Talk:UGM-133 Trident II

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UGM-133 Trident II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Speed, CEP

I clarified some issues with speed (deleted the idiotic exaggerations, and inserted proper referenced numbers), and clarified the problem with CEP. As stated clearly by http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html the 90-120 meters CEP is achieved by adding GPS to the picture, without GPS, the accuracy is ~350 m.99.231.50.118 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

counterforce second strike?

Why are people who seem to have no clue about nuclear warfare writing articles? What is the counterforce second strike? What is this? A nuclear attack on enemy's empty silos? After enemy launched everything it had in a first striker? As for counterforce capability of Trident: If you you look at the history of development of this missile, you will understand that it never had a counterforce capability. First version of Trident deployed was UGM-96A, which had 100 kt warheads and ~350 meters CEP (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-96.html), which means its counterforce capability (especially against SS-18 missile silos) was very limited (if it existed at all). Newer Trident has improved CEP (only because of use of GPS guidance, which might not even be available in a nuclear conflict), but the bulk of russian ICBMs (and later almost all of them) will be mobile and therefore nearly impossible to detect, so Trident-2's precision is irrelevant. So, a quick recap: Trident 1 was not counterforce capable and Trident 2 arrived too late to be a serious counterforce weapon. What is so unclear? Why people like to confuse Trident 1 and 2 and claim Trident 2 had great capability against soviet silos. Trident 2 did not even exist then. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

You have no accurate source for the CEP of Trident I or II, and the same goes for the operation of the guidance system. Being uncivil about the writing regarding a classified topic for which no detailed information has ever been leaked is silly. You don't know how accurate D-5 is, nor do you know if it utilizes GPS. Also, the conception of second-strike counter-force is perfectly reasonable in the context of a limited first strike. For example, if RUS launches against US strategic sites, they will still have birds on the ground that are not useful in an intercontinental attack. Also, if RUS decides to launch a surprise attack, they will leave most of their nuclear-capable submarine fleet in port as RUS currently lacks the capability to maintain regular alert patrols.~

Removed rationale material

Removed paragraph ending 'If the Soviet Union could knock out the majority of these missiles and strategic bombers when on the ground, it would have left the United States with no retaliatory capabilities.' As Trident I already existed, this is untrue. More to the point, it's un-sourced. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]