Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

The Military 322

Lasrick writes Mark Gubrud has a fascinating piece arguing for the U.S. to lead the way in calling for a ban on the testing of hypersonic missiles, a technology that the U.S. has been developing for decades. China has also started testing these weapons, which proponents optimistically claim would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. Russia, India, and a few other countries are also joining in the fray, so a ban on testing would stop an arms race in its tracks. The article discusses the two types of hypersonic technology, and whether that technology has civilian applications.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

tits (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820503)

Are so good

Is America starting to be scared of the Chinese ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822497)

Just because the Chinese has successfully tested its first scramjet powered hypersonic missile - which indicates China's success in producing their own scramjet engine - does not mean that the Chinese will use that technology to target specifically the American floating war bases

Why is America so scared?

Has America lost its nerve?

Or the Obama's "We have no strategy" reflective of what America has become?

Re:tits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824697)

Offtopic ?

Tits are never offtopic

Unless ur a faggot

Re:tits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47831017)

link or it's not true...

Ban when you are done testing? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820515)

Sounds fair...

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820697)

Sounds fair...

Not so much.
Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier and hence limit the US ability to project force around the world.

Want to ban hypersonic missiles ? Ok. In return let's ban supercarriers. Now this is fair for all parties involved.
Otherwise it's the standard way that the US maintains militray superiority over the rest of us.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47821751)

There's no ban on China (or anyone else) on building supercarriers.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47821873)

No one else is willing to blow that much money on their military. Missiles are the cheap counter to giant expensive ships.

However, it's not accurate to say that hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that can take down carriers. In fact, this has nothing to do with anti-ship weapons - these are ballistic missiles. The argument against them is first that they make a nuclear first strike easier and second that they don't offer any sort of non-military functionality. Hypersonic airliners, for example, are probably a pipe dream, but even if they are realized any technological overlap between an airliner and a missile would be extremely small.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821953)

This has plenty to do with anti-ship weapons.
There are 2 forms of hypersonic weaponry in development, quasi-ballistics, and hypersonic cruise missiles.
Quasi-ballistics are already made and in use (Russia has one, already).
Hypersonic cruise missiles are the ultimate no-more-aircraft-carrier weapon, and are the real threat to American power, and countries are scrambling to get one working before the Exocet-type missiles are completely useless to ship countermeasures.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47822149)

The only thing that hypersonic cruise missiles offer over conventional rocket-propelled missiles is fuel efficiency, i.e.: additional range. The ballistic ones would at least be cheaper than their rocket-based counterparts... Would the cruise missiles be cheaper? I don't know, probably not.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here: hypersonic missiles are just missiles that use a SCRAM jet instead of a rocket. That's it. Despite the fancy name, they're slower than rocket-propelled missiles. The advantage is that a rocket is entirely self contained while a SCRAM jet pulls part of its fuel from the oxygen in the atmosphere - this makes it more fuel efficient.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822193)

That's so ridiculously false.
Most cruise missiles are subsonic or slightly supersonic. What hypersonic cruise missiles offer that conventional ones don't, is a missile traveling fast enough, that by the time it pops over the horizon, it's embedded in your hull before your Phalanx can even lock on it.

For reference,
An Exocet travels at Mach .92, at sea level. A tomahawk, even less.

Hypersonic means Mach 5+. A few air-to-air missiles go that fast, a few massive rockets that boost into the upper atmosphere and come back down on ballistic arcs go that fast. Hypersonic isn't just a fancy name, it has a meaning- and Mach 5 delivery systems have a very real use.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (3, Interesting)

bigfoottoo (2947459) | about 3 months ago | (#47822255)

Rather neat video of Yakhont launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822273)

Those things are crazy awesome. Brahmos is building a hypersonic model that will go Mach 7.

Fatique (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822445)

Brahmos is building a hypersonic model that will go Mach 7

Anyone can claim anything, but if they can't come up with the material which can withstand the force which Mach 7 brings, even if they can get that thing to go that fast, it will disintegrate before it reaches its target

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

bigfoottoo (2947459) | about 3 months ago | (#47822281)

Another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] The Russian version has a terminal speed of over Mach 4. A few meters over the water with jinking.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47822267)

I don't know anything about the specifications of the missiles that the military currently uses. I do know that a rocket has a vastly higher thrust to weight ratio than even the most idealized SCRAM jet - if current missiles are slow then it's not because they're incapable of going faster. I expect it has more to do with turning radius and the fact that cruise missiles are supposed to stay very close to the ground / sea to minimize their chances of detection.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822343)

With a rocket, you have to take your oxygen with you. With a turbojet you have to compress the oxygen you're scooping up. With a sc/ramjet, sheer momentum is doing all the work for you. You may very well be able to hit Mach 7 in level flight with a solid rocket, but it'll likely have to be the size of a Saturn V. (exaggerating... a little bit)

Currently, the fastest cruise missile is supersonic, and uses a ramjet, and goes Mach 4.5 for 300km. They're working on Mach 7 hypersonic models of it for more complete ownage. Stopping something that fast becomes very, very difficult when it isn't coming down from the upper atmosphere. If you can start knocking out American carriers with impunity, you've put a *massive* dent in American power projection capabilities.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (4, Interesting)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47822491)

The X-15 was a manned rocket-propelled aircraft that hit mach 6.7 in 1964. If you ever see it in the National Air and Space Museum it's not nearly as big as you'd think - smaller than most fighter aircraft. Comparing it to a Saturn V is a huge exaggeration. If they're using RAM jets in missiles it's all about range and not about speed.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822555)

Oh, certainly. I meant taking into account the range and required payload of the vehicle. The farther/faster you need to go/more you need to carry, the worse your fuel efficiency is next to any jet. The X-15 carried enough fuel to burn the engines for 85 seconds. Not quite gonna cut it for a cruise missile. In order to make it be able to maintain that speed for the distance a cruise missile needs to go, it's gonna need to be.... the size of a Saturn V (slight exaggeration, but not as bad as you think.)

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#47825657)

The X-15 carried enough fuel to burn the engines for 85 seconds. Not quite gonna cut it for a cruise missile.

For what it's worth, the X-15 had a range of 450 km.

Which is more than adequate for an over-the-horizon shot at a carrier....

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47825969)

Very true, on the range, though not useful for a carrier.
The X-15 had that range because it ascended to 107km of altitude and coasted down. With a flight profile like that, any semi-modern ABM frigate (Aegis, etc) is going to knock you out before the carrier is even visible.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823263)

The X-15 was a daughtership dropped by a strategic bomber, which was not rocket-powered. It could not take off single-handedly from the ground.
A fair comparision would be between a Saturn 5 and a complete bomber+X15 assembly using a rocket-powered version of the bomber.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

tomthegeek (1145233) | about 3 months ago | (#47826651)

He did say solid rocket, the X-15 is liquid fueled.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (3, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about 3 months ago | (#47823135)

The Chinese can already knock out American carriers with impunity. Anyone can. That's the lesson of just about every wargame in the past fifteen years.

Except the ones that were rigged to to guarantee American victory I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Aircraft carriers are obsolete. They're not about force projection, they're about marketing, because they look impressive on camera and they have a ready-built stage for "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banners.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47823157)

Yawn.
The Chinese knocked out a mock US aircraft carrier in a wargame by firing a missile into a defenseless spot of the Gobi Desert. Really, dude?

Every successful wargame takedown of a US carrier has relied on tactics that wouldn't be remotely feasible in a real war zone. They were experimental, and educational, but not realistic. Ask the Iranian speed boats how the rules of engagement worked out for them in the Persian Gulf when some US captains got twitchy fingers. The Chinese better hope their "top secret stealth destroyers that took out the mock carrier" really are as super stealthy as they claim. Me, I'll keep smiling and chewing some pop corn. I think you may be blinded by prejudice.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (3, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about 3 months ago | (#47823169)

A better description of the Millennium Challenge comes from War Nerd's doppleganger War Tard:

In 2002, the Pentagon tried to suppress the findings of a huge US war game called "Millennium Challenge" where the US Navy (Blue Force) was pitted against a "hypothetical rogue state" (Red Force) in the Persian Gulf region. Red Force was led by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, a total bad ass, whose job was basically to play the role of the butt raped lesser nation at the hands of the mighty technology of the all powerful US Navy. Instead of following the script, this Van Riper guy went off reservation and went all asymmetrical on Blue Force's ass, an ass which consisted of a full US Navy carrier group.

      Though the rules stated both commanders could use any rule in the book, the brass didn't expect the shit Van Riper pulled. Once the war game was up and running Van Riper's force disappeared off radar. He relied on couriers instead of radio to stay in touch with his field officers. The US navy cryptographers were rendered useless in a single blow. He employed novel tactics such as coded signals broadcast from the minarets of mosques during the Muslim call to prayer, a tactic weirdly reminiscent of Paul Revere and the shot heard round the world. He even used carrier pigeons to deliver messages to some of his commanders. God I love this guy! He then launched a daring attack against the US Blue Force carrier group by hundreds of kamikaze speedboats some of which were armed with Chinese Silkworm anti ship missiles. I shit you not. The result was a carrier and two helo carriers sunk along with 13 other assorted ships, the worst defeat of the US Navy since Pearl. The Pentagon had a shit fit and scrubbed the whole exercise, dismissed Van Riper and replayed the whole thing this time making Blue Force 'win'. Basically, the navy brass pretended it never happened. Lunatics in speedboats apparently don't count and are considered 'cheats'.

http://wartard.blogspot.com.au... [blogspot.com.au]

You put a 5-billion-dollar aircraft carrier up against, say, five hundred incoming rockets, drones, torpedoes, remote-controlled boats, and tiny speedboats - only one of which has to be carrying explosives, the others can all be decoys there just to fuck with your radar operators - and what you have is a 5-billion-dollar submarine. Total cost of the attack, let's be extravagant and say one thousand dollars.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 months ago | (#47823405)

Five hundred hostiles is well within the targeting capacity of a single Apache, let alone a warship. The reason that the US Navy has been investing heavily in laser weapons recently is that there's a gap between being able to target them all and being able to shoot them all.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 3 months ago | (#47823493)

five hundred incoming rockets, drones, torpedoes, remote-controlled boats, and tiny speedboats ... Total cost of the attack, let's be extravagant and say one thousand dollars.

Where can you get all that for a grand?

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 3 months ago | (#47823973)

Craigslist. You do have to get the weeds and small bushes out of the boats involved and they "ran fine when parked 20 years ago", but what do you want for a $2 boat?

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about 3 months ago | (#47823565)

You can get 500 speedboats and all those weapons plus 500 dedicated kamikaze troops for £1000 dollars? I don't know when you were frozen, Dr Evil, but that's not a lot of money these days.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823727)

Then there's War Nerd's crack-head cousin, War Addict:

Tiny speed boats cannot carry Silkworms or any other ASCM.

A large sortie of anything would be visually detectable. If the Blue boss didn't have recon assets deployed, he's an idiot.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about 3 months ago | (#47823557)

The thing about wargames is your suicide troops don't ask any questions. This doesn't happen very often in real life.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47824351)

Allahu Akbar

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about 3 months ago | (#47824869)

http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one... [www.bl.uk] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y... [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] Does that mean "forever ignorant"?

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47824969)

God is great, but good try. The point being that there are always causes that people will happily sacrifice them self for. In many ways that is what war is on an individual level.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about 3 months ago | (#47825061)

You idiot.

At least look at the links I gave before rambling off down your predetermined path.

Oh noes $NewEnemy "represents a new and previously unimaginable threat to our existence and must be stopped by any means possible".

There's a reason kamikaze planes didn't have wheels on them, and it's not only because they weren't needed. See if you can figure out that riddle.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47825409)

Stuarticus, I think you really don't smell what I'm stepping in. Of course there are coerced, either by propaganda or force, suicide troops. That doesn't discount that there are those who would willingly do so. With Asymetric warfare bound by rules of engagement, there are more opportunities for those individuals to elicit significant impacts that don't require high tech weapons. I agree with you that it isn't a new animal, and the media and powers that be will always exadurate it and spin it to their own ends. If you never had to pick through the chum left behind after a suicide attack, maybe it isn't real to you. Could a few speed boats packed with HME cripple a super-carrier? Sure, if the occupants weren't affraid to die, and the stars aligned. It doesn't take may suicide troops to pull off that attack.

Now does that have any bearing on hypersonic missle development, not really. As always, we are preparing to refight a previous war not the next.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 3 months ago | (#47824009)

There is a big difference between notional exercises and the use of real world force. No-one who actually knows what they're talking about gives any credence to clusterfucks (in every sense) like the one you link to.

And bear in mind the firepower America can bring to bear if it chooses.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 months ago | (#47824193)

People talk about that exercise as if it was rigged, but the point of the exercise wasn't just to figure out who won, but also to, well, be an exercise.

If one side wins in 3 hours and you booked a week for the exercise spending millions of dollars to have everybody there, it seems a bit silly to just send everybody home.

But, not learning something from the initial lesson would be foolish indeed. The problem is that we don't fight enough World War IIIs to know if carriers won't have some kind of usefulness. We do know that they are very useful when pushing around minor powers, because they reduce the need to have a local airbase as long as there is a body of water nearby. Whether they are useful against somebody like China remains to be seen. To destroy a carrier you would need to know where it is, and that isn't a guarantee in wartime. Nobody will have satellite technology during a major war - satellites are too vulnerable and after they are all destroyed you won't be able to put anything up for a century or two unless it is wrapped in a foot of titanium.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823717)

Unfortunately, one would only want to impudently knock out a carrier if one were willing to accept the nuclear retaliation that would surely follow. Under the current OPLAN 80110, any attack on a CVBG buy a nuclear power, i.e. China, is regarded as a first-strike attack and invites massive retaliation.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

rrconan (1082759) | about 3 months ago | (#47831943)

WTF is OPLAN 80110 ?

um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822737)

Sorry. FAIL

Hypersonic flight is horrifically inefficient - your idea that fuel efficiency is the sole advantage of a hypersonic missile is complete uneducated rubbish.

