5 ms·

>Alas, the media fell for it and billions are now being spent on “catching up” with our “peer” competitors. These things are no joke. I felt the same before ac

>Alas, the media fell for it and billions are now being spent on “catching up” with our “peer” competitors. These things are no joke. I felt the same before actually looking into it. China can effectively deny the South China Sea to our carrier fleets with their land based hypersonic weapons. There is absolutely no means of intercepting them with current technology.

bparsons 4y ago
The Pentagon does this every decade. They constantly need some sort of existential threat to respond to in order to justify budget increases.
- booi 4y ago
  What's the defense against a hypersonic missile then? Current Aegis and CIWS defensive tech will not hit something traveling that fast. Surely the Pentagon doesn't even need to justify budget increases when we give them more budget than they ask for every year regardless.
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    They have to know what to hit and make sure the target they are tracking is actually a real target.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Current Aegis and CIWS defensive tech will not hit something traveling that fast. Aegis BDM is designed to hit hypersonic reentry vehicles. CIWS is irrelevant, why even bring it up?
    - ramesh31 4y ago
      >Aegis BDM is designed to hit hypersonic reentry vehicles Ballistic hypersonic reentry vehicles. The entire point is that these new weapons are maneuverable in the atmosphere at mach 8+ all the way to the terminal phase.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        They don't maneuver for shit in the terminal phase. Boost-glide weapons avoid mid-course interception by staying relatively low in the upper atmosphere rather than following a high ballistic trajectory well into space. Once they're in the terminal phase their maneuvering capability is comparable to older maneuvering reentry vehicles (which are nothing new; the novel part is skipping the ballistic mid-course phase.)
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  Consider the possibility that technology changes with each decade and the previous system is...you know...now obsolete. I assume you have a smart phone and not an Amiga. By analogy, if your enemy has "iPhone" level weapons, would you want to face them with an "Amiga" level weapon? I doubt it.
  - rad88 4y ago
    I don't know whether MIRVs, each carrying a dozen or so atom bombs, compare to HGVs like the Amiga does to the iPhone. I'd like to say absolutely not but I can't. Either way calling ballistic missiles "obsolete" is incomprehensible to the dead.
hungryforcodes 4y ago
They have already denied the US the South China Sea -- just by expanding their economy. The US is a joke here. China -- for example -- in the last 20 years has started more than 400 companies in the Philipenes at least and where else? Structural changes to the economy, basically. While Europe and the US persist in this 1970s: "we will give the primitives subsidies and cash prizes" -- demonstrating that they are totally out of touch with the region. Colonialism is over. These countries have money. China is actually installing economic zones and other structures which give them direct control over the region. Aircraft Carrier Groups are no match for this. I'm not saying I like or dislike it. But its incrediably evident if you live in the region.
- steve76 4y ago
- LunaSea 4y ago
  Chinese fishing vessels are also invading Philippines' territorial waters and depleting the available fish resources. Is that not colonialism?
  - hungryforcodes 4y ago
    Its a good point -- but I guess when I mean "colonialism" I mean western countries trying to exploit old power structures and values to their advantage. Which is a loosing game really -- these things fade over time. In your example China is creating new -- however sinister -- power structures on both sides. Physically with the contested islands and fishing vessels and also economically through investment and government agreements. So it's true it's a kind of colonizing -- but it's a very different version from the past.
    - LunaSea 4y ago
      > Its a good point -- but I guess when I mean "colonialism" I mean western countries trying to exploit old power structures and values to their advantage. Which is a loosing game really -- these things fade over time. Language doesn't however and large parts of Africa for example speak a European language as native language. > In your example China is creating new -- however sinister -- power structures on both sides. Physically with the contested islands and fishing vessels and also economically through investment and government agreements. Projects which are often debt traps and which usually hire non-local work forces. > So it's true it's a kind of colonizing -- but it's a very different version from the past. Not sure if that's very reassuring.

bparsons 4y ago

The Pentagon does this every decade. They constantly need some sort of existential threat to respond to in order to justify budget increases.

booi 4y ago
What's the defense against a hypersonic missile then? Current Aegis and CIWS defensive tech will not hit something traveling that fast. Surely the Pentagon doesn't even need to justify budget increases when we give them more budget than they ask for every year regardless.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  They have to know what to hit and make sure the target they are tracking is actually a real target.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Current Aegis and CIWS defensive tech will not hit something traveling that fast. Aegis BDM is designed to hit hypersonic reentry vehicles. CIWS is irrelevant, why even bring it up?
  - ramesh31 4y ago
    >Aegis BDM is designed to hit hypersonic reentry vehicles Ballistic hypersonic reentry vehicles. The entire point is that these new weapons are maneuverable in the atmosphere at mach 8+ all the way to the terminal phase.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      They don't maneuver for shit in the terminal phase. Boost-glide weapons avoid mid-course interception by staying relatively low in the upper atmosphere rather than following a high ballistic trajectory well into space. Once they're in the terminal phase their maneuvering capability is comparable to older maneuvering reentry vehicles (which are nothing new; the novel part is skipping the ballistic mid-course phase.)
ARandomerDude 4y ago
Consider the possibility that technology changes with each decade and the previous system is...you know...now obsolete. I assume you have a smart phone and not an Amiga. By analogy, if your enemy has "iPhone" level weapons, would you want to face them with an "Amiga" level weapon? I doubt it.
- rad88 4y ago
  I don't know whether MIRVs, each carrying a dozen or so atom bombs, compare to HGVs like the Amiga does to the iPhone. I'd like to say absolutely not but I can't. Either way calling ballistic missiles "obsolete" is incomprehensible to the dead.

hungryforcodes 4y ago

They have already denied the US the South China Sea -- just by expanding their economy. The US is a joke here. China -- for example -- in the last 20 years has started more than 400 companies in the Philipenes at least and where else? Structural changes to the economy, basically. While Europe and the US persist in this 1970s: "we will give the primitives subsidies and cash prizes" -- demonstrating that they are totally out of touch with the region. Colonialism is over. These countries have money. China is actually installing economic zones and other structures which give them direct control over the region. Aircraft Carrier Groups are no match for this. I'm not saying I like or dislike it. But its incrediably evident if you live in the region.

steve76 4y ago
LunaSea 4y ago
Chinese fishing vessels are also invading Philippines' territorial waters and depleting the available fish resources. Is that not colonialism?
- hungryforcodes 4y ago
  Its a good point -- but I guess when I mean "colonialism" I mean western countries trying to exploit old power structures and values to their advantage. Which is a loosing game really -- these things fade over time. In your example China is creating new -- however sinister -- power structures on both sides. Physically with the contested islands and fishing vessels and also economically through investment and government agreements. So it's true it's a kind of colonizing -- but it's a very different version from the past.
  - LunaSea 4y ago
    > Its a good point -- but I guess when I mean "colonialism" I mean western countries trying to exploit old power structures and values to their advantage. Which is a loosing game really -- these things fade over time. Language doesn't however and large parts of Africa for example speak a European language as native language. > In your example China is creating new -- however sinister -- power structures on both sides. Physically with the contested islands and fishing vessels and also economically through investment and government agreements. Projects which are often debt traps and which usually hire non-local work forces. > So it's true it's a kind of colonizing -- but it's a very different version from the past. Not sure if that's very reassuring.