Conventionally-armed ICBMs are a cheaper and more efficient solution for meeting the global long-range precision strike mission than force projection space weapons.
Keywords: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Long Range Strike Weapons.
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a supporting argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a related argument.
In the end, the quality of each tool in this toolbox of capabilities is judged by the unique contributions it can make. While strategic bombers may have advantages in terms of raw payload, ballistic missiles continue to be capable of delivering a sizeable payload globally – in about 30–45 minutes. Ballistic missiles provide a unique mix of promptness and direct control, which allows the commander to tailor his attack for maximum strategic impact. Moreover, the commander can do so with forces based 10,000km from the theater of operation; a fact that may be crucial in regions where the United States may not have a presence in being or in which an adversary has made significant investments in area denial capabilities. ( More ... ) Miller, Eric A. "Global Strike Capabilities: The Ballistic Missile Option." Astropolitics. Vol. 2 (2004): 1-31. [ 5 quotes ] [ page 24 ]
The Air Force has proposed that the United States institute a number of cooperative measures with other nations to add confidence to the U.S. declaration that the Minotaur missiles deployed at coastal bases would carry conventional warheads. These measures could include military-to-military contacts, high level political consultations, and ongoing discussions to keep Russia and other nations informed about U.S. plans for these missiles and to make them aware of the observable differences between conventional and nuclear ballistic missiles. The Air Force has referred to this process as a “strategic dialogue” that might, over time, answer questions and ease concerns about the plans for and capabilities of long-range ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads. ... Over time, these measures would not only provide information about the missiles and their missions, but might also build confidence and understanding between the parties. The increased level of cooperation, and possibly decreased level of suspicion, might then reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation if the United States were to launch ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. ( More ... ) Woolf, Amy F. Conventional Warheads for Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2006. [ 2 quotes ] [ page 19 ]
If so-called "Rods from God"--an informal nickname of untraceable origin--ever do materialize, it won't be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods' speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the "absentee ratio"--the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target--would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they're stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. "The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons," Pike says--among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. "But I'll still bet you there's a lot of classified work on this going on right now." Adams, Eric. "Is This What War Will Come To?." Popular Science. June 1, 2004.