7 ms·

We already have a way of delivering nuclear warheads from space - they're called ICBMs. What would a space plane add that existing launch platforms don't alread

We already have a way of delivering nuclear warheads from space - they're called ICBMs. What would a space plane add that existing launch platforms don't already provide?

dylan604 3y ago
about 2 minutes (or less) of launch detection/warning vs 30?
- meepmorp 3y ago
  We also have SLBMs that can be launched directly off coast of a target. And, tossing nukes at enemies isn't going to go unnoticed and that thing doesn't have nearly the capacity to make for a sufficiently large first strike to prevent retaliation. I guess it's possible, but (imo) it doesn't really make much sense.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    That thing is essentially in beta/prototype. What happens when there's multiples of that thing? Is the time from a weapon being released to impact enough time to verify and take action?
    - jamiek88 3y ago
      I think if it is something to do with our deterrence it’s more likely to be testing an anti ICBM weapon than carrying a warhead. The US stopped talking about missile defense because it’s destabilizing but they for sure did not stop working on it. With the MIRV warheads the only realistic intercept opportunity is in space.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        I've played Missle Command, and once they separate, it's a nightmare! If there was a space based defense system, where would these items orbit? If it's a kinetic weapon, can something launched from geosync reach the target to cover the distance in time? Since most of the ICBMs would be coming over the pole, where else could you park your satellites that would be in position to defend against incoming missiles? Polar orbits are not stationary, so would you need a constant fleet of them over head like a Starlink constellation? Lost of questions that I've just never really slowed down to think about the logistics instead of just the old school "lasers are cool! pew pew pew!" that I thought about as kid when Ronnie Raygun was in office.
        jamiek88 3y ago
        Yeah exactly! Separation and dummy decoy warheads become an exponential problem and shooting through atmosphere is hard at hyper super mega sonic speeds. So interception in space but where, as you say. The only real 'near peer' nuclear threats are Russia and China so other than their 'boomers' (does China have that?) we should know which way they'll be coming from and their ballistic arc roughly. So we don't need global coverage 'just' GEO coverage of the parts we have intelligence on with pew pew laser line of sight which is of course lightspeed travel time and should be rapid aiming if there's enough of 'em. These might even be one shot weapons themselves perhaps even fission devices for the laser to have enough energy instantly available.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Subs already have that timeframe covered. And you're really only saving half of the time from an earth launch.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Subs have the weakness of being run by humans and shorter amount of time staying on station. A sub commander can always ignore the "Lock Out Changes" command where this thing might not. Edit: also, how is it half the time? I would assume that the majority of the time is getting to altitude during launch. Once they are on return trajectories, they're moving mighty quick. Descent should be much less of the time involved, right?
    - networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]

We already have a way of delivering nuclear warheads from space - they're called ICBMs. What would a space plane add that existing launch platforms don't already provide?

dylan604 3y ago

about 2 minutes (or less) of launch detection/warning vs 30?

meepmorp 3y ago
We also have SLBMs that can be launched directly off coast of a target. And, tossing nukes at enemies isn't going to go unnoticed and that thing doesn't have nearly the capacity to make for a sufficiently large first strike to prevent retaliation. I guess it's possible, but (imo) it doesn't really make much sense.
- dylan604 3y ago
  That thing is essentially in beta/prototype. What happens when there's multiples of that thing? Is the time from a weapon being released to impact enough time to verify and take action?
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    I think if it is something to do with our deterrence it’s more likely to be testing an anti ICBM weapon than carrying a warhead. The US stopped talking about missile defense because it’s destabilizing but they for sure did not stop working on it. With the MIRV warheads the only realistic intercept opportunity is in space.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      I've played Missle Command, and once they separate, it's a nightmare! If there was a space based defense system, where would these items orbit? If it's a kinetic weapon, can something launched from geosync reach the target to cover the distance in time? Since most of the ICBMs would be coming over the pole, where else could you park your satellites that would be in position to defend against incoming missiles? Polar orbits are not stationary, so would you need a constant fleet of them over head like a Starlink constellation? Lost of questions that I've just never really slowed down to think about the logistics instead of just the old school "lasers are cool! pew pew pew!" that I thought about as kid when Ronnie Raygun was in office.
      - jamiek88 3y ago
        Yeah exactly! Separation and dummy decoy warheads become an exponential problem and shooting through atmosphere is hard at hyper super mega sonic speeds. So interception in space but where, as you say. The only real 'near peer' nuclear threats are Russia and China so other than their 'boomers' (does China have that?) we should know which way they'll be coming from and their ballistic arc roughly. So we don't need global coverage 'just' GEO coverage of the parts we have intelligence on with pew pew laser line of sight which is of course lightspeed travel time and should be rapid aiming if there's enough of 'em. These might even be one shot weapons themselves perhaps even fission devices for the laser to have enough energy instantly available.
wkat4242 3y ago
Subs already have that timeframe covered. And you're really only saving half of the time from an earth launch.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Subs have the weakness of being run by humans and shorter amount of time staying on station. A sub commander can always ignore the "Lock Out Changes" command where this thing might not. Edit: also, how is it half the time? I would assume that the majority of the time is getting to altitude during launch. Once they are on return trajectories, they're moving mighty quick. Descent should be much less of the time involved, right?
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]