3 ms·

Do hypersonic weapons give a new first strike capability and is this the end of the M.A.D. policy, do we actually need a new race, post-globalisation it looks l

by tudorw 5y ago

Do hypersonic weapons give a new first strike capability and is this the end of the M.A.D. policy, do we actually need a new race, post-globalisation it looks like authoritarianism, closed borders and increased surveillance might be the focus, in which case the military industrial complex still has a good fit, just a new enemy, a constant war against people as it were.

tudorw 5y ago
As an aside, anyone know if Raytheon takes bitcoin?
nabla9 5y ago
No. Normal ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Talking about "hypersonic weapons" is talking about gliding or maneuvering hypersonic warheads or cruise missiles. (btw. Space Shuttle was hypersonic glider) China and Russia are developing hypersonic gliders to maintain their capability and create more variance. The US ballistic missile defense can't protect the US from Russia or China (nor it is intended to do), but it requires some adjustments. More ICBM's, warheads throw weight, and counter-countermeasures and different trajectories. For example, the fractional orbital bombardment that China tested is an old concept. Together with a gliding warhead, it means that China can maintain deterrence with fewer missiles.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Is that another Arms Control Wonk listener I spy?
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Naturally.
baybal2 5y ago
The reliable suprise first strike option been there for 30 years: slow, low flying cruise missile taking count command infrastructure.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  Until the dilemma presented by ballistic missile submarines can be solved, there can be no reliable first strike. Further, even if it were solved, one might imagine proliferating smaller nuclear delivery systems all over the place (as in anything that floats). Getting them all in a coordinated, near-simultaneous way to preclude a large number of launches would be difficult.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    If your armies are already treading enemy's soil, I doubt that would matter, unless the enemy will be nuking its own land, if this even technically possible (ICMBs have not only maximum range, but also minimum ones too, and missile guidance, radionavigation, astrogation, etc is hardcoded at least in Russian missiles.)
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      Interesting that you mention it. Exactly that is the concept in the framework of 'nuclear participation/sharing' as practiced by the USA and Germany, with about 20 to 25 free falling B-61 warheads of the 3rd or 4th generation, while having no delivery systems to 'throw' them much further than about 1500km. I guess the same applies for Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. edit: I mean 'nuking it's own land'. [poof!] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
      - tudorw 5y ago
        I'm glad to read that starting a war has never been easier, how fked is that.
        aerostable_slug 5y ago
        The weapons are under American control until the last moment. The host country can't even get them out of their vaults, much less arm them. There are also mechanisms for the weapons to be command disabled which bricks them until they can be rebuilt. Fun fact: Permissive Action Links were originally conceived of to solve a fundamental problem with nuclear sharing: how do you keep a foreign rogue pilot/unit/country from starting general war with the Soviets when they have physical custody of the weapons?

by tudorw 5y ago

tudorw 5y ago

As an aside, anyone know if Raytheon takes bitcoin?

nabla9 5y ago

No. Normal ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Talking about "hypersonic weapons" is talking about gliding or maneuvering hypersonic warheads or cruise missiles. (btw. Space Shuttle was hypersonic glider) China and Russia are developing hypersonic gliders to maintain their capability and create more variance. The US ballistic missile defense can't protect the US from Russia or China (nor it is intended to do), but it requires some adjustments. More ICBM's, warheads throw weight, and counter-countermeasures and different trajectories. For example, the fractional orbital bombardment that China tested is an old concept. Together with a gliding warhead, it means that China can maintain deterrence with fewer missiles.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Is that another Arms Control Wonk listener I spy?
- nabla9 5y ago
  Naturally.

baybal2 5y ago

The reliable suprise first strike option been there for 30 years: slow, low flying cruise missile taking count command infrastructure.

aerostable_slug 5y ago
Until the dilemma presented by ballistic missile submarines can be solved, there can be no reliable first strike. Further, even if it were solved, one might imagine proliferating smaller nuclear delivery systems all over the place (as in anything that floats). Getting them all in a coordinated, near-simultaneous way to preclude a large number of launches would be difficult.
- baybal2 5y ago
  If your armies are already treading enemy's soil, I doubt that would matter, unless the enemy will be nuking its own land, if this even technically possible (ICMBs have not only maximum range, but also minimum ones too, and missile guidance, radionavigation, astrogation, etc is hardcoded at least in Russian missiles.)
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Interesting that you mention it. Exactly that is the concept in the framework of 'nuclear participation/sharing' as practiced by the USA and Germany, with about 20 to 25 free falling B-61 warheads of the 3rd or 4th generation, while having no delivery systems to 'throw' them much further than about 1500km. I guess the same applies for Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. edit: I mean 'nuking it's own land'. [poof!] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
    - tudorw 5y ago
      I'm glad to read that starting a war has never been easier, how fked is that.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        The weapons are under American control until the last moment. The host country can't even get them out of their vaults, much less arm them. There are also mechanisms for the weapons to be command disabled which bricks them until they can be rebuilt. Fun fact: Permissive Action Links were originally conceived of to solve a fundamental problem with nuclear sharing: how do you keep a foreign rogue pilot/unit/country from starting general war with the Soviets when they have physical custody of the weapons?