So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.
Did I ever say hypersonics were ineffective? I said they were expensive. And that stealth bombers are also effective at the ground attack role. Nothing you’ve sourced has contradicted that.
Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.
Aside from that, ballistic missiles can also get though most air defenses. MAD still works because you can’t be sure about reliability shooting down the missiles. Having even better more expensive ones doesn’t really change the math, which is why Zircon is so stupid.
I always said hypersonics are better at taking down carriers from my first comment here. But China didn’t have effective carriers. Hence why the US didn’t need them.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.
So you’ve finally acknowledged that hypersonics do in fact have uses that aren’t filled by bombers. Only took you a week to do it. I’m so proud of you.
Nowhere did you substantiate the claim that hypersonics are more expensive than making bombers along with their arsenal. In fact, it’s not clear why hypersonics would be more expensive to produce than regular missiles that bombers would carry.
Zircon can carry tactical nuclear weapons, it’s hilarious that you don’t understand the importance of that. Zircon was never meant to change the balance in MAD, that’s what Buervestnik is for https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/walker_jspg_v16.pdf
I always said hypersonics are better at taking down carriers from my first comment here. But China didn’t have effective carriers. Hence why the US didn’t need them.
I said the US ones were extremely expensive, and you agreed. And that cost is the one that matters for the US.
Nuclear weapons aren’t useful in a conventional conflict by definition. So what is Zircon for if it’s not for MAD nuclear warfare and not for conventional warfare?
Hypersonics are obviously better at taking down all sorts of targets. Claiming that carriers are somehow a unique target for hypersonics is a baseless argument.
The US military industrial complex loves expensive weapons, just look at the F-35 having ballooned to over 2 trillion now. Siphoning tax dollars out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the oligarchs that own this industry is literally the whole point.
Tactical nuclear weapons exist last I checked. Both US and Russia have them. Russia already said there are cases where they would use them.