We all know about the MIRV (Multiple Reentry Vehicle) based ICBM like the Peacekeeper. They bring thought of horror just thinking about dropping between 5 and 20 nukes from a single missle. We also know about the cruse missle like the tomahawk which can be launched from a ship or plane from hundreds of miles away and hit a single building/target with minimal damage to the surounding area. Why not combine the two. Use the old retired (due the nuclear treaties) MIRV based ICBM's and rather than several nuke warheads, arm them with two or three cruise missles. These cruise missles could either have conventional (Non-Nuclear) or tacticle nuke wareheads. This way in the event of impending war, we could take out the target's only rather then millions of inocent people. Since we are still using ICBM launch vehicles we could launch on a minutes notice to any threat in the world. With new stealth technology, we could launch without causing a world wide nuclear war (we would inform Russia and China since they have launch detection satelites). The cruise missles could sepperate in international waters and fly under radar to the target.
Russia had this idea in the 1950's but seems to have scraped it for the ICBM and MIRV.-- dlapham, Jul 13 2004 DIY Cruise missle http://www.interest....com/cruisemissile/How to make a cruise missle for $5000.00 [dlapham, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004] Russia's Missles http://www.fas.org/.../guide/russia/icbm/The bottom has some early russian ICBCM's [dlapham, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004] Basic ICBM Information http://encyclopedia...ballistic%20missileBasic Information on modern ICBM's [dlapham, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004] Reusable Returning ICBM idea http://www.halfbake...20Returning_20ICBMs [Worldgineer, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004] Maybe not a dumb idea after all http://www.ibtimes....ypersonic-darpa.htmI know this was shot down, but it looks like DARPA had the same idea as me. [dlapham, Aug 11 2011] Well, not dumb as long as you don't care where it ends up. http://www.bbc.co.u...-us-canada-14497641 [DrBob, Aug 12 2011] SR72 http://www.lockheed...res/2013/sr-72.htmlLooks like the US military has the same idea, and it is called the SR-72. [dlapham, Sep 17 2014] There are those of us who think we should try and build less weapons, not more. I can't bone it, as it isn't a bad idea in itself, but I can't really bun it either.-- wagster, Jul 13 2004 Part of the point of cruise missiles is that they enter enemy territory under the radar, thus are virtually undetectable unless they fly straight past your left ear. You want to launch them from a ballistic trajectory so they're in plain sight from the start.-- angel, Jul 13 2004 But then there'd be no need to build air-craft carriers, air craft to have on the air-craft carriers, destroyers to defend the air-craft carriers, mine sweepers to clear the way for the destroyers and air-craft carriers, supply ships to keep all of the above in fuel, food and explosives and a whole host of other expensive high maintenance high tech items that currently keep the economy of the US moving.
Just keep thanking George dubya for coming up with excuses to use all of the above and stop coming up with ideas that subvert the status quo.-- scubadooper, Jul 13 2004 Your faith in the infallible accuracy of cruise missiles is quite touching really. 'bone.-- DrBob, Jul 13 2004 DrBob, Infallible, No! But they are a lot more accurate than launching a bunch of nuks from an ICBM.
....I want to go on the record as disagreeing with scoobadoopers political views, but I still thank him/her for the coment.....
Angel, A Ship or B52 is pretty detectable don't ya think. I am not recomending these to replace all forms of warfare, only replace the doomsday plan where everyone dies with a revised doomsday where you launch tactical nukes at world leaders bunkers. This way you get the same deterance factor that we have today without risking the lives of millions. On top of revising the doomsday plan, they could be used to squelch a terrorist threat on a minutes notice.-- dlapham, Jul 13 2004 //This way you get the same deterance factor that we have today without risking the lives of millions.// No, the leaders could just hide out wherever Bin Laden is and command a war from there.
//You want to launch them from a ballistic trajectory so they're in plain sight from the start.// This could be fixed by aiming the ballistic trajectory outside the radar of the country you are bombing, then have the low-flying cruise missiles kick in and go the rest of the way.
