearly self-evident nature of friction in warfare subsequently led to the assimilation of the concept into the thinking of most military theorists and practitioners.
Flash forward 140 years or so. While listening to a lecture on combat simulation, Trevor Dupuy had a flash of insight that led him to conclude that it was indeed possible to measure the effects of friction.[1] Based on his work with historical combat data, Dupuy knew that smaller-sized combat forces suffer higher casualty rates than do larger-sized forces. As the diagram at the top demonstrates, this is partly explained by the fact that small units have a much higher proportion of their front line troops exposed to hostile fire than large units.
However, this relationship can account for only a fraction of friction’s total effect. The average exposure of a company of 200 soldiers is about seven times greater than an army group of 100,000. Yet, casualty rates for a company in intensive combat can be up to 70 times greater than that of an army group. This discrepancy clearly shows the influence of another factor at work.
Dupuy hypothesized that this reflected the apparent influence of the relationship between dispersion, deployment, and friction on combat. As friction in combat accumulates through the aggregation of soldiers into larger-sized units, its effects degrade the lethal effects of weapons from their theoretical maximum. Dupuy calculated that friction affects a force of 100,000 ten times more than it does a unit of 200. Being an ambient, human factor on the battlefield, higher quality forces do a better job of managing friction’s effects than do lower quality ones.
After looking at World War II combat casualty data to calculate the effect of friction on combat, Dupuy looked at casualty rates from earlier eras and found a steady correlation, which he believed further validated his hypothesis.
Despite the consistent fit of the data, Dupuy felt that his work was only the beginning of a proper investigation into the phenomenon.
During the periods of actual combat, the lower the level, the closer the loss rates will approach the theoretical lethalities of the weapons in the hands of the opposing combatants. But there will never be a very close relationship of such rates with the theoretical lethalities. War does not consist merely of a number of duels. Duels, in fact, are only a very small—though integral—part of combat. Combat is a complex process involving interaction over time of many men and numerous weapons combined in a great number of different, and differently organized, units. This process cannot be understood completely by considering the theoretical interactions of individual men and weapons. Complete understanding requires knowing how to structure such interactions and fit them together. Learning how to structure these interactions must be based on scientific analysis of real combat data.
“Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy… the FEAR to attack. And so, … the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand… and completely credible and convincing.” – Dr. Strangelove.
In a previous post, we looked at some aspects of the nuclear balance of power. In this Stpost, we will consider some aspects of conventional deterrence. Ironically, Chris Lawrence was cleaning out a box in his office (posted in this blog), which contained an important article for this debate, “The Case for More Effective, Less Expensive Weapons Systems: What ‘Quality Versus Quantity’ Issue?” by none other than Pierre M. Sprey, available here, published in 1982.
In comparing the F-15 and F-16, Sprey identifies four principal effectiveness characteristics that contribute to victory in air-to-air combat:
Achieving surprise bounces and avoiding being surprised;
Out-numbering the enemy in the air;
Out-maneuvering the enemy to reach firing position (when surprise fails);
Achieving reliable kills within the brief firing opportunities presented by combat.
“Surprise is the first because, in every air war since WWI, somewhere between 65% and 85% of all fighters shot down were unaware of their attacker.” Sprey mentions that the F-16 is superior to the F-15 due to the smaller size, and that fact that it smokes much less, both aspects that are clearly Within-Visual Range (WVR) combat considerations. Further, his discussion of Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat is dismissive.
The F-15 has an apparently advantage inasmuch as it carries the Sparrow radar missile. On closer examination, this proves to be little or no advantage: in Vietnam, the Sparrow had a kill rate of .08 to .10, less that one third that of the AIM-9D/G — and the new models of the Sparrow do not appear to have corrected the major reasons for this disappointing performance; even worse, locking-on with the Sparrow destroys surprise because of the distinctive and powerful radar signature involved.
From 1965 through 1968, during Operation Rolling Thunder, AIM-7 Sparrow missiles succeeded in downing their targets only 8 percent of the time and AIM-9 Sidewinders only 15 percent of the time. Pre-conflict testing indicated expected success rates of 71 and 65 percent respectively. Despite these problems, AAMs offered advantages over guns and accounted for the vast majority of U.S. air-to-air victories throughout the war.
Sprey seemed to miss out of the fact that the radar guided missile that supported BVR air combat was not something in the far distant future, but an evolution of radar and missile technology. Even in the 1980’s, the share of air-to-air combat victories by BVR missiles was on the rise, and since the 1990’s, it has become the most common way to shoot down an enemy aircraft.
