Posted on 04/29/2010 5:57:32 AM PDT by kevin_in_so_cal
One of the more controversial schemes of the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon was the Prompt Global Strike: equipping ICMSs with conventional warheads, and using the missiles to strike any target around the world -- such as terrorists fleeing the scene of an attack -- within an hour; there was only one problem with the plan: the missile launch could start a Third World War because, as a congressional; study said: "For many minutes during their flight patterns, these missiles might appear to be headed towards targets in [Russia and China}"
Shachtman notes that the Bush administration tried several times to push the idea of these conventional ICBMs, but time and again Congress refused to provide the funds for it. The reason was simple: these missiles, even if they aim at terrorists, look and fly exactly like the nuclear missiles the United States would launch at Russia or China in the event of Armageddon. “For many minutes during their flight patterns, these missiles might appear to be headed towards targets in these nations,” a congressional study notes. This could have catastrophic consequences. “The launch of such a missile,” then-Russian president Vladimir Putin said in a state of the nation address after the announcement of the Bush-era plan, “could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces.”
The Pentagon offered assurances that there would be no reasons for Beijing or Moscow to misinterpret one kind of ICBM for the other. Shachtman notes, though, that even the usually articulate and precise Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could not offer a better defense of the scheme than saying that “Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional,” he said in a press conference, “after it hit within 30 minutes.”
The Obama administration’s new Prompt Global Strike plan is a little different from the old one. It relies on land-based missiles instead of sub-based ones. The assumption is that these conventional missiles sites would be open to Russian inspection as part of a U.S.-Russia arms control agreement. Moscow, though, does not agree. “World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, , but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community,” Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this month.
Shachtman writes that when the idea of Prompt Global Strike was first proposed, the goal was to hit anywhere on the planet in under an hour. Old-school weapons had proved ineffective at catching terrorists on the move. Newer, quicker arms might be able to do the job, instead. Flight tests for some of those weapons — like a hypersonic cruise missile — are just getting underway. “Until then, relying on conventional ICBMs to do the job, and risking a nuclear showdown, is just plain crazy,” Shachtman concludes.
I’m sure the fascist, war-monger, Nazi comparisons will be coming from the left anytime now....
Only if it were a Republican of course.
Now, despite his cuts on F22, FCS, missile defense, unilateral self imposed restrictions of nuclear development, bilateral reduction in nuclear arms, the withdraw of forces from Iraq, the cut of the Zumwald boat, going after CIA interrogators, closing GITMO, treating foreign born terrorists operating overseas like US citizens and criminals.............. What will happen is that small BS token things like this will be used to show Obama is “tough” on defense, while in reality he has done nothing, and this don't cost him anything either. Think about it. What does this cost him? So while he cuts-cuts-cuts on defense he throws some BS like this out to show action in an area where he's perceived as being weak, national security.
Guaranteed, pretty soon you'll see more BS with his sticker all over being rolled out and touted in the media as some great investment in our national security, while in reality it does little and everything is a show to regain lost political ground in the area of national security. Where it matters though, he's cutting. Iraq alone and his ignoring and retreat on this issue overshadows in significance anything he could possibly do regards national security. The importance of Iraq, may that be the trust and confidence our allies in that region have, the potential expanse of power Iran would enjoy if it fails, the likelihood of Iraq itself become a pariah again and possible training grounds for bad actors, the loss of our strategic interests both in the location and oil overshadow ANYTHING this used car salesman can throw out as a sales gimmick for why he's tough on national security. What he will do, like a used car sales man, is blast the radio real loud so the young kid test driving the old clunker can't hear the ratles and hopefully doesn't see the smoke. In this case, the MSM is the radio, and Iraq is the smoke in the rear view mirror the kid hopefully doesn't see. What he does amounts to a sales pitch that focuses on "him," nothing more and it's a diversion that essentially costs him lttle. Where it matters, in dollars and cents, he's cutting-cutting-cutting and reatreat-retreat-retreat when it comes to national security.
Yep, sound like a sound strategy to me (if your an idiot)
This is the reason why this strategy was not initiated in the first place.
Bambi's minions are all immature, inexperienced morons!
just a vain attempt to recreate the Clinton strategy in Bosnia (fight it from the safety of 15,000 feet, and by all means, avoid compiling any sort of body count)
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.