User Answers

THE LATEST CRAZINESS: ICBMs TO COMBAT TERRORISM

...Yea, you read that right. The military were/are (we're not really sure, are we?) developing plans to use conventionally armed ICBM's to target terrorist training camps.

New ‘ICBMs vs. Terrorists’ Plan: Now 50% Less Crazy!

You didn't know the USAF was planning to use conventionally armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to target terrorists? Fox, ABC, SeeBS, and MSNB-whatever-it-is didn't run that story in prime time? Well, you're not alone. I missed it too.

As the article points out, this nothing-less-than-nutty scheme had to be modified, lest, in launching a missile attack on terrorist camps, the Russians thought we might be starting the thermonuclear apocalypse.

Say that again?

You read it right. Now, what I don't get here, is the reasoning. I find it very unlikely that Russia would assume one American missile launch was us starting the apocalypse. The article assures us that the missiles would be "modified" so that those poor stupid Russians wouldn't mistake the missiles as an attack on their country, push the button, and respond in kind. We're supposed to be reassured by all the language about "boost-glide" capabilities.

Now... the reasoning here is simple: Russia wouldn't respond to the launch of a single missile, and that's what is implied toward the very end of the article: "that ballistic missiles were still on the table for Prompt Global Strike. The ballistic missiles were never the entire solution."  That's right, you read that correctly: they're talking about missiles plural here, in something called "Prompt Global Strike," and we can envision "conventionally armed" nuclear missiles with some really nifty stuff....like fuel air bombs on MIRVed rentry vehicles: can you say "carpet bombing and tactical nukes"?

What I find terribly disturbing is the suggestion here that America's strategic missile arsenal appears to be under consideration for reconfiguring into "conventional" strike strategic weapons in some sort of escalated response scenario against "terrorism." Long-range strategic bombardment by ICBMs implies by the very nature of the case that whatever "conventional" warheads are being considered, they are far beyond anything that begins with T and end with NT; for the use of expensive ICBMs to be worth consideration, the "conventional" warheads here have to be strategically cost effective. Sure, we're told about "boost-glide" capabilities, but one can "boost and glide" a smart fuel-air-explosive device with precision.

This is large scale, folks, and not small, and deserves to be watched very closely!

5 thoughts on “THE LATEST CRAZINESS: ICBMs TO COMBAT TERRORISM”

  1. Yes indeed. The Great War (the first) was planned by the cigar, brandy snifter
    guys, and we’re told that war started over an accident, of sorts.

    Number three has to happen; it’s in the 100 year plan. Don’t the Commander In Chief and his generals and admirals just do pretty much what they’re told?

    Perhaps a better word would be manipulated.

    Number three will come. It’s planned. Money will be made and promotions
    will flow, but then, there may not be enough time. Has anybody heard that
    in the pentagon there are stored 200 sets of five star insignia? I haven’t been able to confirm this. It takes a very major war to pass these out. The Desert Storm guys who got knighted were denied a fifth star.

    As for me and my family, we are moving to the farm 70 miles from Austin.
    Way, way out in the sticks.

    I used to be one of those Minuteman key turners. I know that in my day they
    were not accurate enough to take out a rather small target. Oh, I’m sure the target would go, my concern would be for all the crispy-critters anywhere near
    any terrorists.

  2. So is this the reductio ad absurdum of this spate of wars? Attempts to sell “predator drone” “precision” strikes to minimize collateral losses failed, mostly because the “precision” of these things was still enough to blow up a wedding party and not just the jeep 300 yards away that was targeted. So now we’re going to get even bigger in order to be more accurate??
    As for the point on ICBM accuracy, indeed, what happens when something that big goes a wee bit off course? Let’s say it was aimed at a “rebel stronghold” in the Khyber Pass. Drifts northwest 100 miles or more. Do we simply phone the Russians/ex-soviet nations and say “oops”? Betcha dollars to donuts there will be depleted uranium somewhere in those missiles (so they’re technically not “nukes”) so that radiation poisoning will still be there, but without all that guilt.
    Sounds like what this really is is a plan to flat out de-populate various areas inhabited by brownish people and/or ones who read the wrong books (quran). I’m sure the psychos in the war dept (there is no further pretense of “defense”) are having a wet dream at the thought of a world where most everyone else is dead. Maybe then they will feel ‘safe’.

  3. A page right out of the Nazi playbook. Shades of 1944 and the V2s raining down on England. If anyone needed proof of the Nazi influence in our government, there it is, plain as day.

    This strikes me as an extremely dangerous thing to do. It would be so easy for a lesser nuclear power to mistake a “conventional” missile for a nuke. Also, given the failure record of missiles to date, I can easily see a missile aimed for Afghanistan falling short and landing in some friendly (well, non-enemy), highly populated area, say in India or China. Depending on the flight arc, such a missile will pass over many populated areas. It sounds like a program designed to instigate a world war.

    I haven’t studied the parameters of current high explosive weapons, but most of the “superbomb” weapons of a conventional nature are pretty large. The so-called “Daisy cutters” used in Vietnam and more recently in the Middle East are generally large enough to require being delivered by parachute out of the back of something like a C-130 – i.e. several tons and quite bulky.

    Of course, we should never underestimate the creativity of weapon-makers. There are binary explosives that can be extremely destructive in fairly small amounts. I’m sure they can come up with some pretty potent warheads using non-nuclear means. We never seem to run out of ways to “improve” our methods of killing. Would be nice if we could improve our technology for living as effectively. What a sad commentary on the human race.

    This also strikes me as a ridiculously expensive way to deliver conventional weapons. Why do we have all these big bombers, carriers, subs, cruise missiles and such if we are not going to use them to deliver weapons? Dumb.

    Or, perhaps another cover story to disguise another weapon entirely? Does it begin to show that I don’t trust these folks…..?

    On a completely different tack, the Orion connection shows up in a cancelled Moon project again:

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/22/orion-moon-craft-unveiled-new-spaceflight-facility/

  4. The largest conventional explosive that I’ve ever heard of was called the “daisy cutter;” these were dropped some years back in Afghanistan by US B-52 bombers with the hope of finding Bin Laden under an impacting “daisy cutter.” Using any ICBM loaded up with “daisy cutters” just makes no sense at all. “Tactical nukes,” essentially fission bombs in the fifteen kiloton range; now that makes a bit more sense re the use of ICBMs. The Soviets, er, Russians definitely would not appreciate this! That’s how ACCIDENTAL nuclear exchanges could very easily get started! YIKES!!

Comments are closed.