Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 02/18/2006 View Fri 02/17/2006 View Thu 02/16/2006 View Wed 02/15/2006 View Tue 02/14/2006 View Mon 02/13/2006 View Sun 02/12/2006
1
2006-02-18 Science & Technology
Conventional ICBMs
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 Anonymoose 2006-02-18 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [268 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 When the Russians detect a launch, how much time do their systems take before they know it is not targeted in a first strike capable profile. Will they wait?

Stick to cruise missiles.
Posted by Thrineper Spigum8159 2006-02-18 07:54||   2006-02-18 07:54|| Front Page Top

#2 ...What is making me smile about this is that Jim Dunnigan - who runs StrategyPage - was advocating this 20+ years ago.
One other thought - is it possible that under the treaty, the missiles can be retained if they don't have nuclear warheads? After all, WE play by the rules and would probably be more than willing to let Official Inspectors(TM) have a look.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 09:16||   2006-02-18 09:16|| Front Page Top

#3 TS8159 -
Russian early warning systems are...adequate. We would almost have to give them some kind of warning, however. A Trident strike against Iran would most likely come out of the IO, and that would look an awful lot like a first strike.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 09:18||   2006-02-18 09:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike:
Under the treaty, the delivery vehicles must be destroyed. The INF treaty of 1987 was the same thing. We couldn't convert the Pershings and cruise missiles to conventional; they had to be crushed.
Ironically, the warheads didn't need to be destroyed.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2006-02-18 10:18|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2006-02-18 10:18|| Front Page Top

#5 Jackal,
Thanks for the clarification. How many of the D5s are to be scrapped?

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 11:43||   2006-02-18 11:43|| Front Page Top

#6 How much kinetic energy would one of these bunker busters from on high carry? Would you even need explosives?
Posted by Classical_Liberal 2006-02-18 16:05||   2006-02-18 16:05|| Front Page Top

#7 I dunno, but something weighing as much as a dump truck and travelling at three and a half miles per second is gonna leave a welt.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-02-18 16:14||   2006-02-18 16:14|| Front Page Top

#8 1000 yrs from now - some archeologist will wonder why Iran entombed their scientists with crappy centrifuges and radioactive material
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-02-18 16:49||   2006-02-18 16:49|| Front Page Top

#9 CL, agreed. That's about the only application that makes sense.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-18 17:16||   2006-02-18 17:16|| Front Page Top

#10 I would imagine most of the vehicle is destroyed by atmospheric heating, leaving only that portion of the missile protected by a heat shield to engage the target.
Posted by 6 2006-02-18 19:55||   2006-02-18 19:55|| Front Page Top

22:53 RWV
22:28 RWV
22:24 Frank G
22:23 trailing wife
22:22 .com
22:18 trailing wife
22:18 Frank G
22:15 .com
22:12 Ebbemble Cleque3924
22:09 BA
22:04 Ebbemble Cleque3924
21:57 buwaya
21:56 Skidmark
21:26 doc
21:12 Frank G
21:11 Frank G
21:01 Anonymoose
21:00 Nimble Spemble
20:55 .com
20:46 .com
20:44 Frank G
20:39 .com
20:38 Redneck Jim
20:22 3dc
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com