All flight near or above Mach 1 is dramatically less fuel efficient because the air cannot get out of the way and naturally flow around the vehicle (hence the production of shock waves). As you move up in Mach numbers you get heating (bad already at mach 3... the skin of an SR-71 used to get as hot as an oven even in the thin, cold upper-atmosphere) from both skin friction and (at higher Mach numbers) compression of the air ahead of the vehicle - that's a whole lot of energy that is used pushing through that air that cannot get out of the way and making all that heat and noise. All that energy, beyond what's needed to cover the distance travelled at lower speeeds) comes from somewhere (hint: the vehicle burning fuel). The big advantage of the ballistic missile is that it goes up and out of the atmosphere rapidly and then covers the miles between launch point and target point at high speeds OUTSIDE THE ATMOSPHERE. It's actually more fuel-efficient to fly up into space and then zip toward the target.

Next time, please post only things you actually know.

Re:um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822937)

fail claim FAIL.

The comment about fuel efficiency is in relation to other methods of traveling at the same speed. Namely, using a rocket to cover the same distance at hypersonic speeds. Rockets commonly use a boost-coast configuration to deliver their warhead to the target. This requires a ballistic trajectory, not the most direct route.

A cruise missile would have to be powered for most of the trip. Using the atmosphere for your oxidizer makes this a more feasible method of delivering destruction to your enemy.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822191)

"Hypersonic missile" is a term applied to hypersonic, maneuvering air-breathers. It is sometimes used to describe rocket-boosted hypersonic, maneuvering gliders. A "ballistic missile" is a rocket that flies in a predetermined arc. This was always a sloppy description, because all missiles HAVE to be inertially corrected during the initial unstable boost phase, though not for most of the flight. But it has become even more blurred, because some ballistic missiles now are actually quasi-ballistic. They have an inertially corrected boost phase (like all ballistic missiles), a free flight true ballistic arc for most of their flight (like all ballistic missiles), and a guided terminal phase (UNLIKE true ballistic missiles).

China is addressing the targeting of carriers with both hypersonic air-breathers and quasi-ballistic missiles. You can most definitely effectively attack them with either tech, and conventional explosives can do the job.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 months ago | (#47822213)

The problem with hypersonic weapons are they are specifically first strike weapons and hence a major escalation in planetary war state. Start playing with them and eventually and not all that far off. some idiot will be tempted to launch them and recalling them will be impossible. Want to start playing games like that, and might as well start putting big mirrors in space to start forest and agricultural fires. That has always been the greatest terrorist threat, terrorist running around with boxes of matches starting fires in wheat, corn etc fields just before harvest, during hot weather, as well as igniting major forest fires. All far simpler to do it with mirrors in space but still ludicrously easy to do on the ground. Right now psychopathic lobbyists from arms manufacturers are pushing war all over the bloody place, that management and those lobbyists should be targeted in order to save our selves from their insane greed, which ever country they come from.

What is not a first strike weapon ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822595)

The problem with hypersonic weapons are they are specifically first strike weapons

The problem with your definition is that the Aircraft Carriers themselves can be categorized as first strike weapons too - a floating air base which can be parked very near to the area where you wanna strike

Re:What is not a first strike weapon ? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 months ago | (#47823437)

When people say 'first strike' in this context, they mean 'nuclear first strike', as in 'launch enough nuclear missiles to take out your enemy's ability to fire back'. The reason for nuclear submarines is to largely eliminate this possibility: even if you completely destroy every military installation in the USA, there is going to be at least one submarine hidden somewhere that will be able to flatten a few of your cities.

MAD only works as a deterrent if there is a very small chance of getting away with a first strike. If you can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, then you might be tempted to launch first and just shoot down the retaliatory strike. If you can fire missiles that are fast enough that the enemy doesn't have time to order a retaliatory strike, then you might be willing to live with a couple of submarines shooting at you, especially if you have a good idea of where they are and can have aircraft ready to launch interceptors flying above them.

Aircraft carriers completely suck for launching nuclear missiles (and the USA has not confirmed that they even bother putting them on board), because they're a big obvious target. If, for example, the USA put a nuclear-armed aircraft carrier near Russia, then you can bet that the Russian second-strike capability would be on alert and ready to launch unless they got regular confirmation that the US carrier hadn't launched. Aircraft carriers also suck for second-strike, because they're too big to easily dodge a nuclear strike and so will be on the list for first-strike targets.

They're good for a conventional (non-nuclear) first strike, because they give you a staging post that you can put right next to someone else's country, but that's less of a problem for global stability. A non-nuclear first strike commits you to an expensive war. Aircraft carriers aren't also specifically first-strike weapons. They have support roles and are even occasionally used for disaster relief (a big portable nuclear reactor turns out to be quite handy sometimes).

Re:What is not a first strike weapon ? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47823979)

The debate on banning hypersonic weapons is essentially mirroring the debate on MIRVs... except that MIRVs are benign in comparison.

Re:What is not a first strike weapon ? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 months ago | (#47824145)

MIRVs are a better second-strike weapon. In a first-strike context, your missile bases are all working fine and you can just launch everything that you've got at the enemy. MIRV in a first strike requires fewer missiles to get through, but that just means you need to build fewer missiles, which doesn't reduce the cost by a huge amount compared to the cost of maintaining a first-strike capability at all. In a second-strike situation, however, you're much more likely to have limited launch resources (a few submarines if you're late, the missile silos that you can contact in time if you're not). Being able to have a devastating second-strike capability with just one submarine surviving is a strong deterrent.

Re:What is not a first strike weapon ? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47824593)

It doesn't matter if it's better as a first or second strike weapon because at the time that MIRV bans were being discussed it was under the guise of them unbalancing the first strike capabilities of the nuclear powers. That is what I was alluding to and as far as nuclear weapon technology goes, hypersonic is far worse than MIRV, hence why I called it benign in comparison. In the late 1960s and early 1970s we stupidly gave up the opportunity to ban MIRVs over maintaining useless ABM sites. These are sites, which I may add, that America hadn't yet built and never did build. START II hasn't even succeeded in banning MIRVs because Russia never ratified it.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47825047)

Actually, a ballistic projectile is not recallable because it is ummmm ballistic.

A hypersonic is more like an aircraft with control surfaces.
      If asked nicely, it should be able to turn around and fly home.

The article talks a lot about if the country receiving the round perceives it as a nuclear threat.
      A ballistic missile is expected to be something bad.
      A hypersonic maybe not.
      Given that a cruse missile can carry any sort of payload, this seems a bogus argument.

The issue here is speed and perhaps ease of deployment.
    Bigger countries have other options.
    This technology might eventually make it easier for smaller entities to reach out and touch someone.
    Delaying having the technology around might be good for China, US, Russia, etc.
     

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#47823377)

.....and second that they don't offer any sort of non-military functionality.

I don't know, Amazon could have a "priority delivery" drone service....

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 3 months ago | (#47821963)

There is when the Republicans don't allow them to be build. Republicans do not believe in fairness. That is the way of their kind. That is why Bush gets a brand new carrier last week, but the Chinese are not allowed to have one as large. Eventually the Chinese will get tired of being run by Republicans just like the Japanese did in WWII when the Republicans backed them into a corner and forced them to attack us at Pearl Harbor. Republicans never change.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822951)

Thank you. At no point in your comment did you approach anything resembling intelligent discourse. We are all dumber for having been exposed to your inanity.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822117)

Err, China is already in the process of acquiring carriers, at least some of which definitely qualify for the "supercarrier" nonsense-name. They purchased the Soviet Varyag (67,500 tons, ski-jump takeoff, arrested landing, conventional steam propulsion), renamed Liaoning. J-15 mach 2.4 fighters first landed on Liaoning in 2012.

The Type 081 domestic build is 35,000+ tons, conventional propulsion, a helicopter/VTOL/troop carrier. The Type 089 will be 60,000+ tons, conventional propulsion. And the Type 085 will be 90,000+ tons, nuclear propulsion. Admittedly, we are talking multi-decade development and procurement process here.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47830543)

A "supercarrier" isn't, in and of itself, such a big deal; so quibbling over the Varyag's displacement being roughly half that of a 1970's US "supercarrier" would be silly.

A carrier strike group, on the other hand, is worth discussing.

Until someone has NINE! active carrier strike groups roaming the globe, each with four strike fighter squadrons, two squadrons of helicopters, three squadrons of electronics and support aircraft including AEW&C, a pair each of destroyers and guided missile cruisers, maybe a nuclear fast attack submarine or two, plus all the ships to keep supported.... ...then we can quibble about the Varyag's displacement.

There's still no prohibition against China building a single one of these and sailing the seven seas...

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#47822745)

supercarriers are expensive - on the stupidly ludicrous level of expensive, hypersonic missiles potentially not so much and can be exported and don't need billions to keep them operational.

so banning technology that could potentially cheaply destroy supercarriers would work in USA's favor. why would everyone else agree to such a ban though I got no idea. heck, what they're proposing to ban is "very fast objects"... yeehaaw. no.

it doesn't affect nuclear threat at all, only the threat to conventional weapons platforms.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (4, Interesting)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822017)

Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier

Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 3 months ago | (#47823795)

Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier

Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.

Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

dj245 (732906) | about 3 months ago | (#47824023)

Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier

Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.

Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

A supercavitating torpedo is a hail mary weapon or a "you fired first" weapon. Cavitation is noisy and is what anyone firing such a weapon would generally want to avoid. It also blinds the torpedo since there is air in front of it instead of water. So they have to be remotely controlled by wire.

Nothing screams "I'M RIGHT HERE!!! IT WAS ME WHO FIRED THAT TORPEDO!!!" like a supercavitating torpedo. It is little better than a kamikaze attack if used offensively.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 3 months ago | (#47824091)

Hypersonic missiles are the only weapons that could hit an american supercarrier

Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to take out an aircraft carrier. The most obvious and least defensible way is to torpedo it from a submarine. Other ways clearly exist. You can overwhelm it with a mass attack using aircraft, conventional cruise missiles, torpedo boats, etc. Once a carrier and its very limited escort screen use up their antiaircraft and antimissile ammunition, it is a sitting duck. You can strew mines in front of it. You want to give it a severe nightmare? Just consider what you could do moored in its pathetically poorly defended home base or forward base.

Better keep them away from supercaviataing torpedoes, a carrier's true worst nightmare. Russia has had one since the late 70's. Iran has them too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

A supercavitating torpedo is a hail mary weapon or a "you fired first" weapon. Cavitation is noisy and is what anyone firing such a weapon would generally want to avoid. It also blinds the torpedo since there is air in front of it instead of water. So they have to be remotely controlled by wire. Nothing screams "I'M RIGHT HERE!!! IT WAS ME WHO FIRED THAT TORPEDO!!!" like a supercavitating torpedo. It is little better than a kamikaze attack if used offensively.

True, they're not exactly stealthy or extremely practical, there would more than a handful if they were, but regardless point one or more in the right direction at the right time and some big ships are going to start having a bad time.

Not really (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 3 months ago | (#47824803)

The whole point of supercaviataing torpedoes is speed. A fast and/or maneuverable ship might be able to evade a slow torpedo. While this is less likely with a very fast one. However a Carrier, let alone a "super" carrier, are A) slow, and B) not maneuverable. Their strength are the aircraft on it, and the flotilla around it. Even a very fast torpedo would be detected from a long ways away, and counter measures deployed, though there may be slightly less time to do so. It is the jobs of the anti-torp helos, and Destroyers etc... in the flotilla to take care of those things.

Really the only thing dangerous to carriers are MASS torpedoes, more so than the counter measures can compensate for... However you would have to have a lot of subs, and sacrifice many of them getting close enough and retaliation. The real worry was about these super fast missiles, which are MUCH faster than even very fast torpedoes. The trouble is, that air counter measures could probably take care of it, however could become overwhelmed more easily because of the reduced time between detection and response.

Anyway it is really only dangerous in an all out war, as the BIGGEST defense is that a super carrier is such a massive ship, that any attack would be seen as a clear act of war and generate a very nasty response.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47837933)

However a Carrier, let alone a "super" carrier, are A) slow, and B) not maneuverable.

I don't know about maneuverability, but the Nimitz-class supercarriers are not slow: top speed is upwards of 30 knots, making them some of the fastest ships in the US Navy's fleet. Having a long hull does wonderful things for your wave drag, and nuclear reactors producing a quarter-million shaft horsepower is nothing to sneeze at.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

u38cg (607297) | about 3 months ago | (#47824113)

Gosh, how clever of you. You'd better phone up US High Command and let them know about these problems they've clearly never considered. I'm sure they'll be very grateful.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 3 months ago | (#47825305)

So what you're saying is your actual knowledge of carrier defense and tactics is basically nonexistent, because your post couldn't be more wrong or misguided.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

s122604 (1018036) | about 3 months ago | (#47825335)

Or just blowing it to hell with a conventional ballistic missile (which is also "hypersonic").

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47882519)

Right, because carriers always go around with no destroyer (anti-submarine) support, right? Carriers are also large enough, and torpedoes small enough, that generally one torpedo won't sink a carrier. Overwhelming it with aircraft is really hard to do when it can launch its own aircraft to defend itself. In addition, the destroyers that always go along with it carry a lot more anti-aircraft and anti-missile ammo than you think.

But more importantly than that, how do you expect people to do this without being seen? It'd be extremely difficult for a nation-state to mine an area without other people knowing about it, and attacking a base in secret would be even harder.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | about 3 months ago | (#47822183)

Otherwise it's the standard way that the US maintains militray superiority over the rest of us.

I'm not a US citizen, but if "the rest of us" is China and Russia, I'm okay with US military superiority.. Seriously, it's not like European governments are particularly interested in jumping an arms race and spending money on military research.

Oh, and both Russia, China and India certainly ought to find better things to spend their money on... like food, education, etc...

Can you stop your patronizing already ? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822671)

Oh, and both Russia, China and India certainly ought to find better things to spend their money on... like food, education, etc...

