By Rich Lowry
Tuesday, October
19, 2021
The Biden administration is hesitant
to call our competition with China a new cold war, even though Beijing has
zero qualms about making the parallels with our decades-long struggle with the
Soviet Union abundantly clear.
We are once again discussing a “Sputnik
moment,” a nuclear-arms race, and a missile gap — all throwbacks to the
1950s–1980s — thanks to China’s aggressive pursuit of military
capabilities designed to deter and defeat the United States.
Whatever Beijing may say and however we
may try to comfort ourselves with cushioning delusions, the Chinese have
repeatedly made it plain that they intend to hold U.S. bases and our homeland
at risk.
The example of Sputnik, the primitive
Soviet satellite launched in 1957 that raised the prospect of the U.S.’s losing
the space race, was on everyone’s lips with a bombshell Financial Times report
over the weekend.
According to the FT, the
Chinese tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile that circled the Earth once
before descending on its target, thus demonstrating “an advanced space
capability that caught U.S. intelligence by surprise.”
It’s not clear why anyone would be
shocked. It wasn’t a secret that China and Russia were developing
these technologies, and indeed, it wasn’t a secret that China had leapt ahead of
us.
(The Chinese, bringing the same
transparency they’ve shown regarding the origins of COVID-19, say it was just a
routine space launch.)
Hypersonic missiles bring a new element to
the ever-evolving competition between missile offense and defense.
As former State Department official
Christian Brose notes in his book The Kill Chain, ballistic
missiles travel fast but in a predictable parabolic path. Cruise missiles, on
the other hand, travel relatively slowly but are maneuverable and therefore
unpredictable.
Hypersonic missiles are both unpredictable
and fast — six times faster than a Tomahawk missile.
That means they are uniquely suited to
defeat our missile defenses. Not only can’t we counter them, but we also can’t
track them adequately at the moment.
Over the summer, the head of North
American Aerospace Defense Command — yes, that’s NORAD of Cold War fame — said
the new missiles would pose “significant challenges to my NORAD capability to
provide threat warning and attack assessment.”
The FT reports that the
test missile missed its target by roughly two dozen miles. That’s a significant
miss but wouldn’t necessarily be that much comfort if the missile were carrying
a nuclear payload. And the targeting will presumably be improved — that’s one
reason to carry out the test in the first place.
An MIT professor told the FT that
just because China tested the capability doesn’t mean that it will deploy it.
But the history of expansionistic totalitarian states forbearing from fielding
advanced weapons after pouring significant time and resources into developing
them is not, to say the least, very encouraging.
It’d be best if we abandoned all wishful
thinking and admitted the obvious.
We’ve had a zombie arms-control policy
focused on deals with Russia, while China has been aggressively adding new
weapons and delivery systems.
We’ve allowed China to rob our technology
and pour it into developing threats against us.
We’ve been much too slow in developing the
next generation of weapons, including hypersonic missiles, and are modernizing
our nuclear triad at a glacial pace while China is rapidly adding new
capabilities.
The response to the new circumstances
should reflect a Cold War–era urgency. The Biden administration has proposed
more spending on hypersonic missiles, but the latest news should mean even more
of an emphasis on their rapid deployment, so we can hold at risk Chinese assets
and maintain our deterrence.
We should, with an eye to the growing
Chinese missile threat, deploy missile-defense interceptors in Australia and
more sensors in space, as well as work toward directed-energy weapons that
would be the best counter to hypersonic missiles.
If we aren’t going to call it a new cold
war, we must — or risk falling further behind — treat it as one.
No comments:
Post a Comment