Article

2006-05-29 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-05-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Doable--definately!
I like it!

It will make all the other nuclear powers (russia, china, et. al.) sweat the idea that we could kill or degrade to unuseability their nuclear capability conventionaly. All the while piously making pious "no first use" noises in the appropriate venues.

One of the reasons I support this capability is in no small part the fact that we can take the "no first use" and related mantras--and ram them right back down their (the ususal suspects') throats.

Remeber also that china, If I Recall Correctly has >100 ICBM launchers on alert. 3-5 c-trident loadouts, and no more meaningful deterrent.

While Russia has a lot of legacy holes in the ground left over from soviet days, I wonder how many active ICBMs they actualy have on alert? (Old Spook, who would try to track this for us?)

And neither one has a realistic global launch detection system that can cover all threat bearings....

Expect something like the nuclear freeze movement shortly, aimed at this capability.

Posted by N guard 2006-05-29 00:42|| 2006-05-29 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Just what exactly does a nation think when they see an ICBM launch from a marine platform? Nuclear or conventional? Do you think they will wait for it to land to find out?

This is a very expensive delivery system to use for a conventional warhead. It's a very destablizing use as well. Store this idea in the circular file.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-05-29 06:23|| 2006-05-29 06:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Why Sock Puppet of Doom?

Just what exactly does a nation think when they see an ICBM launch from a marine platform? Nuclear or conventional? Do you think they will wait for it to land to find out?

I agree it is a very expensive delivery system to use for a conventional warhead however on the plus side, it can be used immediately.

Posted by bernardz 2006-05-29 07:06|| 2006-05-29 07:06|| Front Page Top

#4 N guard is right on both counts. SPoD, I agree this is potentially destabilizing and I think the Pentagon knows it might be as well. So why do you think they want the system?

Sometimes perception changes reality. And often having a capability means, paradoxically, having less need to use it.

In this case, having the requested capability in our arsenal a) gives a non-nuclear capability to destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities b) on an hour's notice c) without committing troops. If we don't get cooperation from the Russians, Chinese or Europeans for dealing with Iran and their ilk, we're carrying the burden ourselves and need to use our advantages to the fullest in doing so. Plus, there is little "stability" to preserve in international affairs if those other parties are not willing to deal with destabilizing forces like Iran's nuclear push.

Or so the argument might go, at any rate.

Posted by lotp 2006-05-29 07:30|| 2006-05-29 07:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Somebody must have a lot of confidence in our BMD.

If we're that confident, how about going conventional only? It is very difficult to see any circumstances in which we would go nuclear first or anyone who could credibly threaten us with nukes. Even if a terrorist set off a nuke in a U. S. city, I think we would not respond with a nuclear strike anywhere. Nuclear weapons are a greater threat to us than they are to our enemies. Better to disarm unilaterally and let the technology wither if our conventional alternatives are this good.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-29 08:11|| 2006-05-29 08:11|| Front Page Top

#6 N S, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that nukes are more dangerous to us than to the other states.

Anything less than a civilization-shattering attack on us merely guarentees a devastating response. And most other states/cultures in the world are either too physicly small to soak up an attack (England, or france G_d forbid), or are too brittle and or too poor to survive either decapitation or the massive economic hit. (Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc.)

Imagine for a second that the Chi-coms went nutz and launched an attack on us. They would hurt us--bad. No two ways about it. But it would not be a fatal blow! We have too much built in redudndancy to be that easily shatterd.

Our counterstrike would probably (hand waving lots of variables here) end the Peoples Republic, and possibly end any recognizable chineese state for the next 50 yrs or so.

Russia is an interesting case, in that they have (potentialy) a large legacy force left over from the Soviet era, but I would like to know how much of that legacy force is actualy opreational. Still, they are too centralized, too brittle. Too vulnerable to decapitation. And their economy is still a sick joke.

As a snarky aside-- speaking of decapitation, there are quite a few congress critters that could stand to be removed from office for getting too comfortable in their jobs. Hopefully they will, but not with violence!

Posted by N guard 2006-05-29 11:01|| 2006-05-29 11:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Huh?

