Rearming SLBM or ICBM with conventional warheads

[brian00]

What do you think of this idea?

Trident missiles could be rearmed with 1X5 ton conventional warhead or 8X600 kilo warheads

I think it could be useful

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Depends on accuracy. i know MIRV warheads are accurate enough to hit a specific base, but without a nuke on board your probably just gonna leave a big crater in the gardens next to the target you wanted to take out. Hiting an individual building is another level of accuracy. You could equip them with a GPS guidence system like the JDAM's but they come in mighty fast. Also their not stealth, an your target would probably see them coming. And theres annother problem. How would third parties, lets say russia or china (if their not your targets) know that you're only fireing conventional warheads? the only time they'de know for sure is after the warhead impacts. Someone might think your initiating a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate. if you could make them accurate enough, it would give you a world wide precision strike capability that could reach the target 40 minuts after you launched. Howerver ICBM's are a cornerstone of nuclear deterrant, and launching one with conventional warheads at say Terahn could have massive consequences. I think its just to dangerous.

[gf0012-aust]

And theres annother problem. How would third parties, lets say russia or china (if their not your targets) know that you're only fireing conventional warheads? the only time they'de know for sure is after the warhead impacts. Someone might think your initiating a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate.

The americans and the russians have an accord in place which covers this. Unfort, china is not interested in establishing a hotline with the US, so the risks go up.

[DarthAmerica]

Depends on accuracy. i know MIRV warheads are accurate enough to hit a specific base, but without a nuke on board your probably just gonna leave a big crater in the gardens next to the target you wanted to take out. Hiting an individual building is another level of accuracy. You could equip them with a GPS guidence system like the JDAM's but they come in mighty fast. Also their not stealth, an your target would probably see them coming. And theres annother problem. How would third parties, lets say russia or china (if their not your targets) know that you're only fireing conventional warheads? the only time they'de know for sure is after the warhead impacts. Someone might think your initiating a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate. if you could make them accurate enough, it would give you a world wide precision strike capability that could reach the target 40 minuts after you launched. Howerver ICBM's are a cornerstone of nuclear deterrant, and launching one with conventional warheads at say Terahn could have massive consequences. I think its just to dangerous.

We have basing modes that are obviously different as well as hotlines. The ballistic trajectories are different. The delivery vehicles will not be totally ballistic throughout the entire flight. No nation has the ability engage the missiles or warheads except maybe the USA in the near future even if they could detect them during the brief 5 to 30 minute flight. As to accuracy, try sub 10 meter worse case with 3 meters being a realistic design goal.

Also its not likely that anyone is going to launch a "just in case" launch on warning in real life for a few imbounds that are obviously on "different" trajectories. Especially when the retaliation could be so disproportionate.

Take a look at CAV, FALCON and Prompt Global Strike to get an idea of some of whats coming. This capability is really going to push the development of persistant ISR of all types. Things like TELs, Mobile SAMs, Critical RED ISR, Bunkers, massed concentrations of armor or logistics vehicles, aircraft on the ground and infrastructure, ships/subs in port and all manner of mobile and fixed targets will be at risk. Such a weapon would really make counter measures difficult after confirmation of detection. At 8 to 10 million a pop such weapons will be used most likely as first day of war weapons and also on contigency basis for the NCA.

[robsta83]

Other than definite problems with ICBM detecting nations, just think of the strike capbility of (I know these are decommed for good) but think of the 50 peacekeepers with 10 coventional warheads on each 500 warheads with the ability to strike any target in the world within 30 mins or so, even the soon to be retired 50 minutemen 3 can hold four warheads each.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

yeah , the yanks could allmost decommision the B2's, the old minutmen are allmost worthless anyway so it would save some cash (although the B2's do come back) and it would be allmost impossible to deffend agains for most nations. the loss of 30 or 40 C&C instalations within ahlf an hour of launch would defenately make a bad day.

[DarthAmerica]

Other than definite problems with ICBM detecting nations, just think of the strike capbility of (I know these are decommed for good) but think of the 50 peacekeepers with 10 coventional warheads on each 500 warheads with the ability to strike any target in the world within 30 mins or so, even the soon to be retired 50 minutemen 3 can hold four warheads each.


When people say ICBM detecting nations, I wonder if that concept is fully understood. The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. Just like a rock thrown from your hand. Assuming you have to capability to detect an object in an unannounced orbit, not many nations can, then you know two things almost immediately. Where it came from and where its going. If the lauch site is somewhere in the Mid USA then get scared. If its out of California or Florida and the point of impact is some hole in the wall dictatorship nation. Then there is little chance that someone is going to get scare and fire off a just in case nuclear response only to recieve a completely disproportionate US nuclear response. Especially if the inbounds are only a couple dozen or less and not heading for Russian missile silos.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

When people say ICBM detecting nations, I wonder if that concept is fully understood. The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. Just like a rock thrown from your hand. Assuming you have to capability to detect an object in an unannounced orbit, not many nations can, then you know two things almost immediately. Where it came from and where its going. If the lauch site is somewhere in the Mid USA then get scared. If its out of California or Florida and the point of impact is some hole in the wall dictatorship nation. Then there is little chance that someone is going to get scare and fire off a just in case nuclear response only to recieve a completely disproportionate US nuclear response. Especially if the inbounds are only a couple dozen or less and not heading for Russian missile silos.

So if 50 MIRV's were detected in their re entry phase all coming down, (from the north east) over bajing people wouldn't be reaching for little red buttons? I dont think the Chinese would risk their ability to retaliate on the possability of conventionally armed warheads. Your right probably the Russians would be the only ones to detect the launch (i'm not sure if the're sat's are even operational any more?). So the risk might be negligible if your going to launch at a non nuclear power. but i wouldn't be aiming those conventionally armed ICBM's ad Russia or China any time soon.

[robsta83]

I did mean Russia and China, an other than UK and the French the former are the ones that can trigger the issues, everyone has heard of the case of mistaken identity that the russian made a few years back over a weather ballon...

I know that Russia has some form of detection system in one state of repair or another, and China afaik is just guess work as they do have semi solid space program.

