• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • VIDEO: The Very Real Short-Range Missile Threat Obama is Ignoring

    Ryan Mauro, an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center, flags this new video by the Russian company Concern Morinformsystem-Agat selling its Club-K Container Missile System. Mauro reports:

    The system allows a weak nation to strike the land and sea targets of a superior force by placing cruise missiles into any type of 40 foot container. The video uses a ship, truck and train as examples of potential launching platforms. This means that once this weapon is sold, any of these transportation vehicles have to be seen as missile pads.

    these vehicles can cross borders, making it more difficult to identify the perpetrator of an attack and impossible to predict where an attack might come from. The missiles might from a shipping vessel off the coast or a truck that crossed via the Mexican border. With a range of 220 kilometers, or about 136 miles, they can either be fired from a safe distance from the border or the distance can be minimized by getting close to the target by being hidden.

    This game-changing new threat is not new to conservatives, but the Obama administration has chosen to completely ignore it thus leaving our nation vulnerable to attack. Heritage fellow Baker Spring explains:

    The [Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report's] assessment of the projected expansion of ballistic missile capabilities suffers from a central contradiction and several errors of omission. The report’s central contradiction is that, while pointing to the increasing range of missile inventories around the world, it downplays the capabilities to attack the U.S. homeland.

    In fact, justifying the distinction between capabilities to attack the U.S. homeland and regional threats is difficult on two grounds. First, missile development programs do not pursue shorter-range and long-range missile technology independently of each of other. For example, Iran has already fielded a number of different shorter-range missiles and has launched a satellite, which demonstrates an inherent capability to field longer-range missiles capable of carrying light warheads. Second, states with shorter-range missiles could pursue alternative deployment options to give them the ability to attack the U.S. homeland. The most obvious option is to place short-range missiles and launchers on cargo vessels off the U.S. coast.

    And what could the U.S. possibly deploy to protect against such a weapon? The Airborne Laser. Problem is, since the Obama administration decided to ignore the threat from short-range missiles like the Club K, President Obama decided to kill the program. Heritage fellow James Carafano explains the consequences:

    If Iran has one missile and nuclear weapon, it might have two. It could detonate one over New York in a low-altitude air burst that would kill up to a half-million and cripple Manhattan forever.

    Iran could fire a second at high altitude over the mid-Atlantic states, creating an electro-magnetic pulse that would take down a large portion of the national grid and plunge Washington, D.C., into permanent darkness.

    America would be crippled in a flash, with no obvious enemy at which to shoot back.

    An ABL could help neutralize this threat, and others. Advancing the technology alone will give the U.S. a dramatic advantage over potential adversaries.

    But if the administration has its way, we’ll see the ABL in the Smithsonian, rather than defending our coasts.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to VIDEO: The Very Real Short-Range Missile Threat Obama is Ignoring

    1. G-Man, Chesapeake, V says:

      To this observer this Blog Post is further evidence of why we need to "drill here, drill now!" I explain…

      By drilling and refining AMERICAN CRUDE we reduce/slow money to a Russian financial system that funds (in part) its weapons program. I propose that Russia funds its weapons program from oil dollars. If oil is cheaper because there is plenty of it (I.e. flooding the market with additional [American} barrels), then Russia won't be funded as fast as it would be in the current marketplace. Currently, Russia enjoys a better financial environment in which to fund its warfighting programs.

      Not only do adding additional American barrels to the world's oil supply reduce the return on investment to the Russkies, but it would put AMERICANS BACK TO WORK and REDUCE THE PRICE AT THE PUMP. I know that this is not a complete solution, but I believe that the application of some basic economic principles (E.g. supply and demand), is part of a larger solution to keep the Russian's weapons program in check. Consider this solution a “three-fer,” 1) reduce income from Russian oil proceeds, 2) help our economy by putting American workers back to work in American Oil Companies, and 3) reduce our dependence on foreign oil from countries that don't have American interests at heart.

      Hoo-yah,

      G-Man

    2. MrShorty - Arizona says:

      It just makes me want to go down and put another flower into the barrel of a soldier's gun. I feel so warm and fuzzy about our national defense, maybe it's just a little tingle up my leg.

    3. Jim, SC says:

      Let's hope we can hold off the bad guys until we can replace this Administration. Obama is destroying the country all by himself. Missiles would only make a bigger mess of things.

    4. Jim - Ohio says:

      MR. OBAMA — AMERICA IS GETTING THE MESSAGE. EVERYTHING THAT

      YOU DO IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WOULD WORK. PLEASE RESIGN ASAP, GO BACK TO YOUR HOMELAND (KENYA) AND TAKE

      PELOSI AND REID WITH YOU.

    5. G-mama, PA says:

      I completely agree with G-man. I hope allot of people read it. Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for all the info they give us. May God bless and protect America. (two of my grandchildren gave me the name G-mama)

    6. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      All of our elected officials cannot be so stupid, therefore they must be traitors to the American way of life and all that it stands for.

      They somehow have forgotten that they work for us, and that it is their job to keep us secure from all threats, even if it means pre-emptive strikes. Even if it means suppying our allies with the means needed to stop these creatures who would happily destroy innocent lives.

      With God's help, and American People finding their backbones once again, we will rid ourselves of these people in Washington DC this coming Novemember, and rid ourselves of the same types in our own individual States in the same moment.

      It is time that we all read our own Declaration of Independence, our own Bill of Rights and our own Constitution, and decided for ourselves the right or wrong of things, and not leave it to the muddled minds of those who give us empty promises and unfofilled lies.

    7. Carolyn, Calif. says:

      Gosh, I hope it doesn't head for the White House at 3:00 in the morning. It would be a shame to wake BHO up

    8. Aaron Peters, Kansas says:

      Our current president seems to be ignoring a lot of things.

