Bye-bye INF treaty?

Pat Flannery wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given
that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow.

The first thing you'd do is get Moscow and Beijing on the blower and
tell them what you were going to do; then you'd let a Trident submarine
have at them, probably from the Mediterraneans.

A) Trident's don't patrol in the Med. (We gave that up as soon as we
could.)
B) AFAIK policy is that such retaliatory strikes are tasked to the
Minuteman force.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Scott Hedrick wrote:

There's no other payload that justifies the effort and expense of an ICBM.
Even chemical and biological weapons aren't cost effective on ICBMs.


The biological ones might. The Soviets were shooting for millions dead
in their anthrax ICBM attack:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m.htm

"In the 1970's biological warheads for single-warhead ICBM's were
developed and flight-tested, presumably including the R-36/R-36M. In the
late winter of 1988 the extremely secretive Fifteenth Directorate of the
Soviet Army prepared to arm the multiple-warhead R-36M with a biological
agent in lieu of nuclear warheads. It seemed that an interchangeable
dispensing warhead had already been developed and qualified for this
purpose, since the only issue was which agent to select and how quickly
it could be produced. Anthrax 836 was the agent of choice. Ten warheads
on a single R-36M could dispense 400 kg of milled anthrax in aerosol
form over a major city. This would be sufficient, it was calculated, for
a single R-36M to kill 12 million people. Attacks were considered
against New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago. Soviet production
capacity at that time was sufficient to load the planned 'hundreds' of
warheads on dozens of missiles within two weeks."

Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Almost certainly the US would *not* respond with ICBMs, especially given
that an ICBM strike on Iran would go more or less over Moscow.


And that's why I'd have to check where the boomers are, first.


A launch from the northern Mediterranean or straight westward from the
Indian Ocean would have the advantage of not being headed for Russia or
China.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
Given the supposed launching nation was someone like Iran, the majority, if
not all land-based missiles will survive any initial attack. Combine that
with the other legs of our triad and you can still fire back with
overwhelming force if required,.


Even one Trident submarine could completely annihilate the country.
In fact, even one Trident missile could knock them back to the stone
age, particularly if you detonated one of the warheads in space for a
EMP effect before the others impacted.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
A pure EMP weapon is probably more effective in many ways. A decent EMP
pulse over the Eastern Seaboard would probably do more economic damage than
any number of nukes a nation like Iran could launch.



Fusing might be tricky though.
Ideal burst height is 300 miles for maximum effect radius, 60 miles if
you didn't want the effect to spread into Canada.
(That's based on the U.S. Congress' "Military Space Forces - The Next 50
Years" report from 1989)

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
B) AFAIK policy is that such retaliatory strikes are tasked to the
Minuteman force.


We shoot one of our ones in North Dakota at them, and stages one and two
are going to fall somewhere in the U.S. .

Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
You can zap warheads, of course, if you have that technology. What I'm
saying is that you cannot retaliate with thermonuclear weapons just
because someone sends a missile your way. You need to wait to see if
it's a WMD attack or not.

No, I don't. I *don't* have to wait for the first warhead to impact in
order
to assume the worse and act accordingly. Moreover, I would be highly
irresponsible to do so.

You gain *nothing* by responding on warning with a nuclear weapon to a
single or several incoming missiles.

Sure I do- I ensure that the weapons I launch don't get destroyed by the
incoming missile.

They aren't likely to have that sort of accuracy. America has air and
submarine nuclear missiles enough to blow up anyone they might want to
attack. Launch on warning to possibly save one missile is probably not
going to be ultimately justifiable to the congressional investigation
that will surely follow.



Well, I guess you could end it
right there by going nuclear and then say, "I thought he was attacking
with nukes so I nuked him."

Exactly. Launching anything other than NBC weapons on an ICBM is
monumentally stupid, and even launching BC weapons would be pretty foolish.

You haven't explained where the dividing line is between conventional
missiles making sense and not making sense. How about missiles fired at
Europe from Iran, are they only to be NBC too?



After 60 years of even losing wars such as the Korean War and the
Vietnam War by not using nuclear weapons, you would just use them to no
advantage by launching on warning?

Actually, I would use them for the advantages already stated. For rational
parties, a known launch on warning policy decreases the chance that either
would launch in the first place. Moreover, as I have already stated, it's
just not that simple.

If you are shooting missiles at Iran, how can you justify a nuclear
response if they shoot missiles back at you? It's not their fault that
the United States is farther away from their forces than Iran is from
American forces.


--
Bush say global warm-warm not real
Even though ice gone and no seals
Polar bears can't find their meals
Grow as thin as Ally McBeals

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
Sure I do- I ensure that the weapons I launch don't get destroyed by the
incoming missile.

Given the supposed launching nation was someone like Iran, the majority,
if not all land-based missiles will survive any initial attack.

Probably, but that's not the point. The point is in using the weapons most
likely to get zapped.

If someone like Iran were launching, I can safely assume I'm *not* dealing
with a rational party, precisely because they cannot hope to do enough
damage to the US to justify the expected wrath.

"Bill Bonde" wrote in message
...
Launch on warning to possibly save one missile is probably not
going to be ultimately justifiable to the congressional investigation
that will surely follow.

*Not* launching would not be justifiable to the voting public.

Exactly. Launching anything other than NBC weapons on an ICBM is
monumentally stupid, and even launching BC weapons would be pretty
foolish.

You haven't explained where the dividing line is between conventional
missiles making sense and not making sense.

Well, I've stated that ICBMs are on the not-making-sense side.

How about missiles fired at
Europe from Iran, are they only to be NBC too?

I suppose you'd have to ask the *Iranians*, and for the likely response, the
*Europeans*. Since I am not European, asking me questions about European
responses is on the not-making-sense side.

Actually, I would use them for the advantages already stated. For
rational
parties, a known launch on warning policy decreases the chance that
either
would launch in the first place. Moreover, as I have already stated, it's
just not that simple.

If you are shooting missiles at Iran, how can you justify a nuclear
response if they shoot missiles back at you?

If Iran is shooting at me *first*, that's all the justification I need to
shoot at Iran. Duh.

It's not their fault that
the United States is farther away from their forces than Iran is from
American forces.

It *is* their fault if they shoot at me.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...
A pure EMP weapon is probably more effective in many ways. A decent EMP
pulse over the Eastern Seaboard would probably do more economic damage
than any number of nukes a nation like Iran could launch.

Right, and I've seen one design that didn't involve a nuke.

This is something that could not effectively be deployed with a TBDS.