Fact: School students in Russia and China fair much better, on average, in scholastic achievement, than those from American schools

Fact: In America there are millions of citizens who go hungry every nights

Patronizing for the sake of patronizing will only earn you distrust and disgust

Re:Can you stop your patronizing already ? (2)

damienl451 (841528) | about 3 months ago | (#47824027)

It's not patronizing to point out that both Russia and China are much poorer countries that the US. All you need to do is look at their GDP/capita figures to see the wide gap. As for scholastic achievements, cross-country comparisons are always difficult especially when dealing with non-democratic countries that need to look good for propaganda purposes. Examining the latest PISA figures, it doesn't look like Russian students fare better than Americans. Russia and the US have similar scores for math, but Americans are better at reading and science. Unfortunately, no data is available for China as a whole. Students in Shanghai perform much better than Americans but this is comparing apples and oranges and I doubt that students in poorer, rural areas of China would score as high.

Re:Can you stop your patronizing already ? (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 3 months ago | (#47842227)

Fact: In America there are millions of citizens who go hungry every nights

Patronizing for the sake of patronizing will only earn you distrust and disgust

Patronizing for the sake of patronizing will only earn you distrust and disgust

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the US is perfect in anyways... Just that I don't think the US going to do anything for its poor citizens.
The US is messed up, and surely ought spend it money smarter than doing an arms race, but US public, politicians and press, probably aren't smart enough to do that... at least I'm not holding my breath :)

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 3 months ago | (#47822217)

We tried the "banning of specific boats" right before WWII, lot of good it did.

Re: Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822227)

It did a huge amount of good, unless I missed learning about the great Anglo-American war the world was heading towards in the 20s.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822705)

If you're talking the Washington and London treaties, all they did is stop the parties involved from building ships they didn't have the money to pay for anyway cf "Great Depression".

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47822719)

We tried the "banning of specific boats" right before WWII, lot of good it did.

That was the Washington Naval Conference [wikipedia.org] . It was in 1922, which was not right before WWII, and it did a lot of good. WWII likely would have been even worse if the naval arms race had been allowed to continue. The naval arms race from 1906 (when the HMS Dreadnought [wikipedia.org] was commissioned) until 1914 was a leading cause of the First World War.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47824199)

That treaty only covered nations that had interestes in the Pacific. It would have had no impact on the ETO. Japan pulled out of the treaty in 1936 after giving notice in 1934 and began building up their navy at that time. That also corresponded well in line with when the ultranationalists in the IJA were coming into power and beginning to control the course of Japan.

The naval buildup caused some tensions prior to World War I but that was mostly between Great Britain and Germany as GB was concerned about Germany challenging it's naval superiority. The whole naval bit was a sideline though. Germany was never interested in directly challenging GB's navy or even going to war with them. The only reasons GB entered the war were that they considered the low countries independence vital to their security (which Germany violated when invading France) and they considered themselves safe until such time that a single nation controlled continental Europe which is the major reason they entered the war on France's side. Naval buildup played practically no part in the breakout of World War I because the breakout itself was due to tensions and factors on the eastern side of Europe involving nations that had no to little naval power. The whole western front was more or less a fiasco brought about by two unfortunate alliances. The first was Germany-Austria where Germany had it's fate tied to the misfortune of an Austria trying to protect what was remaining of its former empire. The second was between Russia-France where the French desire for revenge against Germany after the Franco-Prussian war was the predominant factor that lead to the western front being created. The complex weave of alliances essentially led to all the continental powers developing mobilization schedules and timetables for their manpower, supplies, and armaments. This included plans like the German Schleiffen plan which was built and created on the assumption that if hostilities between Austria and Russia broke out, Germany would be brought into war with Russia to which France would declare was on Germany and Austria. Germany had developed its plan to account for the fact that France could mobilize far quicker than Russia and thus the Schleiffen plan was born to quickly defeat France in order to turn Germany's might on Russia. These mobilization schedules, though they could be called off, were very difficult to stop and held the risk that once they were started it would be seen as an act of war by other nations.

Additionally, the German surface fleet was mostly pointless through all of WW1. It was their submarine fleet that managed to do useful things. The Washington Naval treaty never covered submarines, not that Germany was party to it anyway.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 3 months ago | (#47828905)

The principals in that treaty were the US, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. Italy had no interests in the Pacific. (The later London treaty, which placed limits on ships smaller than aircraft carriers or battleships, involved only the US, Britain, and Japan.)

Aside from that, great post. Your analysis of how WWI started is not shared by a whole lot of English-language historians, but it agrees with mine, showing intelligence and insight.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47829297)

Well, what I consider unfortunate about World War I is that there's no debating our doubting (in my mind) that Germany was the central power in the Axis. I believe that France, Italy, and GB may not have been dragged into it if Germany was still the German Confederation or the Kaiser had not ousted Bismark as chancellor with the latter being a bit more questionable as Bismark only lived until 1898 when he was ousted in 1890. Whether he might have lived longer or if he could have completed his plans in eight years is a valid question. What is not in doubt is that the state of Germany when the Iron Chancellor was ousted was not in a state that anyone other than he could manage and that lead to Germany making some stupid decisions. If Germany was still just the German Confederation it would have never been in a position to be an aggressor and consequently WW1 may have been limited to a fight between Austra, Russia, and possibly the Ottomons based on the event that triggered the conflict.

While I appreciate that you share the same analysis that I hold, I'm not inclined to believe that agreeing with you and differing from English-language historians is showing intelligence and insight. If you haven't I would highly recommend Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823181)

The US maintains military superiority largely by spending more on the military than all other nations combined and maintaining that level of spending over long periods of time. It's difficult to see how other nations could seriously rival that without devoting a similar and probably much larger share of their GDP to military spending. Nobody else, including the Chinese and Russians, seems willing to do that. The reason for that I think is relatively straightforward. The US, being a democracy, has many faults but a desire for military conquest isn't one of them. In fact, the US will tolerate a great deal of unfairness, undemocratic government and other nasty things short of genocide or attacking your neighbors before using it's military to intervene. Most nations don't feel much restricted by a powerful US military and so don't see the need to engage in a defense spending war with the world's premier superpower. The smart thing to do is to cut your own military spending and then ally with the US to free ride on the protection of that powerful military paid for by the US taxpayer. The Europeans and Japanese are experts at doing this and have been freeloading off of US defense basically since the end of WWII.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824557)

You know, if we followed this to its logical conclusion, we could ban all machines of war.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820907)

Test it on ISIS/ISIL first.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47821245)

Sounds fair...

Even worse, all this would do is end Public testing and relegate it to secret testing. Something that's easy for first world countries to do, but would prevent countries like India and Pakistan from keeping their arsenal in any way equivalent to the rest of the worlds.

I actually do believe there wouldn't be use for nukes. Not for any moral reasons, but because I'm fairly certain the big players like the US already have warhead equipped platforms in space. They'd be easier, faster and cheaper than a hypersonic missile, it just makes sense.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821369)

There is no such thing as a secret hypersonic missile. It's a ballistic missile launch, followed by something screaming through the air at Mach 6+.

And it'd be pointless anyway, since there'd just be research into hypersonic planes.
Then hypersonic drones.
Then hypersonic drones with large cargo bays near the front.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 3 months ago | (#47821993)

There's a real sense in which hypersonic missiles are an alternative to nukes: bunker busting. To bust a deep bunker (think 10+ meters of concrete, itself deep underground) is no easy task. A nuke works, but nuke ground bursts are particularly nasty (airbursts have limited and contained fallout, ground bursts toss fallout high up into the atmosphere to spread with the wind). Get a kinetic weapon up to Mach 10 and that works too.

There were plans at one point to drop heavy penetrators (old 5" gun barrels from decommissioned battleships IIRC, very hard steel) from orbit if needed, but that was barely doable and quite expensive. Still, it shows the magnitude of the problem.

All the big players have signed "no nukes in space" treaties, of course, but you may be right that they have them anyhow, much to your point about secret testing.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47822637)

I never understood this. There's no need to "bust bunkers" You just need to collapse the entrance, problem solved.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (4, Insightful)

Mal-2 (675116) | about 3 months ago | (#47822983)

I never understood this. There's no need to "bust bunkers" You just need to collapse the entrance, problem solved.

Every entrance? Are you sure you got them all? You've never been inside and your recon tools only look so far under the surface. Are you still so sure?

I'm not on the side of war, but at the same time, there are times when a "hard target" has to be taken out, and having an option that isn't nuclear (or horribly poisonous like depleted uranium) is a good thing.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47824229)

That's pointless. Bunkers are stocked with supplies to enable the occupants to survive for a period of time. Additionally, while you may collapse the entrance you may not and probably won't kill communications to/from the bunker. If this bunker is a command post then all you've done is force them to get some equipment and manpower to excavate the entrance. That's why the bunker buster exists. It penetrates inside it, which will like kill occupants (though not necessarily all of them), destroy equipment, and interrupt or severe communications to and from the bunker.

There's also no guarantee that the entrance you bomb is the only entrance.

Re:Ban when you are done testing? (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about 3 months ago | (#47826385)

Dude a treaty banning such things is just that, a treaty. Better than absolutely nothing, but it still does not stop the research and development, except it's gonna be classified, and countries that can afford to do it, will do it anyway, as that what really makes the difference, whether you can afford to develop it, not whether you want to because a treaty is telling you not to. It's the real world mofos.. It will come down to how you can keep doing it anyway in secret, but then you can't wave it as a threat during negotiations or diplomatic exchanges, which is what super weapons are most useful for, nobody really wants to use them, or at least not too much, just sparsely, here and there to test it out and make sure it works, like in a hillbilly war with Afghanistan, where the going is easy - but the main use of super weapons is as a diplomatic strong arm tool.

If it can be done it will be done, or at least it might be done, and the only safe solution against the possibility of these threats - such as nuclear or biological weapons delivered by these missiles - to humanity actualizing in practice is running away, into outer space, and have at least 100 million or 1 billion people living up there, for starters. Even if it were a nonhypersonic warhead loaded with deadly, biotech lab designed anthrax like spores that eat any animal up and there is no immune defense from them - such as combo between clostridium difficile and anthrax, it aint that complicated - so even if you shoot such a thing out of the sky but the debris land in your country or even the nearby ocean, you could still be doomed. The bubonic plague that ravaged Europe in the Middle Ages is just the first one of these things, and with the advent of biotech, they are gonna be deadlier and deadlier, delivered to you as weapons. Nuclear isn't even the threat to run away from into outer space, but biotech weapons are.

Fuck these hypocrites (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 3 months ago | (#47836525)

This is all noise, signifying nothing. Russia and China have already developed potent supersonic missiles. As a result, most of the U.S. fleet will be sitting on the ocean floor within 2-3 years of our aggressive provocation of World War 3. As it should be. Weapons testing bans are for fags.

They will just cheat anyway (3, Insightful)

borcharc (56372) | about 3 months ago | (#47820533)

So we can follow the ban and everyone else cheat?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (4, Interesting)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about 3 months ago | (#47820889)

That was PRECISELY what happened when Eisenhower signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (2)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822037)

I wasn't aware Eisenhower signed a test ban treaty with the USSR...
Perhaps you're thinking of Kennedy? Can you cite a evidence that it was unilaterally broken by the USSR?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822485)

Can you not unilaterally break a grammar while acting like an intellectual elitist?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 2 months ago | (#47874339)

Don't you find it amusing when someone who corrects a patently false assertion is labeled an elitist? I do, too.

I do apologize for the spurious 'a', typing and editing on phone soft-keyboards is a bitch.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47820973)

From TFA, "Such tests are easily observable from space and via radar and signals intelligence gathering (not to mention old-fashioned human spying)." The proposed ban is on testing hypersonic missiles. You can develop them all you want, just cannot test them (testing of which is easily observable). This is not something you can cheat.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (3, Insightful)

jafac (1449) | about 3 months ago | (#47821095)

Jesus: Russia signed a treaty to not invade Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament. Ukraine disarmed. First nation to do so in the history of nuclear weapons. Then Russia invaded. You want to trust them with another treaty? Suckers!

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821285)

No, they didn't.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 months ago | (#47821561)

Err yes they did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

Re:They will just cheat anyway (3, Informative)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821851)

The Budapest Memorandum is not a ratified or binding treaty. They were a set of promises made upon Ukraine's signing of the NNPT. So no, they didn't. Granted, it's still a dick move on Russia's part.

Re: They will just cheat anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822241)

I'll take "things that aren't treaties" for $400 Alex.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

Calydor (739835) | about 3 months ago | (#47821625)

Who didn't what?

Ukraine didn't sign a treaty with Russia?
Ukraine didn't disarm?
Russia didn't invade?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821845)

Sorry, 2 of his assertions were accurate, one was not. I was referring to the one that was not. He's referring to Ukraine's accession to the NNPT, and the signing statements made by the parties. The promises made therein, (The Budapest Memorandums) are not part of any ratified treaty by any party. It's a dick move to go back on them, but they're not legally binding in any participating country.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

Stuarticus (1205322) | about 3 months ago | (#47823613)

It's funny how "legally binding" can be so perfidious.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822243)

Who didn't what?

Ukraine didn't sign a treaty with Russia?

That is correct. They entered into a memorandum [wikipedia.org] with the US, UK, and Russia. The memorandum stated that, in return for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, the US, UK, and Russia would not attack or threaten them with military force. And it included no prescribed penalties or commitment to defense on the part of anybody.

Ukraine didn't disarm?

Ukraine undertook and completed NUCLEAR disarmament, as agreed in the memorandum.

Russia didn't invade?

That is something of which there is no credible proof as yet.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823749)

Russia didn't invade?

That is something of which there is no credible proof as yet.

Wait, what? They already annexed Crimea. Nato has shown satellite photos of Russian troops crossing the border and firing on Ukrainian positions and images of Russian artillery firing on Ukrainian positions across the border. Russian troops have even been captured by Ukraine.

What exactly would count as proof for you?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47824255)

I think Russia declaring war on Ukraine would probably be sufficient for him but I'm not sure.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824531)

Ukraine didn't sign a treaty with Russia?

No, it was a memorandum, not a treaty and it wasn't just Russia, it was Russia, Britain and the United States.

Russia didn't invade?

Nope, at least not yet.

