US-based missiles to have global reach

juno75

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,988612,00.html


Now i dunno about you people but the thought of that 10/20/30
years down the road scares the poo poo outta me.

America not relying on anybody else in the world and push button
destruction from a sterile office.

The new roman empire is here

Budda help us all:mad:

Lemming

"Do as we say, not as we do"

Terror is bad. Unless we're the ones unleashing it :rolleyes:

poneill

I have all of this kit in my back yard already. I need a new bicycle pump and some duck tape to get it going again.

Sparks

This seems like the republican's dream project - they can be both isolationist and control foreign countries at the same time!

poneill,
This isn't your back yard, is it?

Scruff

The technology advances proposed are interesting, Hypersoning planes capable of carring large payloads could easily be adapted for launch platforms for science and space exploration.

Pity such advances have to come with such political risk.

Can you say "Arms Race" Mr.Bush?

Whats the betting China will accelerate its space plans...

Sparks

Whats the betting China will accelerate its space plans...

They won't, or rather, can't. They're already due to orbit their first astronaut this year, and some things can't get pushed that much.

What bothers me is this comes in conjunction with the whole policy of denying space access to other countries, as previously mentioned here.

bonkey

Personally, I dont see anything especially ominous in these developments at all.

Consider....20-30 years ago, you would have been seeing similar articles (ignoring issues like secrecy) about "smart" missiles which could find their way across terrain to targets with unnerving accuracy. You would have read about "invisible" aircraft which wouldnt show up on radar, or even on IR targetting systems.

These developments are nothing extraordinary. THey are the inevitable march of progress. Cruise missiles are all well and good, but they're slow dammit. Similarly, Iraq has just shown how limited the "projectable force" range of the US might really is. OK - it can ship its army anywhere in the world, but it still needs friendlies near the target area in order to stage from there.

Technology marches on. There were articles a year or so ago about the US and Israel working on a short-to-mid-range truck-mounted laser "defence" system. Something like that would obliviate the concept of "air superiority". Forget IR or Radar signature-hiding. If you can be seen, you can be shot down.

Technology marches on. The US has the most advanced army today, which makes it pretty much unchallangeable. But if it stands still, all it does is give the rest of the world a decade or three - not to catch up, but to figure out how to counter these technologies the US have today. You dont need the same stuff as them...you need something to stop their stuff from being effective.

So what would you expect the US to do? Honesly? Research into new weaponry perchance? (Hyper-velocity sounds like a great way to counter tracking of any type.) Remove your need for people, so that the cost of war becomes purely economic to you?

Everything in that article makes perfect sense. It is what the US would be expected to do. Its not "end of hte world" stuff, no more than their technological edge today is "end of the world".

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
General technological advances are one thing. But specific directed advances in weapons technology which are aimed at one specific policy are not necessarily a good thing.

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3035332.stm (has pictures)

Personally it scares the **** out of me because it is the policy that the US plans to take for the next 20 years.

If we are lucky it's just a project that the government can help piss away the cash into thier own firms which doesn't go anywhere.

What I would like to know is who are they trying to arms race with?

China? Working on going to the moon and setting up a base, likewise with India and Europe. USA? Working out ways to kill others.

The scarier thing is, if this continues military might is the only thing that the US will be able to declare itself as a superpower in, and when that's all that is left it normally means they plan to invade.

I mean has no one been paying attention to USA is suffering a major oil shortage (coming to the same levels of 1970's). All it needs is a really hot summer and really cold winter and it's screwed (probably less then that)

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
What I would like to know is who are they trying to arms race with?

Like you said...their own firms. If the US stopped racing, the resultant downturn in their economy would be devestating.

They are racing to stop themselves falling flat on their faces when they stop running. Thats about it.

Originally posted by Sparks
But specific directed advances in weapons technology which are aimed at one specific policy are not necessarily a good thing.

And what specific policy is that? I see an increase in capability. I see an increase in projectability. I see a decrease in US soldier mortality.

As for the stuff posted about it giving the US some new "hit specific targets hard and fast" capability - its complete horse. At best, it gives them a kneejerk response capability that they lacked prior to this. At present, anything other than kneejerk reactions can be achieved through use of maritime resources equipped with cruise missiles.

For example, the vast majority of cruise missiles fired at Iraq came from ships and subs. Not from land-based launch platforms. So what was the problem? There was no reliance on anyone else - they only needed that for the ground-pounders and air-support to follow after the missiles.

