from the doctor-strangelove-had-it-easy dept.
From The Guardian: Russia has deployed world's first manoeuvrable hypersonic cruise missile.
Russia has deployed its first hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles, with Vladimir Putin boasting that it puts his country in a class of its own.
The president described the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which can fly at 27 times the speed of sound, as a technological breakthrough comparable to the 1957 Soviet launch of the first satellite.
[...] The strategic missile forces chief, Gen Sergei Karakaev, said during the call that the Avangard had been put on duty with a unit in the Orenburg region in the southern Ural mountains.
Putin unveiled the Avangard and other prospective weapons systems in his state-of-the-nation address in March 2018, saying its ability to make sharp manoeuvres on its way to a target would render missile defense useless. "It heads to target like a meteorite, like a fireball," he said at the time.
The Russian leader said the Avangard had been designed using new composite materials to withstand temperatures of up to 2,000C (3,632F) which can be reached while travelling at hypersonic speeds. The missile can carry a nuclear weapon of up to 2 megatons.
Putin has said Russia's new generation of nuclear weapons can hit almost any point in the world and evade a US-built missile shield, though some western experts have questioned how advanced some of the weapons programmes are.
The Avangard is launched on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, but, unlike a regular missile warhead, which follows a predictable path after separation, it can make sharp manoeuvres en route to its target, making it harder to intercept.
[...] China has tested its own hypersonic glide vehicle, believed to be capable of travelling at least five times the speed of sound. It displayed the weapon called Dong Feng 17, or DF-17, at a military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese state.
Also at BBC and News.com.au (AP).
Related Stories
Russia successfully tests new hypersonic Tsirkon missile:
Russia says it has successfully tested a new hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile in a move hailed by President Vladimir Putin as a "great event" for the country.
The military said on Wednesday that the Tsirkon missile was fired from the Admiral Gorshkov frigate in the White Sea on Tuesday morning in the Russian Arctic and successfully hit its target.
Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian military's General Staff, told Putin – who turned 68 on Wednesday – that it was the first time the missile had successfully struck a target at sea.
"The tasks of the launch were carried out. The test-fire was successful," he told Putin. Gerasimov said the missile hit its target 450 kilometres (280 miles) away in the Barents Sea and reached a speed of Mach 8 – eight times the speed of sound.
China and America have also been developing hypersonic missiles.
Previously:
US Hails New Milestone in Development of Hypersonic Weapons
Russia Takes Lead by Deploying Hypersonic Nuclear Warheads First
Air-Breathing Engine Precooler Achieves Record-Breaking Mach 5 Performance
Putin Hails Successful Test Of Russia's New Hypersonic Missile
China Tests Hypersonic Aircraft "Starry Sky-2"
General: U.S. Has No Defense Against "Hypersonic Weapons"
Hypersonic Cruise Missile Scores USD$175m DARPA Cash
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The issue has not previously been high on the agenda in talks between the two countries, but China's recent test of a hypersonic missile that can attack multiple targets in flight have lent a new urgency to US defense thinking.
At the same time, Russia's recent test of a Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missile from a submarine in the north of the country has focused US military planners on the prospect of America falling behind its two superpower rivals in what some are seeing as a new arms race.
Hypersonic missiles are often defined as missiles launched by a rocket into Earth's upper atmosphere at speeds of Mach 5 and above (five times the speed of sound or 6,174 kilometers (3,836 miles) per hour), before maneuvering towards a target. Several countries already have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that travel just as fast—or even faster—but these cannot change trajectory once launched. The new generation of hypersonic missiles are equipped with glide vehicles that approach their targets at high speed in the final phase of flight.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday December 30 2019, @08:00AM (1 child)
We got satellites (or was it battleships?) with frickin' lasers...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31 2019, @02:15AM
We got Boomers and BUFFs.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @10:51AM (41 children)
With plastic choking the oceans, farming causing massive dead-zones (oceans again), and CO2 rising sea temperatures at an unprecedented speed, what do we need those weapons for? For faster death or some distraction for tired old people to compare who has a bigger one because their own no longer work?
