Pentagon Seeks Nonnuclear Tip for Sub Missiles

[Rose Siding]

The Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the United States to carry out nonnuclear missile strikes against distant targets within an hour....

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a nonnuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.
...
But the plan has run into resistance from lawmakers who are concerned that it may increase the risk of an accidental nuclear confrontation. The Trident II missile that would be used for the attacks is a system that has long been equipped with a nuclear payload. Indeed, both nonnuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident II missile would be loaded on the same submarines under the Pentagon plan.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/washington/29strike.html?hp&ex=1148875200&en=d696a8c72b07575e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Dudley_DUright]

1. This is TOTALLY INSANE!!!

You want to start a nuclear WWIII with China or Russia, I can't think of a better way than this. "Great concern" is a huge understatement.

[movonne]

2. And we are worried about Iran...

[gordianot]

3. Question, while in flight how do you know they are non nuclear?

It takes a while to determine trajectory, but I would think this would make nuclear powers very nervous.

Another sign of total insanity. This is not going to stop until it is too late.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. There is no way to know

and you are correct that it does take awhile to determine trajectory and Russia's early warning system is not very good. They came very close to launching a nuclear strike against us due to the launch of a rocket from Norway to study the Aurora in 1995, and it only has gotten worse since then.

The Russian early warning system is in serious disrepair. This system consists of older radar systems nearing the end of their operational life and just three functioning satellites, although the Russian military has plans to deploy more. The United States has 15 such satellites. Ten years ago, on January 25, 1995, this aging early warning network picked up a rocket launch from Norway. The Russian military could not determine the nature of the missile or its destination. Fearing that it might be a submarine-launched missile aimed at Moscow with the purpose of decapitating the Russian command and control structure, the Russian military alerted President Boris Yeltsin, his defense minister, and the chief of the general staff. They immediately opened an emergency teleconference to determine whether they needed to order Russia’s strategic forces to launch a counterattack.

The rocket that had been launched was actually an atmospheric sounding rocket conducting scientific observations of the aurora borealis. Norway had notified Russia of this launch several weeks earlier, but the message had not reached the relevant sections of the military. In little more than two minutes before the deadline to order nuclear retaliation, the Russians realized their mistake and stood down their strategic forces.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-spaceweapons.asp

[gordianot]

5. There is supposed to be a Russian representative at NORAD.

They have a direct line to Russian counterparts and I would assume there is an American equivalent to answer questions.

You only have a few seconds to sound convincing. This is just unbelievable.

One Nuclear air burst will fry you electronic infra-structure. There is a possibility they can do this with a special conventional bomb.

[daleo]

6. There is a huge possibility of escalation to nuclear warfare

Not to mention the cost implications. Using nuclear subs to launch ballistic missiles at a suspected "training camp" in the middle of nowhere? How much would that cost?

[Odin2005]

7. Being expensinve is a GOOD thing for the Neo-Cons, more profit...

...for the M-I Complex.

[formercia]

10. It's not their money n/t

[Bigmack]

8. Those fucking things...

go by our house almost daily. The base is south of us about 20 miles.

I've been waiting for the military to come up with a new mission for those Cold War relics. I suppose making them into reeeeaaly expensive platforms for medium-range missile artillery makes about as much sense as any other lame bullshit.

Besides... I think this story is bullshit. Those MIRV warheads make all those neocons' dicks hard. They want any excuse to keep them around in hopes of putting some new warheads onto Iranian targets.

The drones the military has, armed with air-to-surface missles, could take care of all the surgical hits on training camps and storage facilities.

Those Pentagon guys want the Big Boom... delivered by the Boomers!

[Theduckno2]

9. We should let those cold war relics fade away.

IMHO we should have left the battleships in 'mothballs' too.

Is it me or didn't we unleash enough firepower on Iraq in March 2003, without needing converted Trident missiles launched from submarines?

:crazy:

[UpInArms]

11. Reuters: Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon: report

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-05-28T234408Z_01_L28699462_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-WEAPON.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-R1-MostViewed-1

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.

<snip>

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.

...more...

These freakin' endtimers should be locked up in padded cells for the remainder of their lives, as they are a danger to humankind and the entire planet.

[WhiteTara]

12. Congress balks at Pentagon 'war on terror' missile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1785582,00.html
Congress has stalled Pentagon plans to put conventional warheads on inter-continental missiles for use in Washington's "war on terror", out of concern that they could trigger a nuclear war.

The defence department is seeking $127m (£68m) for the conversion of submarine-based missiles as part of its Global Strike project, aimed at giving Washington the option of acting fast, pre-emptively and from great distances against targets that might threaten the US.

The goal would be to destroy a fleeting target, such as a weapon being assembled or a meeting of terrorist leaders, anywhere in the world within an hour of intelligence reaching the US of their location.

But Congress has held back $32m of the funds until the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, present a plan to eliminate the risk that other countries mistake the launch of the Trident D-5 missile for a nuclear attack and respond.

Oh, I feel so safe now, I think I'll go to sleep knowing all is well with the world :sarcasm: :hide:

[Selatius]

13. The fear is we scare the Russians into launching their nukes

If there's a bunch of terrorists meeting somewhere in Central Asia and we launch a Trident from the Indian Ocean to hit them, the Russians will detect the ICBM rapidly moving north from the ocean. "What's the target?" they'd say. "Could it be the first stage of an attack?"

[Bozita]

14. insanity, pure fucking insanity --- hello, ... hello?

I need one of those pills that Laura takes.

[Renew Deal]

15. That's interesting

The conversion makes some sense. Everybody is watching 24/7 for ICBM launches. Do you tell the Russians every time you launch? Hmmmm.