[ResuNezily]

LOL! I'm trying to imagine the phone call to Putin...

I don't think Putin would have much sympathy for AQ Jihadists in Afghanistan.

[hexniks]

Obama has released his first Nuclear Posture Review;

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf

One of the most interesting aspects in it, IMO, is the development of Prompt Global Strike weapons. In essence, these are ICBMs with conventional, rather than nuclear, warheads; so we’ll end up trading in some nuclear ICBMs that we’ll never use for conventional ICBMs that we probably will use at some point. I was curious as to what the members here though of the idea.

[iouiyyut]

It's a very expensive way to deliver something, but with todays technology, the accuracy of a non ballistic missile, it is possible that a conventional warhead would be more effective than a nuclear armed ballistic missile.

[Hokimjers]

Similar in concept IMO to the conversion of cruise missles from a nuclear to conventional weapons.

I thought I heard something about some SLBM's being converted as well. A MIRVed trident with 20 conventional warheads, each capable of being placed within a few feet and without a possible risk to a US serviceman wouls appear to be a weapon to be reckoned with.

I would have a concern about some hair trigger Russian detecting a conventional ICBM launch againts a terrorist target and making a tragicially incorrect response. How can such a thing be avoided?

[HartOvara]

Obama has released his first Nuclear Posture Review;

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf

One of the most interesting aspects in it, IMO, is the development of Prompt Global Strike weapons. In essence, these are ICBMs with conventional, rather than nuclear, warheads; so we’ll end up trading in some nuclear ICBMs that we’ll never use for conventional ICBMs that we probably will use at some point. I was curious as to what the members here though of the idea.

Hmm....trade a very low probability of a great big "Kaboom" for a much more likely smaller "kaboom"...which, at launch and in flight would be indistinguishable from a great big "Kaboom" thus making the recipient of our "package"...what....wait to see what's going to pop out?

That has got to be one of the all time most stupid ideas I have EVER heard!!! Really, does this man have NO ONE to advise him or does he just ignore the stuff he doesn't want to hear? What's next, sending our soldiers into combat with bean bag rounds?

[heilyprollecyspor]

Hmm....trade a very low probability of a great big "Kaboom" for a much more likely smaller "kaboom"...which, at launch and in flight would be indistinguishable from a great big "Kaboom" thus making the recipient of our "package"...what....wait to see what's going to pop out?

That has got to be one of the all time most stupid ideas I have EVER heard!!! Really, does this man have NO ONE to advise him or does he just ignore the stuff he doesn't want to hear? What's next, sending our soldiers into combat with bean bag rounds?

Assuming that you are not going to launch these at the heart of a country with nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that still leaves a lot of the world where placing a large explosive charge at a precise location may be of use.

[uphokyhuP]

That has got to be one of the all time most stupid ideas I have EVER heard!!! Really, does this man have NO ONE to advise him or does he just ignore the stuff he doesn't want to hear? What's next, sending our soldiers into combat with bean bag rounds?

This treaty... which can be summed up in one sentence:

"Go ahead, fuck me up the ass, I won't ever hit back"

Will go down in history as the single worse piece of appeasement this side of Munich. We gave everything away and got nothing in return.

A classic.

This boy-king of yours is going to get a whole bunch of people killed... and I don't mean a 9/11 bunch or even an Iraqi War size bunch. I'm talking millions.

[rfceicizgm]

Assuming that you are not going to launch these at the heart of a country with nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that still leaves a lot of the world where placing a large explosive charge at a precise location may be of use.

Goober,

Right now we have the ability to differentiate between a Strategic launch and a Tactical launch. An ICBM launch or a SLBM launch, unannounced, raises the pucker factor all the way to the top in places around the world. If it's an accident, phones start ringing right away and apologies come fast and furious until it can be determined that there is no threat.

A conventional ICBM or SLBM muddies the waters and makes things even more dangerous. Just because a country says that they don't have a nuke doesn't mean that they're telling the truth....even if they sign a treaty. It also doesn't mean that they don't have alliances with nuclear capable states. Let's say, hypothetically, that we launch one of these things at North Korea who has sworn that they have given up all of their nukes and they retaliate or China retaliates for them? What have we accomplished? That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is that some moron will be less than contemplative about launching one of these things because they are "less lethal" and start off a firestorm first from the confusion created by problem #1 and then by the rightful anger of the target, their allies, and anyone else that is pissed off by such a stupid stunt.

