We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Should you believe the hype(rsonic)?
Over the past few months, US officials have become increasingly alarmed about a new type of killing machines called "hypersonic weapons."
The top US General, Mark Milley, said that China's successful test of an advanced hypersonic weapon earlier this year was "very close" to a "Sputnik moment" – referring to the Soviet Union's surprise launch of the world's first artificial satellite in 1957, which raised fears that the US was lagging behind a formidable technological rival.
Should you be worried? Yes, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.
First, what are hypersonic weapons? When people talk about hypersonic weapons today, they're generally referring to two things:
Jet-powered missiles that fly at extreme speeds. These missiles travel very close to the surface of the earth. Most of today's cruise missiles do this too, but they do not travel faster than sound. Hypersonics, by contrast, travel at a minimum of five times the speed of sound.
Hypersonic glide vehicles, which have no engines of their own. They are carried high up into the atmosphere by another rocket and then released to glide, like hypersonic paper airplanes, until they strike their targets.
These weapons can be armed with nuclear warheads, and their main, terrifying new feature – besides their speed – is their maneuverability.
Unlike most of today's missiles, which travel along a predictable trajectory after launch, hypersonics can zig and zag. In baseball terms, it's the difference between a long throw from an outfielder, which you can line up and catch, and a knuckleball that dances through the atmosphere like a butterfly before destroying your aircraft carrier.
So far, only three countries have advanced hypersonic weapons programs. China and Russia have successfully tested, and likely deployed, hypersonics, some of which are nuclear capable. They say that these programs are a direct response to US missile defense systems, which Washington has been building for more than twenty years. The United States itself is also developing hypersonic missiles, with a focus on non-nuclear ones which actually have to be more precise. So far the US has deployed nothing. India, France, Australia, Germany, and Japan all have earlier stage hypersonic programs as well.
Why are people worried about these weapons? Some have pointed out that hypersonic weapons can easily evade missile defense systems. This is because their flight patterns are more unpredictable, and because their low altitudes make them harder to detect than ICBMs, which trace big high ballistic arcs that can be seen from thousands of miles away .
But the truth is that a missile defense system like the US' already fails 6 out of 10 times even in highly controlled tests with ICBMs. In other words, the existing Russian and Chinese arsenals of ICBMs are more than sufficient to overwhelm any missile defenses. Still, the US insistence on continuing to build missile defense capabilities is one reason why the Russians and Chinese are so keen to develop evasive new hypersonic weapons in the first place.
As a result, nuclear deterrence is still based on the idea of mutually assured destruction. "We can't stop you from hitting us. But we can hit you back and destroy you, so don't do it."
There are, however, two big worries with hypersonics.
They make catastrophic miscalculations much more likely. Because they arrive so much faster and more unpredictable than conventional ballistic or cruise missiles, they give officials and generals less time to assess a threat and decide on an appropriate response. That not only increases the stakes – and risks – in the heat of the moment, it also makes wary countries more likely to strike first so that they don't get caught off-guard by a hypersonic attack, nuclear or not.
Also, there are no global rules for hypersonic weapons. Current arms control treaties have nothing to say about them. Like other frontier military technologies – such as artificial intelligence weapons or cyberattacks – there are no limits on testing or deployment, no understandings about proportional retaliation, and no mechanisms in place to exchange information about who has what weapons and where.
The New START pact between Russia and the US, for example, is the last significant strategic arms control agreement in the world: it doesn't cover hypersonics. Even if it did, China has not signed it.
Looking back. The world lived through decades of duck-and-cover fear before exploring sensible nuclear arms control deals, and even that took a near-miss like the Cuban missile crisis.
Looking ahead. We are still only in the earliest days of the hypersonic weapons era. Will it take a new missile crisis to get world leaders to make rules for these things?
To deal with Iran's nuclear program, diplomacy is the only safe option: Kelsey Davenport
Iran now says it wants to return to the nuclear negotiating table with the US. For nuclear weapons expert Kelsey Davenport, that's still the best possible option for both sides because it'll put the breaks on the atomic program and give the Iranians some badly needed US economic sanctions relief. Diplomacy, she says, is always the best way because when the US and Israel have tried cyber-espionage and killing Iran's nuclear scientists, it's resulted in the Iranians doing exactly what they're not supposed to under the terms of the 2015 deal. "All options are on the table [and] those options are on the table, but they're not good options." She spoke in an interview with Ian Bremmer on an episode of GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Nuclear weapons: more dangerous than ever?
Should we still be worried about the nuclear threat?
Everyone loves to say that nuclear weapons are so destructive that they've kept us all safe for decades. But, have they? Nukes expert Kelsey Davenport recalls how during the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union came very close to attacking each other with nukes, and America once almost accidentally detonated a nuke on its own soil. "We've really been quite lucky to have avoided an intentional or accidental nuclear exchange at this point. And my fear is that one day, our luck is going to run out." Despite all that, Davenport says nukes no longer make headlines because they feel "very abstract" for people. Davenport spoke with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Nuclear weapons: more dangerous than ever?
