NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Korva]

It is still kinda hard to read, like in the way you've linked things together. Makes it difficult to see the chain of command (at least for me).

[Yukonastan]

So, I have two things that may or may not be realistic; kinetic bombardment and EMP bombs. Are these feasible? If so, how many?

Answer to one: No. Kinetic suborbital ICBMs, sure. Kinetic satellites, never.

Answer to two: Does an EMP imply a sufficiently large nuke detonated at high altitude? Or does it imply an explosively-pumped flux generator bomb?

The former is feasible, the latter not so much, as it doesn't produce enough of a pulse in the EM spectrum the way the nuke does.

[The Kievan People]

So, I have two things that may or may not be realistic; kinetic bombardment and EMP bombs. Are these feasible? If so, how many?

1. Rods from god suck.
2. The really big EMPs are produced by nuclear bombs. Conventional EMPs cover about the same area as a conventional bomb.

[New Kvenland]

So, I have two things that may or may not be realistic; kinetic bombardment and EMP bombs. Are these feasible? If so, how many?

Answer to one: No. Kinetic suborbital ICBMs, sure. Kinetic satellites, never.

Answer to two: Does an EMP imply a sufficiently large nuke detonated at high altitude? Or does it imply an explosively-pumped flux generator bomb?

The former is feasible, the latter not so much, as it doesn't produce enough of a pulse in the EM spectrum the way the nuke does.

Alright, I will use kinetic suborbital ICBMs, then.

Would the nuke have the fallout of a ground-detonated nuke?

So, I have two things that may or may not be realistic; kinetic bombardment and EMP bombs. Are these feasible? If so, how many?

1. Rods from god suck.
2. The really big EMPs are produced by nuclear bombs. Conventional EMPs cover about the same area as a conventional bomb.

1. Eh, they're fast, and are powerful combined. Admittedly, the satellites would be hard to protect.
2. That's what I thought. I assume conventional EMP carpet-bombing would be highly unrealistic?

[Padnak]

It is still kinda hard to read, like in the way you've linked things together. Makes it difficult to see the chain of command (at least for me).

I have intoed the lines being thicker

[The Akasha Colony]

1. Eh, they're fast, and are powerful combined. Admittedly, the satellites would be hard to protect.

Not as fast as a conventional missile, since if the satellite isn't overflying the area at the exact moment you need it, you might have to wait hours or days for it to be in position (depending on how many satellites you have). Whereas a conventional ICBM can fly to any target within its 10,000+ km range in under 30 minutes, for a lower cost and equal effect.

[Yukonastan]

Answer to one: No. Kinetic suborbital ICBMs, sure. Kinetic satellites, never.

Answer to two: Does an EMP imply a sufficiently large nuke detonated at high altitude? Or does it imply an explosively-pumped flux generator bomb?

The former is feasible, the latter not so much, as it doesn't produce enough of a pulse in the EM spectrum the way the nuke does.

Alright, I will use kinetic suborbital ICBMs, then.

Would the nuke have the fallout of a ground-detonated nuke?

1. Rods from god suck.
2. The really big EMPs are produced by nuclear bombs. Conventional EMPs cover about the same area as a conventional bomb.

1. Eh, they're fast, and are powerful combined. Admittedly, the satellites would be hard to protect.
2. That's what I thought. I assume conventional EMP carpet-bombing would be highly unrealistic?

1. You have to get 'em up there to give 'em their potential energy in the first place. This requires a lot of fuel. Emphasis on a LOT. It's not as cost-effective, basically every single modern military has, or is developing, a missile capable of destroying LEO satellites, so there's that too, and then it's not near-instant response, as well as your response only being over a relatively narrow band in your orbit. Imagine that I'm a minute late in ordering a rod from god or five. Now I have to wait one and a half hours before the satellite is within range again. Much preferable to have such weapons fire on a suborbital trajectory, so I at least know that the delay is always fifteen to thirty minutes, depending on the missile used to deliver the warhead. And if I'm going through the trouble to deliver such a warhead anyway, why not go the full distance and strap a nuke to it?

