Q. "Can I use satellites to locate an enemy fleet?"
A. Yes. You can use a satellite to locate an enemy fleet, either via radar or optics. It is, however, a difficult process, as a satellite will only stay over the same area for roughly 2-6 minutes (depending on how directly overhead it flies), and it might not find a smaller fleet, or one with a reduced RCS. It also assumes that the weather is perfect, as clouds will obscure the ability to conduct surveillance. Synthetic Aperture Radar can see through clouds, but it is used for imaging, not detection.
Q. "Now my satellite, it stays in the same place and tracks enemy movements, right?"
A. Unlikely. Yes, it is possible to have a geosynchronous satellite. However, these will be virtually useless when it comes to tracking an enemies movements, as the enemy will quickly go out of scope. Furthermore, they can not "follow" the fleet. If they are geosynchronous, they don't move, plain and simple. Cost-effective wise, however, it is not worth having a gesynchronous observation satellite, as it costs much more money to hold a satellite in place than to allow it to orbit naturally.
Q. "Can I glean targeting data from my satellites?"
A. Yes and no. Yes, you can gain GPS data from your satellites if they happen to catch, for example, an enemy fleet. However, that enemy fleet is moving, and by the time the missiles are launched, the GPS targeting data is outdated. By the time the missiles arrive at the locations their targets are supposed to be at, the ships are long gone. The same would go for armored formations on land. This would be effective against bunkers or buildings, however, as those do not move.
Q. "I have a satellite over your fleet! I can see everything, right?"
A. Not so fast sonny. Satellites, just like any other piece of transmitting equipment, can be jammed. Just as Iran jammed BBC-Persia from transmitting with their satellite, so can another nation jam your satellite. Different types of jamming can do different things, such as stop the satellite from transmitting entirely, or returning falsified results to the satellite. Similarly, poor weather can hinder optical reconaissance, and reduced RCS ships can be harder to detect on satellite radar units. And once that satellite passes, it will be ~1.5 hours before it will be over the same area again, when you would get another chance (assuming the fleet, or whatever you're tracking, hasn't moved).
Q. "Enough about surveillance, tell me more about warfare. I can level your capital using god rods, right?"
A. Silly you, surveillance is an integral part of warfare. Once again though, wrong. God rods will level whatever building they hit - outside of that, they will not do much damage. In the words of a friend, "Energy density of "godrod" ranges between 2 times and theoretical maximum of 8 times TNT, with typical number of 4-4.5 times TNT, corresponding to 6km/s reentry velocity. In other words, it's about 2.5-3 times better than pure modern explosive, or 4 times better than conventional bomb, per ton of weight. It's not to mention that "godrod" doesn't really work as high explosive, and only deals damage through the material it touches. In military terms it is similar to lacking brisance. Specifically, it doesn't actually explode with gases, only throws material around. It's essentially throwing rocks into the ground, and, in both cases, most energy just goes into the ground."
Q. "Well since I'm shooting them from space, I can just launch tons of them at your capital without having to risk bombers."
A. Sorry, but no. The cost of a god-rod is immense. Not only does one cost roughly 10 million dollars per ton, but you also have to account for getting it into space. The largest satellites cost 500 million dollars to launch into space. Expect this to cost more, and you'd probably have to take it up in multiple launches. Godrods are far from cheap, and as such should be used sparingly, if at all.
Q. "Well can't I take out just the building I want, assassination style?"
A. They don't work like that. You can't "guide" a falling rod of tungsten, so it's pretty much going to do what it wants. You won't get a CEP (circular error probability) of higher than 500 feet (pretty common for an ICBM) with one, which means that 50% of the time your god rod will hit within 500 feet of the target. Not exactly a precision strike.
Q. "Well at least I know that I can shoot it in the ocean, and create a tsunami that will capsize your ships, right?"
A. And you're wrong again. It would take a meteor roughly 300m across to throw up a tidal wave capable of substantial damage, but you have to understand that all of that would be coastal damage. A tidal wave runs along the ocean floor, and would barely protrude above the surface (if at all) where most navies would be located. It is not until the ocean shallows in coastal areas that a tsunami raises above the ocean in a manner that causes immense destruction.
Q. "Your nation relies on satellites for observation and communication. So if I just shoot them all down and you will be blind and mute! There's nothing stopping me, or is there?"
A. Ah yes, this is where we come to one of the unfortunate realities of space warfare. You see, orbital space, even in NS, is not unlimited. And it has been filled with thousands and thousands of pieces of debris, sometimes referred to as space junk. Now, you might find this irrelevant, but when these pieces of junk hit a satellite, the satellite goes down, and becomes junk itself. If you were to simultaneously destroy an entire enemies satellite network (given the advanced networks NS nations are prone to have), you would create a Kessler Syndrome, which would render space unusable for generations, even to yourself (and in the process, have ZMI and Izistan, two of the scariest nations in RP, declare war on you for doing such). Shooting down a single satellite isn't bad, but shooting down hundreds of them is. In other words, surgical strikes to deny an enemy satellite recon over a certain area = good. Indiscriminate attack on entire enemy satellite network = very very bad.
Q. "Can I use nuclear ASAT missiles?"
A. Not without extreme consequences. Using a nuke as an ASAT weapon would serve as an EMP for anything below. For real life examples, look at the Hardtack Teak test and the Starfish Prime test, both of which had very negative consequences as far as EMPs are concerned.
If I think of anything else, I'll add it later. Hope it helps.
I applaud you my good sir! A question though, what would your tutorial have to say about satellite-borne offensive and defensive lasers?
