Starting World War III By Mistake

Let's see the problems here:

• This makes a conventional attack indistinguishable from a nuclear one, increasing the possibility of a nuclear response.


• It makes arms control agreements next to impossible to enforce, though that might be the goal of Bush and his evil minions^™, they have always opposed arms control agreements.
  

Navy, Air Force Explore Conventional Strike Options (Subscription Required)

Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/02/2007, page 32

Amy Butler
Los Angeles and Sunnyvale, Calif.

The Pentagon is looking for non-nuclear strike options, prompting new demos

Printed headline: Hardly Conventional

The U.S. Air Force and Navy are preparing different approaches to solving a gap in the nation's ability to deliver a conventional payload to strike any target on the globe within one hour of a go-ahead.

The Navy is looking to its Trident II D5 submarine-launched missile, while the Air Force is considering a land-based design using decommissioned Peacekeeper and Minuteman rocket motors on a Minotaur launch vehicle tipped with a conventional munition.

U.S. Strategic Command chief, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright--the White House's pick for the next vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--says he needs this capability to react to a variety of threats without having to rely on basing rights or nuclear weapons. The target set could include anything from activities deserving of a preemptive strike--such as an anti-satellite threat--or a reaction to real-time intelligence on terrorist elements.

And this makes it even worse:

The Navy notionally plans to dedicate two of 24 tubes in each of 14 Ohio-class submarines to the conventional Trident mission. The remaining tubes would continue to carry the nuclear-armed versions.

...

There is a sub launched ballistic missile headed toward you. You have nukes. Is it targeting you, or someone else? Is it conventional or nuclear?

You have 5 minutes to choose a response.