It's a serious question. Why are we (as a human race) spending any resources on useless shit like this?
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Monday December 30 2019, @11:03AM (4 children)
Military industrial complex.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @12:47PM (3 children)
Russia and China have real security concerns with the US constantly throwing its weight around in their proximity and developing anti-ballistic missile capabilities. Having nuclear weapons that the US has no chance of shooting down will make them feel more powerful and secure.
It is an unfortunate consequence of mutually-assured destruction logic that security at home requires offensive weapons that can't be stopped.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 30 2019, @03:34PM (2 children)
And stuff like this is why the US and China has real security concerns with Russia. Amazing how that arms race stuff works.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @05:41PM (1 child)
Russia and China are becoming friends now [cnn.com]. The US is seriously mis-playing the strong hand it had at the end of the Cold War.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 31 2019, @01:05AM
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 30 2019, @11:11AM (4 children)
Because we're the most intelligent species on Earth.
No!.... REALLY! Not ONE species is more intelligent!
THAT is us.
Yuuuuuup.
Yup.
........sigh.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @01:34PM (3 children)
Give it a few years. If Russian, China, and North Korea keep this up it might be Dolphins soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @04:36PM (2 children)
So Long and Thanks for all the fish.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 30 2019, @10:25PM (1 child)
I gots MY towel!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 31 2019, @07:17AM
Don't forget your beer and peanuts!
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @11:45AM (12 children)
Yes, how is it even possible that people who represent a different culture would have a different set of priorities?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @11:56AM (11 children)
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization [armscontrol.org]
Seems same priorities of building up useless weapons
(Score: 5, Touché) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @12:20PM (10 children)
I was trying to be polite by avoiding the mention of individuals, but let me re-phrase it:
How is it even possible that people who represent a different culture would have a different set of priorities from you?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 30 2019, @12:33PM (1 child)
Because many humans are still focused on the idea that "other humans" are the main problem, and they feel they need the bigger stick to coerce their problem siblings to "do the right thing." As you unwittingly imply: it is a race, isn't it? And what's the point of participating in a race if you're not trying to "win"?
From a perspective inside the US, it seems to me that the US priorities since WW-II have been mostly to avoid total war like WW-I and WW-II, and in that respect a certain degree of success has been achieved. Certainly another WW-II level redirection of major proportions of GDP into "hot war" destruction of others' GDP would be worse for everyone than the status quo.
We can do better, no matter how well or poorly we are doing - we can do better. I'm sure certain factions within Russia believe that elevating their status in the balance of global military power will also elevate their bargaining strength for "issues that really matter," while other factions really are focused on the goal of "destroying the enemy."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @03:53PM
To learn of our motivations since WW2 I'd strongly recommend checking out the 'Long Telegram' [wikipedia.org] upon which the Truman Doctrine [wikipedia.org] was precipitated. In short, since the end of WW2 our primary motivation has been to ensure American supremacy by simply inhibiting the ability of any other nation to effectively compete. The CIA was formed the same year the Truman Doctrine was introduced, in 1947, and would soon be destabilizing nations, carrying out coups, assassinations, and other lovely actions throughout the world shortly thereafter.
That ideology never ended. During the Bush era one government think tank (in that basically every brain in Bush's administration was involved with it), Project for the New American Century wrote an oddly honest and forthright paper on our geopolitical ends and neoliberalism in general: Rebuilding America's Defenses [archive.org]. Archive.org seems to be getting DOS'd or something at the moment, give it a moment to load. That is probably the single most important document you could ever read if you want to truly understand American foreign policy. Again, there is a lot of nuance, but the primary goal is to disrupt any potential competitor before they might pose a viable threat.
This is also the answer to this thread in general. The US' role as the premier world economy and superpower is fading. We will probably be lashing out increasingly aggressively throughout the world in an effort to try to reverse this. And as George Orwell put it, 'We've always been at war with East Asia.' and so that war will likely be the primary operations field. That is also specified explicitly in the PNAC paper. The reason Russia and China are arming themselves is to preempt what is coming. So long as mutually assured destruction exists the US has no war option so the nastiest we'll get will be blaming everything on Russia or China and sanctioning them so much as we can afford (easier for the latter than the former). And those actions will mean less and less as American economic supremacy continues to fade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @01:30PM (7 children)
You are not polite in either reply but obtuse in understand the problem. MAD is a dumb way of running the world. And the current "priorities" of developing "unstoppable" nuclear weapons are just as obtuse solutions to non-existent problems. We've already learned many times that war does not pay, yet, we spend money on it.
Was Germany better because WWII? Fuck no. It's better because of EU. Why fight when you can just buy?
MAD exists irrespective of any weapons we develop in next half century, at least. Submarines are quite unstoppable as-is. And why would any fool risk a war when the current status quo is far more comfortable? Kill your supply chains?
So I have no fucking clue about what "priorities" you talk about. Waving a bigger dick around? Is that it? Is that polite enough? It was already mentioned in the first post.
Any why the fuck are people suddenly need to be "polite" about nuclear weapons? When some fucks fly a flew planes into buildings, no one was polite about that. And that was only a few people that died. Any single nuclear weapons is many magnitudes worse yet we need to be "polite"? WTF?
Also, don't bring in "different culture". That has fuck all to do with anything here. The link about US spending on these weapons blows up *your* idea about "cultures" in your first reply.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 30 2019, @01:52PM (2 children)
Says the AC.
See: MAD. Some fucks flying a few planes into buildings hold, as you point out, nothing even resembling assured destruction. They just poked a bear, and in today's world there is no cage that holds bears like the US or Russia.
Do I like MAD? Philosophically, ideally? No. Do I like the fact that since I turned 5 years old, nobody (including myself) has been compulsorily drafted into the US armed forces. Yes, yes I do. Do I like the fact that, on the whole, and definitely per capita, there has been far less death and destruction, both globally and with US involvement, from armed conflicts in the last 40 years than in the century preceding them? Yes, yes I do. Can we do better? Always.
Like it or not, MAD is another form of space race - driving technology with some amount of trickle down benefits even beyond the absence of large scale hot war conflict. As evil as the military-industrial complex may be perceived to be, it is also a pillar of the economy and not without positive effects for people both inside and outside the US.
So, we don't like Putin and his saber rattling? Should we then just go knock his dick in the dirt and put an end to it?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by sgleysti on Monday December 30 2019, @04:01PM (1 child)
This is a huge factor in the ability of the U.S. to perpetuate such long-standing wars as Afghanistan and Iraq. Vietnam resulted in a ton of local political pushback, since the children of people with more political capital were involuntarily sent off to war.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 30 2019, @04:16PM
Absolutely, and while I worked for a time in a company that directly benefited from the war in Afghanistan, I totally recognize the turmoil and long term damage that war, and any sustained conflict, did/does to the invaders' economy. I only had to work for the military oriented company because the war disrupted funding to the medical device industry I otherwise work in. Kids gotta eat, and all.
Would be nice if we could get a majority of the people with political capital onboard with the idea: War is Bad. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely, at least within my lifetime.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @02:19PM
You are writing that from a US perspective, and the 50 year number sounds made up from thin air. Meanwhile, the US keeps developing its ABM capabilities, which everyone says is destabilizing. Or do you believe the US when they say (paraphrased) to Russia and China "don't worry about it, we're just responding to North Korea and Iran"? These new weapons are just one result of many [armscontrolwonk.com].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 30 2019, @02:41PM
That is also written from a US perspective. Sure, we don't like it much in America, because nobody wants to get nuked. But there's a good chance we would have bombed the sh*t out of Crimea, if Russia didn't have its nuclear deterrent. So the people who run Russia are going to feel more positive about MAD.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday December 30 2019, @07:01PM
Sorry, but no. MAD is, indeed, insane, but it's also the rational consequence of game theory. I don't see any way to avoid it in a world where multiple agents have the capability to "pull down the temple". It's also extremely dangerous, as annihilation by mistake becomes increasingly possible as the "time to respond to a first strike attack" decreases.
