41–50 of 120 posts
... and it is getting pretty obvious that being able to blow things up doesn't make much difference anyway in a political sense. Simple terror doesn't work anymore to bring people around to your way of thinking. All the people that can be simply coerced are gone now.
> would be able to knock out a target’s nuclear capabilities fast enough and thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike. Did the author completely forget about nuclear subs?
The article is pretty terrible in general. Hypersonics won't change the balance of anything, especially considering what a decent sized one can do. If you're delivering nuclear-levels of destruction with hypersonics then your opponent will retaliate with nuclear weapons. There will be no exception for "Oh, you used hypersonics on us, that's cool." If anything, hypersonics make the nuclear option more likely and nation states will be wary on ever using them on another nuclear power.
The article does play up a 'Russia/China will soon dominate the US' nonsense that gets ad impressions, but if these weapons ever hit a US carrier or city, then a nuclear response will be the most likely scenario. The development of these weapons has been pretty slow and no one is sabre-rattling with them for a reason. They'll fall under the category of weapons of mass destruction, which is probably what all the major powers want because the alternative is yet another arms race, on top of the low simmering nuclear arms race that exists today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hypersonic vehicle can travel much faster than that. We're talking about the ability to strike targets anywhere on the globe in minutes. That IS destabilizing. The example of striking carrier groups in the pacific is only the tip of the iceberg. This race amounts to a global game of chicken, and the stakes of a mistake are world war. Let's hope cooler heads prevail. On the other hand, there are some pretty amazing…
That capability has been around since the 1950s, and has been deployed widely enough to wreck civilization on a moment's notice since the 1960s. What do hypersonic weapons do in this respect that ICBMs don't? Is it just that they're cheaper and so could potentially be more numerous?
US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.)
HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If it insists on remaining hegemon, it needs to shoot its load first. So, destablizing.
HS conventional and nuclear armed weapons look and act the same. An HS projectile coming your way gives you a short window of time to determine if it is conventional or atomic. Not a good time to toss coins. Shoot off atomic load first. Destabilizing.
That is the thesis.
> would be able to knock out a target’s nuclear capabilities fast enough and thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike. Did the author completely forget about nuclear subs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That capability has been around since the 1950s, and has been deployed widely enough to wreck civilization on a moment's notice since the 1960s. What do hypersonic weapons do in this respect that ICBMs don't? Is it just that they're cheaper and so could potentially be more numerous?
ICBMs are held in mutual check by MAD. US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.) HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If…
I don't see how hypersonic weapons change either of that. They're not any faster than a missile, so the response time isn't worse, and they don't do anything to uncover submarines. What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That capability has been around since the 1950s, and has been deployed widely enough to wreck civilization on a moment's notice since the 1960s. What do hypersonic weapons do in this respect that ICBMs don't? Is it just that they're cheaper and so could potentially be more numerous?
ICBMs are held in mutual check by MAD. US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.) HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If…
My earlier point about Moskits was that such weapons already exist, and have already had this effect. We just haven't admitted it yet, and almost certainly won't until we overstep ourselves and somebody sends one of our carrier strike groups to the bottom.
> would be able to knock out a target’s nuclear capabilities fast enough and thoroughly enough to pre-empt any attempt at a retaliatory strike. Did the author completely forget about nuclear subs?
Yes, clearly. If you slam into the water at Mach 6, there won't be anything left of you weapon more than a few meters down.
Alternatively, how deep do you have to go to escape the damaging effects of the shockwave from something slapping into the surface of the sea at mach 6?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICBMs are held in mutual check by MAD. US enjoys conventional dominance due to ability to project conventional force anywhere. This capability is in part supported by the ability to effectively shield remote force projection platforms from conventional threats. (For atomic, see MAD.) HS conventional weapons can neutralize the defensive shields. This undermines the projection platforms. That would make US insecure. If…
I thought the main things allowing for MAD at this point were the ability of retaliatory ICBMs to launch quickly before incoming weapons destroy them, and the ability for ballistic missile submarines to survive a strike by being hidden, and thus retaliate at leisure. I don't see how hypersonic weapons change either of that. They're not any faster than a missile, so the response time isn't worse, and they don't do any…