meet the arclight!

The Russians don’t get involved in anything unless its to c-y-a themselves. And sometimes they try to sneak out evidence and get bombed for it. And other times we leave them alone and they forget to bring their own water and other basic staples along for the trip. Tricks are for rabbits… silly Russians.

During Desert Storm (in which the US was launching Tomahawks by the formation) the US had TLAM-Ns deployed at sea. Those Tomahawks could have easily been nuclear cruise missiles headed into Russia by the dozen yet Russia never said a peep about them.

Russia probably never detected them via satellite. I don’t think they were capable of detecting a cruise missile launch that way back then, so the first indication of missiles headed their way would have been on radar, i.e. when they approached Russian airspace. Although they did monitor coalition air activity with A-50 AWACS deployed in the Caucasus region IIRC, but again detection of low-flying cruise missiles over land at that range strains the bounds of credibility.

Besides, the build-up to Desert Storm went on for months, with every endorsement from the USSR short of them actually joining the coalition. So it’s not as though the TLAM launches would have come as a surprise, but the conventional Trident concept expressly includes scenarios where warning any parties who might misinterpret is not practical due to time constraints.

Nonetheless, Arclight doesn’t sound like it would cause such issues – with forward basing on ships to mitigate its shorter range this sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Folks,

This issue including Arclight has and is being discussed in USNI Proceeding which is a famous quasi-US Navy publication that has been around since the late 1800s. It is the largest naval publication in the Americas and 99.999% of the US Navy officers and many in the Pentagon read. Various factions of the US Navy want to convert old US SLBM to the conventional strike role and have wrote article on scenarios of strikes against Iran in which there are no US causalities and and all the identified and suspected Iranian nuclear faculties and long range ballistic missile faculties are destroyed. There are always letters and articles, including a very large one about three months ago with drawings and illustrations, which leads to letters from very senior and ex-Pentagon officials to the discussion section about what they say are the real dangers of sparking an accidental or for real nuclear reaction. And in some of those articles they have pointed out how touche the Russians are on this subject.

The problem is that the ballistic missiles with the range and trajectory (which could be launched from ships) that would not set off nuclear alarm bells were prohibited under that treaty during the Reagan presidency, in which the US destroyed its stock of Pershing II ballistic missiles. In fact there was a development of a Pershing II missile for a conventional strike against a harden command, airfield runways, etc. But by treaty they are prohibited. Other countries — ie China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — have ballistic missiles in this range category though: including Iran.

Jack E. Hammond

.

The INF Treaty covers land based missiles.

Dear Matt,

We are getting off the technical subject of these weapons, but when it come to Iran, remember that it is not rational. One Iranian president in the past has stated that if they could strike Israel with one nuclear weapon in the Tel Aviv region it would be the end of Israel and they could afford to loose a number of Iranian cities and it would be worth it. And the present president of Iran, believes firmly that the 12 Hidden Imman is coming very soon and needs a little help: ie a lot like the Calvinists in the 17th century who started the 30 Years War.

And as one US general stated about the 1991 Gulf War: If Iraq had had one nuclear weapon they would still be occupying Kuwait.

Jack E. Hammond

.
Note> The big danger about nuclear weapons in the Middle East is the not so secret Massada Option that Israel has adopted if they are ever hit by a nuclear weapon: the destruction of Mekka and Medina. Think about the post results.

.

Fair points, yes it is getting away from technical issues of the missiles but i find it rather abstract to compare weights ranges and numbers of things but not of their use. Surely the use of the object gives its lethality, as they say even a spoon can be lethal if required.

Fair point about the examples provided. I had forgotten those points.

Dear Matt,

We are getting off the technical subject of these weapons, but when it come to Iran, remember that it is not rational. One Iranian president in the past has stated that if they could strike Israel with one nuclear weapon in the Tel Aviv region it would be the end of Israel and they could afford to loose a number of Iranian cities and it would be worth it. And the present president of Iran, believes firmly that the 12 Hidden Imman is coming very soon and needs a little help: ie a lot like the Calvinists in the 17th century who started the 30 Years War.

And as one US general stated about the 1991 Gulf War: If Iraq had had one nuclear weapon they would still be occupying Kuwait.

Jack E. Hammond

.
Note> The big danger about nuclear weapons in the Middle East is the not so secret Massada Option that Israel has adopted if they are ever hit by a nuclear weapon: the destruction of Mekka and Medina. Think about the post results.

.

Folks,

This issue including Arclight has and is being discussed in USNI Proceeding which is a famous quasi-US Navy publication that has been around since the late 1800s. It is the largest naval publication in the Americas and 99.999% of the US Navy officers and many in the Pentagon read. Various factions of the US Navy want to convert old US SLBM to the conventional strike role and have wrote article on scenarios of strikes against Iran in which there are no US causalities and and all the identified and suspected Iranian nuclear faculties and long range ballistic missile faculties are destroyed. There are always letters and articles, including a very large one about three months ago with drawings and illustrations, which leads to letters from very senior and ex-Pentagon officials to the discussion section about what they say are the real dangers of sparking an accidental or for real nuclear reaction. And in some of those articles they have pointed out how touche the Russians are on this subject.

