Orbital Weapons

[The Grand Imperium of Man]

Hey do you think a orbital defense grid is a good idea? please respond to this I would like to find out.

[Genivaria]

What do YOU think?
And the world says no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

[Samuraikoku]

Welcome back, Commander.

[Khadgar]

I think it's impractical. Sure throwing some Rods from God at your enemies is cool, but the collateral damage is immense, the expense of getting them into place is prohibitive, and they're a big fat target up there.

[Blazedtown]

What do YOU think?
And the world says no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

The world also said that you can;t built aircraft carriers that displace more than 27,000 tons but the US has 10 carriers over 100,000 tons and 9 amphibious assault ships over 40,000 tons.

Treaties can be broken, international law is just words if there is nothing to back it up. The outer space treaty is obsolete and needs to be scrapped.

[Sidhae]

In this respect, the old good "might makes right" applies again. Few nations have the technological and economic capability to put weapons in orbit or defend against them, and those few who do have all the military and economic power to tell the rest of the world and their treaties to go fuck themselves if they so please.

If USA or any other nation with the means and interest does decide to put an armed platform in space, there isn't much anyone else could do about it. The reason Outer Space Treaty was signed was to prevent another arms race that could potentially lead to WWIII.

Despite what the official sources may say, I think this treaty has never been honoured more than nominally. I'm pretty certain that USA keeps a few kinetic strike systems or something along the line up there "just in case", and Russia too probably never scrapped their FOBS system either, again "just in case". Information about such systems will for obvious reasons be kept highly classified. Not to mention the newer gadgets about whose principles of function and capabilities we can only speculate.

The advantages of deploying an orbital weapons platform are obvious, since it provides the means to strike anywhere on the world with hardly any warning, is almost untraceable and virtually immune to retaliation. The few nations capable of tracking and attacking targets in orbit are also likely capable of developing their own orbital platforms, and for obvious reasons, most of them are on friendly or neutral terms with each other.

Of course, the cost of launching and maintaining such a platform is astronomical, so it's use would more than likely be reserved for high-value hard targets impossible to destroy by other means, as well as targets that require plausible deniability for political reasons - say, taking out a heavily-guarded Iranian underground nuclear facility without having to commit an open act of war. An orbital strike would likely leave little to no evidence (no fragments with "Made in USA" stamped on them), allowing the explosion to be dismissed as an accident. Alternatively, such a platform could be reserved for full-scale war use only - there's no sense in wasting the power of such a precious secret weapon and risking to expose it prematurely to the world on countries that can't even manufacture their own microwaves.

[Ainin]

What do YOU think?
And the world says no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

The world also said that you can;t built aircraft carriers that displace more than 27,000 tons but the US has 10 carriers over 100,000 tons and 9 amphibious assault ships over 40,000 tons.

Treaties can be broken, international law is just words if there is nothing to back it up. The outer space treaty is obsolete and needs to be scrapped.

[citation needed]

Not that I'm saying it's wrong, but source?

[Magnusia]

An orbital defense grid to attack other nations? No.

To defend against things like potentially catastrophic asteroids? Sure.

[The Corparation]

Only is by Orbital Defense Grid you mean Orion Drive Space Battleships.

[Blazedtown]

The world also said that you can;t built aircraft carriers that displace more than 27,000 tons but the US has 10 carriers over 100,000 tons and 9 amphibious assault ships over 40,000 tons.

Treaties can be broken, international law is just words if there is nothing to back it up. The outer space treaty is obsolete and needs to be scrapped.

[citation needed]

Not that I'm saying it's wrong, but source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

If we obeyed every treaty ever written South America would still be split between Spain and Portugal and Germany wouldn't be allowed to have tanks or an air force. Times change and international law needs to change with it.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Nope.
Limited effect, unfathomable cost and incredulous vulnerability.

[Oceara]

What do YOU think?
And the world says no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

"However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit."
On the same page you linked.

