I doubt this will see much traction. A nuclear powered ramjet will not be a small device (like the ALCM, or the upcoming LRSO), and will not be cheap. If it's large, putting out a lot of heat, it will be detectable. If it can be detected, it can be shot down.
Cruise missiles fly very, very low. No chance of ground-based radar noticing them for long enough to shoot anything (milliseconds as they streak overhead). So space-based, or some pursuit missile seems like the only chance of shooting them down.
Interesting that he's out rattling the saber after US opened a can of whoop a$$ on his undocumented mercenaries in Syria. The chess pieces are moving around the board a little more vigorously.
The sad part is that they're kind of right in doing so.
NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war. So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and this is escalating the new cold war.
I don't like seeing research in nuclear weapons done by anyone, especially Russia, but I can't help but feel like this one is on NATO and not Russia.
> with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy
Russia fought wars on foreign territories before and after they invaded Ukraine. Syria (2015-current), Georgia (2008 but parts of Georgia are still occupied), Transnistria (1992 but part of Moldova is still occupied).
> NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border
How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system?
It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door.
I've seen this opinion put forward and I don't really get it - wondering what your underlying principles to reach that opinion are?
Funny thing is that a US project of nuclear-powered cruise missile Project Pluto has been abandoned in 1964 among other things in order to "not to provoke" the Russians into developing something similar... "against which there was no known defence".
I love how the U.S.'s spends their money on missile defense while Putin spends money on more powerful nukes.
It says alot about the different midsets of the two countries.
I can't agree with you that this one is 'on NATO' and not Russia for that reason.
If they devoted more money to missile defense then the war would escalate between more powerful defense systems instead of more power systems of destruction.
Putin is a power hungry monster that will destroy the world before looking bad.
It was my understanding that Obama had actually dampened Bush's plans for missile defense in Europe, and instead was focused on shorter ranges that would come from Iran, and the redistribution of resources towards an "Asia Pivot".
I assume the Russian missile is a nuclear powered jet engine, assuming it exists, while for space you need a nuclear powered rocket engine. Different tech. The US tested a nuclear rocket engine on the ground in 1967 and it looked well cool. I'd vote for giving it's development a go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/...
The US also built nuclear powered jet engines in the 60s but found for piloted aircraft you'd either need tons of lead shielding or kill the pilots. It's rumoured the Russians actually flew one and killed said pilots.
[+] [-] pytonslange|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greedo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vfulco|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] John_KZ|8 years ago|reply
NATO went too far with deploying anti-ICBM systems right next to Russia's border (with the Ukraine conflict being the most obvious result of this strategy) essentially nullifying their ability to strike back in case of war. So now they have to find a new way to deliver their weapons, with our missile shield in place, be it cruize missiles or something else, and this is escalating the new cold war.
I don't like seeing research in nuclear weapons done by anyone, especially Russia, but I can't help but feel like this one is on NATO and not Russia.
[+] [-] Const-me|8 years ago|reply
Russia fought wars on foreign territories before and after they invaded Ukraine. Syria (2015-current), Georgia (2008 but parts of Georgia are still occupied), Transnistria (1992 but part of Moldova is still occupied).
[+] [-] chrisseaton|8 years ago|reply
How can it be too far to install an anti-missile system on your own territory? That seems eminently reasonable and uncontroversial to me. It's not even a euphemism is it? It literally is purely a defensive system?
It's like saying you provoked a burglar by putting a bigger lock on your door.
I've seen this opinion put forward and I don't really get it - wondering what your underlying principles to reach that opinion are?
[+] [-] 1gor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|8 years ago|reply
It says alot about the different midsets of the two countries.
I can't agree with you that this one is 'on NATO' and not Russia for that reason.
If they devoted more money to missile defense then the war would escalate between more powerful defense systems instead of more power systems of destruction.
Putin is a power hungry monster that will destroy the world before looking bad.
[+] [-] protoplant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lurker12390879|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|8 years ago|reply
The US also built nuclear powered jet engines in the 60s but found for piloted aircraft you'd either need tons of lead shielding or kill the pilots. It's rumoured the Russians actually flew one and killed said pilots.