Slashdot Mirror
War Tech the US, Russia, China and India All Want: Hypersonic Weapons
An anonymous reader writes: They can hit any target in 30 minutes or less. They travel anywhere from Mach 5 to Mach 25. All the major powers want them, and many look at them as a military game changer — if only they can make them work. Are hypersonic weapons the future of military doctrine?
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound — have been hyped since the 1970s. Currently almost all of the major powers are trying to build them. The U.S. and China seem to be the furthest along, and are working on various types of systems. China hopes such weapons could be a game changer and deter any U.S. actions in Asia. There is, however, one big problem (besides the insane amount of technology to make them work, considering their speed): a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war:
"According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound — have been hyped since the 1970s. Currently almost all of the major powers are trying to build them. The U.S. and China seem to be the furthest along, and are working on various types of systems. China hopes such weapons could be a game changer and deter any U.S. actions in Asia. There is, however, one big problem (besides the insane amount of technology to make them work, considering their speed): a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war:
"According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
Absolutely nothin!
Because they're all bastards.
The process of power shifting from a set of hands to another set of hands has happened before many times throughout the course of human history.
Maybe something similar is about to happen again.
http://moneymorning.com/ext/ar...
If this is true, the mystery of why all these countries want these weapons, disappears.
Them Russians are ironically the most advanced in this aspect, kinda makes those trillion dollar carrier groups big targets if you can lob multiple cheaper hypersonic bombs at them. Not really any reference to that in this piece.
I don't see how this can work.
ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Problem is launching one gets everyone else twichy because they might have a bunch of nuclear warheads on the end.
Whereas hypersonic missiles don't. So won't make anyone twitchy. Until someone sticks a nuclear warhead on them which is about the first thing they'll do. Then they'll make everyone just as twitchy as before except that they flight path will be a bit different.
About 3 years after the first practical hypersonic air breathing missile comes online, they'll be in *exactly* the same place as ICBMs with similar flight times, hitting capabilities and unusuableness due to everyone else thinking you're staring WWIII.
On the other hand, hypersonic arbreathing engines are cool, so whatever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The game changer for nuclear weapons is not a faster delivery system, it's an effective shield. That was why the Soviet Union was so worried about Star Wars. If it had worked, then it would have meant that the USA could have launched a first strike without worrying about the USSR's second strike capability. Hypersonics just make it harder to develop any kind of active shield (it's hard for an interceptor to hit something travelling at Mach 5-25).
Of course, the real game changer for nuclear weapons would be someone who doesn't care about second strike. The easy and cheap way of building something that has the same military impact as a fully functional shield is to simply not care about your civilian population. This is why everyone is nervous about North Korea: if they wanted to fire a nuke at South Korea or Japan, the threat of nuclear annihilation of their cities in response wouldn't be very likely to dissuade them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Firstly, plenty of stuff is already hypersonic. This artilce is really only about hypersonic CRUISE MISSILES. The article mentions some this, but the summary is just crap.
Secondly, the definition cited is wrong. Cruise missles are not ballistic weapons, because they are NOT BALLISTIC.
Thirdly, the idea that you can opt out of an arms race is asinine. If you opt out, you die.
Fourthly, not all arms races are bad. Nuclear arms races are bad, because nuclear weapons, when used, cause vast amounts of collateral damage. An arms race based on fast precision weapons with tiny warheads has no such downside.
Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.
"Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
This is a pretty typical case of the prisoner's dilemma. The world would be a better place if no country had them, however if only one has them the rest would be at a significant disadvantage so everybody wants to have them. I guess you could say the same thing about nuclear weapons as well.
Is that supposed to mean
ballistic weapons that can hit a target which is flying many times faster than the speed of sound
or
ballistic weapons that are flying at many times faster than the speed of sound when they hit the target
Also, "many times faster than the speed of sound" sucks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Weapons that use directed energy, electromagnetism, lasers, radio waves, light waves, work at the speed of light and are already deployed.
The usual distribution method is satellites and radar that basically image, track, and can target any area with waves. To dustify a building, knock out planes, kill and mind control humans, and knock even an hypersonic nuke out of the sky before it can even move.
The defense platform against this is SDI/strategic defense initiative. 25 haarp type arrays and hundreds of satellites are deployed today to direct energy where we need it. We image and track any nuke, missile, human, plane, car, bird, or projectile device remotely, computers automate the tracking. Like Cruz control.
