[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Photo Could the US's new hypersonic missile spark World War 3? www.ibtimes.c...ss/yahoous/news The US has reportedly created a new missile as part of the Pentagon's development of hypersonic technology. But the US military has insisted that the weapons will carry conventional missiles rather than nuclear ones, as the arms race with China and Russia grows more intense. The new missiles according to information released on 13 April will reportedly fly at five times the speed of sound (3,800mph) and make them virtually impossible to detect using radar. Researchers are still working on manoeuvre techniques and developing ways of being able to fully control the weapons. The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (Darpa) has spent over $34m (£48m) on hypersonic aircraft and weapon projects. Hypersonic aircraft would be able to fly at between five to 10 times the speed of sound. New nuclear fears In an article titled The Problem With The Pentagon's Hypersonic Missile, published by Defense One, three hypersonic projects including the Lockheed Martin Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 program, the Raytheon Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), and the Raytheon/Lockheed Tactical Boost Glide are being examined over whether they would remain conventional weapons, or whether they would spurn the other military superpowers, China and Russia, into developing more nuclear weapons. The concerns are that hypersonic missiles will allow the US to launch nuclear weapons that could strike targets at longer ranges, in less time than conventional ballistic missiles require, and move so fast current missile defence systems and fighter jets could not intercept them. Reports suggest that the new generation of missiles can switch between two modes: scramjet which uses air flowing at supersonic speeds through its engine to further accelerate the missile and a "boost glide" system this would extend the range of missiles by making them 'skip' across the Earth's upper atmosphere. The Pentagon says that the new Hypersonic missile technology would be used in conventional weapons only, but the technology's capabilities are making other nations 'nervous'. "Hypersonic weapons can be more survivable because of the extreme speed and high altitude. They would be hard to stop,' said JR Smith, director of Raytheon's Advanced Land Warfare Systems. "At this point, our hypersonics program is really a technology development program, purely focused on 'conventional' payloads, said Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering at The Pentagon. "There's nothing in the budget related to modelling, researching, or exploring nuclear-armed hypersonics. "It's 2020 for the missile, 2030. until you get into something that's refurbishable and probably 2040 until you get into something that's a totally reusable type of capability." Last year, four flight tests of the X-51 WaveRider the US's prototype hypersonic aircraft had taken place in June. During the last test the aircraft flew more than 230 nautical miles at Mach 5. It was launched from under the wing of a B-52 bomber and travelled at a height of 70,000 ft. Zharkov... If they spent that money trying to extend human lives instead of trying to end human lives, the world would be much better off. Does anyone really "need" a better killing machine? Are hydrogen bombs not enough? Look at it another way - every new killing technology the US government has created has been stolen by foreign agents working for the US government. You can name ANYTHING we've got and it was stolen by someone - Israeli spies, Chinese spies, Russian spies, even Cuban spies. Do we want to give them even more advanced weapons technology? The US defense industry and US government leaks all over the place like a cat with a full bladder. Whatever new ideas they've got, they will be facing their own technology in a big war. The Clintons got Chinese campaign contributions bought with missile technology and H-bomb design plans. They gave nuclear reactors to North Korea. When the government has enough ways to kill people, it doesn't need any new methods. To protect our freedom, our government should be armed with bows and arrows, and our citizens should be armed with mortars, automatic weapons, and hand grenades. Foreign enemies are nothing compared to what can happen with a bad elected leader. wirehaired... Yet more US tax payers Dollars going to the big arms corporations and their Oligarchs,when will the people wake up? Zhzrkov...Mandrake said: "Funny, I see all sorts of bragging on here whenever Russia develops a new missile or bombs villagers, but if the US does the same we're wasting money and committing genocide." Russia isn't spending a trillion dollars a year on arms buildups like the US is doing, so just because Russians are cheering their home team, that doesn't equate to US government bloodlust for weapons of mass destruction. Russians obviously would prefer that the US government leave them alone. Since that isn't happening, they rejoice at the potential of a new weapon to keep NATO on good behavior and away from their border. I doubt Americans would feel any different if Warsaw Pact held war games along the Mexican border. Most American soldiers don't want to face enemy weapons developed by the Pentagon and stolen by spies. In order to save ourselves, sometimes we have to refuse to develop super weapons, something we should have done with the Atomic Bomb, the Hydrogen Bomb, the Cobalt Bomb, and the Neutron Bomb. None of those bombs has made anyone healthier or happier. The cost of "defense" (if you want to call it that) is ridiculous in America. We can slow kill the world a hundred times over with McDonald's Hamburgers alone. We are killing the world's crop growing areas with high altitude spraying of chemicals for "geoengineering" the planet. Does America need another hypersonic baby shredder to feel safe? Isn't it better to just leave other people and their governments alone and stop meddling with them? Think of how much money we spend on military junk that ends up in land fills or in terrorist hands. Poster Comment: Isn't it better to just leave other people and their governments alone and stop meddling with them? Zharkov It is but Israel requires wars, especially against countries opposing its theft of Palestinian lands: it's Israel which calls the shots since its Sayanim have been electing the law and policymakers of Congress. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
Usually, by the time this tech hits MSM, it has already been deployed for several years.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||