Satellite-borne EMP weapons

[HMS_Irruncible]

@billfish678

IMO a nuke in a sat for an EMP strike most likely does NOT make a good first strike weapon (or at least not much better than land launched missles). But it does IMO make for at least a decent backup/fuckyouto weapon.

In the nuclear war scenarios I’m familiar with, the release of an EMP weapon is actually the first thing that happens. It’s intended to disable command and control as well as neutralize the electronics of any defensive weapons like ABM’s. It would be a strategic advantage to have these deployed in orbits where they pass over the target area every hour or so. It would give tremendous advantage in a first strike situation or even a launch on warning situation. The only problem would be whether you could maintain an orbiting arsenal indefinitely, which is the question I’m exploring here.

[billfish678]

@Cosmic Relief

The only problem would be whether you could maintain an orbiting arsenal indefinitely, which is the question I’m exploring here.

Thats a good question.

If its actually good as first strike weapon, it certainly seems a few here and there would be good for backup weapons.

[rbroome]

@Cosmic Relief

I’m wondering what is the feasibility of fielding effective EMP weapons disguised as satellites and the probability that such weapons are already in orbit.

From my readings, I gather that the optimal altitude of an EMP burst is low earth orbit, where the US, Russia, and other countries routinely operate satellites. It seems logical to me that if the best height for EMP deployment is one that is also well-established for legitimate use, then it is virtually assured that such weapons are already up there. (Let’s set aside the fact that the Partial Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear weapons in space, unless there’s a good reason to believe that such a violation would be trivial to detect.)

So what’s wrong with my theory? Is there any reason we can rest comfortably in the knowledge that we don’t have nuclear weapons constantly whizzing over our heads?

Of more concern than an EMP strike on a nuclear-armed nation, something that would likely be considered an act of war, is for a rogue state to poison low earth orbit with radioactive material. If a nuclear bomb goes off a few hundred miles above, say the Pacific, no one on the ground would be harmed-but many of the LEO satellites would be disrupted or destroyed. Since this is exactly what the US did back in 1962 (cite: Starfish Prime - Wikipedia ), I doubt anyone would get nuked in return. However, many reconnaisse, communications, and navigation satellites would be put at risk. Certainly many critical functions would be disrupted for weeks or longer. Today’s satellites are designed to withstand a lot of radiation, but it there would be a significant risk to many national assets. Most would survive, but if a rogue country wanted to cause a lot of trouble with little immediate risk, just testing one of their nucs in low earth orbit would cause all sorts of problems. In fact, the cost of such an event is considered so high that some countries are conducting studies to see how the radiation could be swept up using orbiting satellites and strong magnetic fields. It wouldn’t prevent the damage, but it might make space safe for satellites more quickly.

[HorseloverFat]

I think the larger issue here is “why havent we militarized spacee with nukes?”

The world leader who signs off on this will begin the militarization of space, which could destabilize the world and lead to a WWIII-type scenario via preemptive strikes. Perhaps Im being too dramatic. You would at least have world-wide condemnation and an arms race. Probably a development of anti-satellite weapons that would lead to a junk filled atmosphere.

Thankfully, the US never really moved on Star Wars and the Russians werent able to launch Polyus.

On top of it, heaven forbid, this thing blows up on the pad or explodes in the sky. A couple hundred pounds of uranium raining down on your probably isnt too good for the environment.

[HorseloverFat]

Also, Im skeptical of EMP weapons being able to make a strategic difference in a nuclear war scenario. You cant hit all launch sites or submarines and hardened systems would be immune to it. You’d just be starting a nuclear war in an especially silly way.

[Magiver]

@HorseloverFat

Also, Im skeptical of EMP weapons being able to make a strategic difference in a nuclear war scenario. You cant hit all launch sites or submarines and hardened systems would be immune to it. You’d just be starting a nuclear war in an especially silly way.

But if you launch it from a boat off shore and destroy the boat it’s hard to trace. It’s not like you cant erase all traces of a boat’s port of origin. the economic damage would be measured in numbers never uttered in conversations regarding national debt.

[billfish678]

@HorseloverFat

On top of it, heaven forbid, this thing blows up on the pad or explodes in the sky. A couple hundred pounds of uranium raining down on your probably isnt too good for the environment.

Given that thousand of pounds of uranium and plutonium were blasted in the atmosphere during hundreds of above ground nuclear tests its not as bad you imply either.

[HorseloverFat]

Im not talking about it hitting critical mass and exploding, but the materials atomizing in the atmosphere in a launch accident. Theres a difference between a nuclear explosion and a lot of raw uranium melting and being atomized in the atmosphere. You dont want this stuff making a reentry.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@HorseloverFat

Also, Im skeptical of EMP weapons being able to make a strategic difference in a nuclear war scenario. You cant hit all launch sites or submarines and hardened systems would be immune to it. You’d just be starting a nuclear war in an especially silly way.

An EMP burst that destroys most of the electronic communications systems in the continental US is not exactly a useless exercise if you can bring it off quickly. Far better than launching an ICBM which effectively says “you’ve got 30 minutes to kiss your ass goodbye”, giving plenty of warning to launch a full coordinated retaliatory strike.

[billfish678]

@HorseloverFat

Im not talking about it hitting critical mass and exploding, but the materials atomizing in the atmosphere in a launch accident. Theres a difference between a nuclear explosion and a lot of raw uranium melting and being atomized in the atmosphere. You dont want this stuff making a reentry.

Bahh…

A nuke set off does NOT “burn” up all the radioactive material t hat was in it. It also creates a buttload of other even nastier radioactive material that did not exist before the explosion.

[Leo_Bloom]

For those interested (like us) I recommend the following search page on the technology and strategic options (mostly the latter) of EMP, from GlobalSecurity.org. You come up with many many hits.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/?pr=default&order=r&query=emp&submit=SEARCH