View Full Version : The Trident Proposal

06-17-2006, 08:54 AM
17 June Washington Times editorial - The Trident Proposal (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060616-091739-7352r.htm).

...The Navy has 14 Trident submarines armed with ballistic missiles. Each sub carries 24 Trident II ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 4,000 miles. Originally deployed with eight independently targetable nuclear warheads, each Trident missile is scheduled to carry four warheads once the latest START nuclear arms reduction treaty comes into force. Notable for its simplicity, the Pentagon plan would place four independently targetable non-nuclear warheads on each of two Trident II missiles on every Trident submarine. Each sub could attack up to eight targets with conventional weapons. Replacing nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on two missiles need not reduce the nuclear capability of the submarine because additional nuclear warheads could easily be added to the remaining 22 nuclear-armed missiles.

Trident II ballistic missiles are extraordinarily accurate. Gen. James E. Cartwright, who heads the U.S. Strategic Command, told the New York Times that the Trident II, launched from thousands of miles away, could deliver its conventional warheads within five yards of their targets. Moreover, the Trident II missile could carry out its conventional attack within an hour of a presidential command. The maneuvering areas and the missile range of deployed Trident submarines combine to effectively place the entire globe within range...

06-19-2006, 03:50 AM
What a waste. Were just continuing the existance of a platform that is to large and out of place in 4GW. If any thing we should be decomissioning subs and reducing its capibility, and provide those funds to our knuckle draggers and door kickers. Instead we keep continuing these platforms for what? Can you use a trident III missile in Iraq or Afganistan. The short anwser is no. Other platforms work better. Taking out nuclear warheads and replacing them is a fine idea, but trumpiting this a fast response commad platform is stupid. The only use of this type of weapon in a large scale 3GW war. What we need to do is understand our current threat anylisis. Yes, there is N. Korea, Iran, and some where in the rear China. But, we don't face any creadible threat from these places unless we go looking for it (see GEN. Hammes The Sling and the Stone: 4GW for greater disscusion). WE bought an high-tech army based on the cold war in the 90's and we just keep trying to justify its existance. We must change and build a flexible force designed to beat the enemies that are in our threat anylisis, that we are facing, and will continue to face. If other wars arise we still have the knowledge and equip. to deal with the N. Korea's of the world. Inessence, we must get rid of JV 2010 & JV 2020 and take a cold hard look at the world around us and build the army to face it. Technology is a tool, not a pancea.

06-19-2006, 10:10 AM
Another thing against this idea is the fact that Soviet and Chinese radar can't tell the difference between a non-nuke Trident and a nuke Trident. I believe that would cause some concern.