Posted on 03/28/2006 11:18:53 AM PST by JZelle
The United States could use a force of intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads because nuclear weapons may not deter terrorists and rogue states, the general in charge of the U.S. Strategic Command says. Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright told a Pentagon-sponsored missile defense conference on Monday that "it's very difficult for a nuclear weapon to be a credible deterrent against an extremist." In addition to the "tyranny of distance" that makes it hard for military forces to get to an area of the world very quickly, there is also the problem of the inadequate speed of current conventional systems. Today's bombers need an hour to travel 500 miles, and ships take longer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
what's the advantage of conventionally tipped ICBMs? Cruise-missiles don't seem to deter terrorists or rogue states.
actually, I'm not particularly interested in "deterrance" - I'm leaning increasingly towards KILLING the bastards in some truly flamboyant manner, as an *object lesson* to others.
I wouldn't take the chance that a launch of an ICBM might cause a nuclear response from Russia or China by accident.
Heck, these ICBMs travel over the north pole for targets in the northern hemisphere, which means they'd travel over Russia to get to Iran or anywhere else in the middle east. Anyone who feels comfortable with that is deluded.
Besides, an ICBM is hugely expensive- far too much cost for a conventional payload.
Silly idea.
I heard Gen. Cartwright discuss this concept at a conference last week. Interesting idea, but as another poster on this thread mentioned the signature of an incoming nuclear or conventional ICBM would be essentially the same. Talk about risk! I'm not against discussing the idea of Global Strike, but I'd have to hear a compelling argument that would solve such a problem.
I see the idea, but I think it's wrong. If you're going to send an ICBM, then make it a good first-strike hit.
"an ICBM is hugely expensive- far too much cost for a conventional payload."
That would be my belief, as well.
But some things (e.g., electronics) are getting cheaper, so you and I might be surprised.
I vaguely recall someone building a fairly long range GPS-guided cruise missle with parts from Home Depot and Radio Shack for under $2,000. I would think a similiar off-the-shelf effort for an ICBM could be done.
What's next? A concrete warhead to minimize collateral damage?
Better and cheaper to use tungsten rods and dropped from orbit.
Probably the most expensive, dangerous, and wasteful way to deliver a bomb. These missiles were design to hit cities sized targets, getting the accuracy up to where you can get the most out of conventional warheads may take some effort.
"Ummm, a lot of the ICBMs are in submarines."
They tend to be less accurate, though and you've still got the problem of what happens when the "ICBM launch detected" alarm goes off in Russian strategic missile forces' HQ.
I would add that Boris Yeltsin put Russian nuclear forces on red alert in response to a Norwegian weather rocket that was launched years ago. And that had been announced days in advance.
I would assume the missile would keep its MIRV capability, making it easier to strike multiple targets very quickly. That flexiblity may offset the pricetag, especially with older missiles. The point about other nuclear powers getting jumpy does have merit, however. It seems they would need a heads up if such an attack were carried out against a potential enemy. We've seen in recent news the duplicity of supposed allies in the WOT.
Uh, minor detail? Identifying a launch in North Dakota doesn't give anyone (Russians, Chinese, etc) any idea about what is actually in the warhead...
Sure. All true. This'll never happen.
What accuracy would be needed? What is the CEP now?
Bunker busters? Imagine a conventional warhead or a simple hard penetrator hitting the ground at Mach 6? Have you seen the reports of the scramjet testing? Put that on the terminal stage along with the warhead. (A cruise missile doesn't have sufficient speed to get a scramjet into its working parameters.) Re-entry with a kick.
I'm not necessarily advocating this. The main problem I see is how to distinguish between a nuke tipped ICBM launch & a non-nuke. How are the other members of the nuclear club supposed to tell the difference?
Actually, the accuracy is beyond excellent.
I hear SpaceX's rockets are 100% accurate at hitting the ground
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.