Orbital Weapons

[Samozaryadnyastan]

And substantial ABM systems.
As does the US.

As have they all for decades.

"Substantial" in this case probably means enough to take out a few dozen—maybe a hundred—missiles. Which still leaves a hell of a lot to land.

More than enough to take out whatever's headed for the Kremlin and the various military head offices in Moscow.
When the A-35 was first fielded in the 50s, it came close to invalidating a number of the first strike plans for Moscow.

There was still plenty of industry, silo field, military depot and population centre to otherwise bomb outside of Moscow, remember.
Strategic gear isn't focused solely on the capital.
Unless you're Britain.

[Sidhae]

I like how everybody here talks like they were veteran military experts. Playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy's novels doesn't exactly qualify a person as one, but who the hell cares about that...

[Wisconsin9]

"Substantial" in this case probably means enough to take out a few dozen—maybe a hundred—missiles. Which still leaves a hell of a lot to land.

More than enough to take out whatever's headed for the Kremlin and the various military head offices in Moscow.
When the A-35 was first fielded in the 50s, it came close to invalidating a number of the first strike plans for Moscow.

There was still plenty of industry, silo field, military depot and population centre to otherwise bomb outside of Moscow, remember.
Strategic gear isn't focused solely on the capital.
Unless you're Britain.

The A-135 system could take out slightly fewer than 1100 missiles, without counting for malfunctions. That's a number the United States could sacrifice, although it likely wouldn't even be necessary. A wave of a few dozen SLBMs equipped with MIRVs could probably do the trick, and would leave plenty to lay waste to the rest of the targets.

[Wisconsin9]

I like how everybody here talks like they were veteran military experts. Playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy's novels doesn't exactly qualify a person as one, but who the hell cares about that...

By all means regale us with your tales from STRATCOM.

[The Corparation]

I like how everybody here talks like they were veteran military experts. Playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy's novels doesn't exactly qualify a person as one, but who the hell cares about that...

Its not playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy. Its digging up and reading declassified goverment reports on the subject, defense industry literature and technical journals, reading research papers people have written on this. Looking around and reading up on some things in literal text books on some of the subjects that the F&NI crowd on NS talk about. NS makes people do crazy things

[Samozaryadnyastan]

More than enough to take out whatever's headed for the Kremlin and the various military head offices in Moscow.
When the A-35 was first fielded in the 50s, it came close to invalidating a number of the first strike plans for Moscow.

There was still plenty of industry, silo field, military depot and population centre to otherwise bomb outside of Moscow, remember.
Strategic gear isn't focused solely on the capital.
Unless you're Britain.

The A-135 system could take out slightly fewer than 1100 missiles, without counting for malfunctions. That's a number the United States could sacrifice, although it likely wouldn't even be necessary. A wave of a few dozen SLBMs equipped with MIRVs could probably do the trick, and would leave plenty to lay waste to the rest of the targets.

Initial stages of nuclear warfare would take about a thousand warheads on each side.
Most missiles in the arsenals by the later part of the war were packing several to a missile body.

It would wipe out a significant portion of the first countervalue strike, and hold off much of the extended counterforce phases.

[Immoren]

I like how everybody here talks like they were veteran military experts. Playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy's novels doesn't exactly qualify a person as one, but who the hell cares about that...

Does this condescending post have a point or do you just want to increase your post count?

[Wisconsin9]

The A-135 system could take out slightly fewer than 1100 missiles, without counting for malfunctions. That's a number the United States could sacrifice, although it likely wouldn't even be necessary. A wave of a few dozen SLBMs equipped with MIRVs could probably do the trick, and would leave plenty to lay waste to the rest of the targets.

Initial stages of nuclear warfare would take about a thousand warheads on each side.
Most missiles in the arsenals by the later part of the war were packing several to a missile body.

It would wipe out a significant portion of the first countervalue strike, and hold off much of the extended counterforce phases.

In which case you have a command center and nothing to command, with the exception of a few dozen planes and ships.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Initial stages of nuclear warfare would take about a thousand warheads on each side.
Most missiles in the arsenals by the later part of the war were packing several to a missile body.

It would wipe out a significant portion of the first countervalue strike, and hold off much of the extended counterforce phases.

In which case you have a command center and nothing to command, with the exception of a few dozen planes and ships.

Part of nuclear war is trying to survive.
Something the Russians very much planned for, with monstrosities of labour like Metro-2 and the semi-confirmed flat-pack petrochemical factories in bunker storage.

[Wisconsin9]

In which case you have a command center and nothing to command, with the exception of a few dozen planes and ships.

Part of nuclear war is trying to survive.
Something the Russians very much planned for, with monstrosities of labour like Metro-2 and the semi-confirmed flat-pack petrochemical factories in bunker storage.

So some crusty old Russian dudes get to stay alive for a few years underground. What's your point?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Try a few hundred thousand, or a few million depending on who can get moved where.
This isn't even including the scenario in which Russia lets fly after already beginning the invasion of Europe.