I don't like the answer either, but come up with a viable alternative that will work. (I'll agree that saying that MAD works puts a lot of strain on the definition of that word, as it's only a metastable equilibrium. But even come up with another metastable choice. Even surrender doesn't work, because there are multiple other players.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 30 2019, @10:43PM
To simpletons, defense preparations are nothing but dick waving until somebody decides to start shooting. Then it's, "OMG why won't somebody do something?!!! Let's go on a hunger strike until they stop shooting at us? Maybe we should demand the UN send a sharply worded letter immediately." Meanwhile, everyone else who is not a simpleton pleads with heavily armed nations like the US to intervene.
In reality, it turns out countries are most polite when your country has the means to vaporize theirs in 30 minutes. And, please, spare us the "But, but, but Canada! Switzerland!" Those places are safe because they are under the American defense umbrella. In fact, it almost doesn't matter which country another wants to nuke, because the US would have something to say about nearly all of them. So to a greater or lesser extent every country that is not China is under the US defense umbrella.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @01:09PM (1 child)
Now that we can convert plastic back to oil it might be worthwhile scraping all that loose plastic from the oceans
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @01:42PM
<sarcasm>by using the oil it produces from the plastic waste it filters from the ocean it could even power itself!</sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday December 30 2019, @05:25PM (14 children)
Wow, could you cram any more offtopic platitudes into that comment?
I dunno, maybe because the human race hasn't been enslaved under a single mind. The earth supports a multitude of cultures many of which are completely antithetical to one and another. Offensive and defensive capabilities are one way to preserve those cultures. And frankly, mutually assured destruction has preserved world peace for more than half a century. It works.
That's why we spend resources on "shit like this".
Russia will never use such weapons just as they never used their ICBM's, nor did we, nor did China or Israel or Pakistan. Possessing nukes offers a shield, but if used offensively you condemn your own country to destruction. And world leaders know there is no profit in a nuclear exchange, it would put a serious crimp in their comfy lifestyle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 30 2019, @11:27PM (9 children)
And what happens when a nation led by religions fanatics like Iran or Saudi Arabia or the US (ohhh, shit...) gets ahold of enough nukes to destroy the planet several dozen times over? Need I remind you we have senior US government officials explicitly calling for the End of Times, the Battle of Armageddon, the Rapture?
The problem with MAD is that it relies on leaders *not* being, well, mad.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday December 31 2019, @08:57PM (8 children)
No one has enough nukes to "destroy the planet", not the US, not Russia, not China. You've been watching too many scifi movies. And in 75 years since the first nukes demonstrated their power on Japan, not once have they been used in anger. MAD works, it always has. That being said, Iran certainly is a theocracy which must never be allowed to possess nuclear bombs. Saudi Arabia is more of a monarchy (plus they don't have nor want nukes). And the US being lead by a religous fanatic? I would hate to live in your world constantly subjected to such intense irrational fears.
Nah, there is no danger here except the implied threat of MAD, a threat that has kept the peace for nearly a century.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 01 2020, @03:43PM (7 children)
Again: MAD only works when the leaders aren't insane. A Muslim or Christian fanatic in charge of nuclear weapons is game over. You admitted yourself "Iran certainly is a theocracy which must never be allowed to possess nuclear bombs." Why? Because, again, theocratic madmen would see nuclear Armageddon as either neutral or even desirable. So you made my point for me.
And the US *is* run by religious fanatics, it's just that the President himself isn't one. Look at Pence, DeVos, Pompeo, Bolton, heaven alone knows who else...you don't understand how the Dominionists and their fellow-travelers play this game.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Shire on Wednesday January 01 2020, @06:02PM (6 children)
This is not true - MAD works so long as those understand self preservation. Leaders have no trouble sending minions off to die, but will fight tooth and nail to preserve their own. Using nukes is a ticket towards your own death and everyone who possesses them knows this. The proof is in actual history. So you can flail about all you like about the dangers, but I promise you that if you are the nation that disarms, you are also the first one on the target list for the others. MAD works and is in fact the ONLY way to maintain peace.
