Rumsfeld Makes Case for Converting Missiles

[CHIMO]

FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- Flanked by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made his strongest public case yet for a Russian-opposed plan to convert long-range missiles from a nuclear to a conventional role for use against terrorist targets anywhere in the world.

Opponents of the plan argue that it could create a situation in which a conventionally armed U.S. Trident missile, launched from a submarine, would be mistaken for a nuclear launch, thus risking the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike.

Rumsfeld said he thought little of that argument.

He told reporters at a news conference with Ivanov in Alaska that the Pentagon would be "fully transparent" with Moscow about any such conversion of strategic missiles, so that there would be no room for miscalculation.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/08/29/003.html

[knowbody0]

1. sounds a little like

"greeted with rose petals" to me.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Something tells me...

that someone has sprayed Rummy's rails with WD-40.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. the Pentagon would be "fully transparent" with Moscow - yeah right . . .

.
.
.

Rummy shaking hands with Saddam a few decades ago - then ruining his country . . .

Can anyone give me ONE reason why I should trust Rumsfeld, or any others of the PNACer gang?

ONE reason -

that's all I'm asking for.

[Amonester]

11. Just one reason: if you happen to own $hares in BigOil&Co.

That's the only one real "reason" worth consideration for that war criminal. Apart from that, there R no other reasons.

[BushOut06]

4. I'm sure we'd have no problem if Russia decided to do the same

:sarcasm:

[nealhughes]

5. Look, I served on a FBM sub for 4 years as reactor operator for battle

stations, both missile and torpedo and maneuvering watch. I know the that the first rule for a Trident sub is the same as for a Poseidon: "Remain undetected at all costs." The next rule of thumb is that the sub is dead less than half an hour after the subs shadowing it destroy it with a nuclear torpedo. The only way this would work would be a chain of communication with every country in the world to ensure that it was not taken as a nuclear missile and retaliation follow.
Does Rumsfeld/Cheney or whomever is pushing this crap besides Little Jeffie Sessions know what the time zones are in Moscow/Beijing/Islaamabad/Seoul/Pyongyang/everywhere else? Are they going to speak to every PM/President/Grand Poobah for Life to assure them of our intentions? If not are they prepared to lose a Trident sub? How about NYC? Washington?
Do they have any idea how much money a Trident missile costs?
I can just hear it now: "Man battle stations missile for stratigic launch, this is the captain, this is not a drill. The POTUS has authorized the release of one Trident missile. Spin up Tube 4."

[Richard Steele]

15. Hi Neal! Welcome to DU!

Thanks for sharing your opinion of this OBVIOUSLY BAD idea!

[Eurobabe]

19. this will be 9-11 redux, and Rummy laying ground for it now

these NEOCONS never give up. Probably try it in late summer 2008, so that the sheeple will be skeered into not changing the horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[Barrett808]

20. Yes, welcome to DU, Neal!

We greatly value educated opinions like yours.

:hi:

[daleo]

6. Only Rumsfeld could be this stupid

Use an ICBM to hit a camel - right. And risk nuclear war in the process. That will make everyone safe.

[Vidar]

7. "Fail Safe" coming up.

[krispos42]

8. This is why we have Stealth Bombers

And long-range cruise missiles... and long-range armed unmanned aerial vehicles.

A B-2 can sneak up on any target anywhere in the world, drop a dozen 2,000-pound GPS-guided bombs, then fly back to base. A Tomahawk has a 350-mile cruising range, a 1,000-pund warhead, and can be dropped by bombers or launched by ships and submarines. The Predator drone has a 450-mile range and can carry two Hellfire missiles.

I'm pretty sure one of those things can hit terrorists as needed.

The problem is that on the face of things it actually is a reasonable idea. Not a great idea, not soemthing you try first. The Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile has a range of 7,000 miles, can carry up to 6,170 pounds of payload, and has a circular error probability of about 300 feed.

Unfortunately, they also cost $30+ million each. How many will be fired at these targets of opportunity? Three? Four?

Circular error probability means that half of the missiles fired will hit within 300 feet of the target and half beyond 300 feet. Three tons of military-grade explosive a hundred yards away would be marginally effective against a soft target, assuming they are able to cram that much exposive into the same space as the nukes. The might not be able to; uranium and lead and plutonium is much heavier than explosives.

The read problem here is one of international relations. RUMSFELD IS PROPOSING LAUNCHING BALLISTIC MISSILES ACROSS THE GLOBE AT TERRORISTS!

First off, the world has to take our word on the fact that the missile is not nuclear-armed. Second, the launch gives away the launch position of the sub launching it. Third, by the time we warned all of these countries and launched, I'll be that some officials in these governments would make sure the targets began moving before the missiles hit. It can take up to 40 minutes for the missile to travel that far, plenty of time to get a few hundred yards away. And the terrorists have both good intelligence and sympathetic governments.

