3 ms·

Nothing about Starship changes the basic calculus of why ICBMs (which is what this would be, no matter the fuzzy spin on it) never became a viable option for pa

Nothing about Starship changes the basic calculus of why ICBMs (which is what this would be, no matter the fuzzy spin on it) never became a viable option for payloads other than nuclear weapons: there's no way for other states to tell if a a launch is a nuclear attack or not, so MAD means they must assume the worst. This is a very dangerous and destabilizing idea and I had hoped the US military wouldn't be so stupid.

compsciphd 5y ago
serious Q: how is that any different then from a normal starship launch or starship type system for travel? or is your agrument that starship for travel will never work for the same reason and/or the only reason current return systems don't trigger MAD is because the launches are a) known and perhaps b) for some reason are easy to distinguish from a normal ICBM launch (perhaps due to the way the launch / return)
- lumost 5y ago
  There is a notification system in place to pre-schedule both civilian launches and military test launches amongst the nuclear powers. It's a common enough occurrence that no one wants to leave interpretation to chance.
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    Are you referring to NOTAMS or something else?
fsloth 5y ago
I presume a starship trajectory is not the same as that of a ballistic missile payload?
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Probably very similar until aerobraking begins. But as a targeted country, why would you care? Either way you are definitely being attacked by the USA.
oceanplexian 5y ago
It's true, but this concern is losing relevance as hypersonic missiles that can carry a nuclear payload come online. You could also argue that stealth bombers like the B-2 and nuclear submarines obsoleted MAD a long time ago.
baybal2 5y ago
If you have to drop tanks from space, things may be equally dire.
JabavuAdams 5y ago
Does North Korea notify of launches, or are there special procedures for dealing with them?
ncphil 5y ago
It isn't the stupidity of the US military that's the problem. It's the stupidity and greed of their "civilian" leadership (most of whom come from general or fleet officer ranks). Back in the 1958 Ike denied requests to use nukes on China over the Taiwan Strait, but still let the services each run their own failing space programs. Kennedy foolishly greenlit the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but did reorganize US space efforts under NASA, which was at least formally a civilian agency. The reason "Space Force" is a bad idea isn't just that it will probably be a monumental waste of money, but as you write, that it will almost certainly lead to a disaster of global proportions. Winding up where the Kessler Effect denies humans access to orbit for a century would be getting off lightly.
killjoywashere 5y ago
What? The location and thermal plume should be plenty of indication that it's a Starship and not a Minuteman. You could also post a live broadcast to tell the world exactly what you're doing. You'd also call China and Russia to tell their air defense folks.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Outside of maybe Russia and China I don't think any countries have the ability to detect launches, so from the military's perspective it could still be incredibly valuable to be able to send 100 soldiers as backup to a remote cave system in Afghanistan or wherever. On top of that, this could also have a lot of value even if it's only launched at US-held locations. Logistics can be a big deal: IIRC there were a few years around 2010 where the amount of money that the United States spent on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan was actually larger than NASA's budget. The biggest part of that cost was in transporting fuel for the generators. If some of the worst convoy trips were replaced with rocket resupply missions you'd be potentially saving lives and money.
Merad 5y ago
The USAF is acutely aware of the risk, and there are already policies in place, according to articles I read a few years ago, limiting usage of the anti-ballistic missile defenses for this reason. For example if North Korea launches a missile at the US, they will only attempt to intercept it using anti ballistic missile interceptors based in Alaska. Launching from ABM sites in the lower 48 at a target coming from the DPRK would result in interceptor trajectories crossing China, and no one wants to take that risk (the launch of an ABM interceptor looks a hell of a lot like the launch of an ICBM).

compsciphd 5y ago

serious Q: how is that any different then from a normal starship launch or starship type system for travel? or is your agrument that starship for travel will never work for the same reason and/or the only reason current return systems don't trigger MAD is because the launches are a) known and perhaps b) for some reason are easy to distinguish from a normal ICBM launch (perhaps due to the way the launch / return)

lumost 5y ago
There is a notification system in place to pre-schedule both civilian launches and military test launches amongst the nuclear powers. It's a common enough occurrence that no one wants to leave interpretation to chance.
- killjoywashere 5y ago
  Are you referring to NOTAMS or something else?

fsloth 5y ago

I presume a starship trajectory is not the same as that of a ballistic missile payload?

dsr_ 5y ago
Probably very similar until aerobraking begins. But as a targeted country, why would you care? Either way you are definitely being attacked by the USA.

oceanplexian 5y ago

It's true, but this concern is losing relevance as hypersonic missiles that can carry a nuclear payload come online. You could also argue that stealth bombers like the B-2 and nuclear submarines obsoleted MAD a long time ago.

baybal2 5y ago

If you have to drop tanks from space, things may be equally dire.

JabavuAdams 5y ago

Does North Korea notify of launches, or are there special procedures for dealing with them?

ncphil 5y ago

It isn't the stupidity of the US military that's the problem. It's the stupidity and greed of their "civilian" leadership (most of whom come from general or fleet officer ranks). Back in the 1958 Ike denied requests to use nukes on China over the Taiwan Strait, but still let the services each run their own failing space programs. Kennedy foolishly greenlit the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but did reorganize US space efforts under NASA, which was at least formally a civilian agency. The reason "Space Force" is a bad idea isn't just that it will probably be a monumental waste of money, but as you write, that it will almost certainly lead to a disaster of global proportions. Winding up where the Kessler Effect denies humans access to orbit for a century would be getting off lightly.

killjoywashere 5y ago

What? The location and thermal plume should be plenty of indication that it's a Starship and not a Minuteman. You could also post a live broadcast to tell the world exactly what you're doing. You'd also call China and Russia to tell their air defense folks.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Outside of maybe Russia and China I don't think any countries have the ability to detect launches, so from the military's perspective it could still be incredibly valuable to be able to send 100 soldiers as backup to a remote cave system in Afghanistan or wherever. On top of that, this could also have a lot of value even if it's only launched at US-held locations. Logistics can be a big deal: IIRC there were a few years around 2010 where the amount of money that the United States spent on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan was actually larger than NASA's budget. The biggest part of that cost was in transporting fuel for the generators. If some of the worst convoy trips were replaced with rocket resupply missions you'd be potentially saving lives and money.

Merad 5y ago

The USAF is acutely aware of the risk, and there are already policies in place, according to articles I read a few years ago, limiting usage of the anti-ballistic missile defenses for this reason. For example if North Korea launches a missile at the US, they will only attempt to intercept it using anti ballistic missile interceptors based in Alaska. Launching from ABM sites in the lower 48 at a target coming from the DPRK would result in interceptor trajectories crossing China, and no one wants to take that risk (the launch of an ABM interceptor looks a hell of a lot like the launch of an ICBM).