4 ms·
So then this logic brings us to space platforms, anti-space platforms, and observservations of space platforms. Everyone is probably already arming space to th
by deathhand 5y ago
So then this logic brings us to space platforms, anti-space platforms, and observservations of space platforms.
Everyone is probably already arming space to the teeth. I guess it's better than mutually assured destruction?
- simonh 5y agoSpace based weapons are extremely limited in practice. The problem is that at any given time 90% or more of your orbital assets are over the pacific ocean, or the arctic, or antarctic, or anywhere other than where you want them to be and you can't change that very easily.
- the_duke 5y agoA LEO sat at 300 km altitude does a full orbit every ~90 minutes. Put a few hundred missiles in orbit, give them enough spare fuel to travel a decent distance on their own, and you have a pretty substantial worldwide strike capability.
- catillac 5y agoThis handwaves a lot of stuff. The least of which is that with the way satellites orbit, even though they orbit in 90, they’re not over the same ground track again for like 12 days. It’s not the case that a weapon used satellite would have a firing solution every 90 minutes.
- nradov 5y agoWhat's the point of that when you can have an even more substantial worldwide strike capability at far lower cost with ground-based missiles.
- treeman79 5y agoMeanwhile opponent straps nuclear hand grenadines to a few thousand drones and flies them to your bases. At a fraction of the cost.
- hungryforcodes 5y agoAnd they are not doing that now, because...
- iso1210 5y agoSmallest nuclear bomb (not dirty bomb) made was 23kg, literally suitcase size. However if you have one and want to use it, you're probably better off sending it in on a shipping container or truck (or commercial or private plane)
- treeman79 5y agoLots of detectors for those. Not sure how extensive, but it’s a known attack vector. Apparently it’s hard to fully shield weapons grade material
- laverya 5y agoDo you know what the difference is between an ICBM and a warhead predeployed in orbit? The ICBM can hit anywhere (instead of just where the orbit track happens to pass), in less time (or at most the same time, since deorbiting takes around half an orbit) with a better mass fraction (since it doesn't have to reach orbit and then deorbit afterwards) while being more accurate (you know exactly where the launch platform is, while satellites are harder to locate) and less vulnerable (you can harden an ICBM silo far more effectively than a satellite). Really, it's hard to think of something that satellite anti-ground weaponry does better.
- rocqua 5y agoDetection? There is a lot of icbm detection. Unplanned rocket launches could lead to global nuclear annihilation. What happens if something seems to deorbit above the US? How much early warning and procedure is there? Especially if you want to deliver conventional munitions to a non-nuclear power, a system like this seems better than an ICBM.
- laverya 5y agoExcept that detectability is an advantage, in the doesn't-set-off-global-thermonuclear-war sense. If your nuclear (or command) assets can be removed at any time without enough warning to launch, that means you have to launch now before that happens. If you want to hit something with a conventional warhead in a non-peer state without warning, why not use a stealthy cruise missile instead?
- rocqua 5y agoStealthy cruise missles need a much longer time than anything from space. I am not advocating weapons in space btw. Just pointing out what the advantages are.
- iso1210 5y agoTungston rods. Would you even detect the deorbit burn?
- dredmorbius 5y agoA/K/A "rods from God" / orbital kinetic kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Possible, though problematic.
- iso1210 5y agoI'd love to know if they've ever been tested in reality. If succesful (especially as a first strike), you could theoretically launch from a high apogee using cold gas to adjust your heading, and have plausible deniability.
- dredmorbius 5y agoAFAICT no.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hawski 5y agoI guess it is a question of what type of warhead is there and how many of them are there.
- the_duke 5y agoAnd stealth space platforms. There might already be stealth sats in orbit. A curious case was the Zuma satelite [1]. Classified payload. Ostensibly failed to detach from the payload adapter, as claimed by anonymous sources... Lot's of speculation that this was a media charade to sow confusion about a stealth sat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuma_(satellite)
- nradov 5y agoThere are no stealth satellites. It's impossible to hide in orbit due to power and cooling requirements. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect....
- wyager 5y agoThis is a funny claim to make given that the US literally has stealth satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite) Just because it's physically challenging to avoid having some blackbody emissions or whatever doesn't mean you can't evade modern sensors in practice.
- nradov 5y agoWhat's your point? Those satellites were detected. They weren't actually stealthy in any meaningful way. Very minor signature reductions at best.
- wyager 5y ago"That launch deposited a payload into geosynchronous orbit but, given the stealth/deception hypothesis, there remains the possibility of other, undetected payloads"
- nradov 5y agoThere remains a "possibility" that dinosaurs aren't extinct and they're hiding somewhere. Just because civilian astronomers haven't found such payloads doesn't mean those payloads actually exist. And hypothetically even if those payloads do exist it doesn't mean other nations haven't tracked them. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for this stuff. Look at the basic physics involved.