[DarthAmerica]

So if 50 MIRV's were detected in their re entry phase all coming down, (from the north east) over bajing people wouldn't be reaching for little red buttons?

Hell no. For what? To trade 5 RV's that might reliably make it to the USA and survive the ABM systems for the 500 to 1000+ it will take in return? The PRC is not suicidal.

[DarthAmerica]

yeah , the yanks could allmost decommision the B2's, the old minutmen are allmost worthless anyway so it would save some cash (although the B2's do come back) and it would be allmost impossible to deffend agains for most nations. the loss of 30 or 40 C&C instalations within ahlf an hour of launch would defenately make a bad day.

Nah B-2's are far more versitile as delivery platforms and preferable in the majority of situations. Especially if the target isnt time sensitive. Also B-2 strike could be a lot less expensive unless you lose the Bomber itself.

[Big-E]

For all the reasons stated this is a BAD idea!

[DarthAmerica]

For all the reasons stated this is a BAD idea!

Problem is, those reasons arent based on any of the realities. Including the fact that the DoD is funding the R&D and deployment of 96 conventional warheads and the FALCON program.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hell no. For what? To trade 5 RV's that might reliably make it to the USA and survive the ABM systems for the 500 to 1000+ it will take in return? The PRC is not suicidal.

Mate if 50 plus MIRV's were detected over their eastern seaboard they'ed probably think it was all over anyway. Do you think the Yankns and the Russians are the only ones that have nukes as an effective deturrent? By that thinking you could literaly nuke Bajing, as long as the Russians were on your side, and nobody would raise a finger for fear of massive retaliation. 30 million dead U.S. citizens would be an attractive optoin for some hard ass PROC commander who figure he's allready under nuclear attack. Is it really worth those kind of risks for a strike capability a B2 can do anyway???

P.S. I dont know anything about the FALCON program but is it even passed the theoretical stage yet? could you give me a link so i could read up on it? :D

[DarthAmerica]

Mate if 50 plus MIRV's were detected over their eastern seaboard they'ed probably think it was all over anyway. Do you think the Yankns and the Russians are the only ones that have nukes as an effective deturrent? By that thinking you could literaly nuke Bajing, as long as the Russians were on your side, and nobody would raise a finger for fear of massive retaliation. 30 million dead U.S. citizens would be an attractive optoin for some hard ass PROC commander who figure he's allready under nuclear attack. Is it really worth those kind of risks for a strike capability a B2 can do anyway???

P.S. I dont know anything about the FALCON program but is it even passed the theoretical stage yet? could you give me a link so i could read up on it? :D

I think there is the possibility of a serious misunderstanding of this concept. Unless the RVs are being shot at the Russians or Chinese. They would probably be warned just prior to the attack. Even if they werent, you can tell were a ballistic projectile is going almost as soon as you could detect it. Then there are time critical targets. Like Bin Laden, Iranian Leader or a mobile WMD TEL. B-2's can take hours or days to respond to that. In OIF we had assets literally in theater and almost overhead that could not strike Saddam in time to prevent the invasion. With a CICBM/CIRSLBM that is less of an issue. As in problem solved within 5 to 30 minutes. Not many nations have the ISR means to react that fast. Even their OPSEC would be hard pressed to keep up with a 5 to 30 minute safety margin. Time your response to this post including the time it takes to read this. In that time you could have a MARV hitting 3 to 10 meters from where you are sitting now. Even a manned/unmanned platform that could fly hypersonic speeds would be hard pressed to offer that capability for less than $10million a shot. Then there are the often neglected but extremely important ISR payload possibilities. Be real convienient if your diplomatic corps about to enter the UNSC could have evidence in hand the moment the OPSEC window opens or within 5 to 30 minute of that opening.

B-2s can do a lot. But there are significant capabilities that a CICBM could offer then are not easily or cheaply duplicated.

P.S. RE: FALCON. Google "FALCON" "DARPA" and "CAV" and you will get an idea of whats coming.

[gf0012-aust]

Then there are time critical targets. Like Bin Laden, Iranian Leader or a mobile WMD TEL. B-2's can take hours or days to respond to that. In OIF we had assets literally in theater and almost overhead that could not strike Saddam in time to prevent the invasion. With a CICBM/CIRSLBM that is less of an issue. As in problem solved within 5 to 30 minutes.

decision/delivery compression cycles have changed dramatically though.

if you look at the decision/delivery compression cycles for assets in strike range for the US.


1991 - approx 4 hrs
2003 - approx 30 minsas another example. the Russians slotted a Chechyan rebel leader using a Toshka BR within 10 minutes of the call.

Thats a pretty good turn around. ;)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So it would be designed for individual presission time sencitive targets? Not large scale pre emptive strikes? i see your point, 500kg of HE with 3 meter accuracy within half an hour of the desision being made, it is an awesome capability thats all but unstoppable. i just wouldn't use it in a (verry unlikely) large scale conflict with Russia/China. :eek

[gf0012-aust]

So it would be designed for individual presission time sencitive targets? Not large scale pre emptive strikes? i see your point, 500kg of HE with 3 meter accuracy within half an hour of the desision being made, it is an awesome capability thats all but unstoppable. i just wouldn't use it in a (verry unlikely) large scale conflict with Russia/China. :eek

in the case of the Russians it was a time sensitive strike as they were unsure as to when the target intended driving off. they couldn't get air assets there in time, so they used the Toschka.

They targeted the last known mobile phone transmission and scored a positive result.

It must take the world record for the biggest HARM rocket used - or the biggest anti-materiele weapon used .... (it also cleaned up the Gaz that he was sitting in apparently)

[DarthAmerica]

decision/delivery compression cycles have changed dramatically though.

if you look at the decision/delivery compression cycles for assets in strike range for the US.

1991 - approx 4 hrs
2003 - approx 30 minsas another example. the Russians slotted a Chechyan rebel leader using a Toshka BR within 10 minutes of the call.