The problem is that the ballistic missiles with the range and trajectory (which could be launched from ships) that would not set off nuclear alarm bells were prohibited under that treaty during the Reagan presidency, in which the US destroyed its stock of Pershing II ballistic missiles. In fact there was a development of a Pershing II missile for a conventional strike against a harden command, airfield runways, etc. But by treaty they are prohibited. Other countries — ie China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — have ballistic missiles in this range category though: including Iran.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Folks,

Same reason they don’t convert some the US Navy D-5 Trident missiles to conventional weapons against harden targets (ie think Iran nuke facilities) by replacing the nuclear warheads with hard steel warheads. It would be a fast way to start an accidental nuclear war.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Do you think this is a real possibility?

I would say in 20 to 30 years time when missiles have proliferated a bit more you may have an issue. But the location of the US physically in the world and its current mahoosive stockpile of nuclear weapons just means that most countries would probably want to wait till the bombs explode before they try and lob something back (even if they could lob something back).

Please humour the hypothesis below, there maybe some holes in it for sure but i am not really out to write a 30 page document.

If you do a risk analysis of a bomb coming your way, unless you were Russia or maybe China, you would want to look at the below.

1) Do i have any weapons that can be a threat to the US or cause damage to the roots of the US war machine
2) Do i have enough nuclear warheads to deter or match the level of destruction the US can put apon me (does not have to match the same number of WMDS just the amount of damage caused to infrastructure and economy)
3) Can my country (whoevers country it is) enter into a exchange with the US and come out of it looking still somewhat like a functional state?
4) Am i so small that even if 1 nuclear strike hits i would be oblitorated (if so then i will loose all of my weapons and atleast bloody the US).

If the answer to the first 3 is no then you would most likely take whats dished out by the US, this is not acounting the insanity quotient which basically says f-it i do not care i just want to bloody them and i dont care if my country is wiped off the face of the world.

If you say yes to 4 then well you have nothing else to loose so well you might as well go down fighting, but if you are so small and not already a US ally would you really have a nuclear capability?

This has got to be one of the better missiles around and to be honest, the USA is not going to start a war with any nuclear power that has the potential to hit back just as hard.

The only two countries with which it may have a problem with are USSR or China, out of which China already is developing anti ship ballistic missiles which probably has a greater chance of escalating to a nuclear exchange. Also the Arclight is a perfect answer to antiship ballistic missiles, could the arc light be used to hit ships, obviously the distances would mean that there would need to be some form of target tracking and target position update, but one can imagine the hold these missiles could have if based around diego garcia or some other similar place.

Also who else could realistically retaliate against the US with any chance of existence after the nuclear exchange?

Not comparable. From their launch sites, they could only reach the southern fringes of the USSR, & there was plenty of time to react. I’d expect there would have been increased surveillance along the borders in the Caucasus & Central Asia, but that’s all.

Trident launches are in a completely different category. Several times the range, immensely higher speed & thus lower flight time . . . . not something one can be relaxed about.

Which is what I am assuming sferrin is saying in reply to jakehammond’s posting – he says Trident but I read it as he is comparing ArcLight missiles to conventional Trident and the dangers it creates as a reason for not developing them.

During Desert Storm (in which the US was launching Tomahawks by the formation) the US had TLAM-Ns deployed at sea. Those Tomahawks could have easily been nuclear cruise missiles headed into Russia by the dozen yet Russia never said a peep about them.

Not comparable. From their launch sites, they could only reach the southern fringes of the USSR, & there was plenty of time to react. I’d expect there would have been increased surveillance along the borders in the Caucasus & Central Asia, but that’s all.

Trident launches are in a completely different category. Several times the range, immensely higher speed & thus lower flight time . . . . not something one can be relaxed about.

During Desert Storm (in which the US was launching Tomahawks by the formation) the US had TLAM-Ns deployed at sea. Those Tomahawks could have easily been nuclear cruise missiles headed into Russia by the dozen yet Russia never said a peep about them.

I thought that nuc warheads are long gone (after SALT treaty I think).
BTW there isn’t much sense comparing 1,5 ton Tomahawk to 60 ton Trident…

Are those really comparable? Scud is a short range tactical ballistic missile and Tomahawk is a cruise missile. I don’t think you can compare them to a MIRV equipped intercontinental SLBM like Trident, which would likely set off all sorts of warning sensors all over if launched in aggression.

During Desert Storm (in which the US was launching Tomahawks by the formation) the US had TLAM-Ns deployed at sea. Those Tomahawks could have easily been nuclear cruise missiles headed into Russia by the dozen yet Russia never said a peep about them.

Yeah that would explain why all those Scud and Tomahawk launches started nuclear wars. Oh, wait. . . :rolleyes:

Are those really comparable? Scud is a short range tactical ballistic missile and Tomahawk is a cruise missile. I don’t think you can compare them to a MIRV equipped intercontinental SLBM like Trident, which would likely set off all sorts of warning sensors all over if launched in aggression.

Folks,

Same reason they don’t convert some the US Navy D-5 Trident missiles to conventional weapons against harden targets (ie think Iran nuke facilities) by replacing the nuclear warheads with hard steel warheads. It would be a fast way to start an accidental nuclear war.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Yeah that would explain why all those Scud and Tomahawk launches started nuclear wars. Oh, wait. . . :rolleyes:

Folks,

Same reason they don’t convert some the US Navy D-5 Trident missiles to conventional weapons against harden targets (ie think Iran nuke facilities) by replacing the nuclear warheads with hard steel warheads. It would be a fast way to start an accidental nuclear war.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Very encouraging news. Aegis has been taking a pounding by the budgets and neglect here lately. Takes some weight off its shoulders for a necessary breather.