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

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-13 13:10:10

I heard the Defense Department will need to upgrade its nuclear triad, of submarines, land based missiles, and nuclear bombers, and it will have to choose between that and upgrading conventional forces. One alternative which comes to mind is a space-based deterrent, say nuclear missiles are based in Space in orbits 800,000 kilometers from Earth, that way they could serve a dual purpose, as deterrence against nuclear attack and an asteroid and comet defense system. <ight b cheaper than building new bombers, subs, and ICBMs, the warheads with rocket motors might be lifted in bulk using rockets such as the SLS and placed in orbits at twice the Moon's distance from the Earth. Up in space, especially way out in space, and spread out all around the Earth, they will be less vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes, and they could deorbit an strike targets on Earth within a day or two after an attack on the United States, call this a second strike capability, and if not used for that, they could also serve as an asteroid defense system. I suggest we place all our nuclear warheads in such a high orbit, that way we'd save money on building new delivery systems and launch platforms. What do you think about that?

RobertDyck · 2014-12-13 14:02:06

The rest of the world, non-nuclear countries, have already said they will not tolerate nuclear weapons in space. They do not want nuclear weapons in orbit that can be dropped on them easily. The Outer Space Treaty was organized through the UN, and most countries of the world signed this treaty. It came into force on 27 January 1967. "It bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space." Violating this treaty would be seen as a major threat. Countries would respond by looking to Russia for protection. Do you want to isolate the United States, and drive the rest of the world into the Russian sphere of influence?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-14 01:37:52

Why not, those countries could apply to become new republics of the Russian Federation, I have nothing against that, if that is what they really want. Maybe they'll rename the continent of Europe and call it Russia. So Robert, do you want your country to join Russia too, and make Russian the official language their which every Canadian citizen is required to learn?

The thing is submarines are so expensive, especially the ones that have nuclear reactors for engines, you know if the nuclear weapons they carried were in space, you would not have to worry about submarine nuclear core meltdowns near you! You would not have to worry about someone stealing those nuclear warheads or Heaven forbid, hijack or steal that nuclear submarine with that full compliment of nuclear missiles and warheads on board. If the warheads are already in space, few people can actually go into space to go steal them! Also imagine if you lived near one of those land based nuclear missile silos, wouldn't you like those nukes to go into space so your community wouldn't be a target? Also its harder for land based ICBMs to reach an asteroid to deflect it, as all they are designed to do is hit some other part of the globe, and also those missiles travel though space to reach their target, space is space, its doesn't matter whether the warheads are in a suborbital trajectory heading toward Russia or are already in orbit. As you know small solid rockets aren't as efficient at lifting things into space as are large liquid fueled boosters. Those ICBM pound for pound are much more expensive than an SLS superbooster. Its much cheaper to have one rocket lift 100 nuclear warheads than to have 100 ICBMs each with one warhead in it, needing to be kept ready for launch eternally but never launched, and also missiles kept ready to launch are vulnerable to a preemptive strike by the enemy, which thinks if it can attack preemptively, it can destroy all the missile silos before they get to launch anything, I think this is more dangerous that having nukes in space. If a nuke in space gets destroyed in space, say 800,000 km from Earth, then only that nuke which was targeted gets destroyed, not a surrounding community. From space any spot on Earth can be targeted, and terrorists and saboteurs can't reach it, no army can get it. Why would nukes in space be such a bad thing? We could just regulate that they be kept far from Earth, say 800,000 km for instance. if the enemy destroys every city I America, then those nukes would fall from the sky and in a couple of days, every city in that enemy country will be destroyed, an we'll make sure they enemy knows that before hand. Let him try to destroy every single nuke we have in space, there is a lot of space in which to hide them all!, each nuke would be in its own separate orbit and widely separated from the others, they can converge to destroy an incoming asteroid of comet much more easily than all the nukes we have could be launched from the Earth's surface to intercept an asteroid. I figure nukes in orbit can serve a dual purpose:
1) Asteroid deflection
2) Deterring our enemies from attacking us
Why not use the same nukes to do both jobs? Nukes on a submarine can't deflect an asteroid, neither can nukes onboard a bomber. Also Russian bombers can't reach nukes in high orbit, they would have no legitimate reason to intrude on US air space.

RobertDyck · 2014-12-14 03:59:05

NASA studies show using a nuke on an asteroid would turn a bullet into a shotgun blast. The asteroid wouldn't just go away, it would be turn from a single very dangerous chunk into many smaller chunks. Asteroid defence requires moving it, so it misses the Earth. That requires a rocket engine of some sort, and a lot of time. Sorry, but Hollywood style defence just doesn't work.

So you're concerned about military spending? Good. Just reduce it. I've argued that year 2000 was the last year America had a balanced budget, so use military spending of that year as your basis. Adjust for inflation, and adopt that budget. Worried about the nuclear triad? Why does America maintain bombers? Aren't they obsolete?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-14 09:28:51

RobertDyck wrote:

NASA studies show using a nuke on an asteroid would turn a bullet into a shotgun blast. The asteroid wouldn't just go away, it would be turn from a single very dangerous chunk into many smaller chunks. Asteroid defence requires moving it, so it misses the Earth. That requires a rocket engine of some sort, and a lot of time. Sorry, but Hollywood style defence just doesn't work.
So you're concerned about military spending? Good. Just reduce it. I've argued that year 2000 was the last year America had a balanced budget, so use military spending of that year as your basis. Adjust for inflation, and adopt that budget. Worried about the nuclear triad? Why does America maintain bombers? Aren't they obsolete?