Thats a pretty good turn around. ;)

That's an awesome turn around. But that assumes the target is in an area you are already covering. Sometimes threats appear in the darndest places. It also assumes relatively unhardened target. Over the last 20 years there has been a demonstrated capability gap in regard to time critical targets. Well unless you would rather us use my prefered ICBM payload. CICBM's give the NCA real deterence and real options should deterence fail.

[gf0012-aust]

It also assumes relatively unhardened target.

I'm not sure I'd want to get slapped on the head with a Toschka battlefield rocket. It would turn an Abrams into a 70 ton pile of scrap metal pretty easily.

the USAF has successfully slapped a moving road speed target with JDAMs at approx 50 miles last year - so the capability to guide a battlefield rocket onto a target in real time is just as do-able - assuming that they're not engaged in erratic evasive manouvres.

[DarthAmerica]

Another thing is that a CICBM would be an excellent anti-terrorist/asymetric warfare weapon. Asymetric threats tend to base themselves in remote locations or in areas where traditional military methods would cause too much collateral damage and limits the NCA/CINC in what they can do. Also unless you have forward deployed forces, your options to hit targets of opportunity are severly limited. Then there are the potential basing rights and/or logistical concerns for theater assets and overflight issues for CONUS or outside the theater assets which take hours to days to respond. Considering the intelligence capabilities of some of the alphabet agencies(which have blood on their hands BTW unless you think Russian organic SIGINT...nevermind...;)), we could have GF's Chechnyan example but at intercontinental distances.

In fact in the near future, more and more wars will start by having the diplomatic organizations formally declaring high profile targets who would otherwise be diplomatically untouchable as illegitimate and demanding surrender. After this point and a short ultimatum. If the target makes even the slightest mistake(5-30 min worth) in OPSEC. A CAV payload will be raining down on the recalcitrant military and political leadership of the nation/organization in question. This will be combined with PSYOPs before, during and after the strike to prevent a more broad conflict.

[DarthAmerica]

I'm not sure I'd want to get slapped on the head with a Toschka battlefield rocket. It would turn an Abrams into a 70 ton pile of scrap metal pretty easily.

...sigh. Did you have to say that? Why didnt you just threaten an Apricot payload? Actually Armor is a pretty easy prey from that aspect angle, for now. By hardend I mean HDBT. Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace Stuff.

BTW, LOCAAS is a proposed CAV payload.

[gf0012-aust]

...sigh. Did you have to say that? Why didnt you just threaten an Apricot payload? Actually Armor is a pretty easy prey from that aspect angle, for now. By hardend I mean HDBT. Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace Stuff.

BTW, LOCAAS is a proposed CAV payload.

well, when you said this:

But that assumes the target is in an area you are already covering. Sometimes threats appear in the darndest places. It also assumes relatively unhardened target.

I assumed you meant a mobile target. A "Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace" is not the most mobile asset around - and its highly improbable that it will appear out of nowhere, appear unless they're using a humungous winnebago... ;)

btw the Toschka has to be reprogrammed and have its targetting co-ords updated once they vectored the mobile phone.

So satellite-ident/permission/prosecution/kill was all in 10 minutes. If they'd had aerial assets in place then target mobility would have been even less of an issue. As it was, they were not going to pass up on the opportunity and took the shot.

[DarthAmerica]

btw the Toschka has to be reprogrammed and have its targetting co-ords updated once they vectored the mobile phone.

So satellite-ident/permission/prosecution/kill was all in 10 minutes. If they'd had aerial assets in place then target mobility would have been even less of an issue. As it was, they were not going to pass up on the opportunity and took the shot.

Just imagine it at the intercontinental level!


Off Topic...sort of:

Makes one wonder why Zarqawi and Osama are still alive. Their OPSEC cant be that good! Should be a JDAM/MLRS with their names written on them just waiting for the SIGINT birds to provide the data.

[DarthAmerica]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-05-28T234408Z_01_L28699462_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-WEAPON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

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.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

[QUOTE=DarthAmerica][url]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.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," .
"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," .[QUOTE]

It looks like this system would have a limited (though signifigant) use. For time sensitive anti terrorist targets it would be great. But in a large scale conventional conflict with a major nuclear power i wouldnt be launchig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.

[DarthAmerica]

it looks like this system would have a limited (though signifigant) use. For time sensitive anti terrorist targets it would be great. But in a large scale conventional conflict with a major nuclear power i wouldnt be launchig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.


Lets think about this one. What would be more limited. The nuclear tipped Tridents we never use that would certainly cause a nuclear war? Or conventional Tridents with the capabilities I described that could have been used against almost every advesary we have faced since the early 1980's? Lets see,

Libya

Lebanon

Iran OPM

Panama

Sudan

Somalia

Iraq ODS

Iraq ODF

Iraq OIF

Serbia OAF

Afghanistan OEF

Compare that to how often we have gone to war with major nuclear powers then ask how limited would an SSBN be with a mixed payload vs a purely nuclear one. Also note that these CSLBM attacks would cost only a fraction of the cost of a manned strike with bombers. Between 10 to 100 million in todays dollars depending on the severity of the strike.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I get your point. But you wouldnt say that the primary goal of the U.S. armed forces is the defence of the U.S. and its interests, and this would include the possibility of a large scale conventional conflict with a world power? The ADF has only ever fought once in the defence of Australia, it has fought in South Africa, western europe, the middle east (twice), Turkey, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, korea, iraq, afghanistan and numerous peace keeping missions (to name a few) but its primary function is still the defence of Australia in a conventional conflict. So you would dissagree that a weapon that is useless (for reasons stated above) in achieving the primary goal of an armed forces can be called 'limited'?:confused:

[Big-E]

It looks like this system would have a limited (though signifigant) use. For time sensitive anti terrorist targets it would be great. But in a large scale conventional conflict with a major nuclear power i wouldnt be launchig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.

My concern would be (on top of mistaken nuclear launch) since the 4 Ohio conversions there are a very small number of boomers left. Converting Trident 2s on these existing boats lowers our nuclear deterent. As everyone knows boomers are the most survivable platform in any nuclear strike and to waste them in such a way is reckless. If they do it then make it land based, don't waste the Ohios. I am in much bigger favor of ramjet missiles as they are cheaper and can be deployed from any platform for quicker strike capability.

