5 ms·
Starlink as a means to win at nuclear war
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throw9474 2y agoIn support of this, a bunch of SpaceX-ers who worked on Starshield joined a startup that is building hypersonic warheads "at massive scale" (according to their website: https://www.castelion.com/team https://www.castelion.com/team ) These would be ideal as interceptors staged in orbit onboard Starlink/Starshield satellites.
- mlindner 2y agoPeople leave companies to go found other companies all the type. Just look at: https://www.alumnifounders.com/ https://www.alumnifounders.com/ Calling this "connected to Starshield" is pretty nonsense.
- forgot-im-old 2y agoto be fair it is weird that Castelion is all Starshield guys and Mike Griffin and his SDI deputy Lisa Porter are advisors.
- JohnMakin 2y agoSo what happens when you intercept and blow up an ICBM in the atmosphere? Not good things, I think.
- sargun 2y agoDepends on where it blows up, but if you hit it at its apogee, a lot of it will burn up in the atmophere.
- phkahler 2y ago>> if you hit it at its apogee, a lot of it will burn up in the atmophere. Having several pounds of plutonium burn up in the atmosphere just means it will be spread over a very wide area which is much worse than a chunk of it falling somewhere.
- 8372049 2y agoPu-239 is not particularly dangerous, however. It can cause cancer if inhaled in sufficient quantities — which doesn't need much, but is unlikely if it's scattered in the atmosphere. U-235 is basically harmless.
- CapitalistCartr 2y agoIf it's in the boost phase, it's over the enemy's country. If it's in reentry, it's only the RV (Reentry Vehicle). So some kg of Uranium or Plutonium gets scattered about, but that's it. Much better than vaporizing half a city.
- Retric 2y agoLight might in theory reach an ICBM in boost, but anything you launch is going to need to go through its own acceleration phase to possibly hit the ICBM. Further your ignoring submarines and early proximity detonation on the nukes. The most likely result of building such a system is an early nuclear EMP clearing orbit before the nukes get through anyway.
- throw9474 2y agoThe NAS study seems to think kinetic interceptors can reach the booster in minutes but yes it requires a kick stage for the delta V.
- Retric 2y agoThat seems optimistic in any sort of realistic scenario. The everything works perfectly and there’s one ICBM and nobody modifies anything as we start launching all this stuff into orbit, then maybe. How many satellites do you need to reach that kind of coverage? And how many interceptors per satellite to hit everything from one or more nuclear subs launching from the same location near a major city. How long does it take you to react without risking false positives making the system useless etc. The problem just gets ugly fast.
- forgot-im-old 2y agoThat study said 1600 satellites are needed in a Delta Walker configuration (same as Starlink, but Starlink has more satellites already). The number of interceptors per satellite was unclear but this USAF captain said "composite rocket motor and micro-missile system capable of fielding a rocket pod of 100 interceptors at a cost of approximately $60,000 per micro-missile" https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/2673038/cots-and-space-based-missile-defense/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Di...
- Hayvok 2y agoIf you mean the subsequent detonation of an ICBM in the atmosphere, I think we are in uncharted waters there. The expert discussions of what effect the atmosphere-EMP would be is fascinating/horrifying to read.
- 8372049 2y agoAn intercepted warhead would highly likely not explode.
- throwup238 2y agoI mean... It's better than the ICBM warhead detonating. Really any of the nuclear material will just disperse into the atmosphere relatively harmlessly, especially if it's somewhere over an ocean. Plutonium in seawater measures in the parts per billion anyway.
- hollerith 2y agoThe adverse effects are trivial compared to the other possible effects of an ICBM launch.
- Cody-99 2y agoThe plutonium, uranium, and other high explosives fall back to earth. Pretty tame compared to what happens if you fail to intercept!