In an Aviation Week podcast in July of this year, retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke (also previously quoted in this blog), and Pierre Sprey debated the F-35. Therein, Sprey offers a formulaic definition of air power, as created by force and effectiveness, with force being a function of cost, reliability, and how often it can fly per day (sortie generation rate?). “To create air power, you have to put a bunch of airplanes in the sky over the enemy. You can’t do it with a tiny hand full, even if they are like unbelievably good. If you send six aircraft to China, they could care less what they are … F-22 deployments are now six aircraft.”
Berke counters with the ideas that he expressed before in his initial conversation with Aviation week (as analyzed in this blog), that information and situational awareness are by far the most important factor in aerial warfare. This stems from the advantage of surprise, which was Sprey’s first criteria in 1982, and remains a critical factor is warfare to this day. This reminds me a bit of Disraeli’s truism of “lies, damn lies and statistics” — pick the metrics that tell your story, rather than objectively look at the data.
Critics beyond Mr. Sprey have said that high technology weapons like the F-22 and the F-35 are irrelevant for America’s wars; “the [F-22] was not relevant to the military’s operations in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — at least according to then-secretary of defense Robert Gates.” Indeed, according to the Washington Post, “Gates called the $65 billion fleet a ‘niche silver-bullet solution’ to a major aerial war threat that remains distant. … and has promised to urge President Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains F-22 funding.”
The current conflict in Syria against ISIS, after the Russian deployment resulted in crowded and contested airspace, as evidenced by a NATO Turkish F-16 shoot down of a Russian Air Force Su-24 (wikipedia), and as reported on this blog. Indeed, ironically for Mr. Sprey’s analysis of the relative values of the AIM-9 vs the AIM-7 missiles, as again reported by this blog,
[T]he U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet locked onto a Su-22 Fitter at a range of 1.5 miles. It fired an AIM-9X heat-seeking Sidewinder missile at it. The Syrian pilot was able to send off flares to draw the missile away from the Su-22. The AIM-9X is not supposed to be so easily distracted. They had to shoot down the Su-22 with a radar guided AMRAAM missile.
For the record the AIM-7 was a direct technical predecessor of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. We can perhaps conclude that having more that one type of weapon is useful, especially as other air power nations are always trying to improve their counter measures, and this incident shows that they can do so effectively. Of course, more observations are necessary for statistical proof, but since air combat is so rare since the end of the Cold War, the opportunity to learn the lesson and improve the AIM-9X should not be squandered.
USAF Air Combat Dominance as Deterrent
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. – Sun Tzu
The admonition to win without fighting is indeed a timeless principle of warfare, and it is clearly illustrated through this report on the performance of the F-22 in the war against ISIS, over the crowded airspace in Syria, from Aviation Week on June 4th, 2017. I’ve quoted at length, and applied emphasis.
Shell, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and Raptor squadron commander who spoke on the condition that Aviation Week identify him only by his call sign, and his squadron of stealth F-22Lockheed Martin Raptors had a critical job to do: de-conflict coalition operations over Syria with an irate Russia.
… one of the most critical missions the F-22 conducts in the skies over Syria, particularly in the weeks following the April 6 Tomahawk strike, is de-confliction between coalition and non-coalition aircraft, says Shell. … the stealth F-22’s ability to evade detection gives it a unique advantage in getting non-coalition players to cooperate, says Shell.
‘It is easier to bring air dominance to bear if you know where the other aircraft are that you are trying to influence, and they don’t know where you are,’ says Shell. ‘When other airplanes don’t know where you are, their sense of comfort goes down, so they have a tendency to comply more.‘
… U.S. and non-coalition aircraft were still communicating directly, over an internationally recognized, unsecure frequency often used for emergencies known as ‘Guard,’ says Shell. His F-22s acted as a kind of quarterback, using high-fidelity sensors to determine the positions of all the actors on the battlefield, directing non-coalition aircraft where to fly and asking them over the Guard frequency to move out of the way.
The Raptors were able to fly in contested areas, in range of surface-to-air missile systems and fighters, without the non-coalition players knowing their exact positions, Shell says. This allowed them to establish air superiority—giving coalition forces freedom of movement in the air and on the ground—and a credible deterrent.