This is like carrying a pistol loaded with snake shot into a gunfight.

[casinobonusfrees]

A conventional ICBM or SLBM muddies the waters and makes things even more dangerous. Just because a country says that they don't have a nuke doesn't mean that they're telling the truth....even if they sign a treaty. It also doesn't mean that they don't have alliances with nuclear capable states. Let's say, hypothetically, that we launch one of these things at North Korea who has sworn that they have given up all of their nukes and they retaliate or China retaliates for them? What have we accomplished? That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is that some moron will be less than contemplative about launching one of these things because they are "less lethal" and start off a firestorm first from the confusion created by problem #1 and then by the rightful anger of the target, their allies, and anyone else that is pissed off by such a stupid stunt.

Can you repost this please.

When you do, please try to make sense.

Thanks.

[Flankrene]

Yeah, and inadvertently start WW3 in the process. And for what? A conventional warhead with a soft, gooey center and an accuracy of plus or minus 150m isn't accurate enough or strong enough, so your just wasting a perfectly good missile better used to quickly replace military satellites, or launch MIRVed AMB impactors.

What they should be looking for here is a kinetic energy impactor. Basically a solid tungsten meteor, with an aerodynamic shape allowing it to penetrate deep bunkers and generally make craters, these are sometimes referred to as "Rods of God". Even so, any unscheduled missile launch from a silo is going to soil a lot of Russian underpants. A better option is to maintain a non-nuclear impactor force on orbit.

Oddly enough, the Air force is launching a small orbital space plane with a payload carrying capacity, the X-37, next week. It's prototype, the X-40, had "useful load" of over a 1000lbs, and the X-37 is 20% bigger.

[sposteTipsKage]

Yeah, and inadvertently start WW3 in the process. And for what? A conventional warhead with a soft, gooey center and an accuracy of plus or minus 150m isn't accurate enough or strong enough, so your just wasting a perfectly good missile better used to quickly replace military satellites, or launch MIRVed AMB impactors.

What they should be looking for here is a kinetic energy impactor. Basically a solid tungsten meteor, with an aerodynamic shape allowing it to penetrate deep bunkers and generally make craters, these are sometimes referred to as "Rods of God". Even so, any unscheduled missile launch from a silo is going to soil a lot of Russian underpants. A better option is to maintain a non-nuclear impactor force on orbit.

Oddly enough, the Air force is launching a small orbital space plane with a payload carrying capacity, the X-37, next week. It's prototype, the X-40, had "useful load" of over a 1000lbs, and the X-37 is 20% bigger.

Cool.

Except none of them have actually been tested yet, and when they are, they'll still be in the "prototype" phase for years.

So what's the stop-gap between now and then?

We've got the B1B and the Reaper, sure, but those have to take into account a signifigant flight time between launch and target (in many circumstances).

So between now and the time we can have an orbital vehicle putting warheads on foreheads in sub one hour timelines what's the next best thing?

[Dndjzirw]

Can you repost this please.

When you do, please try to make sense.

Thanks.

Sorry about that. I know that this can seem like a foreign language to some people.

When you launch an ICBM it has a particular heat signature that can be (is ) picked up by defense satellites. We have these satellites as do other countries. When the see the flare they have to make a determination as to whether the launch is hostile or not. A bunch of different stuff goes into figuring out what the threat is and if there is a possibility that the threat is an ICBM the military goes into an alert posture preparing for both defense and retaliation.

The problem with a "conventional" ICBM is that there is no way to tell whether the launch is nuclear or conventional. Because of that the threat posture necessarily skews to the highest threat. This could very easily result in nuclear retaliation for a conventional strike.

That was problem #1

Problem #2 comes up when someone here decides to launch one of these things because he or she feels that it is a "less lethal" option than a nuke when they would never consider using a nuke. That is, their reasoning is that such a launch would only incur conventional retaliation.

The enemy, however, having no way of knowing whether the launch is nuclear or conventional (see problem #1) would be pressed into a nuclear response because they, like us, prepare for the worst.

[tpJKhY8Z]

Well, non-nuclear sub-one hour strike is a new capability.

If your within a few hundred miles of the coast, we've got 4 Ohio class SSGNs, which can put a 150+ Tomahawks on a target as fast as they can fly.

Instead of de-MIRVing our Minuteman III's, we should retire some Tridents, and convert some more Ohio's.

