The U.S. is not prepared enough for a possible long-range missile strike from Russia, China or North Korea, a new report seen by Newsweek says, offering one potential road map for President-elect Donald Trump to piece together the American version of Israel’s vaunted Iron Dome system he has pledged to build around the U.S.
The report, written by Robert SOOFER, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for nuclear and anti-missile policy in the former Trump administration, indicates that the risk of long-range attacks, adding intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with nuclear warheads with nuclear warheads nuclear warheads with nuclear warheads with nuclear warheads, hitting US territory is “real and growing. “
Soofer, writing for the Atlantic Council, recommends the incoming Trump administration quickly builds up U.S. stocks of specific types of interceptor missiles to knock out a possible incoming attack, rather than only rely on the threat of retaliation to make sure the likes of North Korea, China or Russia do not attack the mainland U.S.
Further down the line, the U.S. government should invest in space-based interceptors—a currently controversial topic—as well as directed-energy weapons now on the cusp of coming into use in various countries, Soofer says. Combined, an extra $4 or $5 billion should be plugged annually into the homeland missile defense chunk of the Missile Defense Agency’s annual budget, Soofer argues, on top of the $3 billion currently earmarked.
“Combined, this would amount to about 1 percent of the defense budget for the number 1 national defense priority,” the report says.
Washington can retaliate in the country after hitting the United States, the report argues, however, it can only block a first North Korean strike and only if it uses some warheads.
Trump has pledged to “build an Iron Dome” over the United States to ensure that “nothing can harm our people,” but he has not said exactly how he plans to achieve this.
Contacted for further comment, Trump’s transition team told Newsweek to return to the president-elect’s earlier comments.
The Republican will stride back into the Oval Office on January 20 with the world a more dangerous place than during his first term, with nuclear saber-rattling rife and experimental ballistic missiles bringing fresh attention to how Washington plans to protect U.S. soil.
North Korea has continued its nuclear and missile progression systems, most likely driven by Russia, and the Moscow war in Ukraine has brought relations between Russia and the United States to its worst point since the end of the war. cold.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that in November, Russia fired an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine. The Kiev government first classified the weapon as the first use of an intercontinental ballistic missile in combat. Moscow also updated its nuclear doctrine when Ukraine marked 1,000 days of war with its neighbor, lowering the threshold the Kremlin needed to justify a nuclear strike.
Last November, North Korea’s Defense Ministry said “provocations by the US military” risked “plunging the regional situation into an irreparable catastrophe. ” Analysts expect Pyongyang to move forward with a complicated arsenal, while building more arsenals of traditional and nuclear weapons. warheads.
As things stand, the United States has no common formula for intercepting large-scale ICBM movements introduced from Russia or China, even if they could neutralize the low number of missiles North Korea could fire. USA.
That would be an ad hoc approach. The United States recently has 44 floor interceptors (GBI) deployed throughout the country: 40 are in Silos in Alask course.
Around 2028, the Pentagon will load 20 next-generation interceptors, or NGIs, to GBI.
Whatever is lost through those interceptors would likely fall into the US Navy’s Aegis system. Aegis can about a third of the US’s at any given time, Soofer told Newsweek.
The Missile Defense Agency and the US Navy.
Gen. Glen VanHerck, former head of the U. S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the U. S. -Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told lawmakers in March 2023 that he is “confident in our current ability to protect the homeland in opposition to a limited DPRK. “”Ballistic missile threat [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or North Korea],” but “concerned about the long-term capture capability and reaction capability of the reaction capability. “It is “crucial” that the United States deploy NGI, he said at the time.
In the short term, the Trump administration is expected to build up its stockpile of SM-3 Block IIA missiles, according to the report. Washington also stacks up the number of GBIs available, Soofer says. The technology, adding area-based interceptors and gaze to laser-like homing power guns, he added.
The Pentagon and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, led jointly by the United States and Canada, declined to comment.
The Iron Dome, made by Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, was crafted to fend off short-range rocket attacks, which is not the main threat to the U.S. homeland. Experts dismiss an analogous design for the U.S. as impractical—Israel’s defenses are vastly different to the U.S. for several reasons, not least the size of the country and who is doing the targeting.
In a Phoenix rally in late December, the President-elect said he will “direct our military to begin construction of the great Iron Dome missile defense shield, which will be made all in the USA, much of it right here in Arizona.”
