4 ms·

"Defense stocks rise" bothers me infinitely more than "North Korea might have a satellite sometime next year"

by BillyTheMage 3y ago

m000 3y ago
That reads a bit like a SimCity/Railroad Tycoon in-game newspaper pop-up.
- BillyTheMage 3y ago
  Could definitely be a Chirp on Cities Skylines.
josefresco 3y ago
One man's satellite delivery rocket is another man's ICBM. Ongoing progress in rocket design and experience is more concerning to me than a rise in value of 2 defense stocks.
- nradov 3y ago
  Well yes and no. While it is technically possible to use a satellite launcher to deliver a nuclear weapon, those technologies have almost completely diverged in most countries. Satellite launch rockets are almost all liquid fueled now in order to maximize payload. Some early ICBMs were also liquid fueled, but that made them less effective as deterrents due to long launch delays. Modern ICBMs are solid fueled: not enough specific impulse to be very useful for orbital launch, but great for sending a warhead on a sub-orbital trajectory with no advance notice. Don't need to waste time with fueling, just turn the keys and it goes.
  - chongli 3y ago
    That makes sense from a Western perspective where the primary value of nuclear weapons is deterrence. But for North Korea the calculus is different. North Korea already has a conventional deterrent in the form of artillery that could be fired at Seoul and do enormous damage in a matter of seconds. Instead, their goal with nuclear weapons seems to be nuclear blackmail to obtain food and other economic aid to prop up their dysfunctional economy and support their totalitarian regime. For that purpose, liquid fueled rockets are fine because they don’t need to be fired at a moment’s notice. So it’s not hard to see how a space program could be used to further nuclear aims.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    For advanced rockets, this is true. But not for first gen. First gen is the same tech for both. That is why Sputnik was such a big deal: it was not JUST a huge science/engineering breakthrough, it said "you know your huge strategic airforce that means we cannot bomb you? Well actually we can still bomb you, and we can do it faster and more accurately". Older, surplus, ICBMs were routinely used for space launches back in the day (eg the Titan 2 which were even used for manned spaceflight). I think at point point it was a major source of income for early post-soviet russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)
  - perihelions 3y ago
    Key context (for those not following this): North Korea has had a parallel solid-rocket program for years, and have test-launched their first solid-fuel ICBM two months ago. They are almost certainly replacing their 60's-style liquid-fuel ICBM's with these things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568032 ("North Korea tests ‘breakthrough’ solid-fuel ICBM")
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

"Defense stocks rise" bothers me infinitely more than "North Korea might have a satellite sometime next year"

m000 3y ago

That reads a bit like a SimCity/Railroad Tycoon in-game newspaper pop-up.

BillyTheMage 3y ago
Could definitely be a Chirp on Cities Skylines.

josefresco 3y ago

One man's satellite delivery rocket is another man's ICBM. Ongoing progress in rocket design and experience is more concerning to me than a rise in value of 2 defense stocks.

nradov 3y ago
Well yes and no. While it is technically possible to use a satellite launcher to deliver a nuclear weapon, those technologies have almost completely diverged in most countries. Satellite launch rockets are almost all liquid fueled now in order to maximize payload. Some early ICBMs were also liquid fueled, but that made them less effective as deterrents due to long launch delays. Modern ICBMs are solid fueled: not enough specific impulse to be very useful for orbital launch, but great for sending a warhead on a sub-orbital trajectory with no advance notice. Don't need to waste time with fueling, just turn the keys and it goes.
- chongli 3y ago
  That makes sense from a Western perspective where the primary value of nuclear weapons is deterrence. But for North Korea the calculus is different. North Korea already has a conventional deterrent in the form of artillery that could be fired at Seoul and do enormous damage in a matter of seconds. Instead, their goal with nuclear weapons seems to be nuclear blackmail to obtain food and other economic aid to prop up their dysfunctional economy and support their totalitarian regime. For that purpose, liquid fueled rockets are fine because they don’t need to be fired at a moment’s notice. So it’s not hard to see how a space program could be used to further nuclear aims.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  For advanced rockets, this is true. But not for first gen. First gen is the same tech for both. That is why Sputnik was such a big deal: it was not JUST a huge science/engineering breakthrough, it said "you know your huge strategic airforce that means we cannot bomb you? Well actually we can still bomb you, and we can do it faster and more accurately". Older, surplus, ICBMs were routinely used for space launches back in the day (eg the Titan 2 which were even used for manned spaceflight). I think at point point it was a major source of income for early post-soviet russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(rocket_family)
- perihelions 3y ago
  Key context (for those not following this): North Korea has had a parallel solid-rocket program for years, and have test-launched their first solid-fuel ICBM two months ago. They are almost certainly replacing their 60's-style liquid-fuel ICBM's with these things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568032 ("North Korea tests ‘breakthrough’ solid-fuel ICBM")

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]