

You are correct, I mistyped, I was referring to hypersonics.
It should be noted that the Russian kinzal missile is not a true hypersonic, the term hypersonic implies certain technologies beyond just speed and is in fact launched from a plane. It only has a range of 500km and follows a ballistic trajectory (an arc) after launch which makes it easier to track than a missile that uses hypersonic gliding (accelerating in spurts at the edge of orbit to ride earth’s gravity and change its reentry point.)
Depending on the source true hypersonics are either not worth spending any more money developing or impossible to defend against. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I personally believe the latter or they would be going on and on about how good their systems are instead of crowing about shooting down one sub standard system from Russia
I still think excessive nukes are a waste of money. If America trusted its allies it would allow its allies to have a few nukes as well, if everyone had a couple then even if Russia took out all of Americas then it’s allies would just push the button. The threat of mutually assured destruction still remains to keep everyone smiling politely.




I wonder what the relationship between chip size and other costs is. You’d think a tiny scale chip like a modern cpu is more expensive to produce than larger, less fine controllers like the kind used in basic electronics but with smaller sizes comes less raw materials, lower shipping costs and you can cram more functions on the one chip. Once you have set up the manufacturing process perhaps there is an economic reason for using the fancy stuff beyond just wanting to cram the worlds worst example of a computer into the car dashboard