6 ms·
"The nuclear status quo" is a balance made possible by MAD. In an arms race there may be a period of technological superiority. During that period MAD does not
by iandanforth 5y ago
"The nuclear status quo" is a balance made possible by MAD.
In an arms race there may be a period of technological superiority. During that period MAD does not exist.
Bombardment from space creates at least two scenarios that upset MAD.
1. First strike capability
Small projectiles sufficiently accelerated may escape detection from ballistic detection systems. This could give an actor sufficient confidence in their ability to eliminate return strike capability.
2. Plausible deniability
For a period it may not be possible to determine which actor launched a strike. This can cause sufficient hesitation (and the expectation thereof) for an actor to initiate a strike and the target to fail to retaliate due to insufficient confidence in their target.
I'm sure there are other scenarios as well.
- discardedrefuse 5y agoAlso, replacing nukes with moon rocks means that you don't have to worry about securing those nukes.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoHow do you secure the infrastructure that hurls the moon rocks?
- guhidalg 5y agoThe same way we guard the nukes: floppy disks.
- discardedrefuse 5y agoControl access to the moon.
- Supermancho 5y ago> How do you secure the infrastructure that hurls the moon rocks? You don't, although mobile launchers are not out of the question. A rock catapult is far easier to construct than a nuclear missile launchpad (given available materials). Notably the munitions are fashioned anywhere on the moon and the munition needs no guidance, other than the initial launch window timing.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago> far easier to construct Right but I’m not talking about construction. I’m talking about destruction. See an enemy building a catapult with your moon-orbiting spy satellite? Send your Space Force astronauts in a rover to dismantle or destroy it. Or send an unmanned rover with robotic, remote controlled arms when we get to that capability.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoor target your sattelite-laser on it, no atmosphere to make it useless on the moon...
- politician 5y agoAnyone building mass drivers on the moon is going to bring up anti-satellite missiles along with other point defense (“anti-meteroid”) systems and sky-facing telescopes and radars on the first mission. Several of these components are necessary even for a peaceful research base.
- Supermancho 5y ago> I’m not talking about construction. I’m talking about destruction. That's not very effective if you can fire and abandon, since it's very likely that someone could work out the locality of the origin, you have to assume there's no way to defend against that. So what? Another one pops up in a few days. The only way to defend against kinetic bombardment is controlling material gathering/supply and pinpoint destruction and that won't even be an assured defense. In a year, someone could scrap together X materials to hurl another.
- politician 5y agoThe easiest way is for governments to collude to prevent or stall space exploration.
- eximius 5y agoIn terms of defensive technology, maybe. MAD isnt stopped by having bigger bombs.
- patmcc 5y agoEven with perfect space bombardment, USA/Russia/China/UK all have SLBMs waiting on submarines all around the world. No first strike could be sufficient.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoDoesn't matter. Strike the submarines first by hitting the seas with some hard space hail. Splash. Blub. (We don't really care about the resulting Tsnunamis, do we?) Yeehaa!