NationStates Jolt Archive

New US Missile Could Trigger nuclear war.

(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war.

"The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."

Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered.
...
The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub.

Sources: YahooNEWS/The San Francisco Chronicle/OcceanNEWS©2006
my2cents: why?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to target-and-kill any evil leader.. on the planet?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to destroy any bunker.. on any mountain?
.. and at what price?

Dun dun dun!

I do believe that's a little far-fetched (an under-statement to say the least) but the concept of the US having the potential to obliterate any target on the planet they so wish at a moments notice without any threat of a fallout or residual radition to deter them worries me greatly.

However, the threat of "accidental nuclear war" is Russia's way of suggesting (not to covertly) that they don't like the idea I just stated due to the seeming power it would give the US over the globe constantly in my opinion, or is that completely wrong?

I imagine the last thing you want when ballistic missiles are launched is to question their type and intent, even if the US told Russia that they were launching non-nuclear ballistics prior to launch would it be smart of Russia to trust their word?

As a side note: I've often questioned how the US intend to ensure global military dominance when its resources are stretched in Iraq... now I seem to have my answer. Thousands of missiles which have unknown position that can hit you anywhere at any time with a significant payload.:eek: An intelligent solution in a very short period of time too.

warez da link..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/06/MNGF9LJSMM1.DTL

This one has already been done, discussed and discounted in military circles

Trident D5 missiles carry 8 mirvs as payload, each mirv weighs in at about 100-150 lbs , subtract guidance/casings from that would leave you a warhead about 75lbs max......
Which is ideal for a 20lb plutonium sphere and 50lbs of HE to squash it..... but a 75lb HE warhead would maybe put a hole in a tank.... and would bounce off any decent bunker.

So its war time.......... you are the cheif of staff, you need to destroy the enemies command bunker....... do you fire some D5 missiles and hope, or use a 5000lb standoff bomb with GPS guidance system launched from a B-2 bomber at 60 000 ft?

This one has already been done, discussed and discounted in military circles.so when they say "The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule"..

all the Generals want is.. to "discount" my income taxes? :D

so when they say "The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule"..

all the Generals want is.. to "discount" my income taxes? :D

The Pentagon is very foolish at times. Just wait until they try to get funding for this boondoggle.

Loads of people were saying there would be a nuclear exchange during the cold war. I wouldn't get too worried yet.

The Pentagon is very foolish at times. Just wait until they try to get funding for this boondoggle.

Pentagon: "We need assloads of cash to convert these missiles to convential weapons. We will use them to defend freedom and blow up bad guys. And uhh oh yeah.. terrorism!!"

Congressional Board of Giving Money to the Pentagon: "Perdo, go get the dumptruck full of cash."

Pentagon: "We need assloads of cash to convert these missiles to convential weapons. We will use them to defend freedom and blow up bad guys. And uhh oh yeah.. terrorism!!"

Congressional Board of Giving Money to the Pentagon: "Perdo, go get the dumptruck full of cash."

What, like with the Crusader? The Pentagon REALLY wanted that POS.

http://www.hauntedventures.com/RastaImposta/ChickenWithItsHeadCutOff.jpg

Best of luck to the Russians in finding missiles that aren't covered with rust.

my2cents: why?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to target-and-kill any evil leader.. on the planet?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to destroy any bunker.. on any mountain?
.. and at what price?

We need to have the ability to decapitate any leadership structure on very short notice, as per the dictates of modern war. If you can remove the leadership structure, very much of the power of an enemy state is crippled.

Once again, and for the exact same reason. Thirty minute response times beat the hell out of four hour response times.

The USA is not going to start an accidental nuclear war because their stuff is actually designed pretty well. It's all the outdated Soviet-era stuff on the Russian side that poses the problem. The Russians have proved themselves time and time again to be terrible nuclear engineers, and since the fall of communism the people whose job it is to maintain the weapons and power stations are being drastically underfunded to the point where a massive nuclear failure within the old Soviet Union is imminent.