      Let us hope the people of this country get educated before the next election.

      At the rate things are going, on the other hand, we may not even get to the next election.

    9. Languid Sorrow says:

      This analysis grew out of chat on my favorite Conservative science-oriented site, Darwin Central dot org, some of your conservative readers may find the discussion there to be frequently interesting:

      dread wrote:

      "What is 'a morally questionable weapon'? And how does it differ from a 'unquestionably moral weapon'?

      Thx"

      Languid Sorrow wrote:

      "Well I would answer that a weapon may be "morally questionable" on any number of grounds and situations, depending on the exact nature of the weapon.

      Of course the moral framework of using weapons in the first place must initially be defined in order for there to be any moral component to weapons use. This moral framework must range at its two extremes from complete pacifist, in which no weapon or use of force is ever justified (Gandhi, for example), to utterly unrestrained use of any and all weapons at any time (ends justifies the means, might makes right, Communist and Nazi ideology style).

      For our purposes here, and in the context of my comment above, let us assume a middle ground in which the use of weapons is viewed as a necessary element in living in the world today in the interests of establishing and defending a stable society, the purpose of which is to allow its citizens to live their lives in peace and to accumulate wealth and resources through regular and unexceptional means, i.e. daily work.

      It would follow from such a fundamental view of the use and nature of weapons, that "moral" weapons would focus on combating identifiable threats and enemies in defense, and in offense would focus on destroying enemy installations and war making capabilities without indiscriminate damage and risk being extended to the civilian populace as extensions of the weapons use itself.

      In this specific case, we have a missile which is specifically designed to blend into the daily actions of the non-combatant civilian population, even to hide in and among perhaps the most quintessentially civilian object, a container used to ship goods for trade. Making such a weapon a cornerstone of a country or organization's attack capability directly depends on using non-combatant civilians as human shields, camouflage, and attack vectors, putting said civilians in direct threat of being involved in combat, indeed it injects non-combatant civilians into combat.

      On the other hand, if a country or state were to maintain a fleet of warships, in combination with advanced scanning devices which could scan all cargo coming into and out of the state, and maintained also fleets of military aircraft and missile installations for stopping insidious attacks and following up on necessary counter strikes against antagonists, then this arrangement, in the context identified above, I would call moral.

      It affords a wise and necessary capability to strike antagonists, makes an effort to separate everyday shipping intercourse from possible military situations (through thorough scanning of shipping materials), and maintains a military force which in no way draws in non-combatants through hiding among them or delivering deadly ordnance through the daily activities of said social non-combatants.

      The total non-violence pacifist would argue that any weapons use at all is immoral, while the "might makes right" nihilist would argue that there is no reason not to just kill any and all people through any means in any theater of conflict.

      My own views on weapons use and morality are that weapons are a necessary element in life on earth today, but their deployment and strategic use should reflect the more balanced vision I described above."

    10. Languid Sorrow says:

      I found this weapon to be morally questionable, to say the least. A friend asked me what the difference between a morally unquestionable and an unquestionably moral weapon was. I replied:

      "Well I would answer that a weapon may be "morally questionable" on any number of grounds and situations, depending on the exact nature of the weapon.

      Of course the moral framework of using weapons in the first place must initially be defined in order for there to be any moral component to weapons use. This moral framework must range at its two extremes from complete pacifist, in which no weapon or use of force is ever justified (Ghandi, for example), to utterly unrestrained use of any and all weapons at any time (ends justifies the means, might makes right, Communist and Nazi ideology style).

      For our purposes here, and in the context of my comment above, let us assume a middle ground in which the use of weapons is viewed as a necessary element in living in the world today in the interests of establishing and defending a stable society, the purpose of which is to allow its citizens to live their lives in peace and to accumulate wealth and resources through regular and unexceptional means, i.e. daily work.

      It would follow from such a fundamental view of the use and nature of weapons, that "moral" weapons would focus on combating identifiable threats and enemies in defense, and in offense would focus on destroying enemy installations and war making capabilities without indiscriminate damage and risk being extended to the civilian populace as extensions of the weapons use itself.

      In this specific case, we have a missile which is specifically designed to blend into the daily actions of the non-combatant civilian population, even to hide in and among perhaps the most quintessentially civilian object, a container used to ship goods for trade. Making such a weapon a cornerstone of a country or organization's attack capability directly depends on using non-combatant civilians as human shields, camouflage, and attack vectors, putting said civilians in direct threat of being involved in combat, indeed it injects non-combatant civilians into combat.

      On the other hand, if a country or state were to maintain a fleet of warships, in combination with advanced scanning devices which could scan all cargo coming into and out of the state, and maintained also fleets of military aircraft and missile installations for stopping insidious attacks and following up on necessary counter strikes against antagonists, then this arrangement, in the context identified above, I would call moral.

      It affords a wise and necessary capability to strike antagonists, makes an effort to separate everyday shipping intercourse from possible military situations (through thorough scanning of shipping materials), and maintains a military force which in no way draws in non-combatants through hiding among them or delivering deadly ordnance through the daily activities of said social non-combatants.

      The total non-violence pacifist would argue that any weapons use at all is immoral, while the "might makes right" nihilist would argue that there is no reason not to just kill any and all people through any means in any theater of conflict.

      My own views on weapons use and morality are that weapons are a necessary element in life on earth today, but their deployment and strategic use should reflect the more balanced vision I described above."

    11. Pingback: Korean Situation Illustrates Need for Decisive Foreign Policy

    12. Jeff Potts says:

      It looks to me that the Abl system could be sending out a scare tactic,I don't know,I don't think the Russians are that far advanced,let alone Iran,or even Korea. I don't know,maybe I'm wrong,,,,,Jeff

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×