Why "Prompt" Global Strike?

I've been puzzled by General Kevin Chilton's push for what they call "prompt" global strike for the US military. You see, it's not enough that we can target and engage an enemy nearly anywhere in the world. He believes (and I'm sure there are others) that we need a conventional weapon that can strike anywhere in the world within an hour of launch - and that otherwise we have to rely on nuclear weapons. Oh, and he wants it in the next five or six years. We can't get the president's next generation helicopter in five to six years, and he wants super-fast conventional strike weapons...

Under the conventional prompt global strike mission, the Pentagon anticipates an ability to hit targets anywhere around the world within just 6o minutes of a launch order. Lacking such a capability, the only long-range attack option typically available to a U.S. president under urgent circumstances would be a nuclear weapon, which military officials have described as unlikely to be used.

Prompt global strike advocates say the conventional capability could be useful in hitting fleeting targets like a terrorist leader in a safe house or a weapon of mass destruction being prepared for launch. Above-ground launch facilities would be easily distinguishable from nuclear missile silos in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota, so potential adversaries like Russia or China would be unlikely to misinterpret a launch as the onset of a nuclear war, according to officials.

"If you have more time, then there are better systems out there and more affordable systems to close" in on a target with conventional weapons, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright told a Senate panel last month. For example, if bomber aircraft are based close enough to a target, they might be used more affordably in place of long-range missiles. Each Conventional Strike Missile could cost tens of millions of dollars to procure -- or to replace after launch.

Let's forget for the moment that the research and development hasn't been done to allow such an ambitious project to successfully field a such capability. The real question is, why? The scenario sounds like something out of a "24" television show. "We have to get that high-value target within the hour, or... the world will be forfeit!" Is there any personal target that is worth tens of millions of dollars per missile to take out? Do we lack any number of conventional weapon systems and personnel skilled to do these missions? Considering that we control the skies over any battlefield, is there any doubt that a good fire control specialist could bring down havoc on any target?

This is another bad idea by someone who thinks that there has to be a technical solution to every possible military challenge. Tell me why a JDAM bomb off of a large UAV drone, or a conventional cruise missile at the worst, won't do the same thing that this "prompt global strike" does but much, much cheaper. Of course, we'd have to assume that our military actually can plan things before it acts. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Comments

[IndispensableDestiny]

Why not "Rods from God"? With enough satellites, the Air Force can strike back in minutes.

[Kilo]

Better yet, what if you leverage a systemic response-time vulnerability on your enemy which exceeded any such improvement in missile speed. What if you could ensure that at the time of the strike the leadership of your enemy would be initially unaware, indisposed and subsequently in poor shape to respond over the course of the day.

It's called 2am.

[J.]

Wow, Kilo, I've never heard such eloquent language used to express such a simple and yet logical concept. I salute you.

[Ray]

Jeeze, 2 am? Don't wake me; I'd prefer to hear about it later in the day.
R.

[Sven Ortmann]

1)
It seems feasible if converted ICBMs and/or SLBMs were used.
2)
It's an old idea. The small (short range) brother was called "HyStrike".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hystrike.htm
3)
I see only one application: Assassination.
Yet, historical examples (Aidid, Saddam) don't emphasize the time factor as much as they emphasize the intelligence factor.
4)
There's still the old concern that a missile launch could be misunderstood if not announced days or weeks in advance.

[Kilo]

What's the deal with stealth bombers these days? Are they no longer able to achieve something similar in terms of cutting strike time because you're flying over the damn thing before anyone notices?

I don't pay any attention to this stuff, but I'd find it surprising that the US made sexy war porn out of that stuff all the way back to gulf war 1 and nobody's circumvented it in the 18 years since.

[Princeton Scotch]

Tomahawk from a sub not good enough for a strike from nowhere?

[bobbymike]

"Time critical strike" meaning any where on the planet in 24 hours. The question was asked in the article "Why not use a UAV or cruise missile"?

Are you serious? You have a military strategy/technology/etc site and you ask this question. Let's say a UAV can hit any target in a 200 mile radius in an hour so to even cover global hot spots you would needs thousands of platofrorms loitering 24/7 - Ya think that might be expensive. How about a cruise missile. Even if we triple the radius to 600 miles you have 100's of bombers on permanent patrol duirng a crisis, again pretty expensive.

Finally, as for R&D the US has had ongoing RDT&E of missiles and prototype conventional reentry vehicles. There is supposed to be tests this year of a Trident II SLBM with a prospective "conventional" reentry vehicle that will give GPS accuracy to ballistic missile warheads. This can be done with robust funding in the timeframe specified by Gen Chilton (great AF leader)

[Jason]

Bobbymike, maybe I wasn't clear enough. My point is that the idea that the US govt needs to be able to hit any location on Earth with a conventional weapon within an hour of a decision is unrealistic and not necessary. What our military ought to be doing is developing tools/weapons to engage where they have an actual presence. That is to say, we ought to have "eyes on target" and not just a satellite dump or some local's word about a target being at a site.

If we have human "eyes on site" we will have air cover and other weapon options that would negate the need for this Xbox style of fighting. A lot less mistakes that way also (oops there goes another wedding party). See for instance SF support to Northern Alliance described so well in the "Horse Soldiers" book.