5 ms·

Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? Serious question. If not, what's it for?

by 55555 2y ago

cryptonector 2y ago
If they can miniaturize the re-entry vehicles enough to make them undetectable, or if they can leave them "parked" next to larger satellites so as to hide them, then having such hidden orbiting warheads would seem to allow for plausible deniability in small nuclear bombings. But since everyone would know only we have this capability, the deniability goes out the window. Also, re-entry vehicles get very hot and are visible, and their trajectories could get plotted, thus providing evidence of whodunit. Plus the x-37b can't possibly carry very many warheads and re-entry vehicles. On the whole I think it's very unlikely that the x-37b is placing nukes in orbit.
dboreham 2y ago
It's for deterring other countries from deploying a thing that can nuke anybody on the planet at any time. See also: Space Shuttle.
ambicapter 2y ago
It's testing ability to on-command manipulate orbits in space with very low fuel, which is useful for anything we throw up in space.
andyjohnson0 2y ago
Officially its a platform for testing various technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regarding_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regard...
UltraSane 2y ago
I wonder if it is used to detect nuclear bombs in orbit? That would explain the level of secrecy.
devoutsalsa 2y ago
>> Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? This was actually a concern with the space shuttle! I suppose it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit. I’m not sure what value there’d be in dropping one or two nukes on an enemy. Any nuclear capable power would not be disabled by a few nukes going off, they’d know who dropped they nukes, and they could retaliate. If we had 10K nukes in orbit and could synchronize them to blanket a country & disable its nuclear response capability, maybe that would be worth something if the other side didn’t also fill space with nukes (which they would).
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit. No, it's only a concern for spacecraft with significant cross range capability, like Shuttle and X37B. All other spacecraft have predictable trajectories, like ICBM's. The upcoming generation of hypersonics are worse: they are significantly harder to detect on top of speed and maneuverability.
  - dingaling 2y ago
    Cross-range applies within the atmosphere, not in orbit. Once in orbit, spaceplanes have no less predictable orbits than anything else with fuel and restartable motors. For the X-37 to deliver on a surprising vector it would have to sacrifice itself by deorbiting and manoeuvring, which I suppose is feasible. But modern MaRVs also have some re-entry cross-range and HGVs considerably more.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      If you read TFA you'll see that the x-37b does have "cross-range" capabilities in orbit. It has enough fuel for some orbit changes, as reported in previous news, and in this instance it uses aerobraking to alter its orbit significantly at the cost of very little fuel.
- triactual 2y ago
  It would be for indefensible decapitation strikes. A world leader who would launch a surprise first strike is almost certainly narcissistic enough to be susceptible to blackmail by a threat on their own life. A world leader who is not concerned with their own life but that of their countrymen will likely not launch a surprise first strike and so MAD still works.
simplicio 2y ago
Is there any one or any time we can't already nuke with an ICBM? Not sure I really see what extra capability would be added by putting nukes on a space plane.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  It would be another leg in the triad—presumably obsoleting strategic bombers for most potential scenarios. All the legs have trade-offs, which is why you want more than one: Silos are immobile. Bombers are slow, limited-range and vulnerable. Submarines have to hide and thus are difficult to keep in touch with reliably. They’re also damn complicated and may have systemic vulnerabilities we don’t fully understand. A long-orbit, large-payload space plane brings some interesting new trade-offs to the strategic nuclear game, though who knows if that’s actually how it might be used.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    > Silos are immobile. But mobile launchers aren't. Russia and China use those, but we don't. > presumably obsoleting strategic bombers We'd have to have hundreds of warheads in orbit at all times to obsolete strategic bombers. If the x-37b is to be used for carrying (or deploying) orbital nukes, then at least for now it has to be a very few nukes. Re-entry vehicles are visible because they glow white hot as they re-enter, so while surprising (because there is no boost phase to detect, and because the detectable flight time will be less than half that of an ICBM) they will not provide enough plausible deniability to be worth using at all. This is why I doubt the x-37b is being used to carry nukes.
  - jghn 2y ago
    There is exactly one country who would have any hope of even achieving MAD in a nuclear exchange, and that number isn't going up any time soon. I don't know that I see any reason to add legs here.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      Russia, China, and the U.S. all have MAD capabilities.
onionisafruit 2y ago
What would be the benefit of this over an icbm? Is it lower latency that gives the target less time to intercept?
fidotron 2y ago
Watching https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station close up. The lack of awareness of the Tiangong stations in the west is distinctly strange.
- causal 2y ago
  Yeah, very strange. ISS is in the news almost daily by comparison
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Because its interesting. ISS has a shelf life fast approaching and the idea of it falling into the earth and not be replaced is another classic story of the american empire withering away. Akin to the last shuttle flight. Meanwhile a chinese space station doing a dozen small physics experiments doesn’t capture the same interest.
  - mavhc 2y ago
    Nasa probably publishes press releases almost daily, not as if anything is original reporting
- sixothree 2y ago
  It's strange how isolated Americans are in terms of international news.
- neom 2y ago
  Didn't realize they had people living on the Tiangong already, seems for quite a while now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0
ungreased0675 2y ago
The US military already has the ability to nuke anybody at any time. There are a thousand other more plausible options, assuming you don’t believe the official explanation.
rtkwe 2y ago
The other less (directly at least[0]) world ending capability it might unlock is being able to non-destructively interfere with the satellites of other nations. I think they'd prefer to avoid creating huge debris clouds if they could. The X-37B seems like it has the ability to visit and interfere with multiple satellites in a single launch. By being able to drastically change it's orbit it can alter it's orbit to intercept a target satellite and do it's work before the satellite's owner can respond to have the satellites maneuver. [0] I say less directly because some nations like Russia have doctrine that states they may respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks that degrade it's ability to use their nuclear weapons or detect launches so messing with their observation satellites could snowball. According to some reporting one of the big hold ups with the US and other countries authorizing Ukraine to use provided weapons to strike inside Russia is there are dual use facilities that Ukraine would love to strike but also serve as important parts of the Russian nuclear system (early warning radars in the south that monitor airspace over Ukraine and provide launch warnings from places like Turkey/the Mediterranean).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bell-cot 2y ago
Note that between the X-37B's small size, tiny numbers, and extremely limited ability to change its orbit, it is useless for "we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time" missions.

Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? Serious question. If not, what's it for?

by 55555 2y ago

Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? Serious question. If not, what's it for?

If they can miniaturize the re-entry vehicles enough to make them undetectable, or if they can leave them "parked" next to larger satellites so as to hide them, then having such hidden orbiting warheads would seem to allow for plausible deniability in small nuclear bombings. But since everyone would know only we have this capability, the deniability goes out the window. Also, re-entry vehicles get very hot and are visible, and their trajectories could get plotted, thus providing evidence of whodunit. Plus the x-37b can't possibly carry very many warheads and re-entry vehicles. On the whole I think it's very unlikely that the x-37b is placing nukes in orbit.

dboreham 2y ago

It's for deterring other countries from deploying a thing that can nuke anybody on the planet at any time. See also: Space Shuttle.

ambicapter 2y ago

It's testing ability to on-command manipulate orbits in space with very low fuel, which is useful for anything we throw up in space.

andyjohnson0 2y ago

Officially its a platform for testing various technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regarding_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#Speculation_regard...

UltraSane 2y ago

I wonder if it is used to detect nuclear bombs in orbit? That would explain the level of secrecy.

devoutsalsa 2y ago

>> Did we build this so we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time? This was actually a concern with the space shuttle! I suppose it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit. I’m not sure what value there’d be in dropping one or two nukes on an enemy. Any nuclear capable power would not be disabled by a few nukes going off, they’d know who dropped they nukes, and they could retaliate. If we had 10K nukes in orbit and could synchronize them to blanket a country & disable its nuclear response capability, maybe that would be worth something if the other side didn’t also fill space with nukes (which they would).

