The New Arms Race to Hypersonic Weapons

According to some analysts, the development of hypersonic weapons creates the conditions for a new arms race, and could risk nuclear escalation. Given that the course of hypersonic research has acknowledged both of these concerns, why have several countries started testing the weapons?

The United States is building hypersonics for two reasons. First, we want to kill people fast, without the messy danger of a global thermonuclear war. Second, we want to be able to punch through the defensive systems of peer competitors.

Unfortunately, these two justifications contradict one another. Given that China, Russia and even India appear on their way to similar systems, we should take care before letting the technology outpace the politics.

link.

The piece states what hypersonics are, who is developing them and then fails on the why.  The author does hit on the idea the powers which possess them will have a commanding advantage, but questions why this is a good idea.  The strawman is placed of a decapitation strike on Russia and how Russia might react.  The author mocks the ability to strike quickly.

Let's tackle this in reverse order (of my listing).  The ability to strike quickly is probably the single most important aspect of hypersonic weapons.  The time delay from intelligence to action is often quite long.  If we know, for example, John the Bad is meeting in a house in landlocked country at the maximum range of a Tomahawk missile.  The range is 1300 miles.  The max speed is 550 mph.  The soonest your missile hits the target is 2 hours and a little less than 22 minutes later.  If John's meeting lasted two hours and he walked away afterwards, he's now a good mile away.  Never mind if he had a car.  OTOH, if the destroyer which launched the Tomahawk had a Hypersonic missile instead, the time of flight would be reduced to just under 22 minutes.  You just shaved off two hours flight time.  Minimum since I picked the 'slowest' hypersonic speed possible, mach 5. 

Everyone remember when in the 90s, the US fired off Tomahawks at al qaeda?  Part of the reason it failed was the time it took to close the loop for steel on target.  Imagine the differences in the world had bin Laden and the their senior leadership died then.

Scenario two.  Clashes between fleets.  Let's say - though I have my doubts it'd come to be, but for the moment, humor me - China and the US clash at sea.  A barrage of Tomahawks will take over three minutes to come from over the horizon to hit various ships.  Three minutes allows for a lot of reaction time, both human and machine.  Considering the sensors - radar and whatnot - probably are airborne and extend out at least 150 miles, you're looking at 15 minutes worth of reaction time.  A barrage of hypersonic missiles give you an entire 2 1/2 minutes from crossing the 150 mile mark.  That greatly increases the chances of taking out a ship, even with the introduction of speed of light weaponry (lasers) since those take time to disable even at high power.

Right now, China and others measure the power and influence America has on a situation based on its ability and will to intervene.  While hypersonic weapons do not influence the will, it does influence the ability.  Hypersonic weaponry extends that ability and this in turn complicates the calculus of a nation forcibly coercing, intervening or clashing with another.  For the time the US has the monopoly on Prompt Global Strike (PGS), this makes the US someone to take into consideration the world over when it comes to military action.

When the US loses that monopoly, I think we can turn to another weapon with decapitating capabilities which we have a history we can draw parallels to: nuclear weapons.  While the nukes are far more devastating, it is worth noting they have had an enormously stabilizing effect on world wars: nuclear states, historically, have not fought the knock-down drag-out fights they did prior to their acquisition: we did not have a World War Three despite all the anxiety. 

While hypersonic weapons will not have the same devastating effect nukes do, the consideration about whether or not the US will intervene or not will apply to any state which acquires a PGS capability.  Likewise, the risk of a decapitation attack would mean (from the paranoid like the Russians) a nuclear retaliation or a response in kind from another PGS wielding state. 

As for Russians replying with nukes, duh.  If we even lobbed Tomahawk missiles at Moscow, we'd get nuked under Russian doctrine since those cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads as easily as conventional ones, too. Substituting hypersonic missiles for tomahawks does not change that fact.

Will the US be more secure with hypersonic weapons?  Let me ask you this.  What makes you safer?  The ability to deal with a rogue nation as a peer or as a military superior?  Or less than a peer? How does adding the weapon class make us less secure?  Because others will not develop the ability because we have not?  China developed an ASAT despite protesting it would not.