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

Skip to comments.

Giambastiani: Conventional Trident Missiles Will Aid Terror War
American Forces Press Service ^ | Paul X. Rutz

Posted on 06/08/2006 4:39:06 PM PDT by SandRat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 06/08/2006 4:39:09 PM PDT by SandRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 91B; HiJinx; Spiff; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; clintonh8r; TEXOKIE; windchime; Grampa Dave; ...

and from the Silent Service....


2 posted on 06/08/2006 4:39:35 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Good when future Z Pigs are identified, the Navy with these missiles can take them out like the Air Force took out the Z Pig.


3 posted on 06/08/2006 4:41:10 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic wet dreams posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Why do we need survivable conventional missles?

Would'nt land based missles be able to to this mission for cheaper?

4 posted on 06/08/2006 4:42:10 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

shorter launch to impact time for force projection and causing an Z-man copy cats to worry a little bit more.


5 posted on 06/08/2006 4:43:31 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

"Would'nt land based missles be able to to this mission for cheaper?"

Cheaper? That's a dirty word in the Defense Department.


6 posted on 06/08/2006 4:44:28 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

"I said 'weapons free,' not 'fire three!' Whadda you mean the rwo conventional rockets are still in their silos??? Then what is that we just ... oh, oh!!!"


7 posted on 06/08/2006 4:44:49 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Sounds like a pretty expensive way to get a few hundred pounds of ordinance on target. And won't firing one of these raise a big "Here I am" flag on a platform that relies on stealth to do it's main task?


8 posted on 06/08/2006 4:45:17 PM PDT by Spruce (Keep your mitts off my wallet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
shorter launch to impact time for force projection

Depends on where the boomer is and where the target is. Differences in flight times would be measured in minutes at best, ICBMs are fast.

All costs are opportunity costs.

9 posted on 06/08/2006 4:51:09 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

If the US launched an ICBM from the states over towards the Middle East, it would probably have to fly over Russia. That could potentially cause a problem.


10 posted on 06/08/2006 4:55:56 PM PDT by faq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
The problem would be if you mix nonnuclear & nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles in the same platform...the Russian & Chinese would have no way to know the difference between a nonnuclear & nuclear when the detect the launch... the might tend to overreact so you have to tell them get them calmed down (it's nonnuclear for whoever but not you) and then the could then warn the target
11 posted on 06/08/2006 4:58:01 PM PDT by tophat9000 (If it was illegal French Canadians would La Raza back them? Racist back their race over country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

How do you inform other "competitors", (i.e. Russia, China) that, "ummm, yeaaahhh: we just launched an ICBM, but don't worry, it's not going to land on you."?


12 posted on 06/08/2006 5:00:23 PM PDT by RedQuill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Spruce

Upon launch you do a Mad-Ivan and go All-Ahead Emergency; I think.


13 posted on 06/08/2006 5:25:57 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
Subs can shoot and run before being detected. But the big problem that I see is that a subs missile that has that range can't toss enough explosive to be cost effective. Air force has a better way.
14 posted on 06/08/2006 5:27:02 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RedQuill
That's a good question:

How do you inform Russia and China that the Submarine launced ICBM you just fired has a conventional warhead and is'nt aimed at them anyhow?

But in what sense can that be called an arguement for using boomers to launch conventional weapons? Boomers are what they are because they are a survivable deterent. We don't need survivable conventional weapons.

15 posted on 06/08/2006 5:29:39 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

Problem is speed. It takes less than an hour for a missile going over the North Pole from mid west US to impact central USSR. Lot quicker if missile was launched from the Indian Ocean into central USSR. Many of the terror states exists along the ocean (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, Saudi Arabia). Sit one of these subs off shore and we can hit anything within minutes after a launch.


16 posted on 06/08/2006 5:36:17 PM PDT by Fee (`+Great powers never let minor allies dictate who, where and when they must fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fee

And we'd be more likely to use a non-nuke.


17 posted on 06/08/2006 5:59:56 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Since we are the only ones capable of building a space based missile platform, why don't we do that and then defend space against anyone else militarizing it? With anti-missile capability, and precision targeting, we could enforce freedom from above. That is much better than what the Chinese will do when they become more space capable. If anyone thinks they will not put nuclear missiles on platforms in space, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.


18 posted on 06/08/2006 6:25:55 PM PDT by jeremiah (How much did we get for that rope?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
aims to remove two nuclear missiles from each of the Navy's 14 ballistic missile submarines, or SSBNs, and replace them with two conventionally armed Trident missiles

Oops I meant "fire two" not "fire 5", I forgot which were NOT the nukes.

OBTW will the non nukes be MIRVed?

19 posted on 06/08/2006 8:57:25 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Make them go home!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
.....I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

Maybe we can work a deal you swap the ocean front property in Arizona for my 4 room ocean front mansion in Florida - of course you'll have to wait for the tide to go out to see 39 of the rooms.

20 posted on 06/08/2006 9:08:31 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

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