All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
We can also sign up for the podcast feed.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton show.
Okay, guys, on the line, I have got the great Andrew Coburn.
And of course, he is Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and is the author of the books Kill Chain and Rumsfeld, His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy.
And here he is writing in the London Review of Books, that's lrb.co.uk, Like a Ball of Fire, Andrew Coburn on hypersonic weaponry.
Welcome back to the show, sir.
How are you doing?
Hey, very well.
Great to be with you.
Very happy to have you back on the show here.
I love me some Coburns.
I'll tell you what, um, hypersonic missiles, uh, who's ahead and how dangerous are they and how afraid I should be and where can I go to waste all my money on something?
Uh, well, going, taking all of your, your questions in reverse order, it, you just have to roll up to the Pentagon.
They'll take all your money and waste it very rapidly on green things.
Step one solved.
All right.
So once they have my money, then what?
They will, they're mostly most likely to give it to the Lockheed corporation.
Um, cause that's where they all go to when they retire, when they take off their uniforms.
And we've just had a, yet another shocking example, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, who defended while he was, you know, in his August four star position with defended a whole bunch of Lockheed programs that people are attacking, like the F-35 plane and Hey, Presto, he's gone to his reward.
He retired is now on the board of Lockheed at whatever it is, three or $400,000 a year.
Surprise, surprise, no surprise, unfortunately.
So, um, now, uh, let's talk about, uh, Vladimir Putin here.
And a lot of your article revolves around this speech that he gave in his annual address to the Russian federal assembly, the state of the union equivalent there, I suppose, right.
The, the big annual address to the Congress in March of 2018, where he debuted at least claims of all new nuclear weapons systems to deter the United States of America.
Uh, so can we start with that?
What all it was he was talking about?
And then we'll narrow it down to the hypersonics here a little bit more in a sec.
Sure.
He, um, you know, he sort of introduces, he said, you know, he gave a, you know, fairly accurate description of what had happened with, you know, anti the various anti anti ballistic missile treaties or the treaty that the Americans had ripped up in, uh, under George W. Bush.
And he's saying how that destabilized things and it was a rotten business.
And then he, uh, he says, now the Americans, you know, they've been working on their anti missile systems.
Um, we can come back to that cause it's a lot to be said about that.
Um, and, but he said, Hey, don't worry about it folks, because we've got these new wonderful new weapons systems like, um, uh, huge new ballistic missile, um, that, you know, that's much bigger embedded than gone before a nuclear powered cruise missile, um, which is something no one else has, um, they don't, you know, an underwater drone, basically a sort of intercontinental torpedo.
Um, he went through all of those and then he, you know, uh, the main topic of my article, he talked about, uh, this wonderful new class of hypersonic weapons that they had, which perhaps I should explain what a hypersonic weapon is, uh, literally it means something that flies faster than five times the speed of sound.
Um, but the whole point about the kind of weapon he was talking about and that I'm talking about in the article is not only can it fly through the atmosphere at five times or allegedly more than that, than the speed of sound, but it can maneuver while it's doing, you know, it can twist this way and that way up and down, which a ballistic missile can't do, doesn't do.
And that makes it, therefore, even in theory, very hard to shoot down because you don't know, you know, you can't predict where it'll be, you know, 10 seconds from now, however long it takes your defensive rocket to get there.
So this was in, he showed up, you know, he showed all sorts of fancy videos to illustrate his, his talk in that, in that speech back in March, 2018, including a whole rain of these hypersonic missiles landing on Florida.
I looked at the picture a long time trying to figure out if it was particularly targeted on Mar-a-Lago and it looked like there was, I mean, obviously all of Southern Florida was going to be obliterated if these things worked anyway.
So it was a very explicit, and if we can go into it in detail, but there was a lot of things wrong with what he said.
First of all, none of them were really new.
They were all programs that have been created back in the later days of the Soviet Union when, you know, the whole thing was much bigger and richer and, you know, they had more money to throw at these things.
And they sort of, you know, they'd been sitting there on the shelf or been sort of puttering along on a, at a low rate of funding for many years.
