Space nukes: The unbelievably bad idea that's exactly that ... unbelievable
- Reference: 1708335250
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/02/19/opinion_column/
- Source link:
The implication was that Russia was [1]planning to orbit nuclear weapons designed to take out large numbers of enemy satellites. As the West is completely dependent on satellites for communication, guidance, information gathering, and waging war, this is a pretty scary threat. It is also stark raving bonkers. Let us count the ways.
First, developing, deploying, and testing such weapons is illegal under international law. Treaties may be the last thing on the mind of a state intent on throwing nukes about. Breaking those treaties means the other lot aren't bound by them either, though, and if the other lot has a much more advanced space capability, that may not pan out so well.
[2]
Then there's the reason those treaties exist – space nukes work, and work all too well. You can build all sorts of conventional anti-satellite weapons that can hobble hardware you don't like. Everyone's had a go at this on the grounds that if the bad guys can put something nasty up there, the good guys can put up something nastier to stop it.
[3]
[4]
Killer satellites loitering about until needed turns out to be a poor idea. Orbital mechanics make it hard, slow, and expensive to maneuver one orbiting thing close to another, especially if that other isn't keen to cooperate. It's better to launch on demand from the ground or an aircraft, both of which have the added benefit over orbiting assets that they're not floating around in space in a known orbit for the enemy to see 24/7. Satellites aren't hardy – a small explosion generally suffices to put them off their stroke.
True, a nuke doesn't need to get very close to things to have the same effect. That's their biggest problem – they'll fry anything in range regardless of brand. The space-capable nation that can deploy a killer space nuke will have its own vital war and peace infrastructure up there too. As an act of random violence against every country on the planet, space nukes make sense. In any other case, they redefine insanity. Option one hundred on a list that stops at ten.
[5]
We know this because we've tried it. You may recall Telstar, the world's first communications satellite. Sent aloft in 1962, it was a happy, shiny beach ball of a satellite that carried the world's first live transatlantic TV transmissions, it had a happy, shiny song named after it. It was all-American. It got fried by an all-American space nuke called Starfish Prime.
Starfish Prime was a megaton-range nuclear detonation 400 km above the Pacific, just to see what happens when you set off huge space nukes. Yes, that was as sophisticated as it got. The result was an unexpectedly vast number of very high-speed electrons, which as well as being massively toasty radiation in their own right also did what electrons do when you give them an enormous shove – they generate an enormous pulse of radio waves.
This was the discovery of EMP, the electromagnetic pulse typical of space nukes. This one disrupted electrical systems in Hawaii some 1,000 km away. What else it did is less clear as the test results are still classified. Worries about EMP resurface occasionally, with nervous preppers keeping their spare shortwave radios in biscuit tin Faraday cages. It wasn't the EMP that got Telstar, which launched the day after Starfish Prime, but those pesky high-speed electrons that hung around for a few months thanks to the Earth's magnetic field and pickled Telstar's transistors over the next few months.
[6]Forcing AI on developers is a bad idea that is going to happen
[7]That's not the web you're browsing, Microsoft. That's our data
[8]That runaway datacenter power grab is the best news for net zero this century
[9]The Post Office systems scandal demands a critical response
None of this was in any way controllable and the Soviets, who'd been having a go themselves, soon asked for a moratorium on the whole business – a moratorium that, like the laws of physics that inspired it, still stands. It's not as if we haven't got more dependent on sensitive electronics since.
Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare, it's not sky bombs. Which leaves nuclear reactors in space. This may not seem much better, but hold your horses. Many of your favorite space missions have used space nuke power – Cassini, the Voyagers, Curiosity and Perseverance on Mars. Even Apollos 12 to 17 had small nuclear power plants to keep science experiments going after the astronauts had taken their giant leaps back home. If solar power won't fly your mission, go for fission.
[10]
Thing is, solar power is very good these days. Galileo, the '80s Jupiter mission, used a nuclear power source because it was so far from the Sun. Juno, the mission out there now, is fine with solar. Nuclear power isn't needed in Earth orbit, which is just as well as while it's a great technology, it's even better when it's attached to something that is never, ever coming back down. So why would Russia need it?
