[Ephedrine]

Worst idea ever.

[VitaliyMurnov]

I like how they keep stressing how it is for "non-nuclear" strikes as though a nuclear warhead couldn't be put on it at a moment's notice.

[anatmob]

I guess you're right... it is less stupid than tactical nukes. Still, firing weapons indistinguishable from nukes as far as the Russians and Chinese are concerned is not a desirable thing.

[Anypeny]

I don't know power, but I would almost guarantee accuracy.

[cewIdeatovace]

Would Russian Strategic defenses be warned that the ballistic missile coming out of the sea was not nuclear and (hopefully) not aimed at Russia? Cause you only have a small window in which to decide whether your retaliatory nuclear forces should be launched.

[twiffatticy]

I don't see a reference in this article that speaks of aggressive use, Cerberus.
I'm sure someone will disagree, but the U.S. has never done anything but respond.

[Drugmachine]

um, um, um.

[assonomaf]

As far as terrorist goes, it's already at response level. War has been declared on terrorism.

[seatlyled]

Less range.

I'm very possibly wrong, but I think the intent is a quicker response, in that you don't have to position.
Additionally, don't have to stay up in anyone's face.

[JesikaFclq]

Oh good. I was looking for a fool to make some quick, easy money off of.

[10traistintarry]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As far as terrorist goes, it's already at response level. War has been declared on terrorism. If China sees a missle flying in it's direction, even if it's aimed at Pakistan, it might get nervous about whether or not the USA is being pre-emptive or reactive.

[denSmumbSes]

Originally posted by Ninot
If China sees a missle flying in it's direction, even if it's aimed at Pakistan, it might get nervous about whether or not the USA is being pre-emptive or reactive. The algorithms for computing the trajectory of a missile aren't that primitive...

Originally posted by Thedrin
How many possible targets are there outside of the range of the cruise missile (assuming an ocean launch) that can be targetted without seriously ticking off China or Russia? Submarines have an advantage over cruisers in that they're not as likely to be attacked in port.

[effebrala]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Trident missles are MIRVed. I believe they launch about a dozen warheads, but I think that the nuclear warheads are not that high power as far as nules go. I believe that they're less than 1 megaton. My guess is that in order for these missles to be able to launch that many warheads the individual warheads can't be very heavy. We don't know if the Trident missles armed with conventional warheads will be MIRVed or not. Accuracy of the MIRVed warheads somehwere in the order of 100 yards I believe. If you're using a nuke that's fine, but if you're using a 500 lb conventional warhead that's not good enough. Of course, if the conventionally armed missle doesn't use MIRVed warheads the bomb would be much larger and could even use Geosats to make the aim even better. OTOH a dozen smaller MIRVed conventional warheads targetted to detonate within a 100 yard circle might be even more effective.

Could this have something to do with the 700 ton bunker buster bomb recently tested? I doubt that Trident missles have a 700 ton lift capacity. NO way a trident can carry 700 tons, thought of course no aircraft or rocket can.

The US does not really use nukes in the megaton range. You do more damage with a dispersal pattern of nukes in the couple hundred kiloton ranges. The uS probably still has a few megaton bombs in order to crack some tougher targets, but for bases and cities there is no need to go for that megatonnage.

[usacomm]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't see a reference in this article that speaks of aggressive use, Cerberus.
I'm sure someone will disagree, but the U.S. has never done anything but respond. So there is a terrorist meeting in another country. Telephoning that government and asking permission to fire a ballistic missile at a target within their country is going to take more than an hour to get a positive answer, even if someone doesn't tip off the terrorists to scatter.

I don't see a way to use such a weapon quickly without starting a war. It would be difficult to prove it was anything other than an unprovoked attack on another sovereign state - or is Pearl Harbor OK as long as it happens to the other guy?

Unless of course the US spends several months at the UN claiming the intended target has WMD's. Either way is hardly a quick response scenario.

[RlUbQU3R]

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say. I'm I the only one wondering why they just don't substitute a conventional warhead for the nuclear warhead on a Trident II?

[Anatolii]

Originally posted by loinburger

The algorithms for computing the trajectory of a missile aren't that primitive...

Only when the missile is in re-entry, and then you don't have very much time, on the order of minutes.

Presumably, we'd use the hotline to let both parties know the nuke wasn't aimed at them. Then they'd have to decide whether or not to believe us.

It's not that I don't think it's a good idea . . . well, an okay idea. But aren't Trident's really friggan expensive? The U.S. Navy already patrols all the world's oceans, excepting maybe the Arctic and Antarctic. It's not like there's much outside of Siberia that is beyond Tomahawk range.

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

Exactly

Now instead of bombing innocent Pakistanis in hope of finding Junior Executive Assistant to the Assitant Al Queda Cook, we can push the button from Omaha Nebraska from the comfort of our own place.

[ThzinChang]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Originally posted by loinburger

The algorithms for computing the trajectory of a missile aren't that primitive...

Only when the missile is in re-entry, and then you don't have very much time, on the order of minutes.

Presumably, we'd use the hotline to let both parties know the nuke wasn't aimed at them. Then they'd have to decide whether or not to believe us.

It's not that I don't think it's a good idea . . . well, an okay idea. But aren't Trident's really friggan expensive? The U.S. Navy already patrols all the world's oceans, excepting maybe the Arctic and Antarctic. It's not like there's much outside of Siberia that is beyond Tomahawk range. Holy Cow! We are in agreement!

[disappointment2]

You guys are thinking in such a limited scope. You think terrorism is the only problem in the world? You think that's the only potential problem that is going on where this weapon could be used?

Thank god you guys aren't in the position to make any kind of policy decisions involving strategic planning.

sheesh

I expect more from a fansite of a strategy game... honestly

Say what you want about Rumsfeld, but at least he can see beyond what's on the front page of the news today.

As far as military projects go, this is relatively cheap... it's an effective weapon. It can be deployed onto existing platforms... it would be accurate, fast, deadly. What more could you want from a weapon?

How anyone could think this is a bad idea is just beyond me.

[Vomekayafboke]

You also assume that terrorists don't have, and will continue to not have, nukes at their disposal.
RE: Iran.