[Big-E]

Lets think about this one. What would be more limited. The nuclear tipped Tridents we never use that would certainly cause a nuclear war? Or conventional Tridents with the capabilities I described that could have been used against almost every advesary we have faced since the early 1980's? Lets see,

Libya

Lebanon

Iran OPM

Panama

Sudan

Somalia

Iraq ODS

Iraq ODF

Iraq OIF

Serbia OAF

Afghanistan OEF

Compare that to how often we have gone to war with major nuclear powers then ask how limited would an SSBN be with a mixed payload vs a purely nuclear one. Also note that these CSLBM attacks would cost only a fraction of the cost of a manned strike with bombers. Between 10 to 100 million in todays dollars depending on the severity of the strike.

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb

[DarthAmerica]

I get your point. But you wouldnt say that the primary goal of the U.S. armed forces is the defence of the U.S. and its interests, and this would include the possibility of a large scale conventional conflict with a world power? The ADF has only ever fought once in the defence of Australia, it has fought in South Africa, western europe, the middle east (twice), Turkey, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, korea, iraq, afghanistan and numerous peace keeping missions (to name a few) but its primary function is still the defence of Australia in a conventional conflict. So you would dissagree that a weapon that is useless (for reasons stated above) in achieving the primary goal of an armed forces can be called 'limited'?:confused:

The US has an inherently offensive military. Our defense is through offense. Notice in those conflicts I mentioned, the US responds to threats against its interest through offensive action. The time it takes to get forces in place to conduct that offense encourages advesaries to set their goals on what can be accomplished during our deployment window. Hours to days for air and very light ground forces and months for heavy mechanized forces. They know full well that after our deployment cycles we will crush their military arms. But that is a price they are willing to pay to realise their political goals. By being able to respond almost immediately to a threat. We will be able to prevent larger scale conflicts and when its not possible to prevent larger conflict, we will buy more time.

Even against a major world power this would be a devastating form of attack. Pick and describe a hypothetical major world power and I could describe how this could actually prevent a larger war.

[DarthAmerica]

My concern would be (on top of mistaken nuclear launch) since the 4 Ohio conversions there are a very small number of boomers left. Converting Trident 2s on these existing boats lowers our nuclear deterent. As everyone knows boomers are the most survivable platform in any nuclear strike and to waste them in such a way is reckless. If they do it then make it land based, don't waste the Ohios. I am in much bigger favor of ramjet missiles as they are cheaper and can be deployed from any platform for quicker strike capability.


2 things. In order for the US to have deterence as its traditionally described. We need enough nuclear firepower to kill 25% of an offending population. That would take approximately 50 to 400 475kt warheads in the worse case against Russia or China respectively. We have many times more than that. Just one SSBN has almost that amount of firepower. Up to 192 warheads! Also the SSBNs is only one leg of the "old" triad. This program as proposed according to the latest official statements would have 2 missiles per SSBN converted to carry 4 E2(Enhanced Effectiveness) Warheads reducing the on board nuclear Tridents to 22.

Second, no air launched ramjet missile would ever be as responsive or as fast as an SLBM. Even if we maintained them on alert, the bomber would have to climb to altitude and then proceed to a launch position. An SLBM by contrast is always ready to be fired. And all it should and eventually will take is a grid coordinate. Then turn the key...

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I know i keep harping on about China but its the only world power that i could see a tiny possablility of a large scale conflict with the US occuring. Scenario: Hard line government siezes power in bajing, announces full military support for N korea and acuses U.S. of increasing tensions on the peninsula. Declares taiwan a lost province and threatens war. Chinise/N korean nuclear & conventional forces go to maximum readiness and China mobilises. Troops move to staging areas behind the DMZ and the Chinese airforce/navy prepares to assault Taiwan and secure lanes through the south china sea. Pyonyang/bajing threatens strategic nuclear strikes on Japan and the U.S. mainland if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons (i know this is a crazy scenario). im not disputing the disputing systems awesome capability. Just the possibilty of it trigering a nuclear conflict unintentionally.

P.S. I know your millitary is essential agressive. you havent had a real threat to the mainland U.S. scince Pershing rode into mexico. That wasn't my point.

[DarthAmerica]

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb

I'd be careful to use the NYT personally. But I'll look for the article. The cost of the missiles themselves should be about 20 million or just under. And the targets arent dirt cheap when you consider not being about to hit them. How much money would have been saved if Saddam had be killed just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or what if his Armor columns had a swarm of LOCAAS rain out of the sky as they crossed the Kuwaiti border?

It cost millions to billions of dollars to forward deploy forces if you want to be responsive in a region. Then there is the chance that you lose an aircraft and/or crew. The political cost of that alone is staggering. There really isnt a comparison on cost. Just price for yourseld how much it would cost to deploy a Quartet of B-2's, F-22 Squadron for escort/sweep/CAP/strike and Support aircraft(AWACS, Tankers, Rivet Joint, G-Hawks ect.) to the Middle East or Asia for some contengency. And that assumes the target is fixed or stationary long enough to allow for a decent chance to strike. What if its a leadership cell in a motorcade? What if its a mobile ICBM launcher? What if its a SSK/SSN/SSBN in port preparing to sortie? Literally these threats are untouchable unless we are willing to use nukes or have forward deployed forces. The idea is to be time sensitive. This is a complimentary capability for hitting targets that have to be destroyed RIGHT NOW.

[DarthAmerica]

I know i keep harping on about China but its the only world power that i could see a tiny possablility of a large scale conflict with the US occuring. Scenario: Hard line government siezes power in bajing, announces full military support for N korea and acuses U.S. of increasing tensions on the peninsula. Declares taiwan a lost province and threatens war. Chinise/N korean nuclear & conventional forces go to maximum readiness and China mobilises. Troops move to staging areas behind the DMZ and the Chinese airforce/navy prepares to assault Taiwan and secure lanes through the south china sea. Pyonyang/bajing threatens strategic nuclear strikes on Japan and the U.S. mainland if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons (i know this is a crazy scenario). im not disputing the disputing systems awesome capability. Just the possibilty of it trigering a nuclear conflict unintentionally.

