3 ms·
> After all you imply hypersonics have many, and dire advantages! No such implication exists for my part. I made no mention of a budget figure. Please don't
by topspin 6y ago
> After all you imply hypersonics have many, and dire advantages!
No such implication exists for my part. I made no mention of a budget figure. Please don't ascribe to me things which I did not write. I don't know if my legislature or military do or will find hypersonics worthy of billions. My point is that this writing did nothing to convince me that they aren't.
> and then explains why these do not provide outstanding benefits
I don't believe we can really know how hypersonics might be employed. Militaries have been punished for their lack of vision many times in history. Until we do know what is possible the examples given are straw men.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoYou seem hard to convince that money could go elsewhere, but perfectly fine to let it go to these projects on no particular basis at all. That's not actually a neutral stance, however much you avoid writing outright praise of hypersonic weapons. In in a small sense sense your last objection is of course almost trivially true for any weapon: each war uses them based on the experience of the last conflict, and armies are always finding novel ways to deploy them. However, if one takes a larger view it is demonstrably false: physics is not so unknown that these weapons could whatever they want, so to call the models used for the article so off the mark as to become straw men is simply wrong.
- topspin 6y ago> You seem hard to convince I'm not hard to convince. All that's necessary is good arguments. There weren't any here.