[fauxpause_]

I don’t agree that the article makes this clear. The article states

> These are specifically designed for ballistic threats, which are common, and their extreme effectiveness is precisely why Russia and China have invested in something else.

And

> Russia used hypersonic missiles against Ukraine” — alarming! The average member of the public, as well as many policymakers, now understand that these things are dangerous because they are just too fast to shoot down. Clearly something needs to be done… (sarcastic)

It really ought to make clear explicitly in the article that the missiles it referred to in the beginning are NOT what it spends the rest of the article discussing.

It confused me at least. Because, without doing further research, I assumed the Kinzhals must not be ballistic because they’re indirectly referenced in an article about maneuverable missiles!

[the_af]

Well, it says half of the opening paragraph is "just plain wrong".

It doesn't mention the Khinzal by name, true.

[fauxpause_]

The is saying that it’s wrong that hypersonic are bad because they’re fast. It goes on to clarify why the new tech is bad. And, imo, implies that this includes the ones referenced in the beginning. But in reality it does not.

But whatever. Semantics at this point.