Representative Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican that Trump has exploited his selection for the National Security Advisor, said in the month that “we want an iron dome for the United States. “
The proposals in his report, Soofer said, may be a practical way to make the Iron Dome concept suitable for the U. S. UU. Si the U. S. Iron DomeIt’s a euphemism for a more comprehensive defense, so the U. S. wants more layers, he said.
But homeland missile defense has always had its critics. Some analysts argue it is too expensive, technologically difficult to predict what an enemy’s forces will look like decades down the line, and that it could undermine the idea of mutually assured destruction before triggering a new arms race.
There are several scenarios that the U. S. will need to prepare for now, according to Soofer.
North Korea can simply launch a handful of missiles – intentionally or – and Russia or China combined, with its important nuclear and traditional arsenals, can cause an overwhelming attack against the United States.
Experts say a North Korean attack would be very different from how Russia or China would combat the United States. Pyongyang, although belligerent, is held back by its existing arsenals, but an attack through Beijing or Moscow (or either) would involve hundreds of people. if not thousands, of people. ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as electromagnetic weapons and jamming, said William Alberque, a visiting Henry L. Stimson fellow and former NATO director of Arms Control, Disarmament and Mass Weapons. Destruction. Nonproliferation Center.
“The scale would just be crazy,” and beyond North Korea’s capabilities for the moment, Alberque told Newsweek.
But Beijing and Moscow may also decide to attack the United States with a limited strike to “coerce” Washington’s report, Soofer’s report argues. This type of operation would be designed to induce the United States to withdraw from the fight or refuse an ally, but not to induce Washington to use its nuclear weapons or unleash a large-scale retaliatory strike.
Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), a group of defense experts based in the United Kingdom, argued last year that the United States enemies could limit themselves to limited nuclear or traditional attacks, which the United States is not prepared to reject , “with the aim of frightening but enraged. ” Washington. “»
Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping “believe that such ‘coercive’ strikes could deter the U.S. from defending its allies,” the think tank said.
A key component of the United States’ nuclear and broader military strategy relies on American allies who believe that Washington will come to their aid, they will be attacked.
Beijing or Moscow may also hit U. S. nuclear forces and nuclear centers. U. S. To prevent crushing nuclear retaliation, according to Soofer’s report. That means the missiles protect key bases and forces that the U. S. would use to fight, he suggests.
The report indicates that missile defenses are not focused on “absolute coverage of the American people,” but they do ensure that Russian or Chinese officials doubt that the type of attack they may simply mount will succeed.
The GBIs, single-handedly protecting the U.S. homeland, should be integrated with the SM-3 missiles, plus the interceptors fired by THAAD, and all the associated technology like radars, according to the report.
The United States also wants more SM-3 missiles and greater production, says SOOFER. Lately, the United States builds around 12 of the newest edition of the SM-3 year, but it probably produces double, says Soofer.
Thaad systems have helped neutralize Iranian ballistic missiles in their two waves of attacks on Israel in April and October of this year. Each missile costs about $25 million, about a quarter of each GBI, a much more efficient, long-range and complex missile.
The U.S. is already developing the NGI, with defense giant Lockheed Martin chosen to carry through the development of the interceptor, touted by the manufacturer as a missile that “will revolutionize U.S. homeland missile defense.” It is specifically designed to shield U.S. soil from intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran and North Korea, Lockheed Martin said.
GBIS intercepts an ICBM in the middle of its flight, when incoming missiles are out of the atmosphere, while Aegis missiles or missiles are an ICBM descend.
But the earlier an ICBM can be knocked out, the better the defense against it.
At this point in its journey, the missile moves more slowly, is less difficult to trip due to its signature warmth, and the warhead has still separated from the release vehicle.
There are several tactics for targeting an ICBM that poses a risk to US soil before an SM-3 or GBI can reach it. Neutralizing a missile from the first level of its launch is called missile defense in the strengthening phase and deserves to be considered, explains Soofer.
One school of idea would be to position fighter jets near the launch site to intercept it, or drones and lasers in a similar position, however, this can only be done by paintings opposed to North Korea or Iran.
Another is what South Korea has quietly evolved. In recent years, Seoul has established a multi-pronged strategy, adding preemptive moves at North Korea’s nuclear and broader missile facilities if there are signs that its northern neighbor intends to use them, known as “chain of kill”.
South Korea then has its Korean air and missile defense system to intercept attacks, paired with its Korean punishment and retaliation plan (KMPR). This is shorthand for precision movements or commands to eliminate senior North Korean officials and important command centers.
