5 ms·

The surprise was the delivery vehicle/method it was launched into orbit and then deorbited to hit a target. Basically what China just showed is that they are c

The surprise was the delivery vehicle/method it was launched into orbit and then deorbited to hit a target. Basically what China just showed is that they are capable of parking these in orbit which would both greatly increase their effective range as well as reduce the signature making them far harder to detect and intercept. It’s basically another Sputnik moment for the US. When the USSR launched Sputnik the US was scared that they’ll launch a bunch of nukes that they would be able to bring down on the US at a moments notice. Keep in mind that back then ICBMs weren’t really a thing yet not to mention a full nuclear triad and that the US had to mainly rely on its bombers to deliver nuclear weapons and its defense primarily focused on shooting incoming soviet bombers. If China parks a bunch of these in space it would mean that any US naval task force or ground force anywhere in the world is now at risk. That’s quite a tectonic shift in the balance of power, and if anything these articles probably downplaying the actual impact something like this can have.

tuatoru 5y ago
So, time for the US to kick in a few bucks to accelerate the development of Starship/Super Heavy? Having large numbers of "satellite disabling" satellites is feasible with SH/SS. Melting the electronics with a high powered maser pulse, matching orbit and snipping the red wire...probably lots of ways to disable a satellite that don't start Kessler Syndrome, once getting a satellite into orbit is cheap. Also time to build more nuclear submarines.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  More SSBNs won’t help in this case. The intent isn’t to counter the US nuclear capability but to greatly restrict their conventional power projection. The US heavily relies on its naval assets especially its aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. I suspect the American answer would be two fold both increase detection and interception capabilities and attempt to gain further foothold in the region by establishing more bases in places like the Philippines and even potentially Vietnam (the irony would be quite thick on this one). China is probably betting that the US would have hard time expanding its presence on the ground even in places like South Korea where it already has large presence due to the fears of escalating regional tensions further. It would also allow China to push the narrative of the US being the aggressor. And pretty much the place that the US would like to protect the most is going to be off limits to their expansion as the US establishing a Guam or Okinawa size presence in Taiwan would very likely lead to the invasion they would want to prevent.
  - worrycue 5y ago
    > The US heavily relies on its naval assets especially its aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. Maybe that should change. Carriers were king in the era before missiles. In this day and age I wonder how effective carriers really are against adversaries with high tech missiles. I also wonder if the US will come up with their own version and test it by hitting a dummy target in the SCS - signalling it’s meant for the Chinese Navy; it would be funny if everything China comes up to weaken the power of the US Navy was in turn used to weaken their Navy should they try to invade Taiwan.
    - dogma1138 5y ago
      Taiwan is 100 miles of the coast of mainland China. China doesn’t need massive ships to invade Taiwan. It can invade it with inflatable rafts if push comes to shove and since the mainland is 100 miles away it’s well within the range of rocket artillery and air assets.
      - worrycue 5y ago
        So they are going to invade with just unprotected troops and no other hardware? No armour. No artillery strikes on Taiwan - the farthest hitting artillery is only 43.5 miles; according to Google, by the US Army ironically. Are they going to re-supply the invasion force via inflatable rafts too? In the worst case, the missiles can be adapted for anti-personnel use with cluster munition warheads to shower the battlefield with shrapnel - which should be pretty effective against troops not protect by armour.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  I was thinking, nuclear-powered drone submarines armed with conventional torpedos and possibly SAMs. Much cheaper to build and operate than crewed subs. Could be deployed in numbers against anyone wanting to invade...Taiwan, to choose a random example.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    How would you communicate in real time with a drone submarine?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      ELF, quantum entanglement, genuine gizmoidics... edit: ask the Russians for the export version of [.·°] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
srslack 5y ago
Wouldn't the Space Weapons Ban treaty theoretically cover the launching and parking of a bunch of these in space/Low Earth Orbit? Ignoring the toothless nature of most treaties in general.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  As these aren’t mass destruction weapons, no. The US explored kinetic bombardment specifically because those weren’t restricted either.
dsq 5y ago
Let's hope that at least this does stir some kind of Sputnik moment in the US. That would be a silver lining of sorts. Currently there does not seem to be the necessary political will or social readiness.
hash872 5y ago
Most of this comment is untrue & unnecessarily hyperbolic. This is an updating of the old Soviet FOBS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...) with a glider, not a brand new technology and definitely not a 'Sputnik moment'. 'If China parks a bunch of these in space it would mean that any US naval task force or ground force anywhere in the world is now at risk' No, there is absolutely no indication that FOBS is even close to being that accurate. Past experiments by the Soviets regularly missed their targets by dozens of miles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System#End_of_deployment_and_associated_reasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...
- randomopining 5y ago
  This one missed by 24 miles. There’s only like 11 carriers. What if they shoot 5 nuclear ones at one carrier group?