The sanest guess is electronic warfare, an aspect of which is stuffing so much unwanted energy into the radio spectrum your enemy is trying to use that signals are spoofed or jammed. A space platform with lots of watts to hand would theoretically be quite useful, both against other space assets and ground-based systems. Indeed, Russia is known to have such a project, [11]Ekipazh , which is indeed powered by a nuclear reactor. If there is a potential nuclear threat in space, it's probably this.
Even this is an odd candidate. First proposed in 2010, it has been known about and discussed by Western analysts since 2018. It has the same problem as other space-based weapons in that it's a tempting and very visible target itself, while chucking out kilowatts of signals at frequencies you can't form into very tight beams is going to annoy more than just your intended victim. Expensive, inflexible, vulnerable, and [12]difficult to operate and maintain , especially if you don't have the best track record in top-notch tech, it's by no means a slam-dunk idea.
What it is good at, though, is scaring people. If you're a Putin supporter, you might hope it distracts and dismays the warriors on the other side. If you're American – let's say, someone trying to get a big aid package through to Ukraine – you might hope it scares some of the people who are trying to stop that happening. And if you're a news outlet, you'll just appreciate the traffic that big headlines about space nukes can bring. Where the truth lies, dear reader, is up to you to decide. One thing's for sure – you're safe enough keeping your smartphone out of the biscuit tin. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-dismisses-us-warning-about-russian-nuclear-capability-space-2024-02-15/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZdOJOU-sXZ8HhC9tuKCc@gAAAYY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZdOJOU-sXZ8HhC9tuKCc@gAAAYY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZdOJOU-sXZ8HhC9tuKCc@gAAAYY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZdOJOU-sXZ8HhC9tuKCc@gAAAYY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/12/opinion_column_on_forcing_ai_features_on_developers/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/05/opinion_column/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/29/the_datacenter_runaway_power_grab/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/22/opinion_column/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZdOJOU-sXZ8HhC9tuKCc@gAAAYY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3809/1
[12] https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1758450716744564762?t=YCr0Tee-eG6oG2azBE_Dyw&s=15
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Cheers for that! I thought reactors in space weren't anything new, just the challenges still remain much the same.
YaDEU looks interesting-
...designed with an electrical output requirement rather than a thermal output requirement, oddly enough of 1 Mwe. This requires a thermal output of at least 4 MWt, although depending on power conversion efficiency it may be higher.
Along with some of the older designs. They're kinda small/light enough for the old nuclear powered cars to become a reality! Also guessing the reason for the high electrical power output is the intent is to use that for propulsion. But most of the designs all seem to use sodium or sodium/potassium for cooling and have been for decades. Yet we're not for commerical NPP. Is that a cost or a scaling problem?
Did we learn nothing from [1]Goldeneye?
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113189/
That was my thought, too.
Just an aging boogieman, brought out of it's crate and dusted off for this election cycle in order to scare the proles.
Next on the agenda: Be sure to check under your beds for reds.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Its a ploy by the uniparty to get the HUGE aid package for Ukraine passed so they can line their pockets with lots of cash.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Washington wasn't joking when they pledged to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Washington wasn't joking when they pledged to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian.
The Ukrainians had already not only decided to fight Russia, but had started fighting Russia - before they were offered any assistance by anybody.
The problem for the person with the conspiratorial mindset is that they don't seem to be able to understand that the world is in fact a very complicated place. And not all decisions are taken by evil global masterminds, moving the pieces on their giant chess boards.
Re: That was my thought, too.
"but had started fighting Russia"
When? Was this before the CIA coup or after? The US has been giving military aid to Ukraine for a long time prior to 2022.
Re: That was my thought, too.
1 Rouble for you, comrade.
Re: That was my thought, too.
The Ukrainians had already not only decided to fight Russia, but had started fighting Russia - before they were offered any assistance by anybody.
