It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress stalls the Pentagon's "War on Terror" ICBM

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Congress waiting on Pentagon to outline some "plan" on how to help ensure that recipients of this new Missle do not retaliate with the Nuclear Option because they think we did.
The new "war on Terror" Missile will be a modified Trident D-5 Intercontinental Rocket that was formerly a Nuclear Missle modified to carry a non-nuclear payload anywhere in the world.
 



www.commondreams.org
The defence department is seeking $127m (£68m) for the conversion of submarine-based missiles as part of its Global Strike project, aimed at giving Washington the option of acting fast, pre-emptively and from great distances against targets that might threaten the US.

The goal would be to destroy a fleeting target, such as a weapon being assembled or a meeting of terrorist leaders, anywhere in the world within an hour of intelligence reaching the US of their location.

But Congress has held back $32m of the funds until the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, present a plan to eliminate the risk that other countries mistake the launch of the Trident D-5 missile for a nuclear attack and respond.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. On the one hand they are switching over to non-nuclear ICBM's, but on the other hand its part of the "Global Strike Project" thats under the Pres and Vice Pres authority, and thats what really gets me about this article...I had never heard of "Global Strike Project".

So, while on the one hand they are atleast dismantling nukes, they are trying to give the president and vice-president a way to hit almost any target on this planet within an hour of learning of its location. Do we really want our president, or military for that matter, to have that power? I don't think so.

Hopefully congress will continue to balk at this plan till more information about the "Global Strike Project" comes out.

Related News Links:
www.aviationnow.com

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

[edit on 30-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I think it is a good option to have around; however, what target is worth the cost of launching a non-nuclear ICBM at?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   


I think it is a good option to have around; however, what target is worth the cost of launching a non-nuclear ICBM at?


we are over 8 trillion dollars in debt, I dont think they care about cost quite frankly.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
In Vietnam we ended up sending the USS New Jersey home because the cost of a single 16 inch shell was greater than any targets the enemy had. Here you're talking about something that costs over 100 times as much, so I believe they would be concerned about cost.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a bad idea - you send one of these in the air and the other countries with nukes will go `uh oh` and reply - and before you scream ` they`ll check the way its going `, well first they will go to maximum alert then see if its coming anywhere near them - if it is , use them or lose them will be the ethos.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It is a great Idea to have this ability though i am not so sure it is a great idea to use ICMB's to accomplish this task.

The US should develope a means to take out the enemies such as Osoma or Husseign at a moments notice.

Such tech could have elimintated their need to invade Iraq had we the option of removing the leadership through other means.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
What cost issue? Right now the US has several hundred ICBMs in storage. In case no one has noticed there has been a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads. These missiles are bought and paid for, why not get some use out of them? The Navy has already converted 2 Ohio class SSBN's to fire conventional Tomahawks instead of Trident missiles. The only countries with nuclear capability that we need to worry about is Russia and maybe China. A quick phone call right before launch can take care of that. What I would do is to put the conventional armed missiles in a few specific locations and then let a few representatives go on a tour to show that these are conventional warheads, then launch only from those locations. I like the idea of being able to take out a target in real time, should make a few people think twice. Maybe a couple of test shots with media coverage to let them know that this is no bullsh*t.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Let me Quote Myself on this topic from a thread I posted few days ago:


Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon

This should be Interesting:

ICBM's flying, but nobody knows if they are conventional or nuclear.

I bet the Russians and Chinese are very "Happy" about this new Rapid-Strike Weapon.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
In Vietnam we ended up sending the USS New Jersey home because the cost of a single 16 inch shell was greater than any targets the enemy had. Here you're talking about something that costs over 100 times as much, so I believe they would be concerned about cost.


thats right, in vietnam. That was 30-35 years ago. Now, lets look at the spending of the past 5 years. That says they dont care about cost of something.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Let me Quote Myself on this topic from a thread I posted few days ago:


Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon

This should be Interesting:

ICBM's flying, but nobody knows if they are conventional or nuclear.

I bet the Russians and Chinese are very "Happy" about this new Rapid-Strike Weapon.


To be perfectly honest I don't see where either one of them is in a position to do anything about it. With the current state of the Russian military I doubt that they would even know about a launch until they hear about it on CNN. If their surveilence systems are still working they will know right after launch that it isn't aimed at them. I don't even know if China has a launch detection system.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
To be perfectly honest I don't see where either one of them is in a position to do anything about it. With the current state of the Russian military I doubt that they would even know about a launch until they hear about it on CNN. If their surveilence systems are still working they will know right after launch that it isn't aimed at them. I don't even know if China has a launch detection system.

Errr, dude - if they had Radars and Early Warning systems telling them that ICBM's are on the way in the Cold War, I am more then positive that they have one now too.

Do not Underestimate Russia or China my Friend.

And what gives the Right to the US, that they can be the only country in this World that can launch ICMB missiles - even if they are not Nuclear?

Is that kind of Uber-Mench Country - ABOVE All others?

Would you be happy if China or Russia adopted that tactic and started firing ICMB's over your head?