America won the Cold War, thus they have the resources and know-how to continue to build a safe nuclear deterent. The Soviet Union lost, thus they have to seriously consider what they are going to do with the power that they have but can no longer properly control.

It wouldn't trigger nuclear war with Russia if the missile isn't headed anywhere near Russia.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty stupid.

The USA is not going to start an accidental nuclear war because their stuff is actually designed pretty well.
This has nothing to do with stuff being designed pretty well. Let's look at the fact here, if this is true:

The US intends to rearm nuclear missiles with conventional warheads.

If things get tense and the US begins using them, someone with their finger near a button might get edgy, since they have no way of telling what sort of warhead said missile is carrying - I very strongly doubt the US can do that at all either, let alone in the short timeframe it would take to evaluate the threat level from an ICBM that has just been launched. If they assume that the US has begun to launch nuclear warheads, they might decide to hit the US with whatever they have at their disposal.

North Korea has come out and claimed they have the bomb. Do you think that they're stable enough to refrain from striking somehow when a missile crosses a line from Montana to Iran?

It wouldn't trigger nuclear war with Russia if the missile isn't headed anywhere near Russia.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty stupid.

Probably not, but you never know who might panic.

This has nothing to do with stuff being designed pretty well. Let's look at the fact here, if this is true:

The US intends to rearm nuclear missiles with conventional warheads.

If things get tense and the US begins using them, someone with their finger near a button might get edgy, since they have no way of telling what sort of warhead said missile is carrying - I very strongly doubt the US can do that at all either, let alone in the short timeframe it would take to evaluate the threat level from an ICBM that has just been launched. If they assume that the US has begun to launch nuclear warheads, they might decide to hit the US with whatever they have at their disposal.

North Korea has come out and claimed they have the bomb. Do you think that they're stable enough to refrain from striking somehow when a missile crosses a line from Montana to Iran?

On the same line of thought though, the United States B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers are all designed with the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons in mind, as was the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, the CALCM is just a modification on the nuclear ALCM to allow it to carry conventional targets. It's not much of a change in doctrine of any sort.

Best of luck to the Russians in finding missiles that aren't covered with rust.

There people go, under estimating Russia agian. And join all the others that decided to do so and end up like them. *The mongolains, The sweedish (1600's), The ottomans, The French under Napoleon, The Japanese, The British and Americans, and of course the most famous, Hitler and his Nazis.* All ended up the same damn way.

It wouldn't trigger nuclear war with Russia if the missile isn't headed anywhere near Russia.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty stupid.

Like the city of Vladivostok.

http://www.mircorp.com/images/map_KAMRFE-web.gif

I do believe that's a little far-fetched (an under-statement to say the least) but the concept of the US having the potential to obliterate any target on the planet they so wish at a moments notice without any threat of a fallout or residual radition to deter them worries me greatly.

Why?

Why does this thread exist ??? Is there any sanity invoved with it ?

A missile is going to cause a war ?

I do believe that's a little far-fetched (an under-statement to say the least) but the concept of the US having the potential to obliterate any target on the planet they so wish at a moments notice without any threat of a fallout or residual radition to deter them worries me greatly.

<snip>

The US already has that power. A B2 bomber loaded with thermobaric and possibly "bunker buster" bombs could hit any target on earth with accuracy and with devastating power. There would be no radioactive fallout to deal with and the enemy won't know anything is about to happen until their radar (maybe) picks up the B2 as it opens it's weapons bay and dropps it's bombs. Seconds before the target is utterly destroyed. We haven't misused that technology so far, why are you worried about this new technology?

Why does this thread exist ??? Is there any sanity invoved with it ?

A missile is going to cause a war ?