Some Ukrainians have been fighting 'Russians' for a very long time. All part of the complex history behind the territory that is now Ukraine. But history isn't what it used to be, hence embarrasments like Canada. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history should have realised that someone fighting against Russia during WW2 wasn't fighting for the allies. It's also why the fall of Avdeevka is complicated. Ukraine nationalists heavily fortified that and had been using it to shell Donetsk since the civil war started in 2014. Hence rejoicing in the DPR.
Plus there's some nuke and space stuff. At the Munich 'Peace' Conference prior to the SMO starting, Zelensky said Ukraine was going to become a nuclear power. Russia obviously objected to that idea. Then there were a couple of satellite launches by Russia early in the conflict, probably military satellites. Pre-SMO, Russia didn't appear to have great coverage of Ukraine, now that seems to have improved. But then we also have lots of intelligence coverage, which we seem to be sharing with Ukraine. If that gets too costly for Russia, they may be more tempted to eliminate those threats. They've already knocked down a couple of drones helping Ukraine over the Black Sea, but knocking down satellites is a bit more escalatory.
Re: That was my thought, too.
"Anyone with a basic knowledge of history should have realised that someone fighting against Russia during WW2 wasn't fighting for the allies."
In 1939, the Poles, who most definitely were part of 'the allies', were fighting against the Russians and the Germans, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany being allies at that time.
Re: That was my thought, too.
In 1939, the Poles, who most definitely were part of 'the allies', were fighting against the Russians and the Germans, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany being allies at that time.
Yep. Like I said, history and politics get complicated. See also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
Due to the intervention of Archduke Wilhelm of Austria, who adopted a Ukrainian identity and considered himself a Ukrainian patriot, in October 1918 two regiments of mostly Ukrainian troops were garrisoned in Lemberg (modern Lviv).
Not to mention sometimes surreal. Then also see the Banderites role in massacres in Poland. I think much stems from political cartography carving up 'nations' regardless of ethnicity, identity or historical territoreal claims. 'Ukrainians' fought on both sides during WW2, now they're fighting against each other and that's just one of those sad things that happens when there's really no such thing as a single 'Ukrainian' identity.
Re: That was my thought, too.
"Ukrainians' fought on both sides during WW2, now they're fighting against each other"
It's raining, 8 degrees, not very cold but the wind makes rain a petulant crux. And now, because of you, I start looking out of the window wishing for some compromises.
Re: That was my thought, too.
"Zelensky said Ukraine was going to become a nuclear power" I have my doubts about an Ukrainian president venting similar concepts in public settings, officially. Do you mind producing a quote? You know, at that time the land was already under aggression, prior to 2014, the so-called West was surely showing the short arm with help, and there was/is the question of Germany and its energy policies. I would say, unlikely but please prove me wrong.
About shelling Donetsk area, please do not forget Soviet barraks and military installations were built within cities, easy to blow up some residential building.
And, and, and... have someone the idea of how much weapons, materiel, nukes did Ukraine give back to Moskow, and how much light weaponry went the way it did in Caucasus, sold by the upper ground to the underground? And...
Ohhh, darn! I did it again...
Re: That was my thought, too.
"Zelensky said Ukraine was going to become a nuclear power" I have my doubts about an Ukrainian president venting similar concepts in public settings, officially. Do you mind producing a quote?
Not at all-
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/vistup-prezidenta-ukrayini-na-58-j-myunhenskij-konferenciyi-72997
Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world's third nuclear capability. We don't have that weapon. We also have no security...
... I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.
The Budapest Memorandum being the 'agreement' under which Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons it inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
About shelling Donetsk area, please do not forget Soviet barraks and military installations were built within cities, easy to blow up some residential building.
Not sure exactly what you're referring to but the OSCE regularly reported breaches of the Minsk deal by both sides, and indiscriminate shelling from both sides. That theme has continued, ie hotels and apartment buildings have been struct either by falling air defence missiles, or intentionally when they've been used as barracks. Remember, the first casualty of war is the truth, and both sides have been lieing.