- temporalparts 2y agoNothing notably bad happens. Nuclear explosions are highly sensitive and engineered events. If you destroy the ignition mechanism, then it will become a dud. FWIW, there has been a number of nuclear explosion tests in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
- pajko 2y agoThe first few ICBMs are expected to be detonated in the atmosphere to cause an EMP wave to kill the communication, including nearby satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
- georgeg23 2y agoStudies I've seen are not so clear that an EMP would kill many satellites. They would raise radiation levels 10x over normal for few months, but most Starlink satellites would be fine (as seen in the last solar CME event).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- verdverm 2y agoThe US tested a nuke in space, dubbed Starfish Prime It took out 3 satellites initially (there were very few at the time) > In the months that followed, these man-made radiation belts eventually caused six or more satellites to fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects
- 8372049 2y agoPu-239 and U-235, the most common elements in nukes, are not very radioactive. Both alpha decay, meaning they're only really dangerous if inhaled as dust (or if they fission, obviously). Pu-239 has a half-life of around 24k years iirc, while U-235 is over 700 million years.
- hollerith 2y ago>either side shortens the time to launch nukes (by pre-launching / staging them in orbit or otherwise). Assuming he means, "shorten the time to deliver the nuke," I'm guessing he is mistaken here: having the nuke in orbit lengthens the time needed to deliver the nuke, not shorten it.
- throw9474 2y agoAccording to a National Academy of Sciences study, the intercept can happen within a couple minutes if the satellite deploying the interceptor is over the enemy territory launching the ICBM.. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13189/making-sense-of-ballistic-missile-defense-an-assessment-of-concepts https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13189/making-sense... (Sorry you have to login as guest to download the PDF) This compares to ~20-30min for existing ICBMs and their ground based interceptors
- hollerith 2y agoThe sentence I am criticizing is not about interception of ICBMs, so your link is not relevant. In particular, when the goal is to intercept an ICBM, the enemy helpfully raises the target to be (briefly) at the same altitude as the satellite. (An ICBM's max altitude is much higher than low-earth orbit.) If the goal is for a satellite to attack a city, the enemy does not helpfully raise the city to orbital altitudes.
- throw9474 2y agoI think the idea is in an arms race, if you can't launch ICBM nukes anymore (because of Musk's orbital interceptors) then you have to pre-launch nukes into orbit. THOSE nukes can then strike faster than ICBMs (just like interceptors can).
- hollerith 2y agoI understood the we were talking about "pre-launching" nukes into orbit. I also understand that those nukes regularly get deliciously close to their targets (100 miles or so) (delicious from the point of view of the attacker). I stand by my assertion however: to be explicit, for the same energy budget, it is quicker to hit a target from the ground half-way around the world from the target than it is to hit the target from orbit even if the satellite is directly above the target. The exception to that is laser weapons because a laser beam has no momentum whereas all the "strategic" nukes in the US arsenal weigh at least 200 lb, which is a lot of momentum when moving at orbital speed. (Also, it is vastly cheaper to maintain infrastructure on the ground than in orbit.)
- rdevsrex 2y agoCan you actually "win" a nuclear war? I thought we all understood that as foolish. Yet presently the governments of the West think such a thing is possible, otherwise they would not be poking the bear like they are.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- temporalparts 2y agoYes, by making sure they don't hit back. The United States won a nuclear war against Japan in WW2. In theory, it's possible to intercept all the missiles from an enemy, see Iran's attack on Israel recently.
- xboxnolifes 2y agoThe US was the only one with functioning nukes. That short period was not a nuclear war.
- 8372049 2y agoIf your nukes are intercepted before any of them can hit their targets, do they count as functioning nukes?
- jacooper 2y agoIran notified the U.S. About the attack in advance.
- throw9474 2y agoI read somewhere this week that China removed their charter clause that "nuclear is a war that cannot be won" as a response to the U.S. potentially having capability to intercept / block their retaliatory strike.
- jonwachob91 2y agoWhat bear are western governments poking? And what have they done that implies those western governments think they can 'win' a nuclear war?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zug_zug 2y ago> Others believe -- mainly on the political -- that Brilliant Pebbles is a classic fallacy that attracts those who believe there is a technological solution to everything without understanding the value of diplomacy and the fundamental interdependence of humanity. It is thought unlikely to be reliable and will inevitably lead to an arms race where either side shortens the time to launch nukes (by pre-launching / staging them in orbit or otherwise). Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. Several countries have enough nukes to kill the whole population of earth multiple times over. Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death. The question for this type of system isn't "Could I picture any scenario where it works?" but rather "Can I picture any scenario where it doesn't?"