That's why we got to replace them. The Triad I so 20th century, how about a 21st century deterrent, one that doesn't require, sailors, missile men, or bomber pilots? I mean the subs and the silos all launch missiles into space on the way to their targets anyway, why not start them out in space? Seems to make sense, and if basing nukes in space frightens the Russians good!, They voted for this Cold War didn't they? Maybe they deserve to be a little frightened! With Putin they get a Cold War, don't like it, they can try to vote him out of office.

I don't know why you argue for a cut in the defense budget in the face of a New Cold War, is that what you call a "Peace dividend?" Even Gorbachev thinks there will be a new Cold War, and you want a "Peace dividend in the middle of it? You don't make any sense, you want to cut the defense budget as the danger increases? When Putin's sending bombers our way? My idea is to adapt to the new reality instead of pretending there is a different one. At least when Clinton proposed his peace dividend, there was actually peace! Balancing the budget doesn't mean much when the enemy conquers you. Germany conquered France during World War II with an unbalanced budget after all. I say if we have space based missiles, Russia isn't going to be any moe inclined to commit suicide than it is now.

As for blasting the rocks to rubble, its probably best we do it far away from the Earth, so the rubble spreads the most reducing the concentration of impact energy, so you want to blast the rocks at 800,000 km not 300 km above the Earth's surface, not only will it not do any good that close, but the EMP effects will short out our electronics. The best place to blast an asteroid is far away from Earth, also over time, we can replace some of those space based nukes with space based rocks, just keep them in high orbit around the Earth, where their orbit is the slowest. A rock of a certain tonnage will equal a nuke and can blast a city without radioactivity. We can gain control of those space rocks and they will prove just as effective a deterrent as actual nuclear warheads, it is a way to transition into a nonnuclear deterrent force against nuclear attack. The Russians won't dare to launch their nukes at us , if they know we'll hit them with rocks!

RobertDyck · 2014-12-14 11:29:36

The US military industrial complex has baited Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. When Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO, Russia asked to join too. But America said no. All the talk of Russia being a has-been, and rubbing their downfall in their face just begged a new Cold War. The US military contractors didn't like losing business. They got to sell stuff for the War On Terror, but really wanted a new Cold War. Well, after insulting Russia this many years, Russia had enough. If Russia was treated with respect, we wouldn't have the current mess. For one thing, the Russian economy is dependent on DonBas. It has coal and iron, and its industry is a major part of the Russian military-industrial complex. With Ukraine applying to join NATO and EU, Putin was worried all that military industry would be lost to Russia. And would be cut off from the Russian navy port in Crimea. If the West wasn't trying to treat Russia as a continuing enemy, Putin wouldn't be so worried that he felt war was necessary. So Ukraine is a pawn.

If America continues this military overspending, then America will suffer another financial melt-down as severe as 2008. But this time Europe won't be able to bail out the US, and China just won't. Another crisis that bad will result in full depression. That's what caused the Soviet Union to break up. Do you want to do that to America? Just stop.

But we're better at technical discussions. Ok. Ground based missiles can be repaired and upgraded. A technician can drive up with a truck, and install an upgrade or perform a repair with his hands. No space shuttle, no spacesuit, just a truck and work gloves. Ground based missiles are a lot cheaper than space based anything. Mobile launchers are harder to target than missile silos, but that's a technology detail. One option is something like the MGM-134 Midgetman developed by Martin Marietta in 1991.

Or various cruise missiles. Currently America has two: AGM-86 ALCM carried by bomber: B-52, B-1B, or B-2. But the Wikipedia article states it's only carried by the B-52, and will be retired in 2020, leaving the B-52 with no mission. The cruise missile will be replaced by Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO), a new cruise missile to be carried by B-2 bombers. Ok. Retiring the entire fleet of B-52 bombers is a way to save money.

The other cruise missile in service is the Tomahawk. It has a few variants; current missiles in service have conventional warheads. But BGM-109A and BGM-109G were truck launched, with nuclear warheads. This is a simple means to implement a mobile missile. Intermediate range, not intercontinental, but America had them. They were withdrawn from service to comply with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. But if you want to blatantly violate treaties, this would be more practical than space-based.

And the Capsule Launch Systems (CLS) could be launched from a submarine torpedo tube. Only submarines with a tube to launch a heavy torpedo.

These are all more practical than space-based weapons of mass destruction.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-12-14 12:14:56)

GW Johnson · 2014-12-14 11:44:57

And people complain about my advocating nuclear explosion propulsion, when the devices optimized for that purpose actually make poor blast weapons!

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-14 14:14:24

I could theoretically walk up to the guys in the missile trucks and shoot them with a pistol, take his keys and drive off with the missile truck and all the missiles and nuclear warheads inside, I can't do that with a nuke in space, I don't have a spaceship. Also when you consider that each missile has to lift the weight of each warhead and fling it over the atmosphere to its target, that rocket has to be both very powerful and very reliable. Its much easier to deorbit something in a 800,000 km orbit, it doesn't take much to arrest all of its orbital velocity and have it fall toward Earth, much less of a change in velocity than that required to send a warhead from Kansas to Moscow, and the weakest link is the people manning the missiles. The missiles require a lot of thrust to get above the atmosphere, while deorbiting a warhead requires only an ion drive, it would be much smaller than an ICBM!

The US military industrial complex has baited Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. When Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO, Russia asked to join too. But America said no. All the talk of Russia being a has-been, and rubbing their downfall in their face just begged a new Cold War. The US military contractors didn't like losing business. They got to sell stuff for the War On Terror, but really wanted a new Cold War. Well, after insulting Russia this many years, Russia had enough. If Russia was treated with respect, we wouldn't have the current mess. For one thing, the Russian economy is dependent on DonBas. It has coal and iron, and its industry is a major part of the Russian military-industrial complex. With Ukraine applying to join NATO and EU, Putin was worried all that military industry would be lost to Russia. And would be cut off from the Russian navy port in Crimea. If the West wasn't trying to treat Russia as a continuing enemy, Putin wouldn't be so worried that he felt war was necessary. So Ukraine is a pawn.