And, and, and... have someone the idea of how much weapons, materiel, nukes did Ukraine give back to Moskow, and how much light weaponry went the way it did in Caucasus, sold by the upper ground to the underground?
The stuff given back or sold under the Budapest Memorandum is pretty well documented. The thousands of tonnes of other weapons post-USSR, much less so. But you're right that a lot of this was sold off by corrupt people. My favorite example was this one-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Faina
The ship was allegedly heading to Mombasa, Kenya, from Ukraine with 33 Soviet-made T-72 tanks, weapons (including rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns)[6] and ammunition on board, when it was seized
Which were destined for S.Sudan and their civil war. Given under Soviet/Warsaw Pact planning, Ukraine was intended to have been a bastion protecting Russia, it had huge stockpiles of weapons stored, a lot of which were in old mine caverns in Donbas. Hence why when Ukraine's civil war started, the Donbas seperatists had access to a LOT of 'Russian' equipment. Western propagandists ignored those facts and instead tried to convince everyone they came from Russia.. which contained some truth, ie they may have done originally. Same with some of the claims about modernised 'Russian' tanks, like T-80 variants. Which kind of ignored this place in Kharkiv-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malyshev_Factory
It produces diesel engines, farm machinery, coal mining, sugar refining, and wind farm equipment, but is best known for its production of Soviet tanks, including the BT tank series of fast tanks, the famous T-34 of the Second World War, the Cold War T-64 and T-80, and their modern Ukrainian successor, the T-84.
But that's also one of the tragedies behind the 2014 coup, and the pivot towards the EU. It lost all the trade it had with Russia, which was most of Ukraine's trade.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Washington wasn't joking when they pledged to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian.
Washington wasn’t the one saying it though were they? I was under the impression that it was Moscow or more specifically Putin who said it. Reuters agrees:
"We have heard many times that the West wants to fight us to the last Ukrainian. This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but it seems that everything is heading towards this."
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-if-west-wants-beat-us-battlefield-let-them-try-2022-07-07/
Don’t suppose you can post your Washington source can you?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-if-west-wants-beat-us-battlefield-let-them-try-2022-07-07/
Re: That was my thought, too.
Washington wasn’t the one saying it though were they? I was under the impression that it was Moscow or more specifically Putin who said it.
Putin stated that the SMO was a war of attrition, ie eliminating Ukraine's capability to fight or threaten Russia. Meanwhile, the West has decided it's a war for territory and judged Russia's failure for not achieving something it never set out to do. And then we could argue if Ukraine's 'strategy' of pouring it's men into cauldrons like Bakhmut or Avdeevka has been helping Russia achieve it's objectives, or not.
This is the real tragedy for Ukraine, ie it's another example of lions lead by donkeys. PR victories seem far more important to Ukraine's leadership and lives. So we just had a Steiner moment where some of Ukraine's 'best' troops were ordered to relieve Avdeevka. A lot were killed in missile strikes while assembling near by, some (ie Azov) took one look at the situation and noped out, others did try to enter the city and were promptly eliminated or captured. A massive loss of life mostly for political reasons rather than any sane military ones.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Next on the agenda: Be sure to check under your beds for reds.
Interestingly McCarthy was a Republican.
I wonder what he'd have thought about his party being controlled by somebody who it appears is being blackmailed by the Reds?
Re: That was my thought, too.
He started his political career as a Dem.
Re: That was my thought, too.
I wonder what he'd have thought about his party being controlled by somebody who it appears is being blackmailed by the Reds?
Remind me:
How much money did Ukrainian oligarchs give to the Biden family?
How much money did Ukrainian oligarchs give to the Clinton family?
How much money did Ukrainian oligarchs give to the Trump family? This one actually being a fairly serious question given I haven't found much evidence of Trump doing or trying to do much business in Ukraine. If not, why not? But post-Soviet times are the main reason we're in this mess now. Everyone saw how much money oligarchs were making in Russia and Ukraine pillaging previously state-owned enterprises and piled in. Some got burned, some got compromised. Many didn't seem to understand that business there is a true blood sport instead of the virtual one in our politics. When an official asks if you have permits, what they're really asking for is 'permits' with $100 markings on them.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Not nearly as much money as Putin has given them.
