51–60 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.
The US having our own hypersonic missiles is not actually a defense against this scenario you have outlined?
I'm far more concerned with defence against them than otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Mutually assured destruction” is still the defense in this particular case. Anybody who thinks that America wouldn’t retaliate and turn half of east-Asia into a sheet of radioactive glass is kidding themselves.
Does MAD still work if the person threatening the first strike is a literal mad man that is suffering a terminal illness knowing their time is short anyways?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Mutually assured destruction” is still the defense in this particular case. Anybody who thinks that America wouldn’t retaliate and turn half of east-Asia into a sheet of radioactive glass is kidding themselves.
Does MAD still work if the person threatening the first strike is a literal mad man that is suffering a terminal illness knowing their time is short anyways?
A nation is stronger than just the leader. Even in the age of kings, subordinates aristocrats wouldn’t walk willingly into a no win situation.
both test failures seem to have been during the booster rocket phase and they weren't even able to test or collect data on the missile component Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. I'm curious how hard it would be to have SpaceX make an attempt or if they would even be willing. Seems safe to say they know rockets far better than Lockheed
Lockheed tried to buy Aerojet Rocketdyne a couple years ago, the maker of the Shuttle's RS-25 engines, which are being re-used on SLS, but abandoned the acquisition. Boeing is the lead contractor for the launch vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.
The US having our own hypersonic missiles is not actually a defense against this scenario you have outlined?
Game theory-wise, the winner would be whoever struck first, since they would get to use their full arsenal. Retaliation could only be done reliably with submarines. That's what frightens me the most about hypersonic development. Whoever cracks the secret and can field the most will potentially upend MAD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.
> a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later Anyone pitching this is talking tripe. Russia can already do this. They’ve been able to do this since the 60s. We have no missile defence against a MAD attack, which is what you propose involves. Also, mechanically, Russia’s hypersonics are air-to-ground, anti-ship and ballis…
Given that the bomber gap, missile gap and the cruiser gap was all shown to be fictional, I do wonder if the perceived hypersonic gap is real.
Correct. No one has "real" hypersonic missiles that travel in the atmosphere for extended periods(*1). The heating problems for shock impingment in non-"simple conicals" has *not* been overcome and won't be. "Hypersonic" missiles are mostly just ICBMs with a very brief passage through the dense lower atmosphere where there's enough lift. And if they try to go higher up to escape the heat flux there's not enough for l…
Air breathing hypersonics at altitude are real though. The US has successfully tested scramjets in the past. And currently has the HAWC program which has successfully flown twice now.
both test failures seem to have been during the booster rocket phase and they weren't even able to test or collect data on the missile component Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. I'm curious how hard it would be to have SpaceX make an attempt or if they would even be willing. Seems safe to say they know rockets far better than Lockheed