Which US President are you accusing of not liking the Russians? Who in the military-industrial complex wants to kill Russians, can you name any? Has any one personally killed a Russian just because he or she was a Russian and for no other reason? Just wondering why you'd think the US Military Industrial Complex would hate Russians so much that they want to kill them all. if a Russian walked on to the factory floor where they were building weapons, would all the workers murder him or her on the spot.
Would any of them murder this woman:
th?id=HN.608028311353099751&w=103&h=103&c=8&pid=3.1&qlt=90&rm=2
Because she is a Russian? Please tell me why you think they want to kill this woman?

Can you see the people in these countries?
Also please tell me why the Russians want to kill everybody in this city?
th?&id=HN.608047187734759117&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
or this one:
th?&id=HN.608052887152166715&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
Who in particular in these cities do the Russians want to kill? And how would killing all these people benefit them?
The point of a nuclear deterrent is to get the Russians thinking about what happens after they kill all these people. Putting missiles into silos just gets them thinking about taking out those silos with a first strike. Try to think of a first strike that can take out 30,000 independently orbiting nuclear warheads all at once, so we'll be defenseless? I don't know of anything which can do that. Nukes are a psychological weapon, if Russia tries to conquer they United States, then our nukes simply mean they die instead of conquering us, so they'll think twice about it. That is the purpose of them, to discourage the Russian government from trying to expand their territory at someone else's expense, not to kill Maria Sharapova or any other particular Russian. All the Russians have to do is think we'll use nukes if they attack, and they will see no advantage in attacking, because they know they will not end up better off for making that attack than they would if they didn't.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-12-14 14:29:37)

RobertDyck · 2014-12-14 15:22:09

Russia doesn't want to kill people. The people of Russia want to be proud of their country, politicians in every country want power, and corporate executives want money. Simple as that. Treat Russia as a has-been, and you create trouble.

Putin wants to keep the navy base in Crimea, and the industrial assets in DonBas. That's what the war in Ukraine is all about. Putin has explicitly warned all Western countries to not interfere with his efforts to recapture them. Putin said "don't mess with nuclear Russia". It isn't about killing people, it's about power and assets. Isn't it always?

I have tried to recommend Ukraine treat eastern Ukraine the same way that Canada treats Quebec. To give the provincial or regional government some autonomy, and authority to defend the unique language and culture of that region. The other internet forum where I suggested this was frequented by an individual in Ukraine; he identified his profession as lawyer. He claimed he was involved with negotiations with Russia at one point. And he had disturbing detail about operational procedures of the Ukraine military, indicating he was either a senior officer in the Ukraine military, or a member of the Ukraine government. I would like to hope my little suggestion on an internet forum had some positive effect. I also posted that suggestion on the CBC website; reporters grabbed that analogy and repeated it. I notice the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has strongly encouraged doing that. I'm sure work by the OSCE has been far more effective than my little post on an internet forum. Did that start with my little suggestion? A good idea often takes on a life of its own. I would like to think I helped.

I also suggested Ukraine promise to continue trade with Russia, as well as Europe. That Ukraine would own and control DonBas, but Russia would be welcome to purchase products and services, including and especially military equipment. That's what Putin wants. I'm not sure this last suggestion was accepted; the Ukrainians got rather defiant after their country was invaded and their people killed. So now a low level war is perpetuated over DonBas. And Putin has threatened nuclear retaliation if NATO gets directly involved, so NATO has complied by only providing non-lethal aid.

You call nukes a psychological weapon. That's exactly what Putin is doing with Russia's.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-14 20:19:37

RobertDyck wrote:

Russia doesn't want to kill people. The people of Russia want to be proud of their country, politicians in every country want power, and corporate executives want money. Simple as that. Treat Russia as a has-been, and you create trouble.
Putin wants to keep the navy base in Crimea, and the industrial assets in DonBas. That's what the war in Ukraine is all about. Putin has explicitly warned all Western countries to not interfere with his efforts to recapture them. Putin said "don't mess with nuclear Russia". It isn't about killing people, it's about power and assets. Isn't it always?
I have tried to recommend Ukraine treat eastern Ukraine the same way that Canada treats Quebec. To give the provincial or regional government some autonomy, and authority to defend the unique language and culture of that region.

Tell me, is Canada more likely to comply is France demands that Canada do this and threatens Canada with its nuclear weapons if it does not. Remember France is one of those nuclear powers, and Quebec used to be a French Colony, just as Ukraine used to be a Russian colony. I haven't seen France doing much saber rattling trying to get Quebec back, why not? Why does France behave differently from Russia? A couple centuries ago, France was one of the World's major superpowers, did you know that? Do you think anyone in Canada is calling France a 'has been" and rubbing their nose in it that Canada has got one of France's former colonies, Quebec? Do you think that Quebec should go back to France? What do people in Quebec think? Are their any ethnic French People there that want France to take them back?

RobertDyck wrote:

The other internet forum where I suggested this was frequented by an individual in Ukraine; he identified his profession as lawyer. He claimed he was involved with negotiations with Russia at one point. And he had disturbing detail about operational procedures of the Ukraine military, indicating he was either a senior officer in the Ukraine military, or a member of the Ukraine government. I would like to hope my little suggestion on an internet forum had some positive effect. I also posted that suggestion on the CBC website; reporters grabbed that analogy and repeated it. I notice the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has strongly encouraged doing that. I'm sure work by the OSCE has been far more effective than my little post on an internet forum. Did that start with my little suggestion? A good idea often takes on a life of its own. I would like to think I helped.
I also suggested Ukraine promise to continue trade with Russia, as well as Europe. That Ukraine would own and control DonBas, but Russia would be welcome to purchase products and services, including and especially military equipment. That's what Putin wants. I'm not sure this last suggestion was accepted; the Ukrainians got rather defiant after their country was invaded and their people killed. So now a low level war is perpetuated over DonBas. And Putin has threatened nuclear retaliation if NATO gets directly involved, so NATO has complied by only providing non-lethal aid.
You call nukes a psychological weapon. That's exactly what Putin is doing with Russia's.

