With some CPGS technologies reaching maturity and an acquisition decision approaching, the time is right for a national debate about the benefits and risks of CPGS.
China’s recent tests of a novel nuclear-weapon delivery system may not represent a new threat to the United States. But they should prompt the development of a new diplomatic strategy to prevent a dangerous arms race.
Congress should play a leading a role in steering the United States toward a strategically prudent and responsible missile defense policy—one that maximizes U.S. national security interests while averting an unnecessary nuclear arms race at a time when conventional challenges loom large.
James Acton, co-director of Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program, explains hypersonic weapons.
Burgeoning research into hypersonic missile systems may disrupt a delicate strategic balance between the nuclear states. Yet due to diplomatic and regulatory barriers, a global ban seems unlikely.
The difficulty of reaching a definitive conclusion about whether to acquire Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) weapons stems both from technological immaturity and from flaws in the Department of Defense’s approach to CPGS development.
Chinese experts are increasingly using the term “strategic stability” to refer to a bilateral nuclear relationship of mutual vulnerability. Maintaining such a mutually vulnerable relationship with other major nuclear powers, especially the United States, is of ultimate importance for Chinese decisionmakers.
There are good reasons to question how much additional capability the DF-17 will provide. Chinese propaganda, by contrast, is the only unclassified source for the accuracy of the first-of-its-kind DF-17.
What can be learned about China’s hypersonic boost-glide weapon program from flight tests, and the implications of the program for the security of the United States and our allies.
Russian political leaders and military strategists are growing increasingly concerned about strategic conventional weapons, particularly long-range, hypersonic weapons. Some fear that strategic conventional weapons could prove decisive in a major conflict and that Russia is lagging behind in their development.
The United States has spent $1 billion on a weapon that has no mission and has started an arms race with China in the process.
How do boost-glide weapons work? How effective will they be from a military standpoint?