5 ms·

Wouldn’t they have already launched before suffering any ill effects from EMP?

ben_w 2y ago
It only takes one nuke to make an EMP that can mess up most of the continental USA, that's something which could plausibly be done as a first strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice?
- zikduruqe 2y ago
  This is actually a pretty good book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4922079-one-second-after https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4922079-one-second-after
- pooper 2y ago
  > Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice? I am way out of my depth to say anything about this but I am just asking questions. I think we have to define a few words here > space what does space mean? I mean where will the detonation take place? Is it low earth orbit? geostationary orbit? is it past the orbit of Jupiter? outside the solar system (like voyager 1)? > nukes How big is this nuke? If it is small enough and far enough, do we care?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    From my previous link: 10 kT seems to be "big enough" to cause problems. Likewise "space" (for a HAEMP) means "up to about 500 km" — diagram from the previous link, based on h = 400 km: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.png For the purposes of "where can nukes not be stationed according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967": (1) orbit, (2) any celestial body, (3) anywhere else in outer space: > Article IV > States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
- lazide 2y ago
  That’s nominally the reason for the CIA - and every other national intelligence agency.
- luma 2y ago
  > if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice? Yes. Satellites are not transparent so they occlude the sky behind them for anyone who is watching, which allows discovery of new satellites. Imaging them and determining trajectory via doppler etc comes after you know it's there. See: https://www.space.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-on-global-lookout.html https://www.space.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-on-global-l...
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I meant knowing about the nuke, not the satellite. Launch vehicles are pretty hard to miss.
- lukan 2y ago
  "E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice?" My wild guess would be, a bomb radiates and a satellite usually does not, so it might be possible to easily check new launched ones or all of the satelites of a certain size?
- Aeolun 2y ago
  > Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? Either nobody has tried to find out yet, or it is not.
jcrawfordor 2y ago
The main reason NEMP (nuclear EMP) became a big concern during the Cold War is its potential for use as a defensive weapon. For example, a large part of military EMP research was done with the specific aim of hardening strategic bombers, after it was realized that the USSR could use a single well-placed high-altitude NEMP to disable most of the SAC fleet as it passed over the north pole. Similarly, in most attack scenarios the USSR would almost certainly have made a high-altitude detonation over the ICBM fields one of their first moves. I started off on a more detailed explanation of the timing issue, why we may not be able to launch before inbound weapons arrive, but it's kind of a complex topic that changed quite a bit over time. I might write something more in-depth about it later.
- skhr0680 2y ago
  > I might write something more in-depth about it later. I'm looking forward to your insights, this is a great comment

It only takes one nuke to make an EMP that can mess up most of the continental USA, that's something which could plausibly be done as a first strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice?

zikduruqe 2y ago
This is actually a pretty good book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4922079-one-second-after https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4922079-one-second-after
pooper 2y ago
> Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice? I am way out of my depth to say anything about this but I am just asking questions. I think we have to define a few words here > space what does space mean? I mean where will the detonation take place? Is it low earth orbit? geostationary orbit? is it past the orbit of Jupiter? outside the solar system (like voyager 1)? > nukes How big is this nuke? If it is small enough and far enough, do we care?
- ben_w 2y ago
  From my previous link: 10 kT seems to be "big enough" to cause problems. Likewise "space" (for a HAEMP) means "up to about 500 km" — diagram from the previous link, based on h = 400 km: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.png For the purposes of "where can nukes not be stationed according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967": (1) orbit, (2) any celestial body, (3) anywhere else in outer space: > Article IV > States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
lazide 2y ago
That’s nominally the reason for the CIA - and every other national intelligence agency.
luma 2y ago
> if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice? Yes. Satellites are not transparent so they occlude the sky behind them for anyone who is watching, which allows discovery of new satellites. Imaging them and determining trajectory via doppler etc comes after you know it's there. See: https://www.space.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-on-global-lookout.html https://www.space.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-on-global-l...
- ben_w 2y ago
  I meant knowing about the nuke, not the satellite. Launch vehicles are pretty hard to miss.
lukan 2y ago
"E.g. if Russia just put one on a satellite and didn't tell anyone, does anyone have any way to notice?" My wild guess would be, a bomb radiates and a satellite usually does not, so it might be possible to easily check new launched ones or all of the satelites of a certain size?
Aeolun 2y ago
> Now I think about it, how is the international law banning nukes in space actually enforced? Either nobody has tried to find out yet, or it is not.

jcrawfordor 2y ago

The main reason NEMP (nuclear EMP) became a big concern during the Cold War is its potential for use as a defensive weapon. For example, a large part of military EMP research was done with the specific aim of hardening strategic bombers, after it was realized that the USSR could use a single well-placed high-altitude NEMP to disable most of the SAC fleet as it passed over the north pole. Similarly, in most attack scenarios the USSR would almost certainly have made a high-altitude detonation over the ICBM fields one of their first moves. I started off on a more detailed explanation of the timing issue, why we may not be able to launch before inbound weapons arrive, but it's kind of a complex topic that changed quite a bit over time. I might write something more in-depth about it later.

skhr0680 2y ago
> I might write something more in-depth about it later. I'm looking forward to your insights, this is a great comment