Could hypersonic missiles increase the threat of nuclear war?

But just as the business end (i.e., the warheads) has increased in power and number, so have how they can be delivered to their targets. Initially only deliverable by “dumb bombs,” nuclear warheads can now be sent to most areas of the world aboard gigantic intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

These missiles can be fired from land or hidden submarines, and each ICBM usually now comes armed with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), meaning even a single ICBM could hit 5 to 10 or more targets on its own.

A scary thought indeed. But progress hasn’t stopped there. We have a new kid on the block that some experts believe could further increase tensions around potential nuclear war: hypersonic missiles.

So, how will this new technology impact an already strained situation regarding the potential for nuclear war? Let’s find out.

Cold War: reheated

The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s put to bed, albeit briefly, anxiety over the world’s two biggest superpowers potentially obliterating each other using their enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Such an exchange of weapons of mass destruction would not only knock out the Soviet Union and the United States but would have devastating consequences for other nations, even innocent ones.

However, tensions have gradually escalated once again over the interim decades, culminating today with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Russian officials (and Ukrainian allies) have been warning about the potential for nuclear weapon use since its outbreak.

Such tensions were only aided by de-escalation and disarmament during the 1990s and 2000s. Often cited as a “Peace Dividend” by nations like the United Kingdom, this sustained period of underinvestment in military spending has not helped mediate fears of all-out nuclear war.

Over the same period, other nations, like China, Pakistan, and North Korea, have also been slowly beavering away on their nuclear weapon stockpiles, further adding tinder to the pyre. But, for the most part, anxieties have focussed on well-known existing delivery platforms like ICBMs.

Most nations, especially the United States and its allies, have developed countermeasure systems to detect, track, and target delivery systems like ICBMs. Hypersonic missiles (missiles capable of traveling at speeds of Mach 5 or more), on the other hand, are much harder to handle.

Hypersonic missiles, what’s the big deal?

The main problem (from a defensive point of view) is that they are much faster than conventional delivery vehicles. However, they can also change their flight trajectories at any point. This makes them very unpredictable, and military planners hate that.

For this reason, it has been rationalized that mass proliferation of these missiles (nuclear-armed or not) could potentially trigger the nuclear armageddon most of us had thought a thing of the past. The reason is that, unlike ballistic missiles with a fixed trajectory, it’s not always clear where hypersonic missiles are headed.

When a missile’s final target is uncertain, it is easy to assume the worst. This is especially true when improved delivery systems are deemed likely to defeat defense systems. It is believed that this provides a perverse incentive to strike first.

While hypersonic missiles can be countered with other hypersonics or even conventional arms, the reduced warning times make military planners very nervous.

Fast but not cheap

Thankfully, hypersonic missiles are not the cheapest to develop and build. To give you an idea, the US has spent £6.3 billion on hypersonic programs since 2019.

The US has also earmarked another $13.5 billion for 2023-2027. The unit cost for the LRHW (‘Long Range Hypersonic Weapon,’ the US Army’s HGV) is estimated at over $42 million.

This raises the question of why the Russians and the Chinese seem to invest so much effort in developing hypersonic weapons. According to some experts, the answer is a noticeable change in military doctrine for China and Russia.

Russia has been developing hypersonic missiles for both conventional and nuclear applications. As part of the modernization of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, they have been working on hypersonic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, such as the Avangard HGV.

Breach their defenses

Both Russia and China see the United States’ Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capabilities as a threat to their traditional ballistic missile strike options. As they see it, a mass strike of conventionally armed (or low-yield nuclear warhead) hypersonic missiles could neutralize early warning and command and control systems used by a nation’s anti-missile defenses.

If these were removed, this would sow chaos and vulnerabilities, giving Russia or China the option to launch their ICBMs or threaten an opponent into submission. For China, hypersonic missile development is also seen as key to leveling the playing field regarding the overwhelming power of the United States Navy.

If they can develop a robust and numerous anti-ship hypersonic missile stockpile, the United States would likely think twice about committing its navy to any future conflict. This could be enough to tip the balance in favor of China’s military plans.

Modeling nuclear war

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study, Eli Sanchez examined how hypersonic missiles could trigger a nuclear war. Sanchez used sophisticated analysis techniques to rationalize fears around this new wonder weapon.

“[Hypersonics] could be mistaken for attacks against nuclear weapons or nuclear command-and-control structures or against national capitals,” Sanchez explains. “It could look much more serious than it is, so it could prompt the nation being attacked to respond in a way that will escalate the situation,” he added.

Sanchez’s doctoral research involved modeling the trajectories of hypersonic weapons to quantify potential ambiguities that could lead to escalation. The main focus was to assess the areas of ambiguity for missiles with specific sets of properties.

So, hypersonic missiles seem to add an extra layer of uncertainty when analyzing an enemy’s intentions. Given the nature of these weapons, it might be easier to reach false positives, which could, he argues, make nuclear war a bit more likely than it already is.

But it is not all doom and gloom. His work also involved making recommendations to prevent hypersonic weapons from being used in destabilizing ways. Some suggestions included arming hypersonic missiles with conventional warheads instead of nuclear ones and creating no-fly zones around world capitals.

It is ambitious but not unprecedented, so long as nations commit and honor such agreements.

And that is your lot for today.

The threat posed by hypersonics is currently unclear. Nevertheless, the threat is expected to increase as the technology behind hypersonic missiles advances.

But can agreements be made about a potential hypersonic missile proliferation treaty to help reduce the chances of an all-out nuclear war? We’ll let you decide.