BATTLEFIELD SPACE: ineffective?

[Steve Thompson]

It's possible that the United States, at least, will end up placing satellites in orbit with, at least, anti-ballistic missile capability. This would not violate that old space treaty (I think it only prohibits WMDs and Nukes, not intercepters) but how cost-effective would it end up being?

Several billions were spent on such a project (Star Wars) from about 1987-1993 and then it ended with the Cold War. But now, with North Korea and China having survived the USSR and Eastern European communism, such a capability would be of some use, I suppose. Missiles could be targeted and intercepted earlier, and possibly better, from space than from land or sea, while still in their boost phase and before the warheads are deployed - imagine, North Korea launching a nuclear missile and having it get blown up while still in their airspace!

But that's if you want to spend billions more on countering CONVENTIONAL missile threats. And, really, what country would launch a missile at the United States, knowing they could be intercepted by already-in-place land-based anti-missile missiles - not to mention the "R" word: retaliation! The answer is this: a government or military with nothing to loose, which hates the U.S. intensely, which maybe doesn't think the U.S. would retaliate. North Korea and Iran seem to be in control by some pretty insane people right now, but at least Iran can't hit the U.S.

All that aside....... The big issue is--- What's the greatest threat to the United States for the forseeable future? Conventional, or Unconventional i.e. Terrorism? How ironic would it be to spend billions on space-based intercepters to complement other intercepters ready for a missile attack by a hostile nation, only to have some right-wing Muslim fanatic set off a "suitcase nuke" in New York purchased from the Russian mob (or some scenario like that...) I mean, IS THERE a "defense" against such a terrorist attack? For them it's just a matter of actually acquiring a nuclear or "dirty" bomb type of device, then getting into a major city and having some suicidal nutcase(s) detonate it. Is there anything to do to keep that from happening?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

All that aside....... The big issue is--- What's the greatest threat to the United States for the forseeable future? Conventional, or Unconventional i.e. Terrorism?

What's the bigger threat? Cancer or AIDS? Under your logic, we should only fund research for a cure for one of them.

I'm rather of the opinion that we should counteract all possible threats, not just a select few.

Moreover, I'm not aware of any plan to put interceptor missiles into orbit. Lasers yes, but not missiles.

 

[History_Buff]

The thing about a ballistic missile shield, while admirable is right now simply impossible. The current batch of anti-missile systems being looked at (IIRC) are types that target the various re-entry vehicles as they travel through space, thereby sidestepping the difficult process of aiming a high power laser through the atmosphere.

But, such a system is eaily defeated. One of the many ways to do this, without attacking the sattelite at all, is simply to fill your launch missile full of Aluminium casings shaped like the MIRVs, with little space heaters (pun intented) inside. This gives the dummy Aluminium shells the same thermal signature as a MIRV. But with some 200 targets floating around in space, with only 5-10 as actual weapons, if would be impossible for the sattelite to take them all out in time.

Missiles are a different story however, as are sattelite systems tasked with hitting missiles while still in the launch phase, but neither of these are being looked at right now IIRC. Plus it probably wouldn't be too difficult (once you had a working warhead) to sneak your device aboard a cargo container, ship it by sea, and set it up somewhere conveniant. (See: The Sum Of All Fears the book)