Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Us Military In Process Of Developing Supersonic Missiles

  • 15-08-2012 10:04am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭


    This post has been deleted.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    Read this on cnn yesterday and on the irish times today

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0815/breaking5.html




    What is a little worrying is the fact their prime objective is to use it for Missiles, They could potentially carry super-nukes around the world. The fact the technology is in development means its probably achievable. A little worrying if it ends up in the wrong hands me thinks.

    Even if they reach Mach 6, that's still child's play compared to the current generation ICBMs, which re-enter at MACH 20+. The point of these is to have a global strike capability that doesn't look like an ICBM launch. They could be used as nuclear first-strike weapons, but so could the current AGM-129s, and they'd be a lot less obvious than Waverider streaking in Mach 6 and high altitude.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭bluecode


    It's just a faster missile. Longer stand off range and less likely to be intercepted. I'm not sure what you mean by 'super nuke'. I think the Hydrogen bomb was pretty super back when it was invented in the fifties.

    I think it could replace the cruise missile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    Precision munitions mean we don't need to use nukes anymore.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    discus wrote: »
    Precision munitions mean we don't need to use nukes anymore.

    Very wrong. Nukes are still there for scare tactics. What better way to scare the politicians and population of a hostile country. Plus why are the US and Russia sitting on a couple of thousand of active warheads each.

    Plus there are precision tactical nukes. There were nuke variants of the Tomahawks but they are all retired. Then there are the bunker buster versions of the B61 the Mk11 variant and the variable yield B83 free fall tactical nukes that can be dropped from a B2.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    Nukes will always exist for scare tactics. It doesn't matter how precise current technology is, the fear factor of knowing an entire country's infrastructure can be crushed and millions killed in a matter of minutes is the true deterrent.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,027 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    Very wrong. Nukes are still there for scare tactics. What better way to scare the politicians and population of a hostile country. Plus why are the US and Russia sitting on a couple of thousand of active warheads each.

    Plus there are precision tactical nukes. There were nuke variants of the Tomahawks but they are all retired. Then there are the bunker buster versions of the B61 the Mk11 variant and the variable yield B83 free fall tactical nukes that can be dropped from a B2.

    Its pointless if you think about it. I believe 3/4 british tridant misslies contain enough warheads to more or less make **** of the world. The amount of money that is spent on nukes each year, even though no will ever be dumb enough to use them. Not even north korea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    twinytwo wrote: »
    I believe 3/4 british tridant misslies contain enough warheads to more or less make **** of the world.

    There's a lot of controversy over the apocalyptic preditions of nuclear winter and nuclear summer, each of which was predicted to be the result of burning cities rather than the nukes that set them alight, but the Brits definitely don't have anywhere near enough nukes to cause any long term damage. They have less than 200 warheads, each less than 100 kilotons. Even if they launched them all at once and each set a city ablaze, the damage, while catastrophic to those near ground zero, wouldn't have any more effect on the global environment than a small volcano erupting, maybe something like the effect that the Kuwaiti oil fires had back in 1991.


Advertisement