Raytheon has patented the back end.
obamasweapon.com
War Tech the US, Russia, China and India All Want:Sonic Weapons (screwdriver)
Fixed that for you.
I'm too lazy to do the googling now, but to me, it looks like a thinly veiled "MOAR DOLLAHS $$!$" from the military-industry complex. The same they're doing probably in China and Russia/India.
I even wouldn't be surprised if those goons were secretly in contact, to develop strategies on how best extracting money from their respective gov^H^H^H working idiot classes.
1) I hate that expression.
2) The game was already changed in the 1970s with the Sprint ABM. The game changed for one day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dr. Strangelove needs to control his right arm.
Yes, it can lead to an arms race. The problem is that if you hold off and your enemy doesn't, you're a sitting duck. Avoiding the arms race is only possible if everybody involved holds off, and you don't/can't trust any of them to hold off so you have to proceed as if you're already involved in an arms race whether you want to be or not. Because the only thing worse than being in a Mexican standoff is being the one guy in a Mexican standoff without any guns.
Let me point out three problems:
First, it's another obvious military/industrial complex boondoggle, like so many others I could mention. That industry has indeed become too entrenched and makes too much too good money out of endlessly failing to come up with working military technology. We've already seen "star wars" come and go, but there are so many other examples. Also note that the Chinese merely mentioning having an outlandish capability will easily tie up "over nine figures" (or 12, or 15) of budget for years to come to "face the threat". They might be announcing they might have some such capability in the near future just for that reason, you know. And of course the USA will feel they can't afford not to take the bait anyhow. Oh happy porkfest all over again.
Second, is it a useful weapon? Not for the wars the USA is fighting (and losing) currently. That type of conflict, where the other side consists of hardy hill hicks already dwelling in caves means bombing them back to the stone age does nothing. Not with daisy cutters, not with ballistic anything. Your fancy weapons are useless. The only way to do it is to go in and win them over, the old "hearts and minds" type of thing. Something the USA has shown again and again it cannot even try without having it backfire in some spectacular way. No cookie for you.
Third, what does this weapon really do? Suppose the Chinese do manage to cook it up, naturally far cheaper than the USA ever could. Flatten the white house? To what end? There are better ways to do that. No, what it does really really well is send the carriers after the battleships, right back to port. And who has carriers? There's only one country with enough of those to matter. So what good does having a carrier-killer weapon do you, hm?
We've got rules and maps and guns in our backs but we still can't just behave ourselves,
Even if to save our own lives
So says I:
We are a brutal kind
From "So Says I" (Official Video).
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
I guess my answer would be "all of human history"?
Only the categorically naive wouldn't understand why someone wouldn't research a new, more efficacious weapon.
I guess it's a good sign of how utterly benign our world must be that people can exist with such sentiment.
-Styopa
No mention of Peace on Earth POE, OPE...
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
They might like to have them to play with, few of the rest of us do. They are dangerous and expensive.
If they are really that important: there ought to be an interlock that means that they will only fly if there is a 5 star general strapped on board. If he is willing to give up his life as well as those that the missile will hit - then I will agree that it is important. Not otherwise.
...and China continues to excel at stealing all the IP they can get their hands on. I guess in the long run it ends up being the same thing.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
US. Trident warhead enter the atmosphere in hypersonic speed.
Russia. RS-26 rubezh warhead enter atmosphere at mach 12 speed, with S-curve flight profile. SS-18 satan warhead enter atmosphere at mach 20 speed. Enough speed for you?
China DF-31D anti ship ballistic warheas enter atmosphere at hypersonic speed. And it also have terminal maneuvering rockets. And china just successfully tested their mach 12 hypersonic S-curve maneuvering cruise missile.
India. Brahmos is a mach 5-6 anti ship weapon (with a goal of sustain 8-12 mach speed). R&D combined together with russia. And the missile based on the already proofen russian P-800 oniks hypersonic missile.
So, who thinks those countries doesn't have hypersonic weapons??
Credibility of the source article is harmed by being dated "December 30, 2015." I realize it must be a typo, but if they can't get that right it makes me wonder.
The world is going to hell in a hand-basket and everyone is focused on trying to make a bigger gun than the next guy.
