Posted on 08/28/2006 5:46:38 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Rumsfeld eyes ICBMs in terror war
Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:41 PM ET
By Kristin Roberts
FAIRBANKS, Alaska (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday warned North Korea may pose a threat as a weapons seller to terrorists and that America would consider taking the nuclear warheads off intercontinental ballistic missiles so they could be used against terrorists.
Rumsfeld, in Alaska to visit a missile defense installation weeks after Pyongyang test-fired a long-range missile believed capable of reaching the United States, said North Korea is testing missiles to show the capabilities to potential buyers.
"They sell anything to anyone," he said.
"They sell our currency that they counterfeit. They're selling illegal drugs. They're selling basic missile technologies. There's not much they have that they wouldn't sell either to another country or possibly to a terrorist network."
In fact, Rumsfeld said North Korea is more a danger as a proliferator than a military force to challenge South Korea.
"I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea," he told reporters.
The defense secretary also met with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Sunday to discuss missile defense and cooperation on defense technologies, among other things.
Rumsfeld, after that closed-door meeting, said the Pentagon was considering a plan to replace the nuclear warheads on some intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional weapons, a move that would make the missiles less lethal and therefore more conceivable for politicians to use in preemptive strikes against terrorist groups.
The re-tipped missiles would offer the ability to accurately and quickly target such groups as the threat they pose grows due to their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and other lethal weapons from proliferators, Rumsfeld said.
"We think that it's conceivable that five, 10 years from now there could be a target because of proliferation ... that would be able to be hit or deterred as the case may be by a conventional ICBM," Rumsfeld said.
Standing next to his Russian counterpart, Rumsfeld said he hoped Russia would consider the same plan.
But Ivanov said Russia had concerns and that there may be other solutions for preemptive strikes, such as the use of intermediate-range missiles, now prohibited by a treaty agreement.
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST
Rumsfeld also toured Fort Greely, home to one of America's missile defense installations, ahead of another test of the system's ability to intercept long-range missiles.
While the head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has repeatedly said U.S. defenses could have shot down a North Korean missile, had it launched successfully in July, Rumsfeld would not make the same assertion. He said he would wait to see the missile defense system work instead of predicting success.
"I want to see it happen ... a full end-to-end process where we actually put all the pieces together. That just hasn't happened," he said.
The United States has spent more than $92 billion on its fledgling missile defense system. Tests continue, with another expected on Thursday.
President George W. Bush in 2002 announced the United States would begin operating the initial elements of a missile defense system by the end of 2004 to defend against a limited attack from a country like North Korea or Iran.
Since then, U.S. missile defense spending has risen to nearly $10 billion a year, the Pentagon's single biggest annual outlay to develop a weapons system.
Intercept-test failures and technical glitches have delayed development, although commanders said it has a rudimentary capability against a limited attack if ground-based interceptors are put on alert.
ping.
Rummy, what's not to like?
Only problem with launching ICBMs is that the Russians might be reluctant to "take it on faith" that there's not a nuke on the missile, and that "oh yes, it really is just headed for OBL's tent."
USE THE MISSLES...WHY USE UP VALUABLE RESOURCES IN OUR FUTURE BY COSTING LIVES WHEN A FEW WELL PLACED MISSLES WILL SEND A NECESSARY MESSAGE W/O LOSS OF LIFE ON OUR SIDE...
What a waste that would be. Have we run out of cruise missles?
On second thought, maybe he just wants to get rid of the 60's/70's era ICBM missiles and replace them with something more current.
..."U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday warned North Korea may pose a threat as a weapons seller to terrorists and that America would consider taking the nuclear warheads off intercontinental ballistic missiles so they could be used against terrorists."
Liberals see this as fair play.
Maybe there's a bunker-penetrator angle here.
"Rummy, what's not to like?"
RUMMY/TANCREDO 08
I was stationed at Ellsworth in the 80's. I worked at the Minuteman sites.
Cool stuff.
Using an ICBM to deliver conventional munitions is just plain wrong.
What would we do if China launches an ICBM and tells us it's just a conventional warhead headed for India?
Let's get real.
I would pay to have the laundry contract at NORAD in that scenario! :-O
I agree. I could see a bunker busting angle here. Perhaps with lower yield nukes. Didn't they just configure some old boomer subs to do this?
China and Russia (and France considering they are our biggest enemy) would have to sign on to the plan, but a conventional-tipped ICBM could take out a target in 20 minutes (versus hours or days for other delivery agents.)
Of course, its expensive and risky, but an ICBM could take out little Kimmie's train whenever we wanted to.
No, but an ICBM can get there quicker for time sensitive targets.
Wouldn't we still loose the element of surprise, as we would have to inform other nations we would be firing these? Wouldn't we also have to inform them where they were targeted? If this is so, then the word would surely get out, as Russia or China etc would probably issue diplomatic complaints. I still like the idea, but wonder about its benefits if what I suppose is true.
IF they had 20 mins warning, as a poster above said, then wouldn't nukes be better, as the radius of the explosion would be bigger? Of course, that would be politically impossible, unless as a counterattack against someone who just attacked us with WMD, and was preparing to launch again.
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.