It really doesn't if an Aircraft carrier uses laser, microwave, or deploys insect drones flooding the sky full of much smaller drones, or plasma countermeasures.
But unless tested against. Could be in for trouble.
N.K, and China also have. USA was developing.
Against Ukraine they have no defenses.
The problem is tracking it. If it can be tracked it can be stopped. But that mach is hypersonic, about 8-10k MPH? On a cruise missile, trouble.
Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.
Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.
Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space, it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.
Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.
But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if Ukraine weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them, and fight their war, and give them guns to die, and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, bog them down, and swamp them into surrender, as any sanctions bite. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.
I think there is a danger of Ukraine becoming an all out proxy war like Angola was with the CIA perpetuating it by infiltrating and paying paramilitaries and smuggling in weapons to the region especially small and portable javalin and stinger missile systems.
They are already. No. Once Russia takes. It will at this rate. Iron Curtain goes up. Like the old Cold War.
Or they deal. But I don't think they get it. There is no middle ground. All their demands, Russia has been sanctioned, it won't change unless to warcrimes, or nothing. In that case all the CIA can do is incite later revolt. Or send weapons and mercs now.
The alternative is nuclear war. Or a peace deal where they understand what it means. Don't get me wrong. I am not in this situation. Not my words. But they're quite obvious.
But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.
Sharks with lasers.
Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner.
Tanks are a liability in urban combat without ground forces in advance to clear streets of mines and buildings of opposing troops containing manpads and anti-tank capability
Everything, needs ground troops. Later to hold. And also properly identify.
Tanks in an Urban environment are becoming less suited to it. But they seige it even better. They have range. It is restricted in Urban settings unless it bombards. On the field, not in the air, they are an advancing army's advantage. They enclose, surround, and eliminate other armour and mechanics and dig and hold outs by competing ranges. They are impervious to most small arms and rifles, and many mines. Obviously weapons advance to combat them. But all combat needs multiple roles, and the ability to adapt to the problems faced by an evolving battlefield. Although tanks will likely always be a component of warfare. They are mobile.
In a newer autonomous age incoming. Ground troops are needed less. Robots replace front line operations and roles. But there will always be an opponent fighting with their flesh, and there won't be any balance to it.
There are few rules in war, and the people implementing them often think to cause less causalty, but they often cause far more disaster. Have some more guns instead. Try to shoot those bombs, and obviously any soldiers dropping them. Dying happens no matter what, because the alternative of surrendering is not the reason why people fight wars. So a question of the greater good arises, preventing a much larger war or conflict, where army's often have weapons of massive destruction. What forces surrender, a few lives, or an entire city refusing to capitulate, but instead defending it too death. There are no fixes or remedy to the death and the causalties caused. They can only be presumed to be lessened. An assumption of etiquette. Excuse me politely, do you mind dying quicker, death has no formality, it isn't polite, or do you heroically defend yourself until the last stone stands?
It might have been a modified ICBM launched from a mig31 for speed- can't rule out that simpler possibility without setting it more closely. Estimates between Mach 5 and 12 and 900-1,6000 miles is reasonable for hypersonic
This changes things. For example, imagine 4-5 of these launched simultaneously at an aircraft carrier.
It really doesn't if an Aircraft carrier uses laser, microwave, or deploys insect drones flooding the sky full of much smaller drones, or plasma countermeasures.
But unless tested against. Could be in for trouble.
N.K, and China also have. USA was developing.
Against Ukraine they have no defenses.
The problem is tracking it. If it can be tracked it can be stopped. But that mach is hypersonic, about 8-10k MPH? On a cruise missile, trouble.
Slap fight turned into fist fight into knife fight etc
Tactics with tanks I'll explain in a minute. ICBM's aren't hypersonic until re-entry. They leave orbit align and re-enter. Effectively there are better defenses, but freaking nukes with multiple warheads, not much defense. Those Hypersonics are cruise. Almost impossible to detect. Cruise don't leave atmosphere. They stay in orbit. Detection is much harder and that speed unmatched. But there are perhaps some defenses largely in development and being fitted. Like Lasers.
