Posted on 08/28/2006 6:56:43 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
FAIRBANKS, Alaska: The Pentagon is considering a plan to replace nuclear warheads on some intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional weapons for pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.
After a closed-door meeting with Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov in Alaska, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he hoped Russia would consider the same plan.
However, Mr Ivanov told reporters yesterday that he had concerns about it.
Mr Rumsfeld said taking the nuclear warhead off the missiles would make the weapon less lethal and therefore a more conceivable option for accurately and quickly targeting terrorist groups that posed a lethal threat.
"We don't know how the world is going to evolve but we do know that there are terrorist networks in the world and they are already using missiles," Mr Rumsfeld said.
"We just saw what Hezbollah did, firing some 4000 missiles into Israel.
"If either of our countries or friends and allies were threatened at some number of years into the future with a weapon of mass destruction or a capability that was that lethal, I think any president, whether of Russia or the United States, would like to have available a conventional weapon that could attack that target swiftly and accurately and precisely and not feel that the only thing they had might be a nuclear weapon which they would not want to use."
But Mr Ivanov said there might be different solutions for pre-emptive strikes, such as the use of intermediate-range missiles, now prohibited by a treaty agreement.
He said Russian and US experts would discuss the idea.
The discussion between Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Ivanov of re-tipping ICBMs for pre-emptive, surgical strikes against terrorists follows the 34-day war in Lebanon between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah, considered by experts as the Middle East region's most capable non-state armed group.
It also comes as the US warns of the threat North Korea may pose as a proliferator of weapons to terrorist groups.
"I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more proliferation than a danger to South Korea," Mr Rumsfeld said.
On July 5, North Korea test-fired six short- and mid-range missiles and one long-range missile, the Taepodong-2.
All missiles fell harmlessly in the Sea of Japan.
"I think it is important probably from their standpoint to test these things so they can sell them," said Mr Rumsfeld.
"We think that it's conceivable that five to 10 years from now there could be a target because of proliferation ... that would be able to be hit or deterred as the case may be by a conventional ICBM."
Russian missiles.
I'd sure hate to have to overfly a third country like Russia before hitting a target. If we did that, we'd have to agree to letting Russian or Chinese ICBM's overfly US territory. I'd rather use SLBM's that don't have to overfly major nuclear powers before hitting terrorists or rogue nuclear powers.
Very few of those were Russian missiles, and the few Russian missiles used were obtained years earlier by Syria from Russia.
Except that an ICBM or SLBM has a much quicker reaction time. Perhaps we need a hypersonic cruise missle.
I think Rumsfeld is playing the 'what if' card to make others think. When it comes to slinging missiles, we bring a lot to the table - so, to the crappier corners of the world: do we really want to take low intensity conflicts this direction? If so, we might want to join in and we've got 40 years experience...and our stuff hurts.
Go with THOR, aka "rods from God".
The part about using ICBMs against terrorists I understand. The part about taking off the nuclear warheads makes no sense at all.
It would be insane.
Perhaps each boomer could have one tube dedicated to conventional launch? And have it always hot and loaded so as to accomodate the sending of a special, unforseen greeting?
True they weren't Russian/Soviet *made*, but they were Soviet *designed*, produced in Iran or elsewhere, maybe under license, maybe not.
But cruise missiles are slow, an ICBM can be anywhere in the world in about 30 minutes, give or take. SLBMs from nearby waters much quicker. That could have major tactical advantages.
If it could be done as simply as it's inventors envisioned, Thor would be wonderful.
This is kind of like RFG, sort of... Instead of having the things orbit and then drop out of orbit to strike, its launched to sub-orbital and hits at a high impact velocity, same as an ICBM but without the supersized boom.
Alright you space geeks.... about how fast would it hit???? Mach 10/20/25? Someone around here must know.
I believe it's in our interests to act if any ICBM is nuclear, knock the incoming down, and respond accordingly.
"We just saw what Hezbollah did, firing some 4000 missiles into Israel."
Russian missiles.==
Oh yeah?:) Joe does the Fajr-1&2 sound russian? Those who are literate told they are persian:).
I'd sure hate to have to overfly a third country like Russia before hitting a target. If we did that, we'd have to agree to letting Russian or Chinese ICBM's overfly US territory. I'd rather use SLBM's that don't have to overfly major nuclear powers before hitting terrorists or rogue nuclear powers.==
If they in agreement then no problem as I see it.
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.