And Putin has now poured money into them and renamed them in a lot of cases and unveiled them as, you know, his great, it showed to show that Russia was still in the superpower business and, hey, we've got, you know, we've got these great new systems to, you know, which can really, you know, show off the Americans and the Americans better not think of threatening us.
Yeah.
So, I mean, that was certainly the take in the New York Times was, yeah, right.
Nice cartoon, but we don't believe that he really has any of these things.
Or maybe he's got the new heavy missile, but probably not this, these nuclear torpedoes and, and the nuclear powered cruise missile and the hypersonics.
He's just exaggerating.
Well, I mean, I really hate, I mean, it goes against every group, you know, fiber of my body to ever admit the New York Times has been right about anything ever, because, you know, you're not.
You think they're right to be skeptical of this stuff, though, huh?
Well, yeah, but for the wrong, you know, but they didn't say, you know, now they, because we can fast forward, that was March 2018 to the very beginning of this year, when the or the end of last year, when the Russian Ministry of Defense announced now they had actually, you know, the hypersonic, the main hypersonic missile called the Avangard, you know, had reached, you know, was now operational, you know, there's actually on duty, so to speak.
And there was one, there's one battery of them, according to the Russians, that's deep in the heart of Russia is ready to, you know, to be unleashed against this country if, if the unthinkable should ever come to pass.
Whereupon the New York Times, you know, treated this unblushingly and said, you know, this is great.
I mean, not, it's not great, but this is impressive.
And America, their headline says, you know, America is trying to catch up and it was taken as a given that, you know, the Russians had, had got something very worthwhile in these, you know, if you believe in any of this stuff, and therefore that the US, you know, was trying to catch up and should be trying to catch up as opposed to saying, hey, the, you know, the Russian taxpayers have been given a, sold on this ridiculous, you know, this pig in a poke.
And we shouldn't, we should not follow suit.
But again, you know, the so-called logic of the arms race held that, you know, of course, you know, the Russians are doing this, so we have to do the same thing, which is indeed what's happening.
Yeah.
And I guess the incentive is always to pretend to believe the worst about Russian capabilities.
And you wrote the book, I love this, that back in 1981, the threat about how the Red Army in Eastern Europe, you could have pushed it over with a feather, which is apparently what happened just a few years later.
Yeah.
I mean, they, you know, I remember the example I always used to cite, you know, you've got a good memory.
The example I used to cite was the, the Russians had this, what was then, you know, a brand new tank called the T-72.
And this was written, used to be written up with, you know, sort of being with baited breath in the New York Times, everyone else, this monster tank, this brilliant tank the Russians had.
And our military would, the army would go and testify on Capitol Hill about, we need to counter the dreaded T-72.
And I had discovered that, oh, and one of the things that was meant to be so sort of cool and modern about this tank was the gun had an automatic loader.
You didn't need to have an extra crewman sitting in the tank to feed shells into the gun because that was done automatically.
They had an automatic, you know, it was a semi-automatic tank gun, if you like.
Well, I discovered that one of the, it did, it was an automatic loader, all right.
And one of the things that would load into the barrel was the gunner's arm.
So a lot of one armed Soviet tank gunners walking around.
And you know, so in every case, things that were being sold to us as, you know, another feature of the awesome Soviet threat, when you look closely, you know, you know, it just wasn't there.
I remember they used to talk about the, the Russians had this anti-ballistic missile whole system around Moscow, all these interceptor rockets ready to go.
Well, I found someone, this was back in the beginning of the 1980s, Soviet Union was up and running.
I found someone who'd been in the military and he'd worked on one of those bases, those anti-missile bases.
And he said, well, I said, what did you spend your most of your time doing?
And he said, well, we'd spend a lot of time and we had to clean the machinery, had to make sure it was all in perfect working order.
And we were given, you know, we cleaned it with alcohol, with an alcohol, with alcohol.
But he said, we weren't going to waste the alcohol, you know, cleaning bits of machinery.
We could drink it or sell it, you know, it was very valuable to sell.
And so we would clean the machinery with gasoline because, uh, when you clean a bit of metal with gasoline, it gives off a nice shiny clean look, you know, gleaming and would pass inspection.