P.S. I know your millitary is essential agressive. you havent had a real threat to the mainland U.S. scince Pershing rode into mexico. That wasn't my point.

See the part of your scenario where you say the hardliners take over? Well right then and there, this capability when mature and deployed and combined with timely accurate intelligence could kill the hardliners as soon as they act. Should that fail, the logistics supporting any massed movement of military forces could be struck. Fuel Depot, Bridges ect.

Whether or not they threaten or actually conduct nuclear strikes is irrelevant to the equation. They have waved the nuclear sword in the air before through unofficial channels. China,s offensive nuclear potential is incredibly low and they dont even have a survivable deterent. They could wage nuclear terrorism. But only if they are willing to commit the biggest act of national suicide imaginable. A best case scenario for China would have 5 or fewer nukes if any actually making it to the USA in a scenario such as this.

[DarthAmerica]

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb


~2.2 billion x 16 SSBN USD was the program cost that we already paid for in the 1980's with money we will never get back for missiles we will hopefully never have to use. The total program cost for the conventional trident conversion is about half a billion USD or about ~5.2 million per E2 Warhead(96). Thats less than the price of 2 USAF F-22 Raptors or 6 F/A-18E's if you include the development cost.

What has to be remembered is that this is a requirement driven very mission specific asset that should reach IOC within 2 years and full operation by 2011. The "Fourth Leg" of deterence. Also CAV(Common Aero Vehicle) is a USAF/DARPA program and actually has a few key differences. It would have a more diverse payload to include penetrator, UAVs, SDB, WAASMs. CAV would be retargetable while in flight. Unlike the USN E2 warheads the CAV would take a little longer to make ready. About 24 hours. But after that could be launched within 2 hours and would reach their targets in 1 hour.

[Big-E]

~2.2 billion x 16 SSBN USD was the program cost that we already paid for in the 1980's with money we will never get back for missiles we will hopefully never have to use. The total program cost for the conventional trident conversion is about half a billion USD or about ~5.2 million per E2 Warhead(96).

And that 2.2 billion was in 84' dollars so you know inflation has driven the replacement cost thru the roof! So we won't be building anymore then? :confused:

[Ozzy Blizzard]

China,s offensive nuclear potential is incredibly low and they dont even have a survivable deterent. They could wage nuclear terrorism. But only if they are willing to commit the biggest act of national suicide imaginable. A best case scenario for China would have 5 or fewer nukes if any actually making it to the USA in a scenario such as this.

What exactly is a survivable deterent? You mentioned abouve the ability to kill 25% of the enemy population but is that equasion still relevent? Was it the measure used by SAC generals in the 50's to evaluate wether a nation could be sucsesfully eguaged in a nuclear war? Would any nation take action that would kill 10% of their population, or 5%? The U.S. could easily win a nuclear war with China (if its possible to win a nuclear war) and Gorgie could make china the biggest glow in the dark pancake on earth. But imagine the damage 5 500kt nukes could do. LA, New York, Chicago, Washington and San Francisico, there would be 50 million casualties. No one in their right mind would launch a first strike on the U.S. but i still think China would retaliate to a nuclear strike. And this is what i dont like about this idea. If the Chinese THOUGHT they were under nuclear attack they would launch while they still could. Look at it from their point of view. Your in a potential conflict with the US, several SLBM's are detected from launch positions in the western pacific, exactly the same thing that would happen in a first strike. Your about to loose your nuclear capability and at any moment your'e expecting thousands of MIRV's direct from the Dakota's that will kill hundreds of millions of your people. Would you launch your 50 odd rusty old BM's knowing that you will probably kill 30 million of the enemy? I agree compleatly that this weapon would be devistatingly usefull in an OEF/OIF or Desert Storm type of operation (as long as China and Russia had prior notice) but i think it only has a use in these types of operations. In a conflict with a nuclear power the use of an SLBM or ICBM could so easilly trigger a nuclear conflict, no matter what it was carrieing.

[DarthAmerica]

And that 2.2 billion was in 84' dollars so you know inflation has driven the replacement cost thru the roof! So we won't be building anymore then? :confused:

No thats 2.2 billion already paid for TOTAL PROGRAM COST divided by the number of D-5 equipped boats. In todays dollars the unit cost of a Trident D-5 missile as currently configured is about $30 million USD but we have already paid that. The proposed USN plan to convert that missile to use E2 warheads is about $20 million USD if its already nuclear armed. But if its a new build conventional round, the cost is probably still about $30 million USD for the Missile and $20 million for four E2 warheads for a total of about $50 million.(These are approx. estimates) That's dirt cheap. Especially compared to forward deploying a Carrier Strike Force or USAF AEF to a region to deal with a contingency and then they still arent fast enough to threaten some key targets in a timely manner. The next best timely thing we could do today is to deploy strategic bombers from CONUS, risking billions in A/C, risking human/political cost of losing aircrew and operating cost far greater than the price of a few Tridents.

Remember the requirement is Prompt Global Strike. This capability is designed to address that. No other options, except actual nukes, could do this better or cheaper.

[DarthAmerica]

What exactly is a survivable deterent?


The ability to retaliate after being struck. Right now today. There is a high probability that the USA could decapitate the PRC, destroy their nuclear forces and prevent a meaningful counter attack in a preemptive nuclear counter force attack.



You mentioned abouve the ability to kill 25% of the enemy population but is that equasion still relevent? Was it the measure used by SAC generals in the 50's to evaluate wether a nation could be sucsesfully eguaged in a nuclear war? Would any nation take action that would kill 10% of their population, or 5%?


The 25% figure is a legacy of the Cold War but I post that only to illustrate that we have way more than enough nukes even if we do reduce the Ohio's nuke SLBMs to 22 from 24. I cant say what nations will do. All I can say is what they have done in the past. And whatever they may do, we have to be prepared for it. In my briefings we had to discuss the enemies most likely coarses of action as well as their worse courses of action and be prepared to deal with all of it.


