Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the Military Times
magazines. This is his first post for Danger Room.
Ballistic missiles as ship-busters? For years, China has reportedly been working on modifying land-based DF-21 ballistic missiles into long-range carrier killers. The idea is to have People's Liberation Missiles -- guided by satellite, over-the-horizon radar, or drones -- zooming up sub-orbitally, and then slamming down into the *USS Nimitz *at Mach 10.
The estimated 2,000-kilometer range of the modified DF-21 would enable China to strike U.S. carriers in the western and central Pacific.
The U.S. Navy is taking the threat seriously, according to the U.S.
Naval Institute. Naval blog Information Dissemination has just posted an excellent analysis of China's ballistic missile ship-killers, including a translation of a recent Chinese blog on this capability.
The technical challenges still seem daunting, including the fact that ballistic aren't designed for tactical precision strikes of relatively small (in oceanic terms) targets speeding at 30
knots. But the really troubling issue is this: ballistic missiles are strategic weapons (the DF-21 has roughly the same range as a Pershing 2). They're designed to carry nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they're designed to carry nukes, and to hurl them long distances. So if the U.S. detects missiles hurtling over the
Pacific, and NORAD has 15 minutes to decide whether it's a tactical strike on the Nimitz, or if some city is going to be vaporized... Of course, in the rational world of deterrence theory and defense planning, U.S.
decision-makers would know these were tactical weapons and wouldn't overreact.
Or maybe not.
China has always been the quiet nuclear power. A billion people and a powerhouse manufacturing base confers quite enough clout, thank you very much.
Beijing has far more to gain from brandishing its financial fist than its nuclear fist -- or its carrier-killing missiles. Using what seems like a tactical weapon to them could be misperceived as a strategic attack. Just imagine the potential consequences if Nixon had had Pershing 2s and launched them – even with conventional warheads - at Hanoi in
1972.
Not that the U.S. gets it, either. Converting sub-launched Trident ballistic missiles into conventionally-armed weapons for quick global strike isn't the smartest move. China may not appreciate ballistic missiles hurtling over the Pacific in their direction, either -- conventional warheads or not.
***[Photo: via SinoDefence]
- *-- *Michael Peck