[edit on 31/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Do not Underestimate Russia or China my Friend.

And what gives the Right to the US, that they can be the only country in this World that can launch ICMB missiles - even if they are not Nuclear?

Is that kind of Uber-Mench Country - ABOVE All others?

Would you be happy if China or Russia adopted that tactic and started firing ICMB's over your head?

[edit on 31/5/06 by Souljah]


Well unless they are attacking Mexico or Canada there would be no reason for them to be firing ICBMs over my head.

I'm not under estimating China or Russia, nor am I overestimating them. I have seen information on the condition of Russia's military and seriously doubt that they still have the capabilities that they had in the 1980's. The majority of their efforts in the last few years has been in exporting their weaponry not improving what they have at home. I'm also not forgetting the pictures that I have see of Russian ICBM's sitting in silos full of rainwater, the hulks of nuclear subs sitting at their piers and of runways overgrown with grass and weeds.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Russian strategic nuclear forces - Strategic Defense

The army is responsible for "continuous observation of missile launches and space objects and delivering early warning information to the command centers of the Supreme High Command and General Staff, as well as for space surveillance and defense of Moscow from ballistic missiles and their warheads."

Early-warning satellites
As of May 2006, the space part of the Russian early-warning system includes three operational satellites -- two on highly-elliptical orbits (HEO) and one on a geostationary orbit (GEO).

Radars
The land-based component of the early-warning system includes eight stations (called radio-technical nodes, ORTU). Each of them includes one or several radars, which transmit information to the command center in Solnechnogorsk. Five of the eight stations are located outside of Russia.

Missile defense
The Moscow missile defense system A-135 is operated by a division of the 3rd Army. The main command center of the system and the battle-management radar are located in Sofrino (Moscow oblast).

Space surveillance
Space surveillance system is operated by a space-surveillance division of the 3rd Army. To monitor objects on low earth orbits and determines parameters of their orbits, the system uses the the early-warning radar network.

I am pretty sure that the Russkies Will know an ICBM the second it is Launched.

As I said before - do not Underestimate "Your Enemy".

It always prooves to be a Fatal Error.

Yes, they do lack Military Technology and Maintenance of their exsisting Weapons systems - but they are far from Obsolete, as you are trying to make them look.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Space surveillance
Space surveillance system is operated by a space-surveillance division of the 3rd Army. To monitor objects on low earth orbits and determines parameters of their orbits, the system uses the the early-warning radar network.

I am pretty sure that the Russkies Will know an ICBM the second it is Launched.

As I said before - do not Underestimate "Your Enemy".

It always prooves to be a Fatal Error.

Yes, they do lack Military Technology and Maintenance of their exsisting Weapons systems - but they are far from Obsolete, as you are trying to make them look.

With two orbiting satellites and one in geosyncronous orbit their warning coverage seems a little sparse. Since at this time I have no desire to attack Moscow their ABM forces are of little concern. As far as the early warning radar is concerned, I don't know of any reason to attack Russia at the present so that is a moot point. I go back to my prevoius statement. There isn't much that Russia or China could do about the US putting conventional weapons on ICBMs and using them. As a matter of fact they might actually like the idea. Everyone we fire is one less we could rearm with nukes if we do get into a situation with Russia or China.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I agree with you Jim, atleast on some points. Most importantly...DO not underestemate Russia and China....Also...China and Russia and possibly Iran(they were invited I havent found anything yet on wether or not they accepted) and Several other small countries that used to be part of the USSR are all part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

www.fmprc.gov.cn...
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental international organization founded inShanghaion15 June 2001bysix countries,China,Russia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgystan,TajikistanandUzbekistan.Its member states cover an area of over 30 million km2, or about three fifths ofEurasia, with a population of 1.455 billion, about a quarter of the world's total.Its working languages are Chinese and Russian.


So when you think about China you have to include Russia and all thier other friends and vice versa. Wtih Russia Announcing that it is going to start a Russian Oil market that doesnt use Dollars or E.U's....Iran saying the Same thing....Venezuella(I love Hugo im just including it for the bigger picture) doing the same....We are in no position to be using these kinds of tactics....If we still had a Huge Surplus and not a 8.4 tillion dollar deficit then we could afford it but we simply cannot afford it.

Now it is nice that they are atleast thinking non-nuclear...but beyond that....Why not use incentives....weve been using the stick for the lst fifty years with the middle east and giving isreal all the goodies....i think its time that we switch it up a lil bit....Isreal needs to remmember that we made them and we can unmake them and the middle east needs to know that we don't totally agree with Isreal we arent Isreal's red headed step child....I think this would go a long way to defusing the situation in the Middle east freeing us up to take on the Larger Challenge of the Future of the Chinese People, Culture, and thier ever growing War Machine.

Coupled with Mother Russia, who Im sure still holds a grudge against the US and our allies....It just seems to me that we need to disengage from these petty wars for oil and political gain...and start focusing on rebuilding our own economies and doing what Americans do best...Inventing cool new things that no one would have thought of.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The author speaks about his new book described below. You can see and hear him and other commentators talk about this very important book. Carroll’s father was an USAF general officer and Carroll was born on the day the Pentagon was dedicated, or so he was told. I’ve ordered it from Amazon.com. You may want to, also.

