6 ms·

You miss the point completely. The real issue is how much heads up you get before you get destroyed. This heads up time is what regulated cold war and kept both

You miss the point completely. The real issue is how much heads up you get before you get destroyed. This heads up time is what regulated cold war and kept both sides in check. Effectively, each shuttle launch gives Russians a little heart attack and the culmination is basically each orbit that goes over Russia because SST is supposed to have capability to alter the course, dip in the atmosphere, drop the bomb and go back into orbit and they only get about 2 minutes of warning at best. This warning time is crucial because that's all you got to decide whether you are under attack or not. For ballistic missiles launched from enemy territory you get half an hour and it means a bunch of people can gather data and figure out if it's real or fluke and make informed decision. You can't make informed decision in 2 minutes and it is extremely dangerous because it does not give you any capability to verify anything or ask anybody.

mcny 8y ago
» This warning time is crucial because that's all you got to decide whether you are under attack or not. For ballistic missiles launched from enemy territory you get half an hour and it means a bunch of people can gather data and figure out if it's real or fluke and make informed decision. You can't make informed decision in 2 minutes and it is extremely dangerous because it does not give you any capability to verify anything or ask anybody. I apologise in advance for the naivety and the insensitivity but what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this knowing that an unprovoked strike on a major civilian population center in Russia will almost assuredly lead to a response from multiple Russian ICBM locations that we keep worrying about the North Koreans. If there was a fleet of a dozen or more space shuttles either "permanently" in the air or ready to fly at a moment's notice, I can see how that would change the equation but one space shuttle can't just dip, deliver a payload, climb up to rinse and repeat on five or more cities, can it?
- kijin 8y ago
  A modern ICBM is able to deliver payloads to multiple targets at the same time. The technology is called MIRV [1], and U.S. has had it since the early 70s. Since a space shuttle has a much larger payload than an ICBM and is also much more maneuverable, the Soviets probably couldn't exclude the possibility that it can deliver enough payloads to wipe off several cities and/or military bases in a single pass. They were already having trouble developing effective countermeasures to MIRV; a shuttle would have been a nightmare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
- lmilcin 8y ago
  I appreciate your completely logical question. The short answer is: for the same reason somebody would want to shoot ICBMs at enemy population centers. The longer answer as I understand it: after WWII both USA and USSR invested incredible amount of resources in bid to achieve supremacy or at least maintain parity with the other. During that race anything that achieved results was on the table and both sides did funky stuff to surprise enemy, all the time. Space race was viewed as a cover up story for advanced rocket and surveillence research. Given the amount of resources and the current situation I think it was natural for russians to think there is something else going on with Space Shuttle. We know the dimensions of Shuttle bay and its capabilities were dictated by military requirements so it definitely isn't out of question. It would certainly be completely stupid for Russians not not assume the worst because in that kind of race the one that is not prepared looses. Russians are same people as Americans. They have proven many times they are unwilling to attack USA, thanks to the balance of power and multitude of people who prevailed in difficult situations. That doesn't mean they will not use any dirty trick to get advantage but using dirty tricks in this game is a legitimate way to maintain parity which is the objective of the game.
- MichaelMoser123 8y ago
  # what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this In theory there is the possibility of a decapitation strike - destroy the he command and control centers so that they can't retaliate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation_strike
  - Tsubasachan 8y ago
    The Soviets knew that theory. They had mobile launchers all across the USSR and submarines on standby. And the idea that only the president can launch nukes is false. There were contingency plans.
    - ohithereyou 8y ago
      Just wait until you hear about Wing Attack Plan R and the strategic mine shaft gap.
    - matthewdgreen 8y ago