The simple fact is that none of this capability would give the US more leverage than it has today against any nation. So friggin what if they can hit anything, anywhere, in two hours? Like I said - they can pretty much do that anyway except in a knee-jerk reaction, and lets face it...if its "aimed at one specific policy" we're hardly talking about a policy of "shoot first think later" are we?

It does nothing to the nuclear standoff which is the only thing stopping the US army from walking over the rest of us today (realistically). It would be advances in this area which would be worrying, not these new "ultra-fast missiles".

The US needs to keep spending on its military or the backlash would be devestating to themselves. What would you do with the money if you were them? Invest in worse ways to kill people, rather than better ones? Stop spending it, and watch half of one of the nation's most significant industries fall apart, and suffer the financial backlash safe in the knowledge that at least the rest of the world won't be concerned?

This is nothing new. Its just another field of research, and a pretty predictable one at that. They have dozens of them.

jc

Sparks

And what specific policy is that?

The policy of dictating what other nations will do in accordance with their own wishes, using military force to do so.

At best, it gives them a kneejerk response capability that they lacked prior to this.

That's what you need to be scared of bonkey - the idea that this proposal puts forward into the minds of the US administration will be that they can carry out military strikes with impunity and the amount of time required isn't conducive to considered action. It's like the problem with rubber bullets - because they're considered nonlethal, they get used a lot more quickly than might be wise.

What would you do with the money if you were them? Invest in worse ways to kill people, rather than better ones?

Yes, actually. Personally, I think that the best scenario would be that if you want to kill someone, you have to do it up close with some particularly brutal and visceral method. For pretty obvious reasons.

Wook

but why spend on arms ? why not health or education or culture ?
Arms might create a cashflow now , but isn't this a constant drain ?
While investing in health techniques or education can give you a nice return in the longer run ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Wook
but why spend on arms ? why not health or education or culture ?
Arms might create a cashflow now , but isn't this a constant drain ?
While investing in health techniques or education can give you a nice return in the longer run ?

No - because by the US stopping investing in arms (which is what you'd be talking about), the US arms industry would literally fall apart overnight. The damage to their economy would be massive....and would (in all likelihood) have knock-on effects throughout the US indistry in general.

Starting a recession, or even a depression, in order to cut your arms spending is not a good move.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey

Starting a recession, or even a depression, in order to cut your arms spending is not a good move.

jc

Starting? Too late.

Wook

sorry i should have said , stop spending in development of New and improved weapons , but there is still and always be the money spend in maintaining their actual armed forces.

It's hard to believe that a country must rely on arms to keep itself floating... There must be another reason this is happening.
Surely there many other companies or industries that could create the same effect as you mention. Example : IT ? Hard and Software ? There Chemical industry ? There is loads outthere.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
The policy of dictating what other nations will do in accordance with their own wishes, using military force to do so.

You mean the use of projectable force? But thats what they do already Sparks. The entire US military is all about that, and has been since at least the end of WW2.

Like I said - this is nothing new. This is the same logic which led to the development of stealth aricraft, cruise missiles, ICBMs, boomer subs which are virtually silent, etc. etc. etc.

Or did you think that all of these attack-focussed systems were primarily intended as a defensive investment?

You seem to be saying that these new developments are ominous because they are part of a single coherent long-term strategy. All I am saying is that if that is the case it is a strategy the US have been openly persuing for at least the last 3 decades, and probably since the end of WW2. It is nothing new - just a continuation of the same....and in that respect, it is no scarier than what we face today - a technologically superior army who (in all likelihood) could not be defeated in the field.

That's what you need to be scared of bonkey - the idea that this proposal puts forward into the minds of the US administration will be that they can carry out military strikes with impunity

What I'm saying, Sparks, is that this is exactly what it doesnt do. They already have as much impunity as they could want - as you'll have noticed when they announced their intention to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of whether other nations were willing to back them or not.

and the amount of time required isn't conducive to considered action. It's like the problem with rubber bullets - because they're considered nonlethal, they get used a lot more quickly than might be wise.

Sure - and what about ICBMs - they can be launched at the drop of a hat, can fly around the world, and can take out whatever they're aimed at.

They're not fired off at the drop of a hat, are they? Why not? Because the rapid response of other major nations regardless of where the first birds are aimed is too big a risk to take.

How will these new systems be any different? Do you think the US will phone up all the other nuclear powers and say "don't worry lads, this is a CAV aimed at Iraq...its not an ICBM or a CAV aimed at southern Europe. Trust us - it'll fly over you harmlessly". I don't think so.

But tell me - do you honestly think a global-range conventional-explosive or kinetic missile is more akin to a localised crowd control device like rubber bullets than it is to a global-range nuclear device like an ICBM?