Penis envy is so counterproductive.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Another comedic gem from Slashdot; the favorite trolling ground of mildly psychologically damaged people who like technology.
The development of non-ballistic hypersonic weapons is one of the reasons that the U.S. is heavy into making the laser weapons functional, affordable and usable. Something like the one on the USS Ponce, maybe not that one but the next generation of the weapon. Now, defense against something like Pournelle and Nivien's project Thor is another story.
Passionately Indifferent
My guess is that such weapons would change the ballance by undoing mutually assured destruction. The missiles and their interceptors are in a red queen race and if you can move faster than your opponent you may be able to strike them while intercepting their attacks.
"According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?" The answer lies in the short game. Quickest move to checkmate to get to GAME OVER. Long wars have been a problem with the cost of deployment, supply routes, tracking assets etc. Getting a destructive payload on a target has so many advantages. Taking out an operative before he can end his call. Knocking out a battalion just as it makes it's first move. Stopping a terror cell when it is still locking and loading before they reach civilian areas. Even sinking a pirate operation approaching a merchant ship. They could all be reasons for the fast and now deployment and taking control.
Can you imagine the total devastation that would be wrecked by attaching a nuclear weapon TO a hypersonic delivery vehicle? Jesus Christ, attach a suicide Muslim to it and total devastation. Virgins, martyrs, the whole nine yards. And chemical weapons and mix some smallpox virus in too. It'd fuck up any country but good.
"I do not know what weapons we will fight World War Three with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The only thing worse than getting involved in an arms race is losing one.
The US doesn't have territorial ambitions on any other country. When was the last time you heard of them annexing anybody, since the Spanish American war?
China, OTOH, has ambitions of re-annexing Taiwan and making it a part of the PRC, as opposed to ROC. Besides that, they have territorial disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and India. If they got these, that would only encourage them to do what others have been fearing - overrun Taiwan, the disputed South China Sea Islands and Arunachal Pradesh. There's a good reason not to want China to have these.
The other 2? Russia, by its acts in the Donbass, has reverted to what it used to be under both the Tsars and the Soviet Commissars. India - while their adversaries - Pakistan, Bangladesh & China - are bad, India did use its military might in annexing Sikkim in the 70s. That said, it is better that India have them both to offset China, and to prevent a Jihadi takeover of India by Pakistan.
Bottom line: the US ain't the problem. China and Russia are.
Great weapons allow superior cultures to be safe from traditionalist rebels against progress. It's that simple.
Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?"
Because every country has a Military Industrial Complex that needs to be fed, and every country has people that... well in the words of General "Buck" Turgidson: "Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!"
So asking questions like "Why?" is silly, it's obvious why.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If the delivery system is now hypersonic why attach a nuclear warhead to it? Why not use kinetic energy to destroy the target? Mach 5 - 25 an object hitting a target has to have immense force.
Instead of waiting 100 or more years for radiation to dissipate the area can be re-inhabited immediately.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
500k dead Iraqis beg to differ.
Hypersonic weapons — or ballistic weapons that can hit a target flying many times faster than the speed of sound...
The summary is flat wrong in its terminology. A key point about hypersonic weapons, from a tactical and strategic standpoint, is that they aren't ballistic. They're potentially faster and sneakier.
Aside from acceleration during boost and (generally limited) manoeuvering during descent, ballistic weapons are - by definition - coasting unpowered for most of their flight time. Ballistic missiles put their warheads into an elliptical orbit that happens to intersect the surface of the earth (typically somewhere around Moscow) and let gravity do most of the work.
Hypersonic weapons, in stark contrast, are in powered flight for most or all of their journey. Instead of being lobbed up and coming back down, they can go straight to their target (modulo the curvature of the earth). They can travel a path and a velocity that is limited by their own engineering rather than by orbital mechanics. From a strategic standpoint, they would allow delivery of warheads (particularly nuclear warheads) in shorter times by less-detectable and less-interceptable courses, with all the attendant consequences for the calculus of nuclear war, first strikes, and mutually assured destruction.
~Idarubicin
Our development of these are for stopping just this situation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I guess setting up puppet governments in places like Iran and Chile doesn't count, as far as you're concerned? Or failing to do so, such as in the Bay of Pigs fiasco?
