Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Decide On New Weapons
krou writes "Buried within the New Start treaty, which saw the decommissioning of nuclear warheads, was an interesting provision as a result of Russian demands: the US must 'decommission one nuclear missile for every one' of a new type of weapon called Prompt Global Strike 'fielded by the Pentagon.' The warhead, which is 'mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey,' would be 'capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour. ... It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. ... But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target.' The new weapon is in line with Obama's plans 'to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,' and rather focus on conventional ones. The idea is not new, having been first floated under the Bush administration, but was abandoned, mainly because 'Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.'"
Nuclear arms have formed the backbone of US deterrence strategy for six decades and although the strategy worked during the Cold War, military leaders say they need weapons in their arsenal to deter adversaries who assume that the United States would refrain from taking the extreme step of ordering a nuclear strike. Now the Washington Post reports that as the White House pushes for cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a powerful nonnuclear weapon to help fill the gap as a new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. Military officials say their current nonnuclear options are too limited or too slow because unlike ICBM's, which travel at several times the speed of sound, it can take up to 12 hours for cruise missiles to hit faraway targets and long-range bombers likewise can take many hours to fly into position for a strike. "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, it's measured in days, maybe weeks" until the military can launch an attack with regular forces, says Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "That's just too long in the world that we live in." The new missile system, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. However military officials are struggling to solve one major obstacle: the risk that Russia or China could mistake the launch of a conventional Prompt Global Strike missile for a nuclear one. To alleviate the risk of an accidental nuclear retaliation, defense officials have described how a land-based missile could be configured so it is incapable of carrying a nuclear payload and use a trajectory to its target that would not threaten other nuclear weapons nations.
North Korea has the air defense to shoot down our aircraft. So does China, with a few more thousand miles of hostile territory to navigate. An unmanned non-nuclear weapon with quick strike capability would be useful there. I don't think we can afford it, but that's another story.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
1. The US agreed in the Bush era that it could be misinterpreted as a nuclear ICBM, however in nuclear war (especially in a preemptive strike scenario), there is not tactical advantage to launching a SINGLE missile at your nuclear foe. So the notion this could be misinterpreted is ridiculous.
2. The military has a blank check, therefore a blank budget. We've long surpassed the millions mark of military toys. Not to mention, do you really think you have a say in what the military wants?
3. The point was to have a state side solution to an imminent [nuclear] threat. Having a base in another country doesn't make you military ready to fight a war on a moments notice. It takes time to deploy supplies/troops/etc. This is a 60 minute solution. Not to mention, why wait for an ICBM to launch and counter with ABMs when you can take it out before it ever reaches launch capability? This isn't the solution for nuclear super powers, its for the little guys like Iran with only a handful of nukes where you can take the threat out in one shot.
Listen, in the end this is being put out there as the next evolution in warfare. The US must maintain their role on the playground and this is the latest thing to make a potential threat think about messing with us. Nukes are so '80s.
Rome's problems...
Poor leadership because you could kill your way to Emperor. So every new Emperor was a target of the Army leadership, family members, etc
Slavery took away jobs from entire classes
Unhappy classes because there were no jobs had to be kept happy with massive spending on things like games, tax free holidays, free food, etc.
Lack of technological progress, the Western Empire stagnated under constant attack and couldn't progress, the Eastern Empire did better but again it was hammered by attacks on the frontiers.
Over expansion and under population in the provinces.
The United States could have gone the same way, if the expansion to the west had been coupled with constant warfare from massed Indian Tribes, Canada and Mexico all at the same time the American Civil War through Spanish-American War happened.
Also tends to break his promises. A lot.
*BUZZ* Thanks for playing.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
* Promise Kept 110
* Compromise 34
* Promise Broken 19
* Stalled 83
* In the Works 255
* Not yet rated 3
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else, and at each point along the continuum from plastic bag designer to nuclear weapon designer, at least a few people are going to say they're not comfortable with doing that, and at least a few people are going to say they are.