But of course, gasoline will make metal corrode and that's what happened.
So you had all these basically rusting anti-missile bases around Moscow because the cleaning stuff had all been gone down the throats or been sold by the crewmen.
You're pretty certain that this whole, uh, new threat of the Russian advances and specifically on the hypersonics, that's, it's a pig in a poke, as you said, which I see why the Americans don't care about that.
They love pigs in pokes.
That's the name of the game in Washington, DC.
But, uh, but for the Russians, they're getting hosed, the Russian taxpayers are getting hosed here too, you think?
Yes, they are.
I mean, you know, Putin seems like a smart fellow, whatever you think of his morality.
And so I think he, he probably knows this.
I mean, he has a problem, uh, or many problems, obviously, but the big problem is that he has to, you know, his country was a superpower, but now it's shrunk by, you know, it's shrunk by almost half and it's a lot poorer.
But it still has to, you know, it's positioning, you know, he has to sell the idea that Russia is still a superpower.
Um, and you know, what makes you a superpower while having strategic nuclear weapons?
And you know, that's very important for him domestically because he has to tell his constituency, I mean, the people, he depends on to keep him in power, the sort of, uh, you know, his support base in Russia that, hey, he's really protecting the homeland and protecting the reputation of the homeland.
And what better way to do that than to, you know, make it clear that, you know, the Americans are still scared of us because we have all these super nuclear, super weapons.
And so I think that's, there was a good political logic to having this thing.
I mean, he went, as I say, in this article, he, this, the Avangard, their main hypersonic missile, that was, that was first sort of laid down, put into development in the 1980s.
And the program after the fall of the Soviet Union, it didn't, wasn't quite abolished, but it sort of sputtered, it was basically on mothballs.
I mean, they spent a few, maybe spent a few rubles a year sort of keeping it ticking over, but basically nothing was happening.
Then Putin gets in and he's, you know, he's out to revive Russia.
I mean, you know, Russia was essentially, you know, it was a pretty much a failed, well, I hate the phrase, but it was, you know, as a state, it would really fall on very hard times with a lot of help from us.
So he's out to revive things and he starts putting money back into defense, including, so this Avangard program, which had been called Albatross and now they'd renamed it.
So that's, you know, up and running.
That's kind of funny that it had been called Albatross.
Is the rhyme of the ancient Mariner, is that a thing in Russia?
Well, I wondered someone, someone had read it clearly and got it, got it past the censor.
So, but in 2004, so that he goes down to a test and the test didn't work.
You know, the thing failed, it did not quite clear what happened, but it was definitely a failure.
I think it blew up.
Nevertheless, he said, well, okay, keep going boys.
And they did.
And then they reported a bit later, they said they're having problems making it maneuver, which is the whole point of these weapons, but he, you know, still kept on putting money in.
Now he's, now he's announced that this thing is up and running and, you know, now the Americans, you know, can't, their anti-missile defenses are useless because they can't defend against this thing.
So I think it's been a very good political initiative for him.
Plus it's a lot of money he's been able to put into, you know, these, you know, he's, his support base is, is, you know, like, like Trump's, there's a lot of it in the defense contractor in, in their military industrial complex.
So he's given them a big present.
So they're happy.
So he's happy.
Um, and you know, thanks to that, a lot of people here are happy too.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from amazon.com.
Wow.
That makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
All you have to do though, is click through from the link in the right-hand margin at scotthorton.org and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at scotthorton.org.
Hey, y'all check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
First is No Quarter, The Ravings of William Norman Grigg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone, but this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
Interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state, and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at libertarianinstitute.org slash books.
You need stickers for your band or your business?
Well Rick and the guys over at TheBumperSticker.com have got you covered.
Great work, great prices, sticky things with things printed on them.
Whatever you need, TheBumperSticker.com will get it done right for you.
TheBumperSticker.com.
Well, and in your article, I think you kind of project, you know, in an educated guest sort of a fashion, you project America's problems with developing hypersonic technology onto the Russians too.
If the Americans have these hurdles that they can't seem to make sense of how to get across, to get over here, I guess, then the Russians must be having the same problems, such as for example, the maneuverability issue.