Far from being a silver bullet solution for a distant aerial war, America’s stealth fighters are providing credible deterrence on the front lines today. They have achieved in some cases, the ultimate goal of winning without fighting, by exploiting the advantage of surprise. The right question might be, how many are required for this mission, given the enormous costs of fifth generation fighters? (more on this later). As a quarterback, the F-22 can support many allied units, as part of a larger team.
Giving credit where it is due, Mr. Sprey has rightly stated in his Aviation Week interview, “cost is part of the force you can bring to bear upon the enemy.” His mechanism to compute air power in 2017, however, seems to ignore the most important aspect of air power since it first emerged in World War I, surprise. His dogmatic focus on the lightweight, single purpose air-to-air fighter, which seems to shun even available, proven technology seems clear.
Portent Of The Future: This Mobile High-Energy Laser-equipped Stryker was evaluated during the 2017 Maneuver Fires Integrated Experiment at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The MEHEL can shoot a drone out of the sky using a 5kW laser. (Photo Credit: C. Todd Lopez)
Also under consideration are replacements for the traditional MBT long gun, including high-power lasers and railguns. Some of these could be powered by hydrogen power cells and biofuels.
As the U.S. looks toward lighter armored vehicles, some countries appear to going in the other direction. Both Russia and Israel are developing beefed-up versions of existing vehicles designed specifically for fighting in urban environments.
Grace Person Hayes, The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II: The War Against Japan, Naval Institute Press, 1982. If you have an interest in World War II, strategy, and strategy-making and have not yet read this, I highly recommend it.
Lists of suggested and recommended books continue to be popular in national security and strategic studies circles. General Mark Milley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, recently released his professional reading list for 2017. This list covers topics addressing battles and campaigns, the army profession, and strategy and the strategic environment.
While the extended list comprises many relevant and notable works, some readers pointed out that it contains only one work authored by a woman, Barbara W. Tuchman’s classic The Guns Of August, published in 1962. In response, a call went out on Twitter to solicit titles of books by women on military history subjects. The initial version of this list is posted here.
This list of books on military history (and other related topics) is not exhaustive, nor the only one available, but it amply demonstrates that in 2017, there really is no shortage of worthy and appropriate publications written by women available for inclusion on professional reading lists. The addition of any of these titles would provide a broader perspective to any undertaking specifically intended to expand the thinking of students and practitioners.
It also shows that women are publishing works that are interesting in their own right but don’t seem to be getting the recognition that they deserve. Like Eric M. Murphy, I took a look at my own personal book collection and realized just how few of them were written by women. I am reasonably certain that I don’t intentionally avoid buying books by women, but I have tangible proof that I have done so regardless. I have read or am familiar with many of the works on the list cited above, many of which I can and have recommended without reservation. But there are also many titles that I have not yet looked at, so I have some work to do. I can do better at this and if I find something noteworthy, I can pipe up about it. I think we all can.
The North Korean ballistic missile threat to Guam [Reuters]
Gerry Doyle has an excellent article in The New York Times exploring the issue of defending the island of Guam from a potential North Korean ballistic missile threat. In response to President Donald Trump’s comments earlier this week, North Korea issued an oddly specific threat to conduct a ballistic missile test targeting the area around Guam.
Key takeaways from the article:
The U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile (BMD) system based in South Korea would have no chance of intercepting a Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) during its initial ascent (boost-phase). THAAD is not designed for boost-phase intercept.
Japan fields a sea-based U.S. Aegis BMD equipped with SM-3 missiles, which is designed to intercept short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles at the middle (mid-course) and final (terminal phase) parts of their flight. It is likely that a Hwasong-12 moving toward Guam would be out of SM-3 range as it passed over Japan, however.
Guam itself is defended by a layered BMD system including sea-based U.S. Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot PAC-3 batteries, which are all designed to engage incoming ballistic missiles during mid-course and terminal phase. This is where an intercept would most likely occur.
Despite possessing the technical capability for intercepting a provocative North Korean missile test, Doyle points out a tricky policy problem for the U.S.
If Japan or the United States shoots down the missiles, North Korea could see it as an escalation, prompting a military response. If they do nothing, and allow the North Korean missiles to fly unharmed, it’s unclear how Pyongyang would interpret it.
On the other hand, if they try to intercept the missiles but fail, it could undermine the credibility of both countries’ assurances that their antimissile systems can work.
The intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 is allegedly seen during its test in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, July, 4 2017. [KCNA/via REUTERS]
This past July, North Korea conducted a pair of test launches of a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which it calls the Hwasong-14 (“Mars”). While North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un claimed the vehicle can strike “any region and place any time,” skeptical Western military analysts concede it likely has the range to reach much of the United States. (There is disagreement as to whether the Hawsong-14 can actually deliver a nuclear warhead to targets in the Eastern U.S., but analysts concur that it can strike Hawaii, Alaska, and the Western U.S.)
According to a recent Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, the North Koreans have developed nuclear warheads small enough to be mounted on its ballistic missiles, including the Hwasong-14. The DIA estimate also credited the North Koreans with a stockpile of up to 60 nuclear weapons, though some outside analysts believe it to be fewer.
Earlier this week, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho vowed that, “Should the U.S. pounce upon the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) with military force at last, the DPRK is ready to teach the U.S. a severe lesson with its strategic nuclear force.”
What real capability does a functional ICBM with nuclear warheads provide the North Koreans? What would happen if they did attempt a nuclear attack on the U.S.? The answer is that no one, including the North Koreans, knows with any certainty.
Hitting A Bullet With A Bullet: Ballistic Missile Defense
Shooting down an incoming ICBM has been likened to “hitting a bullet with a bullet”; however IBCMs travel at speeds eight times faster than a bullet. The only current ballistic missile defense (BMD) system the U.S. possesses capable of intercepting ICBMs is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), a combination of Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs), long-range radars, and a distributed fire control system. There are only two existing GMD emplacements, one at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and the other at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The Ft. Greely site houses 30 GBIs, though ten more are scheduled for deployment there, and four are based at Vandenberg, for a total of 44 by the end of 2017.
GMD has demonstrated a mixed track record in tests, achieving 10 intercepts in 18 attempts (55%). U.S. Air Force General Lori Robinson, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, nevertheless told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April that “Today we have exactly what we need to defend the United States of America against North Korea.”
This conclusion has been questioned by the Government Accountability Office, National Academy of Sciences, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, who have all sharply criticized GMD’s technical viability and accuracy. GMD’s advocates claim that using a “shoot-look-shoot” tactic, which would target an incoming ICBM with successive GBIs raises the odds of success. However, the Union of Concerned Scientists have calculated that if the North Koreans were to fire a volley of five ICBMs and each GBI had a 50% chance of a successful interception, there would be a 28% chance that one of the North Korean missiles would get through.
The U.S. fields three regional or theater BMDs, Aegis, Patriot, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). These were developed to engage short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats, however, not ICBMs, which travel much faster and higher. They are, however, a key component in defending South Korea, Japan, and other countries in the region from North Korean ballistic missile attack.
Another potential ICBM defense would be to interdict the missiles before they are launched. Liquid-fueled missiles such as the Hwasong-14 require hours to fuel with highly volatile propellants, rendering them vulnerable to conventional air or missile attack. While the U.S. and the South Koreans are able to detect test preparations ahead of time, they have not been able to pinpoint launch sites in real time before firing. The North Koreans have developed mobile launchers and capabilities for quickly firing missiles from remote areas of the country far from existing infrastructure. (As the U.S. and its Coalition allies discovered in the 1991 Gulf War, interdicting mobile ballistic missile launchers is a difficult task even with complete air superiority.) Successfully interdicting a North Korean ICBM launch would require far better U.S./South Korean intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance capabilities than those currently available.
“If he says they can’t hit Nevada on a clear day, you better believe it”
Should a North Korean ICBM successfully evade U.S. missile defenses, what would happen next? This is also a very good question with no clear answer. Conducting a successful ICBM attack with a nuclear weapon is an extraordinarily challenging technical task, which requires a lot of sophisticated technology to function flawlessly under rigorous conditions. The U.S. has tested an ICBM/nuclear warhead under operational conditions only once, with Shot FRIGATE BIRD during Operation DOMINIC in 1962. The submarine U.S.S. Ethan Allen fired a Polaris A2 ballistic missile armed with a 600-kiloton W-47 thermonuclear warhead, which detonated successfully in the air 2,000 meters from target over Johnston Island, 120 miles away in the Pacific Ocean.
Some analysts believe that the re-entry vehicle (RV) from the 28 July Hwasong-14 test broke up before landing. It is unlikely a real warhead would have survived such a failure. RV’s house a ballistic missile’s warhead, protecting it from the stresses of flight and atmospheric reentry and provide the terminal guidance onto the target. The U.S. required years of extensive, expensive testing before it perfected an ICBM RV. While North Korea has developed effective RVs for its shorter range ballistic missiles, the lack of a durable one for the Hwasong-14 will degrade its potential effectiveness and accuracy for the time being.