I always have to chuckle when I see comments like yours, made by Americans who are so blindingly ignorant of their own history.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There is a reason for railguns and lasers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Looks like Hawaii just squeaks in since it was annexed the same year as the war, even though unrelated to it.
And, yeah, these days the US prefers to work through proxy governments.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
I would imagine that the development of Hypersonic weapons would also necessitate increased development and deployment of laser defense weapons since they might be the ONLY way you can target and destroy them before they reach their targets.
Designer Barnes Wallis talked about how difficult it was for him to convince the General Staff to review, just review, his water skipping/skimming bomb that could attack a dam jumping over the anti-torpedo nets. He could succeed only because was already a well known bomber designer (Wellington bomber, R100 blimps). The General Staff is very averse to really unconventional weapons, and are preoccupied by what they already know. But it was easy for some German gun maker to get funding for a humongous artillery weapon. It was so huge and the logistics to support it was so enormous, it was commanded by a full Colonel. Imagine a Colonel commanding one stupid gun. I think it was fired just once.
They could not believe aircraft could destroy ships before WW-II. French could not believe armour could penetrate Ardennes forest. They were using tactics developed during Napoleanic wars where the rate of fire of mustets was something like 1 or 2 shots per minute during 100-rounds-per-minute Civil war. Never learnt from that carnage. Happily throwing cannon fodder in trench warfare in WW-I in 500 rounds per minute machine guns.
Yes, the generals may be dreaming about hypersonic weapons, but their tails are going to be chewed by something they never imagined.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm pretty sure they don't. Very few of them would have been killed by the US, and the US is neither occupying Iraq nor has it annexed it.
we could be spending all that money, time, and brainpower on helping people, not killing them.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I chuckle when I see comments like yours, blindly ignorant of the history.
The US didn't set up a "puppet" government in either country. In Iran, for instance, the US helped reverse a coup by the Prime Minister after he faked an electiopn, disolved parliament, and refused control by the head of state.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Combine the technology hypersonic deployment with drone capabilities at the destination, could be pretty powerful,
I was just thinking if we had a hypersonic drone to quickly go on-site and do searches in emergencies like that recent asian air disaster, that could possibly save lives a lot faster than current methods.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Correct, that would be some other sort of ambition. For example, the Bay of Pigs was meant to overturn the communist regime in Cuba, not to annex the place.
Please, name the last territory that the US has actually annexed, as in made it a US territory.
Additionally, China's official justification for most of these territorial claims is that they belong to various forms of Chinese empires in the past such as the Qing dynasty. By that logic, most of the far east, Mongolia, and other countries will be claimed by China at some point. Don't forget Tibet, too.
We already have communicators, tricorders and PADDs, If these governments want photon torpedoes, they have to invent warp drive and transporters first..
Make it so!
Hmm, if that's a good justification, can we have the reset of the British Empire back please? Although I guess we'll have to give most of the UK back to Italy eventually, as it was part of the Roman Empire.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Not just that, the GP's numbers are disputed, and usually bandied about by the MoveOn or OCCUPY crowds
Right, and China is therefore a threat to its neighbors. But if others were to use their reasoning, Mongolia would be justified in claiming Iran, all the stans, China (at least the northern part, and including Beijing), Korea and a good part of Siberia. Tibet is already a part of China, unless China's 1991 comes someday, when Tibet and other regions occupied by China claim independence.
Keep guessing then. ICBM's are by definition hypersonic weapons so nothing other than better targeting has changed since the 50s.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Iraq is currently a client state of Iran, never mind the process by which its current regime got there. Had Iraq been pro-US, there would have been no persecution of Iraqi Christians. Nor would Iraq have cozied up to Iran, who the US has been trying to isolate: they'd have happily joined the US and tried to become the major power in the Arab empire. Afghanistan too - Hamid Karzai started mending relations w/ the Taliban even when the US still had a presence there. Some puppets - these 2!!!
Half the world? I imagine you're talking about the #countries, right? About 50 of them are members of the OIC, and therefore rather hostile to the US. East Asia - the only friends that the US has are Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand and Cambodia. Sub Saharan Africa - not a single country is pro-US. Latin America - Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, all have leftist regimes - I think Colombia is the only pro-US country there, and maybe some central American countries, like Costa Rica.
