I was thinking more along the lines of “nuking from orbit” not specifically Von Braun’s armed space station proposal, but you’re right.
I am for the stars…
but sometimes I hit London.
Men Of Good Will, Ben Bova. But it was on the moon. Evey 28 days they had to be ready for the bullets. They needed every bit of computing power just to keep track of all them.
As for the OP, if you have interstellar ships, and landing craft, “nuking from orbit” is trivial. I suspect the Sulaco has nuclear tipped missiles with the range sufficient to hit any place on a planet. It’s a warship. That’s what it’s for.
I thought the statement originated as a response to movies like Starship Troopers, because why bother sending in infantry that can be killed when you can just drop hundreds of nukes on an enemy that can’t fight back agains spaceships? Two nations sharing the same planet doesn’t make as much sense, because MAD would still be in play.
Although at orbital velocities, kinetic energy weapons would be destructive enough for most purposes, even approaching smaller-scale nuclear weapons.
I think like you say, it’s more of a hyperbolic notion that a spaceship big enough to traverse the stars and deploy infantry, could just as easily bring much more destructive weaponry and use it with impunity on a planetbound population. So why use infantry?
Tom Lehrer put it best:
Movies like that, maybe. But the actual line is from Aliens, a decade before Starship Troopers.
I suspect that even if Sulaco had the technological capability of nuking from orbit (which it almost certainly did, being a starship), there were probably all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles to it, such that they’re reluctant to do so unless they had absolutely no other choice.
As pointed out ad nauseum in threads about it, the movie version of Starship Troopers was deliberately imbecilic because Verhoeven wanted to depict the Mobile Infantry as cannon fodder nearly as mindless as the Bugs they were fighting, dying for the glory of the Reich Terran Federation. Plus the fact that the Arachnids can settle planets and attack Earth via asteroid bombardment means that they do have space travel, it’s just not depicted much at all.
Aliens use of infantry makes sense, but Starship Poopheads only does if the idea of the Reich is to kill as much of their own surplus population as possible. And that the bugs are actually not a threat at all (unless you are stupid enough fight them hand to hand, that is.) I mean, the bugs’ offensive weapon is… they crap rocks that travel interstellar distances. Suuuuuure they do.
The very idea of elite infantry must be so pervasive that even Star Trek (In Enterprise) added ground troops. Why bother when you can phaser them from orbit? Kirk knew how to employ his weapons effectively.
Yeah, why are people focused on that? A modern thermonuclear warhead like a W87 only weighs a few hundred kilos with the reentry vehicle. I’d bet that you could mate that onto a deorbit/guidance vehicle in under 500 kg.
The more delta V it has, the faster you can get out of orbit, and the more quickly you can deliver the package. A couple hundred meters per second at a bare minimum, but that means spending a lot of time in the atmosphere burning off velocity. So don’t skimp here; 1500 m/s should be doable.
Starlink demonstrates that it’s perfectly feasible (and economic) to maintain a constellation of thousands of satellites of roughly this mass range. Every point on Earth within a certain latitude band is a target within a small number of minutes. Why wait half an hour for an ICBM? And the constellation has a high capacity and is resilient to local damage.
Downsides vs. a conventional ICBM fleet is that the peak capacity isn’t all that high–i.e., you can’t just launch all the warheads at once, and it takes time for them to reach the right spot in their orbits (particularly when you’ve depleted a given orbital plane). And, I suppose, end-of-lifing them is an issue, when the satellite platforms run out of propellant or otherwise. Perhaps one could design a slightly more gentle alternate reentry system so that the nuclear pit could be recovered at least.
Nah, no reluctance or bureaucracy at all in the movie, they had 7 cannisters of nerve gas in the APC that private Vasquez wanted to roll into the nest, the entire operation was commanded by a lieutenant, and corporal Hicks as the highest-ranking soldier in the chain of command who wasn’t unconscious just had to be convinced by Sigourney Weaver to nuke the site from orbit.
We’re talking about a civilization that has achieved faster-than-light travel and operates dropships capable of landing (and recovering!) combat-ready marines and their gear from orbit to the planet’s surface and back.
So I’m pretty sure dropping a nuke in roughly the same area on the planet’s surface would be trivially easy.
You can’t launch them all at once at the same point. But targets in nuclear war would be close to continent-size. If you’re in a nuclear war with the US or Russia, then you want to be hitting targets all over the US and Russia. So the fraction of your satellites in optimal launching position at any given time is going to be pretty close to the fraction of the area of your satellites’ service band that your target country takes up. Better than that, even, if you want to nuke all of your target country’s allies as well (which you probably would). And that’s just for the optimal, right-this-second launch: With the kind of delta-V you’re talking about, you’d have a decent margin for off-optimal launches, and if you wait for a time on order of an hour, a bunch more will rotate into position.
Biggest downside, I’d say, would be that your arsenal isn’t very well protected, surrounded by nothing but sky. It wouldn’t be too hard to Kessel the lot of them.
