Posted on 05/29/2006 12:08:24 PM PDT by neverdem
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.