3 ms·

Extreme pre-emptive strikes like that have bad optics. One of the elements of modern international diplomacy for non-superpowers is making it look like you're t

Extreme pre-emptive strikes like that have bad optics. One of the elements of modern international diplomacy for non-superpowers is making it look like you're the defender/victim, which is hard to do when all the enemy's bases get nuked simultaneously by smuggled cargo containers. For superpowers, it's easier to disguise a few warheads as spy sats and leave them in convenient orbits than go through the trouble of smuggling shit through land borders

wbl 8y ago
That would violate the Outer Space Treaty. ICBMs are on the surface until launch. Or below it.
- fhood 8y ago
  Absolutely, and on a totally unrelated note, in case anyone asks, the reason that spy satellite happens to contain a nuclear warhead is for self destruction purposes only. Consider it a safety feature ;)
- vkou 8y ago
  Good thing that countries never secretly break treaties.
- dfox 8y ago
  Then there is purely practical problem with staging various stuff (regardless on what exactly on the scale ffrom kinetic penetrator to thermonuclear warhead it exactly is) in orbit with the purpose of using it as raining hell some significant time later is that you (a) have to get it there, which is more expensivevthan launching ICBM and (b) the whatever vehicle has to have enough delta-V to be able to maneuver to stay there, probably also change it's orbital plane to reach different targets and mainly to initiate the re-entry itself. (This is the reason why GI Joe-style raining tungsten rods is complete nonsense, but even with warheads it is not viable strategy)
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    A space-based nuke doesn't need to deorbit to be effective; starfish prime detonated at 400km, which is at the upper limit for a regular US keyhole satellite apogee and well in EMP range. Spy satellites also usually have really low perigrees and lots of delta-v to chase navies, so deorbiting isn't that big a deal for the things given a large enough lead time. In fact for the first part of their history spy satellites had to deorbit film in multiple return capsules, often even being caught in mid-air! I will agree "Rods of God" type kinetic bombardment is stupid, though for different reasons

wbl 8y ago

That would violate the Outer Space Treaty. ICBMs are on the surface until launch. Or below it.

fhood 8y ago
Absolutely, and on a totally unrelated note, in case anyone asks, the reason that spy satellite happens to contain a nuclear warhead is for self destruction purposes only. Consider it a safety feature ;)
vkou 8y ago
Good thing that countries never secretly break treaties.
dfox 8y ago
Then there is purely practical problem with staging various stuff (regardless on what exactly on the scale ffrom kinetic penetrator to thermonuclear warhead it exactly is) in orbit with the purpose of using it as raining hell some significant time later is that you (a) have to get it there, which is more expensivevthan launching ICBM and (b) the whatever vehicle has to have enough delta-V to be able to maneuver to stay there, probably also change it's orbital plane to reach different targets and mainly to initiate the re-entry itself. (This is the reason why GI Joe-style raining tungsten rods is complete nonsense, but even with warheads it is not viable strategy)
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  A space-based nuke doesn't need to deorbit to be effective; starfish prime detonated at 400km, which is at the upper limit for a regular US keyhole satellite apogee and well in EMP range. Spy satellites also usually have really low perigrees and lots of delta-v to chase navies, so deorbiting isn't that big a deal for the things given a large enough lead time. In fact for the first part of their history spy satellites had to deorbit film in multiple return capsules, often even being caught in mid-air! I will agree "Rods of God" type kinetic bombardment is stupid, though for different reasons