Advanced Weapons

The U.S. Navy in August plans to conduct a flight test of Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile technologies modified for conventional strike operations.

The experiment could help the Pentagon assess the feasibility of equipping the Trident with a conventionally armed and maneuverable re-entry body. The D-5 missile's re-entry body, which normally carries nuclear warheads, would receive a precision guidance system and modified control surfaces to help boost its accuracy.

A second related flight test is scheduled for late 2012 or early 2013, according to the Pentagon's "Research, Development and Testing Plan for Conventional Prompt Global Strike, FY 2008-2013."

www.scienpress.com...

Yesterday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Defense Secretary Robert Gates may have revealed the existence of a new weapon in America’s arsenal, a conventionally-armed ICBM. It was through development and deployment of conventionally tipped ICBMs was still years away; a prototype is scheduled for a test flight next month.

From a technical perspective, such accuracy modifications could be made regardless of whether the re-entry body carried a nuclear or conventional payload, but in recent years Pentagon discussion has focused on the conventional mission.

www.defensetech.org...

There is no problem using an ICBM to launch a Rod of God.

Ideally, though the ICBM would need to enter a higher orbit that if it was carrying nukes before releasing the payload.

That means a lighter payload.

All Mig-23' variants are, capable of carrying, more than just one thermonuclear bomb.

www.cia.gov...

List of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: yuppa

Are you sure?

a reply to: mbkennel

In respect to reality, one could use a Rocket like this....



to carry a conventional weapon payload directed at a target on Earth.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: yuppa

Are you sure?

quite sure. RODS transported on ICBMs are impracticle. the weight a rod has to be to survive re entry and still destroy a target and leave no evidence would take alot of launches to complete.

To make rods viable they need secrecy that a ICBM cant deliver.

originally posted by: Kashai
All Mig-23' variants are, capable of carrying, more than just one thermonuclear bomb.

www.cia.gov...

you sad a F-15. they have the ability to prolly carry a cruise missile but only just...which is why bombers do it today.

of course russians can launch air to air nukes.

a reply to: yuppa


BS the Mig29 is a response to the F-15 variants as well as the F-16 variants AND so on.

Is that over your head?

Are you fooling yourself and grasping at straws proverbially

a reply to: Kashai

i was not disrespecting you but you insult me? ok son.

reading comprehesion is your friend here. I SAID THAT THE F-15 CAN CARRY NUKES EARLER. yes i know it was countered by russia. what you are failing to get is CURRENTLY OUR AIRCRAFT EXCEPT BOMBERS DONT MOUNT THEM.

( caps for emphasis )

people are steering clear of you for your tude son. lurk more on 4 chan.

I am sure all of you can imagine how in reality it can be difficult to find a home.

a reply to: yuppa

BS.

And inclusive of everything you have offered in this thread in an altogether way and seriously.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: yuppa

BS.

show me your military records to prove you arent lying.

a reply to: Kashai

He was being pretty polite, seeing as he's the only member engaging with you and your thread which was previously just you talking to yourself. But sure, he's special needs

a reply to: skalla

Otherwise only an Idiot would not understand that the United States of America would have Silos where they could launch at this very moment Rods of God, onboard a Rockets equivalent to the ones designed to launch the Space- Shuttle.

I mean and in all sincerity, there is living under a rock and not understanding that the original point of launching payloads into outer-space, was to offer in earnest. Our capacity (as in the U.S.A) to carry and deploy weapons of mass destruction in relation to such propulsion technology.

It's like you really do not understand that we are actually capable of steering those things.

a reply to: Kashai

such Technology apples as a deterrent to anyone in general who would consider messing with the United States

Its not used as a deterrent. The USA has been in a aggressive almost perpetual state of war since its formation.

a reply to: Kashai

You really dont get it and most likely lack the neccessary capacity to remedy this.

a reply to: purplemer


Mankind has existed in in a perpetual state of war since we first presented on Earth.

While the US is a country that formed 241 years ago.

The treaties applied at the end of WW1 were a disaster.

The United States declared war on the German Empire on April 6, 1917. The U.S. was an independent power and did not officially join the Allies. It closely cooperated with them militarily but acted alone in diplomacy. The U.S. made its major contributions in terms of supplies, raw material and money starting in 1917.

en.wikipedia.org...