Your posts seem to give the implication that you believe the only outcome is Russia being stomped. While Russia would take massive casualties, so would Europe and the US. It's not like Russia inherently loses.

[Wisconsin9]

Try a few hundred thousand, or a few million depending on who can get moved where.
This isn't even including the scenario in which Russia lets fly after already beginning the invasion of Europe.

Your posts seem to give the implication that you believe the only outcome is Russia being stomped. While Russia would take massive casualties, so would Europe and the US. It's not like Russia inherently loses.

I'm not an idiot. A few crusty old guys in Russia survive underground without any authority in the world plus apparently maybe a million civilians who'd be flipping the fuck out. A few crusty old guys in America survive underground without any real authority. A few crusty old guys in England survive underground without any real authority. Crusty old men also survive virtually powerless underground in China. Everybody gets stomped in a completely pointless and avoidable war that leaves maybe half a billion people floating around in the atmosphere. What's your point?

[Sidhae]

I like how everybody here talks like they were veteran military experts. Playing DEFCON and reading Tom Clancy's novels doesn't exactly qualify a person as one, but who the hell cares about that...

Does this condescending post have a point or do you just want to increase your post count?

Don't see why the post count should matter, posts don't get me VIP status and special privileges...

What I'm talking about is that I find amusing the tone in which certain posters argue about ABM defense and so on like they actually knew anything on the subject besides factoids available on Google and Wikipedia. I dare say that most of them haven't even served in the military or studied rocket science or something along the line in a university, so it does amuse me how seriously can these people take their own poorly informed arguments.

Now as for digging up declassified info, most of it is almost 30 years old or more now. The fact remains, those of us without access to this highly sensitive information, which would comprise the absolute majority of this planet's inhabitants, and clearly the entirety of NSG community, can only speculate about the capabilities of modern ICBMs/ABMs. Unless you consider taking seriously the television shows which are clearly commissioned by the national governments to brag their capabilities to the world, or declassified sources that either describe already obsolete tech, or do not disclose anything really important that would allow to accurately gauge the respective system's performance.

So the closest thing anyone here is getting to the truth is a very approximate, if educated, guess. No point in trying to prove or dispute the accuracy of these guesses, because access to facts needed to actually do that are simply way above our paygrade, so to speak.

[Wisconsin9]

Does this condescending post have a point or do you just want to increase your post count?

Don't see why the post count should matter, posts don't get me VIP status and special privileges...

What I'm talking about is that I find amusing the tone in which certain posters argue about ABM defense and so on like they actually knew anything on the subject besides factoids available on Google and Wikipedia. I dare say that most of them haven't even served in the military or studied rocket science or something along the line in a university, so it does amuse me how seriously can these people take their own poorly informed arguments.

Now as for digging up declassified info, most of it is almost 30 years old or more now. The fact remains, those of us without access to this highly sensitive information, which would comprise the absolute majority of this planet's inhabitants, and clearly the entirety of NSG community, can only speculate about the capabilities of modern ICBMs/ABMs. Unless you consider taking seriously the television shows which are clearly commissioned by the national governments to brag their capabilities to the world, or declassified sources that either describe already obsolete tech, or do not disclose anything really important that would allow to accurately gauge the respective system's performance.

So the closest thing anyone here is getting to the truth is a very approximate, if educated, guess. No point in trying to prove or dispute the accuracy of these guesses, because access to facts needed to actually do that are simply way above our paygrade, so to speak.

Are you just here to tell us how silly we're being or is there a point to this?

[Wisconsin9]

Anyways, while I'd love to continue this, I've got to be somewhere.

[Sidhae]

Don't see why the post count should matter, posts don't get me VIP status and special privileges...

What I'm talking about is that I find amusing the tone in which certain posters argue about ABM defense and so on like they actually knew anything on the subject besides factoids available on Google and Wikipedia. I dare say that most of them haven't even served in the military or studied rocket science or something along the line in a university, so it does amuse me how seriously can these people take their own poorly informed arguments.

Now as for digging up declassified info, most of it is almost 30 years old or more now. The fact remains, those of us without access to this highly sensitive information, which would comprise the absolute majority of this planet's inhabitants, and clearly the entirety of NSG community, can only speculate about the capabilities of modern ICBMs/ABMs. Unless you consider taking seriously the television shows which are clearly commissioned by the national governments to brag their capabilities to the world, or declassified sources that either describe already obsolete tech, or do not disclose anything really important that would allow to accurately gauge the respective system's performance.

So the closest thing anyone here is getting to the truth is a very approximate, if educated, guess. No point in trying to prove or dispute the accuracy of these guesses, because access to facts needed to actually do that are simply way above our paygrade, so to speak.

Are you just here to tell us how silly we're being or is there a point to this?

More or less, yes.

Anyway, since the original topic is actual orbital weapons rather than ICBMs, let's talk about orbital bombers and why none ever entered service (at least officially).

