Talk:UGM-133 Trident D5

Wording change

I think 8-12 warheads is more accurate than up to 12. This involves some informed guesswork on my part, and, while I've had no classified access to Trident data, some thoughts from earlier MIRVed missiles. My reading of 8-12 is the reentry bus, the thing that holds and aims the warheads, is really designed for the weight balance of 8-12 warheads. Decoys are almost always lighter.

There are scenarios in which it would be the national intention to deliver a single warhead. I believe the way that would have to be done is to fire a MIRVed missile, but not arm 7-11 of the warheads. Still, a country with ballistic missile defense radar would see the warheads, with no way to know, at first, they were not armed. They might see more, if their radar can't discriminate decoys.

This would be a situation where hotlines, etc., would urgently be needed.

There is active research into a non-nuclear warhead for Trident and other missiles, and I believe it's well understood that Russia, etc., would have to be informed were such a weapon used for an anti-terrorist or anti-WMD strike. Such a kinetic energy warhead, however, would look quite different than nuclear warheads -- it would either be a single solid mass (concrete with guidance units is likely) or a bundle of small guided steel rods, etc.

I suppose this article should be updated for the discussion of kinetic nonnuclear warheads. When last I looked, there was some serious discussion among experts, and for a change, Congress, if this was a good or bad idea. One of the arguments is that for a worldwide contingency where there are no local aircraft, it will take many hours to get a non-nuclear response to what could be a time-critical situation. ICBMs and SLBMs are fast, even with the need to retarget. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The obvious question then becomes why is it necessary to include guesswork, informed or otherwise, in an encyclopedia. Isn't that unencyclopedic? I would suggest including just the parts you can verify. David Finn 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What is guesswork here? I think expert interpretation of ongoing projects is definitely encyclopedic, at least in the spirit of CZ. With the real names policy, it's much easier to have original synthesis and contextualization. It's not guesswork, for example, to say that non-nuclear, non-high-explosive kinetic warheads are either unitary (e.g., guided concrete) or submunition (e.g., guided rods).

There's very real funding and development in this area, which is easy to verify. I've also spent a reasonable amount of time with Naval weapons technology, going back to 1970 or so.

This not being a general article on non-nuclear long-range strike, it's not necessary to put the full discussion and background in this article, although it certainly could link to one. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I've not made it to the computer in a couple days. I come to this article from the point of view of someone who is interested in learning more about the Trident system, as it tied in with the submarine article. Now I already did a little research into the submarine, so I know the maximum capacity is 12 per missile. I also know that Britain, for example, now carry 8 rather than 12, but this decision is portrayed as being operational rather than a feature if the missile payload. That is to say, they chose a specific number of warheads per submarine and divided them between the missiles. Now, it may well be that in fact that was something to do with the missiles payload capability, but from what I have seen there was nothing to say that it was not just an operational choice.

Because this is the article about Trident, the missile, I think it important that if we are to mention the figures that we say what we know - we know 12 is the max, I believe we can find out which countries use how many warheads per missile, but if we can't find a source for a minimum number I think we should avoid it or at least put the reasoning we have for supposing the minimum number. The reason I think that is for myself, the article we have is short and serves more as an introduction, so to research further I have to delve further, and if I can't find the information about why it might be 8 minimum, and the only place I can find that is Citizendium, then I have to go the route of checking the page history (if you can do that without having an account, I am talking from the point of view of an average encyclopedia reader here) and finding who the contributor was and checking their credentials.

This is what I mean about encyclopedic - I don't mean that I think your writing is at all unencyclopedic, I am most impressed by your style, dedication and professionalism, what I mean is that the encyclopedia reader might see the 8 minimum and wonder why. Seeing no explanation they will have to research further, and if they cannot find an answer they then it is down to how much they trust a draft article on Citizendium. Now, I appreciate that there is a particular attitude to editor contribution here, and considering your qualifications and length of service that is understandable, but it takes investigation for the average reader to know that you wrote this, so while it remains a draft article I think that sometimes ommission can be safer than inclusion, unless we explain to the reader the full meaning.

I am of course ready to re-examin my attitude should the ideas behind Citizendium be in conflict with what I have just written! After all we are all here to build a good encyclopedia. And I hope I have explained my thoughts adequately - since I operate mostly in bad Dutch and not good English I think my writing can sometimes come across more blunt than I mean it to. Your reply was very informative, thanks. David Finn

Good comments. I wonder, though, if the reasoning for the warhead limit, which isn't unique to Trident, needs to belong in a more general article. Right now, we don't have a separate multiply targeted reentry vehicle article, but rather a section in atmospheric reentry. There is also an article on ballistic missile penetration aids that would touch on the issues.

Quite a few things about real-world ballistic missiles are not obvious, and some of which, such as the significance of the weather in the target area, were things I could not discuss in public for many years. Weight and balance, however, is a very significant issue, for a number of reasons. For one specific case, see W88 (nuclear weapon), where the ability to put the heavier fission trigger at the base of the conical reentry vehicle freed up payload weight that had been required for ballast.

There are tradeoffs in making penetration aids lighter than real warheads. Potentially, a lighter decoy's trajectory might be recognized and used for discrimination, although there are countermeasures to that such as using a balloon sheath that slows reentry.

I don't know how to handle the user credibility problem, given it is neither our policy to source everything as in Wikipedia, nor to assume that an expert can't synthesize. Like it or not, a good deal of my missile knowledge comes from discussions at work, but not anything that can be cited. I did get a great deal of insight from a declassified classification guide for one ICBM system, but I couldn't tell you the citation. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is one article for the 'request an article' page if we have one! And next time if I am making an alteration, rather than an addition, I'll think whether I should try and engage discussion on the talkpage first. Cheers. David Finn 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)