Also, READ THE ** WIKIPEDIA ENTRY ABOVE:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of[2] an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

First, Russia may be guilty of violating 1. but they did so according to the wishes of the Crimean population (remember that pesky referendum?) so is a gray zone, so it may not be a violation of the treaty.

Second, ALL parts are guilty of violating 3. without doubt

Finally, the memorandum asks for the defense of Ukraine in case nuclear weapons are used, not conventional warfare.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (3, Informative)

styrotech (136124) | about 3 months ago | (#47821629)

Ukraine disarmed. First nation to do so in the history of nuclear weapons.

I thought that was South Africa?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47822045)

It was. There also wasn't a treaty signed with Russia that mentioned territorial integrity or invasion. It's also a little tenuous to call what Russia has done so far an invasion... Though it's pretty fucked up either way. It's also a bit silly to act as if Ukraine had a choice in disarmament. They couldn't afford their stockpile. Not one bit. They were begging to get rid of it. You can't exactly bury that shit in the back yard.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47821787)

Jesus: Russia signed a treaty to not invade Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament. Ukraine disarmed. First nation to do so in the history of nuclear weapons. Then Russia invaded. You want to trust them with another treaty? Suckers!

Well, Russia already has enough test data to just rely just on computer modeling and simulations to develop one. Just like the US. The point is not to impose the treaty on the stronger nations, but the developing and weaker ones. Iran, NK, and the likes. You get to bomb Iran for breaking the treaty (if they signup for it). This is how treaties work, whether you like it or not.

Ukraine made a really bad deal, I agree on that. US was stupid to force/encourage Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons too. That doesnt mean all treaties are bad ideas and will be broken.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (3, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47821813)

Let me just add one more thing. Treaties that are not backed by military support from other countries are useless. Ukraine's agreement falls under this. The treaty could still be useful to Ukraine, who knows NATO might help Ukraine with it, and go on war with Russia. It is still too early to see how Ukraine invasion turns out.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821989)

And one more-
Things that are called treaties by some people, but are actually unratified, non-binding political agreements that also suffer from your noted pitfalls are also useless.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822263)

That probably went over his head.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823113)

Governments have a tendency to do that.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (2)

MikeKD (549924) | about 3 months ago | (#47821947)

Ukraine disarmed. First nation to do so in the history of nuclear weapons. /p>

Wrong. South Africa [wikipedia.org] was the first nation to give up nuclear weapons.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (2)

X.25 (255792) | about 3 months ago | (#47823261)

Jesus: Russia signed a treaty to not invade Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament. Ukraine disarmed. First nation to do so in the history of nuclear weapons. Then Russia invaded. You want to trust them with another treaty? Suckers!

I seriously can't figure out what is wrong with you people.

Russia invaded? Do you mind showing some evidence for those claims, or you just like spreading shit that you read in mainstream media?

You know how invasion looks like? If you are not sure, you can always take a look at invasion of Iraq by 'coallition of the willing' to get the idea. Or you can also look at invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to get an idea. There are many examples.

But pretending that civili war (and I've lived through 2 of them, so I kind of know much better than you how it starts/looks like/ends) is an invasion just shows hypocrisy and ignorance.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823573)

Jesus: Russia signed a treaty to not invade Ukraine,

No, they signed a memorandum, not a treaty. Memorandums are not binding on any party. Plus, the Russians claim that the US/EU broke the memorandum first by meddling in the affairs of Ukraine and staging a coup there.

Never a clear right and wrong in politics, everyone is elbow deep in shit.

This just stops hobbyist types. (1)

Grog6 (85859) | about 3 months ago | (#47821133)

Everyone else in the fray is already simulating nuclear weapon designs on supercomputers.

The hydrodynamic calculations are similar enough the military isn't going to share code with the hyperflight guys, so this will just become another black project to be run by the same people. :)

This just gives justification for the research disappearing, and stopping any amateur work.

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821433)

DUUUH...
Attention all you semi-enlightened ones:
We all know that the Chinks are only good at copying right?
We stop developing....are you with me so far? Do I need to say anymore?

Re:They will just cheat anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823339)

no you mean EVERYONE cheated

Re:They will just cheat anyway (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 3 months ago | (#47823819)

So we can follow the ban and everyone else cheat?

I think the plan is the other way around.

Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#47820545)

You really think China would stop testing because of a treaty?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HO

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 months ago | (#47820587)

That's Ha Ha Hao.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821745)

That's General Hao to you. Only family calls him "Uncle Ha Ha".

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823141)

That's Ha Ha Hao.

That's General Hao to you. Only family calls him "Uncle Ha Ha".

From your statement, I infer that Hao must mean Uncle, therefore, you want me to say General Uncle instead of Uncle Ha Ha? Also, Who's on first.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824721)

That's Ha Ha Hao.

Well, I hear it's fine
if you got the time
and the ten to get yourself in...

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820799)

Test bans didn't stop US from keep developing nuclear weapons. Subcritical testing and supercomputer simulations to develop smaller, cheaper and more efficient and reliable nuclear devices have been and are full steam despite the ban. That is plain cheating even if isn't written in the treaties that are to appease the public.

These bans are only a way used by those already in possesion of these kind of weapons to stop the emergent powers to raise to the top reached by the biggest offenders.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822093)

The simulations only work because we already had a thorough understanding of nuclear physics. We began simulations _before_ the testing ban, and some of our last tests were intended to verify the soundness of our simulation physics. And we still test everything but the nuclear explosion, including delivery and detonation. Simulating nuclear weapons is easy because the part we simulate is very narrowly circumscribed and the underlying processes therein extremely well understood.

Hypersonic missiles can't be simulated because we're still trying to understand them, in particular the materials science and various other behaviors. Basically, hypersonic missiles involve everything that we don't or can't simulate well when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822221)

How do we know they are more reliable?

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 months ago | (#47823445)

Some Fortran 66 code that was certified as accurately modelling explosions before the ban, which no one is allowed to modify, run on ever-more-expensive supercomputers.

Or, you put it another way, the most expensive wishful thinking on the planet.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47821033)

Testing a hypersonic missile is easily observable. They *could* defy the treaty, but we would definitely know about it.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (3, Insightful)

nytes (231372) | about 3 months ago | (#47821205)

And then what? We send them a sternly worded letter threatening to send another sternly worded letter if they do it again?

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 3 months ago | (#47822813)

And then we resume development. Meanwhile, China loses credibility, which makes it harder for them to create treaties and agreements that they actually care about. Nations can't simply flaunt every treaty they sign without consequences. At the very least, they have to be selective.

Re: Ban on testing would give tech only to cheater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823109)

Since everybody wants - or rather needs - to trade with China, this is absolutely irrelevant. Come on, they could waltz into Taiwan tomorrow and nobody would do anything. Suck it up and go on. We can't afford to play tough anymore. The US only does the big show with Russia because it will be Europe that suffers.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (2)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about 3 months ago | (#47821209)

Again, that is PRECISELY what happened when Eisenhower signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822451)

I am sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, but I won't let it stand unchallenged. Rather than duplicate the response, I refer [slashdot.org] you to it.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822461)

I am sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, but I won't let it stand unchallenged. Rather than duplicate the response, I refer [slashdot.org] you to it.

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821673)

Do you think SuperKendall will stop spreading his butt cheeks because guy grinding his ass has no condom?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HO

Re:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821799)

Why didn't you bring your condom?

stopping who? (2)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 3 months ago | (#47820559)

How often does a ban stop anything in its tracks?

Bans only stop the good guys in their tracks.

Re:stopping who? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47820785)

False.
Bans have worked well many times.

Re:stopping who? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47820887)

False.
Bans have worked well many times.

Yea, like Prohibition.. oh, wait, that was an abject failure... OK, then, drug prohibit... no, wait, that's a failure, too... maybe gun bans? No, no, people still kill each other with other weapons, so those don't work.

I guess what I'm saying here is, [citation needed]

Re:stopping who? (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47821053)

Those things have absolutely nothing in common with what we're talking about.

The only similar agreement was the nuclear test ban. When you test a nuclear bomb, it creates an earthquake that everyone can detect. A hypersonic shockwave is easily detectable by satellites.

The deterrent to breaking this treaty is that you would definitely get caught.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821193)

Getting caught is not, in and of itself, a deterrent.
It's like if you get caught speeding and then have to pay a zero-dollar fine, because the cop doesn't want to anger you.

Re:stopping who? (2, Informative)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about 3 months ago | (#47821251)

And, yet again, that is PRECISELY what happened when Eisenhower signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union.

We knew IMMEDIATELY when the Soviets abrogated the treaty. They set off a whole slew of very dirty atmospheric test shots.

The treaty DIDN'T stop them from doing the tests.

Fear of detection of their cheating DIDN'T stop them from cheating.

Re:stopping who? (3, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | about 3 months ago | (#47821353)

Moreover, testing was at a less critical phase. Nuclear test bans weren't going to get rid of nuclear bombs, or even necessarily improvements in them. It would just slow them down. If they had followed them in the first place.

What has been somewhat more effective is using various means to keep more nations from joining the nuclear club. But that is because getting the details right (the first time) is kind of hard, especially when sabotage is involved. I suspect you'll see a similar trend here, with the big players getting them and then trying to stop the smaller players from getting them.

Re:stopping who? (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47821473)

The 1958 treaty fell apart for a variety of reasons, The 1963 version was a success.

Re:stopping who? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822369)

How is this informative? There was no 1958 treaty. There were reciprocal non-binding actions by the USSR and US.

The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (atmospheric testing only) was not signed until 1963.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822539)

Eisenhower signed the American-British-Soviet test moratorium in 1958. It was indeed 'a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries', or what intellectually honest people call a treaty. There is no requirement for treaties to have that word in their title. There is no requirement for treaties to not be reciprocal or non-binding. What is a requirement is for a person to be intellectually honest while attempting to prove a point, a pointless point in this case, should they wish to not appear as an asshole.

So, would you like to try again with less weasel word bingo?

Re:stopping who? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47840921)

Eisenhower signed the American-British-Soviet test moratorium in 1958. It was indeed 'a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries', or what intellectually honest people call a treaty. There is no requirement for treaties to have that word in their title. There is no requirement for treaties to not be reciprocal or non-binding. What is a requirement is for a person to be intellectually honest while attempting to prove a point, a pointless point in this case, should they wish to not appear as an asshole.

So, would you like to try again with less weasel word bingo?

OK, nameless coward. Show me the test ban document that was "signed" and ratified in 1958 in the form of a binding bilateral or multilateral treaty or equivalent. You can't, because no such document exists or ever existed.

Read: [gilderlehrman.org]
"October 31, 1958. The United States began a voluntary nuclear test moratorium in hopes that the USSR would agree to do the same. The Soviets resisted at first, completing tests on November 1 and 3, before beginning a self-imposed twelve-month ban."

Read: [gwu.edu]
"On 22 August 1958, the day after the experts had finished their report, Eisenhower announced that the United States would halt nuclear testing for one year if the Soviet Union (and the United Kingdom) would do likewise. To determine whether they would make the moratorium permanent, the three powers agreed to begin test ban negotiations in Geneva on 31 October. ... The Geneva test ban negotiations, which lasted from late 1958 through early 1962 ..."

Read: [google.com]
"As a sign of good faith, Eisenhower proposed a 12-month moratorium on further U.S. nuclear tests. This voluntary ban was to begin on October 31, 1958 - the date for the opening of test ban negotiations ... and was conditioned by similar restraint by Moscow. ... The Soviets, who had never agreed to the moratorium, fired two more shots on November 1 and 3. [discussion of U.S. restraint in continuing the moratorium anyway] In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union observed a voluntary moratorium for the next 12 months. ... on August 26, 1959 Eisenhower extended the one-year moratorium ... [and so on]"

Words, and especially terms, have meaning. Making up a "treaty" where none existed is either prevarication or heedless ignorance.

Who's the blowhard?

Re:stopping who? (2)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822351)

How is this informative? Please tell us exactly what Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed by Eisenhower. Eisenhower certainly began efforts for such a ban, but he never signed such a treaty. Kennedy did (a limited ban treaty), in 1963.

The Soviets did unilaterally halt their own nuclear testing in 1958, calling on the US and UK to reciprocate. And Eisenhower did then reciprocate. Negotiations toward a treaty began, but that treaty was not signed until 1963. The moratorium collapsed in 1961 on both sides.

THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT ABROGATING A TREATY.

The 1963 treaty was a Limited Nuclear Test Ban. It only banned atmospheric tests. Both sides continued underground tests for a long time. The best information I have is that the US (1992) actually continued a little longer than the USSR (1990).

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824847)

I am sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense, but I won't let it stand unchallenged. Rather than duplicate the response, I refer [slashdot.org] you to it.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821453)

" A hypersonic shockwave is easily detectable by satellites."

Show your work.

Re:stopping who? (2)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 3 months ago | (#47821531)

A hypersonic shockwave is easily detectable by satellites.

[Citation Needed]

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821793)

You obviously don't know what "deterrent" means.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822959)

A hypersonic shockwave is easily detectable by satellites.

Citation please?!? Right now, we're launching big boosters to make hypersonic vehicles, which we can easily detect. But the technical roadmap does have air-breathing hypersonics that can be launched form underwing, or is an arcraft-like vehicle itself just taking off from a runway. Nothing to detect there. Hypersonic is just a very fast impact, it doesn't produce anything super-specific that is easy to detect via satellite.

Re:stopping who? (1)

MTEK (2826397) | about 3 months ago | (#47823785)

That won't detect hydronuclear testing.

Re:stopping who? (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 3 months ago | (#47828257)

You're proposing going after someone who just detonated a nuclear bomb.

I don't think regulation is going to help much with that.

Also talk (a.k.a. diplomacy) is impotent compared to nuclear capabilities.

Re:stopping who? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47821059)

The goal of prohibition was to reduce domestic violence.
It did, it reduced it to almost 0%. It was repealed to make up for the loss in taxes from the great depression, not because it didn't accomplish it's goals.
AS a side benefit, suicides were cut in half. This is all trivial too look up.
Drugs:
Some drug it has worked in limiting, others it hasn't. I never said it worked all the time.

