4 ms·

I would say the opposite. It's a great idea. It's one layer to missile defense. Cruise missiles can be destroyed via existing ground/sea defenses. Patriots hav

I would say the opposite. It's a great idea. It's one layer to missile defense. Cruise missiles can be destroyed via existing ground/sea defenses. Patriots have proven they can intercept anything non-ballistic and there are likely better capabilities not revealed yet. The US is also very far away for effective cruise missles. (and has a lot of allies nations in the way) Nuclear weapons sent as sattelites to be de-orbited sound novel, although they can be tracked easily and disabled covertly. (Russia has 'stolen' a US sattelite in the past without much repercussions) Kessler syndrome might be a net win if you are at the point of nuclear war, at which point, without ballistic missiles any country will not stand much against US conventional power. So... there aren't many drawbacks to the plan, the only thing I'm curious is if we don't already have that capability covertly via starlink... shouldn't be hard to take over those and guide them into ballistic missiles...

bigyabai 1y ago
The US mainland isn't completely covered by air defenses, let alone Patriot systems. It's too large, and there are too many gaps that could be exploited. This is why long-range intercontinental cruise missiles cannot be written off completely. A well-designed cruise missile can be almost impossible to find on radar (due to sea/ground clutter) if it flies nap-of-the-earth. They're an extremely credible threat and there's a reason the US has long-range cruise missiles as part of the nuclear triad. It is not realistic to depend on special forces to disable nuclear satellites if (and when) they exist. As I highlighted in my previous link, one of the primary things stopping the USSR from deploying nuclear weapons to space was the idea that America wouldn't deploy space-based interceptors. Both China and Russia will jump at the chance to start hiding nukes in orbit. Our only options are to leave ICBMs as the status quo or negotiate for complete nuclear elimination. This is the downside that I am alluding to, besides the billions of dollars in taxpayer money this will burn starting a new nuclear arms race. You cannot use Starlink satellites to intercept ballistic missiles for multiple reasons. They do not have enough propellant, they don't move fast enough even to catch it in the boost phase, they orbit too low to intercept in the ballistic phase and they aren't designed to have high-impulse maneuvering motors. It would be a neat party trick, but there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell the DOD would privatize a life-or-death nuclear defense system like that. No, not even an administration this crazy.
- mittensc 1y ago
  > The US mainland isn't completely covered by air defenses, let alone Patriot systems EU, japan, canada all have defenses of their own and collaborate. All other countries bordering russia/china do as well.. Then add in all the islands that US has bases on or of allied nations with detection capabilities. Once detected, the US navy and airforce can plan interceptions. Which way would a cruise missile go and how much fuel would it need to reach the US?... let's be real here. > It is not realistic to depend on special forces to disable nuclear satellites if (and when) they exist. Why special forces?, just laser their thrusters once in range during peacetime... who's going to do what? > one of the primary things stopping the USSR from deploying nuclear weapons to space was the idea that America wouldn't deploy space-based interceptors I would argue the idea was that the US would disable them as they got into space. Or that the US would do the same. Or that they innevitably fail sometimes and might leave portions of your homeland unhospitable. > Both China and Russia will jump at the chance to start hiding nukes in orbit. I disagree. > Our only options are to leave ICBMs as the status quo or negotiate for complete nuclear elimination That's a bit naive considering russia's behavior. > This is the downside that I am alluding to, besides the billions of dollars in taxpayer money this will burn starting a new nuclear arms race. Last arms race brought the USSR to collapse. Russia isn't looking too capable right now for another one, hence perfect timing to take advantage of their weakness. > You cannot use Starlink satellites to intercept ballistic missiles for multiple reasons Thanks, nice points to think about, you are likely correct right now. > It would be a neat party trick, Yes it would, so what would it take for them to work?, would early intelligence on possible launch times, missile locations, directions and all be enough to compute interceptors ahead of time during boost? would slight alterations and massive numbers covering the globe make up for that? Also, not privatize, just plain take over of spacex in case of emergency. DoD would use them as kinnetic interceptors. DoD could also force design changes on spacex in anticipation. So much to think about :) Edit: you missed nuke subs, so the MAD is still around unless the US has a way to kill them if they get too close to the us.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    We learned all of these lessons 50 years ago. > All other countries bordering russia/china do as well.. Do they ever shoot down the routine Tu-95 flights that head for the pacific ocean? Doesn't seem like it, they could open their bays whenever they wanted outside Anchorage or Seattle: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/01/30/russian-strategic-bombers-conduct-flight-over-sea-of-okhotsk-and-sea-of-japan-reports https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/01/30/russian-... > Once detected, the US navy and airforce can plan interceptions. The fastest ocean craft the Navy has can't pull 40 knots in regular conditions. It takes an F/A-18 far too long to cover 250 miles even at mil-speed, same for Air Force F-15s. They aren't planning much of anything, particularly if they can't see the missile. NORAD won't see them and naval radars are far too small to cover even the West coast. > Which way would a cruise missile go and how much fuel would it need to reach the US?... let's be real here. Wherever it wants. Modernized Kalibr missiles can fly in excess of 2,500 miles... after being launched from a vehicle with it's own range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)#Domestic_variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)#Domest... > just laser their thrusters once in range during peacetime... who's going to do what? You make it sound so easy. What if the ground operators detect your intercept and decide to fight back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz > That's a bit naive considering russia's behavior. It was very realistic and feasibly attainable during the Reykjavík summit, half a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union and Balkanization of nuclear-armed states. > Russia isn't looking too capable right now for another one The USSR wasn't fighting NATO forces when their strategic weapons were valuable. What were they going to do in the 80s, nuke the Mujahideen? Russia has their nukes, and they have casus belli even if their war in Ukraine is bogus. The ICBMs are already built, it doesn't cost them extra to fire a solid-fuel rocket. I'm as skeptical of Russia's nuclear arsenal as anyone, but to discount it entirely is nuts. > Yes it would, so what would it take for them to work? An unprecedented level of trust? Who do you think owns the satellites, Uncle Sam and his American Eagle? It's a private system. The DOD does not control the Starlink satellites, they have no desire to build the backbone of their nuclear defense system out of an LEO system in another billionaire's playground. Even a pants-on-head stupid eminent domain plan like you're insinuating would be failure-prone, not to mention profoundly moronic from a compensation and liability standpoint. In an emergency situation, we can't guarantee that the DOD would or could take control. Or that the satellites could fill the mission they demand. You can give the US every feasible advantage and Starlink still comes up short. Modern TEL missiles come pre-fuelled and can be launched faster than satellites can coordinate. An ICBM TEL can employ FOBS, meaning that you don't have a launch azimuth just by seeing where the rocket is aimed. You would need satellites proportional to the area-of-uncertainty in low earth orbit to intercept an ICBM during boost phase with a satellite, which is a radius <800 miles wide being traversed in the span of ~60 seconds. Not to mention, Russia or China could rapidly deplete satellite propellant just by driving TELs cross-country on a regular basis. Much cheaper than the Tu-95 scares they've relied on. > you missed nuke subs, so the MAD is still around unless the US has a way to kill them if they get too close to the us If you want to be completely pedantic, intercepting SLBMs doesn't even remotely stop your enemy from nuking you either. Kalibr missiles can be launched from a submarine too, or SRBMs that don't have a long enough ballistic phase to intercept from space. It's no-win regardless of your satellite defenses. This is the last time I'll say it, since it's becoming quickly apparent that we're playing by the Calvinball rules of deterrence; the only realistic nuclear defense is nonproliferation. Yes, it's far-fetched, but it's ~1,000x more attainable than hard-killing a submarine nuke using a satellite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

