Obama To Decide On New Weapons 409
krou writes "Buried within the New Start treaty, which saw the decommissioning of nuclear warheads, was an interesting provision as a result of Russian demands: the US must 'decommission one nuclear missile for every one' of a new type of weapon called Prompt Global Strike 'fielded by the Pentagon.' The warhead, which is 'mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey,' would be 'capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour. ... It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. ... But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile, capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target.' The new weapon is in line with Obama's plans 'to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,' and rather focus on conventional ones. The idea is not new, having been first floated under the Bush administration, but was abandoned, mainly because 'Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.'"
I don't see what the ruskies are so worried about. (Score:5, Funny)
If the TSA's word isn't sufficiently reassuring, we could always stencil "No nukes here, we're saving them for Ivan" on all conventional ordnance...
Re:I don't see what the ruskies are so worried abo (Score:2, Funny)
After all, if the warhead contains more than 3 ounces of fluid in any one container, or won't fit in a one liter zip-lock bag, there is no way that the TSA will allow the launch... If the TSA's word isn't sufficiently reassuring, we could always stencil "No nukes here, we're saving them for Ivan" on all conventional ordnance...
Only problem is that the TSA will want to scan the nukes first... Then we'll have pictures of naked nuke internals getting passed around the 'net!
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:4, Funny)
The problem has never been that we blow too much shit up. The problem has been that we don't blow up ENOUGH!
I have always been a proponent of the Master of Orion foreign policy theory. You live in peace ad harmony with your neighbors, until they do something to piss you off. You know, they attack your colonies, steal too much technology, crash their star cruisers into a couple of towers, whatever.
You then send your fleet to bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants... then you simply bring in your own colonists to settle the area and call it good.
Once the other countries learn that you're serious and not screwing around anymore, they don't dare pick a fight with you.
Where's the problem?
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:1, Funny)
"Where's the problem?"
That you're neighbors probably got the same strategy.
The efficiency is worth it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:infrared (Score:4, Funny)
yes, but that heat-seeking ABM will need to move even faster, thus generating even more heat, thus making it an easy target for a heat seeking AABM.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:2, Funny)
What? and leave baliwood to make all the blockbuster movies? not likely!
Along those lines, aside from Canada's pop musicians, and England who produces good rock band on occasions, where is the rest of the world supposed to get good music from if America gets wiped off the map?
Wait.. what??? (Score:5, Funny)
capable of avoiding the airspace of neutral countries, for example, or steering clear of hostile territory.
So if it will avoid neutral countries, and steer clear of hostile territories, by process of elimination that leaves the target to be our allies?
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:5, Funny)
All politics is local. We can't even keep Arizona in line on Human Rights, and I'm pretty sure they're still our ally. Pretty sure. That's the best I can give you.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:2, Funny)
Scandinavia does produce some damn good metal, I'll give it that.
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:2, Funny)
He wants to replace the high powered explosives with toilet paper roll shooters, because it's just not fair that the US can blow its enemies to smitherenes. We need to make it possible for smaller countries like Haiti to completely obliterate the US, in order to even things out. It's just not right that the US can defend itself!
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:2, Funny)
And inbreeding, so as long as a clan from West Virginia or southern Utah doesn't assume the leadership of the US, we'll be better off than the Romans.
Re:Don't blow shit up - problem solved (Score:3, Funny)
The problem has never been that we blow too much shit up. The problem has been that we don't blow up ENOUGH!
I have always been a proponent of the Master of Orion foreign policy theory. You live in peace ad harmony with your neighbors, until they do something to piss you off. You know, they attack your colonies, steal too much technology, crash their star cruisers into a couple of towers, whatever.
You then send your fleet to bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants... then you simply bring in your own colonists to settle the area and call it good.
Once the other countries learn that you're serious and not screwing around anymore, they don't dare pick a fight with you.
Where's the problem?
I say we lift off and nuke the site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.
I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Haven't seen this one yet... (Score:1, Funny)
The UK has had trouble calling the US its ally since Operation Telic, or since the US military shot down a Tornado fighter, or when a US gunship opened fire on British and Afghan Army infantry, or when an American fighter bombed a British Regiment, or when American tanks opened fire on a British recon vehicles. Or when a British armor unit was destroyed by American A-10s...
Here's advice for the English: GET YOUR OWN DAMN WARS THEN MATE!
Seriously. Lately whenever we in the U.S. have a conflict it seems like you guys want to get your grubby little mitts involved.
If England is feeling its oats then go go kick Argentina's ass again or maybe the French have been especially annoying lately and it's time to wipe that smirk off their face.
Re:I know people who work on weapons (Score:3, Funny)
"Unless your job is designing large shapeless soft foam objects, you're always going to risk someone using your creation to hurt someone else."
I wonder if the foam egg-crate lining of a sniper rifle's protective case counts as a "designed, large, shapeless foam object"