Yeah.
I mean, basically, I quote in the piece, there's a guy called Ivan Selin who was a big cheese in the Pentagon, oh God, 50 years ago.
And he used to address his staff and he'd say, welcome to the world of strategic analysis where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist.
And this is a classic example.
I mean, the threat of Russian hypersonics doesn't exist for reasons, you know, I explain at length in the piece, it can't, for all sorts of basic reasons to do with the laws of physics.
You know, it's not something that more money would solve, even if they had it.
But you know, we don't, we don't pay any attention to that.
You know, we're pouring money into our efforts to, first of all, to be able to do the same thing to build the equivalent, you know, of the Russian thing.
So we have it and we can threaten the Russians with it, allegedly.
And secondly, so that we, you know, we can defend against this dreaded Russian threat.
But you know, that won't work either.
It's really pissing away an enormous, enormous sums of money on both sides, you know, just for the gratification and enrichment of domestic constituencies, you know, making them, making the Lockheed, Lockheed Corporation has three and a half billion dollars it's getting for this thing, variety of programs, I'm sure the Russian equivalent and getting a similar proportion of the Russian defense budget.
So, you know, it's just one more, but particularly egregious ripple.
Hmm.
So now, I mean, part of the problem with all of this stuff is, and I mean, I think everybody understands it's kind of out in the open, right?
This is all just corporate welfare.
The cart is before the horse.
And certainly in America, I don't know exactly how the economy is ordered over there in Russia, but I know it ain't the freest of free markets.
It's definitely a gangster economy, just like America's is, only less so just for the quantities involved.
But here, the whole thing is a self-licking ice cream cone.
I mean, obviously, they're willing to just, you know, go on.
But then what happens, though, is strategies have to change.
I mean, policies change and game theory equations get updated.
And these kinds of technologies, you know, like, for example, you said that they claim now that they've deployed a few here or there that they claim work.
So then somewhere on the American chain of command, that means they have to rewrite the blue notebook that says how you respond when this or that happens and that kind of thing, right?
And so.
Well, not only that, they'll be saying, well, we've had to rewrite, you know, rewrite the blue book or whatever it is to respond to this.
And therefore, we need another billion dollars to do that, you know.
But I mean, I guess what I'm thinking of is more like on the launch on warning.
Now we have less time.
Now we go ahead and our fingers that much itchier because instead of having 30 minutes to decide, we think from launch time, we only got five.
So we better always assume the worst case scenario, use them or lose them and all that kind of deal.
You know, like the whole game theory changes, not just cashing in on this side, but actually changing the interaction between the forces as they're balanced in the world.
Yes.
Although I think we should never lose sight of the money, you know, what right, you know, why?
So they they'll do something or they do continually do hideously dangerous things like, you know, what you just said, you know, saying, well, the launch time has gone down to three minutes.
So we have to build that, you know, whatever it is.
It is basically three minutes now that the time that Donald Trump would have to make I think they'd give Donald Trump to make up his mind.
But you know, and therefore, you know, then that's sort of my horrifyingly irresponsible.
But I think the real you know, why do they do that?
And the reason is, I think, is always is because, you know, this will enhance our but I mean, if it didn't, if it if that meant reducing the budget, it wouldn't happen and do that thought experiment.
Hey, you know, the launch, you know, the launch window has gone down to 90 seconds.
So that means we might as well cut out, you know, systems X, Y and Z.
Well, you know, that that would never happen.
They would never do that.
So that's what and that's more was my beef with people who who, you know, write about American militarism and, you know, and empiricism.
They always sort of people don't forget why or don't think through why this happens.
And it has to be the money.
I don't think people you know, it's like people.
It's like when people talk about foreign policy, the foreign policy of the United States is or the foreign policy of Romania is.
It's like countries, you know, countries don't have brains.
People make decisions.
And why do they make those particular decisions?
They make them in the foreign policy example, in terms of their own domestic political position.
You know, Trump, you know, you and your in your great book, you you present all the reasons why we shouldn't be in Afghanistan.