      As I understand it, the Soviets had mobile contingency plans, but they were also afraid of delegating launch capability to the field -- for the very pragmatic reason that a rival power center (e.g., a portion of the military) could rebel and exploit it. This put a lot of pressure on central leadership to respond to possible missile warnings rapidly, since a decapitation strike could actually succeed. Allegedly the answer was Perimeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand), which allowed delegation with a bunch of technical safeguards added.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  I can't recall the source during the moment, but I read that during the cold war it was decided that targeting major population centers was more ethical than targeting nuke-capable military installations. This is counter-intuitive until you consider that population centers are worthless targets if you're planning on launching a decapitating first strike, therefore targeting major population centers signals to the opponent that you are poised for a retaliation strike, not a first strike. This is more ethical because it makes a nuclear war less likely to occur.
  - lmilcin 8y ago
    I like you pointed it out. Cold War has its own, counter-intuitive logic. It is governed by game theory. If war is bad then why US invests so much in war machine? Well, probably because investing nothing is historically bad way of maintaining peace. You are just inviting a bully to come and take your toys. Looking from this point of view isn't it strange that so many people treat Russia as villanous because it invests so much in their military (or it has been investing)? I really wonder why people think it is ok for US to militarize itself but for USSR or Russia to do that it is somehow bad. I, of course, intentionally omit what the country is doing with its power, it is one thing to have military and the other thing what are you using it for. Now, if US sends its troops abroad to subject some country, is it so difficult to think that USSR may feel threathened? If the way to keep peace is to keep parity and one party is trying to upset the parity the other has no other choice than to respond. This game has many paradoxes and I feel people have not enough willingness to look at some geo-political events through the lens of a longer game. We may say we want to bring democracy to Venezuela but what Russia is seeing is their power slipping. Right now they have precious little friendly land close to mainland US and they have no prospects of gainging more. At the same time, US is expanding NATO with more and more countries close to Russia border. Why is it so difficult to figure out this makes them very uneasy? Wouldn't some kind of response be expected? Why would US be surprised by it? Up until now the game was to keep parity and now the parity is slowly eroding away. This absolutely must cause a response from Russia because the theory says they have to fill the void some way. Electronic warfare? Hacking? Meddling in elections? Each side wants, understandabl, to mobilize its population in this struggle and there is no better way than to paint the enemy as a villain. I just wish we keep healthy amount of population on all sides capable of seing through cheap propaganda.
- pulisse 8y ago
  > I apologise in advance for the naivety and the insensitivity but what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this knowing that an unprovoked strike on a major civilian population center in Russia will almost assuredly lead to a response from multiple Russian ICBM locations that we keep worrying about the North Koreans. One of the early applications of game theory was to develop your point into a strategic doctrine[1]: If there are two adversaries with the capacity to annihilate each other and with mutual knowledge of each other's capacities, then not initiating conflict is a stable equilibrium. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
- dspillett 8y ago
  > If there was a fleet of a dozen or more space shuttles either "permanently" in the air or ready to fly at a moment's notice While this was never achieved in practise, not even close, regular and possibly short notice flights were part of the reusable shuttle's design intentions. > but one space shuttle can't just dip, deliver a payload, climb up to rinse and repeat on five or more cities, can it? I doubt it, but all that is needed for the enemy to be intimidated is that they think it might be possible. The shuttle couldn't dip in and out of atmosphere even once, there wasn't the fuel on-board to allow aborting re-entry and landing. It could have dropped once though and hit (or at least aimed for) at least one target. Finding a safe landing zone ("safe" both in in terms of the ability of the craft to survive and the ability to receive the craft and its crew) would be difficult after that) could be quite a challenge, but that doesn't rule out s desperation attack or even a suicide attack.
cm2187 8y ago
