Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

Terraformer · 2014-12-20 08:34:04

So... how does having multiple warheads prevent the use of submarines? You don't need a nuclear triad to have second strike capability; Britain's deterrent is based around the Trident submarines. Though that doesn't stop you from having aircraft delivery, if you launch them once you suspect a nuclear attack. If it's a false alarm - then land the planes again, no problem. If it's not, you keep them in the air.

But if you try putting nukes in space, you make it clear to everyone that you are an existential threat to them. Well, the US has already made it clear that they're an existential threat to all humanity. But even more so with nukes in space.

Void · 2014-12-20 13:52:07

Quote Terraformer:

Well, the US has already made it clear that they're an existential threat to all humanity.

What? Show me.

Last edited by Void (2014-12-20 13:52:28)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-20 13:59:19

Terraformer wrote:

So... how does having multiple warheads prevent the use of submarines? You don't need a nuclear triad to have second strike capability; Britain's deterrent is based around the Trident submarines. Though that doesn't stop you from having aircraft delivery, if you launch them once you suspect a nuclear attack. If it's a false alarm - then land the planes again, no problem. If it's not, you keep them in the air.
But if you try putting nukes in space, you make it clear to everyone that you are an existential threat to them. Well, the US has already made it clear that they're an existential threat to all humanity. But even more so with nukes in space.

Just saying, if they nuke us, those nukes will automatically nuke them, because we won't be around to stop them! That is a very good incentive for them not to destroy us, don't you think? You see every once and a while, we'll send the nukes a code that keeps them in space, if they don't receive that code, they automatically home in on their targets. How does that compare with a missile sub. Each one of those sailors need to be paid, and there is life support and food requirements to keep them alive!

RobertDyck · 2014-12-20 14:15:52

So while you worry about Russia and target Russia, North Korea uses their hackers to jam the radio signal. The space-based nukes take out Russia. As the nuclear re-entry vehicles are coming in, Russia launches their arsenal in retaliation.

Void · 2014-12-20 17:48:46

Tom,

I have to side with the others here. A Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine is a very bad plan. Anyway that could be done in the oceans. You could put robots there, have them hide down deep, and ask for instructions periodically. If no-body answers, then the nuke the world. That was considered, but for good logic I think dropped.

One of my hobbies is to study the human race. I am mostly letting that go dormant for now, but I can say that there is little to be done about the "Sino" rise, but to encourage them to be wise, (Without lectures). They are much different, but the age we came from is passing. You adapt, or get shoved out of the way.

Fortunately, to be of European descent and several other descents, means that some of us are adaptable very well for what is to come. But continue with your agenda, it confuses them but just don't forget that everybody is a looser if a nuclear war happens.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-21 22:07:11

RobertDyck wrote:

So while you worry about Russia and target Russia, North Korea uses their hackers to jam the radio signal. The space-based nukes take out Russia. As the nuclear re-entry vehicles are coming in, Russia launches their arsenal in retaliation.

You really think we would forget about North Korea, or China, or Iran? Countries that have a history of bad behavior and have nuclear weapons would be among the many targets, not just Russia. Do you think we don't know who our enemies are? Over time our enemies have made their identities perfectly clear. The Russians should realize that their President they elected, Putin, just put them back on the list of US targets, for a time they were off, but now Putin has given the United States reason to target Russian cities again! Why do you suppose Russian citizens would vote for that? Don't they have enough problems without also having to worry about a nuclear war? Maybe Russians feel more important when they are a nuclear target of the US, what do you think about that? They must have seen those old pictures of those Japanese from the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I guess that is what they would want to be like too. I don't know, it doesn't seem rational that anyone would vote for this:
th?id=HN.608022302698701704&w=103&h=103&c=8&pid=3.1&qlt=90&rm=2
You know there are a lot of countries that haven't bothered us a bit and they won't get nuked by us, and for a time Russia was in that same category, but for some reason they preferred to be targets and wanted to risk their cities ending up like the above picture, I don't get why they would want this. I guess we have no choice if Russia wants to target US cities, we have to give them a big reason why that would be a bad idea! I think ABM systems could target missile warheads that are launched from their Silos, the classic scenario is over in a couple hours with most of the missiles either being launched or destroyed within that time frame. ABMs can do nothing about nuclear truck bombs or ship bombs, only those warheads arriving by missile. So if one of our enemies gets a few nukes through, we need to have a guaranteed response for them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-21 22:32:51

Void wrote:

Tom,
I have to side with the others here. A Dr. Strangelove doomsday machine is a very bad plan. Anyway that could be done in the oceans. You could put robots there, have them hide down deep, and ask for instructions periodically. If no-body answers, then the nuke the world. That was considered, but for good logic I think dropped.
One of my hobbies is to study the human race. I am mostly letting that go dormant for now, but I can say that there is little to be done about the "Sino" rise, but to encourage them to be wise, (Without lectures). They are much different, but the age we came from is passing. You adapt, or get shoved out of the way.
Fortunately, to be of European descent and several other descents, means that some of us are adaptable very well for what is to come. But continue with your agenda, it confuses them but just don't forget that everybody is a looser if a nuclear war happens.