2. No, it wouldn't have the fallout. It'd still have SOME fallout, but most of the fallout from a nuclear weapon is from debris sucked up from the ground.

[Korva]

It is still kinda hard to read, like in the way you've linked things together. Makes it difficult to see the chain of command (at least for me).

I have intoed the lines being thicker

Not so much that the lines were too thin or thick, but that the units are arrayed in a somewhat haphazard way.

Like the are there 5 MG's or just 4 MG's and that other one is simply an illustration of what an MG is comprised of.

And the way you have the signals and workshop units, are they tied directly to the Division or are they attached to the Supply Battalion?

[The Akasha Colony]

1. You have to get 'em up there to give 'em their potential energy in the first place. This requires a lot of fuel. Emphasis on a LOT. It's not as cost-effective, basically every single modern military has, or is developing, a missile capable of destroying LEO satellites, so there's that too, and then it's not near-instant response, as well as your response only being over a relatively narrow band in your orbit. Imagine that I'm a minute late in ordering a rod from god or five. Now I have to wait one and a half hours before the satellite is within range again. Much preferable to have such weapons fire on a suborbital trajectory, so I at least know that the delay is always fifteen to thirty minutes, depending on the missile used to deliver the warhead. And if I'm going through the trouble to deliver such a warhead anyway, why not go the full distance and strap a nuke to it?

Most likely days for a single satellite to revisit, not 90 minutes. Unless you have some pretty impressive off-nadir capabilities or the target is at a particularly high latitude.

[The Corparation]

I'd like to correct Yuko on his comments saying that giving the order to fire a minute late creates an hour and a half delay. Due to the rotation of the earth It will likely be couple days before that particular satellite is in a position to fire on that target. Of course if you have multiple satellites you'll have one in position sooner but it will still take awhile, so his point stands

[Yukonastan]

I'd like to correct Yuko on his comments saying that giving the order to fire a minute late creates an hour and a half delay. Due to the rotation of the earth It will likely be couple days before that particular satellite is in a position to fire on that target. Of course if you have multiple satellites you'll have one in position sooner but it will still take awhile, so his point stands

I was assuming an orbital period with a semi-major axis of 6521 km, which gave me 87.3 minutes. Via wolframalpha.

But a better orbit would be around where the ISS is, ~412 km amsl. That's a 90 minute orbit, more or less.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'd like to correct Yuko on his comments saying that giving the order to fire a minute late creates an hour and a half delay. Due to the rotation of the earth It will likely be couple days before that particular satellite is in a position to fire on that target. Of course if you have multiple satellites you'll have one in position sooner but it will still take awhile, so his point stands

I was assuming an orbital period with a semi-major axis of 6521 km, which gave me 87.3 minutes.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the Earth turns while the satellite is orbiting, so it doesn't pass over the same spot on the Earth every orbit. It can take ~15 days for a satellite to return to the exact same orbital path as it previously had. If the satellite has off-nadir capabilities though and can cover a whole swath at once, then the revisit time can be lowered to a few days.

[Yukonastan]

I was assuming an orbital period with a semi-major axis of 6521 km, which gave me 87.3 minutes.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the Earth turns while the satellite is orbiting, so it doesn't pass over the same spot on the Earth every orbit. It can take ~15 days for a satellite to return to the exact same orbital path as it previously had. If the satellite has off-nadir capabilities though and can cover a whole swath at once, then the revisit time can be lowered to a few days.

Assuming you're in a non-equatorial orbit, of course. But either way, it illustrates the point that a satellite-based wunderwaffe is a bad idea.

[Roski]

That's not the problem. The problem is that the Earth turns while the satellite is orbiting, so it doesn't pass over the same spot on the Earth every orbit. It can take ~15 days for a satellite to return to the exact same orbital path as it previously had. If the satellite has off-nadir capabilities though and can cover a whole swath at once, then the revisit time can be lowered to a few days.

