Posted on 12/21/2006 5:54:32 AM PST by MARKUSPRIME
The mission: Attack anywhere in the world in less than an hour. But is the Pentagon's bold program a critical new weapon for hitting elusive targets, or a good way to set off a nuclear war?
A tip sets the plan in motion — a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.
When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.
If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program — in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles — called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."
The question is whether such an attack can be deployed without triggering World War III: Those tungsten-armed Tridents look, and fly, exactly like the deadliest weapons in the American nuclear arsenal.
Cool!
That is awesome!
I believe a picture of it is on the front cover the Popular Mechanics magazine.
I remember in 1985 British Airways was developing a new passenger aircraft that would shuttle people from London to Sydney in 45 minutes. Must never have gotten anywhere since here we are 20 years later with nothing.
Would this missile, not being nuclear, be considered a tactical weapon?.......
That seems like a lot of weapon to only destroy a total of 12,000 square feet of enemy territory.
"In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch."
Why would the sub surface?
I remember Reagan pushing the Orient Express.
I had thought this sort of capability would come with orbiting hardware. That would be even faster response and might even obviate the need for much of the navy. A freighter loaded with contraband- NK $100 bills or a nuke in a container- is known to be at X position. It can be told to put in at a particular port for inspection. If it defies that command it can be destroyed from out of the blue in a few minutes.
Yes but they go right where you send them. They hit dead on target.
I do not like our ballistic missile subs being converted to conventional roles, and this is a conventional role.
Does the Trident sub have to surface to launch this weapon. Why not launch while submerged?
3000m?!!?!?!? what possible payload in a D5, beyond nuclear, can destroy that area? The kinestic energy of a ballistic missile impacting is roughly the same as a dynamite explosion of the same weight that is dropped from orbit.
Drop 100lbs of iron from orbit, that's the same as a 100lbs TNT explosion roughly.
The depth they launch from is classified, but it's over 300 feet.
Was this article written by a 6th-grader?
What does "Within 3000 sqare feet" mean? I think a kill radius would better communicate the effectiveness of this weapon.
Besides, 3000 sq. ft is a circle of about 60 feet diameter...that weapon had better be accurate!
Maybe so, but it's a lot easier to rearm a submarine than a sattelite.
BE CAREFUL!! You'll put your eye out!!
Can we do about fifty actual, real live, no do over, tests.
And may I please submit a list of eligibles candidates as the recipiants of our largesse?
Do not delay. Tis' the Season to whack someone who badly needs it.
:~)
The article says "3000 square feet," which is a circle of 61 feet diameter. Like someone said, a LOT of weapon for so little destruction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.