bigyabai 1y ago

The US mainland isn't completely covered by air defenses, let alone Patriot systems. It's too large, and there are too many gaps that could be exploited. This is why long-range intercontinental cruise missiles cannot be written off completely. A well-designed cruise missile can be almost impossible to find on radar (due to sea/ground clutter) if it flies nap-of-the-earth. They're an extremely credible threat and there's a reason the US has long-range cruise missiles as part of the nuclear triad. It is not realistic to depend on special forces to disable nuclear satellites if (and when) they exist. As I highlighted in my previous link, one of the primary things stopping the USSR from deploying nuclear weapons to space was the idea that America wouldn't deploy space-based interceptors. Both China and Russia will jump at the chance to start hiding nukes in orbit. Our only options are to leave ICBMs as the status quo or negotiate for complete nuclear elimination. This is the downside that I am alluding to, besides the billions of dollars in taxpayer money this will burn starting a new nuclear arms race. You cannot use Starlink satellites to intercept ballistic missiles for multiple reasons. They do not have enough propellant, they don't move fast enough even to catch it in the boost phase, they orbit too low to intercept in the ballistic phase and they aren't designed to have high-impulse maneuvering motors. It would be a neat party trick, but there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell the DOD would privatize a life-or-death nuclear defense system like that. No, not even an administration this crazy.

