Conventionally armed ICBMs are not a viable alternative to force-projection space weapons because they are technically less flexible than space weapons and their use could cause miscalculation and accidental nuclear war.
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.
Most analysts recognized, during the Cold War, that long-range land-based ballistic missiles could prove destabilizing in a crisis, when nations might have incomplete information about the nature of an attack, and too little time to gather more information and plan an appropriate response. Faced with these circumstances, a nation who was not an intended target, such as Russia, might choose to respond quickly, rather than to wait for more information. The same could be true for the adversaries who are the intended targets of U.S. ballistic missiles. If the United States hoped to destroy a nation’s military forces or weapons of mass destruction at the start of a conflict, before they could be used against U.S. troops, the other nation might choose to use these weapons even more quickly during a crisis, before it lost them to the U.S. attack. 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 26 ]
At present, the ability to destroy HDBTs is limited. Conventional penetrating weapons can destroy “cut and cover” HDBTs, which represent the majority of these facilities worldwide. But, as the NPR pointed out, the U.S. capability to address HDBTs remains limited, and “in general, current conventional weapons can only ‘deny’ or ‘disrupt’ the functioning of HDBTs,” and they “are not effective for the long-term physical destruction of deep, underground facilities.” It should be noted, however, that in many cases the complete destruction of the HDBT is not necessary to achieve the functional defeat of the target. That is, the operational capability of the facility can be degraded sufficiently by targeting and destroying surface features, such as air ventilation systems, communication lines, and entrances. This may inhibit personnel from entering and leaving the facility and trap military assets underground where they cannot be accessed. Miller, Eric A. and Willis A. Stanley. The Future of Ballistic Missiles. Fairfax, VA: National Institute of Public Policy, October 2003. [ 11 quotes ] [ page 10 ]