Destabilizing is the word I would use.

Like most top of the line weapons.

GAT_00: So, it's an ICBM?

From what I have read its more of a skimmer, does not exit the atmosphere like a ballistic missile.

AlwaysRightBoy: GAT_00: So, it's an ICBM?

Is this more maneuverable than an ICBM?

If yes, I think this is a leap forward in scary.

/don't know the specifics

Hypersonic scramjet from an article a few years ago, the big advantage was not so much the accuracy, but the raw speed and the fact it could be retargeted in flight. I imagine the accuracy is nothing to sneeze at, but when you are over mach 5 for a 1000 pound projectile, you can approach small nuke territory just from the kinetic impact. So I dont imagine it has to be right on the dot.

Unless we're fighting Martians or Zentraedi, that's a little too much power for my tastes.

First proposed target:

Starts with "I" and ends with "ran." What the hell, bomb all that stinking islamic shiathole.

AlwaysRightBoy: sinschild: Destabilizing

Good word, I was thinking this could lead to a new arms race. This has got to raise the Russian eyebrow to eleven.
/to say nothing of China

Well, maybe they stopped squinting.

Good. Does this mean we can close our 30+ overseas air bases now?

Didn't think so.

GAT_00: So, it's an ICBM?

An ICBM whose launch can't be detected because it stays in the atmosphere?

sinschild : From what I have read its more of a skimmer, does not exit the atmosphere like a ballistic missile.

Technically, does an ICBM have to exit the atmosphere?

The definitions/classifications I saw are based on range. (basically, it has to make it from a launch point in the US to a target in the USSR, or some such).

Also, why does death have to be so beautiful and terrifying at the same time?


"Testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, if it were live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons."

When they make the movie of the system going out of control it will be a short hyper one.

DeRosso: AlwaysRightBoy: sinschild: Destabilizing

Good word, I was thinking this could lead to a new arms race. This has got to raise the Russian eyebrow to eleven.
/to say nothing of China

Well, maybe they stopped squinting.

Eh, This missile does seem to be pretty bad ass, but one thing people never seem to think about is that we have 18 submarines that carry nuclear missiles (I think). If China did decide to get squirrelly we could just ask them "Do you know where they all are right now?"

Harry Zach OBalls: Eh, This missile does seem to be pretty bad ass, but one thing people never seem to think about is that we have 18 submarines that carry nuclear missiles (I think). If China did decide to get squirrelly we could just ask them "Do you know where they all are right now?"

You can't look under a desk in the Pentagon without finding a Chinese spy. They already know where the subs are right now.

GAT_00: ICBMs don't really need to be maneuverable if they're hitting a stationary target.

Actually, the ICBM isn't maneuvering, but the MIRV will maneuver on re-entry to avoid anti-missile systems (the Soviets have had ABMs around Moscow since 1971).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M#Missile_defense_evasion _ capabilities

rebelyell2006: Harry Zach OBalls: Eh, This missile does seem to be pretty bad ass, but one thing people never seem to think about is that we have 18 submarines that carry nuclear missiles (I think). If China did decide to get squirrelly we could just ask them "Do you know where they all are right now?"

You can't look under a desk in the Pentagon without finding a Chinese spy. They already know where the subs are right now.

I wasn't in the Navy so I don't know, but I've heard before from a guy who did serve on a sub that once a sub goes out to sea, no one knows where it is but the people on board.

AlwaysRightBoy: Good word, I was thinking this could lead to a new arms race. This has got to raise the Russian eyebrow to eleven.

The Russians, Chinese and Indians have had Mach 3 and 4 missiles for years while the US long range attack and cruise missiles were all subsonic. This is just the US finally leaping ahead of those supersonic systems.

urban.derelict: It was a cold bright day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 224x176]

It would seem that he got the year wrong.

lordargent: Technically, does an ICBM have to exit the atmosphere?

The definitions/classifications I saw are based on range. (basically, it has to make it from a launch point in the US to a target in the USSR, or some such).

The shape of the trajectory is important. It has to be actually "ballistic". This hypersonic thing isn't (IIRC). It's confusing because there are two or three different subprojects competing under the prompt global strike umbrella.

A conventionally armed ICBM has the potential to be destabilizing because there isn't really a credible way to assure the Russians and the Chinese that a launched missile is conventional-tipped rather than nuclear-tipped.

lordargent: Technically, does an ICBM have to exit the atmosphere?