Hardly half the world, as you put it. And if you were thinking in terms of populations, India and China are both allied to Russia, and have been supporting them both re: sanctions. That's half the world's population right there, b/w these 3 countries. And if you were thinking area wise, then too these 3 take the bulk of it, plus countries like Brazil and much of North Africa.
That would make an awesome signature.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
China has disputed territory with japan as well.
Are you freshly arriving from the 1960s?
A bit of change has happened in any place where the asshole CIA spent their time toppling regimes in order to stand up a puppet state. They also don't really do that anymore, as it turns out to just piss people off and cause bigger issues down the road.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
They can hit any target in 30 minutes or less.
How about drone pizza delivery world wide!
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
I'm curious: did anyone ever notice how Chile is a modern, safe country while the rest of South America is stereotypical? What happened in Chile that was different?
More importantly, what do Chileans think? Would they rather have followed the tide into far-left government and shared the fate of the rest of the continent? Or is the attitude, "Well, Pinochet was bad, but the alternative was much, much worse." Hmmm....food for thought. On second thought don't think - let's just uncritically parrot what we read somewhere, because it MUST be right.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Made the entire island into a Navy base that you had to have permission to go to unless you were born there. Only changed that in the late 60s.
We've long touted M.A.D. (and nuclear weapons as a result) as the invention of peace-ensuring weapons. Can't launch a nuke without being guaranteed that someone else will nuke you a few moments later, so you never launch yours.
But thirty minutes is shorter than the administrative effort for a launch-back. That's a big huge problem.
Ready the dead-man switches.
Bay of Pigs was a badly planned operation. It should have been placed in the DoD's hands. They underestimate or ignored the popular support Castro held while hinging the success on an uprising by Cubans on the island. Another significant factor in the failure of Bay of Pigs was the state department's insistence that no American personnel or ships be used in the operation so as to avoid linking the US to it, which was hilariously shortsighted as anyone with a brain would have known it was instigated by the US. Thus why it should have been in DoD hands.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The US doesn't have territorial ambitions on any other country. When was the last time you heard of them annexing anybody, since the Spanish American war?
China, OTOH, has ambitions of re-annexing Taiwan and making it a part of the PRC, as opposed to ROC. Besides that, they have territorial disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and India. If they got these, that would only encourage them to do what others have been fearing - overrun Taiwan, the disputed South China Sea Islands and Arunachal Pradesh. There's a good reason not to want China to have these.
The other 2? Russia, by its acts in the Donbass, has reverted to what it used to be under both the Tsars and the Soviet Commissars. India - while their adversaries - Pakistan, Bangladesh & China - are bad, India did use its military might in annexing Sikkim in the 70s. That said, it is better that India have them both to offset China, and to prevent a Jihadi takeover of India by Pakistan.
Bottom line: the US ain't the problem. China and Russia are.
The US doesn't have territorial ambitions on any other country. When was the last time you heard of them annexing anybody, since the Spanish American war?
China, OTOH, has ambitions of re-annexing Taiwan and making it a part of the PRC, as opposed to ROC. Besides that, they have territorial disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and India. If they got these, that would only encourage them to do what others have been fearing - overrun Taiwan, the disputed South China Sea Islands and Arunachal Pradesh. There's a good reason not to want China to have these.
The other 2? Russia, by its acts in the Donbass, has reverted to what it used to be under both the Tsars and the Soviet Commissars. India - while their adversaries - Pakistan, Bangladesh & China - are bad, India did use its military might in annexing Sikkim in the 70s. That said, it is better that India have them both to offset China, and to prevent a Jihadi takeover of India by Pakistan.
Bottom line: the US ain't the problem. China and Russia are.
The US doesn't have territorial ambitions on any other country. When was the last time you heard of them annexing anybody, since the Spanish American war?
China, OTOH, has ambitions of re-annexing Taiwan and making it a part of the PRC, as opposed to ROC. Besides that, they have territorial disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and India. If they got these, that would only encourage them to do what others have been fearing - overrun Taiwan, the disputed South China Sea Islands and Arunachal Pradesh. There's a good reason not to want China to have these.
The other 2? Russia, by its acts in the Donbass, has reverted to what it used to be under both the Tsars and the Soviet Commissars. India - while their adversaries - Pakistan, Bangladesh & China - are bad, India did use its military might in annexing Sikkim in the 70s. That said, it is better that India have them both to offset China, and to prevent a Jihadi takeover of India by Pakistan.
