Slashdot Mirror


How Quickly Will the Latest Arms Race Accelerate?

First time accepted submitter tranquilidad writes "Russia was concerned enough about the U.S. development of a Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capability in 2010 that they included restrictions in the New Start treaty (previously discussed on Slashdot). It now appears that China has entered the game with their 'Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle.' While some in the Russian press may question whether fears of the PGS are 'rational' it appears that the race is on to develop the fastest weapons delivery system. The hypersonic arms race is focused on 'precise targeting, very rapid delivery of weapons, and greater survivability against missile and space defenses' with delivery systems traveling between Mach 5 and Mach 10 after being launched from 'near space.'"

19 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Pointless by Akratist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.

    1. Re:Pointless by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.

      Probably 97% of humans agree with you. The problem we all face is the persistent 3% that does not.

    2. Re:Pointless by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, 97% of readers (including me) agree but when actually in the decision making seat it's different. What I mean is that defending what we already have is more important than advancement. We always work hard to protect what we have. A good example of this is insurance. We buy insurance on the most ridiculous things because we fear losing in the end. The reality is that statistically you probably would come out a winner if you didn't buy insurance or extended warranties. It's just what we do.

      My 2 cents.

    3. Re:Pointless by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Informative

      Forget it.

      Boys like to compete with each other by comparing dick sizes. This is just the grown up version of it. Big boys playing with their big dicks of mass destruction.

    4. Re:Pointless by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, not really. Going fast is easy - it's going stably hypersonic that's hard, and that's only a relevant concept while inside an atmosphere, not in space. About the only weapon-oriented research that would be applicable to space travel are fuels with higher specific impulse, and point-defense systems that can vaporize incoming debris as easily as RPGs. And force-fields I suppose, but it seems like we're going to need to develop some completely new scientific principles before those become a viable research option.

      The trip to Mars is slow not because the rockets aren't strong enough, but because the fuel is too heavy to carry the quantity you'd need to get to Mars quickly. And in general as the specific impulse (newton-seconds per kg) of a propulsion system increases, the absolute thrust (Newtons) tends to decrease, making the sort of propulsion systems you'd want for interplanetary transport utterly unsuitable for rapid-deployment missiles. Witness ion drives, the best propulsion system we have for interplanetary rocketry - for a given mass of drive and fuel they can accelerate to *much* higher speeds than chemical rockets, but it takes much longer to get there. That's a winning combination when you're talking about having to cover the millions or billions of miles between planets, but the Eart is only a few thousand miles around - interplanetary drives will barely even be getting warmed up in that time scale. Even a hundredfold increase in absolute thrust - enough to make the entire solar system readily accessible to manned exploration on a timescale of months, would still be insufficient to even get a rocket off the ground - .1G acceleration for weeks on end will get you to insane speeds, but only if you don't have ten times that force keeping you in place.

      Moreover, the single biggest cost of surface-to-orbit rocketry, the one area where missile technology is more likely to be applicable, is in the cost of the rocket itself (>90% by some estimates), making reusable rockets the watchword of the day, a concept utterly inapplicable to a system designed to explode as violently as possible at it's destination. As for the potential of cheaper disposable tech, getting to orbital altitude and back down again takes only a few percentage of the amount of energy it takes to actually reach orbital velocity once at altitude - if powered by magical massless pixie dust the missile would still have to be over ten times larger to reach orbit, add the diminishing returns of real-world fuel and you're likely talking at least 20-50x larger. And that's just to deliver the same tiny warhead - thanks to those diminishing returns on fuel delivering a useful payload of 10x the mass is going to take considerably more than 10x the rocket. It's not impossible that we might make some missile-based advances in rocketry that will scale to orbital rockets 500x as large, but it's unlikely they'll hold a candle to the advances that 1/100th of the funding would have returned on actual surface-to-orbit rocketry research.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Focused on rapid delivery by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rapid delivery of lots of money into giant contracting company's pockets.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  3. When Vermont Attacks by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who here believes that Vermont would maintain a huge hypersonic nuclear missile delivery system?

    The danger to human society is these huge nation-states. The only rational thing to do is to reduce the size of these states to the point where they don't pose such risks. Yeah, that's a hard planet-wide challenge, and we have a few of them to contend with, but articles like these show that there's still far too much effort going into the wrong projects.

    It might take more courage to make these required changes than currently exists within humanity.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Re:What the fuck is wrong with people? by nani+popoki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Insanity -> mad -> M.A.D. -> mutually assured destruction. There's definitely a connection here.

    It's not like this should be news to anybody. Humans have been throwing rocks at each other for thousands of generations. We've just gotten better at it lately.

  5. Re:When will it come to a screeching halt? by AdamColley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was Einstein...

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

  6. This generation is spoiled. by xtal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody remembers the cold war, except the old fogies. I'm an old fogie now, I guess.

    Look kids - every day there are thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at cities in an uneasy truce to ensure that our governments maintain control. It's easy to pretend power doesn't matter, but let's be clear: Power is everything, and the power of the western world is enforced under threat of nuclear annihilation if we're messed with.

    That's never going to change, and it's better to accept it and deal with it than pretend China and the USA and Russia will one day magically extinguish Prometheus' flames.