Weve already used sub launched cruise missiles against terrorist camps. They already have delivery capability. The only difference is time on target. However, if you carefully examine the process youll find the problem is not the technology it is the decision making. All that time could be saved by authorizing someone at a far lower level to execute the mission. However, the natural micromanagement process means that senior decision makers want both absolute proof and mother may I power. That eats up a lot of time that otherwise could be eliminated from the entire action. Get people in place you trust and give them the power. Understand that means sometimes youre going to have an oops moment. Then again, the present system shows that you dont really have the will to actually carry out what needs to be done. So what is being proposed here is technology to paper over will. Sorta of like our southern border issue. That is spelled politician.

Posted by Elmineger Shineck4988 2006-05-29 11:16|| 2006-05-29 11:16|| Front Page Top

#8 NG,

I agree that it would be very difficult for an enemy to disable the U. S. Particularly to the extent that we would be unable to respond with greater lethality on the nation state aggressor, even without the use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, there is very little risk that a significant rational nation state will attack us and that we will need nuclear weapons to respond.

You say, "Imagine for a second that the Chi-coms went nutz". Why? That seems so remotely unlikely that you need to provide some justification for making the assumption other than that it is a metaphysical possiblity. So where does the risk to the U. S. from nukes arise? From already nutz wackos who will not act rationally, whether Norks, Iranian 12th Imams, Hugo Chavez or their terrorist henchmen. The wackos would use terrorists because they would know we can't respond against any nation state or do it themselves because they are so irrational they don't fear our response. People that irrational don't run nation states.

Thus, I see it as much more likely that we would suffer a nuclear attack from wackos than that we would ever use nukes, even in response to a nuclear attack.

We spend a boat load of money on nukes and researching ever better nukes, weapons we will not use. And we spend boatloads on operational nuclear weapons, delivery systems, security, etc. All for weapons that will never be used. What a waste when these resources could be far more profitably utilized on measures that are much more likely to be used and benefit us.

Finally, I wonder if a nuclear weapon has ever been independently developed by any power other than the U. S. We know that the Russian bombs are derivative of U. S. designs. I believe the Chinese is derivative of the French design. I would not be surprised to learn that the French, Chinese and Israeli designs are derivative of U. S. or Soviet designs. So we keep spending all this money to develop all these designs for weapons we won't use for our enemies to steal and produce. I'm not sure it makes sense.

I agree fully on the Congresscritters, and if the collateral damage could be limited to the District, Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties I might agree to their use, but ballots will probably be cheaper and more effacacious.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-29 11:28|| 2006-05-29 11:28|| Front Page Top

#9 We have never used sub launched cruise missiles, because we just acquired that capability on retrofits of two Los Angeles class subs recently. If we use missiles, it would not be a very likely scenario that it would be ICBM. Too esay to detect. However, Trident retrofits would be ideal. Hard to detect, short TOF to target anywhere worldwide.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-05-29 11:37|| 2006-05-29 11:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Tell you this from experience:

We need to push the "whack-em" authotiy a LOT closer tot he asset and the onsite commander - and make lateral comm links to support that.

I know of many times in Iraq and the 'stans where targets have been dropped due to the need to go up then down 2 sets of chains of command.

Following based on several scenarios I've either witnessed, been in, or have people I personally know that have been there. This kind of stuff happens *every* day in Iraq. Luckily our infantry is just that damn good that they can get the job done in spite of the command.

Hadji holed up and we can't get to him without huge amount of casualties? Call a up to company to get air support - just need a hellfire and some chain on target. So you call up to company net from squad/platoon. Give them a 10 digit GPS, a description of the Hadjis, and the building they are in, facine, weaponry, etc. And then you wait.

Then company "2" and cmd elements take it to BN net. They go back and forth with the BN officer detailign position, target, reason for strike and type of strike needed. Battalion says standby, then they confirm and prioritize your company cdr's call. Approve or deny.

If approved, Bn calls up to brigade/area command and requests helo Bn send over air support - they exchange the same intel you gave to the company net: target type, strike needed and location. Brigade Combat Team (BCT) prioritizes and tells BN if or what/when he's getting. BN reiterates target grids type and action eeded, BCT confirm and then dispatchs an OPORD to the Aviation Bn, raidos down to you BN and says birds onthe way where/when. They finally relay all that to yor company commander, who then gets the platoon leader who relays it to your pinned down squad.

