US-based missiles to have global reach

Of course, it would be totally unacceptable if another country(s) started work on a similiar project, since only the US deserves have this technology

I saw this in the paper last week, but skipped over it because it was too depressing.

Just another step on the road of absolute US global dominance.

Yeah, because the US should abstain from developing such things to protect the feelings of the less rich and powerful.

Besides, taking sea- and air-lauching plattforms into account, the US has had this capability for quite a long time now. They're looking for a cheaper way to do what they have been able to do since probably the mid-eighties. Other than the technical aspects, I see nothing to get excited about, really, but suit yourself.

no, as Howski said, they are mainly looking for a way to attack anybody without having to negociate for days with a country before they can use it as an us base (eg: turkey)

Even if this in new, the idea is quite old (Sanger, germany)

Somehow they managed to overcome the design problems of the NASP.
And expect the japanese to copy it and make a passenger version

Wolf Being said:

Yeah, because the US should abstain from developing such things to protect the feelings of the less rich and powerful.

Click to expand...

You don;t understand the idea of hypocrisy do you? The US would scream everything together if someone else in the world would develop this, yet are proud to develop it themselves. That's called hypocrisy.

other examples:
*man munching on chewing gum* "No, you can't have chewing gum, that's bad for your teeth!"

or:
*predisent who is responsible for killing hundreds of people* "I am a good christian!"

etc. etc.
you get the idea i hope.

Da_Blade, such are the realities of politics. It's all hypocritical. I always come off slightly amused whan all the fingers point to the US, since that very act of pointing the finger is hypocritical in itself again, because the motive is usually simply to contain US power.

It's all about power and influence. The hypocrisy argument is just another (hypocritical) argument made to reason as to why the US may not do what they are capable of doing. In other words, it is used to contain their power and through that increase the relative power of other countries of influence.

The UN, international law, the ICC, the EU, NATO, ASEAN, OECD, pro-war, anti-war, anti-nuke, you name it: on a political level it's all about money and power.

Also, the idea that the US would be in strong opposition to other nations of similar standing as they developing a hypersonic UAV is purely speculative and considering the costs, will probably remain so for quite some time - certainly longer than this current administration is in office. So let's stick to complaining about things we can put our finger on. Lord knows there seems to be enough of that; no need to make stuff up.

Da_Blade, such are the realities of politics. It's all hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Then stop wasting your energy if even you realise you can't sweettalk it.

Wolf Being said:

Also, the idea that the US would be in strong opposition to other nations of similar standing as they developing a hypersonic UAV is purely speculative and considering the costs, will probably remain so for quite some time - certainly longer than this current administration is in office. So let's stick to complaining about things we can put our finger on. Lord knows there seems to be enough of that; no need to make stuff up.

Click to expand...

Once upon a time, in the far off land of Cuba, dirty america hating communists had missiles. Then president Kennedy screamed blue murder because it was an act of agression to put missiles on your enemy's doorstop. Missiles in Cuba went away. American missiles in Turkey were upgraded. That was then.


This is now. North Korea has nuclear-capable ICBMs, or so the allegation goes, and this is enough to justify what I'll call an "aggressive" stance against them from the US administration. The strong opposition you claim is speculation already exists. The missiles in north Korea are by no stretch of the imagination some sort of super-missile. The US has better missiles than that, but hey, AMERICA FIGHTS FOR FREEDOM! (of oil from dirty heathen oil oppressors)

Relax jaunty, I was talking hypersonic UAVs, not nuclear weapons. With regard to the former you'll probably agree that any strong US opposition is purely speculative.

I'm interested to see what they come up with. Apart from reliable flight at hypersonic speeds, weapons delivery should be problematic IMO. Hypersonic speed would presumably mean extreme altitudes which in turn might make targeting difficult, unless it's on stationary targets, which would again limit the scope of employment of such a plattform and with that the return on investment. Maybe a combined GPS/laser and/or video targeting system, where operators on the ground (on scene or via video/datalink in the US) could take over the 'last mile'? I'm doubtful it would be very useful unless teamed with real-time recon and targeting data.

You're making out as if the US would distinguish between ICBMs and HSUAVs in a manner other than "THEY WANT TO FUCKING KILL US ALL!" Use history as a guide here. Every single advancement in weapons in countries other than the US since 1945 have been at the least frowned upon by the administration of the day. Considering the administration of today are fighting the cold war harder than any of the actual cold war administrations, I'd say we're long past speculation.

Prediction, then. But not fact, in any case, that's all I'm saying. I agree that the Bush admin would probably at least frown upon such developments, but until that happens, what argument can be made in this thread on that topic? Not much of one, unless we draw upon other issues completely unrelated to an only just disclosed development project.

edit: crappy keyboard dumped me on post too soon...

Yeah, I saw it but AFAIK 'space' is still a weapons-free zone so I'm frankly doubtful of the whole idea's feasibility. If you don't use space for launch you are probably using someone's airspace at one point or another and that brings back the old territorial integrity of translational airspace dispute (well, there's not much to dispute there, really).

Even if the warhead was only dropped upon re-entry over the target, the SLV appears to be no more than a prettier ICBM with a (possibly) guided conventional warhead. - The Russians would *never* tolerate something like that in operational use and could make a credible argument that they have no way of knowing whether it is a conventional launch on a third party or a pre-emptive nuke strike against them, requiring them to put all their nuclear forces on high alert every time the ramp gets rolled up, severely increasing the risk of accidental nuclear holocaust at only a minor benefit. Because of this, the whole SLV project is a wast of time, IMO, unless they just wanted a pretty excuse to develop new satellite boosters. I'm sure rumsfeld loved the idea much more than he would have liked a petition for the development of new satellite boosters...

I find the HCV more intriguing because it uses a less ambiguous launch and flight system, avoids the 'no weapons in space'- and territorial integrity dispute (it can take the same roundabout 'politically correct' paths the B-2s and B-52s took only faster) and it seems more adaptable to the network-centric warfare concept the US (and IIRC Sweden, too) is pursuing. The SLV OTOH just sounds like another shot at the silver bullet idea, and IMO a bad one.

edit: typos

why should the US by happy about another country gaining weapons and power? you obviously aren't happy about the US getting it

Cold War part 2, Action!

a second cold war would require a second true superpower.