I actually wonder why these missiles were not left in orbit. Surely a missile launch directly from space would require much smaller missiles and even less lead time.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  I cannot say for sure but here are four things that cones to mind: - Considering how much of a problem normal space debris is I'm happy we don't have a number of old nukes in orbit. - I also guess nuclear weapons need some maintenance. - Leaving nuclear weapons in orbit would make it possible for another country to try to intercept/study/disarm them. - Regulations/treaties about weapons in space
- simonh 8y ago
  Missiles left in orbit are only effective as first-strike weapons, because you just wait until they are over the enemy then launch your strike. As response or retaliation weapons they are useless. If the enemy launches an attack while your missile is in orbit over the Indian Ocean, or it's current cycle wont put it over the enemy for another 10 orbits, then you might as well not have it. This is why space based nukes were completely banned very early on.
  - Retric 8y ago
    You can setup an orbit to always cross over any single point on earth. Molniya orbit‘s are often used by communication satellite’s over Russia, but the US would not care about dwell time so would pick the opposite aiming to be close to the atmosphere over the old USSR. Likely going for something closer to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
    - simonh 8y ago
      Of course, I didn't say all such weapons would have to wait multiple orbits. The point still stand though that if you had a string of weapons in such an orbit, only a very small minority of them would be over the target area and ready to strike at any given time and they have terrible cross-range characteristics. Also Molniya orbits have quite long orbital periods, exacerbating the problem. The vast majority would have much longer strike times than surface based missiles. It only really makes sense to use orbital missiles if you deploy them as a swarm for a first strike.
Symmetry 8y ago
I wonder if this threat was part of the impetus behind the creation of the Dead Hand system[1], which would put a retaliatory strike in motion automatically after a decapitation? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
jessriedel 8y ago
> You miss the point completely. The real issue is how much heads up you get before you get destroyed. rkagerer addressed exactly this point, so I think you've misunderstood him. He acknowledges that the heads-up time from launch is formally much shorter than other delivery methods, but argues that the effective heads up time is large in scenarios of interest ("imminent geopolitical threat") because you have to slowly roll out a shuttle launch. The only case where you can actually exploit the very quick launch speed is when you have premeditated a first strike months in advance, which is not the typical scenario that Cold Warriors worried about.
- lmilcin 8y ago
  Space Shuttle is able to spend prolonged time in space and back when it was being developed and build russians had no idea how it is going to be used. So they had to prepare their response because in the worst case they could be left with a flying nuclear strike capable of delivering the payload at almost any time. Remember, when you are dealing with foreign power that you fight tooth and nail the worst case is the only thing that matters and you have to be prepared for it. You don't say "let's see what those pesky Americans will do with their new shiny toy", you say "Sasha, we need to be prepared or we are screwed". Also, do you remember there was couple of those built from the start and there was supposed to be many, many more. That's a serious threat if your enemy has history of using that kind of projects for DoD purposes, you know DoD is engaged and you have no idea what is the real intended purpose.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I wasn't making any general claims about Russian and American strategic plans, or the overall quality of rkagerer's comment. I was only rebutting your suggestion that rkagerer had ignored the issue of heads up-time. You can certainly argue whether he addressed it well, but you have to actually engage with his argument (which I encourage you do to as a reply to his comment, not mine), not just repeat the facts all three of us are familiar with.
grkvlt 8y ago
And, welcome to the UK! We only had about three or four minutes warning time available, so when the sirens went off, that was all the time the population had to prepare/shelter, and obviously the authorities also only had that amount of time to decide on a response... This includes getting all your bomber aeroplanes started up, launched and in the air sufficiently far from the airfield to escape the blast radius of the weapons (probably Megaton range) used to destroy it!
Haga 8y ago
This heads up time is what gets destroyed by hypersonic missiles today.

