Editing Trident (missile) (section)

==Conventional Trident==
[[The Pentagon]] proposed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options,<ref>
{{cite web
 |url         = http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Strategic-Weapon-Systems/Future-Ballistic-Missile-Projects-United-States.html
 |title       = Future Ballistic Missile Projects (United States), Offensive weapons
 |work        = Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems
 |date        = 27 October 2011
 |access-date  = 2012-11-23
 |url-status     = live
 |archive-url  = https://archive.today/20130126171241/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Strategic-Weapon-Systems/Future-Ballistic-Missile-Projects-United-States.html
 |archive-date = 26 January 2013}}</ref> as part of a broader long-term strategy to develop worldwide rapid strike capabilities, dubbed "[[Prompt Global Strike]]".

The $503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably two missiles per submarine) into conventional weapons, by fitting them with modified Mk4 [[reentry vehicle]]s equipped with [[GPS]] for navigation update and a reentry guidance and control (trajectory correction) segment to perform 10-meter class impact accuracy. No explosive is said to be used since the reentry vehicle's mass and hypersonic impact velocity provide sufficient mechanical energy and "effect". The second conventional warhead version is a fragmentation version that would disperse thousands of [[tungsten]] rods which could obliterate an area of 3000 square feet (approximately 280 square meters).<ref>
{{cite journal
 |url         = http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html?page=1
 |title       = Hypersonic Cruise Missile:America's New Global Strike Weapon
 |journal        = [[Popular Mechanics]]
 |last        = Shachtman
 |first       = Noah
 |date        = 4 December 2006
 |access-date  = 2012-11-23
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20100117054230/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html?page=1
 |archive-date = 17 January 2010}}</ref> It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.

The primary drawback of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles is that to missile warning systems, they are virtually indistinguishable from nuclear armed missiles. This leaves open the likelihood that other nuclear-armed countries might mistake it for a nuclear launch which could provoke a counterattack. For that reason among others, this project raised a substantial debate before the US Congress for the FY07 Defense budget, but also internationally.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wood |first=Sara, Sgt. |year=2006 |url= https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/id/15225/ |title=Conventional Missile System to Provide Diverse, Rapid Capabilities |publisher=[[US Department of Defense]] |access-date=2006-04-10 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120414133326/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15225 |archive-date=14 April 2012}}</ref> Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]], among others, warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The launch of such a missile could… provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," Putin said in May 2006.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rosenberg |first=Eric |date=6 October 2006 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/06/MNGF9LJSMM1.DTL |title=Experts warn of an accidental atomic war |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=2006-10-09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080608214911/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F10%2F06%2FMNGF9LJSMM1.DTL |archive-date=8 June 2008}}</ref>