Not one of those guys would EVER consider unleashing nuclear war. And if you think those guys are fanatics then you haven't looked at the leadership of Iran, or the communist dictators in China and North Korea. But even a fanatic values the status quo. The chinese government, for all their power and control over their subservient people, would be utterly destroyed if they used nukes. You can't be a fanatic if you're dead.
It's kind of sad that folks on the radical left look at anyone who believes in God and declares they must be fanatics. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - one of the first tenants of socialist subversion is to demonize the religious and especially the individual in favor of group think. A moral population is difficult to control.
Perhaps you could do with a rereading of Orwells 1984 with the understanding that it's a warning, not a guide book.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 01 2020, @08:15PM (5 children)
Three things:
1) Fuck you, you ignorant condescending fanatic.
2) I'm not an atheist. The case could be made, in fact, that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are, insofar as what they are worshiping is either mythological or demoniacal, but as a Deist (or Spiritist, or generic panentheist, whatever) I do not fit the bill. And yes, if you are an Abrahamic believer, I have just called you a devil-worshiper. Suck it up.
3) The existence of even a single suicide bomber disproves your point. You assume too much in assuming that a religious fanatic of a leader is concerned above all else with self-preservation. It only takes one.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Shire on Wednesday January 01 2020, @09:29PM (4 children)
1) You've lost your nerve. You need to learn how to discuss objectively and logically.
2) I didn't claim you were an atheist, I said it's sad those on the radical left denounce those who believe in God. Are you saying you consider yourself to be a radical leftist?
3) Suicide bombers use conventional attacks. The complexity, availability, and shear bulk of a nuclear weapon makes such an attack impossible. Never in the history of man has there ever been a nuclear related suicide attack.
You seem to be living in some kind of apocalyptic world where everyone is your enemy and everything is a world ending threat - "we're gonna get nuked", "the seas are going to flood all the cities", "the world is going to burn because of CO2", "white supremacists are going to kill us all!". Just relax. The world is not headed for Armageddon, it's doing just fine, or at least as fine as it has been for the last 5,000 years. The bogey man isn't real.
Get your own life in order before you start flailing about wildly with claims that the end is nigh. You need to chill!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:38PM
From the same book of wisdom - just a 12 years or so old chapter: "house prices never go down".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 03 2020, @04:16AM (2 children)
You don't read very well.
Yahweh is either a myth or a demon, end of story. He does not meet the criteria for what it means to be God, but he calls himself God. This is blasphemy. By extension, his worshipers are demoniacs, and if you are a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim, you too are a devil-worshiper. If that hurts your feelings, good: it means you may still have just enough humanity left that you can pull yourself out of this soul-killing spiraling death cult if you start doing your research like right the hell now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Shire on Friday January 03 2020, @11:27AM (1 child)
You seem to have a terrible time seperating your personal beliefs from reality. In western culture you have the right to your opinion, but it's important you understand you are not the authority on anyone's beliefs but your own. My opinion however is you are stark raving mad, completely incapable of entertaining ideas outside your rigid and narrow little world view. I honestly feel sorry for you, to live with such a mindset means you must feel constantly threatened and in fear of anything that doesnt fit that worldview. Unfortunately for you the world is much more complex than that, and there are things outside our control. Having your brain curl up in a little ball and scream at change doesn't actually help anything.
Be grateful you live in a weatern culture though, such a mindset tends to land you in a gulag or worse in other cultures.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 04 2020, @11:31PM
Classy as hell Mr. Hobbit! "Be glad you live somewhere where I don't get carte blanche for hunting you down and killing you, heretic!"
Yeah, you can go burn in that Hell you have such a permanent hard-on for. This ain't "my opinion," fuckstick. Yahweh does not meet the criteria for what it means to be God, but he calls himself God; this is blasphemy. Just because he's your choice of idol doesn't make him God.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 31 2019, @07:10PM (3 children)
Besides the problem of nutcases that was pointed out, there's the chance of an accident, which I understand has almost happened a couple of times. By accident I mean equipment malfunctions that imply an attack is happening.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday December 31 2019, @08:36PM (2 children)
The last time an "equipment malfunction" lead to an alert was over 40 years ago and involved faulty computer chips. Even then it was clear within 6 minutes that it was a false alarm. There isn't just one system being relied on - there are many levels of redundancy that would require an astronomically improbably number of failures across the board. Now think about where computer technology was 40 years ago and how far it has advanced since then. There's a good reason this hasn't happened since. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
The world is gonna be just fine. You need to relax a bit, maybe find a good pub nearby and toss back a couple after work once in awhile. The only real threat facing us today is radical left politicians and globalists, but they seem to be sinking their own ship without anyone's help, so it's all good.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 31 2019, @10:54PM (1 child)
You're talking about the 9th of November 1979 incident? Seems they were common then and led to complacency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls#9_November_1979 [wikipedia.org].
