11 ms·

>HTV-2 is part of an advanced weapons program called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is working to develop systems to reach an enemy target anywhere in

by zeteo 14y ago

>HTV-2 is part of an advanced weapons program called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is working to develop systems to reach an enemy target anywhere in the world within one hour They're getting really close. Mach 20 is about an hour and a half to the opposite point on Earth.

carbocation 14y ago
Station a few of these in different locations and they're already there.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
I read this too, but my first thought was "if this had been Iran we would have invaded at midnight". Its cool tech, yes, but really...
- rayiner 14y ago
  Of course and that would've been the sensible thing to do. As Americans, we want a world where the U.S. is the one that has this technology, not countries who aren't the U.S. Our standard of living (1/4 of the world's resources for 5% of the world's population) literally depends on that state of affairs.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The US doesn't need military dominance to have 1/4 of the world's consumption. It needs to be able to pay people who have 1/4 of the world's production enough that they sell it to us. And about 80% of that latter group are Americans anyway.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That works until the country that does have military dominance decides to conquer you and take that production for itself. The market is meaningless when force can be used to take what you can't purchase in the market. It is possible to be a wealthy nation that doesn't have military dominance (Switzerland, etc). The key is to be overall small enough that you can consume a lot per capita but still fly under the radar of the big boys. A country as big as the U.S. doesn't really have that choice.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        Okay, I think I misread you. The meme of "the US only has 5% of the world people but consumes 25% of the world's resources!" is usually said by people who think it's "unfair" that the US is consuming "so much." If you are saying that the US needs military dominance because we need to protect our own domestic production from invasion, that's something else. I still disagree but not as forcefully as I would to the other characterization. (If an invader tried to invade America for the purpose of seizing our wealth, much of it would evaporate instantly. They can capture factories but more and more of it is IP that a potential invader could just stay home and pirate instead.)
        rayiner 14y ago
        I have no problem with the U.S. consuming that much, but I don't think we could do it without American military hegemony (and I don't think Europe could do it without American military hegemony).
        lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        I struggle with the "could not do it without military hegemony". I think the issue is military. Coca-cola achieved significant domination of world markets after WWII by piggy-backing on the distribution channels of the US Army. (essentially the troops were given morale boosting shipments of coke, later bottling agreements were put in place) So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. An awful lot of US influence is down to pure dollar spend, which mostly comes through military related channels. Is the US' international reach down to its military, or its money? I would argue that had the last 50 years seen a global spend by the US Forestry Commission equal to that of the US military-industrial complex, then we would see Occupy! marches burning effigies of Yogi Bear.
        serf 14y ago
        >>So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water. This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives. Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America. This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
  - lolcraft 14y ago
    I don't know, I wouldn't necessarily want to be associated with this. An hypersonic plane, and CPGS technology in general, looks for the layman like me, more like a tool for a very limited type of extremely hard force projection. Well, maybe it could be used for reconnaissance, at most. But it's not particularly useful for counter-terrorism, since that takes on ground intelligence. It's useless for defense. It's not even a deterrent, you won't go MAD with it; the whole point of CPGS is that a strike with this thing should not guarantee a nuclear or ballistic response, after all. To put it plainly, this plane is made for intimidation. If the USA is to support its standard of living on it, then it's not worth supporting.
- Goopplesoft 14y ago
  Crazy, first thing I did was google how far it is to Tehran (albiet I'm Iranian). Seems like 30mins from New york at mach 20.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
xyzzy123 14y ago
Despite the "conventional" label, how are countries this thing passes over going to know you didn't pop a surprise nuke on it?
- smacktoward 14y ago
  They can't, if you launch the thing on top of something that looks like a nuclear ICBM and follows a ballistic flight path like a nuclear ICBM does. If that happens, the person on the other end is likely to jump to the conclusion that it is a nuclear ICBM, even if you insist it isn't. Which puts them on the spot to launch their own nukes, if they have any, before yours arrives. This "discrimination" problem has been a big one for the Prompt Global Strike program since its inception. The vehicle in the story is part of the Air Force's attempt to solve this problem, by delivering the PGS payload via a spaceplane that flies in a flatter suborbital trajectory rather than an ICBM's higher trajectory. This is supposed to make it clear to the people on the other side that whatever has just been launched at them is not a nuke. It's unclear how successful this would be, though, since the spaceplane still has to be launched on a missile (possibly triggering any missile-launch early warning systems the opposition has), and nobody knows if in the heat of a crisis different angles of trajectory would be sufficient to reassure an anxious decisionmaker that they're not witnessing the beginning of a nuclear first strike.

