This is the reason that the next generation of close-range active intercept technologies that have been undergoing testing for many years now in the US are (1) hyperkinetic and (2) have a detection-to-engage latency measured in tens of milliseconds. Even if you are moving at hypersonic velocities, closing several kilometers is a lifetime compared to the reaction speed of defensive systems with these properties. The US has been experimenting with and studying this particular defense problem for 30 years.<p>An interesting aspect of US military R&D is that whenever they design a new type of weapon system they concurrently start design of a defense against that type of weapon system. It creates a bit of an internal arms race but also keeps their defensive capability balanced with their offensive capability.
I don’t see the MAD principle changing in light of these new weapons. The major players will still rely on it, but to ensure they can hold ip their end of the “deal” I expect we’ll see a lot more submarine based IBCMs. Compensating for any early knockout of ground missiles like minutemen etc.
If anyone is interested in what could happen during an actual nuclear war, I’m reading a novel on the subject called Arc Light by Eric L Harry.<p>It’s quite good so far. Weirdly terrifying, given that the action and writing is so clinical. So far it’s just fairly plain events. No drama or tears. And yet... terrifying and somehow moving.
<i>"The weapons could even suddenly pierce the steel decks of one of America's 11 multibillion-dollar aircraft carriers, instantly stopping flight operations, a vulnerability that might eventually render the floating behemoths obsolete."</i><p>Aren't they already obsolete?
These aren't unstoppable. The key is early detection, and filling the approach path with as much debris as possible. The high relative velocity does the rest.<p>Hypersonic weapons are a double edged sword. On the one hand, they are incredibly fast. On the other, going fast highly constrains your trajectory. A predictable trajectory equals a defensible approach.
Doesn't all of this mean that we're nearing the limits of kinetic-energy based weapons and are on the cusp of a new age of laser weapons? I mean, sure - these missiles are hard to hit, but I'm guessing that something moving at the speed of light is going to trump it, easily ..
I had understood that regular missiles (such as ICBMs) are pretty much unstoppable too. There are some anti missile programs but publicly available test results are poor, even with extremely favorable test conditions.<p>Why is this topic in the news right now?
As far as I know ICBMs are still unstoppable once out of the boost phase and are moving at mach 20 by the time they leave the territory of the launching nation. The good news is that hypersonic missiles don't put us in any more danger than we're already in. The bad news is that despite being worthless we'll probably still spend a couple trillion dollars on them.
they will be stoppable, just like anything else.<p>radar arrays and space or ground lasers, etc. but essentially lasers.<p>but a new age of war will be upon us. When all of the weapons get used up and the factories making them destroyed, and the radar installations and satellites fried with EMP's, then again it will be up to 17 year-olds fighting the fat man's war.