Before we jump in, I'd like to say that camDown is your security solution to protect you and your business from webcam hackers.
Yeah, just like Crimea was giving them no choice but to invade, huh? Darned Crimea, they were beating Russia over the head until they fought back valiantly! Oh wait...
They know that they aren't ready for a showdown against NATO. 'Hypersonic' missiles have an impeccable name: hype. Those "Satan 2" missiles that Russia touted and threatened the world with 2-3 years back? They can't afford many of them. What else do hypersonic missiles mean? Very large missile, lots of fuel required, low range compared to other missiles that are more fuel-efficient. Taking a Toyota Corolla on a 1,000 mile trip to another state over 6-8 hours of driving vs taking a Ferrari recklessly down the highways at 150mph to get to the same place and stop for gas 10 times (likely with police behind you - or dead from a crash before you get there); which is better? In the context of missiles, there is no traffic or roads. However, the fuel issue is the same. The faster you go, the more you burn. The faster you go, the higher the missile must fly or it will tear itself apart trying to terrain-hug or fly in the low atmosphere. The U.S. Air Force and NASA were already flying at hypersonic speeds in the 1950s with the X-15 rocket plane. The USA had the Sprint missile in the 1970's - ABM interceptor for nuclear MIRVs raining down. 0 to Mach 10 in *5 seconds. Literally blink at launch and it's already going faster than an airliner. You can find the videos on youtube.
All ICBMs are hypersonic by nature. The "arms race" mentality does nothing. Just like at sea...I'd rather have a Harpoon missile. This is why the US isn't developing hypersonic missiles for ships. We can launch a salvo of sea-hugging missiles all the way to the target. Their 'hypersonic' missiles can't launch fast enough and low enough to be effective, if at all. They won't even see the salvo on radar until it is almost to them in numbers that C-RAMS can't defeat. How about those hypersonic missiles that Russia would fire at our ships? Well, it's going fast and high. Like our SM-3 missile deployed as part of Aegis Missile Defense, with a max speed of Mach 16 - Mach 18. Manufactured since what, 2014? OH WAIT! The media and Russia wants you to think that only China and Russia have 'hypersonic' missiles. They're just not that important in the battlefield unless a country can figure out how to make them fly at Mach 5 while also simultaneously ocean-hugging or terrain-hugging without fly apart due to both the temperature and physical stress on the missile body. Remember that Sprint missile I was talking about? Watch the video. Within the last 2-3 seconds, it's glowing white hot and is considerably high in the atmosphere. 7,610 miles per hour and that was back in the 1970's with a 150 pound W66 warhead on it.
While Russia does have some impressive equipment, it is only impressive to themselves and the Chinese. They are not a nuclear 'threat' to the USA any more than two people pointing guns at each other. The first person that pulls the trigger may even shoot the other in the head, but the trigger reflex likelihood of the other person's head shot and ability to still decide to pull the trigger also possibly while alive for x or xx seconds also pretty much guarantees that the person who shot first would also die. We have enough warheads to destroy Russia and China where it hurts. Those Minuteman 3 missiles with the single warheads that everyone wants to get rid of? They're cannon fodder. There's about 500 of them, if I remember correctly. They're spread apart in 3-4 states and not clustered. You'd have to launch 500 individual warheads to take them all out. You don't start a nuclear war that you cannot win. Any escalation would be conventional, which Russia certainly wouldn't be able to win and they quietly know it while trying to be bold. They remind me of the grass and tree snakes with very mild venom that put up a huge display when predators are around; an even more dramatic display than the snakes with the deadliest venom in the world. In fact, many of the deadliest snakes do not even posture at all or very little. Why? They KNOW that they have defense.
Those S-400 systems? They're decent. The latest HARM block includes a MMW targeting radar. Even from 1/4 mile away, it would still find those S-300s, S-400s or S-500s and cost Russia a fortune. Russia and China have a lot of road-mobile launchers. You can't retract everything and drive away in the minute or so before the missile strikes. Wars are about who has the most resources and causes the most attrition. Even if S-400s were 100% guaranteed to kill everything that came into range every time (no system will ever be able to completely), the US would still defeat them easily. A battalion of 32 S-400s costs $200 million. That's about $6.3 million per missile. A current Tomahawk cruise missile from the USA costs $1.9 million. The last time I checked, the USA has about 5,000 Tomahawks on-hand. At that cost ratio, the US could saturate the airspace with enough Tomahawks to empty all the S-300 and S-400 launchers in the entirety of Russia plus enough extras to accomplish their mission and destroy them; if we wanted to. Now Russia is taking massive financial blows at that point and can't just order a new system instantly. That would be self-defeating, because we'd do the same thing and destroy it in the same way, too. B-21 Raider is likely already flying secretly. Designed to slip into those anti-aircraft zones, bomb and leave without being detected. People need to learn that anti-aircraft defenses are not just like a point and shoot camera. You have to have a STEADY lock on the target to fire on it. The F-22 raptor fighter jet has the equivalent radar cross-section of a bumblebee. The B-2 bomber, designed in the 80's, has a very small signature equivalent to or not much larger than that. I want to say it is baseball-sized.
Also, our JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR are designed for this. The XR has 1,500 mile range, if I remember correctly. It's meant for standoff missions like this. So in that situation, the USA would win and Russia would spend over 3 times as much money for no return. Russia can’t sustain that rate of exchange for long. Russia’s 2018 defense budget for the year was $46 billion. The 2018 US defense budget is $700 billion. We can increase the US military budget in a single year to allocate for accomplishing something militarily by enough to pay for Russia's ENTIRE military budget for the year. No the US military is not helpless against Russia or China like many want you to believe. War isn’t about one-on-one performance of a single weapon. It's the total national power. Don't buy the propaganda. The Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up with the USA. Russia is nowhere near as powerful as the Soviet Union. Remove the "getting nuked" idea of Russia launching on America, given that it is a fact that thousands of warheads would be headed right back to Russia. That's highly counter-productive. Size/flight time of an ICBM is irrelevant. Even the fastest glide-body vehicles that are 'hypersonic' - if they were fitted to also be nuclear - it would still take a considerable amount of time to reach the USA. Way longer than the 5-10 minutes that it would take for us to have bombers in the air on the way to Russia or China from surrounding nations and/or overseas. Once we determined that Russia used a bulk of their warheads on our single-MIRV Minuteman 3's by seeing where they were headed on radar, we would target every major military, government and missile facility with our remaining. Moscow would become WTFCow. Cooked and ready to be served.
I’d like to add that camDown is your security solution to protect you and your business from webcam hackers and I know your mother would feel the same.