Avn Bn looks at its assets, forms up the strike package and vectors the birds. Can take them 10-20 minutes to get on station from wheever they are.

Birds arrive. ROE prevents them from firing unless they can ID the target. By now Hdji is letting the barrel cool on the MMG he has been keeping you pinned with. He is looking for ways to sneak out. So the Helos call BN, who gives them comms for the company net - helos have misidentified the building and target (somehow it got garbled in the umpteen exchanges like telephone tag up and down the chains of command). The Company Commander tells them put a hellfire thru the window they see fire coming thru, but is VERY specific to identify your building as a non-target (so you dont eat it). The Helo guys slam a hellfire into the WRONG building because some dumb Hadji just decided to take a potshot at a goat from there. Now they mark "target destroyed". You call up and tell them they hit the wrong target - company relays your info. SO the pilots FINALLY observe the RIGHT target. But now, Hadji knows they are in the hood, and hs snuck out the back or the sewers. Helo observes no hostile fire or personnel, and will not engage (ROE prevents it). After hanging aroudn for a few more, he has other fire misions so departs the AO.

Yor squad assaults up while the helo is still avial. Finds casings, etc from Hadji, but him and his MG team are long gone.

Net effect: Your squad gets to eat dirt and ricohets for 30+ minutes while chain of command dicks everything up. Helo guys mark off ornance exended on non-essential target. Company CO has to radio in null effect, BN thinks you Company calls are now more likely to be bogus, BCT will give your BN less weight for support calls.

And fucking Hadji gets away with a heavy weapon, to use it again against your squad and platoon tomorrow.

SO yeah, Tidents woudl be a nice thing for fast tgt of opportunity.

But not until they get the lateral chain of command issues solved.

Funny thing is: if its USAF on station, its faster and easier to get a full up hit exactly where you need it from an orbiting F-16 with a 500 or 250 lb PGM. They go direct to the local commander's radio now.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-29 11:55|| 2006-05-29 11:55|| Front Page Top

#11 N S, I was just using the Chi-coms as a semi- abstract example of a nuclear power capable of (and potentialy motivated to!)hitting us with more than 1 or 2 bombs. I did not want to use the russians, because of my uncertainty of how many useable delivery systems they actualy have, and because there is too much culterual baggage (for me) from the cold war to make them a useful abstract example.

I concurr on the use of ballots to remove corrupt congress critters! Much preferred to violence. A pity that primary season is over where I am.

Posted by N guard 2006-05-29 11:56|| 2006-05-29 11:56|| Front Page Top

#12 O S, You're preaching to the chior here. One of the things I noticed in IZ was that Hajji had our reaction time down to the second. Very frustrating.
I consoled myself with the knowledge we had managed to kill off the overly aggressive and or stupid ones early on. And we did have our informers and elint to track down the survivors.

Now, if we could get over our squeamishness WRT killing in cold blood, we might make a real dent in the terrorist population.

Posted by N guard 2006-05-29 12:02|| 2006-05-29 12:02|| Front Page Top

#13 OS, glad to hear the USAF is doing the ground support thing well. But can you imagine how far up the chain you would have to go to get a D-5 launched? And is this going to be a single shot warhead or a MIRV?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-29 12:03|| 2006-05-29 12:03|| Front Page Top

#14 By all means, fix the comm and command issues OS has identified. But I still think a non-nuke warhead on a Trident is a bad idea: I don't want to lose whatever stability is out there amongst the nuclear powers.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-05-29 12:22|| 2006-05-29 12:22|| Front Page Top

#15 NG sad to hear its not atypical. Hadji aint no dummy. And the above was santized - not snythign that isnt already out on the net or that Hadji doenst know. He knows the way we operate, so that's why (in the scenrio that I outlined) he knew when to run.

Anyone still active or over there, remember: OPSEC first. If you feel liek you shoudlt talk about something, then don't. Either simply answer another part of the topic, or give no answer, or a simple "I dont feel comfortable discussing that" -- all those are good replies. If parts of the military are doing better, we don't want Hadji to know it, if not and its not publicly known, then we dont want him to know that either. Only if its realtively public and relatively well known in unclass circles, then is it OK to yakk it up here.

