6 ms·

Surprised nobody's mentioned this possibility as it usually comes up re: the X-37B. Terrifying but I think not out of the question given the strategic potential

• compton_effect 9y ago
  cool idea but I'm gonna assume its a lot more expensive to send up an X-37 and have it crash back down then it is too just send a few nukes at your target.
  • ceejayoz 9y ago
    If you look at it purely from a costs perspective, maybe. Don't discount the PR disaster that would ensue from the US using nukes in any scenario other than retaliation for a nuclear attack. Nukes used in anger would likely mean worldwide condemnation, sanctions, and pissed allies complaining about fallout.
  • anarazel 9y ago
    Preface: I don't think this is a likely explanation. But if you think it is, there's a big advantage of kinetic weapons over ICBMs, namely that they are a lot more credible as a first strike weapon. ICBMs launches are quite detectable, allowing counter strikes (hi there nuclear deterrence).
  • ntelson1s 9y ago
    What nobody seems to be mentioning here is that under treaties, and especially the space treaties in effect, a kinetic bombardment follows all the guidelines and is completely allowed, while still potentially having the effects of a nuclear yield, especially pertaining to bunker busting.
• dogma1138 9y ago
  Look at the payload capacity of the X37 it would do about as much damage as a bunker buster.
  • knz 9y ago
    If the X37 is public they probably have something bigger and better tucked away in a hanger somewhere remote. Think about how long the F-117, SR-71, U-2, B-2, or RQ-170 were kept secret. There is no way they haven't thought about how to use this in a military capacity.
    • zipwitch 9y ago
      If they do, it's almost certainly never been put into orbit. The guys who track satellites as a hobby are good.
      • knz 9y ago
        For sure. I've read that the RQ-170 was seen quite quickly by plane spotters - likewise with the planes used for extraordinary rendition. Never underestimate passionate nerds and their ability to notice unusual things!
• taneq 9y ago
  People always talk about kinetic strikes in the context of big flashy things like rockets and spaceplanes. I'd be a lot more worried about them being dropped from stratospheric balloons - maybe not so useful for full scale bunker busting but extremely cheap to make and almost indefensible against as a strategic strike system.
  • jjoonathan 9y ago
    Err, shoot the balloons?
    • taneq 9y ago
      60+ km straight up is a long way to shoot.
      • DenisM 9y ago
        Even satellites can be shot down: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
    • dpc59 9y ago
      The ressources required to shoot stuff that's in the stratosphere are on a whole other ballpark than what your average revolutionaries can do.
      • kobeya 9y ago
        Industrial-strength laser is all you'd need...
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • jjoonathan 9y ago
        Intercepting stratospheric balloons is child's play, possibly literally, compared to intercepting chunks of metal flying at 10km/s, which are the alternatives under discussion. > I'd be a lot more worried about them being dropped from stratospheric balloons - maybe not so useful for full scale bunker busting but extremely cheap to make and almost indefensible against as a strategic strike system. If you meant to speak from the point of view of a revolutionary (why?) and note that stratospheric balloons would be a cheaper way of killing revolutionaries than ICBMs or Rods from God, sure, I agree. There are a million ways to shoot fish in a barrel. Forgive me for assuming your point-of-view party was militarily capable.
• nradov 9y ago
  Orbital kinetic bombardment is a silly concept suitable only for cheap sci-fi novels. There's no benefit in having kinetic weapons permanently positioned in orbit. The satellites would be easily tracked and vulnerable to ASAT weapons. They can't strike a target much faster than a ballistic missile launched from land or sea. And they would be much more expensive. Anything in orbit is out of reach of maintenance. It takes a lot of energy to get a satellite into a stable orbit, and then yet more energy to de-orbit a missile.
  • mdorazio 9y ago
    I think you're forgetting a number of advantages. 1. Surprise. All land-based launch sites are actively monitored all the time, giving countries advance warning when a missile is launched. Submarine launches cut down this warning time, but still light up radar and thermal all over the place. A kinetic impactor falling from LEO can hit its target before the enemy even reports up the chain of command (we're talking single digit minutes). 2. Lack of radioactive fallout while still having larger destructive force than conventional munitions. If you need to destroy an entire air base far behind enemy lines, but don't want nearby population centers to be irradiated, you're looking at pretty bad options today, compared to a kinetic bombardment. 3. You can't really intercept a kinetic impactor. We have the technology right now to shoot small rockets right out of the sky, and at least a chance of intercepting ICBM payloads. With a kinetic rod, though, intercepting it wouldn't really do very much - it's just a big chunk of mass moving really fast. The best you could do is break it into smaller pieces that are still moving really fast.
    • nradov 9y ago
      No that's all wrong. Firing a missile from orbit has less surprise value than firing from a submarine because satellites can't hide. There's no difference in kinetic effects; a non-nuclear ballistic missile can hit just as hard at a lower cost (do the math). A kinetic projectile launched from a satellite is no harder to intercept than a ballistic missile in the terminal phase, and satellites themselves are highly vulnerable. A big chunk of mass landing near a target won't have much effect. And the projectiles couldn't be just rods. Due to the variability in rockets used for de-orbit burns as well as atmospheric conditions they would need fragile and sensitive guidance packages.
• joshschreuder 9y ago
  > During the Vietnam War, there was limited use of the Lazy Dog bomb, a steel projectile shaped like a conventional bomb but only about 1" long and 3/8" diameter. A piece of sheet metal was folded to make the fins and welded to the rear of the projectile. These were dumped from aircraft onto enemy troops and had the same effect as a machine gun fired vertically.[3][4] Observers visiting a battlefield after an attack said it looked like the ground had been 'tenderized' using a gigantic fork. Bodies had been penetrated longitudinally from shoulder to lower abdomen That is utterly terrifying.
  • killjoywashere 9y ago
    Flechettes have been horrifying since WWI.
  • iaskwhy 9y ago
    Adding to this: all war is utterly terrifying. People like to pretend it's not but it is. It's not "only" soldiers being killed in all crazy ways but other people being killed, raped, tortured, etc. Babies included like when the Japanese would throw them in the air and let them fall on their katanas. That's reason enough to avoid war.
• josefresco 9y ago
  "Rods from God" - spent way too much time on Friday on Wikipedia reading about these, and other Kinetic concepts.