PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld Developing New First Strike Doctrine



STIG
02-14-2006, 10:00 PM
by Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst

Washington DC (UPI) Feb 09, 2006
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is developing an ambitious and highly controversial new preemptive strategy to try and counter the increasingly formidable measures that nations around the world are taking to protect their missiles from the U.S. ballistic missile defense systems now coming on line.

The new strategy is multi-****ged and is being developed by two of Rumsfeld's most favored and heavily funded institutions: U.S. Air Force Space Command and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Curiously, while the concept has received major coverage in British defense publications this week, so far it has not attracted any significant attention in the U.S. media.

A major article published Monday on the British FlightInternational.com Web site documented the far-reaching and long-term scale of Rumsfeld's new vision.

The new program, FlightInternational.com said, is already scheduled to take 14 years to develop: Its goal is to develop a non-nuclear, conventional explosives weapons system that could hit a heavily defended major target such as a weapons of mass destruction launch site within hours or minutes of being ordered to do so.

"Dubbed the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) concept, the initiative will open new opportunities for ballistic or hypersonic vehicle technologies," the article said.

As previously reported in UPI's BMD Watch column, the U.S. Navy is already working on converting several of its Lockheed Martin Trident II D-5 submarine-launched nuclear missiles to carry conventional warheads. "That approach is intended to satisfy the immediate desire of U.S. Strategic Command for a near-term PGS strike option, but the Trident's ballistic trajectory is unlikely to meet long-term accuracy requirements," FlightIn ternational.com said.

Now Rumsfeld has turned to Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and asked them to develop more effective delivery systems for such preemptive attacks. Late last month he issued a request to U.S. military-industrial companies asking their input in meeting the challenge.

Just as the Missile Defence Agency has been developing or exploring different anti-ballistic missile systems that could destroy ballistic missiles at different stages of their flights, Air Force Space Command is also seeking to explore simultaneously different options to achieve the PGS goal. Maj. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the command's director of requirements, told FlightInternational.com

These are, Shackelford said:

-- First, a next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This, FlightInternational.com said, would be the technically the least ambitious and least revolutionary system to develop or a "low-end" concept.

-- Second, the most ambitious approach would involve the hypersonic Common Aero Vehicle and Small Launch Vehicle under development by DARPA's Falcon program.

-- Third, U.S. engineers are applying the same principle that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces are working overtime to give the Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) on their Bulava and Topol-M missiles maneuverable characteristics.

Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that U.S. forces are seeking develop a new conventional warhead for American ICBMs that can shape its own trajectory on re-entry, greatly improving its accuracy.

FlightInternational.com said the Department of Defence expects to receive responses back to its request from U.S. industry by March 14 and Air Force Space Command would then launch a two-year period of analyzing the different possible approaches for developing the new weapon.

The top officer at U.S. Strategic Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, reportedly sees this ability as vital if the United States receives fleeting intelligence about an important target, Inside Defense.com Newstand reported Feb. 3. Such a weapon might be used if North Korea prepares to launch a nuclear missile or if intelligence surfaces on a terrorist leader's whereabouts, the Web site said.

The most demanding scenarios under which the president might launch global-strike weapons are in cases of "no warning," U.S. defense officials told the web site.

The two-year review appears to be a setback for DARPA, despite the general strong support and generous budgets with which Rumsfeld has consistently favored it.

DARPA has pursued its Common Aero Vehicle based on the development of a new hypersonic glide vehicle, reflecting the agency's passion for new cutting edge technologies. But as FlightInternational.com pointedly noted, the hypersonic glide vehicle is "still-untested" and currently it "is not the presumed favorite candidate."

However, Gen. Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that "the results from the Falcon demonstration program, which involves a three-year series of flight tests on three increasingly capable versions of a hypersonic test vehicle, will be used to compete with the other candidates identified under the analysis of alternatives."

Although the new PGS system may be nearly a decade and a half away, even the coming debate over the best options to explore in developing it look likely to be charged with controversy.