Putins oil income is in the hands of a few oligarchs and the state, who have no reason not to deploy it entirely towards benefiting Russia's enlargement and their own pockets.
Re: That was my thought, too.
Next on the agenda: Be sure to check under your beds for reds.
More immediate problem in many countries: check in your bed for bugs (the bloodsucking kind).
It's nuts but
Say you're a state like North Korea or you run a state like North Korea. You wake up one morning dissatisfied with your haircut and decide to launch a nuke into space. You've got the capability to get something into or close to orbit but it won't last very long, you haven't any satellites of your own worth talking about and everyone already thinks you're a dick. Why not?
Re: It's nuts but
There are a ton of reasons why not, but nothing that's likely to bother the multi-chinned bowl-cutted dictateur du jour who - let's be honest - isn't the most stable of isotopes at the best of times.
Re: It's nuts but
OK, lets pretend I am dictator for life. I have a separate strategy for dealing with dissent from the second rank in the power pyramid and they deal with the next rank down. Here is the way to handle a popular revolution: provoke harsh words from the US president and enemy activity on the far side of the boarders. Put that on the news along with the message: "Unite behind me or the Americans will invade". Round up the popular leaders or anyone with an unpatriotic hair cut and execute them for being US puppets.
An orbital nuke research project makes excellent provocation. Launching a functional orbital nuke costs resources better spent on my palace and palace guard.
Re: It's nuts but
Probably the most obvious reason for why not, would be that the Chinese would likely decide that someone willing to disrupt the status quo (which China definitely prefers on the Korean peninsula) would probably be better replaced by one of their more manageable siblings.
Don't for a minute think that China couldn't orchestrate a NK regime change if they felt like it. Fat Boy Kim makes a handy puppet, right now. If he tries to move too close into alignment with Russia though and away from China, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a "heart attack" was to follow shortly after. Probably to be replaced by which ever relative, the Chinese believe is most easily controlled...
Re: It's nuts but
Iglethal,
Don't be so sure that China has that much control of North Korea. They've definitely got sources and contacts in the military and parts of the party and bureaurcracy. But Kim has managed to kill of quite a few senior people, to make damned sure he's in charge.
I couldn't remember the name, so searched for it. But it's quite hard to find the one you want, among the many he's had bumped off. In just a couple of minute's searching, Kim has killed at least one chief of the army general staff, a defence minister (allegedly for falling asleep in cabinet) and a whole bunch of other senior people.
But the ones I was looking for were his Aunt and Uncle, back in 2013 Jang Song Thaek and Kim Kyong Hui. Although Jang was often in military uniform, I think he may have been Party, but he was also a major link with China, as well as helping Kim to come to power. Aunty Kim was his Dad's sister.
It's always hard to know cause and effect, but that seemed to have caused a dip in relations with China.
So I don't think they can control North Korea. One difference with the old days though, is the Kims can't play the Soviets off against the Chinese for ideological bragging rights anymore, because Putin isn't ideological (I think Xi might be), and Russia is massively poorer than China nowadays.
Use of weapons.
It's better to launch on demand from the ground or an aircraft, both of which have the added benefit over orbiting assets that they're not floating around in space in a known orbit for the enemy to see 24/7.
The '60s are calling, and want their nukes back-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Rocket_1
Korolev unofficially started work on the missile on 15 March 1962 based on a verbal go-ahead by Khrushchev. The draft project for the GR-1 was completed in May 1962, and a mock-up had already been built and drawings released to the production shop by the time the official resolution was issued on 24 September 1962. Test flights were scheduled to start in the third quarter of 1963. Further development of the GR-1 missile was halted in 1964 in preference of the orbital R-36 missile.
