4 ms·

I think it’s hard to say really. We can say that effective civilian tech is getting cheaper, but without knowing really what tech the military has, it’s hard to

I think it’s hard to say really. We can say that effective civilian tech is getting cheaper, but without knowing really what tech the military has, it’s hard to comment on the gap between the two. Given we had the SR71 blackbird in ‘64, a mere 20 years post WW2 which could honestly look to be something from the last couple decades, I’m convinced the global military powers have some eye watering tech that we can’t even comprehend. For example, it’s in the US’ best interest for people to think (re: Govs) “US has no defense against hypersonic missiles”. I would bet an arm and a leg that given the amount of money the US pours into military tech, that we have a counter measure available.

themanmaran 3y ago
I think the military advantage will me more and more concentrated in technology that is commercially impractical. Things like the Blackbird. Or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  How long would a nuclear powered ship that can't defend itself last on the oceans? I mean, I think nuclear fuel is highly valuable, no?
  - themanmaran 3y ago
    Apparently 30+ years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future. I would be. The cost, the controls over nuclear technology, and probably other reasons all make it a complete non-starter.
hylaride 3y ago
"or example, it’s in the US’ best interest for people to think (re: Govs) “US has no defense against hypersonic missiles”." This is the crux of the matter. The USA was fine letting people think the patriot system was still suffering from the early teething problems and that it was an overpriced system that couldn't take down ballistic missiles as promised (and it did perform lacklustrely during the first gulf war). Queue the donations to Ukraine successfully shooting down Russia's "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles with quickly trained troops. I really do wonder how the F-35 actually will perform in combat one day (which in a way I hope we never need to know).

themanmaran 3y ago

I think the military advantage will me more and more concentrated in technology that is commercially impractical. Things like the Blackbird. Or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future.

BurningFrog 3y ago
How long would a nuclear powered ship that can't defend itself last on the oceans? I mean, I think nuclear fuel is highly valuable, no?
- themanmaran 3y ago
  Apparently 30+ years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
ghaff 3y ago
>Although I wouldn't be surprised if cargo ships start getting approved to use nuclear propulsion in the near future. I would be. The cost, the controls over nuclear technology, and probably other reasons all make it a complete non-starter.

hylaride 3y ago

"or example, it’s in the US’ best interest for people to think (re: Govs) “US has no defense against hypersonic missiles”." This is the crux of the matter. The USA was fine letting people think the patriot system was still suffering from the early teething problems and that it was an overpriced system that couldn't take down ballistic missiles as promised (and it did perform lacklustrely during the first gulf war). Queue the donations to Ukraine successfully shooting down Russia's "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles with quickly trained troops. I really do wonder how the F-35 actually will perform in combat one day (which in a way I hope we never need to know).