Expert's Warn of Accidental Nuclear War

It seem's the US is going to start mixing and matching cold war nuclear missile's with conventional warhead's. This is a really bad idea, considering the state of Russia's early warning system. Whatever advantage they would provide is far outweighed by the potential for total global disaster.



I understand the need for bunkerbusting weapon's in this age of 'hide your nuke program undergroud', but there has to be a better way to go about it. Like bomb the entrance and rebomb if they try to reopen. Basically, create a no-fly zone over Iran and NK and bomb site's as needed.

I know that idea will bring howl's from the Dove's here, but we have to consider the alternative. Using weapon's like ICBM's is just too dangerous, and doing nothing is becoming less of an option everyday, ie. NK instability.

Related News Links:
www.upi.com
www.thebulletin.org

[edit on 8-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I totally agree.

I'm like 99% sure if global thermonuclear war occurs, it will start with a small skermish.

The latest ICBM had a CEP of 110 metres, meaning it will land within 110 metres of the target half the time. The reason this didn't really matter is that a nuke creates a big explosion. But if you were to stick conventional warhead on these things, it's not going to be good.

Surely they will not be using ICBM's . . . but what other technology is there that was both accurate and was exclusively used for unconventional warheads?

Yeah, and a nuclear missile looks like a nuclear missile no matter what you stick inside the cone. Surely they're not seriously considering firing these, are they?

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.

Apparently they are, and on an accelerated schedule even!

Putting two out of twenty-four on the sub's seem's a bit off to me as well. I know our sub crew's are good, but it just seem's like another opportunity for a SNAFU! Can you imagine a 'harmless' attack on a bunker turning into WW3 by accident?

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
The latest ICBM had a CEP of 110 metres, meaning it will land within 110 metres of the target half the time. The reason this didn't really matter is that a nuke creates a big explosion. But if you were to stick conventional warhead on these things, it's not going to be good.

Great Post; kind of clears the debate up doesn't it?
I too don't believe they will fire something so inaccurate as a conventional weapon. And even if they did (like by improving it) the Russians could always ring up the white house (after all the cold war is over).
Frankly I think the ICBM's are better used as space rockets. We have tonnes of stuff we want to put in space. Hay maybe Bush thinks using ICBM's against terrorist will put them into space!! (He's probably right).