Prompt Global Strike

[cwjerome]

The idea for such a weapon has been tossed around but there has been little funding, mainly over fears that countries like Russia would be unable to properly determine whether an in-flight warhead was nuclear.

But the requirements for such a weapon are really starting to emerge. The idea is that the US should have the capability to attack and destroy any point on earth with a conventional warhead within 60 minutes on the low end and as quick as 300 milliseconds on the high end.

There is certainly a military requirement to take out "fleeting" targets in a very short time frame. The old way- using bombers to take out static targets- isn't as important today. The US has to be able to use its eyes and ears to track the asymetrical threats and respond to them in real time, such as a target of opportunity like a terrorist leader in a safe house or a WMD about to be launched from a rogue nation/group.

Intel, speed, and accuracy is the name of the game in our current threat environment. Obviously such a weapon would be used on a limited, high-level basis.

Short range (1000-2000mile) ICBMs with conventional warheads, hypersonic missiles that skirt the edges of space, and other systems are being studied.

What say you?

 

[Cuda1447]

I'm not sure what to say, what exactly are you talking about? You start out talking about such a weapon, but what type of weapon is this?

 

[bobsmith1492]

Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I'm not sure what to say, what exactly are you talking about? You start out talking about such a weapon, but what type of weapon is this?

example

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

Sounds like something theflyingpig would say.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

Thor?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Short range (1000-2000mile) ICBMs with conventional warheads

that's an a theatre ballistic missile, not an ICBM. under the INF treaty the US cannot make missiles with ranges between 500 and 5500 KM, though with the demise of the only other party to the treaty it's in a bit of legal limbo.

 

[Rainsford]

I'd say it's a movie plot defense technology. While it's easy to imagine a scenario where such a capability would be useful, it's less obvious how often it would be useful relative to the astronomical cost such a capability would almost certainly cost to develop and maintain. That money would probably provide us with a much better return if we spent it on more traditional capabilities that would be used far more often and far more flexibly.

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the Reagan administration...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels. But it's clearly not true, especially now as the threats we face are more asymmetric than ever. We can't bomb our way to a victory over terrorism or a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, coming up with more advanced bombs isn't going to change that. Especially when the hundreds of billions of dollars such a system would cost could pay for a few hundred thousand well trained and well paid boots on the ground.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

Sounds like something theflyingpig would say.

Everybody knows that....

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

Sounds like something theflyingpig would say.

Everybody knows that....

Isn't it "everyone"?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

 

[heyheybooboo]

We have better things to do with our money than create new, innovative and creative ways to quickly kill people - especially with space based weapons.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?

We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?

We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.

A more effective missile shield would also upset the strategic balance.

I think the US should conduct R&D into building a Thor type platform but not deploy it to orbit unless we are reasonably sure someone else is going to or has.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What say you?

That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.

The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?

We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.

A more effective missile shield would also upset the strategic balance.

I think the US should conduct R&D into building a Thor type platform but not deploy it to orbit unless we are reasonably sure someone else is going to or has.

None of the PGS systems under consideration are space-based (The US has agreements about the militarization of space)

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Short range (1000-2000mile) ICBMs with conventional warheads

that's an a theatre ballistic missile, not an ICBM. under the INF treaty the US cannot make missiles with ranges between 500 and 5500 KM, though with the demise of the only other party to the treaty it's in a bit of legal limbo.

I misspoke by using "inter-continental" (obviously, for shorter ranged) but the INF, if still even applicable, shouldn't apply because of a conventional warhead and different flight profile.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

We need a ring of orbital laser cannons that can vaporize anyone at any time...

"hey, what's that light?" -Tetsuo

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?

We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.

A shield is a pretty good idea, yet having the ability to neutralize a threat before "launch" is another layer of security.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What say you?

We need to advance our missile shield, not our missile weapons.

A more effective missile shield would also upset the strategic balance.

I think the US should conduct R&D into building a Thor type platform but not deploy it to orbit unless we are reasonably sure someone else is going to or has.

But simply beginning construstion of such a thing would just guarentee Europe and China start building the same thing and we'd have another cold war...

What a fantastic idea...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What say you?

That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.

The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.

Saying war sucks doesn't stop they realities of international politics. Besides, the US is more than happy to trade with nations, even countries with scumbag leaders/government.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What say you?

That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.

The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.

Saying war sucks doesn't stop they realities of international politics. Besides, the US is more than happy to trade with nations, even countries with scumbag leaders/government.

Iran... Cuba... NK...

The reality is that you don't blow up your trading partners. That's why we're not going to war with China, ever.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What say you?

That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.

The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.

Saying war sucks doesn't stop they realities of international politics. Besides, the US is more than happy to trade with nations, even countries with scumbag leaders/government.

Iran... Cuba... NK...

The reality is that you don't blow up your trading partners. That's why we're not going to war with China, ever.

Exactly... we opened trade with China in the 70s and we trade with Saudi Arabia and many other sketchy countries. So we will deal with unsavory countries when feasible, that is something we generally would prefer to do and work towards. However, one size does not fit all and unfortunately we always cannot have trade with every country in the world.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: cwjerome

What say you?

That war sucks and we should be looking for ways to turn our enemies into trading partners instead of ashes.

The whole mindset you laid out is part of the problem.

Saying war sucks doesn't stop they realities of international politics. Besides, the US is more than happy to trade with nations, even countries with scumbag leaders/government.

Iran... Cuba... NK...

The reality is that you don't blow up your trading partners. That's why we're not going to war with China, ever.

Exactly... we opened trade with China in the 70s and we trade with Saudi Arabia and many other sketchy countries. So we will deal with unsavory countries when feasible, that is something we generally would prefer to do and work towards. However, one size does not fit all and unfortunately we always cannot have trade with every country in the world.

Why not? If they don't have something we need, we can help them make it.

Economic interdependence is the key to peace.

 

[soccerballtux]

Scramjet strapped to a missile sounds good to me.
Need to stay out of space (star wars).