mittensc 1y ago
> The US mainland isn't completely covered by air defenses, let alone Patriot systems EU, japan, canada all have defenses of their own and collaborate. All other countries bordering russia/china do as well.. Then add in all the islands that US has bases on or of allied nations with detection capabilities. Once detected, the US navy and airforce can plan interceptions. Which way would a cruise missile go and how much fuel would it need to reach the US?... let's be real here. > It is not realistic to depend on special forces to disable nuclear satellites if (and when) they exist. Why special forces?, just laser their thrusters once in range during peacetime... who's going to do what? > one of the primary things stopping the USSR from deploying nuclear weapons to space was the idea that America wouldn't deploy space-based interceptors I would argue the idea was that the US would disable them as they got into space. Or that the US would do the same. Or that they innevitably fail sometimes and might leave portions of your homeland unhospitable. > Both China and Russia will jump at the chance to start hiding nukes in orbit. I disagree. > Our only options are to leave ICBMs as the status quo or negotiate for complete nuclear elimination That's a bit naive considering russia's behavior. > This is the downside that I am alluding to, besides the billions of dollars in taxpayer money this will burn starting a new nuclear arms race. Last arms race brought the USSR to collapse. Russia isn't looking too capable right now for another one, hence perfect timing to take advantage of their weakness. > You cannot use Starlink satellites to intercept ballistic missiles for multiple reasons Thanks, nice points to think about, you are likely correct right now. > It would be a neat party trick, Yes it would, so what would it take for them to work?, would early intelligence on possible launch times, missile locations, directions and all be enough to compute interceptors ahead of time during boost? would slight alterations and massive numbers covering the globe make up for that? Also, not privatize, just plain take over of spacex in case of emergency. DoD would use them as kinnetic interceptors. DoD could also force design changes on spacex in anticipation. So much to think about :) Edit: you missed nuke subs, so the MAD is still around unless the US has a way to kill them if they get too close to the us.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  We learned all of these lessons 50 years ago. > All other countries bordering russia/china do as well.. Do they ever shoot down the routine Tu-95 flights that head for the pacific ocean? Doesn't seem like it, they could open their bays whenever they wanted outside Anchorage or Seattle: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/01/30/russian-strategic-bombers-conduct-flight-over-sea-of-okhotsk-and-sea-of-japan-reports https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/01/30/russian-... > Once detected, the US navy and airforce can plan interceptions. The fastest ocean craft the Navy has can't pull 40 knots in regular conditions. It takes an F/A-18 far too long to cover 250 miles even at mil-speed, same for Air Force F-15s. They aren't planning much of anything, particularly if they can't see the missile. NORAD won't see them and naval radars are far too small to cover even the West coast. > Which way would a cruise missile go and how much fuel would it need to reach the US?... let's be real here. Wherever it wants. Modernized Kalibr missiles can fly in excess of 2,500 miles... after being launched from a vehicle with it's own range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)#Domestic_variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)#Domest... > just laser their thrusters once in range during peacetime... who's going to do what? You make it sound so easy. What if the ground operators detect your intercept and decide to fight back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz > That's a bit naive considering russia's behavior. It was very realistic and feasibly attainable during the Reykjavík summit, half a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union and Balkanization of nuclear-armed states. > Russia isn't looking too capable right now for another one The USSR wasn't fighting NATO forces when their strategic weapons were valuable. What were they going to do in the 80s, nuke the Mujahideen? Russia has their nukes, and they have casus belli even if their war in Ukraine is bogus. The ICBMs are already built, it doesn't cost them extra to fire a solid-fuel rocket. I'm as skeptical of Russia's nuclear arsenal as anyone, but to discount it entirely is nuts. > Yes it would, so what would it take for them to work? An unprecedented level of trust? Who do you think owns the satellites, Uncle Sam and his American Eagle? It's a private system. The DOD does not control the Starlink satellites, they have no desire to build the backbone of their nuclear defense system out of an LEO system in another billionaire's playground. Even a pants-on-head stupid eminent domain plan like you're insinuating would be failure-prone, not to mention profoundly moronic from a compensation and liability standpoint. In an emergency situation, we can't guarantee that the DOD would or could take control. Or that the satellites could fill the mission they demand. You can give the US every feasible advantage and Starlink still comes up short. Modern TEL missiles come pre-fuelled and can be launched faster than satellites can coordinate. An ICBM TEL can employ FOBS, meaning that you don't have a launch azimuth just by seeing where the rocket is aimed. You would need satellites proportional to the area-of-uncertainty in low earth orbit to intercept an ICBM during boost phase with a satellite, which is a radius <800 miles wide being traversed in the span of ~60 seconds. Not to mention, Russia or China could rapidly deplete satellite propellant just by driving TELs cross-country on a regular basis. Much cheaper than the Tu-95 scares they've relied on. > you missed nuke subs, so the MAD is still around unless the US has a way to kill them if they get too close to the us If you want to be completely pedantic, intercepting SLBMs doesn't even remotely stop your enemy from nuking you either. Kalibr missiles can be launched from a submarine too, or SRBMs that don't have a long enough ballistic phase to intercept from space. It's no-win regardless of your satellite defenses. This is the last time I'll say it, since it's becoming quickly apparent that we're playing by the Calvinball rules of deterrence; the only realistic nuclear defense is nonproliferation. Yes, it's far-fetched, but it's ~1,000x more attainable than hard-killing a submarine nuke using a satellite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...