TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile

61 点作者 IntronExon大约 7 年前

9 条评论

bitL大约 7 年前
I wish we could have continued with much better relations with Russia, instead of seeing polarization escalating and going from the possibility of humanity becoming extinct within 1 hour into the possibility of becoming extinct within 20 minutes. At some point some mad person is likely going to push the button, all just because we are programmed to compete and win by all means with help of misguided philosophies.
评论 #16512288 未加载
评论 #16512309 未加载
评论 #16512270 未加载
woodandsteel大约 7 年前
This whole thing is a scam on Putin&#x27;s part. Putin claims that the US is rapidly building a huge anti-ballistic missile defense system that could stop every single present Russian warhead. And that it is doing this in preparation for invading Russia and turning it into a brutally-oppressed colony, or at least threatening Russia with nuclear destruction to get it to do all sorts of important things that would be damaging to Russia.<p>This is all nonsense. The US is building only a modest number of ABM missiles, and there are no plans beyond that. And the US has no interest whatsoever in invading Russia. Not even over-the-top hawks like John Bolton or the neoconservatives, even mention that idea. As far as nuclear threats to Russia, the US is content to stick with the MAD balance of terror that has kept the peace for over half a century.<p>So why is Putin saying these crazy things? I think it is a combination of two things. One is that he is a Russian, and so as a consequence of Russian history, he believes that the country is always under imminent threat of invasion, no matter what the facts are. The other is that, as authoritarian leaders so often do, he is trying to divert his public&#x27;s attention from domestic ills that he knows he will not solve.<p>Does anyone want to disagree with me? Does anyone want to lay out all that would be involved in invading Russia (a review of Napoleon&#x27;s attempt would be helpful here) and also in occupying it, and argue that yes, the US leadership sincerely thinks it would be a great idea, and the US leadership furthermore has good reasons to think the invasion and occupation would be successes?
danbruc大约 7 年前
How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin&#x27;s statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weapons is true or not but I do not really see why you could not do that.<p>So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War.<p>EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16511248" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16511248</a>
评论 #16511567 未加载
评论 #16511583 未加载
评论 #16512368 未加载
评论 #16511594 未加载
评论 #16511627 未加载
s3nnyy大约 7 年前
Is there seriously some new cold war going on?<p>I read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons.<p>My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
评论 #16511378 未加载
评论 #16511609 未加载
评论 #16511338 未加载
评论 #16511826 未加载
评论 #16511525 未加载
评论 #16511509 未加载
评论 #16511312 未加载
评论 #16511504 未加载
评论 #16512122 未加载
j1vms大约 7 年前
As long as the US continues winning the economic&#x2F;political game it doesn&#x27;t matter what country builds X weapon that (perhaps) the US doesn&#x27;t have (yet). It doesn&#x27;t really make sense for China&#x2F;Russia to try and compete with the US militarily - need only ask the Soviet Union how that turned out.<p>They need to compete on the economic&#x2F;political level and they are still half a century away from having the clout the US has, regardless of who might occupy the Executive.
twic大约 7 年前
&gt; All this begs the question is this missile actually an air-launched ballistic missile system?<p>Like Skybolt:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GAM-87_Skybolt" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;GAM-87_Skybolt</a><p>The Iskander is a bit smaller (7.3 metres long, 3.8 tonnes) than the Skybolt (11.7 metres long, 5 tonnes), but that fits with the idea that this is a tactical&#x2F;theatre weapon rather than a (not quite) strategic one.
sAbakumoff大约 7 年前
I wish someone competent commented on the Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missile that Putin announced. There are a lot of posts in Russian social media that say that it&#x27;s total BS.
coldcode大约 7 年前
It doesn&#x27;t matter what it is or does. As soon as anyone fires off a nuclear missile&#x2F;device civilization ends. Some tiny remnant of people will start over, in a mostly destroyed planet. Some day their descendants will wonder what kind of complete idiot(s) would start a nuclear war.
评论 #16512374 未加载
评论 #16512890 未加载
woodandsteel大约 7 年前
I have a number of comments for this article. I thought it would be helpful to explain where I am coming from.<p>A good place to start is what happened after WWII ended. The world was divided between two great powers, and what you would expect to have happened, given the past history of the world, is for this to lead in a decade or two to a massive war between them.<p>So why didn&#x27;t that happen? Basically because of some extraordinary economic, technological and governmental changes that had happened over the preceding several centuries.<p>For thousands of years tribes and states had engaged in regular warfare. This was because they were based largely on agriculture. Even in empires, most of the people still were peasant farmers. This lead to warfare in two ways. One is that populations would often grow too large for agricultural output, the other was that the wealth was in the land and so the way to gain more wealth was through conquest.<p>The industrial revolution, based on modern science and technology, and operating under free market economics, lead to some radical changes. Radical increases in agricultural productivity, and in addition health advances lead to lower population growth. In addition, the main source of wealth was now industry, rather than land. And one consequence was the rise of democracy.<p>Nonetheless, warfare persisted. But nuclear weapons radically changed the logic of warfare, and made it suicidal, rather than an often-rational choice. And so we have had a remarkable 70 years of peace.<p>The problem is that Russia has never really adopted to the new era. Politically, it is authoritarian, rather than democratic. Economically it practices crony capitalism, and one consequence is it is very poor at technological advancement, and depends far too much on natural resources for wealth. And with respect to international affairs it thinks we are still back in the old era where great powers continually try to conquer each other, both for wealth and to eliminate military threats. And so it is pursing a policy of trying to gain back every part of the empire it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.<p>I feel sorry for the Russians. Putin is taking them down a path that will lead to stagnation and maybe violent conflict. And, alas, Trump doesn&#x27;t see this at all. That&#x27;s because he is himself very out of touch with the realities of the modern, post-war era, and mistakenly thinks Putin is an excellent leader.