    I hope they enjoyed the time not worrying about the bomb. As global energy resources (OIL) get tight, you'll see more of this type of thing starting up until the war is on again.

    How'd that line go? Oh yeah. Judgement Day is inevitable.

    --
    ..don't panic
  7. Why? Natural resources. by Frans+Faase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why this arms race? There can only be one reason: access to natural resources. Some natural resources (such as cheap fossile fuels) are on the decline, and China wants to keeps ite growing population happy, otherwise those in power might lose their position. The other superpowers also want to keep their positions. Cheap natural resources (ranging from water to fossile fuels to rare earth metals) are an essential fact for a healthy economy.

  8. Re:Arms Race? What a maroon. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America, with dozens of aircraft carriers and thousands of jet fighters and bombers, is extremely well prepared to fight WWII.

    Just about seventy years too late.

  9. Two kinds of loser talk by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the 90s a business student told me we needed free trade with China because they would become more powerful than us. That's one kind of loser talk.

    The other kind of loser talk is from the parent. It's hubris.

    Overestimating an opponent (note, not an enemy, an opponent) and underestimating are both bad IMHO.

    If I had to lose sleep over one thing about our military, it'd be aircraft carriers in a naval battle with China. Giant siting ducks. They've been the backbone of the navy for decades now. Just think about that. That's an awful long time for opponents to think about strategies against it.

    We shouldn't be beating our chest and bragging. We should be figuring out what to do if carriers become sitting ducks under some new weapons system. WW2 proved the carrier. WW3 might disprove it.

    We should also take a page from their book--the Art of War, and try to prevent opponents from becoming enemies. We've been doing a pretty sucky job of that lately.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. missed chances by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Poor 3dfx, "hypersonic GLIDE vehicle" would have been a much better name than Voodoo 3.

  11. Military industrial complex by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the USA that would, without question be true.
    Remember, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the U.S. about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
    And, just as he foretold, it has come to pass.
    The internal economic situation in China however, is different. I do much work in China and have a lot of close friends there. Several are actually pretty high up in the PRC Army. There is certainly corruption, but it is a different kind. This is more of the bribes kind which is common in the east.
    As I heard from my friends, regarding new weapons, someone will think of something that they want and say to such and such department...build this thing now and do not fail to build it.
    There is a strange mix of capitalistic and communistic economic policies at play and so it is hard to gauge cost overruns like in the west. In any case, weapons development is not about filling the pockets of your brother in-law but about fulfilling the request from the military. Now, if you are in charge of the project, that is not to say your brother in-law does not now have a good chance to fill his pockets.

  12. Re:We're all fucked anyway because nukes by tippe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Actually, for most individual peons like you or me, I don't think that's technically correct. For us, the only warning we're likely to get is the flash of light that burns out our retinas moments before the fireball burns us to ash. The time between the "warning" and our actual annihilation probably isn't affected all that much by these faster payload delivery systems.

    Personally, I'm going to save my complaints for the day when they announce that they are working on warheads that explode more quickly, as that's something that could affect me personally. The loss of a few ms of reaction time might make the difference between being able to say "Oh shit..." vs only being able to say "Oh sh...". I find that in times of distress, being able to successfully complete a curse can make a big difference in one's well-being and piece of mind...

  13. Reality interferes... by intnsred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    The reality is that the US and west never stopped waging the Cold War. We broke the understanding with Russia and pushed NATO eastward, even incorporating parts of the former USSR into NATO.

    Then we tore up the ABM treaty and put anti-missile bases in Eastern Europe claiming we were doing that because of Iran. The Russians didn't find that laughable claim one bit funny and understood that the west was seeking to negate their nuclear deterrence.

    NATO has been used offensively both inside and outside of Europe and shows that it has nothing to do with "defense".

    We portrayed a rag-tag group of Muslim fundamentalists as some sort of existential threat to the US and west, but now the US gov't has made a "pivot" and is portraying China as militarily aggressive because they are squabbling over some worthless islets with their neighbors. It's clear that China is the focus of a new Cold War.

    It's clear the US is in search of a "new enemy" because that's what keeps Americans distracted from how much we waste on our military and our continuing economic decline.

    "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." -- Ambassador to the USSR and US State Dept. strategist George F. Kennan.

    1. Re:Reality interferes... by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True about NATO expanding after the fall of the Soviet Union. However it is also true that every nation which entered NATO practically begged for it. They had their taste of Warsaw Pact life and wanted their best chance of avoiding a repeat. So what do you do when newly freed people ask to join your alliance -- tell them they are shit out of luck and first targets in Putin's next attempt to rebuild the USSR? The answer is probably, 'yes' from a cold, self interested view of the original NATO members, but it doesn't seem quite right.

  14. answer -- not the USA by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Go ahead and ask your friendly neighborhood Chinese exchange student about whose nation should be humiliated in the next 20 years" -- if by that you mean, which nation do the Chinese still resent the most, which nation has killed the most Chinese people ever, and which nation the Chinese government is most using as a bogeyman to whip up nationalistic fervor? -- that would be Japan. By the way, if the US ever pulls out of the western Pacific or looks like it is going to, Japan will field nuclear weapons within in six months, followed almost simultaneously by S. Korea, and maybe Taiwan.