conventionial ICBM

i read in Proceedings about how the Navy is planning to convert some of the ICBM stock-pile to a non-nuclear tactical weapon.

the system will work buy replacing the nuclear mirvs with one that dont have that nastey fallout after taste. the new "warhead" contains no explosive only 2 to 3 foot long rods of tungstin or depleated urianum that hit the ground at super sonic speed. something like mach 10, damage is done by the shockwave not a fire ball of radioactive distuction.

They've been talking about this for a while now.
I just hope they have it worked out with our "friends" in Russia and China
that the contents are harmless when they pick up the radar signatures.

So far most of the talk has been on the USAF side with the minuteman series.

Some issues such as notification when launched to other countries with nuclear ICBM's etc have to be dealt with.


Im not sure why the Navy would bother, yes it perhaps would have a quicker responce time, but not that much faster.

Originally posted by aaaaa
I just hope they have it worked out with our "friends" in Russia and China
that the contents are harmless when they pick up the radar signatures.

Whoaah, that’s right.

How would others have any idea of the payload?

It could be carrying turnips, or a number of thermal nuclear devices. Either way its just gone skywards - what you gonna do?


[edit on 1/6/2007 by Now_Then]

It's just about the most expensive way I can think of to deliver ordnance.
The defense contractors are going to love this.

Its probably the most effective method also. This would mean the USA would gain the ability to hit anything, anywhere in the world, within a half hour.

My suggestion for avoiding nuclear war is a duo of warning systems. First, nuclear capable states would be warned via direct communication that a launch was imminent. Second, each missile would carry a transponder, need be it can literally send out a message saying "non nuclear payload".

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
it can literally send out a message saying "non nuclear payload".

If I had gone to all the trouble of launching a nuke strike in your general direction - what do you think my nukes might be saying?

Not that I would of course. Make babies not war.

Lets be rational about this, why would the US all of a sudden without any tensions launch a nuclear attack on Russia or China with one or two missiles... This is on top of the fact that trajectory can be quickly established and the fact that we would likely pre warn all major nuclear powers.

It's the same thing when nuclear ICBM's are tested, how do nuclear powers know it's a test and not a preemptive strike? Well published schedules in advance help so does the fact that each test is monitored.

The idea that this will trigger a nuclear war is way overblown...

On the other hand the USAF and USN would have a means to deliver conventional payloads anywhere in the world with precision and within minutes via a nearly invulnerable system...

[edit on 1-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

If there are targets which must be hit within half an hour and important enough to dump a multi million Dollar ICBM on top of them, why not. As long as they don't use depleted Uranium as warhead there is no problem.

Just a thought, could this shift toward ICBMs featuring tungsten warheads have something to do with the Iranian facilitys in Natanz? Problems with the development of the new 14ton Bunker Buster could have lead to this.