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.

 

Non Nuclear ICBM's

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
What do people think of the AF idea to use ICBM's with non nuclear penatrator warhards to quickly hit high priority targets with killer accuracy and speed. An ICBM can be on the other side of the world in around 30 minutes, has a terminal speed at burnout in excess of 10,000 miles per hour (The peacekeeper is 15,000) and cannot be shot down at this time.

Its drawbacks include the inability to recall it once launched, the fact that you will freak out all the countries equiped with ICBM's when you launch, and of course the old bugaboo, you can hit a designated target, but is that target the one you want to hit.




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
German V-2 rockets worked on the same concepts only they wern't intercontinental. And they weren't as fast.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
German V-2 rockets worked on the same concepts only they wern't intercontinental. And they weren't as fast.


Much more accurate as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Yeah that's right except the high cost: the target destroyed may have costed less than the missile



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bl00D_Th0rN
Yeah that's right except the high cost: the target destroyed may have costed less than the missile


The AF would use missiles slated for decommisioning under various treties, much like it is remaking the Ohio class subs into Tomahawk carriers



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
well if you fire a non nuclear ICBM the other countries that have nuclear missile will launch their rockets because they don't know its not nuclear so you will be destroyed and they wont because it was non nuclear great idea



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
well if you fire a non nuclear ICBM the other countries that have nuclear missile will launch their rockets because they don't know its not nuclear so you will be destroyed and they wont because it was non nuclear great idea



It would be safe to assume that the US would not only show them which ICBMs are non-nuclear, but warn them of the launch as well. Besides, any system that can detect the launch can probably determine the impact point as well.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
what? are you listening to your self warn them of a launch great idea to say hey Russia we will be launching a couple of ICBM's at you later this afternoon but don't fire back because they are non nuclear
great idea.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don't think that Starwars50 ment you tell your target when and were. I think he ment tell your allies. Anywho ICBMs are to expensive compared to cruise missles not to be nuclear/biological/chemical.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I don't think that Starwars50 ment you tell your target when and were. I think he ment tell your allies. Anywho ICBMs are to expensive compared to cruise missles not to be nuclear/biological/chemical.


Yeah you would have to give some sort of notification. Russia et al will freak out if an ICBM is overflying them because they would not want to risk the dangers of a preemptive EMP attack etc. You may have to place the non nukes out of the CONUS maybe on a pacific atoll or something



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
what? are you listening to your self warn them of a launch great idea to say hey Russia we will be launching a couple of ICBM's at you later this afternoon but don't fire back because they are non nuclear
great idea.


The likelyhood of ever bothering to use something like a convential ICBM against Russia is very small. There are simply far too many other (ie nuclear) weapons available and the risks for each side (of loosing) is far to high to not use them at the first hint of defeat.

In short - this type of weapon would not be intended for use against Russia (or China for that matter), but rather smaller less dangerous countries (which probably don't have the capability to detect an ICBM launch anyway).

And we do notify Russia in advance of every single space launch and ICBM test will in advance. There is also a well known connection between Moscow and Washington DC to mitigate the risk of a "misunderstanding"



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
If you are talking about a less advanced country why waste a perfectly good ICBM when you can use cruise and other bombs.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you are talking about a less advanced country why waste a perfectly good ICBM when you can use cruise and other bombs.


Waste? How much use (operational) use have our ICBM's gotten? As we are mandated to reduce the on-alert force, carrying some convenetional war. to alkjhdsfgldasfh-stan is better than sitting in some warehouse..



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
it just would not happen even if you use it in a less advanced country its too much of a risk to use ICBM's.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you are talking about a less advanced country why waste a perfectly good ICBM when you can use cruise and other bombs.


30 Minute responce time
Most countries will not be able to shoot one down
The pentrating ability would be sign. due to the huge velocities
We can leverage existing technology and use systems that would be decommsioned anyway.
You could fit the missiles with MIRVS and strike several targets
The peacekeeper and the Trident D-5 have hard kill capacities becaue of thier insane accuracies. The D-5 has a CEP of 120 meters

However, more likely it would be the peacekeeper as I think that they are due to be eliminated under Start 2 (could be wrong)



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
hey dont get me started on ICBM's for the air force, ill be working on those things here next year.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Bl00D_Th0rN
Yeah that's right except the high cost: the target destroyed may have costed less than the missile


The AF would use missiles slated for decommisioning under various treties, much like it is remaking the Ohio class subs into Tomahawk carriers



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
My post screwed up but what I was trying to say is it is funny you say that about converting Trident Subs. The USS Georgia is going through conversion to an SSGN as we speak. She will carry roughly 120 Tomohawks in her tubes and be fully capable of ripple launching. Park that one off someones shore!!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
We ought to do this very quietly and keep it as a trump card for getting our allies out of trouble when we can't deploy troops.
We can invite Russia and France and everybody to come see that we dont have nukes at the place we keep these things, but stay very quiet about the modifications we make to them. (I'm guessing we will use them to deliver a very large number of cluster bombs, or something similar.)

One of these days when some brute is raping the country next door, we can level a few advancing formations, take out a couple of airbases, and create an opportunity for the underdog to rout their adversary. No activating reservists, no anti-war protests, just "My fellow Americans, today we saved innocent people with the push of a button. Our allies thank you for paying your taxes. Good night."



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Why use ICBM? There is currently Hyper Strike missile iin development, it should be carried by planes and will be able to destroy deep burried targets due its high hypersonic velocity (6.5-8 mach). It is also more accurate than ICBM and much cheaper.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join