Guns:
Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides. Every. Single. One.

It's fallacious to think that because someone will do something under one circumstance, they will do it no matter what. It's far easier to shoot someone then the stab someone. Both physically and emotionally.

Re:stopping who? (2, Insightful)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | about 3 months ago | (#47821257)

Guns: Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides. Every. Single. One.

But violent crime goes up though, as criminals feel they can commit crimes without a risk of meeting an armed owner for instance.

Re:stopping who? (3, Insightful)

forand (530402) | about 3 months ago | (#47822289)

Do you have any citation for your assertion?

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822523)

Oh... I do.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoAFOHbicqE

And this too...

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=australia+gun+ban

Re:stopping who? (2)

number17 (952777) | about 3 months ago | (#47822599)

Explain yourself if you are going to cite the search term "Australia Gun Ban".

Australian Firearm Laws [wikipedia.org]

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms. Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822561)

You may find one such citation here. [ncpa.org]

At this point it is as common knowledge as the notion that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad idea. That is, it is true, has many sources, yet people deny it and attempt to fool people with carefully picked statistics anyway.

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822665)

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822881)

Besides something directly from the NRA?

Re:stopping who? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47823887)

There is a slight rise in violent crime in exchange for a massive reduction in murders. Seems like a worthwhile trade-off. I'd rather be alive and in slightly more danger of being injured than dead.

Re:stopping who? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47826151)

There is a slight rise in violent crime in exchange for a massive reduction in murders. Seems like a worthwhile trade-off.

I presume you've never been raped, then?

Look at who, statistically, gets murdered the most - gangbangers and other criminals.

So, what you're really saying here is that you think a decrease in criminals killing each other, coupled with an increase in non-criminals being raped and beaten, is a good thing.

I have to disagree with that line of thinking.

Re:stopping who? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47827289)

Even with gang member murders subtracted, the chance of being killed is still much higher in the US. Also, gang members with knives tend to accidentally stab innocent bystanders far less often then gang members with guns tend to shoot innocent bystanders.

Re:stopping who? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47827409)

Even with gang member murders subtracted, the chance of being killed is still much higher in the US.

With a gun? Citation, please.

Also, gang members with knives tend to accidentally stab innocent bystanders far less often then gang members with guns tend to shoot innocent bystanders.

And gang members with guns tend to accidentally shoot bystanders far less often than police officers with guns do. What's your point?

Re:stopping who? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821655)

Guns:
Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides. Every. Single. One.

Really? Weren't there something like four million homicides in Nazi Germany after the gun ban?

Or does it not count when the government does it?

Re: stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824689)

Nazi Germany had a stupidly - low homicide rate if you ignore the murders performed by the state.

Re: stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47830605)

The United States of American also has a stupidly low homicide rate If you ignore murder committed by niggers.

If would be racist to take weapon from black gang members, therefore focus the anti-gun campaign on white hunter and farmer. It is always okay be harass these redneck.

When you mod me down, please comment to tell me why. Is is because of the usage of the nigger racial slur? Or the redneck racial slur? Also do you mod down everyone that say redneck? Or are you a hypocrite race baiter?

Re:stopping who? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822401)

prohibition ... was repealed to make up for the loss in taxes from the great depression

Horse shit. It was repealed because it didn't work (wholesale violation), it led to an enormous organized crime wave (wholesale illicit trafficking), and the people were sick of the failed social experiment (wholesale disgust).

Re:stopping who? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 3 months ago | (#47822425)

The goal of prohibition was to reduce domestic violence.
It did, it reduced it to almost 0%. It was repealed to make up for the loss in taxes from the great depression, not because it didn't accomplish it's goals.
AS a side benefit, suicides were cut in half. This is all trivial too look up.

You are right it is trivial to look up. Suicide rates for the time of prohibition, 1920 - 1933:
1920: 10.2
1921: 12.4
1922: 11.7
1923: 11.5
1924: 11.9
1925: 12.0
1926: 12.6
1927: 13.2
1928: 13.5
1929: 13.9
1930: 15.6
1931: 16.8
1932: 17.4
1933: 15.9

So I guess before prohibition you are claiming suicide rates were in the 20 - 35 range, so let's look at a few years of them:
1919: 11.5
1918: 12.3
1917: 13.0
1916: 13.7
1915: 16.2
1914: 16.1
1913: 15.4
1912: 15.6
1911: 16.0
1910: 15.3

Mmmm, nothing like double what it was in the time of prohibition. So you lied. About something you even stated was trivial to look up.

In fact prohibition seems to coincide with an end of a dramatic trend down in suicide rates replacing it with an upward trend.

My source is the "Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Vital statistics rates in the United States, 1900-1940" from 1943. Relevant table runs from page 210 through to 242.

Given you clearly just made stuff up about the thing you said as "trivial too look up" why would anyone bother even reading any of your other claims?

Re:stopping who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822469)

In a similar circumstance, every single town that has mandated gun ownership, has had a reduction in crime rate. Every. Single. One. This is all trivial to look up... http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

I looked it up for you.

Re:stopping who? (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 months ago | (#47824153)

Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides. Every. Single. One.

I won't comment on your other statements, but this one is dead wrong. It's the opposite of what actually happens.

Re:stopping who? (1)

mrjimorg (557309) | about 3 months ago | (#47828613)

"Every country that has had a gun ban strongly enforced has had a reduction in homicides"
Correction, should read "a reduction in gun-related homicides". Overall homicides do not decrease. They just kill you with an axe

Re:stopping who? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47820793)

Never. It is mostly meant to make hippies feel good about things they are not doing.

Re:stopping who? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#47822131)

Bans only stop the good guys in their tracks.

Are there any good guys?

Re:stopping who? (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 3 months ago | (#47828283)

A worthy question.

Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (3, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | about 3 months ago | (#47820563)

So this comes along just as Russia drops the word "Nuclear" to remind everyone that they have them.

Are you naive enough to believe the Russia would bother to show up to negotiate about this?

One also wonders what the people of Ukraine think about such a well timed suggestion.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (3, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | about 3 months ago | (#47820731)

Also what is happening in the Ukraine is a clear message about what happens to countries stupid enough to take Nuclear Disarmament seriously.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47820843)

Do you really think that would \have stopped Russia separatists?
It wouldn't have because they know the Ukraine wouldn't use them, or do you seriously believe the Ukraine would have used nukes on it's own soil?

If Russia threaten the Ukraine with nuclear force, then the US, and others, will step in.

Ukrainian nuclear disarmament is a red herring.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47821003)

Do you really think that would \have stopped Russia separatists?

Yes, because a huge part of that game was the massive military support from Russia and the previous puppet government sponsored by Russia.

If Russia threaten the Ukraine with nuclear force, then the US, and others, will step in.

And do what? Disapprove with lots of words?

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821693)

"previous puppet government sponsored by Russia" comparred to the current one that seized controll sponsored by the US

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47821825)

Yes, I get that people are pouting because their team didn't win. But you don't get massive uprisings like the one that threw out the Russian puppet government just because some superpower throws a little money in. Note also how much trouble Russia is having maintaining its side of the conflict, requiring a number of Russian troops to keep their uprising from falling apart.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822077)

If it was done at the polls i might agree with you, but it wasn't. Beliving Russia can create a puppet goverment but that america can't incite a revolt, means you are watching too much propaganda from your "team". It isn't the first time this has happened, you know iran had a perfectly good democracy before some one that america didn't like was voted in.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 3 months ago | (#47822443)

Right, and do you think America has control of Iran? Or are you arguing against your own point?

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823061)

OH, no america always makes the problem worse for everyone in the long run (every time), but that is an entirely different story.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47831517)

Beliving Russia can create a puppet goverment but that america can't incite a revolt, means you are watching too much propaganda from your "team".

I didn't say that. There is this remarkable disparity in results. Russia has all this trouble making its regimes and rebellions stick while the US doesn't. That's because it's easier to push a boulder downhill.

Ukraine collectively wants greater democracy and freedom. And they don't want to live under the thumb of the neighborhood strongman, Putin. That's why the previous government was successfully overthrown with at best a modest contribution from the US and why Putin has so much trouble now maintaining traction with his sham revolt.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (2)

jafac (1449) | about 3 months ago | (#47821107)

Russia has already threatened Ukraine with nuclear force. No, I don't think the US will step in.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821175)

Putin: Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47821315)

The United States isn't going to war with Russia over the Ukraine.

Sometimes it helps to look at things the other way around.

If Florida seceded from the American union, would the Russians give two kopecks?

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#47821365)

If Florida seceded from the American union, would the Russians give two kopecks?

Bad analogy. What's happening in Ukraine is more like the USA supporting Canadian and/or Mexican rebels with an eye to picking up a province or two up north or a state or two down south"....

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

Chrondeath (757612) | about 3 months ago | (#47821823)

Bad analogy. What's happening in Ukraine is more like the USA supporting Canadian and/or Mexican rebels with an eye to picking up a province or two up north or a state or two down south"....

Hmm....interesting thought experiment. If the US DID try to pull something like that, do you think Russia (or China) would intervene? Should intervene? If they did intervene, would they be doing it out of self-interest, a desire to stick it to the US, or because they genuinely believe it's the right thing to do?

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

fnj (64210) | about 3 months ago | (#47822427)

Russia has already threatened Ukraine with nuclear force.

Utter horseshit. Pointing out to rabid anti-Russians the obvious fact that Russia is a nuclear power is not a threat. You could call it a warning. I would personally put it in the category of warning a child not to play with the fires on a stove.

The warning is clearly directed at certain nuts in the US and NATO, not at Ukraine.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823987)

Bullshit.
Cite it beyond Poroshenko flapping his gumbs about whatever comes to his mind, or fuck off.

Russia for the record, has a second-strike nuclear policy. It'll retaliate to a nuclear strike in kind, but it won't launch a nuclear first-strike. NATO and the US, conversely, have a first strike policy. Furhtermore, what would the point of nuking Ukraine even be? Russia can overrun Kyiv in well under two weeks if the order is given, Ukraine lacks to training, supplies, equipment or capabilities to resist an actual Russian invasion -- anyone who doesn't realize that (or that Russia has not invaded) is delusional.

That being said, no the US won't step in.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 months ago | (#47821157)

Ukraine already has a used nuke on its soil, it's called Chernobyl. Understandably, they don't want another one.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821841)

If Russia threaten the Ukraine with nuclear force, then the US, and others, will step in.

More like -
Obama will make a speech and go play golf again (at great expense to the US treasury) with an NBA star and fist bump whenever he birdies or makes jokes.
The Europeans will frantically meet (at great expense to their treasuries), discuss the situation, possibly issue a statement, and go back to their respective capitals. "Vlad the Bad" will pose shirtless on a motorcycle, whipping the vodka-sodden Russian masses into patriotic ecstasy.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824137)

Just like unicorns, those separatists have not yet been proven to exist.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47821069)

In the early 90s, Ukraine didn't *want* the nukes that the Soviet Union had put there. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal requires a bunch of money that they didn't have.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821495)

Also what is happening in the Ukraine is a clear message about what happens to countries stupid enough to take Nuclear Disarmament seriously.

Why, has Ukraine been nuked while I was napping?
No? So what part of the treaty hasn't worked out?

Oh that is what everyone needs, a Ukraine with nuclear weapons + the hot mess they are in.

Everything would just be PEACHY then because nuking something would be an option, right?
With the nukes that were secured in the western part of the country, right?
This is exactly WHY we don't want nukes everywhere.

It's like squaring off with a neighbor in M1A1 tanks because their son keeps screwing your daughter. It's in your own, and the rest of the neighborhood's best interest to disarm, so you can better deal with the angry teenager living under your roof that wants to cut you and steal the tank keys.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

X.25 (255792) | about 3 months ago | (#47823253)

Also what is happening in the Ukraine is a clear message about what happens to countries stupid enough to take Nuclear Disarmament seriously.

What happens in such cases?

Military gets used against civilian population?

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 3 months ago | (#47820965)

So this comes along just as Russia drops the word "Nuclear" to remind everyone that they have them.

Are you naive enough to believe the Russia would bother to show up to negotiate about this?

One also wonders what the people of Ukraine think about such a well timed suggestion.

Putin can and will rattle his Nuclear saber but he won't use it until the utmost end of need so at the moment those are empty threats. The Ukraine situation could have been solved following the downing of MH17 by making it clear that any move of Russian regulars into the Ukraine and any support for insurgents would be regarded as an act of war. Failing that the thing to do would have been to match Russian support of the Insurgents with direct aid to the Ukrainian military. The most extreme reaction and the most likely one to be understood by Putin is marching 150.000 troops up to the Polish-Romanian and Baltic borders with the Ukraine and Russia, sending Nato naval task forces into the Black Sea and North Atlantic. Follow this up by dispatching somebody to knock on the Kremlin doors to ask if Putin would like to come out and play and I'm pretty sure the answer would be NO. The I and especially the C his beloved BRICS group would sit on their hands in the event of a war knowing as they do that they can only benefit from not getting sucked into a war in Europe and that that benefit would come to a large extent at Russia's expense. Russia would be alone, utterly and completely alone in such a war. Putin is a schoolyard bully and the only thing a bully respects and understands is a naked fist. Obama on the other hand has decided to rule out the employment of American military force which is a bit like entering a Poker game and pledging not to bluff. I'm beginning to wonder if he caught the stupid disease from sitting in the same leather office chair as GWB.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821839)

I had a lot more fun laughing at GWB's abuse of the English language then with Obama. Both have done so much to set us back as a country and have done a remarkable job of trampling the Constitution. It kind of makes you think they are really playing on the same team and the rest of us are on the other team.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822603)

I had a lot more fun laughing at GWB's abuse of the English language then with Obama. Both have done so much to set us back as a country and have done a remarkable job of trampling the Constitution. It kind of makes you think they are really playing on the same team and the rest of us are on the other team.

One of my favorite Jon Stewart quotes flew off his lips back when the US Congress set up that "Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction" a while back:

" but can the super committee save congress from its archenemy, the American people?"