Back to the original off-topic topic -- grin.

Best way to kill Hadji is to get the locals on him - they can go mideavel on him, and go tribal on his family if he's a local national. And if hes foreigner, they'll simply arrange an accident after interrogation (or prior if they arent well trained and well led - Syrians and Saudis end up dead a lot - they dont bother surrendering to Iraqi units, Iraqis HATE those guys almsot as much as they hate Iranians).

Second best way is to use our stuff. And I'm not going to mention electronic assets for intelligence. Don't want to give anyone any clues if you get my drift. We just need to get more integral assets and get them cross-attached at the company level, at least in terms of communications and having the BN in contact control them, and the company in contact command them. Thats one place where Arty was a great responsive asset, and its kinda sad we really cannot use it like that in this kind of war.

Only place I've ever seen it differ was in the independent (Armored) Cav regiments. Because the support was organic, we worked that stuff down to the Troop level ALL the time - it was routine that we'd go troop commander or even to a scout team leader with "eyes on" to talk direct to assets in the AO. Could be that because the Cav has always been self-contained: always had its own aviation lift and attack, arty, combat engineers, MI, logistics, medical and even chemical! And mission may have played a role in the decades of development of Cav doctrine (Going back to The Duler in the 2ACR in the early 1980's): the Cav has always operated as an economy of force element or else a screening element. Those two things may be why the cav just does it the best way (Right Way, Wrong Way, the Army way, and ... "This is how we do it the Cav, trooper"). Then again, I might be biased, being Cav.

(A cav troop is a "company" sized element for you regular army non-hackers. And remember - If you aint Cav, you ain't shit [as I adjust my hard earned stetson and look at my spurs cert on the wall])

Hey BH6, you're a jarhead and have been in a smilar sized manuever element, right? Observing OPSEC first and foremost (as always), can you say that the crotch has similar lateral issues as us dogs? Just curious, and feel free to neither confirm nor deny.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-29 12:34|| 2006-05-29 12:34|| Front Page Top

#16 I've seen it work in the Gulf during Earnest Will, but it was essentially a self-contained unit.

I've also seen it not work; the comms were fine, but teh command was lacking. By the time permission was granted, the target was in unapproachable territorial waters.

Posted by Pappy 2006-05-29 13:20|| 2006-05-29 13:20|| Front Page Top

#17 We have never used sub launched cruise missiles, because we just acquired that capability on retrofits of two Los Angeles class subs recently.

They've been used in GWI, GWII and the Kamel Killer Campaign. It's 4 Ohios that are being retrofitted, not 688s.

Posted by 6 2006-05-29 14:10|| 2006-05-29 14:10|| Front Page Top

#18 They've been used in GWI, GWII and the Kamel Killer Campaign

From subs, at least twice from the Red Sea.

Posted by 6 2006-05-29 14:11|| 2006-05-29 14:11|| Front Page Top

#19 What's new are the veritical launchers on the SSGNs. BTW, the new Virginia class are built with 12 vertical launchers.

Posted by ed 2006-05-29 14:15|| 2006-05-29 14:15|| Front Page Top

#20 Seems like the appeal of the non-nuke ballistic missile is not time-to-target - there are other cheaper ways to do that, with less potential cold-war era side-effects (artillery, F-16, etc.) What you are looking for is penetrating power - more burrowing and less blasting. Cruise missiles and conventional bombs don't (generally) deliver that. Perhaps a task-specific ballistic missile warhead could recapture a lot of the energy expended in lifting it up against gravity and use it to punch into the ground over a hardened bunker before detonating (analogous to 'shaped charge') - phase one penetrates energy absorbing cover (dirt) and phase two tries to crack the hard shell. Probably too fragile, but possibly phase 3 charge follows phase two detonation on a harmonic time delay - x microseconds, but I'm just making this up as I go along.
If so, it might work even better to launch such a penetrating ballistic missile from an airborne platform (B-52?) - add rocket thrust TO gravity - if you can keep it on target and not burning up it will pack some kinetic energy. Man-made asteroid impact. Followed by a ton of chemical boom power. And no mis-interpretable 'signal' of a nuclear ICBM launch.

