It's Not a Nuke, Vlad. We Promise!

Trust us, Vladimir: That ballistic missile we just launched in your direction isn't nuclear. We swear!

This is the idea that just doesn't seem to go away. The Pentagon keeps proposing various schemes for a conventional version of either a land- or submarine-launched ballistic missile. But they all share a major problem. You've got to to make sure -- really sure --- that Russia and China believe it's not a nuke. That goes double, now that tensions between the U.S. and Russia seem to have gone sky high.

Here's how Noah described the problem, back in January:

Traditionally, the U.S. strategy is to shoot missiles over the North
Pole. But the current, most likely [conventional ballistic missile] targets, North
Korea and Iran, lie south of China and Russia — which would put those countries right under a pole-launched flight path. "For many minutes during their flight patterns, these missiles might appear to be headed towards targets in these nations," a congressional study notes. That could have world-changing consequences. "The launch of such a missile,"
Russian president Vladimir Putin said in his 2006 state of the nation address, "could provoke an inappropriate response from one of the nuclear powers, could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."*

...Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in a press conference, didn't seem that concerned. "Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional," he said, "after it hit within 30 minutes."

That didn't exactly reassure Congress, which yanked funding for conventionally-tipped, sub-launched ballistic missiles.

But the military isn't giving up. It's got a new proposal -- to use land-based missiles, instead. Aerospace Daily and Defense Report has the details:

Rebuffed by Congress last year over a proposal to convert submarine-based nuclear ballistic missiles into conventional strike platforms, the U.S. Air Force now is pushing for a so-called Conventional Strike Missile (CSM) that would be based on land and follow a different flight path than intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), an officer said April 25.

The CSM is eyed for rollout by about 2014, according to Maj.
Gregory Jones, chief of the spacelift requirements branch. The program would use existing commercial or excess military rocket motors for a medium-lift ballistic missile that deploys a hypersonic glide warhead.

It could be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. -
where foreign inspectors could visit for verification - and the resulting coastal- and land-based launch, as well as a lower-flying trajectory, would distinguish the CSM from other ICBMs, Jones told the
Precision Strike Association's annual program review in Springfield, Va.

Jones said so far lawmakers seem receptive to the CSM - a far cry from their opposition to the Conventional Trident Missile (CTM). Still, missile defense supporters in Congress said last month they would try to persuade legislators to let CTM go forward (DAILY, March 23, 30).
The CSM was an interim solution pitched last year between the CTM and a new long-range bomber.

The question is: does this qualify as an intercontinental ballistic missile (I mean, it's ballistic, and it is intercontinental.....)? The Air Force appears to argue otherwise.

Inside Defense did an excellent article on this concept when it was first floated last year:

*[Col. Richard Patenaude] said the missile may be based in the continental United States or abroad, and “may or may not” be considered an intercontinental ballistic missile under START Treaty counting rules. *

In defending the Pentagon decision to move ahead with the conventional Trident, some defense officials have suggested a conventional land-based alternative could be problematic because Russia or China may misinterpret a launch as a potential nuclear threat to their nations.

*Patenaude took pains to make clear the Air Force “has no plans to put conventional warheads on current operational ICBMs or [use] their silos.” *

*Other defense officials have described how a land-based missile could be configured so it is incapable of carrying a nuclear payload and use a trajectory to its target that would not threaten other nuclear weapons nations. It also could be inspected by the Russians under existing arms control regimes; based on a U.S. coastline in Florida or California so launch debris could fall in the ocean rather than on land; and made capable of being rapidly retargeted. *

*By contrast, critics have complained the Trident submarines would use a weapon virtually identical to its nuclear-armed twin; remain on patrol typically just off Russian coasts, potentially posing at least a debris threat to Russia; likely be closed to Russian onsite inspection; and possibly take hours or longer to receive target data and steam within range of nations where fleeting threats may appear. *

I'm not sure Russia is going to buy this, let alone Congress.