It seems to me he wasn't all that far off base, the last couple of US governments at least seem to have spent most of their time plotting against their archenemy, the American People. They monitor every scrap of Internet communications, used American citizens as cannon fodder in a totally useless war in Iraq and as far as I can remember very few if any Wall Street executives have been sent to fuck-you-in-the-ass jail where they belong even though there seems to be no hesitation about evicting working people from their houses for failure to pay off the debts they were suckered into during the great Wall Street mortgage scam. And if any of you Americans feel insulted by that I note that I could say many of the same things about my own government which happens to be located on the other side of the pond.

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (2)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 3 months ago | (#47823065)

Putin can and will rattle his Nuclear saber but he won't use it until the utmost end of need so at the moment those are empty threats.

[Citation Needed]

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821019)

and they have really done that? How stupid are you actually?
There is a whole thread on /. full of senseless drivel on killing Putin and how Putin wants to drop a bomb yet as with all this Ukrainian nonsense there is not a single evidence of anything that Ukrainian bots claim.

Re: Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

Alan Denny (3810063) | about 3 months ago | (#47821401)

Anyone notice no nuke tests in two years? I'm pretty sure they're disarmed. Only thing capable of that is...a sphere!

Re:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (1)

X.25 (255792) | about 3 months ago | (#47823247)

One also wonders what the people of Ukraine think about such a well timed suggestion.

I also wonder what people in East Ukraine think about it.

Incredibally stupid argument (5, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#47820643)

The argument is at heart "Don't develop these weapons because they will be good at killing people and I personally am not smart enough to come up with a civilan use that doesn't kill people".

It is the kind of idiocy that makes the military industrial complex laugh and call you names.

There are good reasons to ban weapons - but not just because the weapon is good at killing people. To those in the military, effectiveness at killing people is a reason to BUILD the weapon, not ban it.

Chemical are banned not because they kill people, but because they are likely to kill civilians and your own soldiers as much as they kill the enemy. They also people and damage valuable land after you win.

A similar argument applies to biological weapons, land mines and nuclear weapons.

There is NOTHING in this article that would convince a soldier to ban the weapons. Instead, any military person, upon reading it will of course demand that we spend lots of money figuring out how to build hypersonic missiles.

If you dislike war, ban it. But you are probably not naive enough to try that. You would lose the argument because such an attempt has many many flaws. Well guess what - trying to ban weapon research because the weapon is too goo is just as naive.

WORST of all, your naive and foolish attempts make it much harder to ban the weapons we actually CAN ban - land mines, chemical and biological warfare.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1, Insightful)

DeBattell (460265) | about 3 months ago | (#47820757)

In my opinion, it's foolish to develop any weapon technology you don't want used against you. Historically weapon technology has never been successfully contained. If you can't keep nukes out of North Korea you can't keep any weapon out of anywhere.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820869)

That's stupid. You refusing to develop a weapon doesn't do anything to prevent you neighbor from developing it.

All you accomplish is ensuring when they do you can't answer in kind.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (0)

DeBattell (460265) | about 3 months ago | (#47821169)

It not stupid, it's just a brute fact. You develop it, there's an approximately a 100% chance in the long run someone will steal the idea and use it against you. So do as you please I guess.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47821783)

Well, the reality is that any weapon you *can* develop, eventually someone else will, as well. Which is the flaw in your argument. IT doesn't matter if you develop it or not, it will be invented somewhere, sometime, by someone..

So really, the goal is to get there *first*, so you have the first-comer advantage, and can hopefully dissuade the other guy from using it on you.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (2)

DeBattell (460265) | about 3 months ago | (#47821861)

Alternatively you could have really good intel and just capture and jail anyone who trys to make the next great killing machine. I *don't* buy into the mutually assured destruction idea, because it's incredibly unstable. All it takes is one crazy person one time to destroy the whole world. Especially if we keep letting weapons get more and more destructive.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (2)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47822165)

Guess we'll have to diversify then. And prepare countermeasures.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822277)

Yeah! Intel so good it requires magic. And good luck extracting those people to jail them, the government employing them to build the next killing machine will try really hard to stop you. I find your ideas unsuitable for use in the real world. It seems like they would fit right in a group of really stoned hippies.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

Morpf (2683099) | about 3 months ago | (#47823693)

That is somewhat along the line of "If I shoot him first, he can't shoot me."

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

Chrondeath (757612) | about 3 months ago | (#47821829)

In my opinion, it's foolish to develop any weapon technology you don't want used against you.

That's why I put all my money in Nerf stock!

The Did Try To Ban War (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820811)

It was called the Kellogg-Briand Pact [battleswarmblog.com] . "The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."

How well did that work out?

It was signed in 1928. Good thing there have been no wars since then...

Salient Argument provided (5, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | about 3 months ago | (#47820813)

The argument is at heart "Don't develop these weapons because they will be good at killing people and I personally am not smart enough to come up with a civilan use that doesn't kill people".
It is the kind of idiocy that makes the military industrial complex laugh and call you names.

I think the big issue with these weapons is that they *will* become nuclear payload delivery systems, and as first-strike weapons they would be very hard if not impossible to stop (not that good defense industry $$ won't be spent trying). First-strike weaponry generally enables the crazy/unstable countries and their leaders to exert their will over the rest of the world, while not exactly providing much in terms of benefits to larger, more well nuclear established countries.

Banning this kind of testing isn't new - we did have a nuclear test ban for several decades [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Salient Argument provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820877)

The ban only stops testing not development. I'd rather everyone knew which countries were far along in testing hypersonic missiles than suddenly one country shooting off 80 hypersonic missiles of various configurations. Most probably won't make it, but some will may and everyone else will be completely taken off guard.

Re:Salient Argument provided (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47820919)

I think the big issue with these weapons is that they *will* become nuclear payload delivery systems

Which seems kind of idiotic, to me, since one could use kinetic bombardment (Rods from God) instead of nuclear weapons, and avoid all that nasty fallout badness.

Re:Salient Argument provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821009)

Yeah!
And those kinetic weapons are SO easy to get in place. Secretly or not... You know. Kinetic. The potenial energy has to come from someplace...

Re:Salient Argument provided (2)

brambus (3457531) | about 3 months ago | (#47821319)

What if your point *is* to cause fallout badness.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47822301)

Think of the money that could be made from mammograms and sales of Rogaine!!



That is *snark in case you miss the obvious

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#47822487)

Which seems kind of idiotic, to me, since one could use kinetic bombardment (Rods from God) instead of nuclear weapons, and avoid all that nasty fallout badness.

In a world where useful kinetic bombardment weapons weren't fiction, I'd agree. They'd make great replacements for nuclear weapons.

We don't live in such a world.

Re:Salient Argument provided (3, Insightful)

penguinoid (724646) | about 3 months ago | (#47822635)

Why are we modding up "I don't understand conservation of energy"? The only kinetic energy weapon that could sort of replace nuclear bombs would be bombardment with large asteroids, which no one currently has the capability to do and if they did would take ages to arrive. The kinetic rods would make great orbital armor or bunker piercing weapons, but there's no way they'll replace nuclear weapons.

Re:Salient Argument provided (2)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 3 months ago | (#47823085)

Why are we modding up "I don't understand conservation of energy"? The only kinetic energy weapon that could sort of replace nuclear bombs would be bombardment with large asteroids, which no one currently has the capability to do and if they did would take ages to arrive. The kinetic rods would make great orbital armor or bunker piercing weapons, but there's no way they'll replace nuclear weapons.

I think it is getting modded up because they're an option now. 50 years ago certain targets were only really attainable via nuclear strikes. But now we have some really strong conventional weapons that don't replace a nuclear weapon in absolute magnitude, but they are strong enough to take out the target, and not leave you with the ethical dilemma of using a nuclear weapon.

Re:Salient Argument provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47832875)

But a satellite is much easier to break than a sub, destroyer, plane or missile silo. Denial of area via fallout can be handy too, when you're not being polite.

Re:Salient Argument provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820979)

We've had a lot of game changing technologies that offered to deliver nuclear payloads that were for a time hard if not impossible to stop. That lasts for a bit and then we come up with some way to counteract the threat even if we built it (assuming for a moment that we can actually test against the threat).

Re:Salient Argument provided (2)

brambus (3457531) | about 3 months ago | (#47821307)

I'm not convinced of the first-strike capability of hypersonic vehicles. Even at fairly highly hypersonic speeds (M10), the vehicle still takes considerable amounts of time to travel a substantial distance (1000km takes about 5 minutes at M10) - by that time satellite-based detection systems can react and a ground-based counter strike can be initiated (modern ground-based ICBMs can launch in less than 30s, and SLBMs are also an option). At certain distances a good exo-atmospheric missile on a depressed trajectory can strike faster than that. Assuming a 90s boost phase with the final ~10s being used to depress the trajectory arc downwards + a few minutes to travel the 1000-2000km towards the target at easily 4-5km/s. Military solid-fueled missiles have very high thrust-to-weight ratios to shorten the boost phase as much as possible. I think the more problematic aspect is that defending against low-altitude (well, relatively, I mean we're still talking 10-20km in altitude, otherwise the air resistance and shock heating just kills it) hypersonic vehicles in a local theater war scenario can be very difficult - at 10km altitude with the over-the-horizon flight time you only get maybe 30-60s of warning (by my rough calculation at 10km horizon is ~250km away) - depends on radar position and capability, of course.
Your analysis on usability by crazy/unstable countries, I think you're spot on. The big boys have bigger and perhaps more capable toys. It's those crazy wackos who might be tempted (Iran to Israel is only about 1000km, as is NK to Tokyo, so 5 minute strike capability would sound like a sweet deal there).

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47823417)

They are more useful for delivering conventional weapons to things like ships where a satellite could spot the target and get a missile there quickly enough that it won't have moved far away. There is little chance of shooting the incoming missile down or evading it.

If a war kicks off your carriers can be at the bottom of the ocean before they even managed to launched more than a few aircraft. It also creates a buffer zone around countries, as ships and military bases within about 1000km of the border are basically sitting ducks.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 months ago | (#47824325)

I'd think this might also be useful for taking out modern SAM systems. Look how worried the US was about a few potential SA-10s in Syria. Those sites aren't that easy to take out - they are VERY capable.

exactly, we already have them (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about 3 months ago | (#47826571)

called a IRBM. The dynamically optimal solution is obviously to go up out of the atmosphere as soon as you can to reduce drag, and then come down over the target. And since you're coming down, you don't need any thrust in that phase. So you just re-invented the ballistic missile. Von Braun figured this all out quite some time ago.<br><br>All the "hypersonic weapons" are ballistic missiles with slightly maneuverable (nonballistic) warheads.

Re:exactly, we already have them (1)

brambus (3457531) | about 3 months ago | (#47827099)

called a IRBM. ... So you just re-invented the ballistic missile.

Yeah I know it exists :) I was just demonstrating that the technology already exists. The prospect of a true hypersonic missile would be to stay inside the atmosphere, relatively close to the ground, yet provide the capability to strike a target a short-to-intermediate range (<1000km, probably way less) with little to no over-the-horizon warning time. Something like the P-800 Oniks [wikipedia.org] (which can reportedly do M4+ over a distance of ~100km), just much faster.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47821343)

and as first-strike weapons they would be very hard if not impossible to stop

No harder than ICBMs.

First-strike weaponry generally enables the crazy/unstable countries

Who aren't known for their adherence to treaty. We are extremely fortunate that development of nuclear weapons in the first place is hard enough that our current crop of crazy/unstable countries hasn't been able to develop them. I think it would be a terrible assumption to assume that anyone who does manage to do that, isn't going to try to develop delivery methods with continued disregard for international treaty as well.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 3 months ago | (#47829017)

and as first-strike weapons they would be very hard if not impossible to stop

No harder than ICBMs.

First-strike weaponry generally enables the crazy/unstable countries

Who aren't known for their adherence to treaty. We are extremely fortunate that development of nuclear weapons in the first place is hard enough that our current crop of crazy/unstable countries hasn't been able to develop them. I think it would be a terrible assumption to assume that anyone who does manage to do that, isn't going to try to develop delivery methods with continued disregard for international treaty as well.

The goal of removing nuclear weapons isn't the current lot of crazies that don't have power, but that crazies could get ahold of a currently "sane" country quite easily - including the USA. When power to destroy the world several thousands of times over exists, there will be those that want to use it - to everyone else's detriment.

While we shouldn't remove all the weaponry, removing most of it while keeping what's needed (maybe a bit more than needed) would be a good way to prevent

Then there's the issue of proliferation - the "Back to the Future" argument against stockpiling such atrocities-waiting-to-happen - by limiting nuclear stockpiles, you prevent "broken arrows" and the accompanying terrorist wet dreams.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#47831457)

In that scenario, the treaty only serves to hold back the non-crazy countries. If you're truly concerned, then a better approach is to restrict the number of such weapons, just like is done in current treaty with regular nuclear weapons and regular delivery systems. Don't ban the development of hypersonic missiles. Ban the deployment of a thousand nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821359)

Remember, MAD isn't about the first strike. It's about the unstoppable second strike.
A dozen shitty ass Scuds are a suitable first strike weapon for short-range theaters. You've still dug a glowing grave by employing them with nuclear ordnance.

Re:Salient Argument provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821859)

I recall the article mentioning ballistic missiles were slightly faster and that the advantage to these supersonic weapons wasn't that they were faster, because they aren't, but because of the different way the weapon is being delivered.

Either way, banning something isn't going to stop it from happening, especially when we are talking about the world's largest governments.

What do you mean they "Will" become nuclear? (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about 3 months ago | (#47826465)

All IRBM's &amp; ICBM's have been hypersonic weapons since 1957.<br><br>How fast is a re-entry vehicle from a modern ICBM?<br><br>Here's what an attack looks like from the ground: hey, a moving bright white dot! (one one thousand two one thousand three one thousand) BOOM<br><br>It takes O(10) seconds to go from the top of the atmosphere to target level, three or four from stratosphere.<br><br>This is why missile defense is almost impossible.<br><br>Even in the video game (Missile Command) you always lose.

