Pentagon seeks quick hit missile

[Zkribbler]

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

I'm I the only one wondering why they just don't substitute a conventional warhead for the nuclear warhead on a Trident II?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

I'm I the only one wondering why they just don't substitute a conventional warhead for the nuclear warhead on a Trident II?

(emphasis added by me)



Here dude.

http://www.phonicseducation.org/hooked_on_phonics.php

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by loinburger

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

Only when the missile is in re-entry, and then you don't have very much time, on the order of minutes.

Presumably, we'd use the hotline to let both parties know the nuke wasn't aimed at them. Then they'd have to decide whether or not to believe us.

It's not that I don't think it's a good idea . . . well, an okay idea. But aren't Trident's really friggan expensive? The U.S. Navy already patrols all the world's oceans, excepting maybe the Arctic and Antarctic. It's not like there's much outside of Siberia that is beyond Tomahawk range.

[Sandman]

I think that this is stupid idea. It's essentially making the same mistake that the Americans have been making from day one - fighting terrorism like it's a conventional military force, or in this case, a superpower missile force.

[Ted Striker]

Exactly

Now instead of bombing innocent Pakistanis in hope of finding Junior Executive Assistant to the Assitant Al Queda Cook, we can push the button from Omaha Nebraska from the comfort of our own place.

[PLATO]

1st point-Escalation...(CerberusIV). Are we to assume that the terrorist are not doing everything possible to carry out terrorist attacks on US soil right now? Do you have a source that says they are holding back? and for what reason would they be holding back? IMO, this is more of an "overwhelming force" argument than an "escalation" argument.

2nd point...accidental nuclear war. This is nearly impossible. A single missle launched with notification is very unlikely to get eithier the Russians or Chinese upset. You know they do test launches and they haven't set off a nuclear war yet.

3rd point...and why this is a ridiculous idea...

The US has 18 Trident capable submarines (10 Atlantic and 8 Pacific) that provide a full third of our nuclear deterent. It would be stupid to reveal the location of even one of these submarines by launching a conventional warhead. It would be stupid to degrade a deterent force that has worked to prevent nuclear war for years by reequipping them (even to a small extent) with Conventional weapons. This is not something that can be changed at sea...they would have to sail with a downgraded nuclear deterent.

And finally...a really good economic reason to through this idea away...Trident missles cost $29.1 million each.

You can get 30 cruise missles for that cost.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by loinburger

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

Only when the missile is in re-entry, and then you don't have very much time, on the order of minutes.

Presumably, we'd use the hotline to let both parties know the nuke wasn't aimed at them. Then they'd have to decide whether or not to believe us.

It's not that I don't think it's a good idea . . . well, an okay idea. But aren't Trident's really friggan expensive? The U.S. Navy already patrols all the world's oceans, excepting maybe the Arctic and Antarctic. It's not like there's much outside of Siberia that is beyond Tomahawk range.

Holy Cow! We are in agreement!

[Zkribbler]

a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

(emphasis added by Sava)

The Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the U.S. to carry out non-nuclear strikes against distant targets within an hour after a threat is detected.

It's hardly a "new weapon" then, is it?

[Sava]

You guys are thinking in such a limited scope. You think terrorism is the only problem in the world? You think that's the only potential problem that is going on where this weapon could be used?

Thank god you guys aren't in the position to make any kind of policy decisions involving strategic planning.

sheesh

I expect more from a fansite of a strategy game... honestly

Say what you want about Rumsfeld, but at least he can see beyond what's on the front page of the news today.

As far as military projects go, this is relatively cheap... it's an effective weapon. It can be deployed onto existing platforms... it would be accurate, fast, deadly. What more could you want from a weapon?

How anyone could think this is a bad idea is just beyond me.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zkribbler




It's hardly a "new weapon" then, is it?

Well, they aren't designing a new delivery system... just a warhead. I'm sure there are other specifics involved. But essentially, that's what I understand to be the case.

[Kontiki]

You don't need this new missile. You just need to bring John Rambo back.

[SlowwHand]

You also assume that terrorists don't have, and will continue to not have, nukes at their disposal.
RE: Iran.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sava
You guys are thinking in such a limited scope. You think terrorism is the only problem in the world? You think that's the only potential problem that is going on where this weapon could be used?

Thank god you guys aren't in the position to make any kind of policy decisions involving strategic planning.

sheesh

I expect more from a fansite of a strategy game... honestly

Say what you want about Rumsfeld, but at least he can see beyond what's on the front page of the news today.

As far as military projects go, this is relatively cheap... it's an effective weapon. It can be deployed onto existing platforms... it would be accurate, fast, deadly. What more could you want from a weapon?

How anyone could think this is a bad idea is just beyond me.

29.1 million a piece is cheap? When a Tomahawk can do the same thing in nearly every situation?

[Sava]

Something like this would be useful in dealing with an Iran scenario... should diplomatic options fail.

I'm not advocating any use of such weapons against Iran... I happen to feel that diplomacy should be used with Iran. But in the event things turn bad and the world needs to act against Iran (not just the US mind you, but the world), a weapon like this would be more than helpful in taking out a variety of conventional targets.

[Sava]

Originally posted by PLATO


29.1 million a piece is cheap? When a Tomahawk can do the same thing in nearly every situation?

In an emergency, when time is of the essence... can you put a price tag on saving thousands, tens of thousands, or many more lives?

BTW, jets cost more than that. Sometimes they crash during training missions. oops.. there goes $50 million.

And honestly... how often will these missiles be used? How many will be made?

Not very many. They are just an option to keep on the table.