Word: tridents
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...snapped up some impressive brands, including such names as Dr Pepper, 7Up, A&W, Canada Dry, Sunkist and Snapple, which came as part of its merger with Schweppes in 1969. On the candy side, it was Stitzer's 2003 acquisition of Adams, which included the Halls, Dentyne and Trident brands, that transformed Cadbury into the world's largest confectionery company...
...both for and against developing such a system. Part of the justification is that the U.S. military already has such a capability. Unfortunately, it's nuclear, which renders it worthless for anything but Armageddon. But for about $1 billion, over the next three years, the nation could convert some Trident missiles - now limited to carrying nuclear warheads in their submarine launchers - to non-nuclear weapons. The plan favored by the NRC panel would replace two of the 24 nuclear missiles on each of the Navy's 12 Trident subs with conventional-armed missiles...
...past two years, Congress has blocked Bush Administration plans to develop such a weapon. Lawmakers are concerned that Russia, and soon China, might mistake the launch of a conventionally-armed Trident with the start of a nuclear war against them - and respond in kind before realizing they were mistaken. The NRC panel dismissed this concern, saying various steps - including informing Moscow and Beijing of conventional launches - could be taken to minimize such an error...
Sounds nifty, until you read the fine print. It notes that Pentagon studies "indicate that in most cases, a single CTM [Conventional Trident Modification] KEP [Kinetic Energy Projectile] will have a high kill probability against fixed soft targets if target geolocation accuracy and guidance, navigation, and control accuracy are as predicted." That's eight caveats right there. Such a weapon would be worthless against moving or heavily-defended targets (developing such a capability would take at least a decade and cost as much as $25 billion) and represents only a "niche capability" designed to attack stationary terrorists or nuclear weapons...
...Soviets do offer to give up their largest missiles, they would probably demand that the U.S. give up the MX and the Trident II as well. That would be difficult to accept. There are widespread questions about how to base the MX and about Congress's willingness to fund it fully. But the Pentagon sees the Trident II as a crucial component of the U.S. arsenal for the 1990s because, like its predecessors, its submarine basing makes it invulnerable to a Soviet pre-emptive attack (assuming, of course, that the Soviets do not achieve a breakthrough in antisubmarine warfare...