I have looked at the specs of the Chinese anti carrier weapon. These things fly at Mach 10 through the lower atmosphere and glow white hot. Shooting a laser on a thermal protection system that can handle this kind of flight profile... Snowball in hell.
If hypersonic ballistic weapons become widely deployed and accurate there will be significant proliferation pressure, as a first strike becomes possible and even mobile launchers are targeted quickly using micro sats. Much greater use of decoys is a possible response. The whole thing is a stake through the heart of the START treaties.
India and Pakistan will be racing to keep up, as their deterrent capabilities would easily be defeated by reliable hyper strike, even 'conventional'.
How does first strike become possible even with hypersonic ballistic weapons? I thought the US had enough sub launched ballistic missiles to provide the retaliation needed.
And, while it might be a problem with the current START treaty, wouldn't we negotiate a new one with those new capabilities in mind? New START is up for renewal in the 2020s.
Finally, in light of MAD, isn't the optimal solution for Russia, faced with decades of US work "to develop, test and prepare for deployment of a missile defense system", to have enough weapons systems to keep the US from doing a first strike, while not having enough for the US to worry about Russia doing a first strike? That is, why should they want the system to "become widely deployed"?
Even the US has difficulty in maintaining a good SLBM capability. Russia neglected their submarine force for two decades, and had considerable weighting towards mobile land based second strike. It is conceivable that Russian SSBNs could be boxed in by conventional techniques, cyber and other attacks in infrastructure and crewing. Then, each SSBN might only get off one or two SLBMs before hyper kinetic projectiles arrive.
China has an immature SSBN fleet, and no meaningful airborne global strike capability.
The star wars ideas have proven to be fantasy, almost nothing works or can't easily be defeated, and it would cost a fortune, far more than the US can afford. The Russians and China should have been pressing for a ban on hypersonic testing and systems, instead of starting a new race that will leave their existing deterrent vulnerable. The Chinese think they will leapfrog the US to global dominance by showing a strategic lack of wisdom.
I think I may have misread your earlier response. When you wrote "as a first strike becomes possible", who do you think might be doing the first strike, and against whom?
Since this was an article about Russia's hypersonic weapons, I assumed you meant Russia. Upon second reading, and with your response now, I am no longer so certain.
I agree that missile defense is an expensive fantasy. My view of Russia's hypersonic weapons are in part that it's a relatively cheap way to cause the US to waste a huge amount of money on military spending, while keeping the US from thinking it has first strike capability, perhaps via a magic missile shield.
Eg, the Russsian "Status-6" nuclear torpedo - real or not - cannot be used as a first strike weapon against the US, but is an excellent second strike weapon.
I ought to have explained that. It isn't just Russia who is developing hypersonic weapons, it is everyone who can, and Russia has just been talking about it for propaganda purposes.
It could be China doing first strike against US Pacific Fleet, US striking Russia, India vs Pakistan etc.
Hypersonic strike really makes a nonsense of wide area ABM and fixed point ABM. The only response is to shoot first, or counter launch on launch detection (from orbit, not ground RADAR). Response decision time is minutes, i.e. whoever is on watch, not a politician.
I'm not sure I believe the nuclear torpedo stuff, it is bonkers.
As I understand it, "first strike" is meant to be such an overwhelming attack that the response is not an effective deterrent. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
> In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war.
That is, "China doing first strike against US Pacific Fleet" isn't a the correct use of 'first strike' as it's typically used because while the US Pacific Fleet may be destroyed, the rest of the US military has enough capability to destroy China.
As for 'Response decision time is minutes', that was also true for US/USSR in BMEWS days, designed for 15 to 25 minutes warning against ICBMs. Less for sub-launched. For the UK it was, infamously, four minutes.
So while I agree that it changes things, the (il-)logic of MAD is no different in a future with hypersonic weapons than it was for nuclear weaponry in the 1960s.
The nuclear torpedo is the right kind of bonkers. It highlights the stupidity of the US missile defense strategy, it's doable, and it builds on the supercavitating torpedo designs Russia already has. And it is a much better second strike weapon than first strike.
10 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 32.9 ms ] threadIndia and Pakistan will be racing to keep up, as their deterrent capabilities would easily be defeated by reliable hyper strike, even 'conventional'.
And, while it might be a problem with the current START treaty, wouldn't we negotiate a new one with those new capabilities in mind? New START is up for renewal in the 2020s.
Finally, in light of MAD, isn't the optimal solution for Russia, faced with decades of US work "to develop, test and prepare for deployment of a missile defense system", to have enough weapons systems to keep the US from doing a first strike, while not having enough for the US to worry about Russia doing a first strike? That is, why should they want the system to "become widely deployed"?
China has an immature SSBN fleet, and no meaningful airborne global strike capability.
The star wars ideas have proven to be fantasy, almost nothing works or can't easily be defeated, and it would cost a fortune, far more than the US can afford. The Russians and China should have been pressing for a ban on hypersonic testing and systems, instead of starting a new race that will leave their existing deterrent vulnerable. The Chinese think they will leapfrog the US to global dominance by showing a strategic lack of wisdom.
Since this was an article about Russia's hypersonic weapons, I assumed you meant Russia. Upon second reading, and with your response now, I am no longer so certain.
I agree that missile defense is an expensive fantasy. My view of Russia's hypersonic weapons are in part that it's a relatively cheap way to cause the US to waste a huge amount of money on military spending, while keeping the US from thinking it has first strike capability, perhaps via a magic missile shield.
Eg, the Russsian "Status-6" nuclear torpedo - real or not - cannot be used as a first strike weapon against the US, but is an excellent second strike weapon.
It could be China doing first strike against US Pacific Fleet, US striking Russia, India vs Pakistan etc.
Hypersonic strike really makes a nonsense of wide area ABM and fixed point ABM. The only response is to shoot first, or counter launch on launch detection (from orbit, not ground RADAR). Response decision time is minutes, i.e. whoever is on watch, not a politician.
I'm not sure I believe the nuclear torpedo stuff, it is bonkers.
As I understand it, "first strike" is meant to be such an overwhelming attack that the response is not an effective deterrent. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
> In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war.
That is, "China doing first strike against US Pacific Fleet" isn't a the correct use of 'first strike' as it's typically used because while the US Pacific Fleet may be destroyed, the rest of the US military has enough capability to destroy China.
As for 'Response decision time is minutes', that was also true for US/USSR in BMEWS days, designed for 15 to 25 minutes warning against ICBMs. Less for sub-launched. For the UK it was, infamously, four minutes.
So while I agree that it changes things, the (il-)logic of MAD is no different in a future with hypersonic weapons than it was for nuclear weaponry in the 1960s.
The nuclear torpedo is the right kind of bonkers. It highlights the stupidity of the US missile defense strategy, it's doable, and it builds on the supercavitating torpedo designs Russia already has. And it is a much better second strike weapon than first strike.