Nuclear weapons work best as a defensive psychological weapon, if you try taking land from other countries using them, you get into trouble! I accept if the United States invades Russia proper, we are going to risk use of nuclear weapons and an escalation to full nuclear war. What I can't accept is Russia taking land from other countries and they're saying that if we stop them, they will use nuclear weapons, because if they use nuclear weapons against countries that try to stop them from taking land from others, then others will use nuclear weapons against them and both sides will die and Russia will not ultimately end up with that land if it even exists afterwards! Nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent to discourage other countries from trying to expand their empire, if used to facilitate empire building, this becomes very destabilizing. For example if Russia tries to take Alaska back from the United States using force and says it will use nuclear weapons if we try to stop their troops from doing so, I can pretty much guarantee that their will be a nuclear war, because the United States is going to try and defend its territory, it will probably start as a clash of conventional forces, as no one wants to use nukes, but if the Russians don't relent, if they use nukes first, then we will use them second, if out conventional forces do not succeed in pushing the Russians out, then we may resort to use of nukes to get them out. Either way we'll have a nuclear war if Russia tries that and does not pull back, both our countries die, but Russia gains nothing and loses quite a lot for having started it. So we hope the leaders of Russia are smart enough not to do that. So tell me how is Russia taking back parts of the Ukraine any different fro the hypothetical case of Russia trying to take back Alaska, both lands once were part of the Russian Empire after all? Doesn't it make it more likely that Russia will try to take back Alaska if it succeeds in taking back Ukraine?

RobertDyck · 2014-12-14 23:23:06

Please try to be adult. This is about differences in point of view. History of Ukraine according to Wikipedia.

Neanderthal 43,000-45,000 BC. First human settlement in 32,000 BC. Modern Ukrainians reached Kiev about 880. In 1600s and 1700s, lots of wars, territory changed between Poland-Lithuania, Austria, Prussia, Crimea, and Cossacks. The Cossacks were Ukrainian serfs who broke free from Poland-Lithuania rule. Russia battled with Tatars, and liked to stir up Cossacks and Tatars to fight each other. The reason I mention this is east Ukraine was part of Russia during the 1700s. Vlad Putin considers it to be Russian. Of course the Ukrainians and Tatars are the aboriginal people of that region, and Ukraine demanded it. Ukraine was one of the founding members of the Soviet Union. While part of the Soviet Union, east Ukraine was given back. But Russia considered it part of the Soviet Union, so which "republic" controlled it was moot. It wasn't moot to the Ukrainians. Vlad Putin grew up in the Soviet Union, so he considers east Ukraine to be "Soviet". And the Soviet Union made a big deal of bragging of industrial wealth in DonBas, how that wealth raised the standard of living for all Soviet citizens. So Vlad considers DonBas to be part of the Russian sphere. Allowing DonBas to pass into Western hands, or NATO, he considers to be taking territory.

Tom, yes, this is Russia taking territory from another country. But from Vlad Putin's point of view, this is either Russian or Soviet territory, and he considers the West to be trying to take it. So Putin considers this to be using the threat of nuclear weapons to defend "Russian" territory.

This is why I tried to side-step that argument. Vlad wants the industry and resources of DonBas. Ok. Businessmen in DonBas want a paying customer. Let Russia buy their stuff. Let it be Ukrainian, but let Russia buy their products. That means retaining tight economic ties between east Ukraine and Russia. But Ukrainians today want to join Europe, not be dominated by Russia. But ethnic Russians in east Ukraine see themselves as Russian, they want close ties with Russia.

I proposed treating East Ukraine like Quebec, with authority of a provincial government, but within the one single nation. The provincial government would have authority to defend the Russian culture and Russian language. And east Ukraine would retain close trade ties with Russia. Even as west Ukraine gains close trade ties with Europe. Both without contradiction or conflict. Other European countries have ethnic diversity and regional industry specializations; this would just be Ukraine's unique culture and industry. No need for conflict. But learning that sort of ethnic diversity is hard. Ukraine is still working to throw off the vestiges of the Soviet Union, even as ethnic Russians in east Ukraine are trying to hold tight to those same traditions.

And who am I? Just some guy posting on the internet. For a while, there were a few people from Ukraine posting on that other forum, and one of them appeared to be in the Ukrainian government. One guy. I could give advice, but even he hasn't posted anything since the convoy of white Russian "aid" trucks. He posted pictures of Canadian aid as it arrived in Ukraine, so he did have access to it. But once that Canadian aid started rolling in, he went away. So now it's just you and me.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-15 02:41:41

So basically your argument is that Putin is being delusional and thinks the Soviet Union still exists, and by invading Ukraine, he is defending the Soviet Union, and thus we should humor him in order to avoid use of nuclear weapons. Okay, if the West blinks, what then, is Putin going to see the West as a bunch of cowards and try to take some more land from us? Is he going to invade the Baltics next, just as George Friedman predicted by the way.
th?id=AGfwEtTXic3F4zg300C300&w=147&h=147&c=8&pid=3.1&qlt=90&rm=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman
Now what is the analogy of Quebec? What if France got a delusional leader similar to Putin, what if he thought French speaking Canadians were being persecuted, and what if he started sending weapons and advisors to Quebec to stir up some trouble? To what degree should we humor him to avoid a nuclear conflict with France?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and … estruction

Terraformer · 2014-12-15 07:46:57

Weeeellll... given the number of Quebecois who want to be independent, what about this scenario - the Canadian government is replaced in a revolution a year before elections are due to take place, and the government of Quebec does not recognise the new government as being legitimate. The French government send military aid to Quebec in order to prevent the new Canadian government from invading Quebec. Whilst they are there, the government of Quebec negotiates with France, who agree to a two part referendum on whether Quebec should become an independent state, and if so whether it should be joined to France.