ICBMs go up around 800-1200 miles before dropping back towards the Earth and their target.

I heard it's possible (theoretically) for hypersonic scramjet technology to get around Mach 12.

That's right, world. Fark with us, and we'll send one of these things around the world over and over again at Mach 12. And if the old Superman movies taught me anything, it tells me this will send us all back in time.

"Nice atoll you got there. 'Shame if somethin' were to, uh, 'appen to it..."

clovis69: The Russians, Chinese and Indians have had Mach 3 and 4 missiles for years while the US long range attack and cruise missiles were all subsonic. This is just the US finally leaping ahead of those supersonic systems.

Any idea how far those missiles can fly?

Tillmaster: It would seem that he got the year wrong.

years are arbitrary.

/HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS!
//HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS!
_{///HEY EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS!}

Harry Zach OBalls: I wasn't in the Navy so I don't know, but I've heard before from a guy who did serve on a sub that once a sub goes out to sea, no one knows where it is but the people on board.

Hmmm. No.

Google you some "NAVFACS" and "SURTASS." Any results you get will be outdated and (obviously) unclassified, so you're looking at under-reported stats.



// Damn earbug

I wonder if this falls under my existing concealed carry permit

You can cut down time to target by keeping missiles stationed around the world within controlled areas.

Imagine, instead of 'under 1 hour', 'under 15 minutes'. There's effectively no warning.

No ships, no planes, no tanks, no soldiers... just your government building disappearing while the assembled leaders are inside. And if that doesn't work, your power and water treatment plants, followed by your major telecom hubs can all vaporize, too.

Harry Zach OBalls: rebelyell2006: Harry Zach OBalls: Eh, This missile does seem to be pretty bad ass, but one thing people never seem to think about is that we have 18 submarines that carry nuclear missiles (I think). If China did decide to get squirrelly we could just ask them "Do you know where they all are right now?"

You can't look under a desk in the Pentagon without finding a Chinese spy. They already know where the subs are right now.

I wasn't in the Navy so I don't know, but I've heard before from a guy who did serve on a sub that once a sub goes out to sea, no one knows where it is but the people on board.

Roll Tide

GAT_00: So, it's an ICBM?

No. An ICBM is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. In other words, fire it up out of the atmosphere where the engine shuts down and the missile coasts along without maneuvering capability until gravity pulls it back into the atmosphere overhead its target.

In contrast, this new missile stays in the atmosphere where it can maneuver at will, maintaining thrust all the way to the target. And because it's so low compared to an ICBM, there is much less warning that it's inbound. By the time ground based radars see it coming over the horizon it's probably too late to do anything about it short of a directed beam weapon, which our adversaries conspicuously lack.

So yes, the Chinese are "shiatting their pants!"

I'm willing to bet this missile will cost 100x more than whatever it destroys.

Was there a conceptual Nazi German version of this that would launch off rails?

sinschild: Destabilizing is the word I would use.

Like most top of the line weapons.

You mean... Metal Gear?!

War is expensive. A SIXTY NINE MILLION DOLLAR flying bomb.

One bomb. 69 million dollars. Mother of God, holy Fark.

/big bada boom

A weapon like this could allow delivery of a nuclear warhead without anyone being able to tell where it came from.

Like Ben Kingsley's line in War Inc. 'we can fire a smart missile from a base in Saudi Arabia and stick it up a termite's ass in ...' pick your favorite middle eastern ... 'mecca' ;)

/oh the huge mammaries

Finally, in our uncertain world, we can

2wolves: sinschild: I imagine the accuracy is nothing to sneeze at, but when you are over mach 5 for a 1000 pound projectile, you can approach small nuke territory just from the kinetic impact.

"Throw Rocks at Them" -Mycroft Holmes

Leave it up to 2wolves to Heinlein the thread :-)

lordargent: Technically, does an ICBM have to exit the atmosphere?

it stands for InterContinental Ballistic Missile. the firing in an arc is the "Ballistic" part. this new thing is a hypersonic Cruise missile, with a very long range.

Good! We spend $69 Million, and they spend tree fiddy to mix more mud bricks and promote another guy to second-in-command. That's sooo sustainable.

Cool science tho!