Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday April 06 2022, @01:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the shh-but-we've-got-one-too dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 07 2022, @05:48PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 07 2022, @05:48PM (#1235509) Journal

    The burden of proof lies in the one making the positive assertion.

    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)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Thursday April 07 2022, @08:05PM (#1235525)

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 07 2022, @10:50PM (#1235559) Journal

      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).

      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).