Trump keeps trying to pull out of Afghanistan and the military, but, you know, he he's not doing because he's read your book or he should do if he could read.
He's doing it because he thinks it would be to his personal political advantage.
That's why people do things.
Justin Raimondo back a few years ago had written this was his kind of, you know, a bit of a legacy was coining the term of libertarian realism, which was centered around the idea that all foreign policy is domestic politics.
Yeah.
And of course, domestic politics is all about money.
I mean, even in fact, someone just emailed me yesterday about this.
I'd ask you about this because you're such an expert on all these topics about how America pays the corporate welfare for the Israelis and then the Israelis turn around and it's in the deal.
Right.
It's in writing that they have to spend a certain very high percentage of that money on American weapon systems.
And so even that is all just the Iron Triangle or not all, but to a great degree, that same Iron Triangle at play.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a topic for a different discussion, but the Israelis are now I mean, our military industrial complexes are, excuse me, are very, you know, almost are integrated now.
I mean, you know, the Israeli companies, it's the same with the British, with British Aircraft BAE.
You know, it's all one seamless, giant bacteria, whatever you want to call it.
The combine.
Yeah, it's a huge combine.
Anyway, so just getting back to the point I was making, I think I was quoting my Mr.
Sullen on, you know, weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist.
I mean, in this case, it's kind of cubed because we we're developing weapons that don't work to meet the threat of the Russian, you know, hypersonic system.
But that threat doesn't actually exist because the Russian system fairly clearly doesn't work or can't work.
So but the Russian system was developed to meet the threat, defeat the threat of our anti-missile systems.
But they don't work either.
So it's all these threats, you know, it's all these things that don't work developed to meet threats that don't exist several times around, you know, it's funny.
And you're right.
I mean, that is what Putin said was like, hey, if you're going to ring my country with all these anti-missile missiles, what else can I do except step up my efforts on this side?
And yet, in fact, yeah, you know, it's Oliver Stone in one of the interviews, Ray McGovern likes to share this clip where Oliver Stone says, now, listen here, Putin, you know that it's all just corporate welfare and these anti-missile missiles don't really work and they're just cashing checks and exploiting the American people's generosity and goodwill.
And so, you know, can't you take a position like too cool to worry about it, you know, instead of responding in kind?
And Putin says, well, no, Oliver Stone, because you see, even though I agree with you that yeah, it's all about corporate welfare, of course it is.
The reality is, you're ringing my country with anti-missile missiles and for my job that I'm in, I have to presume that they work and that it matters that they do.
And so, I have to do what I have to do too, sorry, you know, you shouldn't have done this to me and I wouldn't be doing it back.
And after all, it was George Bush who just two months after Putin was the first leader in the world to call Bush on September 11th and say, hey, I'm at your service, whatever you need, pal.
Bush turns right around and gets out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty that December.
And remember, it's worth bearing in mind, I'm sure Putin does, I mean, Gorbachev tried to get out of that, Sakharov, Andrei Sakharov, the great physicist explained to him and convinced him that, you know, what you just said, that it's all BS, you know, these things, anti-missile systems don't work, so forget about it, you know, don't worry about it.
And Gorbachev proceeded on that basis and, you know, and actually sort of tried to de-escalate the arms race and look what happened to him.
So I think Putin remembers that very clearly and knows that his job's on the line if he starts invoking reality on these things.
Yeah.
Well, okay, so now talk a little bit about the, what's so hard about flying a bomb at Mach 5 anyway?
What makes it so difficult to maneuver and all that?
I mean, I guess the obvious, but you could explain a little.
Well, the thing, the difference, the main difference between this and the, you know, the nuclear missiles, nuclear missiles we've come to know and love all these years is they, the ballistic nuclear ballistic missile, you fire it off, it goes up into through the atmosphere into space, and it flies through space.
And then, you know, when it gets at the appropriate moment, having gone a long distance around the world, it, it then dips, you know, comes down into the atmosphere and hits the target.
The whole idea of the hypersonic missile is it flies, it doesn't go into space, it's taken up in, well, the variant I'm mostly talking about, and that's what the Russians have developed, is boosted up to the sort of edge of space on a rocket, you know, like a ballistic missile, like I've just been talking about, but then it, it, you know, lets the, the rocket lets it go, and then it scoots through, it goes down into the atmosphere.