Yes. If an ICBM, whose primary use is to deliver nuclear warheads, is picked up by Russian early warning systems as heading for Russia, Russia might (and almost has on multiple instances) issue a retalitory strike while they are still able. It's the basic premise of Mutually Assured Destruction.

The US already has that power. A B2 bomber loaded with thermobaric and possibly "bunker buster" bombs could hit any target on earth with accuracy and with devastating power. There would be no radioactive fallout to deal with and the enemy won't know anything is about to happen until their radar (maybe) picks up the B2 as it opens it's weapons bay and dropps it's bombs. Seconds before the target is utterly destroyed. We haven't misused that technology so far, why are you worried about this new technology?

Because he's paranoid? Heh!

There really is no need for that kind of a capability. A cruise missle or a B1 from diego garcia could easily take out any target that a non-nuclear ICBM would be used for.

its called technology, its how the group on top stays on top. the minute we stop advancing our capabilities while someone else is adavancing is the minute we are no longer on top.

its best to stay on top because its one hell of a bargaining chip.

Well, detecting a ballistic missile launched from the Unite States is a presumption of a nuclear attack. The response is a nuclear reprisal before the nuclear attack hits. Anybody who watches the movie WarGames knows that. :p

But by having conventional ballistic missiles alongside nuclear ones removes that presumption.

What I wonder is if this almost comically useless weapon system is nothing more than an attempt to defuse the possibility of nuclear reprisals should we need to nuke somebody.

Or am I just a silly wacko?

Or am I just a silly wacko?

i think its both

Well, detecting a ballistic missile launched from the Unite States is a presumption of a nuclear attack. The response is a nuclear reprisal before the nuclear attack hits. Anybody who watches the movie WarGames knows that. :p

But by having conventional ballistic missiles alongside nuclear ones removes that presumption.

What I wonder is if this almost comically useless weapon system is nothing more than an attempt to defuse the possibility of nuclear reprisals should we need to nuke somebody.

Or am I just a silly wacko?
It's more than that. It's cash in the pockets of everyone who owns stock in the military contractors involved in developing the weapon. It's also an excuse to build more submarine-launched ballistic missiles that can later be fitted with nuclear warheads should the government decide that's the direction it wants to go.

It's more than that. It's cash in the pockets of everyone who owns stock in the military contractors involved in developing the weapon. It's also an excuse to build more submarine-launched ballistic missiles that can later be fitted with nuclear warheads should the government decide that's the direction it wants to go.

Well, that too. It's also a pretext to maintain and modernize a large fleet of ballistic missile subs that grow more tactically obsolete with each passing year.

i think its both

YAY! :D

Well, that too. It's also a pretext to maintain and modernize a large fleet of ballistic missile subs that grow more tactically obsolete with each passing year.

Well, I like to be optimistic. Maybe Taiwan will declare independence, China will go apeshit and start making preparations for war and we'll once again have use for those subs.

There people go, under estimating Russia agian. And join all the others that decided to do so and end up like them. *The mongolains, The sweedish (1600's), The ottomans, The French under Napoleon, The Japanese, The British and Americans, and of course the most famous, Hitler and his Nazis.* All ended up the same damn way.

The Swedes underestimated the Russians in the 1700's to.
Although you have to give the Mongols their due, the first time around they didnt underestimate the Princedoms.

Anyway, yes, the western world seems to have this 'Russia sucks' complex...its quite annoying at times.

Why do you begin all your thread titles with ## ?

Best of luck to the Russians in finding missiles that aren't covered with rust.
Ehm... they've just built a whole load that are supposedly laser-proof.

Why do you begin all your thread titles with ## ?

I've wondered that.

There could be no nuclear war with Russia today. Someone would have stolen The Button by now and sold it for firewood.

Anyway, yes, the western world seems to have this 'Russia sucks' complex...its quite annoying at times.

Russia does, as you say, suck. A lot of the fear people have toward Russia is a remnant of the facade the Soviets erected during the Cold War to give the idea of Russia as an almighty War Machine. That facade came crashing down and the reality of Russia is now plain to see.

