This is a fairly tepid "rebuttal" to the @UCSUSA study on hypersonic gliders. What I find most notable is that it largely concedes the technical objections in the paper. Allow me to translate the summary bullet points. https://breakingdefense.com/2021/02/pentagon-hypersonics-director-rebuts-the-critics-point-by-point/

"Ok, all the gliders we've actually made sucked but, and trust me on this, we are right now imagining gliders that do not suck."

"Ok, ok. The gliders we are imagining are slower and less reliable than ICBMs but have you considered the possibility that our glider could bank gently away from an interceptor with a burnout speed in excess of 3 kilometers per second?"

"Ok, fine. Gliders may much worse at delivering nuclear weapons at intercontinental ranges than ICBMs, but have you considered that fact that they are still faster than many other things including cruise missiles, airplanes and birds?"

"In conclusion, these systems may not seem very promising but if you had access to the classified data, I am sure you'd be envious that Russia and China have these cool toys and we don't. It's not fair."