Podcast: Do nuclear weapons keep us safe? An arms control expert weighs in
Listen: Arms control expert Kelsey Davenport joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast to talk about the world's long fascination with nuclear weapons and how close we still remain to all-out nuclear war. Today's nuclear threat is not about who has the most nukes, it's about who has the smartest ones. Davenport addresses the question: Do nuclear weapons keep us safe?
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
The new nuclear arms race: Smarter, faster nukes
There's a lot of talk about nukes these days — but not about Cold War-era massive arsenals and mutually assured destruction. Nuclear weapons expert Kelsey Davenport says the risk of something going horribly wrong is rising because countries like China or Russia are developing smaller warheads and high-tech delivery systems such as hypersonic missiles, which traditional arms control agreements don't take into account. "We have to be more creative than thinking just about the numbers," she explains, adding that what's more destabilizing is countries investing in nukes that are so nimble and travel so fast they can penetrate US defense systems. Watch her interview with Ian Bremmer on the upcoming episode of GZERO World on US public television - check local listings.
- What We're Watching: North Korean bluster, EU aid for Afghanistan ... ›
- What We're Watching: Kim goes hypersonic, confident Europeans ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: Nuclear weapons — who has what? - GZERO ... ›
- New US president, same old focus on Iranian bomb - GZERO Media ›
- Nuclear weapons - which countries have what? - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: A tale of two Koreas with veteran Korea journalist Jean Lee - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Do nuclear weapons keep us safe? An arms control expert weighs in - GZERO Media ›
Can Joe Biden change American foreign policy?
Joe Biden has vowed to radically change the US' approach to foreign policy and international diplomacy should he win next week's election.
But a lot has happened in four years under Donald Trump that could impede Biden's ability to simply return to the status quo ante. How different would US foreign policy really be under a Biden presidency? What will the two-term former vice president likely be able to change, and what's bound to remain the same, at least for now?
Quick fixes.
Climate. Biden has said from the get-go that on "day one" he would reenter the Paris Climate Accord that the Trump administration abandoned back in 2019, a move that left global powers scrambling as to how to tackle climate change without the world's second largest emitter of carbon and largest economy.
The US' official exit only occurs on November 4, a day after the US election, and therefore, Biden could readily recommit to the treaty without having to make up for much lost time (though there are some compliance issues he would need to address).
US allies. Should he win in November, one of Biden's key policy priorities will be repairing damaged alliances, particularly with European partners. (In 2018, for example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said "we can't rely on the superpower of the United States.") To do so, Biden could readily fall back on deep relations cultivated during his two terms as vice president.
Indeed, to counter Russian aggression, Biden says he will seek to bolster NATO, not only economically, but also by reinforcing the United States' commitment to its shared values.
Iran nuclear deal. Withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's signature foreign policies. Biden, on the other hand, says he will rejoin the accord and resume direct negotiations with Tehran on the condition that "Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal."
While notionally — with the backing of US allies like Germany and France — this process seems achievable in the near term, Biden's plan still relies on the Iranians playing ball. For its part, Iran has its own elections coming up next summer, and as journalist Negar Mortazavi recently told GZERO, the future of diplomacy between the US and Iran is also largely contingent on whether Iran's (anti-American) hardliners prevail at the polls in 2021.
Harder to shift.
Trade. Biden has said repeatedly that Trump's erratic trade policy has disaffected allies like Canada, Mexico and Europe, and deterred China from making concessions in general. The former VP says he will work with allies to get China in check. But as the global economy suffers its worst recession in decades — while China's economy continues to recover, putting it ahead of other global heavyweights— Beijing isn't likely to stop playing hardball anytime soon. At the same time, even if Biden is committed to reducing tensions with Beijing by eliminating some tariffs on Chinese goods imposed by Trump, walking back on $360 billion worth of dues is never going to be a cakewalk.
Meanwhile, while Biden believes in global economic integration, he has to contend with the Democratic party's dominant pro-labor progressive wing, which would likely complicate his administration's efforts to rejoin multinational treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
North Korea and arms control. While President Trump has held three face-to-face summits with Kim Jong-un in recent years, relations between Washington and Pyongyong are as tense as ever. Biden says he will rally allies — as well as China — to reengage the North in denuclearization talks. However, Kim has shown very little willingness to do so, and North Korea has in fact recently made progress in developing nuclear weapons that could strike US territory.
While at this stage, Biden has little leverage with the North, he can — and likely will — renew America's commitment to broader arms control by extending the New START treaty — a 2011 deal limiting long-range nuclear weapons between the Kremlin and the Obama administration that expires next February — without preconditions. (So far, the Trump administration has failed to reach an agreement with Moscow on terms for the extension.)
Bottom line: Leaders are always constrained by the actions of those who came before them. In this particularly tumultuous global moment, what Biden wants to do and what he actually can do will be divergent agendas.