A Missile Strike Option We Need

The Washington Post ^ | May 22, 2006 | Harold Brown and James Schlesinger

[neverdem]

Imagine the following dilemma facing an American president one day in the future (when, we hope, our real-time intelligence will have reached a high degree of accuracy, precision and timeliness):

Within the past hour, a terrorist organization, known to have acquired several nuclear weapons, has been observed by a U.S. imaging system loading the weapons onto vehicles and preparing to leave for an unknown destination. A delay of even an hour or two in launching a U.S. strike on that location could mean the group would depart, contact might be lost, and the weapons would be smuggled into the United States or an allied nation and detonated.

If the terrorist group happened to be close to an Air Force deployment or the right kind of Navy force, an air attack might conceivably be carried out within a few hours -- possibly catching the group still in camp and unaware. But if the terrorists were far from U.S. aircraft or cruise missiles, the only option available to the president would be to order the use of a ballistic missile -- a land-based Minuteman or submarine-based Trident D5 -- either one of which could hit a target almost anywhere on the globe within a half-hour. One big problem, though: At present, all of these missiles are equipped only with nuclear warheads.

Would the president order a preventive nuclear strike in such circumstances? It's conceivable, but very unlikely. There would still be doubts as to whether the intelligence was accurate, and even if it was, the consequences of an unprecedented action of this kind might well be regarded as unacceptable -- in terms of the risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world. More than likely, the president would order U.S. intelligence and military forces...

[Waco]

I think we're on our way to space based lasers/rays of some kind which will do the job. Also emissions from space which will put a whole wide area in a state of mental confusion,,or cause them to hear voices in their head saying,,"Hey dude, it's me, get it in order now!"

[prophetic]

Seeing just how feffed-up these democraps are, even if we pre-empted the terrorists and prevented a catastrope, the DNC & MSM will make sure that Bush will be blamed and probably sued.

[Paleo Conservative]

Al Jazeera, CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post.

[TomasUSMC]

Within the past hour, a terrorist organization, known to have acquired several nuclear weapons, has been observed by a U.S. imaging system loading the weapons onto vehicles and preparing to leave for an unknown destination.

a preventive nuclear strike.....
- the consequences of an unprecedented action of this kind might well be regarded as unacceptable -- in terms of the risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world.

---

Wait a minute. THEY have nukes but we can't use our nukes because of the " risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world".

Whew, thank God we didn't have that type of spineless mindset in 1945.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

this demonstrates just one more reason that we should quadruple our Navys flat-tops and cruisers.

[garbageseeker]

I like this subject because I study the concept of a nuclear war especially in a asymmetrical world. Terrorists getting nuclear weapons would probably most likely acquire it from Iran or North Korea. I doubt that the North Koreans would give terrorists nuclear weapons because of the consequences. If a nuclear weapon was ever used and it was found out that Iran had been the main source of the weapon there would be no doubt we would respond with our nuclear weapon. In the 1991 Gulf war, we warned Iraq if they used chemical or biological weapons on the Coalition troops we would respond with nuclear strikes. We also gave notice to the Soviet Union that if Iraq used WMDs we would attack them. Then head of the Soviet Union, President Gorbechev gave his approval. I would think that we would inform all members of the nuclear club before impending attack against the nation supplying the nuclear,biological or chemical weapon. The attack would be most likely by submarine by cruise missile. I think that the United States should give a very stern and very public warning that any terrorist nation who supplies a weapon of mass destruction(nuclear,biological or chemical) to terrorists who then use it to kill innocent are subject to attack.

[garbageseeker]

I forgot to mention why I chose a cruise missile from a submarine would be sufficient in a "hypothetical" nuclear attack. All of our land ICBMs and all of out sea-launched ballistic missiles have multiple warheads that are designed for an attack on Russia or other SIOP designated targets. I would like to still support the Air Force missileer "sentinels" who are doing a great job of protecting our nation but will not be needed for this one. A sea launched Tomahawk(BMG-109) can carry a W-80 thermonuclear warhead. A submarine armed with these Tomahawks is usually stationed somewhere around the world and can be immediately directed into action

[Skibane]

This system is long overdue, IMO.

Being able to drop precision-guided non-nuclear ordnance on a target - anywhere in the world - in less than half an hour - completely changes the dynamics in dealing with terrorists and despots. For example, if we had this capability during GW2, not only would Saddam been forced to sleep in a different location every night, but he would have had to change locations on an almost minute-by-minute basis - 24/7.

(BTW, is this a bullet that has Osama's name written all over it, or what?)

[spetznaz]

Question: A launch of a non-nuke ICBM would have the same signature as the 'real' thing, thus how would the (Russians for example) know that we were not launching at them? Obviously common sense would dictate that we were not (for one we wouldn't be launching one missile), but there have been several past incidences when less has almost led to a nuclear confrontation between us and them. Anyways, how do we handle the mistaken identification of a conventional ICBM meant for Iran as a nuclear ICBM with Moscow on its mind? Do we tell the Russians what we plan to do before we do it? And even if we do, will they believe us (imagine if the Russians wanted to attack Mexico, for some reason, using a conventional, if one existed, TOPOL-M, and they told us they would be launching one our way .....would we believe them and say it would be alright? I doubt it).

Anyways, it just takes some stupid/bureacratic/drunk/incompetent sot on the Russian side for this baby to get way messed up. If there is a launch on their side we would launch, but both we and the Russians would end up hurting big.

With that said, a conventional ICBM has a plethora of advantages (most important being the ability to touch the badguys in around 30 minutes), but it has the major drawback of being indistinguishable from a 'real' ICBM.

