Rumsfeld eyes ICBMs in terror war(full-scale MD test)

Reuters ^ | 08/27/06 | Kristin Roberts

[Jet Jaguar]

ping.

[tet68]

Rummy, what's not to like?

[beezdotcom]

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."

[lexington minuteman 1775]

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...

[Incorrigible]

Conventional ICBMs????  Has Rummy been drinking too much Alaskan Amber up there?

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.

 

[garbageseeker]

[garbageseeker]

I would like to see a conventional Minuteman.

[gathersnomoss]

..."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.

[Steely Tom]

Mighty expensive way to deliver a few tons of high explosive. And don't those re-entry vehicles approach the ground pretty fast?

Maybe there's a bunker-penetrator angle here.

[headstamp]

"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."

A giant fist cast from concrete should do nicely at a 1000 mph impact velocity. And BTW Rummy don't give the Russians any missile technology please.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Rummy, what's not to like?"

RUMMY/TANCREDO 08

[EQAndyBuzz]

I was stationed at Ellsworth in the 80's. I worked at the Minuteman sites.

Cool stuff.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

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

[headstamp]

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?

[garbageseeker]

Here are some photos for you and our "subterranean sentinels" protecting our nation.

[JustDoItAlways]

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.

[Joe Miner]

Have we run out of cruise missles?

No, but an ICBM can get there quicker for time sensitive targets.

[PghBaldy]

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.

[PghBaldy]

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.