5 ms·

The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos a

The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet.

jollybean 4y ago
No, we can defend against these weapons just like we defend against regular cruise and ballistic missiles ... just 'better'. If it flies we can stop it.
- softcactus 4y ago
  The problem is that the cost of an interceptor is a magnitude higher than a single missile. So it's easier to just build 10 missiles for every interceptor. You can also put multiple warheads on a single missile, or use decoys/countermeasures to defeat an interceptor. Our current mid-course interceptors only have about a 50% success rate if I remember correctly, and terminal interceptors only cover a small range. There is a reason why we only deploy interceptors to geo-politically important theaters like Israel or Korea: 1. Because we only need to intercept intermediate-range or short range ballistic missiles 2. They are pinpoint areas that yield large amounts of coverage (of human lives) for a single deployment It wouldn't be possible to blanket the US population centers in interceptor sites. Even if we could, our current radar systems wouldn't detect hypersonic missiles before its too late, meaning we would need a satellite fleet to detect launches from space. MAD is going to be the best option.
tablespoon 4y ago
> The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet. For MAD scenarios, wouldn't attacking the US with stuff like fractional-orbital bombardment be more effective than hypersonic weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
- softcactus 4y ago
  Not sure, my orbital mechanics is bad, but reading that Wikipedia article it seems that a circular orbit might require a larger rocket than a sub-orbital trajectory? Hypersonics probably also give some advantage against terminal interceptors.

jollybean 4y ago

No, we can defend against these weapons just like we defend against regular cruise and ballistic missiles ... just 'better'. If it flies we can stop it.

softcactus 4y ago
The problem is that the cost of an interceptor is a magnitude higher than a single missile. So it's easier to just build 10 missiles for every interceptor. You can also put multiple warheads on a single missile, or use decoys/countermeasures to defeat an interceptor. Our current mid-course interceptors only have about a 50% success rate if I remember correctly, and terminal interceptors only cover a small range. There is a reason why we only deploy interceptors to geo-politically important theaters like Israel or Korea: 1. Because we only need to intercept intermediate-range or short range ballistic missiles 2. They are pinpoint areas that yield large amounts of coverage (of human lives) for a single deployment It wouldn't be possible to blanket the US population centers in interceptor sites. Even if we could, our current radar systems wouldn't detect hypersonic missiles before its too late, meaning we would need a satellite fleet to detect launches from space. MAD is going to be the best option.

tablespoon 4y ago

> The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet. For MAD scenarios, wouldn't attacking the US with stuff like fractional-orbital bombardment be more effective than hypersonic weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

softcactus 4y ago
Not sure, my orbital mechanics is bad, but reading that Wikipedia article it seems that a circular orbit might require a larger rocket than a sub-orbital trajectory? Hypersonics probably also give some advantage against terminal interceptors.