What would your opinion be in that scenario, Tom? Should Quebec be forced to remain part of Canada?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-15 16:23:14

Terraformer wrote:

Weeeellll... given the number of Quebecois who want to be independent, what about this scenario - the Canadian government is replaced in a revolution a year before elections are due to take place, and the government of Quebec does not recognise the new government as being legitimate. The French government send military aid to Quebec in order to prevent the new Canadian government from invading Quebec. Whilst they are there, the government of Quebec negotiates with France, who agree to a two part referendum on whether Quebec should become an independent state, and if so whether it should be joined to France.
What would your opinion be in that scenario, Tom? Should Quebec be forced to remain part of Canada?

The only sort of "revolution" that Canada might have, would be one similar to what happened in Cuba in 1959 when Castro rose to power. Now why did that Revolution happen? There was a dictator named Batista, and the Cubans thought they were overthrowing that government so they could have freedom, they were wrong of course. So if Canada gets a dictator and the Canadians overthrow him and replace him with a Communist Marxist like Castro and Quebec doesn't go along, who do you think is more likely to help Quebec stay independent, the United States or France?

Terraformer · 2014-12-15 17:46:33

[point="missed"]

Excelsior · 2014-12-16 00:54:30

Terraformer wrote:

Weeeellll... given the number of Quebecois who want to be independent, what about this scenario - the Canadian government is replaced in a revolution a year before elections are due to take place, and the government of Quebec does not recognise the new government as being legitimate. The French government send military aid to Quebec in order to prevent the new Canadian government from invading Quebec. Whilst they are there, the government of Quebec negotiates with France, who agree to a two part referendum on whether Quebec should become an independent state, and if so whether it should be joined to France.
What would your opinion be in that scenario, Tom? Should Quebec be forced to remain part of Canada?

Your analogy is missing several decades of relevant history.

Lets try it again...

After a long and bloody history with France, that within the last several decades included the mass starvation of millions of Canadians under Parisian rule and the forced depopulation of Eastern Canadian natives to make way for the Quebecois population, who exclusively served France's imperial ambitions, Canada finally gained it's independence a quarter of a century ago when the French Empire collapsed. Nevertheless, Paris continued to dominate Canada's domestic, economic and foreign policies, particularly through it's control of Canada's primary source of energy. The Canadian people sought closer economic ties with its neighbors to alleviate this, but the Ottawa government, firmly in the pocket of Paris, resisted. Taking to the streets, the Canadian people, particularly the English speaking Western population, demanded their right to self determination from Paris, which responded with a hail of gunfire. The Canadian people took back their country, chasing out the French puppet, and threatened France's control of a strategic, but redundant, naval base on Prince Edward Island that it had leased from previous friendly governments. France promptly invaded and annexed PEI, and drummed up the Quebecois in the surrounding provinces by telling them the new government in Ottawa was run by Nazi's, and promises them independence from Ottawa and glorious reunion with the Motherland, if they fight the new government and secure the Canadian Maritime for France, threatening the viability of Western Canada and it's strategic access to the Atlantic. When Canada's neighbors point out that the Canadians have the right to make economic agreements with whomever they wanted, and the France should get the hell out of PEI and stop promising the Quebecois thins they can't deliver, Paris throws a temper tantrum, declares PEI it's "holy land", and threatens anyone who says anything to the contrary with nuclear war.

Back on the topic of updating the Nuclear Triad, a fleet of satellites in high orbit would be entirely too easy to track and intercept if we actually had to use them. A multifaceted approach to defense and deterrence is needed, and not just from threats from our fellow man.

First of all, we need to acknowledge just how essential space has become to our military operations. From targeting, to communications, to reconnaissance, we would be cut off at the knees without access to our space borne assets. Dominance of cis-lunar space, and the ability to deny the same access to our enemies will be key to future conflicts. We need a dedicated Space Command service to launch, operate, and service our fleets of orbital satellites that serve our defenses and other government missions. Those defenses are not limited to surface borne threats. This branch should be tasked with monitoring space borne threats as well. One might imagine battle fleets arrayed against flying saucers full of little green men, and though that theoretically could come to pass, the primary threats are far less organic. From maintaining order among orbital objects and combating the threat of space debris, to monitoring solar activity in preparation for geomagnetic storms, to surveying, charting, and manipulating the armada of minor planets and NEO's that threaten our planet and our people where ever else they may go, this armed service will serve as the foundation of our Planetary defenses.