For the very concept of the PGS, its critics claim, may push potential hostile nations to be prepared to launch nuclear-armed missiles with even less notice than before in order to avoid them being destroyed in any preemptive U.S. first strike. Therefore, they charge, far from making the American people and homeland safer, the development of such weapons could put them at even greater risk from thermonuclear attack.

As long as Rumsfeld remains at the Pentagon, however, the commitment to developing the PGS as energetically as possible looks unlikely to change.

Source: United Press International

CountZero
02-14-2006, 10:08 PM
Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that U.S. forces are seeking develop a new conventional warhead for American ICBMs that can shape its own trajectory on re-entry, greatly improving its accuracy.

wont this make the world a much more dangerous place? after all other nations cant distinguish between a conventionally armed icbm and a nuke, thus promting them to launch as soon as they see those things inbound

melon
02-14-2006, 10:32 PM
Shackelford told FlightInternational.com that U.S. forces are seeking develop a new conventional warhead for American ICBMs that can shape its own trajectory on re-entry, greatly improving its accuracy.

wont this make the world a much more dangerous place? after all other nations cant distinguish between a conventionally armed icbm and a nuke, thus promting them to launch as soon as they see those things inbound


Was thinking the same thing, I would imagine it would limit it use to nations without the ability to strike back within 20 or so minutes. The warhead type would be obvious once it impacted.

CountZero
02-14-2006, 10:41 PM
Was thinking the same thing, I would imagine it would limit it use to nations without the ability to strike back within 20 or so minutes. The warhead type would be obvious once it impacted.

true but lets say if they wanted to use it in afghanistan , although they have no longrange capability, the russians would get very nervous watching icbm with a trajectory near their country

melon
02-14-2006, 10:54 PM
true but lets say if they wanted to use it in afghanistan , although they have no longrange capability, the russians would get very nervous watching icbm with a trajectory near their country

My understanding is current ICBM's target can be plotted pretty soon after launch. Mathmatics and such, much higher than I ever learned in college. A maneuverable RV might change that though.

But an ICBM with (IIRC) 16 HE, deep penatrating RV's, wow. Not much an conventional air defense system can do to stop that, great first strike package to open the way for bombers deep into the targets area. The CEP of current weapons, from what I know (its been awhile since I even heard of it), needs to be addressed. I think the smallest CEP for the Peacemaker was 30 meters. Great for a nuclear device, but it would leave something to be desired in regards to PGM's.

Hate to say it, but who cares what others may or may not think is happening. Its not up to those who develop weapons to worry about such things, thats for the political leadership to weigh and decide if the problem is approachable.

Great topic. But I wonder how long until someone pulls out the "Russian ICBM's are unstoppable" flamethrower to crap all over this thread.

MakeWar87
02-14-2006, 10:57 PM
So its basically a nuke without the ability to spread damges over widespread area due to wind conditions. I think its a good alternative minimizing collatereal dammage.

melon
02-14-2006, 11:15 PM
So its basically a nuke without the ability to spread damges over widespread area due to wind conditions. I think its a good alternative minimizing collatereal dammage.

It would be a NON-nuke, an ICBM loaded with conventional warheads.

Anyone know the weight of an depleted uranium or tungston RV's? Or what the possible explosive content could be delivered on target? How about re-entry speed of such projectiles?

Anyone care to opine on the cost per pound of explosives delivered when compared to a conventional bomber attack, UCAV attack or cruise missle attack (assuming a successful strike with ZERO loss of life)?

CountZero
02-14-2006, 11:34 PM
[quote=melon]

But an ICBM with (IIRC) 16 HE, deep penatrating RV's, wow. Not much an conventional air defense system can do to stop that, great first strike package to open the way for bombers deep into the targets area. The CEP of current weapons, from what I know (its been awhile since I even heard of it), needs to be addressed. I think the smallest CEP for the Peacemaker was 30 meters. Great for a nuclear device, but it would leave something to be desired in regards to PGM's.


just wondering a bit ot wouldnt the most efficent defence against hose things be something similiar to the US nike system or an airburst to fry the electronics of the missiles? granted this is a nonissue in countries that posses no nuclear technology

ViktorNavorski
02-14-2006, 11:40 PM
Anyone know the weight of an depleted uranium or tungston RV's? Or what the possible explosive content could be delivered on target? How about re-entry speed of such projectiles?