But imagine the damage 5 500kt nukes could do. LA, New York, Chicago, Washington and San Francisico, there would be 50 million casualties.

China probably could not hit targets that widely dispersed across the USA today with 5 RV's. Most likely they would concentrate their attack on west cost targets to achieve mass and assurance of at least some success. And it would not kill nearly 50 million. As far as imagining the damage. Katrina and Rita maybe a bit more are about the extent of it in terms of property damage except with a lot higher death toll.

If the Chinese THOUGHT they were under nuclear attack they would launch while they still could. Look at it from their point of view. Your in a potential conflict with the US, several SLBM's are detected from launch positions in the western pacific, exactly the same thing that would happen in a first strike. Your about to loose your nuclear capability and at any moment your'e expecting thousands of MIRV's direct from the Dakota's that will kill hundreds of millions of your people. Would you launch your 50 odd rusty old BM's knowing that you will probably kill 30 million of the enemy?


3 things. They dont have 50 weapons. Its more like 20-30. If they could detect the SLBMs, they would know they didnt come from the Dakota's. Also the PRC strategic missiles take time to be made ready to fire. A time measured in hours. Our Conventional Tridents when we get them, could possibly take these Chinese weapons out as they are being readied.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The 25% figure is a legacy of the Cold War but I post that only to illustrate that we have way more than enough nukes even if we do reduce the Ohio's nuke SLBMs to 22 from 24. I cant say what nations will do. All I can say is what they have done in the past. And whatever they may do, we have to be prepared for it. In my briefings we had to discuss the enemies most likely coarses of action as well as their worse courses of action and be prepared to deal with all of it.

i was just trieing to say that any nuclear arsenal with effective delivery systems is some sort of deterent, even if its only capable of killing 1 or 2 cities (thats what i ment to say anyway). ok your starting to convince me. Unless chinese nuclear forces were at maximum readieness whan the CSLBM attack was launched the warheads would impact before they could fule their missiles. And i would think that nuclear istallations would be high up on the target list.
So the Chinese threat is negligable, and i cant see any situations in the near future where a conventional conflict between russia and the US would happen. And i guess that a CSLBM/CICBM strike against nuclear targets could replace a nuclear counter force attack.

[Big-E]

As far as we know the PRC is a bit light on nuclear weapons, but they are not exactly known for keeping their military numbers transparent. I wouldn't be suprised if their nuclear forces are several times bigger than reported. Not to mention the fact that once they figure out how to build quality boomers they will have as many as the US. This T2 transformation is not wise in this era of nuclear proliferation. We have less than 1,700 warheads and they want to cut the number once again, well everyone forgets that Russia isn't cutting her warheads as prescribed in the START treaties and outnumbers us by 8-10X in warheads. We still need the ability to wipe out her arsenal say nothing about China.

[DarthAmerica]

As far as we know the PRC is a bit light on nuclear weapons, but they are not exactly known for keeping their military numbers transparent. I wouldn't be suprised if their nuclear forces are several times bigger than reported. Not to mention the fact that once they figure out how to build quality boomers they will have as many as the US. This T2 transformation is not wise in this era of nuclear proliferation. We have less than 1,700 warheads and they want to cut the number once again, well everyone forgets that Russia isn't cutting her warheads as prescribed in the START treaties and outnumbers us by 8-10X in warheads. We still need the ability to wipe out her arsenal say nothing about China.

I'd say China probably has a few nuclear tricks up its sleeve. But its not likely to be anything we havent delt with before. Even if we are off by a little bit or even "several times" the PRC practices(someday) a limited deterrence policy and doesnt seem to be interested in a Cold War style arms race. IMV T2E2 doesnt have anything to do with proliferation except that it will give us a preemptive non-nuclear option for removing time sensitive threats if we are lucky enough to detect them in time to act. Also, its highly unlikely that the use of these weapons would cause a nuclear war by themselves. Only Russia has the firepower, experience and delivery capability to have a chance and even the Russians would rather escalate any potential conflict rather than have it go out of control. In fact the only way this would be likely to cause a nuclear exchange is if we fired enough of them(1000+) at targets in Russia at targets that would suggest a full scale counter force strike. Even then they might ride it out first in this post Cold War era comfortable in the knowledge that they could respond with SLBMs and Mobile ICBMs.

Also consider this. If we can get the accuracy into the 3m~10m* (CEP) region and the time of flight ~15 minutes or less. We could potentially knock out missiles in their silos/shelters. Even mobile missiles would have a difficult time escaping assuming we could locate them first. Military vehicles have to either be on alert, maintained, deployed and under strict OPSEC/EMCON in order to have a chance at avoiding an attack as rapid as this. Thats no small matter and would be a logistics burden for anything but a small force. If they are not in a ready to fight condition and/or on alert. It would take even a well trained crew longer than 15 minutes to make the TEL ready and disperse. With these capabilities we wouldnt need to use as many nukes even in a nuclear war.


* I've read talk of < 10m CEP as being already possible for E2 in open sources.

[Big-E]

In fact the only way this would be likely to cause a nuclear exchange is if we fired enough of them(1000+) at targets in Russia at targets that would suggest a full scale counter force strike.

So your saying we have to fire 1000+ misssiles before Russia would think they were under attack? I doubt the Russians are that irresponsible.:crazy

It only takes one... just look at how little it takes to bring us to Def Con 1.

[DarthAmerica]

So your saying we have to fire 1000+ misssiles before Russia would think they were under attack? I doubt the Russians are that irresponsible.:crazy

It only takes one... just look at how little it takes to bring us to Def Con 1.