Re:Salient Argument provided (1)

PMW (203329) | about 3 months ago | (#47826731)

I don't understand the argument that there is a danger that hypersonic weapons will be developed to carry nukes. That weapon already exists, it's called an ICBM. You might have heard of them. ICBM reentry vehicles are already hypersonic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile] . Some reach peak speeds of mach 20. That's one of the reasons why they're so hard to intercept.

Also, BTW, the Russian's already have hypersonic anti-ship missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks, mach 4.5) so apparently the goal of this treaty would be to stop us from developing weapons that already exist? Or just maybe to prevent the U.S. from developing weapons to match Putin's stuff? Sounds like a worthy goal to me. Maybe we should step this up to block the development of all "chemically powered weapons" (ie, guns and missiles) because they sound dangerous as well.

PS: The fact that hypersonic missiles are hard to intercept doesn't make them any more of a "1st strike weapon" than what we already have.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47821089)

A similar argument applies to biological weapons, land mines and nuclear weapons. (...) WORST of all, your naive and foolish attempts make it much harder to ban the weapons we actually CAN ban - land mines, chemical and biological warfare.

It's funny how that list changed from first to second time you said it. The countries most interested in banning biological and chemical weapons are those most heavily invested in nuclear weapons. Perhaps because nukes are pretty hard to come by while even two bit dictators like Saddam and Assad have chemical weapons. Not to mention land mines, IEDs are pretty indiscriminate if civilians happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time but they're a staple of most guerrilla warfare.

My impression is that we're getting further and further away from anything like a clean war where the military on both sides come out in the open, battle it out and leave the civilians be. Even when they're not explicitly targeted it seems human shields are more common than ever and that speculating in collateral damage is actively used as a weapon of war. That's the problem with big guns, they're so good that they "force" the other side to fight you in ways where you can't use them.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (2)

radtea (464814) | about 3 months ago | (#47821219)

The argument is at heart "Don't develop these weapons because they will be good at killing people and I personally am not smart enough to come up with a civilan use that doesn't kill people".

Well, it's from the Bulletin of the Perrenially Dishonest, so what do you expect? A bunch of liars who dishonestly characterize themselves as somehow representing some part of the scientific community is hardly going to consist of smart people, are they?

I've not RTFM'd because I try not to let bulletinshit touch my eyeballs, but hypersonic technology certainly has civilian uses. The aerospike, for example, is an instance of hypersonic propulsion that has possible applications in satellite launching and realizing Willy Ley's old dream of an "antiopodes bomber" (which could as well carry passengers as bombs, of course.)

While I am generally in favour of keeping deadweight loss spending at a minimum, there certainly seems to be ample justification for civilian research in this area.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 3 months ago | (#47823021)

I've not RTFM'd because I try not to let bulletinshit touch my eyeballs, but hypersonic technology certainly has civilian uses.

If you had RTFM'd, you would have noticed that the author specifically mentions civilian uses (including space launches) and proposes limits that would exempt them.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

Misagon (1135) | about 3 months ago | (#47821333)

Soldiers don't ban weapons. Civilian politicians of civilized countries do. There are international treaties banning the war-time use of cluster bombs, hollow-point bullets and flame throwers.
All of them are quite effective, and horrible.

Wrong! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47822433)

Who are you trying to kid? Cluster munitions and flame throwers are still in use, they just call them something else. Flame throwers today are white phosphorous munitions instead of a guy with a gas can and match (greatly extending range making it much more convenient the user, in addition to much safer), and the US in particular uses a slang term for cluster bombs of "grenadelettes" (see DPICM Munitions [wikipedia.org] ). DU rounds litter Afghanistan and Iraq so we are not too worried about generations of civilian casualties, let alone the damage we do immediately.

Hollow points are not really missed, because we have much worse munitions today for rifles/guns. Tumbling and AP rounds cause much more damage at much greater range and can ignore body armor.

The pretext for use of WP munitions is that you can't target a civilian, the same exact rule for high caliber weapons (.50+ caliber). So we claim to shoot at buildings and vehicles to justify WP use, and for large caliber munitions we claim to aim at their belt buckles or back packs.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821811)

Properly done it would completely change the face of warfare. All the big expensive ships you bought that let you project so much power are then practically useless (big floating targets), all the infrastructure that lets you do what you do, intelligence complexes, big troop bases, are all incredibly easy to hit, and very very hard to defend against. A well-funded army of say 10 000 spread out, with a lot of these hyper sonic missiles could take on a super power with ease. I’m not sure that is in the US’s interests.

correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822775)

When you said ""There are good reasons to ban weapons" you were, IMHO in error.

Weapons bans only prevent the "good guys" who were less likely to be responsible with them from building them. The "bad guys" will build them anyway and just hide them.

Consider:

Putin is "banned" from invading Ukraine and from developing a new class of intermediate-range nukes. How's that working??? He's currently in the Ukraine and has recently been testing those very banned missiles. The west, however, lacks the spine to respond to his violations on both issues.

North Korea is currently "banned" from both developing nukes and launching missiles. How's that been working?

Hamas is currently "banned" from intentionally firing rockets at civilian targets (an actual "war crime") and firing military weapons from behind a civilian shield (another actual "war crime"). The Israelis probably don't think that ban is working too well.

Saddam Hussein and Syria's President Assad were both "banned" from having and using chemical weapons; both used them to massacre civilians (double "war crime"). Obama promised to punish Assad but clearly lacked the political spine. Bush got rid of Hussein, and the very sort of liberals who support these types of bans call Bush the "war criminal".

Pakistan was a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and therefore obligated not to help any other nation go Nuclear while they were teaching others to go Nuclear for money and while they feigned surprise when their man A.Q.Khan was caught, they saw to it he was treated as a national hero.

The only treaties that "work" are those that serve the self-interests of ALL signatories. Many treaties serve the political interests of all as they gain goodwill for signing them BUT they then quietly fail as some of the parties find it in their strategic or tactical interest to violate and the others find it in their political interest to NOT enforce them.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 3 months ago | (#47822995)

The argument is at heart "Don't develop these weapons because they will be good at killing people and I personally am not smart enough to come up with a civilan use that doesn't kill people".

No, that is not at all a good summary of the article. In particular, Gubrud (the author) addresses civilian hypersonic technology and makes a specific proposal that would allow for it:

It’s not often that one can say an entire technology should be banned because it has no conceivable good use. Hypersonic missiles, however, may present just such a case. Hypersonic air travel seems economically unjustifiable in an era of climate change, high-cost energy, and low-cost video telepresence. But if civilian hypersonic air travel ever did become a reality, it would take the form of a large airplane, not a small missile. Low-cost satellite launches? Hypersonic space planes such as DARPA’s planned XS-1, which would lift rockets to high altitude, might make some sense. But again, to achieve economies of scale, such hypersonic boosters would need to be large, which the hypersonic missiles under military development are not.

To speed its approval, any such moratorium would have to define hypersonic missiles in a way that does not require elimination of already existing cruise missile systems. I would propose a ban on flights of any aerodynamic vehicle of less than, say, 15 meters length or 2 meters diameter, traveling in powered or unpowered flight at speeds in excess of 1 kilometer per second, over a horizontal distance greater than 100 kilometers. Space and ballistic missile launches and reentries could be specifically excepted. The numbers are somewhat arbitrary and could be fine-tuned or adjusted substantially while preserving the intent of the agreement.

Saying that Gubrud wants to ban hypersonic weapons because they're "good at killing people" is a gross mischaracterization. His actual arguments are:

1. The main application of hypersonic missiles is supposedly to attack short-term high-value terrorist targets. But we can already do this successfully by attacking from nearby bases.
2. Another claimed application is to attack key strategic targets within the borders of major military powers.
a. It could be hard to distinguish between a conventional and a nuclear strike. Advocates say this won't be a problem because hypersonic missiles have a distinct attack profile versus, say, conventionally-armed ICBMs. But in practice, there's nothing that prevents a nuclear warhead from going on a hypersonic missile, and nothing that prevents a conventional missile from attacking nuclear targets as part of a nuclear first strike.
b. The idea that a conventional attack on the homeland of a nuclear power won't result in a nuclear counter-attack is questionable to begin with.
c. The existence of very fast attacks makes for hair-trigger standoffs that require rapid (and thus error-prone) decision making. Naval standoffs in particular are mentioned as a risk.
3. Developing hypersonic missiles will force other nations to do so as well.
a. Arms races are extremely expensive.
b. Any military advantage will erode very quickly -- in a few years at best.

To these I would add that 2c) implies that you have to maintain a counterstrike capability, which is a large ongoing defensive cost. We saw this in the nuclear arms race, which led to us having to keep bombers in the air 24/7, ICBM silos on standby, and missile submarines constantly hidden near their targets. Other commenters have also suggested that hypersonic missiles would make great anti-aircraft carrier weapons. Giving other countries more incentive to develop such weapons is not in our interest.

Finally, unlike your ridiculous straw man, Gubrud is quite practical about geopolitical realities:

Hypersonic missiles are a new class of weapon that no country actually needs. Their military advantages are ill-defined, and their capacity to destabilize relations among major powers and contribute to a costly and dangerous strategic arms race is enormous. Even so, the United States can’t expect that just because it proposes a test ban, other nations will line up to renounce hypersonic missiles. What America can reasonably hope is that other nations will see their shared interest in avoiding or slowing a dangerous escalation of the arms race. I am therefore proposing that the United States suspend testing for a while, to show good faith as it seeks agreement on an international ban on hypersonic testing.

If the suspension does not draw a positive response from other countries, the United States can always resume its programs, while still advocating a general moratorium, thereby seizing the moral high ground. That others might not join America there immediately is a poor excuse for not proposing a hypersonic testing ban and calling the others to join. Indeed, if the United States is unwilling to forgo hypersonic testing for a time, others have every reason to be cynical about its real motives and intentions. I’m not sure that I understand those motivations. But I am reasonably certain that hypersonic missiles will not help to make America stronger or more secure, because it is clear, from their programs already in progress, that other nations will not allow the United States to claim a monopoly on hypersonic weaponry.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#47824623)

1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument. It's like a mathematician saying he doesn't believe in global warming, or a priest saying he doesn't believe in evolution. 2) You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 3 months ago | (#47827981)

1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument.

Why not? Is it impossible for civilians to study military matters? Are you saying that all military historians are quacks? You realize that weapons development and production is done by civilians, right? And that our military and its funding are under civilian control, which is also the case in China and Russia? Are you aware that people (even in the military) always want things that make their own job easier, regardless of the overall cost? And that always giving them what they want is bad management?

You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"

No, you can't. His argument is that hypersonic missiles will not give us enough of an *advantage* in killing people (or destroying equipment, which is arguably a more important use) to justify the cost. Absolute destructive power is meaningless on its own. A weapon only gains value in the context of specific opponents, strategies, and doctrines. In the context of mutually assured destruction, a hypersonic missile is useless.

You're trying to paint Gubrud as some sort of naive hippie who doesn't believe in war, and that's simply not supported by the article at all.

Re:Incredibally stupid argument (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47823399)

Sure, but the reason the US wants to ban them is because it doesn't have them itself, and can't come up with any defence against them. Russia and India have had them for years, China has some working ones, but the US has nothing. Worse still they can't be practically defended against by current US anti-missile technology, so all those expensive ships are just giant targets for a hypersonic missile armed enemy to pick off at his leisure.

Hypersonic missiles could actually be a very good thing, as it reduces the need for smaller countries to have nukes for defence. Look at how extremely fast torpedoes have kept US ships from getting too close to Iran or starting a fight with them.

But of course! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 3 months ago | (#47820695)

All missiles have civilian applications: governments can use them to blow up civilians, and malcontent citizens who can get their hands on the can use them to blow up governments.

And other governments are always there to provide missiles to the malcontents.

Re:But of course! (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 3 months ago | (#47821159)

how true - most common customer of such products are civilians who die in conflicts all over this globe.

Re:But of course! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 3 months ago | (#47823027)

s/customer/consumer/

Re:But of course! (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 3 months ago | (#47823327)

they pay with taxes for this privilege. They they are allowed to pay with their lives and livelihoods. To me it looks like they are customers although one must admit not really voluntary customers.

The ONLY effect of a ban- (2)

Salem Lowe (3800579) | about 3 months ago | (#47820717)

The US would stop building and researching and every other country in the world would continue. But hey, a BAN on evil horrible weapons makes good soundbites for low information voters...

Re:The ONLY effect of a ban- (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47820861)

Answer this question?
Why are the banning them.
Then address that.

Re:The ONLY effect of a ban- (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820949)

1.Develop the weapon
2.Check that it works and can continue developing it without more testing
3.Ban testing. For the children.
4.???
5.Profit!

Re:The ONLY effect of a ban- (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821265)

I can only really think of any reason why America would be concerned about this.

Hypersonic guided missiles are one of the few credible threats against the american carrier fleet that does not currently have a viable countermeasure. America's carrier fleet is its primary method of projecting its military power. There is no other reason to be against the development of such weapons really as there is no particular increased risk of civilian collateral damage or anything like the potential misery caused by chemical, biological, or nuclear development. You might argue the potential for sonic booms causing aural damage to civilians but when you already have jets that go hypersonic that concern kinda falls apart.

error (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822801)

"when you already have jets that go hypersonic"

Sorry, but no Air Force currently has tactical or strategic hypersonic aricraft. Hypersonics are generally Mach5 and higher. The USAF XB-70 bomber (only 2 of which were ever built) was supersonic, but NOT hypersonic; one crashed the other is in a museum. The SR-71 Blackbird was supersonic, but NOT Hypersonic, and it has been retired.

The only manned hypersonic aircraft that have ever flown were the X-15 (a rocket plane, not a "jet") and the Space Shuttle (a reentry glider, not a "jet")

Re:The ONLY effect of a ban- (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47820937)

The US would stop openly building and researching...

FTFY.

Stupid (1)

horm (2802801) | about 3 months ago | (#47820737)

These missiles will turn out to be our only defense against the alien invaders.

Civilian application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820829)

If we can increase the size of these bad boys we would be able to go from San Francisco to London for Lunch (It would be late evening in London though) and be back in time for that 2 PM pointless meeting with the PHB.

You think that Putin would keep his word? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820841)

If so, you are one stupid gullible motherfucker.

Never make it too easy to break the rules (3, Interesting)

youngatheart (1922394) | about 3 months ago | (#47820849)

One rule I try to remember is to never make a rule that can't be enforced. With nuclear bombs, there is seismic and radioactive evidence, so you can know if somebody is breaking the treaty. I doubt that such a thing exists for hypersonic missiles.

Re:Never make it too easy to break the rules (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821405)

One rule I try to remember is to never make a rule that can't be enforced. With nuclear bombs, there is seismic and radioactive evidence, so you can know if somebody is breaking the treaty. I doubt that such a thing exists for hypersonic missiles.

Except for the massive radar, sonic, and infrared signature that can easily be detected from thousands of miles away, there is no evidence at all!

Re:Never make it too easy to break the rules (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821419)

I think you'd be surprised at the noise something slamming through atmosphere at greater than mach 5 makes.

Re:Never make it too easy to break the rules (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | about 3 months ago | (#47824561)

At Mach 5 you'd only hear it after it hit you.

Re:Never make it too easy to break the rules (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47821423)

The technology to track missile launches approaching 6000 km/h is ubiquitous.

You couldn't get away with a secret launch, but the research could continue undetected.

Re:Never make it too easy to break the rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822973)

What happens when they take off from an airport and accelerate like a plane, per NASA's 20 year roadmap for the technology? What then?

Ummm, NASA and SpaceX would die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47820851)

There would be no recket programs if this came to be, so it won't. Moving on. (Psst. All rockets and most fighter jets are hypersonic, i.e., >MACH 1)

Re:Ummm, NASA and SpaceX would die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821397)

supersonic and hypersonic are not the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]

Still not wrong about most fighter jets and rockets now though.

Re:Ummm, NASA and SpaceX would die (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821413)

Pssst, you're thinking of supersonic.
Very few enter the hypersonic regime... Re-entering spacecraft, a few no-fucking-around missiles... that's about it.

Re:Ummm, NASA and SpaceX would die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47834987)

why can't we just face it that the aircraft carrier as a weapon concept is not suited to a modern engagement where one really fast missile or several hundred small missiles could break through it's defense network and destroy it.

I wonder if a submarine supercarrier would be feasible now that sticking topside in a high tech hot engagement is suicide?

The problem is clearly the speed... (2)

Gliscameria (2759171) | about 3 months ago | (#47820911)

Nuclear weapons are mainly not used right now because they are so damn slow. When you want to nuke someone on the otherside of the planet, you want them blown up right friggen now. Then some douche tells you, "Sir, the best we can do is 8 hours." and you're all "WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE THESE THINGS TO BEGIN WITH???' Clearly if we make nukes fast enough everyone will use them. Seriously though, with laser missile defense systems nowadays are hypersonic missiles really that big of a deal? I mean the systems that use lasers to burn up the missiles, not the laser guided ones where you still have to shoot at a bullet flying at you.

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 3 months ago | (#47821389)

I almost earned a serious whooooooosh. Well done.

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821581)

laser defense systems. LOL. seriously, they barely work on conventional rockets and missiles. When something is traveling faster than 6000 km/h your laser doesn't have time to do anything. Remember, the Earth curves, and you can't shoot through it.

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822341)

the Earth curves, and you can't shoot through it.

Well... Not easily...

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about 3 months ago | (#47822551)

The biggest problem with lasers is the atmosphere. Too much energy sucked up by the time it gets to the target. Look for metamaterials that will fix this soon!

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824635)

Not to mention that a simple coat of reflective paint renders them useless.

Re:The problem is clearly the speed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821961)

hypersonic is a whole new ball game for intercepting. By the time it is in range you have very little time to track and destroy it, before it destroys you. If it is a scramjet it can also have an unpredictable flight plan, and if its a kinectic warhead a laser isn't going to do much.

Bans work? (2)

kuzb (724081) | about 3 months ago | (#47820947)

Seems to me that all this would do is stop the *open* development of these weapons. Even if everyone agrees not to make them, they will all still be making them.

civilian applications? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47820971)

Who cares if it ever filters down to civilian use ( and it will anyway )? I am getting sick and tired of all the "PC" pansys out there, who have no clue what it takes to stay safe and secure. the ONLY reason you are even here complaining is due to the military. And that military *requires* technology.

Its as bad as the 60s, 'lets throw flowers at tanks' nonsense. If you cant repel attackers and destroy enemies, you are eradicated instead. If you dont keep advancing military tech, you fall behind and lose.

Develop, test then deploy the damned things, as many as we need. Now.

Mod me down if you must, but you know its the truth.

Let's uninvent the spear while we're at it (4, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | about 3 months ago | (#47820999)

Because nothing works like wagging your finger and pretending something doesn't exist.

Um, no (3, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 3 months ago | (#47821077)

A "ban", eh?

Good actors would comply, bad actors would not. Then bad actors would have them, good actors wouldn't.

And that's ... better? How?

Re:Um, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822027)

who are these good actors you are talking about?

Re:Um, no (1)

RyoShin (610051) | about 2 months ago | (#47892521)

The "bad actors" tend to be the ones that have the least capability to do the testing and building themselves. Sure, sure, there's still potential for our frenemies China and Russia to do it, but if you think some sub-department in the US military won't also build/test in secret on a small scale, you're crazy.

I think the real goal might be to keep plans and results from the low-budget bad actors (North Korea etc.) Banning the testing means that they have far less to go on, and so won't be able to make any real progress themselves. If they do it now, while the weapons are still in their infancy and require heavy testing, they can avoid that.

Barn door and all that.

The Amish Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821109)

Here's the plan. Get the planet to permanently halt a specific scientific and technological development. Brilliant.
So, if the human race never - ever develops the technology, we are all safe. Come on, who is stupid enough to buy this?

Re:The Amish Solution? (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 3 months ago | (#47821617)

Here's the plan. Get the planet to permanently halt a specific scientific and technological development. Brilliant.
So, if the human race never - ever develops the technology, we are all safe. Come on, who is stupid enough to buy this?

The Amish?

Mark Gubrud : Chinese agent Film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821119)

The subject says it all.

Alex

No, the utopian argument isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821259)

"hypersonic technology will never carry nuclear weapons". Instead it is "hypersonic technology will make war so terrible that people will cease waging war."

Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821273)

Just ban everything / stop everything in its tracks which might make your own home soil vulnerable, so you can go own terrorizing the world. Now that's a great plan!

Don't ban them, let everyone have them (1)

ASDFnz (472824) | about 3 months ago | (#47821347)

I am a firm believer in the balance of power.

The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has kept us safe for the past 60+ years through some really rough times. It seems to be our best bet to continue keeping us safe.

Re:Don't ban them, let everyone have them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821551)

Correlation != causation. "Safe"? Not as I understand the term.

MAD can be a pro (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 3 months ago | (#47823801)

Mutually Assured Destruction is more of a pro than a con when considering certain element of society which are willing to, say, strap explosives to their chest and detonate them in a public venue. Projecting your morality onto others in order to predict behaviors is a dangerous game.

definition is important (1)

confused one (671304) | about 3 months ago | (#47821439)

I'm wondering how they'll define hypersonic missile. All space launch vehicles are, in some versions of the definition, a hypersonic missile. All re-entry vehicles are, again, hypersonic missiles (some are hypersonic ballistic missiles).

We already have hypersonic missles... (2)

kbrannen (581293) | about 3 months ago | (#47821445)

We already have hypersonic missles -- really! Most of the air-to-air missles shot from 1 plane to another are hypersonic and we've had these for decades. This is public knowledge.

What the article is try to get banned is "long-range hypersonic missles", or if you prefer, the old ICBMs going a lot faster. If you could make a very small nuke and stick it in one of the existing missle cases; you could have a pretty awesome weapon if short distances are all you need (say in the 80-100 mile range from what I've read, definitely far enough the pilot wouldn't have to worry about getting caught in it). It'd be pretty easy to hit any coastal city from international air space that way.

Re:We already have hypersonic missles... (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 3 months ago | (#47821607)

We already have hypersonic missles -- really! Most of the air-to-air missles shot from 1 plane to another are hypersonic and we've had these for decades. This is public knowledge. .

Can you please stop confusing Supersonic with Hypersonic?

The *vast* majority of air-air missiles travel at less than Mach 5.

Re:We already have hypersonic missles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822543)

What the article is try to get banned is "long-range hypersonic missles", or if you prefer, the old ICBMs going a lot faster. If you could make a very small nuke and stick it in one of the existing missle cases; you could have a pretty awesome weapon if short distances are all you need (say in the 80-100 mile range from what I've read, definitely far enough the pilot wouldn't have to worry about getting caught in it). It'd be pretty easy to hit any coastal city from international air space that way.

Or a commercial/military rocket. See, this whole "ban" is stupid. It would completely gut all space programs. Because the same rockets could carry a warhead...could. Could just drop a pebble on you from LEO. Still kill you. Not only that, the concept of a "tactical nuke" was discarded in the 1980s, because due to fallout there's no such thing. Collateral damage is just too high to justify the weapon being small enough to take out just a block.

Re:We already have hypersonic missles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823287)

This discussion is pointless. ICBMs already travel faster than these hypersonic cruise missiles: an ICBM on a ballistic trajectory travels at ~4 km/s, versus ~2 km/s for a hypersonic cruise missile. The ICBM is only not technically hypersonic because it's travelling through vacuum, so there's no speed-of-sound where it is.

In most reasonable first-strike scenarios, an ICBM provides a faster strike, at ~20 minutes between launch and impact. If you want a *really* fast strike, a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from just offshore will be faster still - and unlike an aircraft, a submarine can loiter offshore, unseen, for weeks.

The advantage of a hypersonic cruise missile is that it's more accurate than a ballistic missile. This doesn't matter for nuclear weapons, since they're destructive out to such a large radius, but it is a big advantage for conventional weapons. So I really don't see a faster cruise missile being used for anything except conventional (non-nuclear) warfare.

I'm not seeing it. (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about 3 months ago | (#47821597)

I don't see any good reason to ban hypersonic cruise missiles. It's not enough to ban them on the grounds that they are deadly and serve no civilian purpose: war is about killing people. Previously, weapons have been banned in war on the grounds that they kill in an unusually horrific way, or aim to kill "innocent" targets, or kill indiscriminately, Hypersonic cruise missiles are none of these things.

Hypersonic cruise missiles are an undistinguished weapon of war. There's no argument for banning them that doesn't also apply to war in general. I think we's all love to ban war, but 10,000 years of history suggests that's not gonna happen.

Sure, let's ban something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821863)

that we know isn't terribly useful... They've known that for 50+ years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

You get a lot more value out of cheap, slow and low mass-produced subsonic drones than from one Space Age high-energy stunt.

Mutual surveillance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821881)

The UN should have observers all over the world, everywhere. That way people would know for certain when someone has bad intentions.

It's not easy to do that, but it's easy to accuse someone without proof -- and start wars based on false assumptions, like we've seen recently.

Heck, we cannot even produce cars and some genius once accused us of trying to make secret weapons.

Sometimes offense is not the best defense... it's just a ticket to Hell.

Lets ban technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47821893)

Alright, thats a stupid argument.
How about we research technology and see if there's side benefits?

The U.S can't be trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822029)

They have proved this time and again. Call for a ban after their own research is done? Or just a case of agree to, but do it anyway? The U.S will never stop developing weapons, and they will never stop using them on countries that haven't been anywhere near their borders. China and Russia would do best in being mindful about this.

Big mistake (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 3 months ago | (#47822171)

Big mistake. Better for the US to be out front and keep a boot on the throats of the Russians and Chinese.

I thought.. (1)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 3 months ago | (#47822479)

Isn't one of the main arguments for the current state of madness in the states something like:

If you ban guns only the criminals would have them!

Wouldn't that imply that if you ban testing ultra-violent weaponry, only the rogue states would test them?

The problem with all these agreements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822823)

The problem with all these agreements is trust. Lets just look at Russia for a sec. shall we? They signed a chemical weapons treaty. Then went out and violated the hell out of it. They signed an agreement that they would respect Ukraine's borders in 1991. What the hell!?! They agreed to limits on nuclear weapons. Wanna bet they have been building for years? At least since 5 minutes since Putin got into the job then? Agreements like this are useless if you get rat bastards who take agreements like this as 'assuaging the naive'. Its like a wolf promising to swear off sheep, then being tested by being left in a pen with a sheep. In the morning, the wolf (stuffed full of mutton) looks at you and yells "what the hell do you think I am? I'm a wolf!"

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47822963)

No one cares about hypersonic missiles; it won't start an arms race. Missiles are expensive and no one wants the cost of a nuclear exchange.

The next arms race is currently underway, and it's submarines in south east asia

http://apac2020.thediplomat.com/feature/the-next-arms-race/

Cold War II (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47823175)

Putin is busily architecting the second Cold War. The best way to win this war is the same as the last - bankrupting Russia through a technological arms race they can't possibly compete in.

The same principal applies to China as well.

Testing ban? Please! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47823177)

Just build the goddamn things. Don't trust anybody that says they're not. I'm sorry, but that's the world we live in.

Bah (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 3 months ago | (#47824061)

If you ban [ insert weapon here ] testing then only the countries that don't sign up for or completely disregard the ban will have [ insert weapon here ].

Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824353)

That's like catching your kid smoking then beating his ass while smoking.

This is a stupid conversation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47824355)

You can't "un-invent" something. The cat is already out of the bag. If a weapon is dangerous enough (lots of potential for misuse or unintended consequences), the MAD principle will apply. This is the best deterrent anyone can realistically hope for. Discussions of bans are pointless. Grow up.

Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47825207)

It's banned, so no one will do it.

They can't, because its *BANNED*

Russia might back this one.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47829857)

Since they've had supersonic missiles for ages, and they've been selling them to countries like China, Iran and India..
ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Typical Leftest Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47830065)

Just like the leftists to request a ban AFTER the Russians have an operational system. Yet one more dumb idea.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?