|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:51 am Post subject: Global Strike and Rods from God |
 |
|
Very soon the US will be able to make a big bang w/o the taboo of nuclear weapons.
The US has been waiting a long time to have this capability. The US soon will be able to become a lot more threatening
Global Strike and Rods from God
| Quote: |
On the technological level, the Pentagon's planning is in the advanced stage: some projects -- aimed at space weaponization -- have already been in place for some time. Among the (partially known) Pentagon's new plans, the two most interesting projects are the "Global Strike" program and the "Rods from God" program. Global Strike involves the employment of military space planes capable of carrying about 500 kg (1100 lbs) of high-precision weapons (with a circular error probability less than 3 meters) with the primary use of striking enemy military bases and command and control facilities in any point of the world.
The main strength of military space planes is the ability to reach any spot on the globe within 45 minutes. This is a short period of time that could provide U.S. forces with a formidable quick reaction capability, as opposed to the enemy's subsequent inability to organize any effective defense. Such a weapon's primary target would be the enemy's strategic forces and -- according to U.S. Air Force sources widely quoted in the press -- the Pentagon is inclined to give priority to this project. One of the main reasons, these sources say, is that the Pentagon itself -- after spending over US$100 billion -- has finally admitted its failure to create an infallible earth-based anti-missile system to protect the American soil from ballistic strikes.
The U.S. Air Force often underscores the space plane's wide operational spectrum. In fact, its utilization encompasses that of a strategic weapon as well as that of its defensive uses of neutralizing nuclear missiles; it would have the ability to target and eliminate militant and terrorist leaders. The space plane could also be employed to suppress long-range air defenses, thanks to its high mobility, hyper-fast deployment and its immunity from the defenses of its opponents. Other uses could be envisaged in the Integrated Air Defense System, as well as surveillance tasks. Moreover, space planes could be easily deployed to support the U.S. Army's rapid reaction force and units of Marines during power projection operations and redeployment phases.
"Rods from God" is the evolution of a 1980s program. Basically, it consists of orbiting platforms stocked with metal tungsten rods around 6.1 meters long (20 feet) and 30 cm (one foot) in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on the earth within minutes, for the rods would move at over 11,000 km/hr (6,835 mph). This weapon exploits kinetic energy to cause an explosion the same magnitude of that of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, but with no radioactive fall-out. The system would function due to two satellites, one of which would work as a communications platform, while the other would contain an arsenal of tungsten rods. Each of the satellites would be seven meters long (23 feet) and its diameter would be approximately 30 cm (one foot).
However, serious problems would arise if the Pentagon begins the operational phase -- especially from a financial perspective. Some studies maintain that Rods from God could be fully operational in ten years. The targets of the rods would be much more restricted than those of Global Strike. Their main targets remains ballistic missiles stockpiled in hardened sites, or orbital devices and satellite systems deployed by other powers -- according to the counter-space operation doctrine. Rods from God can, however, be employed to strike targets in desert areas -- be they hardened sites or concentrated hostile forces. |
| Quote: |
| Moreover, the orbital deployment of offensive weapons -- even though unequivocally non-nuclear -- can be perilous for various reasons. First of all, the U.S. is currently obligated not to deploy atomic or W.M.D. space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not certain that the international community will consider it a conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could, therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race to space weaponization could begin -- involving the orbital deployment of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons. |
I would tell them to go jump in a deep lake and pull a wave over their head. The fast the US has this stuff up and running the better.
| Quote: |
| Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many states could change their perception of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools |
They are not nuclear weapons. The US is in the clear.
The US should deploy Global Strike and Rods from God and then offer a world wide ban on nuclear weapons. No nation would go for it but it would make great PR for the US.
The US one way the US could Global Strike and Rods from God would be to remove US forces from South Korea. 
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=347
Directions for use of such weapons
Use as needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
How very Christian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds to me like the sort of thinking that has been getting the US in trouble- the idea that military technology will allow the US to do what it wants, wherever it wants without having to ever put major amounts of boots on the ground or worry about US casualties.
I think it's the sort of thinking that is at least partly to blame for the present 'difficulties' in Iraq:
"Wow, we really rocked their world in Desert Storm in '91!
Wow, we rolled over the Taleban and sorted out Afghanistan PDQ!
I bet we could cakewalk into Iraq again, what do you say?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Sounds to me like the sort of thinking that has been getting the US in trouble- the idea that military technology will allow the US to do what it wants, wherever it wants without having to ever put major amounts of boots on the ground or worry about US casualties.
I think it's the sort of thinking that is at least partly to blame for the present 'difficulties' in Iraq:
"Wow, we really rocked their world in Desert Storm in '91!
Wow, we rolled over the Taleban and sorted out Afghanistan PDQ!
I bet we could cakewalk into Iraq again, what do you say?" |
that is probably a good / reasonable way of looking at things.
I would say you understand neo conservatives and neo liberals very well.
However it is my opinion that things are very serious world wide and the US needs to do something very drastic to put itself ahead.
The fact is that the biggest problem the US has militarily is that soldiers die. the US needs to find away for the US to be able to fight while denying the enemy its hostages. US soldiers have become a hostage to the enemy.
