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.

 

Expert's Warn of Accidental Nuclear War

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
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.
 



www.sfgate.com
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 military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


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]




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I totally agree.

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



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

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).



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join