1000+ is just a figure of speech. What I mean specifically is that the Russians, just like us, have been planning on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack for over 50 years. They have an idea of what a preemptive counterforce nuclear strike would look like based on our doctrine and nuclear OOB. So when(if?) they see a bunch of inbounds that are,

a. on trajectories that end in other countries

b. are too few to effectively take out their nuclear forces

c. lack nuclear weapons effects

d. and are preceeded by notification(unless they are the target which is unlikely)

they will probably not initiate a launch on warning retaliatory strike that will definately get them nuked. Russians just like most sane countries have little to gain from causing a nuclear war and would exhaust all reasonable options before proceeding on their way to oblivion. Even more so since they know we are planning on fielding conventional SLBM force for "prompt" global strike operations. They would also have to assume that if we were to conduct a PGS mission our nuclear capable forces would be in a state of higher readiness since we have fore knowledge of our intentions "just in case" of a misunderstanding. Thus any actions they took would be under heavy scrutiny and they would have to factor that in to avoid actually causing a nuclear war themselves by mistake. In short, the probability of a conventional SLBM force causing a nuclear war is low.

[KGB]

I got this I think from FAS. This information might be out of date but...

Russia employs 2 -3 satellites in elliptical orbits. They don't cover enough to detect every launch but they will detect any launch big enough to threaten it's capability to retaliate. In other words they were made for detecting massive first strikes. Assuming sanity ;), big time nuclear powers shouldn't be so worried by isolated ICBM launches given the massive retalitation at their disposal. They worry about big preemptive launches.

[Grand Danois]

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.

Missiles Aim for Mach 4 Capability
By Rita Boland
May 2006

Development team will test the high-speed system starting next fiscal year.

A demonstration technology program underway is developing U.S. military weapons that can travel at greater supersonic speeds. The Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS, system will expand high-speed flight capabilities and improve performance for expendable supersonic vehicles.

[...]

RATTLRS can strike quickly from an existing platform inside or outside of the engagement area, which is an important function in the current world situation. In the global war on terrorism, high-value targets often move frequently to new locations. Current technologies take hours for a weapon to be programmed and launched and to reach the objective. RATTLRS turns hours into minutes. “It could be launched in the order of two to five minutes,” Johnston says. “You could have a kill mechanism on target within 30 minutes.” With that level of capability, Johnston says that a high-value target eating dinner in a mountainous village could be killed from a ship at long range before the meal is finished.

[...]

MORE (http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=1125)

Big bada-boom! :D

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...

[Big-E]

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.



Big bada-boom! :D

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...

What good is it if it only goes 250km? That's the same thing as a Sunburn. By the time they finish their research EM-Railguns will be able to do the same job at twice the speed.

[Grand Danois]

What good is it if it only goes 250km? That's the same thing as a Sunburn. By the time they finish their research EM-Railguns will be able to do the same job at twice the speed.

Where did you get that 250km figure from? :confused:

I reckon 25 min at Mach 3+ is approx. 1400km...

And it is called "Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS?"

[Big-E]

Where did you get that 250km figure from? :confused:

I reckon 25 min at Mach 3+ is approx. 1400km...


Your estimates of this future system are way off. The DoD requirements for RATTLRS:

* The demonstration vehicles must use a turbine engine as propulsion.
* The demonstration vehicles must be capable of acceleration from a subsonic speed to a minimum cruise condition of Mach 3.0 (~3,000 km/hr) using only turbine power, at a minimum acceleration rate of 0.25 g through the transonic flight region (in level flight).
* Maintain a cruise speed of Mach 3.0 or greater for a period of at least five (5) minutes [implying a range of about 250 km].

The improved version called RATTLRS TDP is supposed to go Mach 4 with a duration of 15 mins. I don't see how they can get a turby to get that kind of fuel efficiency to be able to fit to a Super Bug. Only thing that can reach those speeds at that range is a RAMJET.

[Grand Danois]

Fair enough. So the 30 minutes in the example are for the entire kill-chain?

[DarthAmerica]

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.



Big bada-boom! :D

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...


No it doesnt cover the requirement at all. This weapon(CSLBM) is for "Prompt Global Strike" missions. Its meant to be able to threaten targets anywhere in the world with little or no warning and without requiring forward deployed forces. Even a Mach 4 weapon deployed from a manned subsonic platform or ship is limited by the time it takes to actually deploy the platform to a decent firing position. So the kill chain is 30 minutes + the time it takes to deploy and support the firing platform. Unless you have a ship or aircraft in the region thats a minimum of 12 to 24 hours before you would be able to fire the weapon from an aircraft coming from CONUS and that assumes you have aircraft on alert and prepared to carry out such an attack. It also assumes that you could get overflight rights. In the case of a ship just forget about the word prompt unless you actually have the USN on station in the region.

By contrast, an ICBM or SLBM could be deployed almost immediately. Anytime, anywhere in the world and reach its target within 15 to 30 minutes of the order with absolutely no risk to personel, no deployment related logistics, no politics and very little chance of being stopped.

[Big-E]

By contrast, an ICBM or SLBM could be deployed almost immediately. Anytime, anywhere in the world and reach its target within 15 to 30 minutes of the order with absolutely... no politics.

I doubt that.:roll

[DarthAmerica]

I doubt that.:roll

In the context that I'm using the word politics I mean no need to secure overflight or basing rights. And no possibility of creating another Sen. John McCain or dead/captured DoD personel being dragged through some third world street after being shot down. I see little room for doubt about any of that.

[Big-E]

In the context that I'm using the word politics I mean no need to secure overflight or basing rights. And no possibility of creating another Sen. John McCain or dead/captured DoD personel being dragged through some third world street after being shot down. I see little room for doubt about any of that.

WERD! :D

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.

[DarthAmerica]

WERD! :D

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.


I think its really a life saver in the long run. And on both sides too. No need to kill the guys on the other side who operate the SAMs, AAA or EW radars on SEAD missions and no need to give them something to shoot back at and also less risk of collateral damage. No instead most if not all ordinance is on the targets we actually want to take out unless of course the SLBM attack is to preceed a wider scale attack.

Launch locations for ground based ICBMs would help to prevent mistakes and SLBM trajectories need not overfly uninvolved nations. Also trajectories are easily identified and pre launch notifications could be given if necessary to other nuclear powers.

[Awang se]

WERD!

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.

