Let's think about this paradigm. If you launch an ICBM with a nuclear payload at a target is there any way to stop it once it's launched? What's the diference between that and having a computer run a mission end to end? Now if you want to talk targets with limited windows and targets of opportunity, yeah someone does have have to pull the last second trigger, but if you are going after a building or a camp, there is no reason I can think of (besides using a tomahawk instead*) to not program the mission and let the technology execute.
*Which makes me wonder, why not just buy more Tomahawks?
I agree, I was thinknig of the F-117 where they plan the mission in advance, program the plane, and the pilot is really just riding along to make target decisions and manage unforseen events. What I dont know is if they auto take-off and auto-land, but the plane flys by itself unless overridden.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1033 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8): An ICBM conventional warhead would be small, and most importantly, the launch of an ICBM just gives away the position of the boomer.
Most plans call for replacing the MIRV with a single kinetic energy warhead. The sheer momentum of a solid slug of tungsten (or whatever) slamming into the target would do the damage, not a conventional explosive.
I also think that DeltaDC9 was refering to land-based ICBM sites for possible conversion to conventional missiles. Not to mention, the Ohio Class boomer is rediculously quiet and no one has submarine warfare that could seriously pose a threat to the USN. If we're affraid of using them, what's the point? We're already loading the Ohio's down with cruise missles...
The real risk IMO, is the fact that your enemy can't tell if the incoming warhead is nuclear or conventional until the moment of strike. That gives them about 15-20 minutes to decide to "use or lose" their forces, which could possibly include nuclear weapons.
I'd rather not have WWIII started because we felt it necessary to bunker bust from a continent away...
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11): Which raises a good question, are unmanned missions limited by its unrefuled range?
A) I would be stunned if a UAV of ANY kind has gone for an a-a refueling cycle
B) If one has, it's OPSEC.
I SORT of agree on the ICBM as conventional issue. I guess the problem is: who is it being launched against? China? CWIS? Forget it, anything launched at them BETTER be a special.
Iran? Fire 'em up boys!! Though I'd REALLY like to know the cost/benefit ratio of that scenario versus a MOAB or an inert MOAB of the same weight. IE if the airspace is secure, why not dump a moab full of cement for the same effect? I'm sure it has to be cheaper then a ICBM and probably can deliver more weight to the target.