http://www.nytimes.c.../23strike.html?hp
The article isn't terribly informative. It discusses work on conventional warheads that have as much damage-capacity as nuclear warheads. I don't know enough about it to have much of an opinion yet.
The FAS has covered usage of the term "Global Strike" since early in Bush's term. It's nebulous.
From 2006: http://www.fas.org/s...lStrikeReport.pdf (250 page .pdf)
From 2008: http://www.fas.org/b.../globalstrike.php
I would hope that Obama and Gates are going to work on reducing these ambiguities.
Research and early development is fine, but, given our overwhelming superiority over any potential adversary, I would be skeptical of the need for early deployment of any new uberweapons. (Blowing up a mountain isn't the only way to end work at buried sites. If people and material can't get in and out, then it's not terribly useful.)
Cheers,
Scott.