Non Nuclear ICBM's

Originally posted by longbow
Why use ICBM? There is currently Hyper Strike missile iin development, it should be carried by planes and will be able to destroy deep burried targets due its high hypersonic velocity (6.5-8 mach). It is also more accurate than ICBM and much cheaper.

"in Development" can mean so many things. They are still in the begining of the Hyper X.

The ICBM would only require some modifications.
Its still faster
It can be launchd from the CONUS

The hypersonic missile would be a bad boy no doubt

But the ICBM costs 30 mil. $. It is really too much to take out some concrete bunker. And the ICBM flies 30+ mins. A HyStrike placed on B-52 flying near area could reach the target in 5-8 mins. It is true that with ICBM you are risking nothing (like pilot, bomber etc.) but 30 mil.$ is really ineffective. The only reason why it should be used, I think, is destroying WMD silos/stores. (i.e. North Korean)

Sorry to burst the bubble, but ICBM's are not really as practical of a weapon as you think. First of all, an ICBM is a Ballistic Missile. Ballistic Missiles are never completely accurate, they almost always miss by a few feet or yards. This is because the weapons are essentually thrown at the target, it's the same principle as a child throwing a ball from a few yards away at a bottle sitting on a curb. Everything for barometric pressure, to wind, to varations in tempatrue and humidity have an effect on accuracy.

What made the Ballistic Missile a practical weapon was the invention of the Nuclear Warhead. If you drop a bomb that will level everything within 50 miles of where it hits, it doesn't matter if you miss the target by 20 feet, it will still be destroyed. If, on the other hand, you miss with a normal 2'000 lbs. bomb by 20 feet, you have left your intended target untouched, except maybe a broken window, but you may have killed a few hundred innocent people. Remember, You can't controle exactly where the warhead will land. It might take four or five trys to hit the target. If you miss a target once and hit the wrong building, it's a mistake of war. If you miss the same target 3 or 4 times in a row and hit the wrong building, people will question you competence.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 29-6-2004 by ghost]

Originally posted by ghost
they almost always miss by a few feet or yards.

Make that hundred.

Hmmm, I wonder how much MARVs increase accurasy.

Originally posted by ghost
Sorry to burst the bubble, but ICBM's are not really as practical of a weapon as you think. First of all, an ICBM is a Ballistic Missile. Ballistic Missiles are never completely accurate, they almost always miss by a few feet or yards. This is because the weapons are essentually thrown at the target, it's the same principle as a child throwing a ball from a few yards away at a bottle sitting on a curb. Everything for barometric pressure, to wind, to varations in tempatrue and humidity have an effect on accuracy.

What made the Ballistic Missile a practical weapon was the invention of the Nuclear Warhead. If you drop a bomb that will level everything within 50 miles of where it hits, it doesn't matter if you miss the target by 20 feet, it will still be destroyed. If, on the other hand, you miss with a normal 2'000 lbs. bomb by 20 feet, you have left your intended target untouched, except maybe a broken window, but you may have killed a few hundred innocent people. Remember, You can't controle exactly where the warhead will land. It might take four or five trys to hit the target. If you miss a target once and hit the wrong building, it's a mistake of war. If you miss the same target 3 or 4 times in a row and hit the wrong building, people will question you competence.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by ghost]

This is if you assume that we don't have the technology for terminally guided warheads. This would probably be wrong...

Originally posted by ghost
Sorry to burst the bubble, but ICBM's are not really as practical of a weapon as you think. First of all, an ICBM is a Ballistic Missile. Ballistic Missiles are never completely accurate,

The warheads as they exist would be reworked the following paper explores some of these concepts. It does not have alot of details but some good general ideas.
www.wslfweb.org...

Originally posted by Starwars50

Originally posted by ghost
Sorry to burst the bubble, but ICBM's are not really as practical of a weapon as you think. First of all, an ICBM is a Ballistic Missile. Ballistic Missiles are never completely accurate, they almost always miss by a few feet or yards. This is because the weapons are essentually thrown at the target, it's the same principle as a child throwing a ball from a few yards away at a bottle sitting on a curb. Everything for barometric pressure, to wind, to varations in tempatrue and humidity have an effect on accuracy.

What made the Ballistic Missile a practical weapon was the invention of the Nuclear Warhead. If you drop a bomb that will level everything within 50 miles of where it hits, it doesn't matter if you miss the target by 20 feet, it will still be destroyed. If, on the other hand, you miss with a normal 2'000 lbs. bomb by 20 feet, you have left your intended target untouched, except maybe a broken window, but you may have killed a few hundred innocent people. Remember, You can't controle exactly where the warhead will land. It might take four or five trys to hit the target. If you miss a target once and hit the wrong building, it's a mistake of war. If you miss the same target 3 or 4 times in a row and hit the wrong building, people will question you competence.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by ghost]

This is if you assume that we don't have the technology for terminally guided warheads. This would probably be wrong...

If you using terminal guidence systems, it's not truely a ballstic missile anymore!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance