Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RayChuang88
I agree. A cruise missile strike from both a bomber or a submarine would be good. But I chose a submarine because it could be at the launch site in a quick manner. A bomber, lets say from Whiteman AFB, would take longer.

Again I still support our men and women Air Missileers who are somewhere in under the farmland of the United States
12 posted on 05/22/2006 10:59:36 PM PDT by garbageseeker ("Opinion is ultimately determined by feeling and not by intellect" Herbert Spenser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: garbageseeker
Simply put, cruise missles are too slow to offer comparable capability. They are weapons of chance (in that they are only an option if chance happens to place them within reasonable fly-time distance to the target). In many situations, their low speed and/or limited range rules them out.

Regarding Russian reaction to the launch of an ICBM - As implied in the article, there is a general rule of thumb within the early warning community: One missle in flight warrants further investigation - Only the presence of many missiles is cause for serious posterior-pucker. By its very nature, this system falls into the single-missle category.

14 posted on 05/22/2006 11:16:05 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson