[ad_1]
The news of China launching a rocket using the “Fractional Orbital Bombing System” (FOBS) has sparked a lively debate around the world to push the nuclear issue of the “hypersonic planetary vehicle” into U.S. strategic circles.
Following the release of the Financial Times (FT) launch report on October 16, based on information received from U.S. officials, many began to stress the alleged importance of the test.
Chinese hawks have said it is a “very serious development” and have warned of a new arms race. U.S. General General Mark Milley, meanwhile, described Sputnik as “very close” to a time when he referred to the launch of a satellite that led the Soviet Union in 1957 to the so-called “space race” with the United States. which defined that time.
The launch was certainly a troubling development from an American perspective, as these alarmist statements clearly failed for a number of reasons.
First, FOBS is not a new technology. The former Soviet Union deployed a fragmented orbital nuclear system in the 1970s through the back door of the United States, which was intended to attack from the South Pole. This program was developed in response to the American Safeguard Anti-Balistic Missile (ABM) system, which aimed to capture incoming Soviet missiles.
At the height of the Cold War, the US’s installation of an ABM system invalidated the mutual vulnerability that was the basis for deterrence between the two countries.
Ironically, at the time, the US said that the Safeguard ABM system was not against the Soviet Union, but against China, which was not even on the horizon at the time. However, the Soviets maintained their FOBS program for almost 12 years and the US Safeguard ABM system, the reason for the Soviet FOBS, was rejected when Congress repealed it. Then the Soviet Union focused entirely on the development of the more reliable Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force.
The Chinese government has officially denied the news and stated that it was conducting regular test flights solely for the purpose of recycling spacecraft to reduce exploration costs. However, even before the FT broke the story, China speculated about the possibility of going down that path. So if the reports are credible and China has tested a FOBS combined with a hypersonic slip vehicle, this is an attempt to catch up with the US and Russia in the race for advanced weapons and missile defense systems and in no way shows a technological gap that will be difficult for the US to fill. After all, the U.S. Air Force has tested and tested similar systems in the past, such as the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle.
What is worrying for the US, however, could be a Chinese demonstration of the combination of these two technologies that were previously developed separately. But that doesn’t mean all U.S. defense systems will become obsolete, some analysts have argued.
Technically speaking, FOBS can bypass fixed ABM systems deployed in Alaska and California, especially those aimed at intercepting North Korean missiles from the north. But these are not the only systems the U.S. is running against the oncoming missile threats. In addition to these fixed ABM systems, the U.S. Early Missile Warning includes space-based infrared systems (SBIRS) that detect missiles with the help of their heat signatures, as well as other marine radars that provide a global detection system. In addition, there are many other defense systems that the U.S. has deployed in the immediate vicinity of China, such as the South Korea High Altitude Terminal Area Defense (THAAD) system.
This issue has raised concerns about the escalation of the arms race and the growing risks between the US and China. Previous reports of investments by China in the construction of large-scale missile silos in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, along with this latest FOBS test, have raised concerns in U.S. political circles that China’s nuclear arsenal is much smaller and supposedly standing. Compared to 320 nuclear warheads, they have 5800 and 6375 nuclear warheads compared to the US and Russia, respectively. Despite this disparity, there is concern that China is moving away from its long-standing “minimum deterrent” stance. This concern is further exacerbated by the lack of information and secrecy about such developments and the problem of transparency of China’s military stance.
On the other hand, Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program, says China’s aggressive stance is not aimed at competing with the U.S. globally. On the contrary, it has a limited goal of protecting its basic interests, such as political security and national security, due to growing criticism of the United States for its alleged human rights violations, lack of democracy, and actions in Hong Kong and the South China Sea.
This situation requires strategic empathy for both the US and China. While China needs to respond to U.S. concerns about its lack of information on its strategic stance, the U.S. needs to take into account Beijing’s concerns about its missile defense systems and regional policies. In this regard, it would be interesting to see how the Biden administration responds to China’s perceived threats in its Nuclear Posture Review. Earlier, President Joe Biden sided with the idea of a non-primary use of nuclear weapons, but perhaps that would be too much to demand in today’s environment. However, a logical answer would be to start a arms control negotiation. However, current trends do not offer much hope for a reconciling path and represent a dangerous trajectory for a new arms race.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
[ad_2]
Source link