There was also the 1983 false alarm where we were saved by a Soviet soldier not believing the instruments, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident [wikipedia.org] and most recently, the reaction to a Norwegian sounding rocket, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident [wikipedia.org]
While you're right that there's no point in losing sleep, the possibility is real and the closer America moves its missiles to Russia, the less time there is to decide whether an instrument malfunction or a real attack. If it takes 6 minutes to be clear that it is a false alarm and 5 minutes for the missiles to arrive, there's a problem. Luckily over the last 40 years, through arms agreements, there's been enough time given to evaluate false alarms.
The problem is America is unstable and gives the launch codes to anyone that convince the voters to vote for them and also America has a history of being unreasonable.
There's also other hot spots today, namely India and Pakistan, with Pakistan not refuting using nukes first, building tactical weapons and giving local commanders quite a bit of autonomy in using them.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday December 31 2019, @11:29PM
In each of these now decades old instances, redundant systems provided a safety including, ultimately, the human element at the very end of the chain.
This cracks me up. America is not unstable, you're listening to propaganda if you think it is. Don't confuse the lunacy of the left with instability of the nation. The US is solid as a rock because we have a free society, one where you're allowed to scream that "the end of the world is upon us!" all you want while cooler heads laugh. We're the very last nation anyone should be worried about when it comes to nukes.
As for Pakistan and India. well they have both been at each others throats and had nukes for quite a long time and they've remained "peaceful" due to MAD. That's actually a really good example of the process working as intended. Both countries have maintained their sovereignty this way.
Now China, that's a different beast. If you want something to agonize over you can agonize over how China produces nearly half of the worlds CO2, has a repressive government that wants to see communism pushed globally, and one that treats their people like a personal organ donation bank. China is the sort of country that might be ok with "acceptable losses" in a nuclear exchange.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 31 2019, @03:40AM
Because after the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia found out that it was too corrupt and incompetent to become an economically prosperous nation like the Western European nations it had been terrorizing for decades, and it was even showed up by former Iron Curtain nations like Czechia and Latvia very quickly going from poor Warsaw Pact-bound backwaters to very strong economies, while Mother Russia's economy just languished. So they decided to go back to being an authoritarian hellhole, this time under the guise of democracy but with a de-facto dictator who has to strictly control photographs of himself so it isn't so obvious how short he is. And part of his plan is having a ridiculously oversized military-industrial complex and using that to bully their neighbors and seize their territory instead of tackling corruption and developing an economy befitting an industrialized nation with over 100 million people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @11:46AM (1 child)
young russian lady on call in moscow can be in new york in 2hours and join you for dinner ...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @02:06PM
Ivana?
(Score: 3, Funny) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday December 30 2019, @04:06PM (1 child)
Who here has been rewatching Stanley Kubrick movies? I have.
The key element in evolution of the plot and logic of dr strangelove is that all of the countries have already found ways to bury nukes in everyone's countries, if anything goes off, they all go off. I won't believe what anyone says about nuclear delivery until 'security' forces can close up the heroin smuggling routes to demonstrate they can keep suitcase sized objects out of their country.
I find it hard to believe some trigger hasn't happened yet, it is frankly easier for me to believe the soft disclosure from people like Stephen Greer that aliens won't let us use our toys. If I were an alien that would be the first attachment to my saucer, the remote nuke deactivator. (sudden clarity clarence: wait, I am an alien to aliens) I am not sure what is going on here, but something is going on, this just doesn't add up.