Okay, why is that a bad idea? Do you think there is a chance that some human decision maker would choose not to retaliate after his country got nuked, for the good of humanity? Lets say we have a President who simply accepts a nuclear attack from Russia, thousands of nuclear warheads are headed for US cities and hundreds of millions of US citizens will be killed, the USA would be no more, but the President of the United States refuses to authorize a counterstrike, he just high tails it to some third country as a Refugee on Air Force One, to let America die, then the Russians would move in and take over what remains of the country. Do you anticipate that scenario? Is it preferable to the one where American retaliates?

I have a solution for the Sino rise, its very simple, after Russia gets rid of its latest dictator, we'll offer Russia membership in the United States under the US Constitution.

Russia has 83 "states", or, more accurately, federal subjects. Russia does not have states as such but there are 83 federal subjects, however they do not all enjoy the same autonomy as each other. So 50 states plus 83 equals 133 states, each of those states would have 2 Senators so therefore the Senate would have 266 members. Russia has 143.7 million people adding that to the 316 million Americans and that would make a population of 460 million people. The United States of America and Russia would be the world's most powerful Superpower once again with an economy larger than China, plus the US Constitution would give Russia the stability it never had. Every time the Russians have overthrown a tyrant, they have always made a hash out of their attempted democracy. The Russians have had two revolutions which failed and have led to one tyrant ruling instead of the one overthrown. So maybe the Russians will get wise and not trust themselves to write yet another constitution, maybe it would be better if they just joined the United States. I don't think Putin has as strong a grip on power that Stalin did, if he becomes unpopular at home, the Russians may decide to over throw him just like they overthrew the military putch that overthrew Gorbachev. I think we should put one more option on the table for the Russians should that time come. I think merging our two countries under the US Constitution would be a great idea, that way we don't have to point missiles at each other anymore, and don't have this endless cycle of new peace treaties followed by yet another Cold War. if were one country this won't happen.

Terraformer · 2014-12-22 09:35:25

Tom,

Did the Communists steal your precious bodily fluids?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-22 10:08:37

Terraformer wrote:

Tom,
Did the Communists steal your precious bodily fluids?

What does Communists have to do with it? The Communists were just a bunch of opportunists that tricked the Russian Peasants into supporting the overthrow of the Czar. The Communists were the reason why we had the first Cold War.
th?id=HN.608001686865513678&w=103&h=103&c=8&pid=3.1&qlt=90&rm=2
Do you think nuclear weapons are funny? That people with this ridiculous ideology would have these nukes and threaten the lives of billions of people with them, and all for an idea that doesn't work? And yet despite the risk they pushed this ideology on the rest of the World and risked a nuclear war in the process. I don't think nuclear weapons are a joke, there is nothing funny about them at all. The only good thing they have done is they have prevented large scale conventional wars, because the people who would have started them were afraid of it going nuclear, the reward for starting the war had to be worth the risk, and the risk was very high with nuclear weapons, so basically the Soviets tested limits cautiously, seeing what they could get away with along the edges, while doing so they increased the risk of nuclear war slightly, but they were willing to tolerate that for the perceived gain. And what did they gain?

Terraformer · 2014-12-22 15:39:04

Tom, you're the person suggesting destroying the world if the USA goes... fallout doesn't care for national boundaries, nor does nuclear winter.

Fortunately, you're not the POTUS. Otherwise, every country in the world, including San Marino, Tuvalu, and Hutt River, would have to declare war on the US. Otherwise you would go down in history as President Kalfbus the Mad, final ruler of the American Empire before the Darkness came.

JoshNH4H · 2014-12-22 15:47:05

I've been around on this forum for a long time, but I think this thread might be the single most ridiculous one I've seen.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-23 06:58:25

Terraformer wrote:

Tom, you're the person suggesting destroying the world if the USA goes... fallout doesn't care for national boundaries, nor does nuclear winter.
Fortunately, you're not the POTUS. Otherwise, every country in the world, including San Marino, Tuvalu, and Hutt River, would have to declare war on the US. Otherwise you would go down in history as President Kalfbus the Mad, final ruler of the American Empire before the Darkness came.