Now that missile treaties are busily being ignored, or just falling apart, there's nothing really stopping anyone putting nukes in space. If Russia, the US, China, India, Japan, Israel, DPRK etc already can, then that genies been out of the bottle for getting on for 70yrs. It isn't really news, and was probably only became news because Turner had just got back from Kiev and whatever he was briefed about there sounded like it was shocking news to him. Russians having the capability to detonate nukes in space was a shocking development to US House Intelligence Committee chairman Turner.
So that all seemed a bit of a nothingburger. Stuff happens, and if we suddenly notice a less fortunate sun appearing in the sky, it's just signalling that our day is about to get a whole lot worse. And shorter.
I am more curious about reactors in space. Like space being somewhere where 'renewables' kinda make sense compared to nuclear. So cost/benefit of large solar panels + batteries vs costs and risks of launching an SMR. Which I guess could be easily detectable anyway given the amount of heat a reactor would generate, along with the challenge of keeping it cool and preventing a thermal runaway.
Re: Use of weapons.
The nuke reactor is about megawatts of instant power. Hard to do that with solar unless you also send up a huge big battery and do nothing more than charge it. But the nuke wins in terms of longevity.
Re: Use of weapons.
The nuke reactor is about megawatts of instant power. Hard to do that with solar unless you also send up a huge big battery and do nothing more than charge it. But the nuke wins in terms of longevity.
Yep, that's what I was wondering. I think reactors are more about constant power rather than instant. So if you want something that can generate say, 100MW continuously 24x7x365, reactors are good. But heavy, and I'm guessing rather tricky to cool. So presumably would need massive radiators, so lots of volume as well as mass to get into orbit. If you're running say, a radar that's constantly emitting, then yep, I guess nuclear makes sense. But a lot of those systems seem to have moved to more passive detection and don't need as much power.
If you're looking to do something nefarious like start jamming satellites, or destroying them with say MASERs or particle beams, that seems like something you could do with stored power. Keep your batteries charged and standby, discharge when it's Armageddon day. Then time to recharge probably won't matter.
Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
There's only the one Military Industrial Complex militarizing space. These are the same people that placed missiles in Poland and Romanian and unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty ( [1]INF ). I for one look forward to the coming nuclear Armageddon. We in Europe will be reduced to a radioactive cloud. But at least moms apple pie and the land of the free will be safe /s
[2]New SDA, MDA missile-tracking satellites launched into space
• SDA: Space Development Agency
• MDA: Missile Defense Agency
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal
[2] https://defensescoop.com/2024/02/14/sda-mda-missile-tracking-satellites-hbtss/
Re: Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
The Chelyabinsk meteor exploded over Russia in 2013 ... only about 60 feet in diameter and we're all very lucky that in exploded before it landed, just coming down as a collection of rocks, not one huge rock. Constructing a nuclear defense against any future incoming asteroid would be helpful everywhere, we're lucky that the chances of being hit by a big asteroid are low but there may be a few possibilities in the future so having the ability to try and stop it would be more helpful.
Apophis is about 1,100 feet in diameter and is heading close to us in 2029, only a slight risk given today's orbital estimates but if an impact is likely then reducing it to a few billion meteors with a nuclear explosion might be less risky.
Re: Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
Pushing an incoming asteroid away with a nearby nuclear explosion is likely to be better than fragmenting it with a contact explosion.
If the asteroid was intercepted one month before impact, a velocity change of 10km/hour would be sufficient to make it miss the Earth. An intercept one month before impact would also be far enough from Earth that there would be no EMP problems for the satellites orbiting Earth.
Re: Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
Thanks for the idea Duncan, I agree with it although I worry that would not be easy to organize with 100% certainty. Everyone would be very happy if it worked - we have not had a big strike for thousands of years but a scary number of big strikes in the history of the world so the future is possible.
Re: Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
There's only the one Military Industrial Complex militarizing space.
You need to get out more. Just saying "military industrial complex" does not an intelligent argument make.
