U.S. May Arm Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon wants to spend up to $500 million through 2011 to replace nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on some submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to budget documents.

The purpose is to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. submarines carry ballistic missiles that fly at supersonic speeds, faster than those launched from land- based silos or airplanes.

``This weapon would give the U.S. global, conventional preemption -- a first-strike capability -- in 30 minutes, to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership facilities,'' said William Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst and independent defense consultant and author.

The fiscal 2007-2011 defense budget plan calls for building as many as 96 conventional warheads for installation on 24 of the Navy's roughly 336 nuclear D5 Trident missiles, according to a 33-page Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Each missile carries up to four warheads.

The U.S. would have to work out notification procedures with its allies as well as China and Russia to prevent a nuclear misunderstanding, said Stan Norris, a senior analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the author of an annual compilation of U.S. nuclear forces.

``While there are advantages, especially in being able to hit a target within 20-30 minutes, there are important questions that will need answers,'' he said.

`How Differentiate?'

For example, ``how would Russian early warning radars differentiate between conventional missile attacks aimed at say al-Qaeda caves on the Afghan-Pakistan border and those aimed at Russian missile silos?'' Norris said. ``Is it possible that the U.S. would notify Russia or China of an impending attack to avoid the possibility of Russian or Chinese misinterpretation?''

Arkin agreed. ``Before we start shooting ballistic missiles at countries we had better work to resolve the question of false warnings and accidental nuclear war, particularly if North Korea were ever a target,'' he said.

The U.S. presently can launch non-nuclear strikes using B-2 bombers based in Missouri or Tomahawk cruise missiles off submarines and surface vessels. Neither weapon travels as fast as a sub-launched ballistic missile.

This new strategy ``places the ballistic missile submarine on the front line of U.S. offensive capabilities,'' Arkin said. ``Trident missiles will be able to place a conventional warhead on target in only 12 minutes, far quicker than any other long- range weapon.''

Any strikes would be coordinated by a new joint-service unit that the U.S. Strategic Command set up in November at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Lockheed Missile Improved

The Pentagon commitment suggests contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. has made progress in improving the accuracy of the D5 missile, said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. Cold War nuclear missiles were built less for precision than for widespread destruction.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems since 1995 has spent its own research money to improve the accuracy of a conventional Trident missile. Test flights in 2002 and 2005 demonstrated ``the feasibility of achieving near-tactical GPS accuracy with conventional warheads on the D5,'' spokesman Thomas Greer said in an e-mail statement.

Slow Down, Maneuver

The 2005 test showed that a conventional warhead bearing on a target could slow down and maneuver to receive last-minute Global Positioning System satellite coordinates, ``providing capabilities that would be needed for the delivery of some types of conventional warheads to their targets,'' Greer said.

About 2,500 Lockheed Martin employees work on the Trident D5 missile program in California, Georgia, Florida and Washington State.

``The warhead could possibly provide Trident missiles with the accuracy to strike within 10 meters of their intended, stationary targets,'' the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept. 7 report.

A Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. official in July laid out these finding to the Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities and said it could start producing the warheads by 2010 if it received money this year, CRS said.

The long-range budget plan calls for spending $127 million in fiscal 2007 and $225 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and buy a warhead with a capability to penetrate ``hard and deeply buried targets,'' according to England's memo, which also spells out other major budget decisions.

Gives `Both Options'

Kristensen said the Pentagon's new strategy will enable the Navy to meet the Strategic Command's goal ``of having both nuclear and conventional strategic strike options available to the president.''

``U.S. Strategic Command is examining ways for delivering prompt, precise strike globally,'' the command said in a Jan. 9 statement e-mailed to Bloomberg News.

``A requirement for a specific weapon system has not been identified but leveraging existing systems has the potential to quickly deliver capability to the warfighter,'' the statement said.

``Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike,'' it said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZeqovAl9zgY&refer=us

Quoted: Trident missiles are really fucking expensive.

Allowing a NK missile with a nuke warhead to launch at downtown SF would be a whole lot more expensive...

Quoted: What about the accuracy?  what is the CPE of the MIRVs of a Trident? Be no good if you missed by 200 yards. Allowing a NK missile with a nuke warhead to launch at downtown SF would be a whole lot more expensive... We don't like SF.

CEP is 10 yds

Quoted: Quoted: If they can ensure the Russians don't think we're launching a nuke at them, it should work.

There are reports that the US is discussing with the Chinese and Russsians protocols and proceedures for using this type of system.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: CEP is 10 yds Hmmm..  did you actually read the article?

Currently quoted CEP fo a D5 MIRV is 10yds...


ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: CEP is 10 yds Hmmm..  did you actually read the article? Currently quoted CEP fo a D5 MIRV is 10yds... ANdy Actually, they say 90m. 10m for the proposed warheads with GPS, which is basically the GPS error.

The CEP is for 50% of the warheads landing within the 90m radius and basically you can aim at a particular missile silo with a good chance of scoring a 'direct hit'. The Russian (who have probaly got the test data from it's spy network), have always attributed the Trident II with a very high degree of accuracy.

ANdy