[sofa king]

9. I wonder if this is a red herring.

Just thinking out loud here. These assholes have perfected a certain approach to getting what they want, which is to float a really stupid idea with the intention of having it replaced by a less stupid alternative.

The less stupid alternative in this case is Jerry Pournelle's Project Thor, which suggests putting series of kinetic energy weapons in orbit. A KE weapon is about as simple as it gets: a guided tungsten pole that won't burn up in orbit, which uses the squared vee of reentry speeds to create an enormous, ground-penetrating non-nuclear explosion. Sort of like a guided meteor, the device uses no actual explosives.

Last year I thought I could see the Bush Administration angling in a similar fashion, sending up the idea of a low-yield nuke bunker buster to see how the public would react.

Thor has its drawbacks. To reliably cover all areas of the globe you would need a great many of them in near-polar orbit, and of course once up there every nation on earth (including the United States) is a potential target. Once used, another one needs to be orbited to replace it. Putting lots of tungsten rods in orbit isn't cheap, either, and would require a much more regular and reliable space launch system than we are known to have. And like all DoD toys, we can be certain that it would be ludicrously expensive, even though it shouldn't have to be.

[PATRICK]

13. More immediate

I think it maybe related to Iranian missiles being a threat to our carriers and having a limited strike force coming out of Iraq over the large Iranian land mass. They might think a remote strike will be more "shocking" and less costly and risky- and much more ineffective of course. Moire ominously it is sending a direct signal to Russia that we maybe realigning our ICBM's and subs and not to worry and not to bother blowing our secrecy because now there is no secret.

Should anything happen and the ICBM's are in place with a hair trigger response from some finger at the WH, God help Iran is someone sneezes before November. In the horror it will become too late for our heroic press to even scratch their heads. And believe it, some of those retargeted ICBM's will still have their nuclear warheads. (Jeez, we were just getting around to change it!)

I commented on the Russian response on another post on the same subject yesterday.

"if the missile FAILS there goes a lot of respect for our so-called missile defense OR the ranting threat from a NK erector set counterpart. Or maybe it was a joke on the Russians who most certainly don't want to show their own rusting junkers splashing into the ocean. Or maybe our armaments are so depleted that we have to waste a lot of rocket fuel to propel a conventional payload with a fraction of the accuracy. Long range ICBM's? Russia only needs intermediate, unless we are the target. Someday from the comfort zone of the oval office or some phony ranch in Texas, some future Tinpot will get to try out the satellite death rays and drones and missiles for fun, but it wouldn't doing anything practical except satisfy psychos.

But the Soviets were quick to see if the idiot would trash a missile treaty that would give THEM some benefit. Rumsfeld probably missed that by a mile, like the ICBM's would."

[sofa king]

14. There's something else, too.

One immediate reason why Rumsfeld wants a quick-fix long range conventional missile is because the United States is fresh out of Tomahawks and other conventional cruise missiles (except for a strategic reserve of about 2000 that is repeatedly nibbled). The Tomahawk replacement, which was due last year, is nowhere to be seen. One reason why Bush wasn't willing to hit a camel in the butt with a cruise missile is because his generals weren't letting him play with them anymore.

Two thousand Tomahawks of varying types sounds like a lot, until one realizes that Bill Clinton fired off 330 of them in four days in 1998. DoD was resisting having the production line restarted because they wanted a more nifty and expensive replacement--perhaps Thor?

[Demeter]

21. There Are No Less Stupid Ideas

not with this bunch.

An idea is either stupid, or not. The not-stupid ideas can either be brilliant and obvious, or so muddled and complex that they require some refinement before their stupidity can be calculated.

Since BushCo doesn't do brilliant, obvious, or complex, all their ideas are stupid.

[Toots]

10. And America believes him..Why???????

Has he been right about anything at all????

[Capt_Nemo]

12. Khramchikhin is right:

"Russia's opposition to Rumsfeld's idea of converting submarine-launched ballistic missiles to carry conventional payloads is a negotiating position rather than a reflection of genuine concern"

And the quid pro quo is this:
Russia wants to pull out of the INF Treaty
As to why would they want that, I quote:
"Trying to come up with at least some kind of justification for the itch to end the INF Treaty, the official said that "Russia has other neighbors (i.e. not the United States), countering which can be better done with medium-range missiles, not with intercontinental ones. And these missiles don't have to carry nuclear warheads.""

It's not just Rummie that is having this kind of ideas, the difference is that the russians want to implement them closer to home...

[jpak]

16. Rummy is one sick fuck

n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

17. For a second, I thought RummyDummy was going to propose

converting missiles into ploughshares. Silly me.

[Rex]

18. Dr. Strangelove is at it again.

Talk about the ultimate pussy tactics. Rummy, you're a fucking pussy.


"Saddam? Never met the man."

[Julius Civitatus]

22. TRANSLATION: More defense contracts

for Carlyle, Boeing- McDonnell Douglass, etc...

Mo' moeny, mo' money, mo' money...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.