Posted by glenmore">glenmore 2006-05-29 14:41|| 2006-05-29 14:41|| Front Page Top

#21 Finally, I wonder if a nuclear weapon has ever been independently developed by any power other than the U. S. We know that the Russian bombs are derivative of U. S. designs. I believe the Chinese is derivative of the French design. I would not be surprised to learn that the French, Chinese and Israeli designs are derivative of U. S. or Soviet designs.

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2Paine.pdf

Venn diagram displaying the historical sharing of nuclear weapons knowledge.
The number of explosive nuclear tests performed is given in parentheses.
Area of overlap is not strictly proportional to the degree of knowledge sharing, as this is difficult to quantify

Paine Christopher and M. G. Mckinzie, "Does the US Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat?", Science and Global Security, 1998, Vol. 7, pp. 151-193.

Posted by john 2006-05-29 15:09|| 2006-05-29 15:09|| Front Page Top

#22 I wonder how many active ICBMs they actualy have on alert?

Russian nuclear forces, 2006

ICBMs. Russia currently deploys 549 operational ICBMs, down 36 missiles from a year ago. In 2005, Russia disbanded two missile divisions but formed more than 20 new units (probably regiments), according to Solovtsov. [9] He later added that in 2006, Russia plans to increase "the number of launching sites and missiles provided by the [defense] industry . . . by 10, 12, or 15," but that money was an issue. [10]

The last 15 rail-based SS-24 M1s, the division at Kostroma, were withdrawn from service, leaving four ICBM types: SS-18s, SS-19s, SS-25s, and SS-27s. Significant changes are expected in the next four years. Russia will likely retire approximately 40 SS-18s produced in the early 1980s and up to 400 warheads. Some 45-50 newer version SS-18s and approximately 30 SS-19s will undergo modifications and upgrades to extend their service lives for another 15 years. Eventually, Russia will deploy only two types of ICBMs: Topol-Ms and Topol-M1s.

The fifth Topol-M regiment entered service in December 2005 with the Tatishchevo division in the Saratov region, bringing the number of operationally deployed SS-27s to 44. The new regiment appears to be equipped with less than a full complement of missiles due to a lack of funding. Deployment of the Topol-M began at Tatishchevo in 1997. Russia's 2006 budget includes funds for six Topol-Ms. [11] Russia plans to deploy three Topol-M1s later this year at Teykovo (near Moscow) and six more in 2007.

Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The strategic submarine fleet has shrunk from a Cold War high of 62. Today 12 boats--six Delta IVs and six Delta IIIs--are deployed with two of Russia's four fleets. Of the Delta IVs, the Verkhoturye, Yekaterinburg, and Novomoskovsk are active, and the Tula, Bryansko, and Karelia are undergoing overhauls. Work on the Tula was completed last spring, but by the end of 2005 the boat had not yet returned to service due to a contract dispute. All six are with the Northern Fleet and based in Gadzhiyevo on the Kola Peninsula.

Of the 14 original Delta III subs, six remain:
Two Borey-class subs are under construction at the Severodvinsk shipyard on the Kola Peninsula--both of them behind schedule. The military has pushed back the service entry of the initial boat, the Yuri Dolgoruki, until 2007,
Each Borey-class sub will carry 12 Bulava missiles,

Posted by john 2006-05-29 15:16|| 2006-05-29 15:16|| Front Page Top

#23 The Russians, flush with oil money, have begun to reestablish their military satellite network.

Expect to see Chinese, Indian and Israeli early warning satellites within the decade...

Posted by john 2006-05-29 15:34|| 2006-05-29 15:34|| Front Page Top

#24 If so, it might work even better to launch such a penetrating ballistic missile from an airborne platform (B-52?) - add rocket thrust TO gravity - if you can keep it on target and not burning up it will pack some kinetic energy

Max payload for B-52: 77,000 lbs

Weight of a Trident 2 (D5): 133,000 lbs

Apart from weight there would be serious issues with counterthrust for any airborne platform. The B52 and other bombers are designed primarily for airdrop munitions.