- bloopernova 2y agoI was interested in the claim that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe ourselves out. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-enough-nuclear-weapons-to-wipe-out-all-of-humanity https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-... I guess it depends on how you want to wipe out humanity. Nuclear winter or ecosystem disruption might do it, but explosions and radiation probably won't.
- TMWNN 2y ago>Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. (See my full comment elsewhere.) >Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death. No such alternative delivery method is 100% guaranteed to get through to the target as ICBMs were (until recently). There is always the risk that a ship carrying nukes is intercepted, that a weapon smuggled into the enemy's territory is detected, that counterintelligence will identify agents before they can act, etc. In a MAD scenario, nuclear weapons have to be 100% effective, barring the odd technical failure. Otherwise the enemy will respond in kind.
- Diederich 2y agoThis is obvious but I don't see it discussed or mentioned that often, so far. Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering any kind of cargo has huge and complex implications. Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across oceans was a big deal. Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across continents by rail/road was a big deal. Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo by air was a big deal. "Big deal" here means all kinds of things, but let's talk about war. Every one of the above mentioned steps caused radical changes in how wars were fought. What have we seen over the past few years, even prior to 2022, in terms of drones? Massively decreasing the cost of precisely delivering small explosives over short ranges, with drones in this case, has been a game changer. Even without a fully functional and reusable Starship system, SpaceX has greatly decreased the cost, cadence and reliability of delivering cargo into space. I understand the price they charge for individual launches is only 'somewhat' below the competition. That incremental but rather sudden decrease has already opened up a lot of doors. A fully reusable Starship system drops that cost by at least another order of magnitude. We are on the cusp of another revolution in warfare, and it's happening far, far more quickly than any of the other previous revolutions. Imagine hundreds of thousands of smart kinetic munitions in many LEO orbital inclinations. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment a 20kg tungsten kinetic munition in LEO would deliver about 11 tons of TNT to the ground. Each SpaceX fully reusable launch to LEO could deliver about 2,000 of these. I didn't look it up, but I believe SpaceX has done about 150 Starlink launches so far. If each of these had delivered 2,000 kinetic munitions, there would already be 300,000 up there. As far as I know, there's absolutely no defense against this kind of munition. In LEO they're moving at about 8km/s, and just before sea level impact they're moving around 3.5km/s. At best there could be a few minutes of warning. Any entity that controls such a constellation would have what is effectively absolute and permanent air supremacy while risking no 'friendly' human life. As far as command/control/tracking/sensing? Very low $/kg to LEO fixes that too. See Starlink and Star Shield, right now. Nobody can predict how this will go, except that it will definitely 'go' in unexpected directions.
- throw9474 2y agoAgree.. and no coincidence we're in this situation. The funding, key advisors, and the Elon-directed designs at SpaceX have always been very SDI and military aligned. Mars is a great way to inspire engineers that would otherwise not work at defense companies.
- eagerpace 2y agoWouldn't "large, low-earth orbit constellation" be a less hysterical title?
- forgot-im-old 2y agoHas anyone publicly confronted/asked Elon about Strategic Defense Initiative? I can't find him _ever_ touching the subject, which is strange given it's huge significance.
- johnea 2y ago"Win", at nuclear war? Just when I thought the modern disconenct from physical reality couldn't get any worse...
- mlindner 2y agoLet me repost what I posted yesterday the last time this was posted. Everyone should know that the original source of this is a random person from reddit. It's not backed up by facts of any kind so it's surprising that it's gotten so much attention. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40509016#40518795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40509016#40518795 > I've very recently seen numerous posts starting to show up on both reddit and various websites as well as anonymous wikipedia editors pushing this conspiracy theory. They all repeat the same thing. They'll claim Griffin as basically a founder of SpaceX (who in reality had almost no involvement with starting SpaceX) and they'll claim Griffin basically "gave" SpaceX its first government contracts even though NASA administrators have almost no sway over where contracts go (that'd be illegal). They'll also claim other things like that Starlink is somehow developing weapons to be put in orbit to reproduce SDI.
- kkfx 2y agoSorry but no: there is no way to win a nuclear war. Nuclear wars as a concept exists with a simple patter: if some attacker is strong enough to overpower me I'll commit suicide bringing with me the rest of the humanity. Nukes are not attack weapons but last-resort killers.