Prompt Global Strike

[StageLeft]

PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect freedom and crush tyranny.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 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.

Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?

You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect freedom and crush tyranny.

Are you part of the Republican Space Rangers?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 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.

Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?

You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.

This. In the age where our enemies have weapons that can kill millions in the blink of an eye, we need to focus on defenses to protect against those weapons, not weapons that can make bigger explosions.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I was in the fourth grade I designed a military complexes in five parts, the function of which was to destroy any enemy in the world. One of the modules was based on emerging technology, one was based on an concept the military thought of and developed years and years later, one was an idea so terrible it hasn't been tried yet. One does not exist, to my knowledge, but may be a military secret.

Fortunately, of course for you, I began to wonder as I continued to grow, just what it was that lured me obsess over such things and I realized I did so out of insecurity and fear, insecurities and fears instilled in me from far far earlier in my childhood.

So I finally saw that the way to save the world from evil bad guys was not to destroy all life on the planet, except, naturally, myself, but to die to my fears, to accept the fact that I am totally unimportant, that my stupid fat-head ego is a nobody and not somebody you should die for so I can feel safe.

 

[piasabird]

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?? 🙂

There was a Star Trek Episode (Old School) where they blew up a missle fired by an orbiting missle station or just from a missle. It was very much like this.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect freedom and crush tyranny.

LOL...I nearly fell out of my chair.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 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.

Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?

You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.

This. In the age where our enemies have weapons that can kill millions in the blink of an eye, we need to focus on defenses to protect against those weapons, not weapons that can make bigger explosions.

It's not about having a big explosion, the Prompt Global Strike weapon has a conventional warhead and is designed to be able to hit a target very quickly. The idea behind the PGS is quickly and efficiently taking out sudden (fleeting) threat opportunities that arise from intelligence sources. It's just as valuable to take out a meeting of terrorist leaders or a known WMD location BEFORE we use a shield.

 

[CrackRabbit]

To put it simply the OP wants to build a Metal Gear.

"SNAAAAAAAKKKEEEEEEE!!!!"

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 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)

The Outer Space Treaty only keeps the signed parties from putting nukes in orbit.

A kinetic bombardment weapon would be entirely conventional.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 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.

Our current nuclear arsenal isn't good enough for you, why not?

You need to choose your priorities, far as I'm concerned there's nothing more important than stopping a ICBM launch from Asia, the Middle East, or South America.

This. In the age where our enemies have weapons that can kill millions in the blink of an eye, we need to focus on defenses to protect against those weapons, not weapons that can make bigger explosions.

It's not about having a big explosion, the Prompt Global Strike weapon has a conventional warhead and is designed to be able to hit a target very quickly. The idea behind the PGS is quickly and efficiently taking out sudden (fleeting) threat opportunities that arise from intelligence sources. It's just as valuable to take out a meeting of terrorist leaders or a known WMD location BEFORE we use a shield.

I know what you mean. I have screens I put over my food to keep the flies off when I barbecue, but I still use my fly swatter when I hear their telltale buzz.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
To put it simply the OP wants to build a Metal Gear.

"SNAAAAAAAKKKEEEEEEE!!!!"

"Metal Gear..."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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?

How wouod you like for aniother nation to have this, and not us? Why would this not be a threat to others at the level of 'the final phase of one goverment planetary dominance'?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Nuke the Flies.

Plus: Irradiated meat is more sanitary, and you would have a more healthy glow.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

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.

INF applied to conventional warheads. it also applied to both cruise and ballistic missiles. i don't know if an atmosphere skipper would be banned under that treaty or not.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

Gotta agree with booboo on this one.

We can already kill people in vast numbers very quickly. Why spend a ton of money trying to speed it up a few minutes or increase body count? There are better investments right now such as alternative energy and energy storage.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 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.

Gotta agree with booboo on this one.

We can already kill people in vast numbers very quickly. Why spend a ton of money trying to speed it up a few minutes or increase body count? There are better investments right now such as alternative energy and energy storage.

This isn't about killing people in vast numbers or body count. Think of a UAV loitering over a combat zone. Information comes in that a key terrorist leader (or, say a group unpacking a SSM to launch) is at a certain place. The UAV is sent to the location a puts a hellfire on target. Well, a PGS is similar, in that the entire globe is the "combat zone" and as intel comes in this system can put a very accurate conventional warhead on a spot in >1 to 60 minutes.

This allows great flexibility. Instead oh having a lot of boots on the ground all over the world, which is a time consuming, invasive, painful process we enhance our intel and make the prompt strike when necessary.

There are arguments against it, but I just wanted to make sure you realize what it is...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

That mindset is the problem, BUT the problem is in every country. Americans worry about it because countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria or some -ikistan former soviet country that now has nuclear missles is of the mind set of killing as many of their enemies as possible regardless if they are military or civilian.

 

[Moonbeam]

I love to talk about weapons. It make my balls swell up to twice the size of my brain, large enough, in fact, that I can just begin to see them.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I love to talk about weapons. It make my balls swell up to twice the size of my brain, large enough, in fact, that I can just begin to see them.

I'd like to subscribe to your erotic novel.

 

[JSt0rm]

then we could really nuke stuff from orbit. You know, just to be sure.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect freedom and crush tyranny.

Ignore this doofus

PM me. I want to discuss this further. I can't speak further about this on AT but suffice to say I work for an undercover organization that is looking for creativity like this. We work outside the rules of law to protect tyranny and crush freedom.

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,

Right now, the US can deliver nukes via B2 bombers, submarine launched ICMBs, Ship and bomber launched nuke cruise missles, etc. Why would the US need to create an orbital platform based nuclear capability?

Maybe, just maybe one could have justify this capability during the cold war but I doubt it.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
OP,

Right now, the US can deliver nukes via B2 bombers, submarine launched ICMBs, Ship and bomber launched nuke cruise missles, etc. Why would the US need to create an orbital platform based nuclear capability?

Maybe, just maybe one could have justify this capability during the cold war but I doubt it.

Yeah..I could only figure out one reason.

Bragging rights!

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
OP,

Right now, the US can deliver nukes via B2 bombers, submarine launched ICMBs, Ship and bomber launched nuke cruise missles, etc. Why would the US need to create an orbital platform based nuclear capability?

Maybe, just maybe one could have justify this capability during the cold war but I doubt it.

It's not an orbital platform and it's not nuclear. I made that clear. As a matter of fact, under most current proposals, the missile would be flying so fast that kinetic energy alone would do the job normally reserved for the weapon payload, so no explosives would be necessary.

example

(true, early ideas included a military space plane... a reusable launch vehicle that could directly deliver precision guided munitions, however this was rather quickly shot down as an option. All current systems under consideration do not include an orbiting missile platform)

Another early idea was conventional Trident SLBM Modification, a way to very quickly place a conventional warhead accurately on a target. It never went anywhere with Congress, mainly over fears of countries like Russia thinking it was a nuclear strike.

There seems to be much more support in Congress for this type of capability now; it will be up to the Obama administration to put forth a technically and operationally viable concept that is also politically acceptable.