Pre-emptive strikes, 'exotic' weapons, Iraq and China

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

Pre-emptive strikes, 'exotic' weapons, Iraq and China


Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange


09.25.02 - Dr. Strangelove would be proud. Dr. Frankenstein
impressed. Their developers call them "exotic" and they're not
referring to an alien-populated strip show in Vegas. They are new
weapons systems that have been developed at a dizzying pace over the
past several years and some of them may be ready for the president's
prime time preemptive strike on Iraq.


According to an early August 2002 report in Aviation Week & Space
Technology, a U.S. attack on Iraq could see the first use "of
high-power microwave weapons that produce a split-second spike of
energy powerful enough to damage electronic components and scramble
computer memories."


Reporter David A. Fulghum writes that the system is "designed, at
least initially, for use from cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft."
A British aerospace official told Fulghum that "adding a
directed-energy weapon to an unmanned combat vehicle is the ideal
mode."


Two years ago, when "exotic" weapons were coming online with greater
frequency, the Headquarters Air Force Safety Center Weapons, Space,
and Nuclear Safety Division launched an initiative aimed at ensuring
"the safe operation and maintenance of all new and emerging
high-energy density Directed Energy Weapon and Kinetic Energy Weapon
systems," reported Captain Edward M. Jakes in an issue of Weapons
Journal.


Jakes said that the "effort was begun as a result of the increasing
number of 'exotic' weapon systems, both tactical and strategic," that
were coming online. Specific examples of Directed Energy Weapons
systems include High Power Microwave (HPM) systems, high-power laser
systems (e.g. the Airborne Laser and the Space Based Laser), the Free
Electron Laser (FEL), and sonic weapon systems."


Unlike the more "conventional" or "nuclear weapons" systems these
"exotic" weapons are "revolutionary, primarily because of their
engagement characteristics," writes Captain Jakes. "These include
speed-of-light engagement times (weapon on target in milliseconds
instead of tens of minutes), the ability to engage targets hundreds
of miles away, weapon omnidirectionality (i.e., attack in all
directions with a single shot), and the ability to tune these
weapons' effects (they can be set to not only destroy, but to disrupt
or deny)."


Since Vietnam, the Pentagon has understood that the best way to fight
a war -- at least in its initial stages -- is from a distance. High
altitude bombing raids decimating targets and occasionally killing
civilian reduces the risks for the home team. Reduced risk equals
reduced US military casualties, which, the theory goes, equals
increased support from the folks at home.


'Risk-free' weapons


The beauty of these new weapons, writes David Fulghum, is that
"There's no risk to a pilot, there's a greater degree of accuracy [in
hitting the target], and it doesn't rely on scattering flechettes
that murder half the population of the country you are attacking."
These unmanned vehicles, in combination with high-powered microwave
(HPM) weapons "provides a way to attack the toughest targets in any
foe's arsenal," said Gen. John Jumper, U.S. Air Force chief of staff.


As might be expected, military leaders speak of these weapon systems
in glowing terms. Gen. Jumper: "If you combine directed energy with
the UCAVs [Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles] of the type we have
today, you have a combination that uses stealth to go into [heavily
defended territory and HPM to] tell the SA-10 that it's a Maytag
washer on the rinse cycle rather than a missile about to shoot
somebody down. You can fly this thing in and debilitate in various
ways the sophisticated communications and electronics that are going
to cause you the greatest worry [and make the attack] with
deniability."


But HPMs will probably not be fully available for another 3-5 years
says Fulghum. Those now available to be used against Iraq "are not
talked about openly." But Fulghum reports that "they are built, like
bombs, as expendable one-time-use weapons. Many of the payloads are
designed for carriage by cruise missiles like the ALCM, Tomahawk,
Jassm or Britain's Storm Shadow."