Assuming you're in a non-equatorial orbit, of course. But either way, it illustrates the point that a satellite-based wunderwaffe is a bad idea.

Then make the satellite the wunderwaffe itself

[The Akasha Colony]

That's not the problem. The problem is that the Earth turns while the satellite is orbiting, so it doesn't pass over the same spot on the Earth every orbit. It can take ~15 days for a satellite to return to the exact same orbital path as it previously had. If the satellite has off-nadir capabilities though and can cover a whole swath at once, then the revisit time can be lowered to a few days.

Assuming you're in a non-equatorial orbit, of course. But either way, it illustrates the point that a satellite-based wunderwaffe is a bad idea.

Inclined orbits are a must for a satellite that hopes to cover all of the Earth's surface at some point or another. Otherwise you will indeed be revisiting the same spot on the equator every hour and a half, and nowhere else. Which is a problem.

[Yukonastan]

Assuming you're in a non-equatorial orbit, of course. But either way, it illustrates the point that a satellite-based wunderwaffe is a bad idea.

Then make the satellite the wunderwaffe itself

That's why I've decided to substitute suborbital launches in place of a permanently orbiting station, and why I've decided to substitute bullshitium-cored falloutless thermonuclear warheads for equally weighted rods of adamantium.

[Roski]

Then make the satellite the wunderwaffe itself

That's why I've decided to substitute suborbital launches in place of a permanently orbiting station, and why I've decided to substitute bullshitium-cored falloutless thermonuclear warheads for equally weighted rods of adamantium.

Not even that. We have suicide people, cars, and planes. Time to take it next level and suicide satellites.

[Yukonastan]

That's why I've decided to substitute suborbital launches in place of a permanently orbiting station, and why I've decided to substitute bullshitium-cored falloutless thermonuclear warheads for equally weighted rods of adamantium.

Not even that. We have suicide people, cars, and planes. Time to take it next level and suicide satellites.

Too inefficient.

[Roski]

Not even that. We have suicide people, cars, and planes. Time to take it next level and suicide satellites.

Too inefficient.

A few well placed sattelites could likely do severe damage.

Nobody expects a satellite exploding

[The Corparation]

I designed a suicide satellite once. They were classed as an orbital mine and called via KE or nuclear warhead. My intention was to piggyback the mines them on other launches and then just leave them idling until needed. I'm probably never going to use them though. Very few targets would be worth both the cost of the mine and the potential damage from debris caused by the destruction of two satellites.

[Yukonastan]

Too inefficient.

A few well placed sattelites could likely do severe damage.

Nobody expects a satellite exploding

Why waste the time to move it into orbit, then deorbit it? Why not launch it suborbitally when it's required, and save all that fuel and energy?

[Roski]

A few well placed sattelites could likely do severe damage.

Nobody expects a satellite exploding

Why waste the time to move it into orbit, then deorbit it? Why not launch it suborbitally when it's required, and save all that fuel and energy?

Who said I need to deorbit it to detonate it?

[Padnak]

Not so much that the lines were too thin or thick, but that the units are arrayed in a somewhat haphazard way.

Like the are there 5 MG's or just 4 MG's and that other one is simply an illustration of what an MG is comprised of.

And the way you have the signals and workshop units, are they tied directly to the Division or are they attached to the Supply Battalion?

All of the support elements are simply attached to the division and there are five MGs

(first time drawing something like this up )

[Yukonastan]

Why waste the time to move it into orbit, then deorbit it? Why not launch it suborbitally when it's required, and save all that fuel and energy?

Who said I need to deorbit it to detonate it?

Who said I have to orbit it at all?

[Roski]

Who said I need to deorbit it to detonate it?

Who said I have to orbit it at all?

That's a missile at that point.