I never said anything about destroying the World. Basing nukes out in space, don't make them any more destructive than basing them in their silos or on subs or in bombers. The potential for destruction is there regardless, I just think that one way of basing them makes nuclear war less likely than another. Also putting them in space eliminates the human element, which is uncertain. When you want to deter an enemy, you want certainty. You don't want the enemy thinking, maybe the other guy won't respond if I do this. And there is also human lives to consider. If you have a missile sub and the enemy destroys it, all the sailors die, if you have an unmanned satellite with a nuke onboard and the enemy destroys it, only the satellite and warhead(s) get destroyed, as there is no one onboard to get killed. If a missile silo is near a community, the enemy targets the missile silo and destroys the nearby community in the process. Let me put it to you this way Terraformer. Would you want a Missile Silo next to your home, that you know the enemy is going to try and take out with nukes, thereby killing you in the process, or would you rather have than nuke in space, where it might be destroyed without killing you? I think a lot of NIMBYs would want the nukes off the planet, no one wants to live next to a nuke. If its in space, nobody lives nearby, and the additional benefit is that any nukes used to destroy is cannot then be used to destroy a city, thus saving even more lives.

The way deterrence works is by having a weapon so destructive, that the enemy will not dare to attack you, being a doomsday weapon is what makes it a deterrent, it keeps those potential "Napoleons", who want to conquer the World and rule it, in their closets.

Terraformer · 2014-12-23 07:35:13

By killing everyone, so there's no-one to rule over?

Decimator · 2014-12-23 10:54:17

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Also putting them in space eliminates the human element, which is uncertain. When you want to deter an enemy, you want certainty. You don't want the enemy thinking, maybe the other guy won't respond if I do this.

Instead, they'll be wondering when one of those nukes will malfunction and kill tens of thousands anyway. Your blind faith in the reliability of technology makes me wonder if you've ever worked on a machine, electronic or otherwise, in your entire life. Every device humans create breaks, often in unexpected ways.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-23 12:58:50

Terraformer wrote:

By killing everyone, so there's no-one to rule over?

It does eliminate the incentive to try and conquer all. No one wants to be "Emperor of the Dead"! You see the would be "Napoleon" has to deal with the fact that by building his Empire, he risks destroying all that he wants to conquer, so instead of a world under his rule, he gets a destroyed world instead. Now which world would you rather live in, a World Destroyed by a nuclear holocaust or a World under the iron fisted rule of a dictator. I read 1984, and I'd rather take my chances with a post holocaust world with the total break down of authority. I'd rather deal with some warlords than Big Brother. Most Dictators want the power, they don't start wars just to destroy, Nuclear weapons deny them the possibility of conquering their neighbors and having something left over to rule, that is how nuclear deterrence works.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-23 13:09:10

Decimator wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Also putting them in space eliminates the human element, which is uncertain. When you want to deter an enemy, you want certainty. You don't want the enemy thinking, maybe the other guy won't respond if I do this.
Instead, they'll be wondering when one of those nukes will malfunction and kill tens of thousands anyway. Your blind faith in the reliability of technology makes me wonder if you've ever worked on a machine, electronic or otherwise, in your entire life. Every device humans create breaks, often in unexpected ways.

Machines are less valued than human lives however. If you have manned systems, you risk putting those human lives that operate the machinery at risk, also manned systems have to be located largely on Earth, so any attempt to destroy those systems on Earth also risks destroying that which surrounds those systems. Now I ask you, do you want a nuclear missile crew operating near your community. One potential target of nuclear strikes are those nuclear missile silos. Typically those silos are located far away from populated areas, but they are till located on Earth, and some people do live nearby. Now you realize the enemy doesn't want to kill everyone, if he killed everyone in your country, what he would rule over would have no value to him, so his first goal would be to destroy your countries ability to defend itself from his attacks, and after that, he's seek to secure a surrender, so he can move his troops into your country and rule over you without your consent. If a country indicates a willingness to fight to the death, most enemies will likely leave that country alone, what they are after most of all is political power, they don't like your democracy, because they think they should rule you instead.

