The Pentagon gets creative with Weapons of mini Destruction

In the current game of modern warfare, the perception of a weapon is almost more important than its actual destructive capability. That's why a newly designed Trident II missile that carries a non-nuclear payload could have a rough time getting funding from congress: in flight, the ballistic missile looks just like a fast nuke. The payload is pretty exciting, since at the peak of its climb outside the atmosphere, the missile pops out a payload of four warheads that can hit independent targets and travel up to 13,000 mph. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering a 3000 sq. ft area with scored tungsten rods at high enough speeds to decimate the target. Major points for the surgical strike, but we're not so hot for that whole "could instigate nuclear war" thing. Further off, but a bit more promising is the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to ride the shock waves created at its Mach 5 (3600 mph) target speed. Best of all, the missile is designed to destroy targets with its own kinetic energy, meaning even more precise targeting. The goal of the missile is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes." Perfect for acting on fleeting intelligence against teensy targets. The technologies being developed for the X-51 are also being considered for space vehicles and ultra-speedy planes.

[Rubberdemon @ Dec 21st 2006 11:34AM]

"Perfect for acting on fleeting intelligence against teensy targets".

I find this rather scary. What if the fleeting intelligence (as fleeting intelligence so often is), is wrong? Within 60 minutes it's too late to do anything but say, "sorry we blew up your wedding party; someone told us it was an Al Queda terrorist meeting". After all, didn't that strike that was supposed to be against Saddam early in the current Iraq war just blow up a house and a restaurant full of innocent people? All based on the word of some informant...

The problem with this sort of technology is that there's so little pause between a decision to do something and the realization of this decision. Once you have a MIRV'd package of tungsten rods, every problem looks like it's about 3000 sq feet across...

[Alcaron @ Dec 21st 2006 11:36AM]

You really have zero clue wtf you are talking about...

[Rubberdemon @ Dec 21st 2006 12:12PM]

@Alcaron: Oh please enlighten me, wise Alcaron.

[plchabot @ Dec 21st 2006 11:53AM]

"You really have zero clue wtf you are talking about..."

so do U.S. government

[Alcaron @ Dec 21st 2006 12:08PM]

dur hur....good one...

[Deluxe @ Dec 21st 2006 11:56AM]

Does anyone else think that looks a lot like the ships from the Wip3out series?

[joe @ Dec 21st 2006 12:07PM]

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[portwineboy @ Dec 21st 2006 12:10PM]

Sounds like something from hard Sci Fi novels of the 70s and 80s. I'm pretty sure Heinlein or Pournelle came up with something similar.

[Rubberdemon @ Dec 21st 2006 12:14PM]

@Portwineboy - Pournelle and maybe Niven too, came up with something similar called "Thor", the idea being you'd have bundles of steerable rods in orbit, and could call them down against individual targets (such as tanks) with very little warning. They'd be purely kinetic energy weapons, and pretty much impossible to defend against.

[Alcaron @ Dec 21st 2006 12:17PM]

Well, he's got smarmy down pat doesn't he...

But which part of this do you want me to point out as being incorrect? The part where he says it will have trouble getting funding because its not stupid huge and impressive looking? The part where he suggests a detriment of the missile is the fact (I don't think engadget would know a fact if it bit them in the face) that it could start a nuclear war?

Again this is just another brilliant post where instead of just saying "hey look at this" he (in true engadget fashion) feels the need to sound cool by panning something for completely BS reasons.

It doesn't make you sound cool to anybody who knows anything about what you are talking about (or takes five minutes to read up on it and see that you are just spouting off nonsense).

I am FAR from the only person to come into a PM post and say that too.

[Matt @ Dec 21st 2006 12:17PM]

heh it totally does look like a Wipeout ship.

[Rob @ Dec 21st 2006 1:36PM]

um...let me point something out-Currently, all ICBMs are ballistic [as implied in the name ;)] and most of them are NUCLEAR...so if a country sees an ICBM coming towards them, i dont think they're going to say "oh, its just one of those little bombs the US just made" they're going to say "OH SHIT, THEY'RE FIRING NUKES AT US...FIRE BACK"

basically a country isn't going to wait and see if the large and very scary looking missile is really just a little weapon that destroys 3000 sq ft (or more w/ MIRV), they're gong to assume, based on probability, that it's a nuclear weapon and thus, start a nuclear war. and they're also not going to call the nation that launched it and say "what ho old chap, did you just launch a nuke at us?"

[Revels @ Dec 21st 2006 12:17PM]

"strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes." Would make a thrilling episode of 24

[Rob @ Dec 21st 2006 12:44PM]

That's kinda what I was thinking,.. With a 60 minute window, Jack Bauer's going to be cursing up a storm when he finds out that he has less time than ever to keep the U.S. out of trouble.

And from the front,.. it kinda looks like the Battlestar Gallactica (or maybe the Pegasus) ;o)

[tiuk @ Dec 21st 2006 12:34PM]

Jesus, Tungsten? Only way they could be more badass is if they were depleted uranium.

[teodoro @ Dec 21st 2006 10:50PM]

What does hurling palm pda at targets do?

[Adrian Williams @ Dec 21st 2006 12:50PM]

This is not news Russia been in devolpment of these since 05'
http://www.fatima.org/essentials/whatucando/russiahypersonic.asp

[Chris @ Dec 21st 2006 1:32PM]

What the heck Alcaron. he didn't say it might have trouble getting funding because it's not impressive, he said it might have trouble because "in flight, it looks like a fast nuke". Meaning ICBM detection systems will tag it. I'm not even a regular Engadget reader and I spotted that right away.