Posted by lotp 2006-05-29 15:41|| 2006-05-29 15:41|| Front Page Top

#25 Only the US and Russia have a launch on warning capability.
The Chinese warheads are kept apart from their liquid fuelled missiles (which are kept in the unfuelled state).
So Russia would be expected to object to such a weapon if they percieved it as allowing a decapitation strike on Moscow or on military command centres.

Posted by john 2006-05-29 15:47|| 2006-05-29 15:47|| Front Page Top

#26
"Anything less than a civilization-shattering attack on us merely guarentees a devastating response."

And even a "civilization-shattering" attack would not prevent the US from delivering a devastating response!

Provided of course the ability to order a launch by submarine forces was not decapitated.

-M

Posted by Manolo 2006-05-29 16:17|| 2006-05-29 16:17|| Front Page Top

#27 Only way to take out the submarine retalitory strike commands would be to : A) sink all US boomers simultaneously; or B) take out Cheyenne Mountain and the ELF array simultaneously; or C) all of the above. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-05-29 17:03|| 2006-05-29 17:03|| Front Page Top

#28 Thanks for the diagram, John.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-29 17:04|| 2006-05-29 17:04|| Front Page Top

#29 I would have put the Pakistan set totally within the chinese one since it is now conclusively known (from the Libyan case) that the Pak bombs are Chinese designs. This paper was 1998 though..

While knowledge may be taken to mean direct warhead design info shared between states, there is in fact indirect US sharing of knowledge with all other states. Without the manhattan project, there would be no bomb. As the decades have passed, knowledge of the physics and simulation techniques has spread.

Posted by john 2006-05-29 17:20|| 2006-05-29 17:20|| Front Page Top

#30 Also, many ideas are only "obvious" after they have been first described by someone.

Take an Indian bomb designer. He would have read about the Cox report (on the Chinese theft of the W87 warhead).

What does he now know? Well... the secret of the US 200 kg RVs, their miniturization, is generally described - a spherical secondary, an oblate primary with a radiation case called the peanut.

Rather broad, general knowledge.. nothing useful to you or I.. but to a bomb designer ??

He now has the idea.. even if there are deliberate inaccuracies, he will use his mathematical simulation capabilities to design a physics package.

So even open source "sharing" may be useful...

Posted by john 2006-05-29 17:30|| 2006-05-29 17:30|| Front Page Top

#31 You're not wrong there Manolo.

18 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines, each with 24 MIRVed missiles - up to 8 warheads per missile, each warhead having a yield of up to 475 kT.

This counter-strike capability has worked for 'rational actors', such as the Russians and Chinese. It's debatable as to whether it would work with Islamists.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-05-29 17:36|| 2006-05-29 17:36|| Front Page Top

#32 Arms control experts are divided over the plan. Steve Andreasen, a former defense specialist on the staff of the National Security Council, said the program would undermine U.S. security by eliminating the taboo about the use of long-range missiles and diverting funds from other pressing defense needs.

"Long-range ballistic missiles have never been used in combat in 50 years," Andreasen said. "Once the U.S. starts signaling that it views these missiles as no different than any other weapon, other nations will adopt the same logic."

Posted by john 2006-05-29 17:44|| 2006-05-29 17:44|| Front Page Top

#33 U.S. nuclear forces, 2006

The 500-strong Minuteman III force remains basically unchanged from last year. Under START I, the air force downloaded the 150 missiles located at Warren AFB to single-warhead configuration in 2001. With START II's ban on multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) now a dead letter, U.S. officials revised earlier plans to download all Minuteman missiles to a single-warhead configuration. Although the air force plans to reduce the operational warhead loading on Minuteman IIIs to 500, it is considering keeping as many as 800 warheads for the Minuteman force.

