I’m not an expect on nuclear weapons or weapons delivery systems, but I am baffled by some of Mitt Romney’s complaints about the START treaty. Let’s start with this claim:
Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia’s insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty’s warhead and launcher limits.
Here’s the thing. No one mounts conventional weapons on ICBMs for a simple reason. An Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is designed to carry nuclear weapons and if you fire one, everyone will assume that you have just launched a nuclear attack. In fact, this limitation is so iron-clad that no one has ever actually fired an armed ICBM for testing purposes.
While the warheads of theater ballistic missiles are often conventional, ICBMs have been nearly inseparable from their connection with nuclear warheads. ‘Nuclear ICBM’ was seen as a redundant term. Strategic planning avoided the concept of a conventionally tipped ICBM, mainly because any ICBM launch threatens many countries and they are expected to react under a worst-case assumption that it is a nuclear attack. This threat of ICBMs to deliver such a lethal blow so rapidly to targets across the globe has resulted in the interesting fact that there has never been any end-to-end test of a nuclear-armed ICBM.
So, it seems to me that Romney is only exposing his own ignorance in complaining about conventionally-tipped ICBMs. We don’t have any and we wouldn’t use them if we did. Now, look at this claim:
As drafted, [the treaty] lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses — presumably carefully crafted by Moscow — provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers — including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads — without tripping the treaty’s limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia’s plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.
I don’t know if it is true that rail-based ICBMs are not mentioned, but I wonder what Romney is talking about when he says that Russia could mount ICBMs on bombers. ICBMs can be launched from silos, heavy trucks, or submarines, but I have never heard that they be launched from the air. I’m not even sure a plane could remain in flight while firing an ICBM considering the level of boost involved. And, in any case, it would be hard to fire a missile into sub-orbital space from
the wing of an aircraft. Unless Romney means that ICBMs would be dropped like any other bomb, I really don’t have a clue what he is talking about.
Regardless, I take it as a very bad sign that Romney is coming out against the ratification of the START treaty.
.
You’re right: ICBMs on bombers is just stupid. The whole point of the “IC” in ICBM is to avoid having to tote the damn thing halfway across the globe, and maybe have someone shoot down the plane. And yes, far too heavy to carry on a bomber, although you’re wrong about firing them (drop, then fire) and suborbital is easier from altitude than ground-level.
Perhaps Romney meant cruise missiles, but if he doesn’t know the difference, he’s too dumb to be yakking about it publicly. Really, cruise missiles are the only form of bomber-carried nuke that it makes much sense to have more than one nuke/bomber.
MIRVs, sub-launched nukes, and bombers carrying cruise missiles don’t get warheads counted separately because you can’t see individual warheads in satellite images. Still, one can put some rational estimates on how many warheads are practical, and use that as the basis of an agreement.
For example, MIRVs might be 3-4 warheads, and perhaps increase to 5-6, but there’s no way it would be 25, just from the limits on ICBM throw-weight, without changing ICBM design (which would be very a very visible change).
Romney is apparently nostalgic for the cold war. Idiot with a pre-9/11 mindset, I guess.
You beat me to it, Snarky Child. I have heard of dropping missiles from stand-off aircraft, but that was just a desperation play by Boeing, who wanted a contract for 747’s as “bombers”. Similarly, I have heard right-wingers talk of using ICBM’s with conventional warheads, but I think that was just to get people used to the idea of launching ICBM’s. Neither idea makes financial sense, you can get more military bang for your buck with silos or rail-based ICBM’s (just waiting for derailment in a sensitive location) or with theater weapons or manned aircraft. Why in the world would you use a very expensive ICBM to deliver, in effect, a 2000 pound iron bomb, when you could use cruise missiles (much cheaper) or a B-2 which could deliver LOTS of bombs. Any fighter-bomber could deliver the conventional payload of an ICBM, and do it cheaper and more reliably with more precision.
Asshats. Chicken Hawks.
Thanks for the intelligent post, BooMan.
Republicans have tried to say that specific modes of transporting and firing the weapons are not included in the treaty… Yep, specific modes of transporting and firing nukes are not necessarily covered BUT only because of the fact that the treaty covers ALL modes of transporting and firing the nuclear missiles.
Gonna look for the link on that and if I come across it I’ll dump it here because they covered this GOP talking point at dKos or C&L a while back (a month or 2 ago?) when it first emerged and started making the rounds.
I guess Romney is so late to the party he did not even know it had already been debunked before he started yapping about it?
Romney remains a one trick pony. My personal favorite quote of his “…my political interests conflicted with my business responsibilities”
He is a standout in his desire to offer up nonsense packaged between a couple of slices of political attack.
Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community
Why use what is essentially a space rocket to deliver a conventional bomb? -Or fly a space rocket in a vulnerable plane and then launch it? The whole point of ICBM is that they are (what for it) INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES. That is to say they are much faster, harder to shoot down, with a longer range, and hugely more expensive than any other delivery system.
Only an idiot would launch one from a plane or one that didn’t have a nuclear warhead – because a plane is much easier to shoot down and you are inviting a nuclear response.
This makes me wonder what Romney knows about cruise missiles. Cruise missiles can be conventionally armed or armed with nuclear weapons.
The only advantage of an ICBM in this situation is that it has a greater throw-weight, which could make sense if you wanted to deliver super-bunker-buster conventional ordnance. And maybe its 20 minute warning time between command and impact.
Your analysis doesn’t really countenance the debate on conventional tipped ICBM use, which is raging at the moment. You make it seem as though this is a wacky idea no one is considering; in fact, it is a wacky idea that is receiving serious consideration.
What tactical or strategic use is driving its consideration?
As far as I can tell, the motivation is not tactical or strategic, but rather making defense contractors rich(er) and pleasing powerful senators and representatives by keeping ICBM bases open that would otherwise be shut down.
Bingo!
recently: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/how-to-risk-world-war-iii-and-blow-billions-doing-it/
older: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/
Oh My God! Terrorists? So Rummy and his followers want to use ICBM’s on wedding parties. Their insanity knows no bounds. Next it will be conventional tipped ICBM’s to secure the Southern border.
Simple explanation for a person who cannot make sense or remember anything.
Romney is eating huge amounts of LSD.
Shorter Romney: “Democrats can’t be trusted with national security, especially regarding disarmament treaties because Republicans can’t be trusted to understand the terms of those treaties or report them without lying.”
I don’t think he really knows much about the START treaty at all. I’m certain he doesn’t care. He does know that the Republican base likes to hear trash talk about Russia. And he DOES care about that.