Space Warfare Technology
#1
Posted 20 July 2008 - 11:57
For more on the conference itself, search for 'I'm baaack' (with 3 'a's) in the General Discussion & Introductions forum, but for the purposes of this thread, it will suffice to know that us 'delegates' each represented a world nation and we debated UN resolutions, documents calling for action on real-world events and current issues, in councils and assemblies. In General Assembly on the last day, all 80-odd delegates came back from morning tea to find a BBC news report lying on our tables detailing a nuclear detonation in French Polynesia. The report said that the warhead had apparently been launched from an ostensibly peaceful United States-owned satellite as a result of a technical malfunction, thus violating arms limitation treaties and multiple international agreements on the peaceful use of outer space in addition to killing over 2000 people and devastating the large island of Hiva Oa in the Marquesas. I couldn't believe my eyes, and when I turned it over and read the resolution on the back I was greatly reassured that they'd just made it up after all.
Then they wheeled out a television and showed us an ostensibly streaming new report from our local ABC (the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that is, not ABC America) newsreader Peter Gee, complete with a radio report from their Pacific correspondent and map display for the event. You could feel the ripple of shock go round the room (it's important to note that the event was said to have occurred that morning and with it being a fully residential conference most of us weren't in a position to immediately phone relatives to find out whether others had heard of it or not). I slowly worked out the little inconsistencies in the story, just small things like the fact that it accidentally said the warhead came from a ballistic missile launched from a missile defence satellite, the way that all guided nuclear weapons have open-ocean coordinates targeted in to prevent exactly this sort of mishap, the way they need multi-level arming codes and all the associated authorisation in order for the warheads to actually become active, and the way everything was set up suspiciously well in order for us all to see it, and was pretty well decided (and desperately hoping) that it was in fact fake when they finally said so - but nonetheless I and almost everyone else there got one hell of a shock, and it made us realise the dangerous potential space weaponry holds.
Ahem, enough on the backstory (more than enough, as I imagine you'll probably agree), and on to the discussion. In my opinion space weaponry is the next logical step for the world's militaries and the second things get hairy in a warfare sort of way we'll see a fleet of new satellites being launched - and, just as likely, a fleet of old ones suddenly revealing some surprising new capabilities. In fact we've already seen orbital weaponry on a frankly frightening scale - just take a look at the Soviet Union's Polyus orbital weapons satellite.
So, the questions I put to you are these: What do you feel are the most likely military utilisations of space? And when (if at all) are we likely to see these coming into action? Will strong international opinion be enough in the end?
Quote
#2
Posted 20 July 2008 - 18:24
Clicking on the picture will bring you to the latest part of the stories.
The Terran Invasions: A New Threat Part 5 is now up!
MOF: Lost and Found Epilogue is now up!
Red Storm, TI-Prologue, TI-Chapter 1, MOF #1, MOF #2, MOF # 3, MOF # 4, MOF # 5, MOF # 6
#3
Posted 20 July 2008 - 19:52
#4
Posted 21 July 2008 - 04:40
Since we do not have the Gou'ald (yet), the Klendathu Colony (yet), and the Amarr races (yet) invading our terran soil, I honestly believe that the space-based military installations would be that of an anti-ballistic missile nature.
Of course, if we see a culture of bacteria in a Petri dish spelling out the words "Take us to your leader", then that would be the beginning of space-based warfare.
Edit: I do not wish having a "Lacerta Worm Plague" here.
Edited by The Wandering Jew, 21 July 2008 - 04:42.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#5
Posted 21 July 2008 - 09:37
Also I practically LOL-ed at "Energia". It's the exact hungarian version of Energy (and maybe the phonetic Russian)
Medve
#7
Posted 24 July 2008 - 05:35
#8
Posted 25 July 2008 - 09:43
bartpp7, on 24 Jul 2008, 6:35, said:
Yes, but what happens when that carrier is hit by space debris and hurtles into a major population zone? Anyway, nukes in space are completely banned and will be for some time.
48 65 6c 6c 6f 2c 20 77 6f 72 6c 64 21
#9
Posted 25 July 2008 - 18:28
Scopejim, on 20 Jul 2008, 15:52, said:
Same. What would really be the point of space superiority fighters anyway, there would be weapons to take out satellites from the ground anyway.
Quote
The nuclear weapons obviously wouldn't be armed. Plus the carrier would probably burn up, if not, the debris would probably be destroyed by a missile or sth.
#10
Posted 27 July 2008 - 01:46
Anyway, my apologies for the sidetrack. Yes, weapons 'buses' for extremely rapid delivery of nuclear or conventional ordnance onto any point around the globe are the most likely direct military-oriented weapons that I think we'd see. It's basically undetectable; there's no launch plume to be picked up on infra-red, just a small black 3-metre long cone travelling at hypersonic speeds, with just a tiny few flickers of positioning rockets, and you'd cut the time it took for a warhead to hit in half or better, so certainly this sort of surprise delivery capacity would be extremely attractive. And then of course you'd have the anti-satellite vehicles, of which there are already plenty and many more in development, and the anti-anti-satellite (Polyus et al) and so on...
Quote
#11
Posted 27 July 2008 - 02:08
Quote
Learn something new everyday I live in Canada, wonder why they never taught us this :o
#12
Posted 27 July 2008 - 04:31
Nuclear detonations in the atmopshere causes EMP, so the SALT II treaty or something like that...plus it wouldn't be feasible to shoot nukes at satellites, does it? Using Kinetic Kill Vehicles are better...
#13
Posted 27 July 2008 - 05:14
Edited by CommanderJB, 27 July 2008 - 05:16.
Quote
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users