7 ms·

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.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    Without a deeper analysis, that’s an argument to scuttle our missile subs, too. I mean, it’s an argument to be had, but the advantages of a dominant multi-modal nuclear arsenal go beyond binary assurance of mutual destruction in total war—today. You’re the Chinese premiere in 2030 or 2040 choosing whether to try to match US strategic capability. How many chips that requires in the pot for a call makes a difference in that calculation.
- Dah00n 2y ago
  >strategic nuclear game If that's its job then it is in breach of the Outer Space Treaty. No weapons of mass destruction in space.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    Having the capacity to hold & deliver live warheads doesn’t mean it’s exercising that capability today. Anyway this is all incredibly speculative. Nobody knows the real strategic purposes of this thing.
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Bombers are long obsolete. When is the last time someone used a bomber? Missiles/ rockets have already replaced their functionality
  - moi2388 2y ago
    F-35 still carries bombs as well. And the USA recently revealed the B21 stealth bomber.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > When is the last time someone used a bomber? The US bombed some Houthi launch sites within the last couple of months. Israel bombed Beirut this last week.
    - idunnoman1222 2y ago
      They struck targets what makes you think they flew an F35 over them and dropped a bomb?
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    You may be right, but tell it to the Strategic Air Command: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wings_assigned_to_Strategic_Air_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wi...
gpderetta 2y ago
Orbital bombardment capability. Very little early warning compared to a ballistic launch. Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed. Why would the US military specifically need it I'm not sure, but having the option is probably a good thing for them.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Aren’t subs even faster? You could literally sacrifice the sub in a harbor and have about a half second notice.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    I'm certainly not an expert on nuclear brinkmanship:). I only know that orbital nuclear bombardment capabilities is something that nuclear states desire but are MAD-destablizing enough to have been ruled out via treaties. I assume the problem with subs is prompt communication. Also they are more of a retaliatory strike weapon thank first strike capability.
- dylan604 2y ago
  By launching the orbiter with a weapon, would it not be breaking said treaty?
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    By that time you launch an armed X-37B you are probably already in your underground nuclear bunker and do not care about treaties. A better objection is that a single one is not going to make a difference, and having a big fleet ready to launch is going to raise eyebrows.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Launching an X-37B at the point of hostilities is no different than just launching ICBMs. You would need this imaginary fleet of X-37Bs already in orbit similar to having parts of the submarine fleet at sea at all times.

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.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  Without a deeper analysis, that’s an argument to scuttle our missile subs, too. I mean, it’s an argument to be had, but the advantages of a dominant multi-modal nuclear arsenal go beyond binary assurance of mutual destruction in total war—today. You’re the Chinese premiere in 2030 or 2040 choosing whether to try to match US strategic capability. How many chips that requires in the pot for a call makes a difference in that calculation.
Dah00n 2y ago
>strategic nuclear game If that's its job then it is in breach of the Outer Space Treaty. No weapons of mass destruction in space.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  Having the capacity to hold & deliver live warheads doesn’t mean it’s exercising that capability today. Anyway this is all incredibly speculative. Nobody knows the real strategic purposes of this thing.
idunnoman1222 2y ago
Bombers are long obsolete. When is the last time someone used a bomber? Missiles/ rockets have already replaced their functionality
- moi2388 2y ago
  F-35 still carries bombs as well. And the USA recently revealed the B21 stealth bomber.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > When is the last time someone used a bomber? The US bombed some Houthi launch sites within the last couple of months. Israel bombed Beirut this last week.
  - idunnoman1222 2y ago
    They struck targets what makes you think they flew an F35 over them and dropped a bomb?
- twoodfin 2y ago
  You may be right, but tell it to the Strategic Air Command: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wings_assigned_to_Strategic_Air_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USAF_Bomb_Wings_and_Wi...

gpderetta 2y ago

Orbital bombardment capability. Very little early warning compared to a ballistic launch. Various treaties prohibit having weapons in orbit, but X-37B provides the capability without actively having to have such a system deployed. Why would the US military specifically need it I'm not sure, but having the option is probably a good thing for them.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Aren’t subs even faster? You could literally sacrifice the sub in a harbor and have about a half second notice.
- gpderetta 2y ago
  I'm certainly not an expert on nuclear brinkmanship:). I only know that orbital nuclear bombardment capabilities is something that nuclear states desire but are MAD-destablizing enough to have been ruled out via treaties. I assume the problem with subs is prompt communication. Also they are more of a retaliatory strike weapon thank first strike capability.
dylan604 2y ago
By launching the orbiter with a weapon, would it not be breaking said treaty?
- gpderetta 2y ago
  By that time you launch an armed X-37B you are probably already in your underground nuclear bunker and do not care about treaties. A better objection is that a single one is not going to make a difference, and having a big fleet ready to launch is going to raise eyebrows.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Launching an X-37B at the point of hostilities is no different than just launching ICBMs. You would need this imaginary fleet of X-37Bs already in orbit similar to having parts of the submarine fleet at sea at all times.