4 ms·
You already have 20-30 minute strike capability for any location in world. You've had it for decades. What you want is 20 minute strike with less warning than
by icegreentea 16y ago
You already have 20-30 minute strike capability for any location in world. You've had it for decades.
What you want is 20 minute strike with less warning than existing ICBMs. And also banned. The nuclear weapons reduction and restriction of weaponization of space treaties are some of the successful treaties with regard to controlling weapons that anyone, let alone the United States has been involved with. Violating said treaty will bring ridicule and anger to whoever breaks it, and a non-miniscule chance of the other major nuclear powers launching all their nukes.
- smhinsey 16y agoAs much as I would prefer otherwise, it seems pretty clear that space has already been weaponized. Between the Shuttle the X-37, and whatever else exists, for all we know there are already satellites in orbit armed with kinetic kill vehicles.
- jerf 16y agoAll satellites in orbit are already kinetic kill vehicles, just with varying degrees of sophistication. Everything in space is a kinetic kill vehicle. The idea that space can somehow not be weaponized is sheer physics ignorance. In some ways this is the largest challenge to space exploitation, which is rapidly becoming relevant as commercial spaceflight recently passed a milestone. A corporation that can retrieve an asteroid for mining purposes is a corporation that can drop that asteroid on your capital. There aren't very many realistic treatments of this scenario in "the literature". ("The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", at least the base scenario if not the details of the superintelligent computer, is one of the few.)
- smhinsey 16y agoMaybe I shouldn't have used that term. I am aware of the basic physics of the situation, but that's not what I was talking about. I think it's likely there are already devices in orbit with the capability of launching "dumb" (i.e., non-explosive ) munitions to either take out other satellites or small targets on earth. When people discuss the weaponization of space in terms of the treaties, implying ignorance because it isn't about basic physics doesn't provide any constructive input, and is frankly just needlessly hostile. These treaties are about weapons in a military sense, with the ultimate issue being the presence of nuclear weapons in orbit. I don't think it would be news to anyone that the whole business is inherently dangerous and that anything in orbit can come down anywhere on earth with little warning.
- jerf 16y agoBut that's the point. Anything nontrivial in space already is a military weapon. (Though most satellites are trivial by this measure, I'm really talking about the mid-term future.) It doesn't even have to be nuclear. It is not possible to really seriously use space without it being intrinsically weaponized. There's no such thing as non-weaponized space. And no, I seriously doubt our political leadership really understands this at a gut level. You might even find some people in such positions that could pay lip service to the idea, but still don't really get it. You don't even need "nukes", which, frankly, are redundant pretty quickly and would only add a psychological scare factor.
- smhinsey 16y agoI am absolutely with you in thinking that politicians don't get this at all. My main point is that there is a context in which those terms are used that doesn't immediately mean that anyone who uses them doesn't realize that mass in space == potential big boom somewhere.
- tsotha 16y ago>...for all we know there are already satellites in orbit armed with kinetic kill vehicles. That seems more like pure conjecture than anything clear.
- nickpinkston 16y agoI do remember a PopSci article talking about doing it, but no one would dare admit it if they did.
- vl 16y agoBy "strike capability" here I mean "small payload pin-point strike capability", not "nuclear warhead". But you are correct in that it's possible to use ICBM to deliver rail to the target.
- PaulHoule 16y agoNo, we need something cheaper. ICBMs are too expensive to use to deliver conventional explosives or kinetic kill projectiles. Forget bioweapons and toxins, they're not any deadlier than cluster bombs. The power of an explosion follows an inverse square law, so you can destroy something with 1/4 the explosive if you can get twice as close to it. If you could drop thousands of 25 lb bomb equivalent devices an hour with GPS accuracy at a city, you could wreck it's infrastructure in a few weeks.
- icegreentea 16y agoAnd wish nuclear death on yourself. You also already are developing that ability with Prompt Global Strike (essentially non-nuclear ICBMs). I believe prompt global strike (and similar schemes) to be highly unstabalizing and to be avoided at all costs. The global suspicion (with a country with 2000k+ nukes none the less) would be suffocating. If the USA employed such a system, the moment you acted as anything less than a white knight, the world be up in arms. And justly. Your friends (the UK and Canada and Australia) would start edging away. And then you're truly fucked. (Canadian).
- berntb 16y agoReality check: According to that logic, Canada should already have that attitude to the US, since most of their population is inside aircraft range...
- berntb 16y agoHuh, why the minus votes? Is there anything wrong with the argument or is this political believers' reactions? Airplanes [edit: and rocket artilleri, for that matter] in range is functionally the same thing as such a strike capacity, but cheaper. There is no reaction from Canada and won't be; see the democratic peace theory.