bryanlarsen 2y ago
> it could be a concern for any spacecraft that can carry a payload into orbit. No, it's only a concern for spacecraft with significant cross range capability, like Shuttle and X37B. All other spacecraft have predictable trajectories, like ICBM's. The upcoming generation of hypersonics are worse: they are significantly harder to detect on top of speed and maneuverability.
- dingaling 2y ago
  Cross-range applies within the atmosphere, not in orbit. Once in orbit, spaceplanes have no less predictable orbits than anything else with fuel and restartable motors. For the X-37 to deliver on a surprising vector it would have to sacrifice itself by deorbiting and manoeuvring, which I suppose is feasible. But modern MaRVs also have some re-entry cross-range and HGVs considerably more.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    If you read TFA you'll see that the x-37b does have "cross-range" capabilities in orbit. It has enough fuel for some orbit changes, as reported in previous news, and in this instance it uses aerobraking to alter its orbit significantly at the cost of very little fuel.
triactual 2y ago
It would be for indefensible decapitation strikes. A world leader who would launch a surprise first strike is almost certainly narcissistic enough to be susceptible to blackmail by a threat on their own life. A world leader who is not concerned with their own life but that of their countrymen will likely not launch a surprise first strike and so MAD still works.

simplicio 2y ago

Is there any one or any time we can't already nuke with an ICBM? Not sure I really see what extra capability would be added by putting nukes on a space plane.

twoodfin 2y ago
It would be another leg in the triad—presumably obsoleting strategic bombers for most potential scenarios. All the legs have trade-offs, which is why you want more than one: Silos are immobile. Bombers are slow, limited-range and vulnerable. Submarines have to hide and thus are difficult to keep in touch with reliably. They’re also damn complicated and may have systemic vulnerabilities we don’t fully understand. A long-orbit, large-payload space plane brings some interesting new trade-offs to the strategic nuclear game, though who knows if that’s actually how it might be used.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > Silos are immobile. But mobile launchers aren't. Russia and China use those, but we don't. > presumably obsoleting strategic bombers We'd have to have hundreds of warheads in orbit at all times to obsolete strategic bombers. If the x-37b is to be used for carrying (or deploying) orbital nukes, then at least for now it has to be a very few nukes. Re-entry vehicles are visible because they glow white hot as they re-enter, so while surprising (because there is no boost phase to detect, and because the detectable flight time will be less than half that of an ICBM) they will not provide enough plausible deniability to be worth using at all. This is why I doubt the x-37b is being used to carry nukes.
- jghn 2y ago
  There is exactly one country who would have any hope of even achieving MAD in a nuclear exchange, and that number isn't going up any time soon. I don't know that I see any reason to add legs here.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    Russia, China, and the U.S. all have MAD capabilities.

onionisafruit 2y ago

What would be the benefit of this over an icbm? Is it lower latency that gives the target less time to intercept?

fidotron 2y ago

Watching https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station close up. The lack of awareness of the Tiangong stations in the west is distinctly strange.

causal 2y ago
Yeah, very strange. ISS is in the news almost daily by comparison
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Because its interesting. ISS has a shelf life fast approaching and the idea of it falling into the earth and not be replaced is another classic story of the american empire withering away. Akin to the last shuttle flight. Meanwhile a chinese space station doing a dozen small physics experiments doesn’t capture the same interest.
- mavhc 2y ago
  Nasa probably publishes press releases almost daily, not as if anything is original reporting
sixothree 2y ago
It's strange how isolated Americans are in terms of international news.
neom 2y ago
Didn't realize they had people living on the Tiangong already, seems for quite a while now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhrq6TuSa0

ungreased0675 2y ago

The US military already has the ability to nuke anybody at any time. There are a thousand other more plausible options, assuming you don’t believe the official explanation.

rtkwe 2y ago

The other less (directly at least[0]) world ending capability it might unlock is being able to non-destructively interfere with the satellites of other nations. I think they'd prefer to avoid creating huge debris clouds if they could. The X-37B seems like it has the ability to visit and interfere with multiple satellites in a single launch. By being able to drastically change it's orbit it can alter it's orbit to intercept a target satellite and do it's work before the satellite's owner can respond to have the satellites maneuver. [0] I say less directly because some nations like Russia have doctrine that states they may respond with nuclear weapons to conventional attacks that degrade it's ability to use their nuclear weapons or detect launches so messing with their observation satellites could snowball. According to some reporting one of the big hold ups with the US and other countries authorizing Ukraine to use provided weapons to strike inside Russia is there are dual use facilities that Ukraine would love to strike but also serve as important parts of the Russian nuclear system (early warning radars in the south that monitor airspace over Ukraine and provide launch warnings from places like Turkey/the Mediterranean).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bell-cot 2y ago

Note that between the X-37B's small size, tiny numbers, and extremely limited ability to change its orbit, it is useless for "we can nuke anybody on the planet at any time" missions.