Bottom line: the US ain't the problem. China and Russia are.
Iraq for oil
Libya for oil
Afghanistan for an Iranian spying base
funding of ISIS
drones killing civilians in northern Pakistan
using miliants to cause anarchy in Egypt
Having the most military bases all throughout the planet
while China hasn't caused too much problems with the borders of Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and many other Central or Northern Asian nations either, and diplomatic talks can solve the Tibet problem.
China,India,and Russia are good countries, while groups like NATO, America, and the rest of the west are imperialist trash
not at launch. the idea is to knock them out at pad or during initial launch.
Russia, India, and China are the good guys, the west and NATO are a bunch of imperialistic losers
>> Because we're all bastards.
Fixed that for you.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Submarines solved that problem a long time ago.
And Russia.
Sure, the US doesn't annex new territory. It just fucks up sovereign governments (democratic or otherwise, by subterfuge or invasion) and sets up puppets. Or bails entirely if the whole thing goes south. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, half of South and Central America, a good part of Africa.
Unless you're British, you've got that backwards. You guys were the colony.
Hypersonic weapons, rail guns, tanks, naval vessels, drones ... all are expensive relics of another century. If the goal is to kill, there are better, cheaper ways for which there is no current defence.
Chemicals and bio weapons are so cheap, so easy to develop and distribute to large and small populations that any money spent on stupid hardware is a ridiculous waste. Any college student (much less an angry mob or small nation) with some talent could wipe out a large population right now in 2015.
Those with the tech, money and talent should be thinking seriously about how to defend against these weapons. This is a new century- wake up!
...omphaloskepsis often...
>> Because we're all bastards.
Fixed that for you.
I'd gladly accept your opprobrium if you'll arrange for me to have a hypersonic weapon to test. Until then, speak for yourself... I'm not part of your "we".
Hypersonics make it possible to launch from land without chucking them into space where everyone can see. That way you can save the subs for later (or vice versa)
Hmm, if that's a good justification, can we have the reset of the British Empire back please? Although I guess we'll have to give most of the UK back to Italy eventually, as it was part of the Roman Empire.
Wouldn't the Anglo-Saxon aspect of England make it separate from the Roman Empire? Or did that come later? As for the British empire, that would include beauties like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I'm guessing you wouldn't want India this time ;->
Also, if we go back to history, who claims good old Iran? Macedonia (Alexander)? Saudi Arabia/Iraq (Caliphs Umar/Ali)? Afghanistan (the Ghaznavids)? Turkmenistan (the Khwarezmids)? Iraq/Turkey (the Seljuks)? Mongolia (the Ilkhanate)? Tajikistan (the Samanids/Timurides)? That poor country, ever since Islam, has been ruled by just about everybody around them, despite being a distinct nation.
Of course, Russia would have a real fun time. Its entire Black Sea coast, not just Crimea, would go to Turkey, courtesy the Crimean Taters. Much of Siberia would go to the Mongols, and areas like Tatarstan could either be independent, or go to Kazakhstan. Wonder how Vlad Putin would like it, if the argument of his Chinese comrades is carried on to its logical conclusions?
It BOOMS since WWII but that's all it does... It just booms the air with lots of hype. This thing is like the Philosophical Rock of the good Middle Ages. The difference is that, from the early start, someone tries to tell you how hard, heavy and look-alike the rock is.
Which means all these quests are a total failure. For one simple reason - Speed vs. Maneuverability. You can't have both in one basket. Either you sacrifice one for the sake of the other or you get nothing (eeeee, not so straight. You may get something you believe it works but usually it becomes bloody expensive).
Hypersonics are very peculiar on this cost. It's mega-speed, so it means you have near-zero maneuverability. Worse, even miserable deviations to a planned trajectory may be deadly to your mega-cannonball. X-15 and the Shuttle have magnificent examples of such cases, down from the drawing board and up to, somehow, Columbia's tragedy. They all show that hypersonics is not a place to play with fire. Because it's fire all over. Everything burns, even the best alloys and composites we created for this task. And a small deviation of parameters/environment and you are dealling with Sun temperatures in a place you may have not taken into account. In such cases, the result can be nothing but catastrophic.