The air defense network, with the KMPR, is Seoul’s sword and shield, Alberque said.
Washington’s policy will be “to maintain the risk of North Korea in the long term, thanks to an antimile defense strategy combined with offensive measures to save it before they occur,” Soofer said.
“South Korea is building a traditional preemptive capability to defeat an enemy with nuclear weapons,” Alberque said. “We’ve probably painted with South Korea on this. “
“They’re building an exquisite set of left of launch systems,” Alberque said. Left of launch means taking action to stop an enemy attack before they can carry out their plans.
Another option is to release interceptor missiles from the set. It would be a key detail for an American iron dome, says Soofer, stating that militarization is now inevitable.
The president-elect turns out to think so too. Trump said at the Arizona Rally that “Ronald Reagan sought to do it many, many years ago, but they didn’t have the technology. “
“But they have it now, you can knock a needle out of the sky,” he added.
Reagan, the Republican President who controlled Washington in the 1980s while ending the Cold War, driven by what he called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), called “Star Wars. “
Reagan was intended for the SDI, partly in space, to intercept the intercontinental ballistic missiles introduced through the Soviet Union of the time in other issues of the missile flight.
Models such as the SM-3 and the GBI would be enough to defeat a limited arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles of North Korea, Soofer said. But unlike Russia or China, he said, area interceptors would be the only way to deal with the risk of intercontinental ballistic missiles they represent.
If Russia decides to launch attacks on the United States, Washington could find itself facing more than 1,000 nuclear warheads aimed at its soil and, in particular, against its strategic nuclear forces. A patchwork strategy to guard against this and protect the resources the U. S. would use to retaliate would likely not be enough, Soofer says.
Soofer suggests that the Pentagon wants to “place more emphasis on making an investment in long-endurance capabilities, innovative capabilities, such as space-based sensors, SBIs [space interceptors], and non-kinetic features (such as directed energy) to overcome the progression. ” of adverse capabilities. “
Support for detecting and identifying threats from low-progression satellite sensors may simply “greatly improve” the way the U. S. can simply use genuine nuclear warheads from decoys in the next decade, Soofer said.
Others are skeptical. “Once you start installing systems in the area, you never stop,” Alberque said. “Then, the Russians installed systems in the area, China installed systems in the area, [then] China and Russia advanced their ability to destroy their area assets, so you want to have a greater device to destroy their area. “
It is imaginable to build an integral defense against Russian or North Korean missiles as they exist today, Alberque said.
“But during the time you build it, North Korean missiles probably wouldn’t be where they are today,” he added. Period, they’re going to see you’re doing that, so they’re going to build systems designed to defeat what you’re building. “
“The challenge is that you are waiting for the crisis to happen,” Alberque said. “It’s a band-aid approach. “
Russia and China are their own counter defenses to long-range cruise and ballistic missiles, the report states. “The counter defense to cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles in the United States can supply Russia and China asymmetrically, because “an expansion of Russian and Chinese air and missile defenses would likely have an effect on the balance of the military in some situations, complicating limited American options,” Soofer says.
Moscow and Beijing are operating in combination with early warning satellites, and the use of Russia’s dominance in air defense has been combined with Chinese expertise in the area, Alberque said.
The S-500 air defense formula in Russia, the next iteration of its long line of complex air defense formulas and on the ground, is only to intercept airplanes on high flight, but also for missiles and space coverage, Alberque said. Moscow also develops the nudol, or A-235 PL-19, a formula designed to prevent the launch of ballistic missiles and contrast, as well as new tactics to dazzle enemy satellites in space.
China is “building massive new offensive capabilities in order to outrace the United States’ limited missile defenses, and it’s building other special capabilities to destroy U.S. missile defense capabilities so that we can’t defend against anything,” Alberque said.
“They’re creating a formula that will make it much more complicated for the U. S. to target and hit Russian and Chinese targets,” Alberque said. “They have won the message and they are construction defenses,” he added, but under pressure that the pressure that Those defenses concentrate on shielding their army commanders and nuclear centers, which population centers and primary cities.
“We’re in the middle of an arms race,” Alberque said. “Not at the start.”
Ellie Cook is a Newsweek security and defense reporter founded in London, UK, her paintings focus largely on the Russia-Ukraine War, the U. S. military, and the U. S. military. The U. S. Weapons Systems and Emerging Technology. A reporter at The Daily Express, he graduated in international journalism from City, University of London. Languages: English, Spanish. You can succeed in Ellie by emailing e. cook@newsweek. com.