Eisenhower warned about it, in a rather excellent short speech - which I'd recommend you to read. [1]linky to transcript . He said that a military industrial capabilty was neccessary, but risked gaining too much influence, and basically called for balance and common sense in government. Not to do too little, or try to do too much. He also warned about it, because it was totally new to US politics, as the US had historically maintained small armed forces, and not a huge military production capability. Although the US Navy did remain rather large between the wars.
But he's not saying this is some unique US problem. And if you look at what passes for politics within dictatorships, you'll find the military are often a powerful faction. Not only because they've got the guns, but also because they control the arms industry - which gives them a source of money and patronage to promote their own agenda. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps bought the Iranian state telecom company a few years ago, when the government tried to privatise it. I think they used their pension fund, but they also own some of their own arms factories - as well as having invested in quite a few purely civilian businesses, just for the profits.
The Chinese People's Liberation Army also own a huge number of factories, includiing rather a lot of the old state enterprises that made weapons, but also quite a bit of China's heavy industry and have used their large amounts of cash to invest in the civilian economy as well. This gives them useful cash, as well as places to earn a living for the children of anyone they need to influence.
[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Re: Whatever is behind the Russian space nuke scare :o
The Chinese People's Liberation Army also own a huge number of factories, includiing rather a lot of the old state enterprises that made weapons, but also quite a bit of China's heavy industry and have used their large amounts of cash to invest in the civilian economy as well.
China has been cracking down on that. Some years ago I had a very strange meeting with someone representing a company I'd never heard of. So it was neither CNC or Unicom. After some digging, it turned out it was an SPV for the PLA's version of the US Army Core of Engineers and had built out & controlled an awful lot of fibre between China's towns and cities. Developing that could have been an interesting job, but.. had political sensitivities. But then China cracked down on the PLA's diversification and I think those assets ended up with either China Telecom or Unicom. Also, there's the bizarre propaganda that Russia's been using washing machine chips. At one point, the PLA also owned the factories that produced many of Chinas washing machines and fridges.
More and more
This world is feeling like a Tom Clancy novel.
Re: More and more
It always has been.
International relations never stop. They do go through brief periods of relative calm. But even then, that's often illusory, and just because people aren't noticing what's happening around them.
The bloodiest war since World War II happened pretty much un-noticed. About 8-12 million people died in the Congolese civil wars of the late 90s to early 2000s - although there's not exactly peace now. It was also made a lot worse by the overspill from the civil war in Rwanda and the chaos in Zimbabwe in the latter part of Mugabe's rule.
Star wars?
The americans were quite happy to talk about their Strategic Defence Initiative forty years ago. Yet there wasn't a mention of it in the article. Did I miss it?
And it appears they had no qualms about treaties, legalities or other philosophical limitations.
Although it was never implemented (as far as anyone can tell) I suspect than in the decades since then, the plans have been refined, the technology updated - just how stealthy can you make a satellite? - and the countermeasures improved.
Re: Star wars?
SDI was defensive, meant to intercept missiles in flight. It didn't really offer an offensive capability that the equivalent cost in conventional nukes wouldn't massively exceed and it was also a pretty overpriced way to take out a satellite. It never really went anywhere because a number of key technologies, primarily a nuclear pumped X ray laser, were never developed.
Re: Star wars?
I thought "Star Wars" project was an elaborate hoax, designed to start a very expensive arms race with the then CCCP looking at lasers, particle beams, high performance computers and high energy physics. In many ways it was a very effective project announcement, it helped lead to the downfall of the CCCP, but also got sued by Lucasfilm for trade mark infringement.
Re: Star wars?
"I thought "Star Wars" project was an elaborate hoax, designed to start a very expensive arms race with the then CCCP"
It was. The technical capabilities of the time never amounted to much, but it successfully worried the soviets into yet more unaffordable spending. I'd imagine in this case Putler is trying to play the same tactic back at the West.
Re: Star wars?
I'd imagine in this case Putler is trying to play the same tactic back at the West.
Which is liable to backfire quite spectacularly, since if we do then we'll produce working examples which they have to counter themselves or plan for us using against them and they are already horribly behind of military technology and can't manage to produce enough modern equipment to equip their army with and are forced to refurbish 1960's cold war gear.