Hypersonic nukes sounds to me like something inexpensive and made up, that can't be verified, that is a great chest pounding propaganda win for the motherland.
I watched that movie Donbass last night, you should check it out. I didnt realize this but the russians see the ukrainians as actual members of hitler's fascist army(from the mooooon!), and still hold a mean grudge from ww2. The russians fail to see any fascism to their system, at all, which is a mental failure beyond what I can fathom.
But yes as ac above comments, that these counrtries are still going full force with their #bunkergap race is a bad sign for the mental health of those making the big decisions, and it is quite apparent how ready they are to sacrifice us for their dick measuring contest.
Which is to say 'why isn't the human race' doing something is that there is no such thing as a coherent political body known as 'the human race.'
We are still deciding what that is, and generally dying trying.
If anyone is actually interested in this however you will find my website and memes of some interest:
https://archive.is/dmjdm [archive.is]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @05:36PM
Do you honestly think this is about the US and Russia and weapons?
I watched that movie Donbass last night
Look, movies are entertaining and all but usually skimp on the details for plot and expediency.
I would say the Russians are more worried about China and the EU, than the US. You can see how they position themselves politically and in their propaganda. Hell they only spent ~3k on trying to influence our elections in 2016.
Want to see why Russia is so invested in things? Follow the money. The Ukraine is the lynchpin of how many of our governments are funneling money around. Hell, 4 top US political people have family ties into companies there. Follow the money, follow the corruption, all will be laid bare. It is not a dick measuring contest. It is greed. The propaganda you are reading is just the 'other side'. Remember there are at least 4 groups there fighting for control of that region and its loose laws. None of them give a damn about the Ukrainians. Syria was the 'it girl' for awhile. Right up until it erupted in civil war because of that nonsense. That same civil war basically funded by Iran, and UE. Why do you think the Russians backed down on total control there? They have the power and will to totally dominate the Ukraine. Yet they didnt.
This 'hyper-sonic' missile is propaganda. It is to bait other countries into investing large amounts of money into it. It worked on them with 'star wars'. Either that or they managed to make something that can goto the moon in ~10 hours.
But if you want to watch movies to get your views. 'Lord of War' would be better to watch.
russians see the ukrainians as actual members of hitler's fascist army
Again propaganda. But typical propaganda of a socialist. Their form is the best one. All the others are impure and if only the right one was tried (the one they came up with of course) all would be good.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Tuesday December 31 2019, @08:51AM (1 child)
I didnt know meteorites make sharp manouvres on their way to a target.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday December 31 2019, @03:03PM
I agree this is poor use of the english language.
Either the word 'meteor' or 'maneuver' does not mean what they think it means.
Or they are f'ing with us, in which case they are underplaying their hand, and should add a few more colorful abilities to their big wampum rocket like invisibility and speakers to scream rude yakov smirnov jokes at the target population as it approaches.
Then you just have to get a megaphone and start shouting the rude jokes, everyone has to run to the shelter, and that is the perfect time to strike!
'In Russia, you ARE the missile! yuk yuk yuk, heeeere I cooooome!'
(Score: 3, Informative) by Codesmith on Tuesday December 31 2019, @01:43PM
So, if we can revisit reality for a few minutes....
It's a reentry vehicle which can be steered. It's still just an ICBM warhead, no magic voodoo involved; and as usual, the Russians are full of it. The speed listed (mach 27) is ballpark 9750 m/s. LEO orbital velocity is in the range of 6500~8000 m/s, so where the hell are they sending this thing, Mars? (I know, I know, escape velocity is around 11,100 m/s, hyperbole OK?)
Trying to steer anything while in the highest heating phase of orbital reentry is a) damned difficult and b) not going to provide much re-targeting ability. It would make more sense to engage steering once you are out of actual re-entry and are in the atmosphere proper, but your side range to target is still only going to be in the high 100s of kilometres.
From a defence point of view, we're just going to have to stay in the 'launch-on-proof-of-launch' MAD system. You chucking an ICBM in my direction is going to get a very poor reaction in any case, mmkay?
Pro utilitate hominum.