So it's still very, you know, very high up, 70, 80, 90, 100,000 feet, maybe, and so, but it's going through the air, and because it's going through the air, that's what allegedly gives it the ability to manoeuvre, you know, just like an aeroplane with, you know, flaps on the wings, how a plane manoeuvres and goes up and down, you know, the control surfaces move and, you know, that, they enable it to manoeuvre.
The problem is that it's going very, very fast, I mean, five, at least five times the speed of sound, and they claim, you know, many times, you know, 10, many times greater than that, 10, 15 times the speed of sound.
And any time you're going through air at such speeds, you know, you're, there's a lot of friction.
I mean, you're going through something that's, it's, and the way that the, and that leads inevitably to your vehicle or whatever is travelling, it, it heats up.
I mean, the, you know, the energy of the, generated by the friction or drag heats, heats the vehicle up.
And that's why, you know, the space, things coming back from space have these heat shields to stop them burning up.
And that's why, you know, the shuttle, one of the shuttles crashed because, you know, part of its heat shield had been torn off in, in flight.
So the, so that is the major problem.
So you want to, you have a problem, you want to reduce that, reduce the amount of drag and therefore friction.
And you do that by, you know, making it as streamlined as possible and having, you know, he has little wings making the wings very small because, you know, you want to be like a, you know, like a, remember the pictures of the old Concorde airliner, you know, the supersonic plane, it looked like a needle and you want to be as needle like, so you don't present as much resistance to the air, which then leads to drag and friction and heat and all those bad things.
But the, if the more you do that, the less ability to maneuver you have, you know, like I think of an airplane, the bigger the wings, you know, the more it can maneuver.
I mean, that's slightly oversimplifying things, but it's a, you know, it's the way it's wing area, wing lift that enables you to maneuver.
So you've got two contradictory things.
You don't want to burn up, but you want it to maneuver.
The more ability you give it to maneuver, the more likely it is to burn up and the more it'll slow down because again, the more resistance you present to the air with your nice nifty control surfaces, your wings, you know, the more the, you know, the more, the quicker it will slow down.
So they found among other things, they cannot get intercontinental range if they're maneuvering to any degree.
So therefore the whole point goes out the window.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
Well, and also I think as you were talking about too, they explode a lot just because When you have the air going through that scramjet, as they call it, that it's fine when you're going forward, but if you try to take any kind of hard turn there, that the forces inside the vehicle itself are unbearable, right?
Yeah.
That's the, then there's two, I should say quickly, there's two variants, two variants of hypersonic weapon that we've been talking about.
One is they call boost glide, whereas I said, it's, you know, it's lofted high up and into very high speeds by a conventional rocket and then, you know, let go sort of like a, like you, you know, like they froze it almost like throwing a stone or something.
And the other is when it's powered and the only, the engine that would give it the speed you're talking about, we're talking about the tremendous speeds, it's something called a scramjet, which basically means passing, it's like a jet engine with the air going through the engine at incredible supersonic speeds.
But the trouble is when you have, as you said, when you have the air going through that, it's very, any kind of perturbation, any kind of interruption or wriggle, so to speak, in the airflow, anytime the airflow becomes unsmooth at this very high speed, then you get shockwaves, a shockwave building up, and the thing is liable to explode.
And that's what seems to have happened in probably two out of the three tests, only tests that the Americans, the US has ever done with scramjets at these speeds, called the wave writer test.
Well, I feel safer from hypersonic missiles and I feel more taxed than ever before.
Thank you.
All right, Scott, take care.
I really appreciate it.
Sorry, I got to cut this short.
I had more questions, but everybody go and check out this great article.
It's at lrb.co.uk, the London Review of Books, Like a Ball of Fire, Andrew Coburn on hypersonic weaponry.
Thank you again, sir.
Hey, you're welcome.
The Scott Horton Show, Anti-War Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A., APSradio.com, Antiwar.com, ScottHorton.org, and LibertarianInstitute.org.