One reason orbital-based nukes were dismissed as impractical back in the 1960s was that not only did placing the nukes in orbit not confer any particular strategic advantage over surface-to-surface ICBMS, but there was no (or even negative) logistical advantage to boosting them to orbit when that had to be done with expendable rockets. Even mass launches with a heavy booster like the Saturn V would offer only slight advantage over just keeping the warheads on top of ICBMs in their silos until such time as they might be launched. Add in the maintenance/security issues you mention and it became non-viable.
The math however changes if you have an inexpensive reusable booster like Starship might be. In that case (ignoring all other practical issues) basing warheads in orbit becomes cheaper than the large number of ICBMs needed to boost the warheads to their targets.
ETA: the otherwise minor post-apocalyptic movie Def-Con 4 begins with a surprisingly realistic depiction of a nuclear-armed space station: A crew of three in a relatively small station consisting of a habitat module and a command/silo/ reentry module rotating dumbbell fashion to provide gravity.
I guess after they launch their counterweight, the gravity or lack thereof on their station would be the least of their worries…
The point of infantry is when you want to control a population or resources, you can’t just nuke everything. Note that even in Space Bug Attack, (i.e. Verhoeven Starship Troopers, VST), the bugs and humans are competing for habitable planets for colonies. Nuking the bugs from orbit will make colonizing that planet afterwards a bit… awkward.
First off, IIRC phaser tech was new in Enterprise, so there’s no expectation phasering from orbit would work reliably. Second, ground troops on military ships is an old notion. That’s what Marines are. They are useful for boarding parties and fending off boarding parties as well a deploying on planetary surfaces. OST just decided that that role would be integrated into ship personnel as “Security”.
Third, I vaguely recall OST episode with the Gorn, where it starts with a human colony under ground assault by the Gorn, and Kirk and the crew as a ground team fending off the attack but not having Enterprise phaser everyone from orbit.
Fourth, you are right that to some extent, military doctrine and tactics are structured and conceived more by the last war than the capabilities of new weapons. It can be difficult to see the ramifications of changing tech on practical use until put into service.
Star Trek was conceived and largely written by expectations set by Hornblower era exploration and military experience from WWII, Korea, and to some extent Viet Nam. Perceptions of what military confrontations can be like in the future might be different when written by the generation of Drone strikes.
Fifth, that’s what makes the line in Aliens so significant. The planet is habitable, and indeed being colonized. There are options short of wiping out recolonizing, but Ripley is contemplating the size of the infestation as well as the durability, adaptability, and sheer survivability of the Alien creatures. I think she would contemplate evacuating and turning the planet into a black hole of that were an option. Surrendering the whole planet to uninhabitability is a small price to pay to ensure elimination of the threat, in her opinion.
No, the nukes were included in the command/ reentry module, which actually makes sense if at the end of the mission during peacetime the nukes need to be returned to Earth for servicing and refurbishment.
So FOBS can only stay in orbit a short while before it either has to 1) release the nukes and hit someone, or 2) slowly reenter Earth’s atmosphere and burn up?
I’m guessing that, aside from space treaties and whatnot, the other issue is that a permanent orbital satellite-containing-nukes is that it would need something to periodically boost it back upwards to maintain orbit and not reenter atmosphere?
Could you build a stealth space station? I suspect that non-reflective stealth coating would lead to certain problems with overheating, but other than that, how plausible is the idea?
Considering that NASA is trying to(?) track anything in orbit bigger than a golf ball, I doubt it is possible to totally stealth something as large as a space station. Plus, the launch is visible, which gives a track to be watched.
Someone once mentioned that the thing with those modern stealth fighters is that they are like a cut jewel. They will reflect radar, but only in a few small directions - like a jewel where from far away, you only see it if the surface aligns perfectly to reflect to you off one of the facets. Most of the time, no reflection.
I suspect more the idea was from the peak of American dominance, when any potential global industrialized, technological rivals - Britain, France, Germany, maybe the USSR - were a decade or two behind in capability, and still crawling out of the rubble of WWII. (It’s a matter of debate to what extent Stalin’s ability to recreate the atomic bomb was a result of espionage rather than scientific capability. The USA at least answered for them the main question - yes, it can be made to work)
Today, when Iran, N. Korea, not to mention Japan, India, and several private companies around the globe can all launch assorted sizes of orbital satellites, it’s rather difficult to stay dominant. The USA and USSR quickly realized that nukes in orbit were a no-win escalation.
I agree with the assessment - Riply’s suggestion in Aliens essentially was “you never want to go back there, you never even want to land and see if the problem is over - just destroy everything, make the whole surface totally unsurvivable”. That seems consistent with her assessment of the threat.
You’d be better off just burning all of that fuel right from the start, to put it into a high enough orbit that it wouldn’t degrade at all on any relevant timescale. It’s doable, just usually not done because folks don’t usually mind satellites eventually coming down (by which point there are usually better replacement satellites anyway).