After all - lets realise that an ICBM could be tipped with kinetic or conventional warheads today. Costly, I agree, but still delivers effectively this 20-year-away-technology in a limited quantity in a very short period of time (like weeks or months).

Yes, actually. Personally, I think that the best scenario would be that if you want to kill someone, you have to do it up close with some particularly brutal and visceral method. For pretty obvious reasons.

Call me stupid, but I can't see any obvious reasons other than patently ridiculous ones :

- Because it gives the other person more of a fighting chance
- Beause it makes it more likely that more of your own men will get killed by getting closer to the action
- Because it makes war more costly in human terms as a result of the first two points

These are the only three reasons I can think of for getting up close and personal. If I'm missing your obvious point, then its not deliberately....

War ceased about being sporting a long time ago. It stopped being about close-combat around the same time. Its about defeating the enemy, and sustaining as few casualties on your own side as possible. The further your men are from the actual fighting area, the harder they are to kill.

The first logical step was "put them in the air". The next step was "do it remotely" using ship-launched cruise-missiles. The next logical step is "do it from home".

I honestly cant see why anyone trying to improve their military capability would want to get their own troops closer to the enemy.

Unless, of course, your reasons for wanting this is not to improve their military capability....in which case, you might as well argue that the best solution would be collapsing the entire world's arms industry and putting the money into propping up the ensuing chaos and never spending a penny ever again on military anywhere. Its about as realistic.


jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Wook

Surely there many other companies or industries that could create the same effect as you mention.

Buckets of them.

One of the major considerations against hamstringing Microsoft was the real threat that destroying the company would bring the entire US economy crashing down around its ears through knock-on effects. There was a similar possibility if Gates simply decided to relocate over into Canada, or elsewhere (which were being considered).

The point is that even if the US wanted to cut back on military spending it would have to be done over a very long period (I would estimate a min of about 20 years) to allow the industries in question a chance to downsize in a controlled fashion, without crippling the economy in the process.

The problem with something like that is that it then requires successive administrations to buy into it - and lets face it - politicians are not the best at continuing their predecessor's dreams and visions - they're more about realising their own.

jc

Wook

Originally posted by bonkey
(continued)The problem with something like that is that it then requires successive administrations to buy into it - and lets face it - politicians are not the best at continuing their predecessor's dreams and visions - they're more about realising their own.

jc

point taken.

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
One of the major considerations against hamstringing Microsoft was the real threat that destroying the company would bring the entire US economy crashing down around its ears through knock-on effects.

It's been a monopoly hamstringing businesses for years. A proper punishment would of improved business.

I thought the main consideration against hamstringing them was to do with the fact they helped bankroll the current government in.

After all - lets realise that an ICBM could be tipped with kinetic or conventional warheads today. Costly, I agree, but still delivers effectively this 20-year-away-technology in a limited quantity in a very short period of time (like weeks or months).

But they could hold a position outside their target then fly back and land if the situation calms down.

Paddy20

It is not the advancement of technology that worries me. It is the Americans war mongering and we no best whats good for the World attitude.

Paddy20.

Lemming

One "minor" problem with this new grand plan.

The only way you can control another country is with the "footprint" on the ground. You can't control a "rebel village" with a hypersonic bomber at 20,000 ft or whatever. You need men on the ground.

The more reliant on technology the foot soldier becomes, the more ineffective they become there's so much to keep track of.

Anyway, what happens if an EMP blast is set off? What happens to your glorious uber-technology which has just been rendered useless. What happens if your tank takes a hit that damages your computer-aided targetting?

There is a point beyond which technology on the battlefield is totally useless. Great if you just want to bomb someone, but all that'll probably do is p*ss them off.

Look at what happened in Vietnam. The NVA/VC engaged the US military in a few "proper" engagements at the start of the war and lost badly so they resorted to unconventional means and sent the US packing.

Today's equivalent to the US randomly bombing some country with hypersonic bombers is an ice-cream truck packed with 10,000 pounds of explosives parked outside the White-House.

A spade is still a spade ....

Scruff

Is nobody here thinking of Jack Bower?
My God, he won't have a hope of getting the evidence in time to stop America launching an attack on X amount of innocent foreign countries if he has to outrun those new hypersonic bombers. He can barley do it in 24 hours, how in heavens name is he going to do it in 2 ??????
He'll also be pretty old by then...

dont ban me please, its only a humours anecdote

Sand

Ive not been this deeply troubled about a deeply troubling report on US milatary research/policy since the last deeply troubling report on US milatary research/policy. If only China was the one developing these wonder weapons - then I wouldnt be so deeply troubled.