Several defense companies are hard at work developing these new
weapons. According to Fulghum, Lockheed Martin "produced concepts for
returnable cruise missiles, which would help defray the cost of
expensive airframes and HPM payloads," for display at the recent
=46arnborough air show. The Arms Trade Resource Center's Michelle
Ciarrocca, reports in the September 2002 issue of Foreign Policy in
=46ocus that in addition to Lockheed Martin, TRW, Northrup, Grumman and
Boeing "all focused on new approaches to developing unmanned aerial
vehicles, a star weapon of the Afghan war," at the show.


We are not alone


The United States, however, is not alone in working to develop
"exotic weapons," writes Bill Gertz in the July 31 edition of the
Washington Times. Gertz claims that "China is developing
high-technology arms, including laser weapons and radio-frequency
bombs, to boost its ability to successfully carry out warfare against
the United States and other advanced military powers, according to a
recent Pentagon report."


According to the annual report to Congress on the capabilities of
China's People's Liberation Army, their key weapons systems include:


*       "Laser guns that can be used to blind soldiers and pilots and
knock out U.S. space-based intelligence and communications networks;


*       "Radio-frequency weapons that will electronically cripple
command and control electronic systems and make it impossible for
militaries hit by the bombs or missile warheads to conduct integrated
warfare operations; and


*       "Information operations from computers that would attack
computer-based infrastructures with viruses or other malicious codes."


"This is all evidence that the People's Liberation Army is preparing
to compete with the United States in terms of future military
technologies," Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military
with the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington think tank, told Gertz.


"In both its ancient history and its future strategies, China places
great importance on the development of surprise weapons or trump-card
weapons that will attack critical weaknesses of their enemies, to
include Taiwan and the United States," Fisher said.


Larry Wortzel, a former military attach=E9 in Beijing who is currently
with the Heritage Foundation, told Gertz that Chinese officials were
gearing up for space warfare." I think what it boils down to is the
Chinese have focused on a range of really high-tech war-fighting
technologies that are going to be at the cutting edge of 21st-century
warfare," said Wortzel, who added that the Chinese are conducting the
kind of high-technology military transformation that Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has proposed for the U.S. military.


Weapons competition is one of the no-nos outlined by the president in
his recently enunciated preemptive strike doctrine. Bush's new
doctrine allows for preemptive strikes on hostile states and
terrorist groups who are developing weapons of mass destruction. The
Bush Doctrine also points out that it is intended to ensure that the
US will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged in the
way it was during the cold war.


According to the New York Times, the 33-page document titled "The
National Security Strategy of the United States" describes how Bush
"seeks to answer the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by
insisting that the United States will exploit its military and
economic power to encourage 'free and open societies,' rather than
seek 'unilateral advantage.' It calls this union of values and
national interests 'a distinctly American internationalism.'" The
Times also notes that that this is "the first comprehensive
explanation of the administration's foreign policy, from defense
strategy to global warming."


Gertz's Washington Times piece naming China as an "exotic" weapons
developer came nearly two months before the release of the new Bush
Doctrine. On its face, the doctrine "seemed [to be] aimed at
developing rising powers like China, which is expanding its
conventional and nuclear forces," claims the New York Times.


Col. Stanislav Lunev, who NewsMax.com calls "the highest-ranking
Soviet military intelligence officer ever to defect from Russia,"
points out in a NewsMax Sept. 6, 2002 article that Western
intelligence sources have said that the "Chinese communists were
continuing to build up their military forces with U.S. technology,
despite an embargo on transfers of military technologies and goods."
Chinas was also receiving assistance from Russia "for the development
of these weapons systems, including a Global Positioning Navigation
System (GPS) which is the key element of precision-guided bombs and
missiles."


Is China developing "exotic" weapons as Gertz and Lunev allege?
Should China then be considered a nation "challenging" US military
supremacy by developing these "exotic" weapons? Does China qualify as
a hostile state? If not now, would China be deemed "hostile" if it
vetoes a Security Council Resolution allowing the US to invade Iraq?


Finally, does the Bush administration intend to unleash its brand of
exotica on China?


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.