IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New NY Times on "Prompt Global Strike"
http://www.nytimes.c.../23strike.html?hp

The article isn't terribly informative. It discusses work on conventional warheads that have as much damage-capacity as nuclear warheads. I don't know enough about it to have much of an opinion yet.

The FAS has covered usage of the term "Global Strike" since early in Bush's term. It's nebulous.

From 2006: http://www.fas.org/s...lStrikeReport.pdf (250 page .pdf)

From 2008: http://www.fas.org/b.../globalstrike.php

I would hope that Obama and Gates are going to work on reducing these ambiguities.

Research and early development is fine, but, given our overwhelming superiority over any potential adversary, I would be skeptical of the need for early deployment of any new uberweapons. (Blowing up a mountain isn't the only way to end work at buried sites. If people and material can't get in and out, then it's not terribly useful.)

Cheers,
Scott.
New One very good reason why it's not a good idea.
Noah Shactman at Wired: http://www.wired.com...a-missile-scheme/

The Obama administration is poised to take up one of the more dangerous and hare-brained schemes of the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon. The New York Times is reporting that the Defense Department is once again looking to equip intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. The missiles could then, in theory, destroy fleeing targets a half a world away — a no-notice “bolt from the blue,” striking in a matter of hours. There’s just one teeny-tiny problem: the launches could very well start World War III.

Over and over again, the Bush administration tried to push the idea of these conventional ICBMs. Over and over again, Congress refused to provide the funds for it. The reason was pretty simple: those anti-terror missiles look and fly exactly like the nuclear missiles we’d 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. That could have world-changing 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 mumbled all kinds of assurances that Beijing or Moscow would never, ever, never misinterpret one kind of ICBM for the other. But the core of their argument essentially came down to this: Trust us, Vlad Putin! That ballistic missile we just launched in your direction isn’t nuclear. We swear!

[...]


(via Ackerman at WashingtonIndependent)

Cheers,
Scott.
New A single launch isn't going to start WWIII
Long range tracking systems are good enough now that Russia, China or other 1st world nation would have a good idea what the target is shortly after launch, and nobody is going to start WWIII over a single launch.

I'm far more worried about the cost of such a system. A global ballistic or cruise missile would probably cost millions, if not tens of millions, per unit. We could easily end up with a system that we can't afford to actually use.

Jay
New If you're far more worried about the costs of running such a
system than the downside from the worst case scenario, which is wholly dependent on people never making a mistake, then your skillz at cost/benefit analysis are seriously deficient.

One costs a lot of money, the other destroys civilization, and maybe drives humans to extinction. There's a big big difference between those two things.
New Not exactly
I fully realize that there is a chance of WWIII starting due to error. Rather, I think the chance of a single missile launch starting WWIII is smaller then the default chance of it starting due to some random mistake.

Jay
     NY Times on "Prompt Global Strike" - (Another Scott) - (4)
         One very good reason why it's not a good idea. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             A single launch isn't going to start WWIII - (jay) - (2)
                 If you're far more worried about the costs of running such a - (jake123) - (1)
                     Not exactly - (jay)

Slices, dices, chops...
89 ms