tuatoru 5y ago

So, time for the US to kick in a few bucks to accelerate the development of Starship/Super Heavy? Having large numbers of "satellite disabling" satellites is feasible with SH/SS. Melting the electronics with a high powered maser pulse, matching orbit and snipping the red wire...probably lots of ways to disable a satellite that don't start Kessler Syndrome, once getting a satellite into orbit is cheap. Also time to build more nuclear submarines.

dogma1138 5y ago
More SSBNs won’t help in this case. The intent isn’t to counter the US nuclear capability but to greatly restrict their conventional power projection. The US heavily relies on its naval assets especially its aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. I suspect the American answer would be two fold both increase detection and interception capabilities and attempt to gain further foothold in the region by establishing more bases in places like the Philippines and even potentially Vietnam (the irony would be quite thick on this one). China is probably betting that the US would have hard time expanding its presence on the ground even in places like South Korea where it already has large presence due to the fears of escalating regional tensions further. It would also allow China to push the narrative of the US being the aggressor. And pretty much the place that the US would like to protect the most is going to be off limits to their expansion as the US establishing a Guam or Okinawa size presence in Taiwan would very likely lead to the invasion they would want to prevent.
- worrycue 5y ago
  > The US heavily relies on its naval assets especially its aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. Maybe that should change. Carriers were king in the era before missiles. In this day and age I wonder how effective carriers really are against adversaries with high tech missiles. I also wonder if the US will come up with their own version and test it by hitting a dummy target in the SCS - signalling it’s meant for the Chinese Navy; it would be funny if everything China comes up to weaken the power of the US Navy was in turn used to weaken their Navy should they try to invade Taiwan.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    Taiwan is 100 miles of the coast of mainland China. China doesn’t need massive ships to invade Taiwan. It can invade it with inflatable rafts if push comes to shove and since the mainland is 100 miles away it’s well within the range of rocket artillery and air assets.
    - worrycue 5y ago
      So they are going to invade with just unprotected troops and no other hardware? No armour. No artillery strikes on Taiwan - the farthest hitting artillery is only 43.5 miles; according to Google, by the US Army ironically. Are they going to re-supply the invasion force via inflatable rafts too? In the worst case, the missiles can be adapted for anti-personnel use with cluster munition warheads to shower the battlefield with shrapnel - which should be pretty effective against troops not protect by armour.
tuatoru 5y ago
I was thinking, nuclear-powered drone submarines armed with conventional torpedos and possibly SAMs. Much cheaper to build and operate than crewed subs. Could be deployed in numbers against anyone wanting to invade...Taiwan, to choose a random example.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  How would you communicate in real time with a drone submarine?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    ELF, quantum entanglement, genuine gizmoidics... edit: ask the Russians for the export version of [.·°] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

srslack 5y ago

Wouldn't the Space Weapons Ban treaty theoretically cover the launching and parking of a bunch of these in space/Low Earth Orbit? Ignoring the toothless nature of most treaties in general.

dogma1138 5y ago
As these aren’t mass destruction weapons, no. The US explored kinetic bombardment specifically because those weren’t restricted either.

dsq 5y ago

Let's hope that at least this does stir some kind of Sputnik moment in the US. That would be a silver lining of sorts. Currently there does not seem to be the necessary political will or social readiness.

hash872 5y ago

Most of this comment is untrue & unnecessarily hyperbolic. This is an updating of the old Soviet FOBS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...) with a glider, not a brand new technology and definitely not a 'Sputnik moment'. 'If China parks a bunch of these in space it would mean that any US naval task force or ground force anywhere in the world is now at risk' No, there is absolutely no indication that FOBS is even close to being that accurate. Past experiments by the Soviets regularly missed their targets by dozens of miles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System#End_of_deployment_and_associated_reasons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment...

randomopining 5y ago
This one missed by 24 miles. There’s only like 11 carriers. What if they shoot 5 nuclear ones at one carrier group?