4 ms·

One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative). It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial in

by kidme5 5y ago

One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative). It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

bb88 5y ago
I don't think that's viable for a couple of reasons unless the tech has changed significantly. One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret. Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.
- kidme5 5y ago
  Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.
  - bb88 5y ago
    You mean the new systems? THAAD is re-entry or terminal phase. And decoys still exist in the midcourse phase. Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha... With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.
    - kidme5 5y ago
      No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Oh, so we think putting arms in space is a good idea now? there is a treaty against that, because if we accept that, anyone who is able to get objects into space can do some of the following: - Park nukes in space -> no launch, you just drop them on your enemy - Tungsten rods -> put a couple of tungsten rods into a launch satellite and have them rain down from space on your enemy Not sure that this is such a good idea.
        nradov 5y ago
        At this point it's just a concept. There's nothing being actively developed. Putting nukes or tungsten rods in space wouldn't accomplish much. You can't just "drop" an object from orbit. Instead you need to conduct a burn to de-orbit and head toward the target. So it doesn't save much time compared to hitting the target directly with a missile launched from Earth. Launch satellites themselves would be vulnerable to anti-satellite defenses so they would be shot down early in any major conflict. And nuclear weapons can't be left unattended indefinitely; they require maintenance at least every few years in order to operate reliably.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    That seems like a problem in itself, it needs to be on a hair trigger to fire soon enough to catch a weapon soon after launch. Sure would be bad to accidentally shoot down an unannounced manned rocket launch after the software thought it was a nuclear launch.
    - arc-in-space 5y ago
      Well, I think the equilibrium here is that, all civilian rocket launches should be announced, not the worst outcome. Isn't this already the case?
      - sterlind 5y ago
        this got miscommunicated once and led to Boris Yeltsin opening the nuclear football and weighing launch orders when the call came in that it was actually a Norwegian sounding rocket, not a surprise Arctic first strike.
      - Johnny555 5y ago
        Oh, so as long as the humans in every country that announce the rocket launches and the humans that enter known launches into missile defense systems do their jobs perfectly every single time, then everything will be ok.
      - bb88 5y ago
        It is the case, but aren't you then trusting your enemy to be honest? It would allow at least one warhead to get through the boost phase.
    - bb88 5y ago
      That's the problem decision time is so short. Missile defense is as it exists today is not a deterrent.
nradov 5y ago
Ballistic missile defense capabilities will remain very limited for at least the next few years. But Russia has also hedged against this risk by developing the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo. We have no effective defense. http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html
- bytelines 5y ago
  Same with hypersonic missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
  - kidme5 5y ago
    Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.
    - bytelines 5y ago
      The Kinzhal does not enter space, therefore no space-based intercept is applicable. The Avangard is an example of a FOBS - will the space based intercept be able to intercept a FOBS vehicle? I'm unclear. Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word. We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you. I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.
id02009 5y ago
I find this quote they interesting > called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[192] As we see today, the situation is not that terribly stable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by kidme5 5y ago

bb88 5y ago

I don't think that's viable for a couple of reasons unless the tech has changed significantly. One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret. Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.

kidme5 5y ago
Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.
- bb88 5y ago
  You mean the new systems? THAAD is re-entry or terminal phase. And decoys still exist in the midcourse phase. Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha... With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.
  - kidme5 5y ago
    No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Oh, so we think putting arms in space is a good idea now? there is a treaty against that, because if we accept that, anyone who is able to get objects into space can do some of the following: - Park nukes in space -> no launch, you just drop them on your enemy - Tungsten rods -> put a couple of tungsten rods into a launch satellite and have them rain down from space on your enemy Not sure that this is such a good idea.
      - nradov 5y ago
        At this point it's just a concept. There's nothing being actively developed. Putting nukes or tungsten rods in space wouldn't accomplish much. You can't just "drop" an object from orbit. Instead you need to conduct a burn to de-orbit and head toward the target. So it doesn't save much time compared to hitting the target directly with a missile launched from Earth. Launch satellites themselves would be vulnerable to anti-satellite defenses so they would be shot down early in any major conflict. And nuclear weapons can't be left unattended indefinitely; they require maintenance at least every few years in order to operate reliably.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  That seems like a problem in itself, it needs to be on a hair trigger to fire soon enough to catch a weapon soon after launch. Sure would be bad to accidentally shoot down an unannounced manned rocket launch after the software thought it was a nuclear launch.
  - arc-in-space 5y ago
    Well, I think the equilibrium here is that, all civilian rocket launches should be announced, not the worst outcome. Isn't this already the case?
    - sterlind 5y ago
      this got miscommunicated once and led to Boris Yeltsin opening the nuclear football and weighing launch orders when the call came in that it was actually a Norwegian sounding rocket, not a surprise Arctic first strike.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      Oh, so as long as the humans in every country that announce the rocket launches and the humans that enter known launches into missile defense systems do their jobs perfectly every single time, then everything will be ok.
    - bb88 5y ago
      It is the case, but aren't you then trusting your enemy to be honest? It would allow at least one warhead to get through the boost phase.
  - bb88 5y ago
    That's the problem decision time is so short. Missile defense is as it exists today is not a deterrent.

nradov 5y ago

Ballistic missile defense capabilities will remain very limited for at least the next few years. But Russia has also hedged against this risk by developing the Poseidon strategic nuclear torpedo. We have no effective defense. http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html http://www.hisutton.com/Belgorod-Class-Submarine.html

bytelines 5y ago
Same with hypersonic missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_veh...
- kidme5 5y ago
  Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matter where the submarine is, the space-based launch-intercept system has whole earth coverage.
  - bytelines 5y ago
    The Kinzhal does not enter space, therefore no space-based intercept is applicable. The Avangard is an example of a FOBS - will the space based intercept be able to intercept a FOBS vehicle? I'm unclear. Is it really necessary to lead with "Again"? It makes me feel like you think I can't understand, and therefore you're smarter than me, that you are some know-it-all who has to be right, and that it's zero sum so that I must also therefore be wrong for you to be right. Your informative and accurate point can be made without that word. We can and should learn from each other. You know a lot and I want to learn from you. I hope that wasn't too antagonistic, I just wanted to explain how your comment made me feel. I had some very mean things to say to you before writing this out. Thank you for posting, I wasn't aware of Starlink's military implications.

id02009 5y ago

I find this quote they interesting > called the project "fundamentally destabilizing".[192] As we see today, the situation is not that terribly stable.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]