Hubris.

WW2 japan had fighters that flew faster, climbed quicker, had bigger guns, and turned quicker (a6m vs f4f). And we had intel reports that told us, but we ignored them because "we have the best stuff and nobody else can compete".

You see the same stuff today with China. China makes all of our microchips, all of our microelectronics, most of which are designed over there anyways (companies here just ask for a widget that does X and Y, and Chinese companies design+make it), yet we act like as if they are some technologically retarded place that only knows how to steal ip.

Russia has been at the forefront of rocketry since ww2. Nobody has systems that compare to their consistency and reliability. Not even the U.S.. The idea that Russia can't make a hyper sonic missile before the U.S., because it's Russia, is a non sequitur.

Also, Russia broke up as a country because guaranteed government jobs for all citizens, where you can't be fired and performance is not important, is going to destroy any economy. No one will produce, shelves will be empty, and money will be no more than paper. Combine that with making private business illegal (preventing people from economically helping themselves), and you have a recipe for economic disaster and social discontent.

This missile exists to swat down carrier groups on the cheap.
We're gonna need some powerful lasers, or our own hyper sonic interceptors, or else proliferation would instantly leave us isolated in the Americas (vis-a-vis power projection via conventional weaponry). Our only option for projecting power would be reduced to nuclear or nothing.

-scheherazade

"To date, he says, the US has conducted tests on this type of missile system but to his knowledge none have been successful, flying for just a few seconds. "

Basically, Putin made a laughable claim that Russia already has a mach 10 missile, so China and the USA jumped down the rabbit hole.

Kind of like when Reagan started up the SDI star wars BS. Which some people believe led to the USSR dramatically boosting their defense spending, nigh bankrupting themselves and breaking up as a country.

Bob,

This is one place where you and I agree on something: Obama fucked up in Syria and fucked up bad. He should have never said that line about the "red line" on chemical attacks unless he was fully willing to back it with US forces and see it all the way through. All he did there was make the US look weak and embolden Assad.

Now we've got a world-class cluster-fuck over there.

Bismark supposedly foresaw WW1 with the statement about "some damned fool thing in the Balkans", well WW3 might start with "some damned fool thing in the Levant", especially given that you've got Iran, Russia, the Kurds and Turkey -- not to mention al Qaeda and ISIS -- all pursuing their interests in the region through Syria.

Right now, Israel and Russia are sabre rattling at each other over those S-300 missiles and each side is all but daring the other to try something.

The best case scenario is a total bloodbath in Idlib and the worst is a shooting war between nuclear-armed opponents. As the old saying goes, "This can only end well".

So the privately run "family detention centers" like the one set up in Dilley, Texas, by the Obama administration were acceptable, but this is a step too far?

This shit didn't magically appear out of thin air. You can trace it throughout the entire history of the US: the separation of children from their parents during slavery, the forceful removal of children from reservations and their placement into "Indian schools", the mass incarceration of primarily minority youths for the crime of being poor, and physical removal of parents in foreign nations by incinerating them in drone strikes, etc.

This shit is despicable, but it's not a deviation from previous actions -- it's just the next step. And for Maddow to "break down" over this... There are Syrian refugees living in the apartment building across the street from me. How many Syrian, Libyan, Somali, Pakistani, Afghani and Yemeni children have been separated from their parents by US bombs and missiles? Never stopped Maddow from warmongering.

Yeah that's complete bullshit. Hillary was no more aggressive than any past presidents on NK and advocated for sanctions. Trump was the one actively taunting Kim and comparing missile sizes.

Except the hellfire missiles they use are supersonic so you won't even hear the drone strike coming ..

That makes the argument entirely without merit once you admit they are useless against governments, who have armies, tanks, aircraft, armed drones, missiles, and far more.

Modern warfare is just not winnable by civilians....particularly here in America. The only possible way to win is convince the military to not fight you, and using guns against them makes that impossible.

That's a close quarters engagement too. These things can shoot accurately from around 4km away. And guided missiles from nearly 8km.

This is a pretty good analog to how Hawaii reacted to their (false alarm) ballistic missile warning... although the cats missed the final step of scratching the eyes out of the people responsible for it...

That is an awful argument......and it kind of makes you an anarchist. Let me explain.
No law ever has completely stopped the crimes they outlaw. By your measure, no law should exist.
E.g. speed laws don't prevent speeding by all cars, theft laws don't prevent theft by all thieves, bribery laws don't prevent bribes by all real estate tycoons, drug laws actually increase drug related crimes, but firearm laws must prevent all misuse of all weapons, not even just all firearms, or forget it?!

Your requirements of gun control are completely...insanely... unrealistic.

Also...crazy cat lady is "using those cats to claw your face" just like shooting wildly into a neighborhood is "using a gun to shoot you". Her irresponsibility directly created a situation that endangered the neighborhood and caused damage, no? Damage caused by firing unguided fur missiles is always the shooters responsibility, not the missiles'.

Good analogy except isn't there is a real purpose for having a bad cat. To effectively defend yourself from criminals or what the 2nd amendment meant to defend yourself from a bad government. Now where the line is that prevents us from driving around in tanks or having missiles to just owning a cute little kitten is... I cannot say but I would think having a standard issue combat rifle (ar-15) is within the reasonable limits. Just my take on it.

Good point, but remember, we have no way of knowing if they're actually suspending it (actual missile and bomb tests excluded), and they're notorious for not keeping their word. Time will tell.

That said, the praise Trump heaps on other dictators for power grabs (Xi), and his lack of actions against them for direct attacks on us and allies (Putin) indicates that the temporary suspension of nuclear tests might not be the main factor in the decision.

Yep,

What once was old is new again! This tech has been around for decades.

Here is a Lun-class Ekranoplan on the Caspian Sea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_symWK4T7n0

I can only guess those are nuke rated missiles it is firing.

8 nacels, the things HP must have been huge.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).