3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIf 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 agoPreface: 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 agoWhat 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.