Oh please, weapons are built with the purpose of hurting, or forcing someone do something you want (under threat of hurting him). Cars and garbage bags have many other uses besides killing.
No, its not that simple.
The People's Republic of China has the air defenses to maybe shoot down F-22s and B-2s if they get in range around Beijing and the nuclear weapon facilities. The rest of the PRC's air defenses can be (probably) penetrated with B-2s and F-22s, once the air defenses are taken out, then the non-stealthy aircraft will be able to target at will anything they want.
The DPRK only defends the leadership sites, the capital and the nuclear facilities, F-22s, B-1Bs, French Rafales, Eurofighter Typhoons and B-2s should be able to operate anywhere they want as the DPRK doesn't have as good of SAMs.
The US on the other hand...the only SAMs we have up for defense are Stinger missiles for the leadership sites, Patriots are deployed for super important events like the G-8, but otherwise Patriots are only deployed overseas and at the home of the US Army Air Defense Artillery base. Warships can be deployed to cover ports and coast cities.
As for price...well an ICBM is cheap compared to a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
7 million dollars in 1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper
65-80 million dollars in 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
200 million dollars in 2015
Now [Obama]'s trying to piss-off our ally Israel by demanding they stop building in the Palestinian zone, else they'll lose American military assistance
Not trying to start an Israel/Palestine debate here, but you've got a blatantly one-sided perspective. The first 3 sentences of the wikipedia article on "International law and Israeli settlements":
The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.[1][2][3][4] This view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[5] The legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law.[6]
So another perspective on the situation is that Obama is saying to Israel "Stop violating international law, or we'll stop giving you the free military equipment you're using to support your violations of said law." How do you manage to interpret that as "trying to piss-off our ally", and then use that to support the statement that Obama is hawkish? It would be just as accurate to say that telling Iran not to build nukes is merely trying to piss off our enemy, and that anyone who does so is a hawk.
In case it wasn't clear, my main point is not to say what is or is not a good course of action, it's to point out that your perspective is so far from objective that it borders on intellectual dishonesty.
I've had trouble calling Israel our ally since I first heard about the USS Liberty incident.
That would be Poe's law, from Nathan Poe on the christianforums.com talking about christian fundamentalists.
Considered again under Obama because...?
1. Obama negotiated with Russia to deactivate nuclear weapons if deploying these and to allow Russian inspections to show they weren't nuclear armed. Bush wasn't willing to.
2. The planned technology changed from the Navy's Conventional Trident (which would look exactly like a nuclear Trident) to a hypersonic cruise missile or new ballistic missile which would have a different launch signature from existing ballistic missiles and be based in different locations (which the Russians could inspect). That would mean it couldn't be mistaken for a real nuclear missile launch.
A few other things:
- Loss or representative Democracy, which had given the masses a "stake" in Rome's success but after the Senate became an essentially powerless entity, the People no longer cared if Rome survived or not.
- Exclusions from the army. Rome had been strong because of required duty by the citizens in the army, but eventually most of Italy was exempt from that duty, thereby forcing the army to come from non-Romans in the surrounding provinces. These non-Romans had a bad habit of turning against their masters. ----- The army also degenerated in the quality of its armor, its swords, and its training. It was no longer a professional army, which is why it started losing battles.
- Devolution from a free market economy into a Feudal economy circa 300-400 A.D., such that citizens were essentially serfs of the manor lord. Non-free serfs tend not to be as productive as free citizens working for their own wealth. Rome's treasury slowly-but-surely became empty. And then it fell to invasion.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
The USS Liberty incident is a pretty clear cut, intentional act. Israel wanted the US on it's side of the war, so it disguised it's fighters, and attacked a vessel that prominently displayed a huge US flag. When they were caught, they tried to claim it was mistaken identity, but nobody believes it. It's as much of an open secret as Israel's nukes.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant