# Is there ANY means of defense against kinetic bombardment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 30, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921 "2016-12-30T20:29:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/21 "2016-12-31T21:24:49Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > … > It would have impact results about like a conventional MOAB dropped from a B-2. IOW pitiful compared to a modern nuclear warhead… Chopped a bit out. MOABs, GBU-43/B, were generally released from C-130 aircraft. Rolling the pallet/bomb out the ramp. “The bomb was designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC-130H Combat Talon II variants.” from wiki. The BLU-82 Daisy Cutters, predecessor, were dropped from C-130 aircraft as well during Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Desert Storm. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/22 "2016-12-31T21:34:18Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The issue with that approach is that it requires committing the act of war of destroying the satellite when its’ first deployed. > > It’d be the equivalent of going out and sinking somebody’s navy because at some future date that navy might be used to launch weapons at your country. > > To be sure, if you were about to start a shooting war with a country having orbital weapons, those would be real high on your list of stuff to destroy first. > > Which, like ICBMs, leads to crisis _in_stability, where the incentive is to use your weapons in a surprise attack \*before \*the enemy whacks them. And conversely to destroy your enemy’s weapons before hostilities start to preclude them being the first wave sent against you. > > Both of which motivations tends to start wars rather than deter them. I totally disagree that such satellites must be destroyed when they are first deployed. That makes no sense at all. SSBNs are more dangerous in every sense - there is no effective defense against their missiles, and they are incredibly difficult to find. If you logic held, every SSBN would be destroyed before its first patrol. Conversely, satellites are generally pretty easy to find, meaning they can be dealt with in the early stages of a war. Be that as it may, you’re raising a question of whether orbital weapons platforms are sound policy, not really whether there is a defense to them. That’s an issue that a country should deal with before deploying such weaponized satellites, and is not really a consideration for those trying to devise a defense to them if they are deployed by an adversary. Maybe you can address directly why, if country A has deployed a system and is closing in on war with country B, why country B would think that it is not in its best interest to defend itself by shooting down these satellites (if they have the capability to do so). ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/23 "2016-12-31T21:42:08Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > Chopped a bit out. MOABs, GBU-43/B, were generally released from C-130 aircraft. Rolling the pallet/bomb out the ramp. > “The bomb was designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC-130H Combat Talon II variants.” from wiki. > > The BLU-82 Daisy Cutters, predecessor, were dropped from C-130 aircraft as well during Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Desert Storm. Good catch. My reference to [GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast) MOAB is wrong. I was thinking of the current [GBU-57A/B MOP - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) MOP but used the wrong name for it. Almost the same idea, and the MOP is even heavier than the MOAB was. Though the MOP has less explosive. Making it more closely resemble the “rods from god” purely kinetic penetrator. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/24 "2016-12-31T22:13:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I totally disagree that such satellites must be destroyed when they are first deployed. That makes no sense at all. SSBNs are more dangerous in every sense - there is no effective defense against their missiles, and they are incredibly difficult to find. If you logic held, every SSBN would be destroyed before its first patrol. Conversely, satellites are generally pretty easy to find, meaning they can be dealt with in the early stages of a war. > > Be that as it may, you’re raising a question of whether orbital weapons platforms are sound policy, not really whether there is a defense to them. That’s an issue that a country should deal with before deploying such weaponized satellites, and is not really a consideration for those trying to devise a defense to them if they are deployed by an adversary. > > Maybe you can address directly why, if country A has deployed a system and is closing in on war with country B, why country B would think that it is not in its best interest to defend itself by shooting down these satellites (if they have the capability to do so). I suspect we’re mostly talking past one another. IOW, we mostly agree but are explaining different aspects of the issue from different starting points. I read your first comment as “Easy peasy; just shoot down the satellite.” My rejoinder was “OK. But how do you decide \*when \*to shoot it down?” Given, as you say, that satellites are predictable and fragile, they’re relatively easy to destroy and hard to replace. Given that the weapons they’d carry would be especially valuable as first strike weapons they’d be likely to be the opening salvo the enemy deploys against you. So the sweet spot for destroying them is the moment \*before \*they launch their payloads, after determining to your satisfaction that the enemy was indeed about to start the war by launching them. How does any country develop that level of confidence necessary to pre-empt? It’s be nice if their ambassador visited your foreign minister, then slapped him across the face with his leather gloves in hand, allowing the foreign minister to cry “This means War!!” and alert your armed forces. That’s not going to happen. Which leaves you, as the would-be defender having to start a pre-emptive war on nothing more than some level of intel. So the ideal response is at the other end of the timeline; to persuade your opponent that you won’t let him deploy in the first place. Or that if he does, you’ll drown him in an arms race of your own. One you credibly have the capacity to win. SSBNs are an interesting almost-parallel. When first invented, SLBMs lacked the accuracy to be counter-force first strike weapons. They necessarily were counter-value second-strike / revenge / deterrence weapons. Which is different from our putative rods from god system. They would be first-strike counter-force from the git-go. As SLBMs morphed into credible first strike systems we did pass through a period of tension that might well have led to pre-emptive war if hotter heads had prevailed. Instead we SALTed and STARTed our way to a world with much less capability on both sides to launch an SLBM-based first strike comprehensive defeat of the enemy. Late 80s reality was USN claimed to be able to destroy the vast majority of the Soviet SSBN fleet before it launched. While simultaneously claiming that substantially all its own SSBNs would launch unscathed. Which may or may not have been reckless hubris on their part. These are both examples of games where the way to win is not to play. My bottom-line: You say waiting until the rods are dropped is too late; you have to stop it before it drops the payload. I agree. But I go farther. The time to stop it (safely) is before the system is deployed. Waiting until it’s in orbit is already (mostly) too late. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2016, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/25 "2016-12-31T23:13:03Z")
We are probably talking past each other on some things. For example, it seems from your post that you think that the satellite with these weapons would launch shortly before or during a conflict. I disagree. They would most likely launch during a time of peace, and be operational anywhere from three to twenty years depending on the satellite. Just sitting up there, waiting to either be used to launch an attack or just die out on orbit. That’s why I think the idea that some country would eliminate it before the war doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/26 "2017-01-01T00:30:42Z")
You misunderstand me. No, I don’t say the satellites would be launched from the ground as an immediate prelude to war. As you say, they’d certainly be launched in a time of peace. “We’re just deploying another new weapons system as part of our strategic deterrence force”. So that indeed they’d just be up there, silently waiting, for decades if necessary before being used. What I \*am \*saying is the first way you know a war has started is you detect the rods being launched. That would be the very first overt act of any strategic war against you. So your goal of preventing the launch has failed before it begins. Had SSBNs been first strike weapons when they were first invented we might well have had a preemptive naval war right then and there. But they weren’t. As pure second-strike weapons SSBNs were perceived as contributing to crisis stability, not detracting from it. As such, both sides were comfortable with the other side deploying them. They contributed to the stable MAD environment. A proposed rods from god system would be enormously destabilizing. The opposition country(s) would work very hard to convince the other side not to finish the engineering, much less deploy it. The mere fact of deployment could arguably be an act of war. Hence the treaties to preclude doing that. Every sane government in the 1970s / 1980s agreed that this was not a good idea. When everybody, even mortal enemies, sees the light that ought to be a clue to us all. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/27 "2017-01-01T00:52:26Z")
Okay, I think we are clearing up the issues here, while not saying that we agree on everything - I still think we are still not seeing eye to eye on the issue of “how does a country defend against this weapon?” versus “what are the policy implications of this weapon?” Also, there are no treaties on conventional weapons in space. There is a treaty on prohibiting nuclear weapons in space. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/28 "2017-01-01T01:02:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I mean, nobody bothers trying to destroy the bombs after the leave the airplane. They just try to destroy the airplane before it drops the bombs. Actually it’s a plot point in one of Tom Clancy’s books (_Debt of Honour_, IIRC) that while the bomber is stealthed the bombs it drops are not. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/29 "2017-01-01T03:51:54Z")
Soooo, we can’t stop them after starting to fall; can’t really go preemptive without fail-safe intelligence; I say we just don’t compete - build a massive complex of cobalt bombs to end it all for everyone if attacked. What say you, Doctor? ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/30 "2017-01-01T21:22:11Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > Soooo, we can’t stop them after starting to fall; can’t really go preemptive without fail-safe intelligence; I say we just don’t compete - build a massive complex of cobalt bombs to end it all for everyone if attacked. What say you, Doctor? If by “cobalt” you mean “Cobalt-Thorium G”, then of course it vill verk. If you’re “throwing rocks” at a planet, then a few really large ones probably isn’t as interesting as a _lot_ of smaller ones. You get a “hot rain” situation. The atmosphere absorbs a lot of kinetic energy, heats up, kills off any life form capable of mounting resistance. And the more of these smaller rocks, the lot harder it is to defend against them. Rocks so large that they mostly survive intact to hit the surface are basically a waste. You can engineer the size and composition of the rocks so that you might get a really good effect like the Tunguska blast. Hmm, I wonder if that was just a test? But then you still have to deal with the big space station, the surprisingly well stocked nuclear submarine and the survivalists in a mine in Alaska separately. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2017, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921/31 "2017-01-02T04:58:46Z")
I’m not sure what kind of orbit or distance from the planet we’re talking about here. From further out in the solar system, well, ideally I’d keep a grid of asteroids of my own, with big honking engines on them, in medium earth orbit. Line one of them up for a deflection blow instead of a head-on hit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-means-of-defense-against-kinetic-bombardment/775921.md?page=1)