The U.S. Defense Department is weighing development of a new, non-nuclear cruise missile to hit “important” targets from long distances, War is Boring reports.
The Pentagon last week requested information on the potential for a relatively affordable conventional cruise missile with a price tag under $2 million and a maximum flight distance greater than 3,400 miles, the news publication said in a Wednesday article. The “standoff” weapon’s range would enable it to be fired outside the reach of arms held by possible antagonists.
The proposal is the result of a Defense Science Board assessment of options for the U.S. military to attain a technological edge over its adversaries around 2030. The Pentagon-convened panel of outside experts advises Defense leaders on technological issues.
“The system would be designed to complement strategic prompt global strike capability,” the October document says, referring to a developmental U.S. capacity to conduct a non-nuclear strike against any location in the world in one hour or less.
“Because [a longer-range cruise missile] could be produced at far lower costs, this would allow adequate numbers of weapons to engage multiple targets simultaneously [and] saturate enemy countermeasures,” the report states. “It would not be as precise as some more costly systems, but instead trades a higher probability of detection and somewhat larger vulnerability for cost.”
The Pentagon advisory panel warned about possible international repercussions, though, saying that “the policy implications of deploying an intercontinental, precision cruise missile with a capacity to carry relatively heavy payloads are significant.”
The potential for cruise missiles to carry nuclear as well as conventional payloads may factor into global responses to the proposed longer-range weapon, War is Boring said.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.