Tanks are needed. Autonomous tanks sooner. But are simple tactics. Why couldn't they largely surrender like some places perhaps like Kherson. They wouldn't be complaining about huge causalities. In which case tanks often beat a standing army on the field. Trenches bunkers opposing tanks. Urban environment there is far more ambush. Unless they cut off any access further surrounding a city, backed by artillery, inch forward, bombarding. They are used in cities but much harder with anti tank and drones. But they're an integral part of warfare, not going anywhere.
Satellite weapons haven't been admitted but there are rumors, and any treaty arming space was cancelled by Trump. There are anti satellite weapons. Although attacking them has huge consequences for space, it causes debries, also potential war. Satellites can spy and with increasing precision, penetrating cover.
Russia will upgrade its entire army next. And they haven't lost, far from it.
But it's remarkable the fake news and the propaganda. Decrying the Russians as capitulated. Obviously the only argument becomes, if Ukraine weren't armed there wouldn't be refugees. If they choose peace, why did they want war. Pathetic they thought somebody else should rescue them, and fight their war, and give them guns to die, and not make peace. But it's Ukraine. It's only objective was a human shield, dent Russia, bog them down, and swamp them into surrender, as any sanctions bite. Hold out for Custer you dumb Alamo. He's not coming.
I think there is a danger of Ukraine becoming an all out proxy war like Angola was with the CIA perpetuating it by infiltrating and paying paramilitaries and smuggling in weapons to the region especially small and portable javalin and stinger missile systems.
They are already. No. Once Russia takes. It will at this rate. Iron Curtain goes up. Like the old Cold War.
Or they deal. But I don't think they get it. There is no middle ground. All their demands, Russia has been sanctioned, it won't change unless to warcrimes, or nothing. In that case all the CIA can do is incite later revolt. Or send weapons and mercs now.
The alternative is nuclear war. Or a peace deal where they understand what it means. Don't get me wrong. I am not in this situation. Not my words. But they're quite obvious.
Sharks with lasers.
Tanks are a liability in urban combat without ground forces in advance to clear streets of mines and buildings of opposing troops containing manpads and anti-tank capability
Everything, needs ground troops. Later to hold. And also properly identify.
Tanks in an Urban environment are becoming less suited to it. But they seige it even better. They have range. It is restricted in Urban settings unless it bombards. On the field, not in the air, they are an advancing army's advantage. They enclose, surround, and eliminate other armour and mechanics and dig and hold outs by competing ranges. They are impervious to most small arms and rifles, and many mines. Obviously weapons advance to combat them. But all combat needs multiple roles, and the ability to adapt to the problems faced by an evolving battlefield. Although tanks will likely always be a component of warfare. They are mobile.
In a newer autonomous age incoming. Ground troops are needed less. Robots replace front line operations and roles. But there will always be an opponent fighting with their flesh, and there won't be any balance to it.
There are few rules in war, and the people implementing them often think to cause less causalty, but they often cause far more disaster. Have some more guns instead. Try to shoot those bombs, and obviously any soldiers dropping them. Dying happens no matter what, because the alternative of surrendering is not the reason why people fight wars. So a question of the greater good arises, preventing a much larger war or conflict, where army's often have weapons of massive destruction. What forces surrender, a few lives, or an entire city refusing to capitulate, but instead defending it too death. There are no fixes or remedy to the death and the causalties caused. They can only be presumed to be lessened. An assumption of etiquette. Excuse me politely, do you mind dying quicker, death has no formality, it isn't polite, or do you heroically defend yourself until the last stone stands?
So was that sound the sonic boom of that thing? If so it was way ahead of the sound wave. Like mach 7 or something.
It might have been a modified ICBM launched from a mig31 for speed- can't rule out that simpler possibility without setting it more closely. Estimates between Mach 5 and 12 and 900-1,6000 miles is reasonable for hypersonic
Nuclear weapons don't exist. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt exactly where they were. They were fire bombed like Tokyo was.
Maybe. Wouldn't surprise me if they had them at least in capital ships