"Conventional ICBM's" is just another way of convincing the U.S. to surrender our nukes.
It's a lousy idea (all ICBM launches are considered nuclear, after all) on its face, and its covert purpose is treasonous.
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 ...
Project Thor :)
"it's very difficult for a nuclear weapon to be a credible deterrent against an extremist."
No it's not. Just tell the "extremist" if anything nuclear or biological goes off in the U.S., Mecca will be wiped off the face of the earth.
Some people will do anything to avoid having their budgets cut. If the Navy gets wind of this, they are going to propose reactivating the War of 1812 frigate U.S.S. Constitution and send her to the coast of Somalia because of her demonstrated ability dealing with pirates.
Well, as far as the expense, can't they write that off as target practice? I mean, after all, what's the use of having these darn things sitting in their silos or whatever year after year if we can't light up and smoke some rogue state capital once in a while? Heck, congress wastes much more money than that before breakfast. /sarcasm off. (except about congress, that is)
I've had a similar thought, but rather than making a really deep crater (since we don't really want lots of fall-out down wind on the oil-fields), just a sequence of air-bursts, one low enough to fuse Medina into glass, one a few thousand feet up from that, one above that. . . so the column of fire is visible as far away as Indonesia.
The same statement would be issued.
What is the difference between a Persian and an Iranian?
Are Persians muslim?
At least until one actually gets used. Maybe it is time to demonstrate what one of these babies can do.
I seem to remember a slip by a friend of mine during the cold-war days of between 3 and 4 metres.
"Conventional ICBM's" is just another way of convincing the U.S. to surrender our nukes.
It's a lousy idea (all ICBM launches are considered nuclear, after all) on its face, and its covert purpose is treasonous.
No way. An ICBM (even a MIRV) can get a warhead into the atmosphere close enough to a target to engage with intertial guidance systems using GPS.
It's an amazingly awesome and amazingly expensive idea.
fallout vectoring depends on the time of year. remember, Medina is on the west coast, and all the good hydrocarboniferous stuff is well east of it. in that region, prevailing winds are pretty much set in stone. iirc, they blow from east-to-west rather consistently from November through April.
I *want* that crater burned right down to the mantle if at all possible.
Heck, let's go for Thor's Hammer, AKA Rods from God.
That's what I get for posting before reading the comments; see my previous just above.
>>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.
It's interesting you say that. We certainly fought WWII that way. And that sort of approach, as part of the Western way of war, is one of the themes Victor Davis Hanson explores in Carnage and Culture.
I don't think I disagree, by the way. I really don't see any ability to reason with them offering itself.
I would be hard pressed to trust the British. And I trust them more then any other group out there that could do this.
Waste of money. Instead of developing conventional ICBM's, the United States should be using that money to upgrade our nuclear forces.
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.