This does not mean there is nothing to do in hypersonics. Well, nuclear heads and space systems fly on it! So there is something to do there. Maybe even a hypersonic rocket could have a role, if we count all caveats of the field. However, most hypersonic research is linked to the idea of creating a "TOP GUN" system, with Buck Rogers at the helm and even less brainy politicians and generals feeding the whole thing with mega-budgets and napoleonic dreams on World Peace.
To end, let me note that this whole story has a historical scent of sinister. The first idea of an hypersonic mega-weapon was first studied in The Third Reich! Its name - Silbervogel. It was a madness like many things nazis did then but it is not just a crazy idea "floating in the air". In fact, the nazis tried some follow-ups and one of those was pushed by von Braun's boss - general Walter Dornberger. Later, after getting a solid feet in the US, Dornberger will lobby several times for hypersonic mega-weapons. In the end he became the father, forefather and grandfather of the BOMI, X-15, X-20 Dyna-Soar and Space Shuttle.
This is ridiculous, China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, India, and Japan have had those exact same territorial disputes for the last 1000 years. This has nothing to do with China being a bad boy. None of those countries can agree on the borders.
As far as 'overrunning Taiwan', learn some history, Taiwan is part of China. Always has been, nothing to Annex.
The argument has always been: Which government is the TRUE government of ALL of China, Taiwan and the mainland.
The Taiwanese government still also claims to be the proper government of mainland China.
re-annexing Taiwan? When did they, the current government, annex them before?
They were part of China when the prior Chinese government fled to that Chinese island after losing to Mao and what is now the current Chinese government.
Why shouldn't the current Chinese government consider reintegration of a lost part of its country to be in it's national interests?
Humans will soon have technologies with destructive power far larger than their wisdom. This world will not last another 100 years.
Yeah, they would like to remind you how they were killed by some tribal faction trying to make the U.S. look bad.
Seriously, that whole region is a mess of different factions who all want to fuck each other up and take over. The U.S. just upset the current top dog when they went in in 2001, and now are copping the blame for what's been happening since the Jews ran away from Pharaoh.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I'm curious: did anyone ever notice how Iran is a modern, safe country? Or did anyone ever give Chileans credit for ousting the American puppet, who was still facing war crimes charges at the time of his death...a man who looted the Chilean treasury in the time-honoured tradition of dictators everywhere?
Hmmm....food for thought. On second thought, don't think - let's just uncritically parrot what we read somewhere, because it MUST be right.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The USA just destroys whole countries and murder hundreds of thousands of people in the process. Why to annex countries from which you stole everything?
European Union annexed my country + Poland, Rumunia, Estonia, Bulgaria etc. We had referendum so I don't complain. If majority of people in Crimea are fine with that annexation, nobody else has reason to complain.
Problem is that the people in the USA forgot what does the world liberty mean.
Since the Jews ran away from the Pharaoh? Make that 'since the Islamized Arabs overran the entire region after Mohammed's death
But the democratically elected Chilean government, while bringing Pinochet to justice, didn't make it a point to reverse his economic policies, no matter what they did to overhaul his human rights regime. So there were things that Pinochet did right economically that were so good for Chile that his replacement regime decided to continue them. Had it been Allende's regime, $DEITY knows whether Chile would have been another Cuba today.
And Iran is safe & modern? Safe only if one is a supporter of Iran remaining an Islamic republic. In fact, Iran is one of the few countries where gays are dropped from tall buildings if exposed - that's why Ahmadinejad could boldly claim that there are no gays in Iran. We have Slashdotters demanding gay marriage in the US, calling for a boycott of Russia over their treatment of gays, while being totally oblivious of what is done to gays in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, Lebanon (in Hizbullah controlled places) and other Islamic paradises.
Last 1000 years? That would be going back to appx 1000AD. At that time, China was hardly an empire, and in between then & now, it had been part of various Mongol empires. Would hardly have had territorial disputes with countries like Philippines, Malaysia & Japan.
China vs India - that dispute only started after the Chinese conquest of Tibet - itself something that's a violation of international law. Had Tibet been independent, the areas that China disputes w/ India would be a matter of debate b/w governments in Delhi and Lhasa, not Delhi and Beijing.