Of course, this is just what the DoD admits to having.

[Diwokfkq]

Sorry about that. I know that this can seem like a foreign language to some people.

When you launch an ICBM it has a particular heat signature that can be (is ) picked up by defense satellites. We have these satellites as do other countries. When the see the flare they have to make a determination as to whether the launch is hostile or not. A bunch of different stuff goes into figuring out what the threat is and if there is a possibility that the threat is an ICBM the military goes into an alert posture preparing for both defense and retaliation.

The problem with a "conventional" ICBM is that there is no way to tell whether the launch is nuclear or conventional. Because of that the threat posture necessarily skews to the highest threat. This could very easily result in nuclear retaliation for a conventional strike.

That was problem #1

Problem #2 comes up when someone here decides to launch one of these things because he or she feels that it is a "less lethal" option than a nuke when they would never consider using a nuke. That is, their reasoning is that such a launch would only incur conventional retaliation.

The enemy, however, having no way of knowing whether the launch is nuclear or conventional (see problem #1) would be pressed into a nuclear response because they, like us, prepare for the worst.

Most modern missiles, AFAIK, are now cruise types. ICBMs launched from submarines still have a place, I think, but the entire dynamic is different. The whole idea of having to be watch the other side with your finger on a hair trigger is no longer really either practicable (because most cruise missiles have the same heat signal as a conventional jet, if that much) nor necessary (becaused your arsenal is largely on subs and missile cruisers and you couldn't blow them all up even if you could keep track of them, which you can't)

And in any case what we are talking about is one launch against, let's say, a complex of caves. The time and target could be easily communicated to the Russians and they're still the only ones who have reliable rockets now, though we can add others as time goes on. It's a lot faster and cheaper than flying B2's from Minnesota to Afghanistan and obviates the possibility that someone might have the newest Russian SAM to pick off a 2 billion bomber

But I forget, this is something DBO (Done By Obama) so naturally you guys are bending over backwards to find any way you can to condemn it.

[cauddyVab]

Sorry about that. I know that this can seem like a foreign language to some people.

When you launch an ICBM it has a particular heat signature that can be (is ) picked up by defense satellites. We have these satellites as do other countries. When the see the flare they have to make a determination as to whether the launch is hostile or not. A bunch of different stuff goes into figuring out what the threat is and if there is a possibility that the threat is an ICBM the military goes into an alert posture preparing for both defense and retaliation.

The problem with a "conventional" ICBM is that there is no way to tell whether the launch is nuclear or conventional. Because of that the threat posture necessarily skews to the highest threat. This could very easily result in nuclear retaliation for a conventional strike.

That was problem #1

Problem #2 comes up when someone here decides to launch one of these things because he or she feels that it is a "less lethal" option than a nuke when they would never consider using a nuke. That is, their reasoning is that such a launch would only incur conventional retaliation.

The enemy, however, having no way of knowing whether the launch is nuclear or conventional (see problem #1) would be pressed into a nuclear response because they, like us, prepare for the worst.

All of this assumes that the folks on the other end (folks who actually HAVE ICBMs) are complete and total idiots and can't calculate trajectory through triangulation and intersection.

That is to say, in a round-about sort of way, that the two countries in the world (Russia and China) from whom we might actually have to worry about a nuclear response are both perfectly capable of determining within seconds or minutes of launch (at the outside) whether or not we're actually launching a missile at them.

Of the other nuclear powers, it is my contention that they are either incapable of detecting an ICBM launch - OR- incapable of responding in any appreciable way (MAD would stop them but only to the extent that THEIR destruction would be assured) - OR - such strong allies of the U.S. that we needn't worry about this scenario.

[paypaltoegold1]

All of this assumes that the folks on the other end (folks who actually HAVE ICBMs) are complete and total idiots and can't calculate trajectory through triangulation and intersection.

That is to say, in a round-about sort of way, that the two countries in the world (Russia and China) from whom we might actually have to worry about a nuclear response are both perfectly capable of determining within seconds or minutes of launch (at the outside) whether or not we're actually launching a missile at them.

Of the other nuclear powers, it is my contention that they are either incapable of detecting an ICBM launch - OR- incapable of responding in any appreciable way (MAD would stop them but only to the extent that THEIR destruction would be assured) - OR - such strong allies of the U.S. that we needn't worry about this scenario.

