SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US tested hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet to avoid escalating tensions with Russia:
US tested hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet to avoid escalating tensions with Russia
The Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) was launched from a B-52 bomber off the west coast, the official said, in the first successful test of the Lockheed Martin version of the system. A booster engine accelerated the missile to high speed, at which point the air-breathing scramjet engine ignited and propelled the missile at hypersonic speeds of Mach 5 and above.
The official offered scant details of the missile test, only noting the missile flew above 65,000 feet and for more than 300 miles. But even at the lower end of hypersonic range -- about 3,800 miles per hour -- a flight of 300 miles is less than 5 minutes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday April 06 2022, @02:59PM (9 children)
Because Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [wikipedia.org] in 2014 with the development of the 9M729 cruise missile [csis.org] in 2014 with later deployment in 2017. Funny how that didn't get mentioned in your post.
It's yet another NATO escalation that turns out to really be a Russian escalation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 06 2022, @11:40PM (1 child)
NATO and Russia are actually on the same side. The shadowy illimunati Rothschilds, DeBeers and Biden crime family want to control your BRAINS.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 07 2022, @01:29PM
You forgot to mention pedophiles and human trafficking and satan worshiping.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Thursday April 07 2022, @07:52AM (6 children)
The US withdrawing from a treaty after unsubstantiated allegations from the oh-so-trustworthy security state apparatus that was behind the classic "Iraq has WMDs" is a Russian provocation now? It baffles me how little people learn from history, it's not like US intelligence doesn't have a long well-documented history of lying through their teeth to justify invading foreign governments and "liberate" their natural resources into the hands of American-aligned oligarchs and channel US government funds into the absurdly labeled "defense" industry.
AC is right not to mention it because CIA 2.0's misinformation isn't worth the digital bits it's stored on. The fact that your link is to an organization dedicated to "finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world" should have been the obvious sign you're drinking the kool-aid. Anyone who sees the US is a force for good after the millions of civilian deaths caused by US interventionism and destabilizing efforts against civilian governments is either retarded, lying or delusional.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 07 2022, @02:17PM (5 children)
Don't insult my intelligence. All you have to show is one of the four things below:
Show any one of those four. You won't be able to, because they're all true, but that's what it'll take. Not bullshit about the US intelligence lying in Iraq. That doesn't change the characteristics of the missile I just mentioned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 07 2022, @02:45PM
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday April 07 2022, @04:45PM (3 children)
The burden of proof lies in the one making the positive assertion. I am no more required to prove that the Russian rocket does not violate the treaty than I am required to prove that god put fake dinosaur bones in Earth's crust. "Prove me wrong or what I'm saying is true" is a logical fallacy, especially when you're demanding negative proof with an impossible standard of evidence. What exactly do you expect me to do, steal the rockets to test their capabilities? The only bullshit you're smelling is the one coming out of your mouth.
Even if you're right about the rockets, my point still stands - the NSA is a known bad actor and they totally would lie about it anyway. Their word cannot be trusted as evidence of bad faith by the Russians regardless of whether the Russians are actually acting in bad faith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 07 2022, @05:48PM (2 children)
And I did so, providing the very weapon system that violates said treaty and why it violates the treaty. That box is checked. Your turn now.
I think it's telling that instead of arguing facts, this has turned into an attack on the sources (some which may not have been sources in the first place) combined with a ridiculous narrative about how good faith argument is now like proving "god put fake dinosaur bones in Earth's crust".
AC asked why the US "tore up" this treaty. Well, blatant non-compliance by Russia is a good reason to leave a treaty and well, here's the Russian weapon system that wasn't complying. Seems pretty straight-forward unless, of course, you can come up with some actual counterevidence?
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday April 07 2022, @08:05PM (1 child)
No you didn't. You provided a weapon system that you assert violates the treaty without proving the premise (ie offering evidence of it's capabilities). Pointing at the rocket proves what can be visually observed, it doesn't sustain the conclusion (it violates the treaty) because you can't tell how far it goes or what kind of warheads it's capable of carrying from looking at it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 07 2022, @10:50PM
At this point, I consider my side done - I've cited sources that did more than just "look at it" - such as discuss Russian tests of the system one which went more than 500 km (the threshold for the treaty) and a second that was launched from a mobile launcher (another threshold for the treaty).