Why shouldn't the current Chinese government consider reintegration of a lost part of its country to be in it's national interests?
As Raven64 pointed out above, why would other countries, say Britain, be unjustified in claiming territories that were once part of their empire? Using the Chinese logic, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and a whole bunch of other countries ought to wind up their governments and proclaim Queen Elizabeth the empress of all their territories. Russia is trying to devour Ukraine, and would no doubt love to reclaim everything that was in the ex Soviet Union, if not the Warsaw Pact: however, using that same logic, Russia should be a territory of Mongolia, given that the latter once controlled large parts of Russia, including Moscow. Oh, and Iran, that darling of both the Russians and Chinese - who should own them? Maybe carve them up b/w Iraq, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan? It'll be fun seeing the reactions of China's friends when they're told what their status should be if Beijing's arguments are applied uniformly across countries. In fact, China too should be abolished and made a part of Mongolia, and Tibet, which wasn't a part of the Mongol empire, can get its independence.
You don't need great weapons. Just Drop A "Heat bomb" In Antarctic Ice Sheet. You'll Drown The World.
Casteism
Says who & in what context? m.shenhav "guessed" that hypersonic weapons were something new that could destabilise MAD. Now you're arguing (for ? / against ?) in an incomplete & incomprehensible statement.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Wouldn't a senator be better? I mean, they wanted those missiles done, they approved the war, and they should represent the nation in good and bad. Generals are just doing their job. Senator supply will refresh faster than general supply.
There is an opinion that Ukraine was a ticking time bomb since Ukrainian "independence" because of the black sea fleet, sevastopol base has been crucial to russian armed forces doctrine. Something had to happen there before 2017 anyhow. http://news.kievukraine.info/2...
The US is more subtle. They try to appear as you say, however their armies are simply enforcing a propaganada machine. Rather than annexing, they are policing and manipulating. I don't see the difference. The actions in Iraq had more to do with oil and Israel than the US directly, and when you look at it from that perspective they were very successful and have allowed territory to be annexed by allies. Just because the USA is better at hiding their bodies doesn't mean they are innocent.
Had Iraq been pro-US, there would have been no persecution of Iraqi Christians.
What does military subordination have to do with religious persecution?
Nor would Iraq have cozied up to Iran, who the US has been trying to isolate: they'd have happily joined the US and tried to become the major power in the Arab empire.
What Arab empire?
Afghanistan too - Hamid Karzai started mending relations w/ the Taliban even when the US still had a presence there.
Because it makes sense not talking to the de facto leaders of half of your country after the US failed to win the impossible battle against them?
What does military subordination have to do with religious persecution?
If the 'Iraqi people' - read here the Shiites, who control the 'democratic' government by virtue of being 60% of the population - were genuinely thankful to the US, they'd have become a pro-US country, like Israel. They'd not have started a fresh round of religious persecution. Instead, however, they started behaving just like their Iranian neighbor.
What Arab empire?
A.k.a. the Arab League - the group of countries were Arabs are a majority, although by no means the entire population, and which stretches from Mauritania to Iraq. And Comoros to Syria.
Because it makes sense not talking to the de facto leaders of half of your country after the US failed to win the impossible battle against them?
The US won the battle against them in 2001 by December - the Taliban had lost even Kandahar. Hamid Karzai owes not just his power, but his life to the US: otherwise, like Abdul Haq, he too would have been captured & lynched by the Taliban.
Instead, he has no memories of that, but rather, is pursuing a policy of making the Taliban a part of his government. Which defeats the original US purpose of ousting them: if the US was okay w/ the Taliban being a part of a regime, why did it install you (Karzai) as the leader of the government?
My original point above refuted the allegation that the US has puppet regimes in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Whether the policies that these regimes in Kabul or Baghdad are following make sense or not is another issue. In the former, the party that it ousted is slowly creeping back to power, even while Mullah Omar still has the $25M on his head. In the latter, the US ousted a regime and replaced it w/ one friendly to its major enemy in the region - Iran. Some puppets!!!
I'm actually supportive of the Russian claims on Crimea - not just due to the Black Sea Fleet, but also the fact that Crimea's population is mainly Russian, and that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev was by diktat, rather than any democratic expression by the people of Crimea.
It's a different story though in Donbass, or the entire Ukrainian coast that Russia seems to want.