The Problem with the Pentagon’s Hypersonic Missile

[Rogue Valley]

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?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Do you?

 

[OrphanSlug]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.