Thread: US to use ICBM against Terrorists

That is the most reckless way of taking on terrorists you have come up with.

Moving US submarines armed with ICBM close To China will cause even more issues, people like Iran, India, ~Pakistan will feel a threat from your presence there, this is going to lead to an arms race, you will force people to get ICBM's in return just in case your "proposed uses" change.

Can you imagine the effect of firing a missile from the Indian ocean into say Pakistan, it'd spark a nucelar exchange, both nations would assume the other has fired first out of the cold, nobody is going to call anyone to double check.

On top of this your intelligence is a pile of sh!t, lets be frank, when was the last time they actaully found a terorist? They found all the pices to 9-11 right after it occured, not before and they have a tendency to order airstrikes without anyone knowing, like the one on the Pakistani village.

Do you trust the CIA not to launch an ICBM strike into the middle of a desert because they mistook a herd of camels for Al Queda operatives? I don't, the CIA in recent years is a tried and tested failure.

I'd rather take the CIA over the ISI anyday, at least the CIA is serious about fighting Islamist terror and there are no qualms about their intentions, even if their effectiveness can be quibbled over.

boo-hoo...we aren't interested in fighting someone elses war in the same manner we are in fighting ours...don't go off topic.

Plat,

For a moderator of a defense forum, your knowledge sucks.

1) ICBMs are InterContinental Ballastic Missiles. They are stationed in Nevada, NOT on submarines. The missiles tasked to subs are called Submarine Launched Ballastic Missiles.

2) Only 4 powers can launch-on-warning (US, Russia, UK, France) and two of those (UK and France) had to rely on the Americans for world wide warning. Otherwise, they can only look at a specific spot on the globe. Everybody else and that includes Pakistan and India, the best they can do is launch-on-impact and quite frankly, if you can't tell the difference between an HE impact and a nuke impact, then you don't deserve nukes. China might be able to do launch-on-warning IF she starts putting up birds but frankly, she ain't interested.

3) What is Pakistan, India, and Iran going to do? Scream? Not one got the reach to touch the US via conventional nor nuclear means.

4) SSBNs and SSGNs routinely come close to these countries and have even launched hostile actions against targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the case of Afghanistan, over Pak airspace without asking for permission. Not one person in Pakistan knew about it until they watched CNN.

Plat,

Huh? What is that supposed to mean? My point is simple. Irrespective of what one may claim of the CIAs "intelligence" or lack of, or emotive arguements such as the attack on the Pakistani village- the war on Islamist terror will continue to be fought. And in such a case, the CIA's "heart" is in the right place. That village wouldnt have been attacked if there werent terrorists hiding in it.

ABout off topic, well you brought the above example up, which I feel is not really relevant, so I offered a counterpoint.

Originally Posted by platinum786

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval for development of a new weapon able to strike distant targets an hour after they are detected, a newspaper reported on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The International Herald Tribune said the weapon would be a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident-2 missile and be part of a president's arsenal when considering a pre-emptive attack.

The report quoted military officials as saying it could be used to hit terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction and other urgent threats.

General James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said the system would allow U.S. forces to attack targets conventionally and precisely and "limit the collateral damage."

The Pentagon would like the system available in two years, the report said.

But the program has run into resistance from lawmakers concerned it could increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Under the Pentagon plan, both non-nuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident-2 missile would be loaded on the same submarines.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," the newspaper quoted Senate Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed as saying.

"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," the Rhode Island Democrat said.

The House Armed Services Committees have asked the Bush administration to develop a plan to minimize the risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060528/..._usa_weapon_dc

Land based Minuteman IIIs would strike me as being more accurate(when Peacekeeper was withdrawn 500 M.ManIII missiles were upgraded with the vastly improved Peacekeeper guidance package), though once in theater, the sub based Trident D-5 'conventional' would get on target much faster.

Actual weapons effectiveness is ENTIRELY driven by RV mass and impact velocity.

OBSERVE BELOW:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Hmm, just figured out the KE of a unitary solid penetrator warhead equipped Peacekeeper ICBM.

Peacekeeper maximum throw weight: 3900Kg(8710lb)
Penetrator mass: 3603.6Kg(8000lbs)
Peacekeeper maximum impact velocity: 6kps(6000m/s)
Kinetic Energy release on impact: 64.86 MILLION Megajoules or 15.5 Kilotons.
Estimated CEP without terminal homing/guidance: 500 meters

Figures gleaned from the below scientific article:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/icbm.htm

Originally Posted by platinum786

boo-hoo...we aren't interested in fighting someone elses war in the same manner we are in fighting ours...don't go off topic.

Why do you fail to realize it's YOUR war more than ours?

It's YOUR country where these dumbasssed madrassas KooLAiD drinkin' mullahs are running around in the millions

So YES, this is VERY MUCH a reflection on YOUR inability to police YOUR own little shitty corner of the world.

THAT my friend, is the reality at play here.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

2) Only 4 powers can launch-on-warning (US, Russia, UK, France) and two of those (UK and France) had to rely on the Americans for world wide warning. Otherwise, they can only look at a specific spot on the globe. Everybody else and that includes Pakistan and India, the best they can do is launch-on-impact and quite frankly, if you can't tell the difference between an HE impact and a nuke impact, then you don't deserve nukes. China might be able to do launch-on-warning IF she starts putting up birds but frankly, she ain't interested.

No nation on earth has a launch on warning policy, and no nation on earth has EVER had a launch on warning policy that i am aware of.

Stuart Slade has recently tore someone's face off wrt this very issue in another forum, and he was very clear............LOW has NEVER been a serious policy.........it's simply FAR too dangerous. In fact, according to him, it's beyond reckless.

Link:

http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoli...cID=2293.topic

I may have the terminology wrong but I was under the strong impression that we were not going to wait until after impact on our silos and I thought the same of the Soviets.

Sad to say, Platinum786's attitude is very typical of his countrymen and even the Pakistani elite. Never a day passes before a columnist lament about how America is forcing Pakistan to stop tens of thousands of illiterate and belligerent and heavily armed tribals on a holy mission trying to start a war with a neighbouring country and within 200 miles of the capital Islamabad itself, WHILE in the same article itself wonder why no one is diverting serious money to invest in Pakistan. OR calling America unfair for insisting that trade disputes be settled in American courts WHILE blasting Pakistani judges for being VIP-conscious, corrupt and tardy.

It is a mad mad land. They seem to think that investors will just suck up its losses from the periodic rioting, which always targets poor Colonel Sanders, tribals killing foreigners if they can get them and spreading their anti-Western hate, and a government that is destabilizing its neighbours.

Originally Posted by platinum786

Pakistan will feel a threat from your presence there, this is going to lead to an arms race, you will force people to get ICBM's in return just in case your "proposed uses" change.

Pakistan develop accurate ICBMs?

I'd like to see that.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I may have the terminology wrong but I was under the strong impression that we were not going to wait until after impact on our silos and I thought the same of the Soviets.

That's incorrect sir(no disprespect intended at all- of course).

If you read that link i supplied Stuart Slade(among others) explains the issue in some detail.

US policy has always been LOI(Launch on Impact), ie, 100% verification of nuclear attack.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

That's incorrect sir(no disprespect intended at all- of course).

When an NCM tells me to listen, it's time to listen. It ain't disrespect if you're correcting an error ... or stupidity.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If you read that link i supplied Stuart Slade(among others) explains the issue in some detail.

Trying but just can't seem to locate the exact post on the matter.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

US policy has always been LOI(Launch on Impact), ie, 100% verification of nuclear attack.

I stand corrected on this matter ... and I know better than to ask anymore.