December 22, 2006
MAKING A NAVY POINTLESS:
Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon: The mission: Attack anywhere in the world in less than an hour. But is the Pentagon's bold program a critical new weapon for hitting elusive targets, or a good way to set off a nuclear war? (Noah Shachtman, January 2007, Popular Mechanics)
A tip sets the plan in motion — a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.
If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program — in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles — called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2006 7:59 AM
You may be able to strike but can you last more than a day or two with the beans, bullets and band-aids you bring with you? Amateurs talk tactics professionals talk logistics. Solve the supply problem and reduce the 90% of an armed force that is made up of the logistical train. Then we won't have the big force/small force conundrum. Easy, no?
Posted by: Jim Burke at December 22, 2006 10:10 AMWhat supplies? There will be no soldiers.
Posted by: oj at December 22, 2006 11:24 AMSince both of these weapons systems are designed to be launched from Navy ships, I don't get where this obviates the need for a fleet. The idea that cruise missiles (or, heaven forfend, conventional Tridents) are a substitute for conventional military power is, in any case, one worthy of the Clinton administration. In fact, that's what they really thought, and look how well that worked out.
Posted by: HT at December 22, 2006 11:26 AMThey're only temporarily sub based.
Posted by: oj at December 22, 2006 11:33 AMAhem. The X-51, which is the system intended for ultimate deployment, is also ship-based. Even if it had the range (which it won't), a flight from the U.S. (or Okinawa, if you're Jack Murtha) would take hours. If your target is Afghanistan, the flight time for an X-51 is 20 minutes, but only if you're launching from the Arabian Sea. Or do you want to base them in Pakistan?
Posted by: HT at December 22, 2006 11:41 AMPirates are still an issue. Watch the heads explode when we have the orbital systems in place to sink any boat or ship that isn't vetted by the U.S.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at December 22, 2006 12:43 PMIn the first place, ships will always be needed to move men and materials. Technology may let us do with less, but it will not let us do with nothing.
Then too, it is absolutely necessary that the world government maintain the capability for conquest and occupation.
Finally, to nurture the fighting spirit which, while it does not substitute for mass, nevertheless makes the use of mass possible, it is necessary to support warrior traditions and a warrior class.
Of course there who those who would rather spend all that money on choo-choo trains, but the common good is better served by devotion to the cause of peace.
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 22, 2006 12:45 PMI rather preferred the plan to just stock low earth orbit with the things, programmed to drop on demand - a veritable sword of Damacles hanging over any enemy's head.
It's likely to be a lot more expensive than robotic bombers, though.
Posted by: Mike Earl at December 23, 2006 12:19 AMYup
Remember when.....
When atomic weapons were developed the infantry became obsolete.
When missiles were developed guns on fighters became obsolete.
The failure to disband the armies and get rid of the guns was the tragic error. But we've become so casualty averse that it becomes more and more likely we'll default to first strike, as we should have in the late 40s.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2006 5:56 PM