Do Hypersonic Missiles Make Defense Systems Obsolete?
An anonymous reader writes "The Diplomat's Zachary Keck wonders why the U.S. government is doubling down on missile defense systems even as hypersonic missiles threaten to render them obsolete. Keck notes that hypersonic missiles pose two distinct challenges to current missile defense systems. First, they travel far faster than the missiles the defense systems are designed to intercept. Second, they travel at lower altitudes and possess greater maneuverability than the missiles the current systems have been built to destroy. Nonetheless, the U.S. was planning on spending $2 billion a year on missile defense through 2017, and now the Pentagon is asking for an additional $4.5 billion over the next five years."
It would be great if someone launched a hypersonic missile towards Beta.
If the enemy doesn't have good targets, these missiles don't accomplish much.
According to Richard Clarke:
As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.
"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Betas? We don't need no stinkin' betas! FUCK BETA
I submitted my first post yesterday, but have not yet received the votes to make the front page. Feel free to get this up on the main page.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Who needs expensive hypersonic missiles when you got religion and fanatics.
The side without the religious fanatics.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!