• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Problem with the Pentagon’s Hypersonic Missile

Rogue Valley

Facta Non Verba
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
64,099
Reaction score
48,352
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Problem with the Pentagon’s Hypersonic Missile

Military officials say their superfast weapons of the future won’t carry nuclear warheads. But will other nuclear nations believe it when the missiles start flying?


defense-large.png
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,356
Reaction score
21,332
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'll say it, I do not think it matters what other nations believe of our weapons capability.

For years now we have labored under the illusion that we have a two way street of understanding between nations (especially when inherently adversarial, but could also include allies) on what we intend for our various weapon improvement programs. It simply does not exist no matter what the intention of various agreements made.

For instance Russia or China. No matter what we say or put into an agreement, they will have their beliefs on what we intend for the capability of hyper-sonic missile systems. We can claim all day long that it is not intended to deliver a nuclear warhead past conventional defense and warning systems... but that does not mean Russia or China (or North Korea, or Iran, or whoever else) buys our rhetoric.

To make matters worse on this subject alone, the US is still running around trying to further create and enforce a nuclear "has em" club with controls for it. It is the old and true argument from India, what right does the US have in policing the world on who has what weapon? Especially when it is all hypocritical when considering Israel.

The reality is we are going to advance our weapon delivery systems anyway. The even more harsh reality is no matter what we do with weapon improvements the natural response from other nations is to look at their own capability and their own room/means for improvements. It is going to happen, there is little we can do to control what other nations do to defend themselves from whatever we design for whatever stated purpose. As such, technically *any* nation developing improvements in weapons inherently means destabilization as other nations are going to respond. Positive or negative does not matter here, it is foolish to conclude we can control these other nations.

We tell the world we can get a missile into an enemy nation faster than they can respond (or even hear it)... what a ****ing shock, they are going to try to develop a defense system to handle our capability.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Simpleχity;1065772013 said:
The Problem with the Pentagon’s Hypersonic Missile

Military officials say their superfast weapons of the future won’t carry nuclear warheads. But will other nuclear nations believe it when the missiles start flying?


defense-large.png

I would hope that they carry nuclear warheads. Why put the money into it, if it doesn't? But it makes no real difference at the point we will be, when the things become a battlefield option. We will be so close to war that it will not matter.
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would hope that they carry nuclear warheads. Why put the money into it, if it doesn't? But it makes no real difference at the point we will be, when the things become a battlefield option. We will be so close to war that it will not matter.
Because there's a MUCH lower bar to using conventional explosives versus nuclear. Nukes haven't been used in over 70 years, whereas few years have gone by without the US bombing someone. I don't think any in the last 15 years.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Because there's a MUCH lower bar to using conventional explosives versus nuclear. Nukes haven't been used in over 70 years, whereas few years have gone by without the US bombing someone. I don't think any in the last 15 years.

Oh. But I know, what the technical difference is. It is more the strategic side of the issue that might be of concern.
 
Top Bottom