Additionally this is a bit of an eye opener:-
Russia GDP: $1.7 Trillion
China GDP: $17.7 Trillion
= $19.4 Trillion (excluding North Korea and Iran; which have a combined GDP best summed up by the words "rounding error")
Australia GDP: $1.5 Trillion
Canada GDP: $1.9 Trillion
UK GDP: $3.1 Trillion
EU GDP: $19.3 Trillion
US GDP: $23.3 Trillion
= $49.1 Trillion
5% of our combined GDP (which for the UK would mean increasing our military spending to ~80% of the education budget which is hardly unaffordable) comes out as $2.4 trillion, which is a total of 12.3% of their total GDP.
So yeah, if they want another arms race then it's fine with me. I'm not sure that they can afford that quite as easily. And the R&D arms race around ended up throwing out the IT industry as a byproduct; who knows what'd come out this time around? All the R&D and manufacturing (and a refusal to outsource to the enemy) also would do our economy a world of good, while it would account for a large percentage of China's GDP summarily vanishing.
Re: Star wars?
I think it is safe to remove EU GDP from that since it is uncertain as to whether they are not actually all compromised by Russian money anyway.
Re: Star wars?
I think it is safe to remove EU GDP from that since it is uncertain as to whether they are not actually all compromised by Russian money anyway.
Try saying that in Poland or the Baltic States.
Even the Germans are learning. And traitors like Gerhard Schroeder are now being recognised as such. At least by a lot of people.
The EU is probably not capable of being united on defence - but that doesn't mean that stuff can't be achieved.
Re: Star wars?
You mean like the UK is? Remember that Brandon Lewis and his statement about 'they pay us because they admire us'. Feck me, if he and his cohorts are what the Russians admire then I'd say guys, no threat.
Re: Star wars?
You've overlooked the fact that a dollar will buy you a lot more stuff or people's time in Russia and the PRC. Maybe there isn't much of an imbalance.
Re: Star wars?
Jan D,
It's true that straight GDP doesn't tell you everything. When Russia invaded Ukraine they were paying conscript soldiers about $50 a month and I think contract soldiers got $400. I'm sure working in the arms industry was better paying, but still less than wages in the West. Although wages in both have had to rise massively since the war started - so that cost advantage has been seriously eroded. Then again, because Russia's economy has now become a lot less connected to the global economy, they're also able to print a bit of money and not suffer too serious consequences yet. Also in Russia's case they produce loads of oil and natural resources, so they don't have to pay for that with foreign currency.
However, Russia is forced to import things like chips and a lot of complex manufactured materials. Much of their shiniest defence kit is now reliant on electronics bought from abroad, and so they are subject to global costs. And are now partially shut out of those markets.
Meanwhile China do have the ability to produce a lot of their own military kit, but their wages are already higher than Russia's - and as their economy gets richer, their wage advantage is likely to continue to erode. But China is not blessed with the same amount of natural resources as Russia, and so has to pay global prices for it.
Also Russian and Chinese workers are less productive than Australian and US ones. Which is one reason why they're paid less. That doesn't mean they don't work as hard, just that their economies are less good at allocating resources - or don't have the capital and education to pair with those workers to make them more productive.
However the Ukraine war has shown that a lot of Russia's latest kit is less good than a lot of NATO's last generation of kit - with a small leavening of the some of the current shinies. I think China's modern kit is thought to be a bit better than the Russian stuff it's often developed from - but a lot of it hasn't been tested in battle. And China are behind Russia in areas like military jet engines and submarines. Let alone behind the Western powers.
If you're currently reading this for the nuclear engineering rather than the geopolitical horror, I strongly recommend the website "Beyond NERVA". The web design is a little bit timecube so I have no idea if the author is a crackpot, but it's fun reading anyway. https://beyondnerva.com/fission-power-systems/fission-power-plant-reactor-cores/ describes a bunch of nuclear reactors that have been flown in space, mostly by the USSR to power radar systems.