I am beinging to think the US needs to get rid of the army , and transfer army speacial forces into the marine corps.
The money saved would go funding a more advanced powerful Navy and Airforce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I am beinging to think the US needs to get rid of the army , and transfer army speacial forces into the marine corps. |
If you knew anything about how the US military's force structure is composed you'd realize just how idiotic that statement is.
Firstly, "getting rid of" any one branch of the military just about qualifies you to wear a hockey helmet and a drool bucket. All of the branches have their core competencies and a set of functions they perform. The marine corps is very, very good at what they do. That is largely because:
A) They are a very, very small branch of the military and because of their (well earned) reputation are capable of recruiting from a more select group than the Army overall is. Getting rid of the Army destroys that because in effect the Marine Corps would then become the Army. How is that advantageous at all?
B) What they do and are capable of is quite limited compared to the Army, chiefly because of size. Ideally, the marine corps, like Army Rangers, are essentially shock troops. Again, ideally, they're amphibious shock troops. The Army can do amphibious operations (as evidenced by the Pacific campaign in WWII), but it is not their core competency. Likewise, if you need an airborne operation you go to the Army and not the Marines, because that is not their core competency.
C) All special forces are effectively seperate from their branches. Every special forces unit is funded directly from the DOD, not their branches. They all interoperate together, and almost form their own branch. Also, each special forces branch has it's core competencies; Army SF tends to focus on training indigenous forces, Delta is counter-terrorism, SEALs tend towards the amphibious side of things, Para-Rescue, is well, para-rescue, and Marine Force Recon is all about reconaissance. Now some of these missions overlap to a degree, but they are not some interchangeable group of killers like you seem to be imagining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think a military 'space plane' of some sort or another is both a miltary inevitability and a natural evolution of current transport technology, military and civilian. It's not a question of 'yes' or 'no' it's a question of which one, when and how much.
The 'Rods from God'?
A weapon that would give the US some sort of tactical advantage over a country like China?
Pipe dream.
It won't be much of a deterrent to big players who have nukes, nor small players like terrorist groups, guerrillas, and countries like Somalia & Sudan.
Picture this:
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, part II, with a nuclear weapon-sized explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
//
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I think a military 'space plane' of some sort or another is both a miltary inevitability and a natural evolution of current transport technology, military and civilian. It's not a question of 'yes' or 'no' it's a question of which one, when and how much.
The 'Rods from God'?
A weapon that would give the US some sort of tactical advantage over a country like China?
Pipe dream.
It won't be much of a deterrent to big players who have nukes, nor small players like terrorist groups, guerrillas, and countries like Somalia & Sudan.
Picture this:
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, part II, with a nuclear weapon-sized explosion. |
ROG would be the perfect weapon for dealing with mid rage powers like Iran or Syria. Wher the use of nuclear weapons would be a taboo and and invasions too bloody costly. The US has been looking for a way to go for the knockout.
One more benefit countires would no longer have the option of just hiding WMD programs or terrorists underground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ROG would be the perfect weapon for dealing with mid rage powers like Iran or Syria. |
Or North Korea. Anyway that's exactly my point- it would be of limited value and even if the concept proved sound no administration could possibly justify the expense required.
Last edited by Bulsajo on Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the biggest threats the US faces are from mid range nations, as for the rest we would have to see.
But I do think RFG would give the US for the first time the abiltiy to do the knock out punch w/o nuclear weapons.
Think about the leverage that would give the US via Iran and NK.
They are too tough to invade and bombing usually brings populations together.
Of course they know that the US won't use nuclear weapons.
But this would be different it would allow the US the ability for the first time to do a truly devastating bombing on an enemy.
Such weapons could give a new meaning to "shock and awe. "
The US could hit first with RFG and then go to shock and awe. The result could be a KO.
And it is the job of the US to win wars not keep the enemy in them.
If the US has RFG during the Vietnam war the US might have been able to win that conflict.
I am sure that RFG is very expensive however I would bet you that it is a lot cheeper than an invasion.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ROG would be the perfect weapon for dealing with mid rage powers like Iran or Syria. |
Or North Korea. Anyway that's exactly my point- it would be of limited value and even if the concept proved sound no administration could possibly justify the expense required. |
Limited value? I think it sounds *awesome*. We could realistically give up our nukes if we had something like that. How can I have never heard of it? I think these two programs sound like exactly what the US military's looking for... ways to reduce our forces and overseas deployments while enabling us to still strike at targets worldwide in short order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
God: *snicker*
However - non-nuclear is good. Will China be able to make these too? They don't sound all that difficult to make for a big spacefaring nation that wants them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
If China could make them they would. They are not up to this kind of stuff yet.
It is a catchy name. Rods from space doesn't rhyme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I am sure that RFG is very expensive however I would bet you that it is a lot cheeper than an invasion. |
I.e. Our technology will save us from having to put boots on the ground. Maybe you're right but I don't buy it.
| Quote: |
| We could realistically give up our nukes if we had something like that. |
Could you please explain how that would work, because I don't see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo wrote: |
| The US should deploy Global Strike and Rods from God and then offer a world wide ban on nuclear weapons. No nation would go for it but it would make great PR for the US. |
The name "Rods from God" is not good PR.
It's only slightly better than "God's Rod." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