Closer to home, the threat of nuclear attack from less than rational actors on the world stage is, sadly, not going away. Nuclear warfare has long been split into two categories, counter force, or strikes against military targets, and counter value, or strikes against civilian, political and infrastructure targets. I don't want to have to nuke anyone. I would much rather fight a far more protracted conventional conflict, even a guerrilla action against an occupying force, than drop civilization as a whole back a few centuries. But, there are a handful of global players who may or may not see it that way, who would seek to avoid defeat in a conventional conflict by resorting to nuclear weapons. First and foremost, we must defend the homeland from this threat. Secondly, we must deter any such attempt on our territory, or against our allies or troops in the field. Finally, we must reserve the ability to retaliate against any attempt with mass destruction, but without poisoning the planet. The first step is a robust and multi-layered missile defense system, which will be incorporated into the Space Command structure. Boost Phase, Cruise Phase and Terminal Phase interceptors need to be developed and deployed in numbers that are competitive with the number of offensive missiles our enemies deploy. We can no longer afford to simply attempt to counter the so called "rouge states", as our primary nuclear rival has gone rouge. Among the most important development here is the replacement of our current arsenal of nuclear armed ICBM's with a new generation equipped with "Multiple Kill Vehicles", the MIRV'ed equivalent of the current generation of kinetic energy impactor. Our strategic nuclear deterrence, and last resort planetary defense, would be provided by a new generation of much larger Inter Planetary Ballistic Missile, perhaps the size of a Liberty rocket, housed in large silos, capable of delivering a dozen or more large nuclear devices, observing satellites, and boost stages to escape velocities, with the primary mission of nudging dangerous asteroids or comets off course. In addition, if need be, the warheads could simply reenter to any site on Earth, at will. But our primary strategic weapon of mass destruction would be a limited number of orbital kinetic impactors, not banned by any treaty, and capable of punching large craters in military or political targets alike, without the unpleasant radioactive side effects.

On the tactical side of the Triad, developments in air breathing hyper sonic missiles, like the X-51 or the Arclight missile that can strike from thousands of miles away, with either its natural kinetic punch, conventional or bunker busting warheads, or a nuclear payload, without attracting the attention of early warning sensors. These missiles, based on the SM-3 naval ABM missile, can be easily modified to be fire from any vertical launch tube in the navy, most aircraft in the Air Force, and ground vehicles similar to the Cold War era Tomahawk launchers. The most important feature however, would be the ability to quickly swap out warheads to meet the mission.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-16 06:00:43

Back on the topic of updating the Nuclear Triad, a fleet of satellites in high orbit would be entirely too easy to track and intercept if we actually had to use them. A multifaceted approach to defense and deterrence is needed, and not just from threats from our fellow man.

What about nukes in a separate Solar Orbit from the Earth, could our enemies track those?
Suppose all of our nukes were orbiting the Sun instead of in silos, subs or bombers, then our enemies decided to nuke the cr_p out of us, so the United States no longer exists as a country, but our nukes still do, and they no longer detect those signals that tell them to remain in orbit around the Sun, so one-by-one they change their orbits and start homing in on preprogrammed targets of America's enemies, so while the enemy celebrates their victory over America over the next couple of years, nukes start coming down from space, destroying city after city, bringing their civilization down with ours? You see our current systems are designed to give an immediate response to a nuclear attack, but what if we eliminated the requirement that our response should be immediate. A nuke orbiting the Sun in a near Earth orbit would be hard for our enemies to detect, it could change its orbit around the Sun with a high efficiency ion drive, and it would be tiny, we have trouble detecting small near Earth asteroids, I don't know how much difficulty they would have to detect something even smaller than those, which changes its orbit every once in a while so they could be anywhere. If they were in orbit around they Earth, they'd be easier to track, but I know of no radar system which can detect man-sized objects orbiting the Sun, give them solar panels and an ion drive, and just let our enemies know that we have them out their, so if they nuke the United States, those warheads are coming for their cities, and that it is only us that is stopping them. Silos are more convenient, our enemies know where they are, bombers can be shot down, and nuclear missile subs can be sunk, but what is the enemy going to do about nukes orbiting the Sun with the instructions to attack our eneies if the United States ceases to exist? Maybe they ought not nuke us! What do you think?

I'll anticipate one objection, what if a nuke suffers a communications failure? in that case the nuke detects no signals from Earth, in which case it doesn't do anything, but if it detects radio signals from Earth but not signals in the proper code that tell it to do nothing, then it homes in on its preprogrammed target.

Also nukes require maintenance, so we build a space station in high orbit, a nuke runs a diagnostic on itself, basically after a certain amount of time elapses the nuke homes in to the space station and into the service bay for maintenance, this is a good excuse for a space station, they various systems are checked, maybe the warhead is replaced with a new one, the ion engine is refueled and then the nuke is sent out on its way again

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-12-16 06:15:37)

Decimator · 2014-12-16 10:41:49

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I'll anticipate one objection, what if a nuke suffers a communications failure? in that case the nuke detects no signals from Earth, in which case it doesn't do anything, but if it detects radio signals from Earth but not signals in the proper code that tell it to do nothing, then it homes in on its preprogrammed target.

So you acknowledge the problem with dead-man's switches on nukes, yet you advocate it anyway? Really?

The stabilizing factor of Mutually-Assured Destruction is derived from the second-strike capability of ballistic missile submarines. Since the other side does not know where the submarines are, they cannot strike to destroy the launchers. Since they can't destroy the launchers, they can't prevent a devastating counterattack. Since they can't prevent a counterattack, there is no need for the defender to strike first.

If the devices are in space, they can be tracked and targeted.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-17 00:17:42

Decimator wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
I'll anticipate one objection, what if a nuke suffers a communications failure? in that case the nuke detects no signals from Earth, in which case it doesn't do anything, but if it detects radio signals from Earth but not signals in the proper code that tell it to do nothing, then it homes in on its preprogrammed target.
So you acknowledge the problem with dead-man's switches on nukes, yet you advocate it anyway? Really?
The stabilizing factor of Mutually-Assured Destruction is derived from the second-strike capability of ballistic missile submarines. Since the other side does not know where the submarines are, they cannot strike to destroy the launchers. Since they can't destroy the launchers, they can't prevent a devastating counterattack. Since they can't prevent a counterattack, there is no need for the defender to strike first.
If the devices are in space, they can be tracked and targeted.

I hear there are asteroids the size of houses that orbit the Sun, which we can't track, so how could we then track much smaller nuclear warheads? Tell me that!

