Plasma, the Mysterious and Powerful Fourth Phase of Matter
aeon.co
aeon.co
Right. Anyone who ever struck a match has produced a natural plasma right then and there. Neon lights and plasma [!] TVs are pretty common this side of the Atlantic. A fun way to create a microwave plasma is to microwave half a grape [1]. An even more fun way is to leave a fork in the microwave oven.
[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/37836/why-do-gra...
Stark effect - spectrum line splitting by an electric field
s/warhead/capsule/ and you've just described "normal" for returning from space. I imagine that a warhead is designed to slow down slower, and thus to remain hypersonic farther into the atmosphere, but of course it's possible, it's just a question of how good you can make it.
https://youtu.be/msXtgTVMcuA?t=60
Russia loves to brag about weapons that can overcome US defenses because people for some reason have forgotten that the top-level strategic "defense" is not an impenetrable wall of interception systems -- which literally no nation on earth has the budget to effectively maintain, even the US, because the economics of intercept are terrible -- but rather the policy of mutually assured destruction. This has been the case throughout the entire planning cycle of nearly every piece of hardware in use by the US armed forces and it will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
No, Russia likes to heavily advertise weapons that can penetrate US missile defenses as a means of reinforcing MAD; any power’s decision-makers gaining (justified or not) confidence in even limited survivability due to workable defenses undermines MAD.
This is also the same reason all parties want to project an air of confidence in their defenses; they want to appear unconstrained by MAD (so that they can use nuclear threat, implicit or explicit, to influence rival powers non-nuclear-attack actions) while the other side remains constrained (so that the assured destruction, at least in political effect, is not mutual.)
We agree. I'm not sure why you opened with "no." I'd add that I suspect the primary motivation is arms salesmanship, but that hardly excludes reinforcing MAD.
> all parties ... want to appear unconstrained by MAD
I haven't seen any such (ridiculous) claims, but I don't have trouble imagining that they exist.
It's pretty nuclear deterrence theory; the major powers both want (1) to actually be survivable and thus free to use any means at their disposal knowing that the other side cannot impose unacceptable costs in return, (2) failing that, appear to the opponent to believe that they are in such a condition, so that the opponent must act as if they will feel free to escalate unbound by fear of retribution even if they rationally should not, and, in any case, (3) prevent the opponent from perceiving (whether or not it is correct) themselves safe from retribution, so the opponent cannot escalate unchecked.
MAD is just the state where both powers acheive #3; it is consistent with either or both powers also acheiving limited success at #2 (which means that policy which doesn't involve nuclear provocation or similar existential threat must be constrained by the risk of nuclear escalation by the other side—if neither side has any success at #2, that concern does not exist.)