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.

 

Military modern technology?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I am currently working on a group project for Political Science. We are to assume that (similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis) an enemy country has just deposited 50 nuclear warheads in a neighboring country (Canada, Mexico, Cuba) that is an ally of theirs.

We know it takes two weeks for them to get the warheads fully functional, so we must find a way to get rid of the threat, without causing a war or other snowball effects.

We are to be the Presidents advisors, and we must tell him what we think he should do...considering that he hopes to be re-elected soon.

Kennedy, some say, was lucky that all went well when he decided to give Russia what they wanted...but my instructor says that last year, a student came up with a plan, of how to solve this problem, using MODERN TECHNOLOGY, in a way that no snowball effects could be imagined. I am trying to discover what this technology might be?

A way to destroy, or at least de-arm, the warheads without any human casualties, without invading this "innocent" neighbor country of ours, and without pissing of the voters of America. I was thinking that maybe there was some kind of EMI (Electro-magnetic...pulse????) that would fry the computer portions of these warheads? And if so, maybe from a satellite? Other than that, I have no clue as to what modern technology could offer this problem...any info or help would be greatly appreciated and educational...thanks.




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
i fail to see how this is relavent to this thread at all. please explain why this has to do with "secret societies".



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I apologize, I am new to this site. I did not realize I was under "secret societies". It was the last thing I looked at, and then when I said start a new thread I thought it would be separate. Did not mean to offend.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Not a problem, i'll move the thread to a more appropriate forum.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
UE222,



I am currently working on a group project for Political Science. We are to assume that (similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis) an enemy country has just deposited 50 nuclear warheads in a neighboring country (Canada, Mexico, Cuba) that is an ally of theirs.


Hard to do, given all but the last are supposed to be 'allies' of OURS and Cuba is only safe so long as they remain a nuke-free state.

You also need to realize that the science of ballistic missilery has proceeded quite aways since 1962 such that a weapon could readily come from a boat offshore 'without signature' or from a country in the Southern Hemisphere.

Tends to change the nature of the logistics as a function of available assets and sortie lengths to counter-force don'tcha think?



We know it takes two weeks for them to get the warheads fully functional, so we must find a way to get rid of the threat, without causing a war or other snowball effects.


Why?

If the shot DID come from a proximal neighbor, they would likely be solid boostered and road mobile systems with enough stretch (in the smallest Iranian models) to cover all of New York and Florida without hardly any site prep or assembly time at all.



We are to be the Presidents advisors, and we must tell him what we think he should do...considering that he hopes to be re-elected soon.


The problem here is that the Soviets had FROGs, nuclear demolition charges and according to an interview for a History Channel program, nuclear variants of Styxx on FPB-M.

ALL of which would have been 'undiscovered country' in the face of a U.S. _invasion_ which was, at the time, the only really feasible way to be sure about the heavy SS-4/SS-5 systems status.

Today, with realtime video off of fast-tasked satellites and the option of a U-2S/ASARS orbit 'just out of range' (by about 50-70 miles) of the SA-2, there is no way we could be denied or even /challenged/ for intelligence on contruction progress, roughly every 90 minutes.

Which was what made us nervous about sending in a conventional air raid.

Past which you simply say: "Remove them or we will." And then start firing Tomahawks with about 1-5m CEP.



Kennedy, some say, was lucky that all went well when he decided to give Russia what they wanted...but my instructor says that last year, a student came up with a plan, of how to solve this problem, using MODERN TECHNOLOGY, in a way that no snowball effects could be imagined. I am trying to discover what this technology might be?


Kruschyev was the equivalent to Kim Jong Il in terms of being a prima donna unhappy with having shot his PR wad on a 'good will tour' in which Americans saw him as the blowhard showman that he was. The Kennedys' mistake (and specifically darling sweety Bobby Dears) was in not sticking to their guns with a specific policy comment that let the Russians out from under a total cavein and humiliation of their 'assassins diplomacy'.

From Eisenhower administrations U-2 overflights, we KNEW we had a monumental numerical leverage in nukes (the numbers for which the Russians either knew or were shown) and those nukes _worked_ whereas the Russian's often did not.

And with them staring down the barrel of a bigger gun, the simple fact is, we would have been vastly better off pulling the trigger. Fewer than 20 warheads would have likely hit us. Over 500 wardets of all types in return would have ended Russia as a civilization, forever.

The difference would have been trillions of dollars in debt and a CLEAR MESSAGE to the Chinese who were undergoing their own cultural identity crisis.

The variable that was in play were the Jupiters in Turkey and those had no meaning to the conflict on OUR home turf, which the Russians knew because they had not done the defensive and thus honorable thing which was to stage a similar protest in the UN, blockade and threat of direct intervention in Turkey.