The thing about the dead man's switch is the fact that it establishes a direct casual relationship between the attacker and the response, you eliminate the element of human psychology about whether the men manning the missiles are going to launch them in response to an attack or not. You see in the Iraq War for instance, the unreliability of human responses was instrumental in ISIS conquering so much territory, as the Iraqi soldiers did not defend himself in many cases, he just dropped the weapons and ran. Unreliable soldiers is a problem, the solution is automation, create weapons that fire themselves in response to certain stimuli, and then we don't get the problem of uncertain human psycology, and that way our enemies don't doubt that there will be a response if they attack, they will realize that the destruction of the United States leads directly to their own destruction, and hopefully they will think the better of it, before they try to conquer the World under some Napoleonic Delusion.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-12-17 00:23:31)

Decimator · 2014-12-17 08:49:28

You're ignoring my point. You want to put nukes on a dead-man's switch. If one of them malfunctions, tens of thousands of people die, and a war probably starts. Do you think "Oops, it wasn't supposed to do that" will mollify anyone?

GW Johnson · 2014-12-17 10:43:50

This issue was looked at starting in the 1950's, when ICBM's were first built. The solution then was Earth-based triad strategic weapons, not space-based. Many things fed into that decision, made essentially independently on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Not the least of which was the possibility of accidental weapon deployment when something robot didn't work right. It's just easier to control against that nasty outcome with silos and subs and manned airplanes, than it is with robots in space. That's still true today. It's simply because the silos, subs, and airplanes have humans involved, who can compensate and deal with robot failures.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-18 00:32:20

They didn't have very good robots in the 1950s. Our robots now are much better than those back then. Besides having nukes on the Earth leaves them much more vulnerable to first strike or sabotage, and they are utterly useless for blasting asteroids. Also nukes are much easier to track when they are flying close to the Earth, and their launch points are given away by the rockets which sent them on their suborbital trajectories. Also missile subs can be tracked and sunk and bombers can be shot down before reaching their targets.

GW Johnson · 2014-12-18 09:48:26

I'm an aero engineer with decades of experience. I do not trust robots to fly planes that I ride in, and with good reason. The computer control in most Airbus machines overrides the pilot, not the other way round. That has already caused at least one fatal crash. It is a very serious flaw, waiting to kill planeloads of people. They do it that way to minimize the pilot training into nothing but a "bus driver", the ultimate goal being to pay the pilots a lot less. This is driven solely by corporate greed. It is definitely not in the public interest.

Yes, robots are much better today than in the 1950's. But they still have "light years to go" before I would even consider trusting my life to them. They still have precisely zero capability for judgement, and still vanishingly-close-to-zero capability for adaptability to the unforseen. That's what you pay human pilots and drivers to have and to exercise. And no, I will never buy a self-driving (robot) car. For exactly the same reason.

As for nukes and asteroid defense, the movies have it all wrong. In vacuum, there is no shock wave. Period. There's little point to drill a well in which to put your nuke. We already know that from underground test behavior of nukes. The "blast" of a nuke in space is a flare of super-intense EM (mostly gamma and X-ray) radiation. Check the records for the Starfish Prime shot over Johnston Island in 1962, for the EMP effects it had 700 miles away in Hawaii.

If this takes place adjacent to an asteroid, the intense radiation causes intense spalling of surface material, the reaction to which is a thrust force away from the blast point. The problem is disruption: if thrust exceeds the binding forces (unknown-at-best and apparently extremely-variable from body to body), the asteroid breaks up. Do this too close, and you get a "shotgun blast" instead of a "bullet strike". Impactor schemes have the same problem. Gravity tractors avoid it, but at the cost of a years-in-advance detection requirement that we cannot currently meet.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-19 21:03:04

GW Johnson wrote:

I'm an aero engineer with decades of experience. I do not trust robots to fly planes that I ride in, and with good reason. The computer control in most Airbus machines overrides the pilot, not the other way round. That has already caused at least one fatal crash. It is a very serious flaw, waiting to kill planeloads of people. They do it that way to minimize the pilot training into nothing but a "bus driver", the ultimate goal being to pay the pilots a lot less. This is driven solely by corporate greed. It is definitely not in the public interest.
Yes, robots are much better today than in the 1950's. But they still have "light years to go" before I would even consider trusting my life to them. They still have precisely zero capability for judgement, and still vanishingly-close-to-zero capability for adaptability to the unforseen. That's what you pay human pilots and drivers to have and to exercise. And no, I will never buy a self-driving (robot) car. For exactly the same reason.
As for nukes and asteroid defense, the movies have it all wrong. In vacuum, there is no shock wave. Period. There's little point to drill a well in which to put your nuke. We already know that from underground test behavior of nukes. The "blast" of a nuke in space is a flare of super-intense EM (mostly gamma and X-ray) radiation. Check the records for the Starfish Prime shot over Johnston Island in 1962, for the EMP effects it had 700 miles away in Hawaii.
If this takes place adjacent to an asteroid, the intense radiation causes intense spalling of surface material, the reaction to which is a thrust force away from the blast point. The problem is disruption: if thrust exceeds the binding forces (unknown-at-best and apparently extremely-variable from body to body), the asteroid breaks up. Do this too close, and you get a "shotgun blast" instead of a "bullet strike". Impactor schemes have the same problem. Gravity tractors avoid it, but at the cost of a years-in-advance detection requirement that we cannot currently meet.
GW

Well what happened on 9/11, it was humans flying those planes! What happened onboard the Malasian Airliner, again faulty humans, people with beliefs that are not compatible with safely flying airplanes. Computers don't get religion, they just do what their programmed to do. One hires a pilot, you don't know what's going on in his head, maybe he's a religious fanatic who wants to get into heaven and feels he has to kill a whole plane load of people in order to get there. Also computers don't need sleep, they don't have to go to the bathroom, they don't get emotional, don't have trouble at home, don't have a girlfriend at every port, don't have a wife that's cheating on them. Too many things distract a human from flying a plane.

