Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon:

[falcon]

Could it be that some are starting to wake up , sure hope so.


Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon: report

Sun May 28, 2006 7:44pm ET
: report

Sun May 28, 2006 7:44pm ET




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval for development of a new weapon able to strike distant targets an hour after they are detected, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The International Herald Tribune said the weapon would be a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident-2 missile and be part of a president's arsenal when considering a pre-emptive attack.
The report quoted military officials as saying it could be used to hit terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction and other urgent threats.
General James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said the system would allow U.S. forces to attack targets conventionally and precisely and "limit the collateral damage".

The Pentagon would like the system available in two years, the report said.
But the program has run into resistance from lawmakers concerned it could increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Under the Pentagon plan, both non-nuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident-2 missile would be loaded on the same submarines.
"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," the newspaper quoted Senate Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed as saying.
"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," the Rhode Island Democrat said.
The House Armed Services Committees have asked the Bush administration to develop a plan to minimize the risk.

[Brian Baldwin]

Wonder if they could arm them with a MOAB? I don't know much about that particular bomb other than it is as damaging as a small nuke without the radiation. Could be that it's not feasible due to size though. I would imagine anything short of nuclear fission materials would have to be large.

Either way I would like to see us stockpile ICBMs again whether nuke or traditional warhead. We need that long reach.

[Ryan Ruck]

With as much military budget slashing that is going on, I think this is a poor idea.

ICBMs are expensive tools and I think that we should be focusing on expanding our nuclear ICBM force before we start tinkering around with conventionally armed ICBMs.

No doubt that such a conventional rapid strike capability would be great (and I definitely think we should have it) but, I just don't think the present budget and atmosphere would allow it.

Also Brian, the MOAB is a 21k lb. weapon. ICBMs are rated with a specific throw weight. I have not seen any ICBM with a throw weight officially listed as higher than 9,000 lbs. The high weight of the weapon is why it must be dropped via C-130 cargo aircraft and cannot be launched on an ICBM. Perhaps a scaled down MOAB could be fitted on an ICBM though.