Posted on 05/29/2006 12:08:24 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, May 28 — 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 proposal has set off a complex debate about whether this program for strengthening the military's conventional capacity could increase the risks of accidental nuclear confrontation.
The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a new nonnuclear warhead atop 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.
If fielded, it would be the only nonnuclear weapon designed for rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would add to the United States' options when considering a pre-emptive attack.
Gen. James E. Cartwright, the chief of the United States Strategic Command, said the system would enhance the Pentagon's ability to "pre-empt conventionally" and precisely while limiting the "collateral damage." The program would cost an estimated half a billion dollars over five years, and the Pentagon is seeking $127 million in its current spending request to Congress to begin work.
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..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The risk of Russian and/or Chinese early warning systems interpreting it as a nuclear attack by the US far outweighs any good this can provide.
Plus, the sheer strategic impact knowing these are nuclear subs only outweighs the tactical IMO.
Develop the capability, but use it judiciously. Fewer options to deal with an immediate and evolving threat can present its own set of risks. Always give yourself the maximum possible number of options in responding to a situation. And just because you have an option available doesn't mean you should use it indiscriminately or randomly.
See also:
Pentagon pressing for new rapid-strike weapon: report [submarine-launched Trident-2 missile.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639866/posts
Jesus good Lord all mighty!
It's synonymous with "global warming".
Damned if you do, damned if you don't to some.....
I guess all it takes is the USA to be involved and it must be bad....PERIOD!
It seems like a grossly expensive way to deliver a couple thousand pouds of explosives.
You must be part of the "some".
Let's see, the last time we attacked Russia or China.....
I think the Chinese and Russians are smart enough to know that we aren't launching conventional weapons at them anytime soon, let alone a nuke.
The world is unstable and thank God the USA is part of maintaining civilization.
Jack Reed considers this destabilizing?
Where was he on the date 9/11/2001. Mars?
Your vision for strategic thinking perhaps is lacking.
What could it cost us as a country without the capability?
They are civilized nations....
Would be a devastating weapon.. also sea bourne for taking out whole fleets..
Great. Spend $5 million to blow up $500 worth of tents.
First?
I doubt that will be the case.
Can you place a value on the camp where OBL is hiding? Let's say for the sake of argument that it's $100K worth of buildings. Would it be worth $5M to take them (and him) out? YOU BETCHA!
Not the tents, the occupants along with their intent who reside in them.
Tents are a passive commodity.
What could it cost us as a country without the capability?
Good question. Conventional air power can destroy most any target within 24-48 hours or so, anywhere on the planet. (Correct me if I have that wrong.) It's hard to think of a realistic situation where we need the same target destroyed within 1-2 hours.
Is that capability worth billions? It's hard for me to see that it is.
If they are close enough to ID him they are close enough to place a laser dot on his forehead. It's immaterial anyway since OBL is long gone, departed, deceased, and, if they ID another such valuable target some day, there are already cruise missiles in the inventory that will do the job somewhat cheaper than ICBMs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.