The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban 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.
Ban when you are done testing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds fair...
They will just cheat anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
So we can follow the ban and everyone else cheat?
Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (Score:2, Insightful)
You really think China would stop testing because of a treaty?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HO
Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Incredibally stupid argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also what is happening in the Ukraine is a clear message about what happens to countries stupid enough to take Nuclear Disarmament seriously.
Re:Incredibally stupid argument (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Good timing for this suggestion NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Incredibally stupid argument (Score:3, Insightful)
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:stopping who? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Salient Argument provided (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Let's uninvent the spear while we're at it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because nothing works like wagging your finger and pretending something doesn't exist.
Re:stopping who? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Um, no (Score:4, Insightful)
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:They will just cheat anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ban on testing would give tech only to cheaters (Score:3, Insightful)
And then what? We send them a sternly worded letter threatening to send another sternly worded letter if they do it again?
Re:stopping who? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ban when you are done testing? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:stopping who? (Score:0, Insightful)
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:Ban when you are done testing? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no ban on China (or anyone else) on building supercarriers.
Re:They will just cheat anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ban when you are done testing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:stopping who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Salient Argument provided (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ban when you are done testing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.