Doesn’t anyone find this a bit worrying?
Scares the shit out of me. :eek:
Personally, I’m looking forward to the trickle-down effect such technology would present, including hypersonic passenger aircraft and possibly runway-based satellite launches.
The U.S. has had global reach for decades through its aircraft carriers asnd ICBMs. The only difference this new stuff will offer (when and if it gets built) is they’ll be able to react faster.
If I may add a supplementary question:
Would it be morally acceptable for the US to use these weapons against another state solely on the basis of its own national interests?
In other words, is this statement correct?:
No, because if it was, why didn’t the U.S. deploy tactical nukes in Vietnam? The Americans have done a lot of bad stuff, but let’s not get ridiculous and claim they put no limits on what they’ll do because they lack principles.
I find it hard to get worked up over a glorified ICBM.
Well I don’t. It all smacks to me of Darth Vader. If ANY other country in the world tried anything similar, the US would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Bunch of hypocritical wankers. I’d really piss myself laughing if one of those things malfunctioned and crashed into the white house, though.
Also, how can you predict how benign future US regimes will be . The current trend is certainly not comforting. What about a scenario, say thirty years down the road, where America starts pointing these things at countries that impose trade sanctions, for example. Not to mention the danger of someone spilling coffee on the control panel.
And as for Vietnam, the whole global political climate was different back then. Maybe in a similar geopolitical climate, with Bush at the helm, they would have nuked nam. Maybe the US will nuke someone in the near future. I wouldn’t put it past the present administration.
Those weapons already exist. They just have several megaton nuclear warheads on them. 
Actually, I’m for this. If it allows us to withdraw within our own borders and still defend ourselves to a reasonable extent, then let’s do it.
Apologies, Bryan - I was labouring under the misapprehension that the quote I cited was direct from Henry Kissinger, but Googling and checking quotation databases I see it was rather pointless of me to bring it up since he didn’t actually say it.
So why don’t you just withdraw within your borders and defend yourself from people who are reasonably close and look like they might be about to invade your country. How is having the capability to bomb something on the other side of the globe “defending yourself”? It’s world domination, pure and simple.
Um, trabi, both the US and Russia already possess the capability to destroy every human on Earth 5 times over, and you’re scared shitless of this??!
The fact of the matter is, right now, the US could withdraw its forces to the continental US and say to the rest of the world, “do anything we don’t like, and we will nuke you.” Hell, the US wouldn’t even have to go that far - I’m sure it’s not all that difficult to replace the nuclear warheads on ICBM’s with conventional ones - or just really big rocks (a rock hitting you at ballistic speed would hurt).
This FALCON business would just be cheaper than using ICBM’s to deliver conventional explosives.
Sua
You need to understand what you are saying. Other countries already do this. Do you not think that India and Pakistan have their limited nuclear arsenals already pointed at New Delhi/Islamabad rather than, say, Phuket? The idea is to take payloads, any payload, and make them available in whatever theater they are needed in the least amount of time.
Consider the chance of a PRC attack on Taiwan. Unless someone, with an interest to prevent the attack of course, has assets in the area to project force there is nothing to stop it. Now consider if the US simply said, carriers will show up soon, but we’ve readied our CAVs. The threat of a projection of forced based thousands of miles away adds flexibility to any administrations foreign policy options.
I’d love to see the country that would want to miss out on the US market.
You should equally consider the chance that the US may develop an active multilateralist bent and then use these weapons within that context. Would that make you happier? You are predicting that the current foreign policy of the US will remain constant for 30 years. It hasn’t in the past; it won’t in the future.
See this is an example of changes in policy approach that happen to every country. Changes in global political climate happen continually and it would be criminally irresponsible if the US military didn’t attempt to maintain superiority in the face of that change. That is their job.
Well, if you’re determined to be paranoid, we can’t stop you. We can only point out factual erros in your posts. Nations other than the U.S. have had long-range bombers and missiles for years, and the U.S. has not made a habit of coming “down on them like a ton of bricks.” If such a habit existed, North Korea would now be a parking lot.
I find the idea of sabre-rattling over something like trade sanctions less likely in the future, especially since improved communications has made it possible to broadcast images of civilian casualties. Do you believe a U.S. President will launch missiles to punish a foriegn nation over a trade dispute? Dream on.
I seriously doubt Bush in the White House in 1969 would have acted more radically than, say, Nixon, and he didn’t use nukes.
You’ve got an awful lot of maybes and hypotheticals in your posts. Try glomming onto some facts once in a while.
Good post, Grey. America already has numerous methods of projecting its armed might around the entire globe. Having aircraft carriers out on patrol at all times is a prohibitively expensive exercise of military strength. The price of deploying a carrier and escort screen for one sortie could finance a lot of the development costs involved with these high falutin’ ICBMs.
Your scenario of the PRC invading Taiwan is a picture perfect example of why such fast response weaponry is of use. We will not need to have troops or materiel in place to pose an entirely credible threat to any and all aggressor nations. I like that idea a lot.
Now, as to Shrub’s administration floating this other concept of “denial” for all low earth orbits, be they allies or foes, that one is among the stupidest ideas I heard in my entire life. Should the United States actively implement such a program, all other countries would be obliged to begin constructing anti-satellite weapons for immediate launch. I swear that they are smoking crack in the oval office.
Just 'cos I’m paranoid doesn’t mean everyone isn’t out to get me.
And if they already had this capability, why are they inventing it now. It’s not defense, because the only possible use for a device that can fly to any country in the world (without the need for a single American to leave home) is to ATTACK people in faraway places and make people FRIGHTENED of you. Well it works.
Anyway, once you’ve got the thing installed, don’t be surprised when everybody else wants one too. I’d give one to Gadaffi straight away, just to see where he points it.
Just 'cos I’m paranoid doesn’t mean everyone isn’t out to get me.
Bumper stickers are the last refuge of something or other.
Look, try to understand what we’re all saying.
The article describes the evolution of hypersonic drones capable of carrying anything (well 5 tons) anywhere and come back home. Yes they work like missiles. They go way up and then they come down real fast. They’re also a pain to swap payloads into and out of. They also tend to be useless after you launch them.
The purpose of these weapons is to allow the US to project force into regions where it currently requires the stationing of personnel, and offensive weapons. The point is to make foreign governments in conflict with the US seriously consider there actions in the face of a nation possessing these weapons. **It has always been this way with nations and its not restricted to the US only **.
Are other countries working on these? Well the UK is developing autonomous drones so it’s hardly an American plot for world domination. While nasty weapons in the hands of a western democracy are always unsettling, a nasty weapons in the hands of a tyrant is even worse.
Sez who? You believe what you want. Imperialist swine.
I’m going to get a smilie right?
Don’t hold your breath.
Trabi, a good move at this point would be to deal intelligently with the intelligent counterpoints your post elicited. Meaningless slogans and insults will be neither effective nor popular.
How, specifically, does this represent a major change from the status quo?