by zeteo 14y ago

carbocation 14y ago

Station a few of these in different locations and they're already there.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

I read this too, but my first thought was "if this had been Iran we would have invaded at midnight". Its cool tech, yes, but really...

rayiner 14y ago
Of course and that would've been the sensible thing to do. As Americans, we want a world where the U.S. is the one that has this technology, not countries who aren't the U.S. Our standard of living (1/4 of the world's resources for 5% of the world's population) literally depends on that state of affairs.
- danielweber 14y ago
  The US doesn't need military dominance to have 1/4 of the world's consumption. It needs to be able to pay people who have 1/4 of the world's production enough that they sell it to us. And about 80% of that latter group are Americans anyway.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That works until the country that does have military dominance decides to conquer you and take that production for itself. The market is meaningless when force can be used to take what you can't purchase in the market. It is possible to be a wealthy nation that doesn't have military dominance (Switzerland, etc). The key is to be overall small enough that you can consume a lot per capita but still fly under the radar of the big boys. A country as big as the U.S. doesn't really have that choice.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Okay, I think I misread you. The meme of "the US only has 5% of the world people but consumes 25% of the world's resources!" is usually said by people who think it's "unfair" that the US is consuming "so much." If you are saying that the US needs military dominance because we need to protect our own domestic production from invasion, that's something else. I still disagree but not as forcefully as I would to the other characterization. (If an invader tried to invade America for the purpose of seizing our wealth, much of it would evaporate instantly. They can capture factories but more and more of it is IP that a potential invader could just stay home and pirate instead.)
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I have no problem with the U.S. consuming that much, but I don't think we could do it without American military hegemony (and I don't think Europe could do it without American military hegemony).
        lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        I struggle with the "could not do it without military hegemony". I think the issue is military. Coca-cola achieved significant domination of world markets after WWII by piggy-backing on the distribution channels of the US Army. (essentially the troops were given morale boosting shipments of coke, later bottling agreements were put in place) So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. An awful lot of US influence is down to pure dollar spend, which mostly comes through military related channels. Is the US' international reach down to its military, or its money? I would argue that had the last 50 years seen a global spend by the US Forestry Commission equal to that of the US military-industrial complex, then we would see Occupy! marches burning effigies of Yogi Bear.
        serf 14y ago
        >>So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action. it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water. This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives. Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America. This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/ http://killercoke.org/
- lolcraft 14y ago
  I don't know, I wouldn't necessarily want to be associated with this. An hypersonic plane, and CPGS technology in general, looks for the layman like me, more like a tool for a very limited type of extremely hard force projection. Well, maybe it could be used for reconnaissance, at most. But it's not particularly useful for counter-terrorism, since that takes on ground intelligence. It's useless for defense. It's not even a deterrent, you won't go MAD with it; the whole point of CPGS is that a strike with this thing should not guarantee a nuclear or ballistic response, after all. To put it plainly, this plane is made for intimidation. If the USA is to support its standard of living on it, then it's not worth supporting.
Goopplesoft 14y ago
Crazy, first thing I did was google how far it is to Tehran (albiet I'm Iranian). Seems like 30mins from New york at mach 20.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

xyzzy123 14y ago

Despite the "conventional" label, how are countries this thing passes over going to know you didn't pop a surprise nuke on it?

smacktoward 14y ago
They can't, if you launch the thing on top of something that looks like a nuclear ICBM and follows a ballistic flight path like a nuclear ICBM does. If that happens, the person on the other end is likely to jump to the conclusion that it is a nuclear ICBM, even if you insist it isn't. Which puts them on the spot to launch their own nukes, if they have any, before yours arrives. This "discrimination" problem has been a big one for the Prompt Global Strike program since its inception. The vehicle in the story is part of the Air Force's attempt to solve this problem, by delivering the PGS payload via a spaceplane that flies in a flatter suborbital trajectory rather than an ICBM's higher trajectory. This is supposed to make it clear to the people on the other side that whatever has just been launched at them is not a nuke. It's unclear how successful this would be, though, since the spaceplane still has to be launched on a missile (possibly triggering any missile-launch early warning systems the opposition has), and nobody knows if in the heat of a crisis different angles of trajectory would be sufficient to reassure an anxious decisionmaker that they're not witnessing the beginning of a nuclear first strike.