Gravity tractors don't work so well with comets. It is hard to tell way ahead of time that a comet is on a collision course with Earth, most comets are in the Oort Cloud or Kuiper Belt where they can't be detected. When a comet is detected on a collision course, it is probably first detected when it grows a tail. Now what happens if we have all 30,000 nukes in space and they all converge on the comet at once and simultaneously detonate? Maybe vaporize the comet so it hits the Earth as a gas, that is certainly better than it hitting Earth as a chunk of ice.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-12-19 21:09:08)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-12-20 06:16:41

This article argues for dispersal of our nuclear deterrent. I think if our nukes were based in space, this would do much to eliminate the threat of a first strike taking them all out at once. What are the problems with nuclear subs, bombers, and missile silos, the attempts to take them out would use a lot of nukes and those nukes would hit where people live. People do not live in space, I think every nuke used to take out a warhead in space is one nuke not used on Earth.

The Most Dangerous Nuclear Threat No One Is Talking About

Picture_14.jpg?itok=Werg0MLZ

Zachary Keck

December 19, 2014

While Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs are all the rage these days, the most dangerous nuclear threat facing the world continues to go largely unnoticed.

Namely, China and India are both on the cusp of deploying multiple independently targetable reentry (MIRV) vehicles on their ballistic missiles, a development that is likely to have profound, far-reaching consequences for the region and beyond.

MIRVed missiles carry payloads of several nuclear warheads each capable of being directed at a different set of targets. They are considered extremely destabilizing to the strategic balance primarily because they place a premium on striking first and create a “use em or lose em” nuclear mentality.

Along with being less vulnerable to anti-ballistic missile systems, this is true for two primary reasons. First, and most obviously, a single MIRVed missile can be used to eliminate numerous enemy nuclear sites simultaneously. Thus, theoretically at least, only a small portion of an adversary’s missile force would be necessary to completely eliminate one’s strategic deterrent. Secondly, MIRVed missiles enable countries to use cross-targeting techniques of employing two or more missiles against a single target, which increases the kill probability.

In other words, MIRVs are extremely destabilizing because they make adversary’s nuclear arsenals vulnerable to being wiped out in a surprise first strike. To compensate for this fact, states must come up with innovative ways to secure their deterrent from an enemy first strike. This usually entails increasing the size of one’s arsenal, and further dispersing to make it more difficult for an enemy to conduct a successful first strike. For example, when the U.S. first deployed MIRVed missiles in 1968, the Soviet Union had less than 10,000 nuclear warheads. A decade later, however, it had over 25,000 (of course, the Soviet Union deploying its own MIRVed missiles incentivized expanding the size of its arsenal since more warheads were needed per missile).

With regards to China and India, then, the introduction of MIRVed missiles could have profound consequences of both of their nuclear postures. One of the most remarkable aspects of every nuclear state not named Russia or the United States is they have relied on an extremely small nuclear arsenal to meet their deterrent needs. This is especially true of India and China who have generally maintained minimum deterrence and no-first use doctrines. With the introduction of countervailing MIRVed missiles, however, there will be strong incentives on both sides to vastly increase the size of their arsenals if any to guard against the threat of a first strike by the other side.

Of course, the consequences of China and India acquiring MIRVed missiles would not be limited to those states alone. Most obviously, India’s acquisition of MIRVed missiles would immediately threaten the survivability of Pakistan’s nuclear forces. In the short-term, this will probably result in Islamabad further dispersing its nuclear arsenal, which in general will leave it more vulnerable to Islamist terrorist groups in the country. Over the long-term, Pakistan will feel pressure to expand the size of its arsenal as well as acquire MIRVed capabilities of its own.

The same pressures will be felt in Moscow. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia has relied on its vast nuclear arsenal to compensate for its relative conventional weakness. In the eyes of Russian leaders, this will only grow more necessary as China continues to modernize its conventional military forces. Currently, Russia holds vastly more nuclear warheads than China, which is a source of relief for Moscow. As China MIRVs its missiles, however, as well as likely builds up the size of its arsenal, Moscow will see its nuclear superiority over Beijing rapidly erode. It can be counted on to respond by abrogating its arms control treaties with the United States, and expanding its own arsenal as well. In such a situation, a U.S. president would come under enormous domestic pressure to meet Russia’s buildup warhead for warhead.

Thus, while the prospect of North Korea and Iran acquiring operationalized nuclear arsenals may be concerning, China and India’s MIRVed missiles present far greater threats to the world.

Zachary Keck is the managing editor of The National Interest. You can find him on Twitter: @ZacharyKeck.

Image: Wikimedia

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2014-12-13 13:10:10

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

#2 2014-12-13 14:02:06

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

#3 2014-12-14 01:37:52

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

#4 2014-12-14 03:59:05

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

#5 2014-12-14 09:28:51

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

#6 2014-12-14 11:29:36

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

#7 2014-12-14 11:44:57

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

#8 2014-12-14 14:14:24

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

#9 2014-12-14 15:22:09

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

#10 2014-12-14 20:19:37

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

#11 2014-12-14 23:23:06

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

#12 2014-12-15 02:41:41

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

#13 2014-12-15 07:46:57

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

#14 2014-12-15 16:23:14

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

#15 2014-12-15 17:46:33

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

#16 2014-12-16 00:54:30

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

#17 2014-12-16 06:00:43

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

#18 2014-12-16 10:41:49

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

#19 2014-12-17 00:17:42

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

#20 2014-12-17 08:49:28

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

#21 2014-12-17 10:43:50

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

#22 2014-12-18 00:32:20

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

#23 2014-12-18 09:48:26

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

#24 2014-12-19 21:03:04

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

#25 2014-12-20 06:16:41

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

Board footer