Yep, that's right. Russia and china posses a ballistic missile warning system and any launch might trigger the alarm. furthermore, tis two countries have a close relationship with some potential enemies of united states and may pass a launch warning to them. better still they might take it as a pre-emp and launch a retaliatory strike at continental USA

[DarthAmerica]

Yep, that's right. Russia and china posses a ballistic missile warning system and any launch might trigger the alarm. furthermore, tis two countries have a close relationship with some potential enemies of united states and may pass a launch warning to them. better still they might take it as a pre-emp and launch a retaliatory strike at continental USA

Sigh...guys please. First, Russia has a very limited Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, IIRC the last SAT they put up was in 2002 and it they have a 3 year service life. As far as SLBMs go, Russia and China are essentially blind to sea based missile launch. i.e. the attack could be over before Russian or PRC defense officials are notified.

Its a common myth that the detection of a few ICBMs will trigger this massive retaliatory strike. Thats just not reality and not how this works. To trigger that kind of response a nother nation would have to be able to detect it in advance. Something not guranteed by any means. Then, it would have to be an attack of a size far greater than the relatively few conventional sea based missiles we are planning. Its not Russia or China who will be passing launch warnings. Rather the USA will be passing warnings to Russia and China which is why you see proposals for things like JDEC.

[Big-E]

Sigh...guys please. First, Russia has a very limited Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, IIRC the last SAT they put up was in 2002 and it they have a 3 year service life. Second they have periods of blindness over CONUS that last several hours. As far as SLBMs go, Russia and China are essentially blind to Trident Missile launches in the Atlantic or Pacific. i.e. the attack could be over before Russian or PRC defense officials are notified.

The very problems you illustrate with the Russian tracking system are why this is dangerous. Those gaps mean they can't project the inbound trajectory resulting in misunderstanding and death.:shudder PRC has been launching all kinds of classified and dual use military satellites. I'm pretty confident they can detect launches.


Its a common myth that the detection of a few ICBMs will trigger this massive retaliatory strike. Thats just not reality and not how this works. To trigger that kind of response a nother nation would have to be able to detect it in advance. Something not guranteed by any means.

So you want us to rely on the chance that they miss it? :shudder

[DarthAmerica]

The very problems you illustrate with the Russian tracking system are why this is dangerous. Those gaps mean they can't project the inbound trajectory resulting in misunderstanding and death.:shudder PRC has been launching all kinds of classified and dual use military satellites. I'm pretty confident they can detect launches.

So you want us to rely on the chance that they miss it? :shudder

I think you are misunderstanding a few things or perhaps I'm being too coy in my explainations. Look at the level of detail I'm going into. The Russians DONT HAVE the capability to detect a sea launch. Neither do the Chinese. Even if they did, and I await any credible evidence to the contrary, the very short time of flight would have the warheads hitting targets with obvious non nuclear effects within the time it would take for them to organize a counter strike. Especially in the case of primitive Chinese ICBMs that take hours to even be made ready to fire! An analogy would be a sniper firing into a group of people with a flash and sound suppressed weapon. The round will hit the target before the report of the rifle is visable or audible. Everyone in the group will know who the target is at that point. The person in the group representing the PRC would have the equivilent of a muzzle loaded black powder firearm(Liquid Fueled ICBMs). Even if they wanted to shoot back. They wouldnt have time to react. In the case of the Russians, they could shoot back, but why? They would be fully aware of the situation at that point and not in any danger. Think about it.

Its not dangerous if you understand how these new weapons will be used. i.e. operational doctrine. Suggesting otherwise is like saying that everytime a B-2 takes off its dangerous since it could be loaded with nukes and is difficult as best if not impossible to track.

[killbill2]

Darthamerica how long would it take a trident D-5 launched close to the shore to reach a target in PRC or Russia????I heard someone say 3 minutes or something like that.

[DarthAmerica]

Darthamerica how long would it take a trident D-5 launched close to the shore to reach a target in PRC or Russia????I heard someone say 3 minutes or something like that.

That depends on where the target is. Russia and China are really big. But if the SSBN is close enough its easily under 10 to 15 minutes and for some targets closer to 5 minutes than 10. Actual numbers are of course kept secret for obvious reasons.

[buckykat5463]

Rearm or Not to Rearm? After careful thought based on current trends. It will never happen in our lifetime. Have you even considered the cost of the Peacekeeper System. This is a mute subject when one brings into the situation of Russia, Pakistan, India,Korea,China,England,France,Israel, and U.S.A. ... The lose canon Russsia with all of it"s lost nuclear isotopes, and as well as their lost weapons. This is a powder keg. Now with Japan threatening defensive retaliation as a direct result of Jong Pon Ill"s missle tests with their missles landing in Japans waters. The only other time I have seen this was the state of affairs when Kruschevs missles in Cuba. Our country was so close to all out war I could smell it in elementry school at the time. We were very close. I did not ever think I would see that sort of thing again. Regrettably we are. Pray my friends for our leaders that they will have the sense to come together with definite goals for a lasting peace. If the WMD"s are loosed upon the world no one will win except daeth and that in my opinion is not and option except that of madmen who are mentally incompetants. this is what is going on right now. This is the situation. All we can do is pray for our leaders to make the right decisions. Pray with sincerity of you heart by whatever your denomination you are pray with sincerity and God will answer us.

[DoC_FouALieR]

I have not read the entire topic, but in my view, rearming ICBMs with conventionnal payload is a good idea:

First, it gives a "super artillery" capability to all commanders in theatre, because with this kind of weapon, you are now able to strike multiple targets anywhere within approx. 20 minutes.

Second, while attacking fighters and cruise missiles can be shoot down (but very hardly for the later), Trident missile can't be intercept and reach their targets for more quickly than any other support weapon, excepting artillery fire.

And a question: Is it possible to rearm those SLBMs with warhead able to catch a warship? Should be interested..

[Viktor]

What do you think of this idea?

Trident missiles could be rearmed with 1X5 ton conventional warhead or 8X600 kilo warheads

I think it could be useful
Great way to start a WW3!,
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2006_7_24.html#9A1F48EA

[tripoli raider]

The conventional trident modification has been dealt a blow by the congress and the senate. Legislators have frozen the funds dedicated to the program and have directed the National Academy of Sciences to work on a study that should address the main problem: how to differentiate a conv trident launch from a nuclear one.