Anyways, here is an example of incompetency on the Russian side (even though they had been forewarned of the rocket launch for weather tests) in 1995 that almost led to a nuclear launch:

On this day a NASA rocket was launched from Norway, to conduct a study on the Aurora Borealis. Unfortunately the notification to the Russians of this launch - which was sent several weeks previous - failed to claw up the bureaucratic chain to either the President or the organisation in charge of monitoring for nuclear launches.

Imagine the shock when Russian radars detected an object behaving exactly like a submarine-launched Trident missile. Although the rocket didn't have the same number of stages, it jettisoned stages at more or less the same time as a Trident would during the slice of time for which it was visible to the radar. The angle of ascent and the point of jettisoning stages were remarkably similar.

This warning shot up the chain of command to Boris Yeltsin, who for the first time ever activated his nuclear football, a suitcase that is kept near him at all times with a big red button in it. For fifteen rather tense minutes, discussions took place and more readings were taken to determine whether the US had, in fact, launched a surprise missile attack on Russia.

After about eight minutes of deliberation and discussion with flustered radar operators, it was determined no attack was under way as the rocket's path would not take it inside Russia. Still though, this is illustrative of the types of confusion that can occur. An unidentified Russian diplomat is reported to have stated that many other incidents of this nature have occurred in Russia.

[RayChuang88]

Actually, a more viable option is the AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile, which around 500 missiles were built. The B-52H is still capable of carrying this nuclear-armed stealth cruise missile, which has a range of around 1,500 miles.

[garbageseeker]

I agree. A cruise missile strike from both a bomber or a submarine would be good. But I chose a submarine because it could be at the launch site in a quick manner. A bomber, lets say from Whiteman AFB, would take longer.

Again I still support our men and women Air Missileers who are somewhere in under the farmland of the United States

[Pistolshot]

Wait a minute. THEY have nukes but we can't use our nukes because of the " risk to innocent lives, of environmental damage and of the expected political repercussions around the world".

Whew, thank God we didn't have that type of spineless mindset in 1945.

I wouldn't call it spineless, no matter what you think. Using a nuke is a political act with many unforseeable consequences. Say the area we are going to hit is close to the Chinese/Russian border. Niether one of these countries is going to think it is 'ok' for fallout to spread across their lands. They may also take an inbound ICBM and a preemptive strike and reply rather quickly without any explaination.

Fortunately for those of us who think of these things we don't have someone with an attitude like yours with a finger on the button.

It would be better to take the nukes out without a corresponding nuke attack, better to take them intact to see where the materials came from, and then most of the peacable governments, which we are one, will have the inducement to punish the suppliers.

[Skibane]

Simply put, cruise missles are too slow to offer comparable capability. They are weapons of chance (in that they are only an option if chance happens to place them within reasonable fly-time distance to the target). In many situations, their low speed and/or limited range rules them out.

Regarding Russian reaction to the launch of an ICBM - As implied in the article, there is a general rule of thumb within the early warning community: One missle in flight warrants further investigation - Only the presence of many missiles is cause for serious posterior-pucker. By its very nature, this system falls into the single-missle category.

[garbageseeker]

I disagree. All cruise missiles are controlled by GPS satellite navigation. They are very slow and vulnerable to ground attack but they cannot be detected by radar because they fly very close to the ground. By the time they are detected, the target will be destroyed

[neverdem]

After about eight minutes of deliberation and discussion with flustered radar operators, it was determined no attack was under way as the rocket's path would not take it inside Russia.

IMHO, once two points of the trajectory are plotted, then the impact area is obvious, assuming that the warheads in multiple, independently targeted re-entry vehicles do not acquire the means to change their trajectory beyond the current technology.

[CurlyDave]

These guys have been watching too many episodes of 24.

Just take a look at their credentials: Harold Brown was secretary of defense from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter.

You know he stands on the side of weakness.

James Schlesinger was secretary of defense from 1973 to 1975 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

This is the first step in a transparent plan to reduce the number of nuclear warheads available. Next year they will relace some more, and before you know it we will be without nukes.

[Skibane]

I disagree. All cruise missiles are controlled by GPS satellite navigation. They are very slow and vulnerable to ground attack but they cannot be detected by radar because they fly very close to the ground. By the time they are detected, the target will be destroyed.

They only work if they're within range, and if the slow fly-time can be tolerated. In situations where the target changes location several times every hour - or will be gone in 30 minutes - or is outside the range of any launch platforms in the region - they are useless.

We're comparing apples to oranges. Cruise missles certainly have their place, but putting ordnance on a target 2,500 miles away from the nearest launcher - in a matter of minutes after the attack order is given - isn't one of them.

[neverdem]

Just take a look at their credentials: Harold Brown was secretary of defense from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter.

I think it's one of the few good ideas that I heard from Harold Brown.

"James Schlesinger was secretary of defense from 1973 to 1975 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford."

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Maybe it's time to figure out who your friends are?

Haig's rapid rise in the military hierarchy wasn't based on any military achievements but on the fact that he was recognized to be a political general one who aligned himself with the hard-line faction of the ruling class in the prosecution of the Viet Nam war and with the geopolitical militarist conceptions shared by then-Secretary of Defense and warhawk James Schlesinger and Rockefeller-protege Secretary of State Kissinger Nixon was relying on Haig to help him out of the crisis and shift the political pendulum in his direction.

This is the first step in a transparent plan to reduce the number of nuclear warheads available. Next year they will relace some more, and before you know it we will be without nukes.

"Additional nuclear warheads would be added to the remaining nuclear-armed missiles on each submarine to keep the number constant."

Did you read the whole article?

[fso301]

This from the same Carter hack that revealed the Stealth program.