If a Hwasong-14 RV did manage to survive reentry, what then? On target is a relative term, even with nuclear weapons. North Korea is believed to have developed only kiloton-range fission-type nuclear devices, not megaton-range thermonuclear warheads. Size imposes limits on the yield of fission devices. The Hwasong-14 is estimated to be capable of delivering a payload of only 500 kg or less at intercontinental ranges, which would have to include the RV and the warhead. To date, the North Koreans have tested devices yielding 10-15 kilotons. With the addition of fission-boosting using deuterium, lithium-6, or tritium, the total yield might be significantly enhanced. Some analysts credit the North Koreans with the capability for building a boosted, composite pit device yielding somewhere in the 30-kiloton range. For comparison’s sake, the Fat Man fission bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 had a yield of approximately 21 kilotons.
There is no firm estimate of the Hwasong-14’s circular error of probability (CEP) or the radius within which 50% of missile impacts would theoretically be expected to land, a standard measure of ballistic missile accuracy. By scaling up the accuracy of the Hwasong-14’s SCUD missile antecedent to intercontinental range, one analysis estimated a CEP of 30 kilometers. A blunt-body shaped RV and hasty launches from remote sites would hamper accuracy as well. It is also plausibly arguable that North Korea might be capable of matching the 3-5 kilometer CEP of the first Soviet ICBM, the R-7.
With a CEP of 30 kilometers, it would be entirely possible for a Hwasong-14 to fly successfully, evade U.S. BMDs, detonate effectively, and still completely miss a target as large as Los Angeles.
Map of a hypothetical strike on Los Angeles with a 30-kiloton nuclear airburst, delivered by a ballistic missile with a 30 kilometer CEP. The red cross represents the designated ground zero, the blue lines indicate the CEP radius, and the red dot represents the radius of 5-psi overpressure effects from the nuclear explosion. [MISSILEMAP by Alex Wellerstein, RESTRICTED DATA: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog ]
A CEP of 3-5 kilometers would greatly increase the probability of even a near-miss hitting a densely populated section of the city, killing and injuring tens or hundreds of thousands, if not more.
Map of a hypothetical strike on Los Angeles with a 30-kiloton nuclear airburst, delivered by a ballistic missile with a 3-5 kilometer CEP. The red cross represents the designated ground zero, the blue lines indicate the CEP radius, and the red dot represents the radius of 5-psi overpressure effects from the nuclear explosion. [MISSILEMAP by Alex Wellerstein, RESTRICTED DATA: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog ]A Catastrophe Of Unimaginable Consequences
Close observers of the North Korean nuclear and missile programs understand that the July missile tests represent a nominal, but real, capability for delivering a nuclear ballistic missile strike against the U.S. The challenges in improving this capability are formidable, but they are technical in nature and there is no reason to believe the North Koreans cannot solve them in time. A true game changer would be the ability to deliver a thermonuclear warhead yielding hundreds of kilotons or more. Some analysts see this development as inevitable.
Regardless of the scenario, the launch of any North Korean nuclear-armed ICBMs toward the United States could only be regarded as a catastrophic failure of American foreign and military policy. The consequences of even a limited nuclear strike on U.S. soil would be effectively unimaginable, far beyond the death, destruction, and inevitable reality of retaliation-in-kind against the North Korean regime.
It would also represent a failure of any rational North Korean defense policy as well, since the only value ICBMs have to North Korea is in deterring foreign attack. They are militarily useless to prevent a counterattack that would invariably destroy Kim Jong-Un’s government. Their only value lies in the political threat to use them.
It would seem then that the U.S. and North Korea share a common interest in seeing that North Korea’s ICBMs are never used. The only sensible means to that end lie in deterrence and negotiation.
As I have mentioned before, the United States faces a crisis of “strategic insolvency” with regard to the imbalance between its foreign and military policy commitments and the resources it has allocated to meet them. Rather than addressing the problem directly, the nation’s political leadership appears to be opting to “muddle through” instead by maintaining the policy and budgetary status quo. A case in point is the 2017 Fiscal Year budget, which should have been approved last year. Instead Congress passed a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) that keeps funding at existing levels while its members try to come to an agreement.
In an 