Does Silbervogel, Keldysh/MiG-105, Dyna-Soar or HOTOL (yes, I know, technically not an orbital bomber project) ring a bell?

[The Corparation]

Don't see why the post count should matter, posts don't get me VIP status and special privileges...

What I'm talking about is that I find amusing the tone in which certain posters argue about ABM defense and so on like they actually knew anything on the subject besides factoids available on Google and Wikipedia. I dare say that most of them haven't even served in the military or studied rocket science or something along the line in a university, so it does amuse me how seriously can these people take their own poorly informed arguments.

Now as for digging up declassified info, most of it is almost 30 years old or more now. The fact remains, those of us without access to this highly sensitive information, which would comprise the absolute majority of this planet's inhabitants, and clearly the entirety of NSG community, can only speculate about the capabilities of modern ICBMs/ABMs. Unless you consider taking seriously the television shows which are clearly commissioned by the national governments to brag their capabilities to the world, or declassified sources that either describe already obsolete tech, or do not disclose anything really important that would allow to accurately gauge the respective system's performance.

So the closest thing anyone here is getting to the truth is a very approximate, if educated, guess. No point in trying to prove or dispute the accuracy of these guesses, because access to facts needed to actually do that are simply way above our paygrade, so to speak.

Are you just here to tell us how silly we're being or is there a point to this?

Not to mention the fact that a very good number of NS'ers actually have served in the military or studied engineering.

[The Grand Imperium of Man]

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 honored 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.

by the way this probably would be needed if we go to mars and onwards to start colonizing other planets

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Are you just here to tell us how silly we're being or is there a point to this?

More or less, yes.

Anyway, since the original topic is actual orbital weapons rather than ICBMs, let's talk about orbital bombers and why none ever entered service (at least officially).

Does Silbervogel, Keldysh/MiG-105, Dyna-Soar or HOTOL (yes, I know, technically not an orbital bomber project) ring a bell?

Because they were vulnerable, expensive, detectable, pointless and offered no advantages over ICBMs. The same reason the Pluto project was abandoned. ICBM technology quickly improved to the point where it was actually better than a nuclear-engined treetop-skimming missile.

[Imperium of Tanith]

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Simple, just have a Space Station that fires Orbital Bombardments.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

You and I have Very different definitions of a "Space Station".

When you say Space Station, you mean something not very tough.

When I say Space Station, I mean something with several meters of Grade-A Titanium at it's weakest point, about 3 klicks long and wide, and can park a Fething Emperor-Class Battleship and pack as much firepower as a Frigate.

Lets see your little F-15 bring that down.

[National Socialists of America]

Dear god, that was horribly written.

OT: Satellites that nuke countries from orbit.

[Aeken]

Not going to happen in this lifetime.

[Cameroi]

mind control lazers. don't forget your tin foil hats.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

You and I have Very different definitions of a "Space Station".

When you say Space Station, you mean something not very tough.

When I say Space Station, I mean something with several meters of Grade-A Titanium at it's weakest point, about 3 klicks long and wide, and can park a Fething Emperor-Class Battleship and pack as much firepower as a Frigate.

Lets see your little F-15 bring that down.

Impossible and infeasible.
Titanium's a terrible armour material, by the way.

[Watched Kettles]

You and I have Very different definitions of a "Space Station".

When you say Space Station, you mean something not very tough.

When I say Space Station, I mean something with several meters of Grade-A Titanium at it's weakest point, about 3 klicks long and wide, and can park a Fething Emperor-Class Battleship and pack as much firepower as a Frigate.

Lets see your little F-15 bring that down.

There are one or two minor, niggling little impracticalities with this particular pipe dream.

For instance, your 'plan' calls for rather a lot of metalwork. If we assume that your 3 klicks long'n'wide structure is just going to be a simple box, and we decide that a floor-to-ceiling gap of 3m will be enough, we're looking at needing more than 54 million cubic metres of 'Grade A' titanium, just for the shell. At roughly 4.5 metric tonnes per cubic metre that would have a surface weight that would dwarf the total of all the payloads ever lifted into orbit.

(It's also quite illuminating to source some costs/kg for putting stuff into orbit and then apply some basic arithmetic to the figures above, but why let economics interfere )

There's also the little issue that procuring the titanium might be a bit messy. I note that the US isn't a major producer of it, and that most of it is produced (perhaps unsurprisingly) by China and the former Soviet states, and that it would take many, many decades to gather enough of it for your pretty little fort-in-space. I'm sure, however, that they'd be perfectly happy to retool their entire economies to produce the metal you need to build something whose only purpose is to hang (literally) over their heads as a constant reminder of who the big dog is.

There are, of course, a lot more things that could be pointed out, but it seems silly to spend more time on it. There are reasons that things like this only appear in fiction

Impossible and infeasible.
Titanium's a terrible armour material, by the way.

It would have taken less time if I'd just said this