mcny 8y ago

» This warning time is crucial because that's all you got to decide whether you are under attack or not. For ballistic missiles launched from enemy territory you get half an hour and it means a bunch of people can gather data and figure out if it's real or fluke and make informed decision. You can't make informed decision in 2 minutes and it is extremely dangerous because it does not give you any capability to verify anything or ask anybody. I apologise in advance for the naivety and the insensitivity but what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this knowing that an unprovoked strike on a major civilian population center in Russia will almost assuredly lead to a response from multiple Russian ICBM locations that we keep worrying about the North Koreans. If there was a fleet of a dozen or more space shuttles either "permanently" in the air or ready to fly at a moment's notice, I can see how that would change the equation but one space shuttle can't just dip, deliver a payload, climb up to rinse and repeat on five or more cities, can it?

kijin 8y ago
A modern ICBM is able to deliver payloads to multiple targets at the same time. The technology is called MIRV [1], and U.S. has had it since the early 70s. Since a space shuttle has a much larger payload than an ICBM and is also much more maneuverable, the Soviets probably couldn't exclude the possibility that it can deliver enough payloads to wipe off several cities and/or military bases in a single pass. They were already having trouble developing effective countermeasures to MIRV; a shuttle would have been a nightmare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
lmilcin 8y ago
I appreciate your completely logical question. The short answer is: for the same reason somebody would want to shoot ICBMs at enemy population centers. The longer answer as I understand it: after WWII both USA and USSR invested incredible amount of resources in bid to achieve supremacy or at least maintain parity with the other. During that race anything that achieved results was on the table and both sides did funky stuff to surprise enemy, all the time. Space race was viewed as a cover up story for advanced rocket and surveillence research. Given the amount of resources and the current situation I think it was natural for russians to think there is something else going on with Space Shuttle. We know the dimensions of Shuttle bay and its capabilities were dictated by military requirements so it definitely isn't out of question. It would certainly be completely stupid for Russians not not assume the worst because in that kind of race the one that is not prepared looses. Russians are same people as Americans. They have proven many times they are unwilling to attack USA, thanks to the balance of power and multitude of people who prevailed in difficult situations. That doesn't mean they will not use any dirty trick to get advantage but using dirty tricks in this game is a legitimate way to maintain parity which is the objective of the game.
MichaelMoser123 8y ago
# what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this In theory there is the possibility of a decapitation strike - destroy the he command and control centers so that they can't retaliate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation_strike
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  The Soviets knew that theory. They had mobile launchers all across the USSR and submarines on standby. And the idea that only the president can launch nukes is false. There were contingency plans.
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    Just wait until you hear about Wing Attack Plan R and the strategic mine shaft gap.
  - matthewdgreen 8y ago
    As I understand it, the Soviets had mobile contingency plans, but they were also afraid of delegating launch capability to the field -- for the very pragmatic reason that a rival power center (e.g., a portion of the military) could rebel and exploit it. This put a lot of pressure on central leadership to respond to possible missile warnings rapidly, since a decapitation strike could actually succeed. Allegedly the answer was Perimeter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand), which allowed delegation with a bunch of technical safeguards added.
darkpuma 8y ago
I can't recall the source during the moment, but I read that during the cold war it was decided that targeting major population centers was more ethical than targeting nuke-capable military installations. This is counter-intuitive until you consider that population centers are worthless targets if you're planning on launching a decapitating first strike, therefore targeting major population centers signals to the opponent that you are poised for a retaliation strike, not a first strike. This is more ethical because it makes a nuclear war less likely to occur.
- lmilcin 8y ago
  I like you pointed it out. Cold War has its own, counter-intuitive logic. It is governed by game theory. If war is bad then why US invests so much in war machine? Well, probably because investing nothing is historically bad way of maintaining peace. You are just inviting a bully to come and take your toys. Looking from this point of view isn't it strange that so many people treat Russia as villanous because it invests so much in their military (or it has been investing)? I really wonder why people think it is ok for US to militarize itself but for USSR or Russia to do that it is somehow bad. I, of course, intentionally omit what the country is doing with its power, it is one thing to have military and the other thing what are you using it for. Now, if US sends its troops abroad to subject some country, is it so difficult to think that USSR may feel threathened? If the way to keep peace is to keep parity and one party is trying to upset the parity the other has no other choice than to respond. This game has many paradoxes and I feel people have not enough willingness to look at some geo-political events through the lens of a longer game. We may say we want to bring democracy to Venezuela but what Russia is seeing is their power slipping. Right now they have precious little friendly land close to mainland US and they have no prospects of gainging more. At the same time, US is expanding NATO with more and more countries close to Russia border. Why is it so difficult to figure out this makes them very uneasy? Wouldn't some kind of response be expected? Why would US be surprised by it? Up until now the game was to keep parity and now the parity is slowly eroding away. This absolutely must cause a response from Russia because the theory says they have to fill the void some way. Electronic warfare? Hacking? Meddling in elections? Each side wants, understandabl, to mobilize its population in this struggle and there is no better way than to paint the enemy as a villain. I just wish we keep healthy amount of population on all sides capable of seing through cheap propaganda.
pulisse 8y ago
> I apologise in advance for the naivety and the insensitivity but what kind of an idiot would give a go ahead for a strike like this knowing that an unprovoked strike on a major civilian population center in Russia will almost assuredly lead to a response from multiple Russian ICBM locations that we keep worrying about the North Koreans. One of the early applications of game theory was to develop your point into a strategic doctrine[1]: If there are two adversaries with the capacity to annihilate each other and with mutual knowledge of each other's capacities, then not initiating conflict is a stable equilibrium. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
dspillett 8y ago
> If there was a fleet of a dozen or more space shuttles either "permanently" in the air or ready to fly at a moment's notice While this was never achieved in practise, not even close, regular and possibly short notice flights were part of the reusable shuttle's design intentions. > but one space shuttle can't just dip, deliver a payload, climb up to rinse and repeat on five or more cities, can it? I doubt it, but all that is needed for the enemy to be intimidated is that they think it might be possible. The shuttle couldn't dip in and out of atmosphere even once, there wasn't the fuel on-board to allow aborting re-entry and landing. It could have dropped once though and hit (or at least aimed for) at least one target. Finding a safe landing zone ("safe" both in in terms of the ability of the craft to survive and the ability to receive the craft and its crew) would be difficult after that) could be quite a challenge, but that doesn't rule out s desperation attack or even a suicide attack.

