3 ms·
Not necessarily. To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory. If I blow up your satellites,
by ethbro 8y ago
Not necessarily.
To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory.
If I blow up your satellites, and I don't know where the pieces are liable to go, then I imperil my own satellites in a similar orbit.
Ergo, if I have space assets and ASAT capability, the strictly dominating strategy is to publicly declare I will only deploy my ASAT weapons in defense or if strategic red lines are breached (e.g. territorial invasion).
Consequently, it's in the US's best interests for other countries with ASAT capabilities to increase their satellite capabilities.
- mips_avatar 8y agoYeah but if a country with ASAT was going to be bombed, do you think they would give the enemy the benefit of GPS or communications satellites?
- ethbro 8y ago"Bombed" is rather nebulous. Are you referring to a strategic bombing campaign or a tactical strike? If the latter, then yes. I believe they, the US, and most other countries in the world would rather suffer a tactical strike than crack the lid on indiscriminate ASAT usage.
- mips_avatar 8y agoIf the India was expecting a bombing of Delhi from Chinese aircraft.
- ethbro 8y agoThen sure. But that's what game theory is about. India announces that if China bombs Delhi, all options are on the table. China mulls over the potential ASAT repercussions and decides the strike isn't worth it. That's the inherent safety of MAD. It requires no trust in your counterparty -- only convincing them that you will extract a heavy toll if (and only if!) they take a specific action.