I guess what you do with machines is have multiple fail safes and a secret code to cause such weapons to self-destruct. A nuke in space gets eliminated very easily by its creators, you transmit the command to self-destruct, and the nuke blows up, in space 800,000 km away, the EMP radiation will be too far away to affect electronics, this is twice the distance of the Moon after all. I suppose a nuclear explosion would be visible to the naked eye from that distance, but that's about it.

Alternatively if Self-Destruct command does not work, you could direct another Nuke in space to home in on the errant warhead and destroy both the warhead and itself thus eliminating the threat of a malfunctioning warhead. There will be about 30,000 of them after all, this adds a lot of redundancy to the system.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-12-23 13:11:27)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-24 22:42:59

Russia Launches Angara-A5 Rocket W/ Missile Attack Warning And Spy Capabilities [Video]

Article

By Athena Yenko | December 24, 2014 6:51 PM EST

Russia had successfully test-fired its Angara-A5 rocket that Russian President Vladimir Putin said will bolstered the country's defence capability. The Angara-A5 rocket's payload can launch "missile attack warning systems, as well as equipment for reconnaissance, navigation, and communication," Mr Putin said.

You ever wonder why Putin is telling us this? How badly does he want this Cold War?

REUTERS/Alexei Druzhinin/RIA N
Russia's President Vladimir Putin gestures as he watches the launch of the newest heavy-class Angara-A5 rocket at Plesetsk cosmodrome in Arkhangelsk region, via a video link at the Russian Presidential Situation center at the Kremlin in Moscow, December 23, 2014.

"This rocket is intended to put payloads measuring up to 24.5 metric tons to low-earth circular orbits," Mr. Putin highlighted at the meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation or CSTO. With the successful launch of the rocket, Russia had once again proved that it "remains among the world leaders of space exploration," Mr. Putin said as reported by The Sputnik International.
The Angara-A5 had rocketed from the Plesetsk Space Complex by Space Forces crew on Dec. 23 with Mr Putin watching via live video stream. The launch was supervised by Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, giving updates to Mr. Putin every step of the way.

Mr. Putin said that the most advanced technologies were used in the heavyweight Angara-A5 rocket. He also said that it can be used to transport existing and future space equipment of the military, as well as economic and research application to any orbit.

And why is Putin telling us this?

Angara-A5 is the first ever rocket that was launched right into geostationary orbit. The first stage of the rocket is capable of releasing up to 25 tons even with a low orbit. It is powered by RD-191, an engine type that uses kerosene and oxygen as fuel manufactured by NPO Ebergomash of Khimki Russia. It can generate about 2 million pounds of thrust at maximum throttle capable of ejecting the rocket into the space.
Packed with kerosene, liquid oxygen and hypergolic propellants, the Angara-A5 weighs 773 metric tonnes, making it the largest Russian launcher ever fired in the country since the late 1980's.
The 180-foot-tall rocket had successfully released a Breeze M upper stage 12 minutes after its liftoff. It then began firing engines, placing a dummy satellite into geostationary orbit of 22,300 miles over the equator -- working as expected according to the Russian Ministry of Defense as reported by SpaceFlightNow. The Breeze M main engine was designed to ignite four times within hours, reaching the rocket's targeted orbit.

Seems like Putin is going out of his way to emphasize the military aspects of this rocket, I wonder why? Is he expecting a response from Obama, does he expect him to suddenly turn into a military hawk? What exactly does Putin want? He doesn't want to launch this rocket and have the world just shrug it off as another commercial launcher. He is basically saying, "Hey America, I can lob some nuclear warheads at you!" What Putin doesn't get is that Obama doesn't even like America, and he's not going to increase military spending just because Putin launches a rocket and boasts of its military potential.

JoshNH4H · 2014-12-25 00:56:40

So it's that time again... Politics rule, thread closed.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2014-12-20 08:34:04

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#27 2014-12-20 13:52:07

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#28 2014-12-20 13:59:19

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#29 2014-12-20 14:15:52

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#30 2014-12-20 17:48:46

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#31 2014-12-21 22:07:11

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#32 2014-12-21 22:32:51

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#33 2014-12-22 09:35:25

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#34 2014-12-22 10:08:37

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#35 2014-12-22 15:39:04

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#36 2014-12-22 15:47:05

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#37 2014-12-23 06:58:25

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#38 2014-12-23 07:35:13

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#39 2014-12-23 10:54:17

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#40 2014-12-23 12:58:50

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#41 2014-12-23 13:09:10

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#42 2014-12-24 22:42:59

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

#43 2014-12-25 00:56:40

Re: Replacing the Nuclear triad with space based nukes in high orbit.

Board footer