Isn't re-entry speed somewhere around hypersonic?

melon
02-14-2006, 11:41 PM
[quote=melon]

But an ICBM with (IIRC) 16 HE, deep penatrating RV's, wow. Not much an conventional air defense system can do to stop that, great first strike package to open the way for bombers deep into the targets area. The CEP of current weapons, from what I know (its been awhile since I even heard of it), needs to be addressed. I think the smallest CEP for the Peacemaker was 30 meters. Great for a nuclear device, but it would leave something to be desired in regards to PGM's.


just wondering a bit ot wouldnt the most efficent defence against hose things be something similiar to the US nike system or an airburst to fry the electronics of the missiles? granted this is a nonissue in countries that posses no nuclear technology


Some debate might be in order if those systems are still relevant, they are after all 1950's and 1960's technology. EMP can be overcome with proper shielding, but such matters concerning RV protection would most likely be classified. I would only guess they would be, or designed to be resistant to it.

GazB
02-14-2006, 11:54 PM
Third, U.S. engineers are applying the same principle that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces are working overtime to give the Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) on their Bulava and Topol-M missiles maneuverable characteristics.


The manouverable reentry vehicle for the Topol-M has already been tested and Topol-Ms are in service. Bulavas will enter service in about 2007 when the first SSBNs designed to carry them enter service.

Regarding firing ICBMs about the place I would expect there shouldn't be a problem. If the US was going to hit, say a nuclear related target in Iran, then it would likely give Russia advanced warning of maybe 5 minutes. To get to Iran a SLBM would need to be launched from the indian ocean. An ICBM lauch on Iran would be tricky as the normal trajectory for US ICBMs would take it ove the north pole and therefore it would have to cross Russia to get to Iran. China would probably be notified as well. But a single missile would be rather unlikely to result in nuclear war. Even if it failed and landed in Russia.

Glad Reagan isn't around though.. he might have pused the wrong button and launched the wrong ICBM with the real warhead.


Anyone know the weight of an depleted uranium or tungston RV's? Or what the possible explosive content could be delivered on target? How about re-entry speed of such projectiles?


The weight of the payload depends on the missile used. A large powerful ICBM like the Soviet SS-18 had a throw weight of something like 7 tons or something. The reentry speed of the projectiles would depend on their shape and mass, but would be higher than the modified scuds used in Desert Storm that were coming in at about mach 7.

melon
02-15-2006, 12:04 AM
Thanks for the info. Sounds like you could deliver some punishing payload this way. Wonder why it took 50 years to think this concept up, seems like a simple idea. :-)


Can't think of any country outside of the US (and maybe Russia) with the technology to stop such an attack.

jmatucd
02-15-2006, 12:26 AM
Glad Reagan isn't around though.. he might have pused the wrong button and launched the wrong ICBM with the real warhead.


Perahps you should be in charge? ;)

Rifleman
02-15-2006, 01:02 AM
The whole thing looks like a smoke screen to throw us off while they develope a new generation of nuclear weapons delivery systems .

GazB
02-15-2006, 06:14 AM
Wonder why it took 50 years to think this concept up, seems like a simple idea.

A simple idea, but previously with wars between states you didn't win by blowing up a few government buildings with precision strikes... you leveled his cities and factories. A nuke warhead is still the best thing to do that with.


The whole thing looks like a smoke screen to throw us off while they develope a new generation of nuclear weapons delivery systems .

The reality is that if they just wanted to build a new type of ICBM they could. The Russians are in a way with their modification of the Topol (Topol-M) and its naval equivelent the Bulava.

Apathy
02-15-2006, 06:26 AM
Would the ICBM make a whistling sound just like a regular bomb?