
Russia ready to deploy hypersonic weapons US can’t defend against - prostoalex
https://qz.com/1508241/vladimir-putin-gloating-about-new-russian-hypersonic-weapons/
======
angry_octet
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'.

~~~
eesmith
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"?

~~~
angry_octet
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.

~~~
eesmith
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.

~~~
angry_octet
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.

~~~
eesmith
Thank you for your clarification.

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.

------
juicethecat
I'd be shocked if the us didn't have the same.

------
ryanwaggoner
Why can’t laser-based defensive systems take them out?

~~~
simontc
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.