House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power
James Carroll

Description: In "House of War" James Carroll chronicles the growth of U.S. military power from World War II to the present. The author asserts that the Pentagon is the most influential institution in American history and operates under little or no authority. After Mr. Carroll's presentation, writer George Scialabba responds to the author's remarks. This event was hosted by the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University ,where Mr. Scialabba is an affiliate.

Author Bio: James Carroll is the author of "Constantine's Sword," "Prince of Peace," "Mortal Friends" and "An American Requiem," the winner of the 1996 National Book Award for nonfiction. His column appears in the Boston Globe

Watch and Listen: www.booktv.org...


[edit on 5/31/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Personally I think the risk of an all out nuclear war because of one or two ICBM launches is overblown to begin with but I’m sure we can work something out to reduce the risk of that hyped up scenario. And it is a good option to have, our military will be able to strike anywhere in the world within 30 minutes, using conventional weapons and using a delivery system which is very hard to defend against. Its all part of the ‘Global Strike Project’ which is a program designed to create several systems which will increase our ability to strike targets anywhere in the world rapidly, effectively, and preemptively.


By the way there’s an ongoing discussion over this here if anyone wants to chime in.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Aside from the threat of accidental nuclear war, has anyone considered the fact that Trident, with it's 90 meter CEP, is maybe not the ideal way to deliver conventional munitions to a pinpoint target?

I don't think delivering a conventional explosive to only within roughly a footbal field of it's target is going to accomplish very much.

On the other hand, it's a defense contractor's wet dream - the most expensive possible means of delivering a couple tons of HE to a given destination.

Without some form of terminal guidance a la Pershing II or (apparently) the latest Chinese IRBM's, this is a complete boondoggle...

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   


posted by WestPoint23

Personally I think the risk of an all out nuclear war because of one or two ICBM launches is overblown to begin with . . I’m sure we can work something out to reduce the risk of that hyped up scenario. [Edited by Don W]


Who’s got ICBMs? We hear Russia is behind in paying its Army, so I’d guess they have a lot of ICBMs that are like their subs, won’t work. China? Defensive only. If any. So what other country would have an ICBM? NK has an intermediate range missile but we don’t know how accurate it is. At least, the American public does not know. The NKs know, the Japanese know, the Chinese know, the etc know but Americans don’t know. So what’s the point of keeping this info secret?



It is a good option to have, our military will be able to strike anywhere in the world within 30 minutes, using conventional weapons and using a delivery system which is very hard to defend against. Its all part of the ‘Global Strike Project’ which is a program designed to create several systems which will increase our ability to strike targets anywhere in the world rapidly, effectively, and preemptively.


There is where I part company. The US has no enemies that need or deserve a “rapid, effective preemptive” strike. This is the same problem creator as the criticism offered to the so-called Star Wars scenario tried to resolve; it is a first strike capability. Not only is it counter-productive, it is a waste of money, and talent. It brings us more and more disrespect. It underlies the rogue nation concept. We need to get out brains into a peace mode. Spend our money on health care and education. Something both useful and practicable.



By the way there’s an ongoing discussion over this here if anyone wants to chime in.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Russian strategic nuclear forces - Strategic Defense

The army is responsible for "continuous observation of missile launches and space objects and delivering early warning information to the command centers of the Supreme High Command and General Staff, as well as for space surveillance and defense of Moscow from ballistic missiles and their warheads."

Early-warning satellites
As of May 2006, the space part of the Russian early-warning system includes three operational satellites -- two on highly-elliptical orbits (HEO) and one on a geostationary orbit (GEO).

Radars
The land-based component of the early-warning system includes eight stations (called radio-technical nodes, ORTU). Each of them includes one or several radars, which transmit information to the command center in Solnechnogorsk. Five of the eight stations are located outside of Russia.

Missile defense
The Moscow missile defense system A-135 is operated by a division of the 3rd Army. The main command center of the system and the battle-management radar are located in Sofrino (Moscow oblast).

Space surveillance
Space surveillance system is operated by a space-surveillance division of the 3rd Army. To monitor objects on low earth orbits and determines parameters of their orbits, the system uses the the early-warning radar network.

I am pretty sure that the Russkies Will know an ICBM the second it is Launched.

As I said before - do not Underestimate "Your Enemy".

It always prooves to be a Fatal Error.

Yes, they do lack Military Technology and Maintenance of their exsisting Weapons systems - but they are far from Obsolete, as you are trying to make them look.


While I agree never underestimate your enemy, Russia still uses analog in their electronics and vacuum tubes. Id honestly be surprised if they could get half of their birds to fly.

they claim this makes their electronics less vulnerable to emp, but I think that is an excuse for inferior technology.

AIr force one has EMP shielding, I wouldnt be surprised if other military systems are shielding as well.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join