Well what do you do with all that intercontinental capability, if you cant have nukes? You know when you want to blow up someone, and hitting them via slow cruise missiles is just not fast enough:
Well you convert existing ICBM technology into 'conventional' weapons, now you can strike anywhere on the planet within an hour.
Now couple this with a missile defence shield and everyone feels so much safer. Well, in the US any way, the rest of the world not so much.
It's all very well if you consider the US to be a benign power, our recent history however, has shown this to be far from the case. When a pre-emptive war sets a precedent, its time for to worry what will happen in the future.
The whole point of a nuclear IBCM is as a deterrent on two counts
1] It scares others from attacking
2] You seriously consider not using them because retaliation would occur.
3] 'Going nuclear' horrifies you.
If you convert to 'conventional' warheads, these deterrents no longer have the same weight. Couple this with a missile defence shield, and they become mere considerations.
As the White House pushes for cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a weapon to help fill the gap: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.
You may be able to strike almost before you can think, however the consequences may take months to explain. Think collateral damage and false targeting due to poor intelligence.
The Prompt Global Strike program, which the Pentagon has been developing for several years, is already raising hackles in Moscow, where Russian officials predict it could trigger a nonnuclear arms race and complicate President Obama's long-term vision of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
Just what we need, more military spending, its not as if the military budget is swollen beyond all common sense as it is.. We have a global crisis in climate change that could do with this money, hey but first, lets have an arms race. Well if we continue as we are doing; all discussions may be mute in any case.
"World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters Tuesday in Moscow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
We can say:
1] The US is a power for good in the world.
2] Our own security is paramount
3] Trust us, we will only do what is right.
All we need is another neo-conservative administration and that goes out the window. More worrying still, is if the new Tea Party GOP gets hold of such capability, then nowhere will be safe.
Watching so called moderates like Pawlenty courting the likes of Palin and Backmann, really makes me wonder about American 'sanity' in the future.
American must start to understand that the 'halo' we crowned ourselves with after WWII is severely tarnished. Very few outside our shores regard the US as a power for good, facts have demonstrated otherwise. Personally, I believe that these weapons will be all but benign, and too easy to justify using.
It really is time to rein in the MIC, common sense demands it, everyone can do without a new arms race taking place. It's time to concentrate on self preservation. Climate Change is a more urgent menace than any thought of terrorist running around with nuclear bombs in a suitcase. Real threats take years to develop, and I cannot see how saving a few minutes on delivery time, makes us any safer from such threats.