The entire force of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) is now comprised of Trident II D5 missiles. When missile conversion is completed in 2008, the United States will have 336 Trident II D5 SLBMs on 14 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), which is the force level decided on in the 1994 NPR; the missiles will be armed with approximately 2,000 warheads

The primary goal of the shift is to increase coverage of targets in China, according to navy officials. (Pacific-based SSBNs also target Russia and North Korea.) The buildup of the more capable Trident II D5s in the Pacific additionally "enhances system accuracy, payload, and hard-target capability, thus improving [U.S.] available responses to existing and emerging Pacific theater threats,"

Posted by john 2006-05-29 17:47|| 2006-05-29 17:47|| Front Page Top

#34 Tony (UK) - On a personal note, I though you'd like to know that your idea yesterday about getting big donations to the Minuteman Fence from oilmen has already borne some fruit. I've already heard back from one fellow, who promptly challenged me to put my money where my mouth is, so typical, so we're each going to ante up $10K immediately. He's far wealthier, lol, and he'll check them out and give more, perhaps a lot more, if he likes what he sees - and also spread the word. Your idea lit the fuse. Simcox owes you a debt of gratitude, lol. Cheers. My apologies for being off-topic.

Posted by Ominetch Sniger4619 2006-05-29 17:53|| 2006-05-29 17:53|| Front Page Top

#35 OS4619, I am absolutely gobsmacked by that and tremendously pleased that you think those guys in Arizona might start to get the support they need and deserve.

Please let us know how it all plays out? - for sure, we'll get no sensible information from the MSM...

Are you 'Slolulet Sletch7958' from yesterday perchance? - excuse the flowery language, there's been an entire weekend of Sherlock Holmes on the tube here, and it does tend to seep in ;)

Cheers to you too,
Tone

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-05-29 18:25|| 2006-05-29 18:25|| Front Page Top

#36 Lol, Tony. Yes - I am all of those names - and more. I do not know why I didn't think of it, since I had contributed myself before, but your idea hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks - credit goes to you.

I've been vacationing here at my son's place in the splendid isolation of Lake Tahoe for the last couple of months. I'm using his machine and it's setup to use an anonimizer system, which suits me just fine, lol. I'll be around for a little while longer, but no guarantee what name I'll be using, lol.

Thanks, Tony. It was a great idea and I think it will grow and spread!

Posted by Hupitle Whomosing6517 2006-05-29 18:51|| 2006-05-29 18:51|| Front Page Top

#37 Ok OS,HW and more, I'll just keep an eye out for those auto-genned names Fred has cooked up ;) - hope it all goes well in Arizona, and please do keep us informed as to progress?

I can take very little credit though, you know where the thought came from? The oil guy in the Simpsons ;)

cheers, tone.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-05-29 19:26|| 2006-05-29 19:26|| Front Page Top

#38 Uh oh, I'll have to admit I've never seen the Simpsons, so the reference went over my head.

The biggest drawback to the Minutemen funding is that it can't be done anonymously, it is not tax-deductible, nor is it eligible for "gift" tax breaks. It's just cash that goes poof.

Some of these folks, as do I, must take some care to avoid political blowback, too. We often find ourselves in very awkward positions when politicians come to call. And you can bet the powers that oppose the Minutemen will be able to get access to the donors list for purposes of intimidation, once way or another. I predict many donations will come via sons-in-law who have no obvious connection to the actual donor's name. :)

I'm not sure I'll be in a position to give useful updates since I'll be returning to my usual button-down world soon. And I'm not sure I'll be privy to who and how much is given outside of my personal friends. Some folks are touchy about finances!

I need to set up this anonimizer system on my personal machine, lol. My employees and competitors would give me no end of hell for my honest comments.

Posted by Hupitle Whomosing6517 2006-05-29 19:50|| 2006-05-29 19:50|| Front Page Top

#39 I believe the Pentagon intended to use this new weapon on our seventh century enemy, not on a stable nation state. This would go well with unmanned drones crusing the countryside looking for terrorists camps and caravans smuggling guns.
Sounds like one of Rummy's efficiency moves to utilize current systems with little retooling costs.

Posted by wxjames 2006-05-29 21:39|| 2006-05-29 21:39|| Front Page Top

14:35 DarthVader
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:50 Rex Mundi
23:49 Broadhead6
23:41 Broadhead6
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:37 Broadhead6
23:35 3dc
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:33 Broadhead6
23:28 Broadhead6
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:23 Broadhead6
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:01 Rafael
22:58 Old Patriot
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:41 Old Patriot
22:38 3dc
22:29 xbalanke
22:28 3dc
22:23 Cherese Cruter8975