Russia is unable to properly supply its soldiers, and while it continues to make some token advancements in its technology the overall movement of Russia's military capability is a decline. I'm not saying Russia is unable to defend itself, and I'm not saying that it does not pose a threat, I am saying that it is ultimately in Terminal Decline as it is not culturally capable of balancing superpower status with liberty. The Russian people have shown again and again that they possess such a degree of self-hatred that they will chose a strong dictator over a moderate leader whenever given the opurtunity. Russia's national identity is flawed and doomed to collapse.

The US already has that power. A B2 bomber loaded with thermobaric and possibly "bunker buster" bombs could hit any target on earth with accuracy and with devastating power. There would be no radioactive fallout to deal with and the enemy won't know anything is about to happen until their radar (maybe) picks up the B2 as it opens it's weapons bay and dropps it's bombs. Seconds before the target is utterly destroyed. We haven't misused that technology so far, why are you worried about this new technology?

You know, those evil Americans...

We obviously can't be trusted with thousands of thermonuclear weapons - why should we be trusted with a missile with a conventional warhead?

After all, there are many Third World nations with ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, and the other members of the UN assure us that firing those willy-nilly (such as during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s) doesn't increase the risk of nuclear war.

It's only evil when the Americans do it.

I'm thinking that the ICBMs without nuclear payloads could have a repeating radio message broadcasting in English, French, Russian, Mandarin, Urdu, Hebrew, Hindi, Korean and (to be on the safe side) Fahrsi, saying 'I am not a nuke - I am not a nuke'.

But then again, that's exactly what a nuke would say...

Ehm... they've just built a whole load that are supposedly laser-proof.

Do you even know how goofy that sounds?

Laser-proof? Might as well switch out the Russian navy with sharks with lasers attached to their foreheads.

I would ban Nuclear Weapons completely if I could. That ban would include the US too.

I would ban Nuclear Weapons completely if I could. That ban would include the US too.

A lot of people would support you. But how could China, say, ever really know that the US had disarmed? Or vice versa?

We can't put the Djinn back in the bottle. Nukes are here to stay.

I would ban Nuclear Weapons completely if I could. That ban would include the US too.

Bad idea. Nuclear weapons are the direct and sole reason why there has not been a Third World War.

Yes. If an ICBM, whose primary use is to deliver nuclear warheads, is picked up by Russian early warning systems as heading for Russia, Russia might (and almost has on multiple instances) issue a retalitory strike while they are still able. It's the basic premise of Mutually Assured Destruction.


Seems we have managed not to send any ICBMS in ANY direction...since well FOREVER ..so why we going to start now ?


And not to mention there are things on earth called phones and computers and even TV ...so if by some stupid accident a missilile did manage somehow to find its way into air you could call the Russian dude and tell him whats up .

also ICBMS are equiped with a self destruct mechanism ..unlike bombs dropped from an aircraft . But even aircraft can be like TURNED around and stuff ...


So what is the point of this thread again ???

Why do we "have to have" the ability to target-and-kill any evil leader.. on the planet?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to destroy any bunker.. on any mountain?
.. and at what price?

saftey my hippie liberal friend, saftey

New US Missile Could Trigger nuclear war.

(10-06) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against targets such as North Korea and Iran could unwittingly spark an atomic war, two weapons experts warned Thursday.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war.

"The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."

Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered.
...
The Pentagon has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub.

Sources: YahooNEWS/The San Francisco Chronicle/OcceanNEWS©2006
my2cents: why?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to target-and-kill any evil leader.. on the planet?
Why do we "have to have" the ability to destroy any bunker.. on any mountain?
.. and at what price?

Name a missile that couldn't start a nuclear war.

Here's my 2 cents to your 2 cents:
We have the ability to destroy those things because every once and a while, someone pops up who wants to destroy us, so we have to defend ourselves.