MAD no longer feasible: America's got Hypersonic Missiles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45344709/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/

America now has a missile that can hit anywhere on the planet in under an hour. In other words, it can hit Russia's nuclear silos before the Russians (or Chinese, or North Korean, or the Iranians, etc.) have a chance to launch a meaningful counter-attack. MAD is no longer a feasible strategy, because America can strike you down before you have the chance to hit them back. In other words, America has now won the game with a Conquest Victory. The world is ours!:

Greeaattt!

It'll never be deployed.

The thing's been actually built? Oh, dear.

edited 17th Nov '11 2:31:36 PM by Inhopelessguy

Oh boy, now everyone can legitimately fear that the USA can bomb them whenever they want.

That'll work out with no problem.

Heh. Now people can know we don't want to destroy the world. We just want to be able blow up people who try to blow up us.

Or be able to bomb anyone whenever we want now.

Hurm. For a moment I felt patriotic. Weird.

Yeah, sure...

Now, let's stop with the hype and think for a minute. How much money does this missile cost? Probably a crapload, so I don't see thousands of them being deployed to strike at Russian ICBM without warning. Especially since those ICBM are mainly mounted on mobile trucks to prevent long-range targeting.

Also, such missiles would be highly visible to IR on sats, so there would be a big warning and a counterattack could be launched.

Third point: a classic ICBM can also strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour, and that doesn't prevent a counter-strike.

Next in line, how could this missile break MAD since it doesn't strike boomer submarines deep in the oceans, which will gladly flush dozens of Mirved missiles back onto you?

End of the line, this new weapon doesn't change the balance of power. Not a single bit.

But it will probably change the U.S. deficit.

P.S.: oh, and, by the way, India and Russia are working on a new hypersonic variant of their Bhramos shipkiller missile.

edited 17th Nov '11 2:47:27 PM by RufusShinra

We can already do that. B-2s have hit Libya from their home bases in The U.S., and further. I think some hit Iraq at the start of the war.

edited 17th Nov '11 2:41:28 PM by Joesolo

MAD was assured as obsolete the moment anti-ballistic missiles became reality (1964*

edited 17th Nov '11 2:50:29 PM by MajorTom

Right.

So, this missile is unstoppable because it comes in at a low trajectory.

So you build high walls around any plausible target and ... yeah, don't work.

Does the phrase "sea skimmer" mean anything to you? It should as those are the worst kinds of anti-ship missiles to defend against from a Point Defense standpoint. Fast, nimble, so low to the water they are hard to track by radar and even harder to hit with long range missiles. Worse, they've been in service in various militaries (Warsaw Pact countries especially) for decades.

This missile seems to be applying the same principles only Up To Eleven.

That's what subs are for. The whole point is that if you get taken out by anything, your sub fleet (which is impossible to find and take out) can kill anything. Misiles launched from subs off the coast of the US are much harder to shoot down.

edited 17th Nov '11 3:09:08 PM by Oscredwin

I think it's easier to say flat-out impossible to intercept effectively. A SSBN firing off your coast will leave you a less than five minutes warning to detect the launch, alert the authorities, confirm the threat, target the projectile, fire the interceptor and reach the warheads.

Much more efficient than a hypersonic missile which will be detected at launch, followed through the heat (air friction) and which can be intercepted if someone really put a lot into it (and if we talk about Russians, they'll simply fire a nuke at the missile).

These have existed for a nearly half a century now. Any ballistic missile that can hit any spot on the globe is also theoretically capable of going into very low earth orbit. The orbital velocity is ~7 km/s. At that speed you could orbit the earth in less than 100 minutes. Meaning you could hit any spot in 45-50 minutes or less.

edited 17th Nov '11 3:44:34 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

The Russians fielded non-nuclear warhead ABM's first in 1964. And maintained (and expanded) such capability since then.

They won't lob nukes to stop nukes. They'll pull the same card as US Missile Defense and kill it with a kinetic strike.

So let me get this straight. We wasted god knows what on useless missiles?

Well, it's hardly the first time America funded first-strike technology and nothing really came of it. Harder than it sounds?

^^ To end the spectre of terror called Mutually Assured Destruction, it was worth it. MAD is a terrible philosophy to live by.

But I thought you said these were pointless.

The concept is obsolete. This and anti-missile systems are why.

You would rather live in the spectre of unavoidable nuclear holocaust that was 1963?

No of course not. I just think I had a communication error.

I thought you meant that these missiles were assured obsolete.

Eh, the Indians and Russians will have an answer to them pretty soon (if they don't already). Brah Mos was just the beginning.

The word "temporarily" should be added to the title.

No, no, no, no, no.

There are many more uses for a missile than for strategic nuclear strike. That role is one SLBMs could still do effectively. But there will be a few situations where you don't want to nuke your target, and the hypersonic missile looks like that.

Instead of replacing the Minuteman or Trident missiles this will probably supplant the Tomahawk for long-range conventional strikes. Tomahawks are comparatively easy to shoot down over flat and level terrain because they fly subsonic. This hypersonic missile won't have that limitation.

^^^ Yes and no. The concept of MAD being obsolete does not equate to no missile can dare hit anything. As it stands first strike capability to destroy the vast majority of retaliatory capability (by conventional or nuclear means) disarms MAD when used in concert with anti-missile systems to defend against any retaliatory strike after the first hits.

In military strategy it's a balanced offense vs defense. First strike capability via hypersonic missiles allows our offensive capabilities to reduce enemy offensive capability so that our defensive capability (anti-missile systems) can take care of the retaliation with minimal if any US losses. It doesn't sway to absolutes in either direction. (Although absolute defense via missile defenses also destroys the concept of MAD.)

edited 17th Nov '11 4:09:53 PM by MajorTom

Well I hope for a day we wont need missiles, but we're a bloodthirsty species so...

Right, I understand. I had a derp moment and thought MAD was the name of the missile.

edited 17th Nov '11 4:09:56 PM by Thorn14