Pentagon seeks quick hit missile

[SlowwHand]

As far as terrorist goes, it's already at response level. War has been declared on terrorism.

[Ted Striker]

I thought this was what cruise missiles did

[SlowwHand]

Less range.

I'm very possibly wrong, but I think the intent is a quicker response, in that you don't have to position.
Additionally, don't have to stay up in anyone's face.

[Combat Ingrid]

I bet the first target will be an Afghan wedding party.

[SlowwHand]

Oh good. I was looking for a fool to make some quick, easy money off of.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't know power, but I would almost guarantee accuracy.

Trident missles are MIRVed. I believe they launch about a dozen warheads, but I think that the nuclear warheads are not that high power as far as nules go. I believe that they're less than 1 megaton. My guess is that in order for these missles to be able to launch that many warheads the individual warheads can't be very heavy. We don't know if the Trident missles armed with conventional warheads will be MIRVed or not. Accuracy of the MIRVed warheads somehwere in the order of 100 yards I believe. If you're using a nuke that's fine, but if you're using a 500 lb conventional warhead that's not good enough. Of course, if the conventionally armed missle doesn't use MIRVed warheads the bomb would be much larger and could even use Geosats to make the aim even better. OTOH a dozen smaller MIRVed conventional warheads targetted to detonate within a 100 yard circle might be even more effective.

Could this have something to do with the 700 ton bunker buster bomb recently tested? I doubt that Trident missles have a 700 ton lift capacity.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As far as terrorist goes, it's already at response level. War has been declared on terrorism.

If China sees a missle flying in it's direction, even if it's aimed at Pakistan, it might get nervous about whether or not the USA is being pre-emptive or reactive.

[Sava]

I don't see a problem with this at all. I think it would be a great option to add into the arsenal. Especially in today's world with threats materializing in such short notice, I think it would be prudent to have another option at our disposal. And it wouldn't be very hard to keep the major powers in the loop if there is a crisis. Obviously, if this weapon is used, it wouldn't be hard to tell that it isn't aimed at Beijing or Moscow. That is perhaps the dumbest argument I've ever heard... IT COULD START A NUCLEAR WAR.

It seems people are just genuinely opposed to improved military capabilities that could solve potential future crises... because I'm not seeing any objection to this that comes close to being practical.

But I can understand the opposition because Rumsfeld does support this. Though, people shouldn't oppose something just because Rummy supports it. That's a pretty ignorant reason to do so.

I happen to come from the Teddy Roosevelt school of thought. "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

It's always good to have the option. Whether or not the thing ever gets used? Well, we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[Thedrin]

So if I have it right, this is so that there will be a rapid response missile with greater range than the cruise missile, which (according to wikipedia) has a range of approximately 3000km or 1875miles.

How many possible targets are there outside of the range of the cruise missile (assuming an ocean launch) that can be targetted without seriously ticking off China or Russia?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ninot
If China sees a missle flying in it's direction, even if it's aimed at Pakistan, it might get nervous about whether or not the USA is being pre-emptive or reactive.

The algorithms for computing the trajectory of a missile aren't that primitive...

Originally posted by Thedrin
How many possible targets are there outside of the range of the cruise missile (assuming an ocean launch) that can be targetted without seriously ticking off China or Russia?

Submarines have an advantage over cruisers in that they're not as likely to be attacked in port.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

Submarines have an advantage over cruisers in that they're not as likely to be attacked in port.

I think the question was cruise missiles, which can be launched from submarines.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Trident missles are MIRVed. I believe they launch about a dozen warheads, but I think that the nuclear warheads are not that high power as far as nules go. I believe that they're less than 1 megaton. My guess is that in order for these missles to be able to launch that many warheads the individual warheads can't be very heavy. We don't know if the Trident missles armed with conventional warheads will be MIRVed or not. Accuracy of the MIRVed warheads somehwere in the order of 100 yards I believe. If you're using a nuke that's fine, but if you're using a 500 lb conventional warhead that's not good enough. Of course, if the conventionally armed missle doesn't use MIRVed warheads the bomb would be much larger and could even use Geosats to make the aim even better. OTOH a dozen smaller MIRVed conventional warheads targetted to detonate within a 100 yard circle might be even more effective.

Could this have something to do with the 700 ton bunker buster bomb recently tested? I doubt that Trident missles have a 700 ton lift capacity.

NO way a trident can carry 700 tons, thought of course no aircraft or rocket can.

The US does not really use nukes in the megaton range. You do more damage with a dispersal pattern of nukes in the couple hundred kiloton ranges. The uS probably still has a few megaton bombs in order to crack some tougher targets, but for bases and cities there is no need to go for that megatonnage.

[SlowwHand]

We used them 2 times, 60+ years ago. Let's not act like we're so experienced at them. We're just enough experienced to know that preferably, they're not seen again.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't see a reference in this article that speaks of aggressive use, Cerberus.
I'm sure someone will disagree, but the U.S. has never done anything but respond.

So there is a terrorist meeting in another country. Telephoning that government and asking permission to fire a ballistic missile at a target within their country is going to take more than an hour to get a positive answer, even if someone doesn't tip off the terrorists to scatter.

I don't see a way to use such a weapon quickly without starting a war. It would be difficult to prove it was anything other than an unprovoked attack on another sovereign state - or is Pearl Harbor OK as long as it happens to the other guy?

Unless of course the US spends several months at the UN claiming the intended target has WMD's. Either way is hardly a quick response scenario.

[Sava]

Originally posted by CerberusIV



I don't see a way to use such a weapon

So because you don't understand the finer points of strategic military planning, this is a bad idea...

okay, I think I get your argument now