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.