And THE REASON they had not was because they could not beat NATO and the vast U.S. nuclear superiorty specifically. Something which two generations of Berlin Crisis had already shown.

i.e. The Russian nukes and their lack of announcement were a first strike threat. While ours could kill them six ways to Sunday /however/ we chose to implement them. Turkey or one of the new SSBNs or bombers. And they couldn't touch anything but the top tier (decapitation) of our NCA-as-BMC2 system (NORAD was still undergoing construction and I don't think we had the Looking Glass up either).



A way to destroy, or at least de-arm, the warheads without any human casualties, without invading this "innocent" neighbor country of ours, and without pissing of the voters of America.


My recollection was of 9 sites split roughly 1:3 between the 2,500nm SS-5 and the 1,200nm SS-4. With approximately 100 missiles fired from USN assets that's ten missiles per site. I frankly do not give a flying bleep who dies at the sites. Or on the route in as missiles go nuts or are shot down. I doubt, _seriously_, if the American people would either. The ROW can sit and spin or quietly cheer, just as they did with Osirak.



I was thinking that maybe there was some kind of EMI (Electro-magnetic...pulse????) that would fry the computer portions of these warheads?


The only officially acknowledged EM weapon in our inventory is the carbon filament warhead fitted to some cruise missiles and cluster bombs. It is not perfect in that the two varieties available either damage electrical systems permanently (they also pose a mechanical and bio threat to machinery and humans due to ingestion and skin irritation). Or are too easily cleared away to be tactically useful.

There are /rumours/ of 'HPM' or High Power Microwave generators which operate in either capacitor bank or explosive forms. The latter basically function as single use EM shotguns that slam specific alloys together at such speed as to create a directional pulse, again as a function of being a warhead on a cruise weapon which can bring the unit close enough to be pointed at a particular target (range is, in any case, limited).



And if so, maybe from a satellite? Other than that, I have no clue as to what modern technology could offer this problem...any info or help would be greatly appreciated and educational...thanks.


Because of range constraints on effective pulse propogation, I don't believe that any HPM system is currently Satellite mounted.

We retain the defacto right to defang threats whose total national mass is so much less than ours that we do not feel they have as much to lose and thus as much proven inhibition (to grow to continental nation hood requires the ability to accomodate as much as demand by force of arms) against impulsive action as we have shown.

This 'right' is inherent to the still vastly superior nuclear arsenal of our own i.e.: "We can either pull the canine or blow off the jaw, at the shoulders." Your Choice.

Were it not for CNN soft socialism and the generally faulted notion that 'equality is a good thing' in nuclear arsenals between nations of disproportionate size/resource denial positioning, we would have done this a long time ago to Iran and they would be able to do NOTHING to stop it.

mod edit: added quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 19-11-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Of course there would be a native subsequent terrorism risk but the way you handle that is to simply make it clear that 'Any nation in the western hemisphere which is subject to any terrorist attack shall in turn result in all nations on the Terrorist Watch List being subjected to a full retaliatory response by the United States'. So that it was clear we would trade them a 100:1 or a 1,000:1. Until they got the picture as to how stupid nukes and/or assymetric warfare was to engage in.

Relative to the Cuba scenario, technology and specifically targeting of smart weapons without risk to manned raids or long delays building up for an invasion has moved so far ahead that the scenario doesn't even play out for more than about a 2-3 days (however long it took to put assets in place within the 400-700nm coverage footprint of conventional cruise). There would be no negotiation. There might be a single political warning.

Russia bluffed us. She no longer can. China has fewer interncontinentals NOW than Russian had even then. And without that _external influence_ by the two biggest powerblocks 'not our Allies' threatening to intervene on behalf of their little socialist comrade client state, there is no realistic means to threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons on a 2-week clock.

Even if the Sandals and Skeans were discovered standing on the pads, we would still come for them. The only difference is that we would also come for those who sold the technology. And THAT would mean that the 'customer nation' would be facing problems from both sides. As the techs would be more likely to sabotage and/or pull out prior to launch readiness and without even a certainty of ability to hurt U.S. for 'violating their sovereignity' they would have to be fools to stand alone and risk everything.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466the way you handle that is to simply make it clear that 'Any nation in the western hemisphere which is subject to any terrorist attack shall in turn result in all nations on the Terrorist Watch List being subjected to a full retaliatory response by the United States'.


That would be an absolute gift to every terrorist on the planet. It's exactly what they'd want.

And remember, the US is on other people's terrorist watch lists too, what if they adopted the same approach?



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by uneek222 a student came up with a plan, of how to solve this problem, using MODERN TECHNOLOGY, in a way that no snowball effects could be imagined. I am trying to discover what this technology might be?

... I was thinking that maybe there was some kind of EMI...


Try to think out of the box here. It's not necessarily a MILITARY technology that you need to solve the problem.




top topics



 
0

log in

join