Recall that we also once thought it was imperative to develop a "stealth" destroyer
Also, time to reach the target may play a role, given that the launching platform cannot come closer than, say, 500 miles in either case. We assume that the adversary can detect the launch in either case; the time to react would be very different for a Tomahawk (about 0.75M; 1 hour) and a hypersonic missile (say, 5M; 10 min).
Anyone pitching this is talking tripe. Russia can already do this. They’ve been able to do this since the 60s. We have no missile defence against a MAD attack, which is what you propose involves.
Also, mechanically, Russia’s hypersonics are air-to-ground, anti-ship and ballistic or semi-ballistic. They evade naval and missile defences with more kinetic energy. Even theoretically, a gliding hypersonic missile (a) screams a heat signature more trivially detectable than a ballistic and (b) rapidly bleeds off the kinetic energy that separates it from a cruise missile. In summary, it’s not some magic new category of weapon, but a trade-off between ICBMs and cruise missiles. (Note: not best of both worlds. More expensive, more detectable and less accurate than ballistic. More expensive, more detectable and less manoeuvrable than cruise.)
The real threat hypersonics pose is to carrier groups. With Russia that’s mostly hypothetical, since they apparently can’t even get their subsonic weapons to hit targets with accuracy.
If you know where the other nation's leader is, first strike allows you a better chance at eliminating them. It's a marginal benefit. And Russia is more vulnerable to it. (Putin disappearing could create a violent scramble for power that diminishes its military's retaliatory capabilities in a way that taking out the President and say half the Cabinet would not.)
edit: if western intelligence had managed to cultivate the number of traitors and the amount of influence that it would take to quickly replace the Russian system, it would already have assassinated Putin. An assassination of Putin right now would unite the Russian public in its hatred for the US, not fragment it. The goal is to make the Russian public miserable enough that the US can get into this position.
Public opinion is irrelevant when considering decapitations. In Russia or anywhere else. The generals and intelligence agencies are the beginning and end of power in Moscow.
Putin is, as a dictator, personally the institution of power. That contrasts blindingly with America’s institution-oriented system. Taking out Putin is roughly similar to taking out the President and his Cabinet and the leaders of Congress. This is the dilemma of dictatorships. It’s weak in a way monarchies weren’t. (It is a weakness the Soviet Union and China (until Xi) didn’t suffer.)
A semi-ballistic cruise missile.
> At Mach 9, that's about 2-3 minutes to impact DC
ICBMs go Mach 20+ in their final stage. Falcon 9 flies faster than Zircon. Hypersonics don’t instantly accelerate. Their advantage is in flying low and plasma stealth, both of which are good against ground-based radar but not against anything in the air or in space.
If your stealth comes from submarine launch, you gain little from flying hypersonic. It’s faster than cruise or short-range ballistic, but much less accurate for a decapitation strike.
> Putin would survive
So would most of the U.S. government. (Not the civilian government, perhaps. But again, this is old news.) Certainly almost all of its military.
Game theory-wise, the winner would be whoever struck first, since they would get to use their full arsenal. Retaliation could only be done reliably with submarines. That's what frightens me the most about hypersonic development. Whoever cracks the secret and can field the most will potentially upend MAD.
I don't think so.
Did you read my comment? I acknowledged that submarines would be the most reliable second strike option.
Those are a lot of "ifs" sure, but it's a numbers game. If deployed hypersonics were as numerous as ICBMs in the 80s, then it would be about who strikes first. If a first strike can reduce the enemy population by 90%, and reduce their second strike capability to kill only 70% of your own population, then striking first is in your best interest.
I am talking about the 21st century as a whole. Can we really be so sure that at some point MAD will cease to exist and someone pulls the trigger? I wouldn't be so complacent about it.
The MAD balance is still there for the most part. The most part being it is unclear what % of Russian nukes still work given the shit show of maintenance and graft shown in the convention forces used in the Ukraine.
US has 14 Ohio class subs, ~90 warheads each. This is in addition to 400 MM3 ICBMs. Unlike the Russians the US knows their weapons system will work.
Also I don't know what a "boomer" is, do you mean submarine?
Everything changed after 9/11. There is a permanent Flight-Restricted Zone above the capital now.
Anybody who thinks that America wouldn’t retaliate and turn half of east-Asia into a sheet of radioactive glass is kidding themselves.
A nation is stronger than just the leader. Even in the age of kings, subordinates aristocrats wouldn’t walk willingly into a no win situation.
Been like this for many decades. That it hasn’t happened is kind of surprising.
The idea of nuclear winter has been largely debunked by modern science. Sure the places hit by nukes would be destroyed, but most nukes aren't powerful enough to push smoke into the atmosphere, so there'd be no global cloud blackening out the sun and ending all life on earth.
They would have to retaliate on every other (non-allied) country.
The US has quite a.lot of ASW resources, can identify subs, and you can't do that attack without providing a position fix.
Also, the US has other intelligence sources.
Also, current political situation helps narrow likely attackers.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, not a lot of people have hypersonic weapons and subs to deliver them near the US. Flashy unique capabilities are great in many ways, but they are absolute crap for obscuring responsibility.