As for "zero clue", why aren't you posting articles? If you're just going to tear someone apart, why comment?

[Ray Valdez @ Dec 21st 2006 1:35PM]

yeah, it DOES look like the pegasus, but it does look like the racers from wipeout...

lol...

[Alcaron @ Dec 21st 2006 1:43PM]

Well, crap, the internet just said so, so it must be true...I already know PM's qualifications (which are exactly none and zero) but what were yours again?

I mean, other than the "seems to me" hypothesis, I would assume you've had some direct training or at least contact with these weapons.

In reality, you don't really know do you. This is just what SEEMS likely to happen. Based on the uneducated GUESS of someone who has nothing to do with these types of things, right? Just like PM.

Anyway, this is a lost cause, even if it was the case theres no way in hell PM knows that other than a lucky guess, but thats never stopped him from putting BS facts out there before. He's really good at misinformation though.

[Matt @ Dec 21st 2006 1:40PM]

Guys, decimate is not the right word at all. Decimate means to destroy 1/10 of something. Tungsten rods raining down over a 3000 sq ft area is a lot worse than decimating something.

The modern media has bastardized and sensationalized the word to the point that it angers me when people use it improperly. Don't be like them and realize what words actually mean, regardless of their sensational connotation

[Miguel @ Dec 21st 2006 10:03PM]

Don't be so hard on them. Decimate was originally used to refer to the killing of every tenth person (a punishment the Romans used in the army for mutinous legions).

However, the meaning has broadened to include the destruction of a large part of a group, the infliction of great damage or destruction upon something, or the marked reduction in amount. 2/3 of the Usage Panel accepts this extension of meaning in the sentence "The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war," even though more than ten percent of Jews were killed. However, only 2/3 of the Usage Panel accepts the extension of the word to refer to destruction other than killing (such as, "The supply of fresh water was decimated by the nuclear accident").

[Rob @ Dec 21st 2006 3:15PM]

well actually i have first person interviews with the people who work on and with these systems for a 20 pg research project I did...so yes, i do know

you on the other hand don't know so apparently, you don't have the qualifications for this discussion

[Gungir @ Dec 21st 2006 1:58PM]

At first glance, I was thinking it resembled one of the Reaver skiffs from "Firefly"...

[kOa7 @ Dec 21st 2006 2:31PM]

I really wish Engadget would not feature so many weapons of war. Sometimes there is a feeble attempt at social commentary, but for the most part its just mindless 14 year old adulation. If I wanted to read about weapons, I would go to Jane's or some other relevant site. I guess the editors just want to pump out as many postings as possible, but these are not "gadgets" and there are already too many postings to give the site legitimate focus on consumer gadgets.

[Elliot @ Dec 21st 2006 2:33PM]

Can we just be clear that there's nothing "surgical" about a weapon that destroys 3000 square feet of land?

[Blackforrestal @ Dec 21st 2006 3:14PM]

Surgical precision as applies to a battlefield would be anything that "cuts out" what you don't want and leaves the rest intact. 3000 square feet from 3000 miles away is about as "surgical" as one could hope for.

[sartinsauce @ Dec 21st 2006 2:49PM]

@ Alcaron

You're part of engadget.com aren't you? I suspect you may even be Paul Miller. You just log in and comment all over the place for publicity. Maybe it's the end of the year and you're trying to drum up responses in an effort to leverage a raise for 2007?

[mastershake @ Dec 21st 2006 4:41PM]

Let's think logically;
1)yes, it may look like a nuke when incoming, if that country is sophisticated enough to track and determine that. Then if they have intercontenintial weapons they may launch back. If this is the case, then we either sent the real deal, have disabled thier counter, or we are already in a nuclear world of shit so it really doesn't matter what it looks like.
2)engadget reports on technology, and as an independant press agencey can do so in what ever fasion they like. Incidently most media spins stories how they feel they want to. Why did CNN have so much coverage on the sniper's weapon as opposed to the story? Because Ted Turner want's to ban your guns. Why does fox cover so many attacks on tradition and religion? Because they feel it is important to maintain these things. Why do you complain about how engadget reports? because you are a lonely little troll whose mommy told him he was precious little snowflake who matters. Newsflash you don't, we can always make more people. Go earn your exsistance. quit your bitchin and solve something, contribute or stop eating our food.

[Philip @ Dec 21st 2006 8:06PM]

Iran's gonna start the first nuclear war, not the US. We need all the weapons we can get to end it.

[onda @ Dec 21st 2006 8:43PM]

Wow. Just what the world needs, another WMD. Stupid humans.

[Andrew @ Dec 22nd 2006 5:48AM]

How many times, I wonder, is it acceptable to use the expression "pay-load" in one sentence? I'm betting the author was once again abstaining from using the English language to write their report. I sincerely hope that in the not-too-distant-future we'll be calling it American, as it has now drifted so far from English that it doesn't deserve to be associated with our country.

[Sam Brown @ Dec 22nd 2006 8:10PM]

Engadget. I read your blog to get information regarding gadgets - not weapons of mass destruction and anihilation. You seem to be reporting more and more on the US military's capability to attack and kill those people America disagrees with. If you continue in this vein, then I will need to get my information about gadgets elseware.