I don't think you could use the current ICBMs, due to design constraints. But you could design new, perhaps larger ICBMs to launch cruise missiles. Of course, then you have to decide if it's worth launching a multi-million dollar vehicle that has a one time use.
(considers posting Reusable Returning ICBM idea) (lets inner child take over and do just that)-- Worldgineer, Jul 13 2004 Hmm, if a country launches these things at you, how do you know that they aren't nukes? It seems your only option would be too asume they are if you rely on land based nukes.-- RobertKidney, Jul 13 2004 dlapham, more accurate doesn't mean accurate. Even if they land in the right country (ask the Iranians about that) there's still a lot of innocent people going to be killed. Never a good thing in my book. Sorry!-- DrBob, Jul 13 2004 This would unfortunately incent countries to strike immediately if they feared an detectable wave of nukes were in the air, bearing down on them. It would thus make the country with such arms less safe.
There is also the problem that when you take out a target country with a nuclear strike, you also effect their neighbours, their whole region and the whole world. As everyone shares the latter this idea does not offer much in the way of a solution.
Impressively half-baked though.-- Aristotle, Jul 14 2004 //This would unfortunately incent countries to strike immediately if they feared an detectable wave of nukes were in the air, bearing down on them. It would thus make the country with such arms less safe.//
This is why they would need to use stealth technology. If we use an existing ICBM, they would be detected on launch by Russia and China (using launch detection satelites), which is why they could not be used against these countries without causing a full scale nuclear war. The cruise missle itself would be stealth be jettisoned from the ICBM in international waters far from the borders of the target. The cruise missle much like the tomahawk used today would fly at low altitudes to further it's stealth ability. There is no such thing as a good war, they simply do not exist. This was just a simple idea that may or may not be plausable. -Aristotle made some great points on why this may not work.
Today what would happen in my oppinion if an overnight threat came to be would be the following. 1. Threat verrified 2. Check for ships or subs with cruise missles in area. 3. If no ship or sub go to next step. Step 4a. launch B2 with cruise missles on board from closest B2 Base like Germany. Fire missles onto target when B2 is in range for cruise missles, but outside of boarders. Step 4b. Instead of using B2, use F-117 stelth and fly within range of target dropping laser or gps guided smart bombs.
My idea would be a much quicker way to deal with a small national threat, but as others have pointed out it may only cause a full scale nuclear war, which would totaly defeat the purpose.-- dlapham, Jul 14 2004 on the other hand, you don't really need to bother aiming nukes. save time, not lives. (-) 'cause I'm kind of a pacifist-- schematics, Jul 14 2004 Why put cruise missiles in? Conventional warheads should do the job with modern smart bomb guidance technology (comparing video images to sattelite pictures to guide the warhead to target) and would be less technological difficulties to deal with, deploying a cruise missle from an ICBM has got to be difficult.-- scubadooper, Jul 15 2004 With the Falcon HTV-2 (see link), it seems like DARPA is developing my idea. I love how my most boned ideas are sometimes the ones that see the light of day... Go figure.-- dlapham, Aug 11 2011 It seems the Falcon isn't such a good idea - test vehicle 2 is lost as well. I don't see it as a hypersonic aircraft, but rather a controllable re-entry vehicle (it's rocket launched more-or-less to orbit, then does it's mission and crashes into the ocean! Not even re-useable...).-- neutrinos_shadow, Aug 11 2011 // Why not combine the two //
Because there are much, much less expensive methods of deploying Tomahawks to theater than by stuffing them into ICBMs, that's why. One could launch them from locally- based ships or aircraft, for instance, which would not only be cheaper, but also more convenient!
// what would happen ... if an overnight threat came to be //
Well, considering that the United States and several other nations have forces that are either on station in (or 24- hour deployable to) virtually every inhabited region of the globe, what would happen is that we'd be pretty well set to deal with it, that's what.-- Alterother, Aug 11 2011 From the lockheed website that I linked:
"Envisioned as an unmanned aircraft, the SR-72 would fly at speeds up to Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. At this speed, the aircraft would be so fast, an adversary would have no time to react or hide."
"Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour," ....-- dlapham, Sep 17 2014 random, halfbakery