cm2187 8y ago

I actually wonder why these missiles were not left in orbit. Surely a missile launch directly from space would require much smaller missiles and even less lead time.

reitanqild 8y ago
I cannot say for sure but here are four things that cones to mind: - Considering how much of a problem normal space debris is I'm happy we don't have a number of old nukes in orbit. - I also guess nuclear weapons need some maintenance. - Leaving nuclear weapons in orbit would make it possible for another country to try to intercept/study/disarm them. - Regulations/treaties about weapons in space
simonh 8y ago
Missiles left in orbit are only effective as first-strike weapons, because you just wait until they are over the enemy then launch your strike. As response or retaliation weapons they are useless. If the enemy launches an attack while your missile is in orbit over the Indian Ocean, or it's current cycle wont put it over the enemy for another 10 orbits, then you might as well not have it. This is why space based nukes were completely banned very early on.
- Retric 8y ago
  You can setup an orbit to always cross over any single point on earth. Molniya orbit‘s are often used by communication satellite’s over Russia, but the US would not care about dwell time so would pick the opposite aiming to be close to the atmosphere over the old USSR. Likely going for something closer to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
  - simonh 8y ago
    Of course, I didn't say all such weapons would have to wait multiple orbits. The point still stand though that if you had a string of weapons in such an orbit, only a very small minority of them would be over the target area and ready to strike at any given time and they have terrible cross-range characteristics. Also Molniya orbits have quite long orbital periods, exacerbating the problem. The vast majority would have much longer strike times than surface based missiles. It only really makes sense to use orbital missiles if you deploy them as a swarm for a first strike.

Symmetry 8y ago

I wonder if this threat was part of the impetus behind the creation of the Dead Hand system[1], which would put a retaliatory strike in motion automatically after a decapitation? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

jessriedel 8y ago

> You miss the point completely. The real issue is how much heads up you get before you get destroyed. rkagerer addressed exactly this point, so I think you've misunderstood him. He acknowledges that the heads-up time from launch is formally much shorter than other delivery methods, but argues that the effective heads up time is large in scenarios of interest ("imminent geopolitical threat") because you have to slowly roll out a shuttle launch. The only case where you can actually exploit the very quick launch speed is when you have premeditated a first strike months in advance, which is not the typical scenario that Cold Warriors worried about.

lmilcin 8y ago
Space Shuttle is able to spend prolonged time in space and back when it was being developed and build russians had no idea how it is going to be used. So they had to prepare their response because in the worst case they could be left with a flying nuclear strike capable of delivering the payload at almost any time. Remember, when you are dealing with foreign power that you fight tooth and nail the worst case is the only thing that matters and you have to be prepared for it. You don't say "let's see what those pesky Americans will do with their new shiny toy", you say "Sasha, we need to be prepared or we are screwed". Also, do you remember there was couple of those built from the start and there was supposed to be many, many more. That's a serious threat if your enemy has history of using that kind of projects for DoD purposes, you know DoD is engaged and you have no idea what is the real intended purpose.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I wasn't making any general claims about Russian and American strategic plans, or the overall quality of rkagerer's comment. I was only rebutting your suggestion that rkagerer had ignored the issue of heads up-time. You can certainly argue whether he addressed it well, but you have to actually engage with his argument (which I encourage you do to as a reply to his comment, not mine), not just repeat the facts all three of us are familiar with.

grkvlt 8y ago

And, welcome to the UK! We only had about three or four minutes warning time available, so when the sirens went off, that was all the time the population had to prepare/shelter, and obviously the authorities also only had that amount of time to decide on a response... This includes getting all your bomber aeroplanes started up, launched and in the air sufficiently far from the airfield to escape the blast radius of the weapons (probably Megaton range) used to destroy it!

Haga 8y ago

This heads up time is what gets destroyed by hypersonic missiles today.