Conventional Warhead Trident Proposal

Seth · 03-08-2006, 12:50

By Ann Scott Tyson
(c) 2006, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon, seeking a faster way to thwart threats
from hostile states or terrorist groups, is asking Congress for $500
million to create a new force of conventionally armed, long-range
missiles capable of striking anywhere in the world within an hour
after an order is given, a senior defense official said Tuesday.

The initiative would convert 24 Trident missiles armed with nuclear
warheads into rockets carrying conventional warheads and begin
fielding them by 2008. The missiles would be launched from submarines
and could hit targets 5,000 to 6,000 miles away within 10 yards, the
official said.

A primary advantage, defense officials say, is that it would offer
U.S. leaders a conventional alternative to nuclear weapons in a
distant crisis where speed is essential. They acknowledge a major risk
is that other nations could conceivably misinterpret a conventional
missile attack as a nuclear strike.

“Will it be interpreted as having a nuclear warhead and elicit ...
a nuclear response?” asked the senior defense official, acknowledging
the potential “ambiguity” of the weapon if detected by early-warning
systems. Such systems may not be able to determine if an incoming
warhead is conventional or nuclear.

The worrisome scenario, he said, “is that they do see it, then
they misinterpret it,” he told a meeting of defense reporters. The
officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not yet
briefed Congress.

The senior defense official said the Pentagon seeks to open a
debate on the benefits and risks of the proposed conventional
ballistic missiles and publicize them as a potential deterrent.
“We’ve done the testing” and developed one of two conventional
warheads planned, he said.

Nuclear experts said they share concerns acknowledged Tuesday by
the senior official, saying the possibility for confusion would be
high because U.S. submarines capable of launching the missiles could
be armed with conventional and nuclear varieties.

“If we did end up in a crisis where things were really tense, this
decision about what is coming at you could be essential,” said Hans
Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the
Federation of American Scientists, an arms-control think tank.

The proposed capability, called “prompt global strike,” is needed
to address threats — such as terrorist groups and underground weapons
stocks and military facilities — that have proliferated and for which
nuclear weapons are “not appropriate” because they are too powerful
and inflict high civilian casualties, the official said.

He said the conventional ballistic missiles could penetrate the
ground deeper than other conventional weapons, making it a possible
alternative to another proposal for building a “bunker buster”
nuclear weapon designed to go three or four yards into the earth and
propagate a shock wave.

With estimated flight times of 12 to 24 minutes, the conventionally
armed missiles could be used quickly against a remote and fleeting
“terrorist stronghold” or against a nation threatening a neighbor
with a missile attack — targets that could take many hours, days, or
weeks to reach with cruise missiles, bombers or ground forces, he
said.

AP-NY-03-07-06 2119EST
_______________________________

-Seth

**Pete** · 03-08-2006, 12:59

I think the whole world knows the US will not be the first with a nuclear strike.

I think most of the bad guys also know, because of we know who, we would have a hard time with a nuclear retaliation strike. Too many "give peace another chance" people in the US.

Me? I just love anther tool the military can pull out of it's tool box if needed.

Solid · 03-09-2006, 11:15

My friend's first response was:
"Well Yuri, don't worry about it... you'll know which warhead is which soon enough..."

Solid

**The Reaper** · 03-09-2006, 11:18

At $20,000,000 each TO CONVERT them (plus the intial cost of the missile), I hope that the targets are worthy.

TR

QRQ 30 · 03-09-2006, 11:23

I think they're trying yo justify the cost of the Ohio Class Subs. Maybe the answer is moth balls/

03-09-2006, 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

At $20,000,000 each TO CONVERT them (plus the intial cost of the missile), I hope that the targets are worthy.

TR

At $29.1 million for the Trident, I must say that the original configuration gave more bang for the buck.

(This does not make practical sense to me.)

Martin

QRQ 30 · 03-09-2006, 12:33

Quote:

I think the whole world knows the US will not be the first with a nuclear strike

I'm not getting into politics and am not any kind of activist but you must realize that there are those who will point out that we WERE the first and only ones to use nuclear weapons.

**Pete** · 03-09-2006, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

I'm not getting into politics and am not any kind of activist but you must realize that there are those who will point out that we WERE the first and only ones to use nuclear weapons.

You are right, we were the first and the second. But the civilized world learned what a terrible weapon it was. The US and USSR stared each other in the eye for something like 25 years and never pushed the button because both understood the Hell that would be unleashed.

The Islamic countries would not be under such restraint. Killing infidels is A-OK and if any believers get toasted, well, in-sha-alla.

Squidly · 03-10-2006, 08:52

None of the old Polaris boats are still active as such and I think even the SSBN's that were converted to SEAL delivery platforms have been decommed (Polk and Kamehameha?) Polaris might have been a cheaper alternative. The SSN-21 class fast boats were discontinued after only 2 hulls were commissioned due primarily to their tremendous cost. Submarines ain't cheap. 20 million per is a hell of an expensive back fit. On the other hand, would it be worth it to have a weapon with that kind of reach that can be deployed in such a short amount of time? If they backfit the Trident II thats 288 MIRVs unless the backfit ups the capacity of the missile.

**The Reaper** · 03-10-2006, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squidly

If they backfit the Trident II thats 288 MIRVs unless the backfit ups the capacity of the missile.

I do not think they would MIRV a conventional warhead, plus it would further complicate decision making among those who have launch detection and tracking capabilities and their own ICBMs.

TR

mugwump · 03-10-2006, 09:27

Bunker busters. The current MIRV'ed warhead suite includes inert ballistic penetrators that smash the rock and a follow-on fission-fusion-fission warhead that exploits it. We've got 'em, Russkies got 'em, Brits got 'em, etc. That's how Cheyanne Mountain would get taken out. Replace the depleted uranium with tungsten carbide (so the issue isn't confused) and the mushrooms with conventional explosives and Iran has problems. The missile cost is cheap compared with the possiblity of losing one of those $2bn B-2 bombers.

**The Reaper** · 03-10-2006, 09:33

Okay, then you still really do not have 288 MIRVs per boat, capable of striking 288 separate targets.

TR

Squidly · 03-10-2006, 09:39

I understand that for bunker busting the blast propagation abilities of MIRVs could (would?) be unnecessary. I don't understand the second part of your post :
"plus it would further complicate decision making among those who have launch detection and tracking capabilities and their own ICBMs."

Good post mugwump.

Squidly · 03-10-2006, 09:44

With a backfit of 24 missiles to conventional that would fill one Ohio class boat with 4 left over. I would think the conventional warheads would be sprinkled around the fleet. If each missile contained a single warhead that would indeed be expensive and more subject to destruction by an ABM.

**The Reaper** · 03-10-2006, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squidly

I don't understand the second part of your post :
"plus it would further complicate decision making among those who have launch detection and tracking capabilities and their own ICBMs."

Good post mugwump.

I mean that it IMHO, for the watch officer in the Russian equivalent of NORAD, it would be less threatening and confusing to see a single SLBM launch with a clear trajectory into a nearby rogue nation than to see it with a dozen blips per launch vehicle spread out, some with the potential to track into Russian territory. I don't think anyone believes that the US would launch a strategic attack with a single vehicle.

IIRC, MIRVs changed the nuclear balance significantly when they first appeared.

TR