There's more than 2 out there.

There is also the possibility that a nuclear power will launch in support or defense of a non-nuclear power. Consider China retaliating for a strike on N Korea. Would they wait to see if the ICBM contained a nuclear warhead or a conventional one?

[infollafago]

There's more than 2 out there.

I know that there are more than two nations which HAVE a nuclear response.

But I don't think there are more than tw or three out there who meet all of my criteria ( HAVE a nuclear response, HAVE the capability of detecting a launch in a timely manner, and HAVE some reason to question American motivations in launching an ICBM).

What I'm getting at is this:

The United States, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, and the U.K have nuclear weapons.

We suspect that Israel has them as well.

Of those nations I don't think we need to worry overmuch about ourselves, France, India, Israel or the U.K. Those nations HAVE nuclear weapons but we don't have to be terribly concerned that they're going to "retaliate" against us simply because they detect a launch.

Pakistan and N. Korea probably don't have the capability of detecting a launch in a timely (actionable) timeframe.

That leaves Chian and Russia as prospective threats given the discussion we're having here.

And I think that even with those two MAD and a few phone calls kinda obviates any prospective threat.

There is also the possibility that a nuclear power will launch in support or defense of a non-nuclear power. Consider China retaliating for a strike on N Korea. Would they wait to see if the ICBM contained a nuclear warhead or a conventional one? I can't see China retaliating for a strike on N. Korea. Absolutely not against a conventional strike. Almost certainly not against a nuclear strike. Not while the missiles are still in the air and probably not even after they hit.

In fact, I can't think of any nuclear power that would respond against America for any reason other than a confirmed nuclear first strike on their homeland.

Is it possible that they would?

Sure.

But is also possible, and in my opinion infinately more likely, that the Earth would be impacted by a catistrophic meteor strike between the time the U.S. launched an ICBM and any other nation not its target retaliated in any way.

Of course there's no correlation betwween the two but this only serves to reinforce how improbable I think it is that China or Russia would retaliate on the U.S. for a simple missile launch.

[virtuah]

Not too familiar with the subject, but interested.

I read the pdf and what I understood is that nuclear weapons had one mission among others : response to CBW attack. Now they noted that conventional weapons could do the same, as long as the answer is devastating enough. Therefore no need of WMD's here.
It doesn't mean that suddenly, because they have a new capability the DoD will decide to launch it in every case. It has a strict function, which is publicly declared and coherent with their strategy.

Let's judge less the weapon and more its function.

[economex]

I know that there are more than two nations which HAVE a nuclear response.

But I don't think there are more than tw or three out there who meet all of my criteria ( HAVE a nuclear response, HAVE the capability of detecting a launch in a timely manner, and HAVE some reason to question American motivations in launching an ICBM).

What I'm getting at is this:

The United States, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, and the U.K have nuclear weapons.

We suspect that Israel has them as well.

Of those nations I don't think we need to worry overmuch about ourselves, France, India, Israel or the U.K. Those nations HAVE nuclear weapons but we don't have to be terribly concerned that they're going to "retaliate" against us simply because they detect a launch.

Pakistan and N. Korea probably don't have the capability of detecting a launch in a timely (actionable) timeframe.

That leaves Chian and Russia as prospective threats given the discussion we're having here.

And I think that even with those two MAD and a few phone calls kinda obviates any prospective threat.



I can't see China retaliating for a strike on N. Korea. Absolutely not against a conventional strike. Almost certainly not against a nuclear strike. Not while the missiles are still in the air and probably not even after they hit.

In fact, I can't think of any nuclear power that would respond against America for any reason other than a confirmed nuclear first strike on their homeland.

Is it possible that they would?

Sure.

But is also possible, and in my opinion infinately more likely, that the Earth would be impacted by a catistrophic meteor strike between the time the U.S. launched an ICBM and any other nation not its target retaliated in any way.

Of course there's no correlation betwween the two but this only serves to reinforce how improbable I think it is that China or Russia would retaliate on the U.S. for a simple missile launch.

I think you greatly underestimate the level of confusion and panic that comes with a potentially nuclear warhead heading in ones direction.

[MariaBeautys]

The nuke or biologic or the chemical attack to hit the US will not come in on top of a missile... it will come in on a small private plane or on a ship.

There will be no warning.

and now the boy-king has told everyone that for the next 2 1/2 years there will be no retaliation.