Anyway, for conventional purposes? Yes. Weapons of Mass Destruction? No.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Ask me again when the Covenant come.

[Desperate Measures]

We'll need an orbital battle station.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mI3bl8eUG0

[Saiwania]

I think it is a good idea. The US needs to stick it to the Russians and the Chinese and build an ABM system so powerful as to make all of their ICBMs obsolete. Preferably it would enable the US to nuke them, but they wouldn't be able to nuke back. A world in which the US is the only superpower is one I'd like to become true once again.

[Ainin]

I think it is a good idea. The US needs to stick it to the Russians and the Chinese and build an ABM system so powerful as to make all of their ICBMs obsolete. Preferably it would enable the US to nuke them, but they wouldn't be able to nuke back. A world in which the US is the only superpower is one I'd like to enable again.

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

[Blazedtown]

I think it is a good idea. The US needs to stick it to the Russians and the Chinese and build an ABM system so powerful as to make all of their ICBMs obsolete. Preferably it would enable the US to nuke them, but they wouldn't be able to nuke back. A world in which the US is the only superpower is one I'd like to enable again.

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

Treaties are only useful if they can be enforced.

Those agreements are outdated and need to be abandoned.

[Tyrants]

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

Treaties are only useful if they can be enforced.

Those agreements are outdated and need to be abandoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind

[Blazedtown]

Treaties are only useful if they can be enforced.

Those agreements are outdated and need to be abandoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind

If we aided by those treaties forever we will never leave this rock. We need to truly open up the final frontier.

[Priory Academy USSR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind

If we aided by those treaties forever we will never leave this rock. We need to truly open up the final frontier.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean sticking the biggest and baddest weapons we have available in orbit.

[Tyrants]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_mankind

If we aided by those treaties forever we will never leave this rock. We need to truly open up the final frontier.

Blowing up space won't help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

[Blazedtown]

If we aided by those treaties forever we will never leave this rock. We need to truly open up the final frontier.

Blowing up space won't help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

We left the planet because we were blowing shit up. Without the V-2, and other early ballistic missiles, we would have never had the Saturn V. By not allowing military bases in space, we are hamstringing ourselves. If we would put the space program back under military control and never let Space Station Freedom turn into the ISS we would be decades ahead of where we are now. What would be better for mankind, one space station run by all of us or if we had a space station from Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and anyone else that wants one. The ISS was the biggest mistake NASA has ever been involved with.

[Ainin]

Blowing up space won't help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

We left the planet because we were blowing shit up. Without the V-2, and other early ballistic missiles, we would have never had the Saturn V. By not allowing military bases in space, we are hamstringing ourselves. If we would put the space program back under military control and never let Space Station Freedom turn into the ISS we would be decades ahead of where we are now. What would be better for mankind, one space station run by all of us or if we had a space station from Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and anyone else that wants one. The ISS was the biggest mistake NASA has ever been involved with.

[citation needed that this marvel of science is a bad idea]

[Blazedtown]

We left the planet because we were blowing shit up. Without the V-2, and other early ballistic missiles, we would have never had the Saturn V. By not allowing military bases in space, we are hamstringing ourselves. If we would put the space program back under military control and never let Space Station Freedom turn into the ISS we would be decades ahead of where we are now. What would be better for mankind, one space station run by all of us or if we had a space station from Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and anyone else that wants one. The ISS was the biggest mistake NASA has ever been involved with.

[citation needed that this marvel of science is a bad idea]

It has made us reliant on foreigners for our space lift capacity. If we had a space station to ourselves, we would have been forced to have a replacement for the Space Shuttles before they were retired.

[Ainin]

[citation needed that this marvel of science is a bad idea]

It has made us reliant on foreigners for our space lift capacity. If we had a space station to ourselves, we would have been forced to have a replacement for the Space Shuttles before they were retired.

And the price tag that comes with, yes?