WI A militarized Cold War space race

What if there had never been any treaty to eliminate or restrict space-based weapons during the cold war? How much more would the US, Soviet Union, and possibly other powers have invested in space programs and related technologies if orbital space and beyond was considered an extension of military readiness on earth?
To make it even more "interesting", what if both sides declared that orbital space above their countries was an extension of their airspace and started working on technologies to shoot down any spacecraft, unmanned or manned, that orbited over them?
Would this make the outbreak of a full scale shooting war between the US and the USSR more likely?

Paul Spring said:

To make it even more "interesting", what if both sides declared that orbital space above their countries was an extension of their airspace and started working on technologies to shoot down any spacecraft, unmanned or manned, that orbited over them?

Click to expand...

I say that's unlikely. The space programs of both countries would suffer over something that doesn't really matter. In the age of MAD, orbital exclusion is a useless advantage. Both sides are already capable of turning each other's territory into radioactive glass.

Any other thoughts from anyone?

VoCSe said:

I say that's unlikely. The space programs of both countries would suffer over something that doesn't really matter. In the age of MAD, orbital exclusion is a useless advantage. Both sides are already capable of turning each other's territory into radioactive glass.

Click to expand...

Well, if ABM technology improves as a result and both sides develop space stations capable of dropping nukes (or simply very large solid masses, which would hit like small nukes and not leave radiation) onto their enemies, orbital exclusion could be useful.

Orbital exclusion strikes me as being kind of pointless because spacecraft move so quickly that they'd be in and out of somebody's space before they could respond. Don't forget that the space shuttle circles the Earth once every 90 mins.

MerryPrankster said:

Well, if ABM technology improves as a result and both sides develop space stations capable of dropping nukes (or simply very large solid masses, which would hit like small nukes and not leave radiation) onto their enemies, orbital exclusion could be useful.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't want a space station armed with nukes. Things in orbit are easy to destroy.

Mm, EM Pulse stations . . .

Generally, a country is granted the right to whatever territory it can practically defend. This is why the territorial seas were once 3 miles, (cannon to about 1900) then 12 (cannon in the age of dreadnoughts) and now 200 (guided missile destroyers.)

The claims of any country would have to stop at about 100 miles. Otherwise you are shooting down sats in geosynchronous orbit, which watch every country on one side of the globe. Additionally only one country really has the capability of shooting down any satellite and even the US would find it very difficult.

It would end up being a pretty hollow victory for any country enforcing it in any case. You'd get none of the benefits of weather, geodata, GPS etc and sats further out would still be able to see you just as well with only slightly stronger optics.

You might find this link useful, to give you some idea of what kind of projects the Soviets and the Americans might have pursued. Ditto for this one.

AMBOMB said:

You wouldn't want a space station armed with nukes. Things in orbit are easy to destroy.

Click to expand...

From the ground?

MerryPrankster said:

From the ground?

Click to expand...

Yes. Any sounding rocket can do so.

fhaessig said:

Yes. Any sounding rocket can do so.

Click to expand...

How accurate could unmanned rockets target something from the ground? And theoretical nuclear-armed battlestations could deploy countermeasures (chaff, decoys, ABMs), which would make it worth the risk to have them.

Hitting something in orbit is easy. It is a matter of mathematics. Predict the path, throw something into the orbital path & bang. The hard part is throwing enough to destroy your target but not so much that you clutter up the space in the area so you can't use it yourself.

A counter measue to that kind of attack is announcing a salvage launch plan. If your station is damaged to the point it may be lost you have an auto launch program or a Deadman circuit. Kill the station & it kills whatever it's aimed at.

If you manage to be the first to deploy a full space based offensive system, you own the Planet unless your enemy wants to commit suicide. Sort of a Super MAD. If you combine it with a good ABM system, you can even prevent the suicide.

What about the Moon? There was some concern during the '70s during and after the oil embargo over setting up solar panels on the Moon and converting the energy into microwaves to transmit back to Earth. It was meant to be a new way to gather energy, but the Soviets saw it as a potential 'death ray' and both sides agreed not to pursue the idea. Would this scenario extend to a miltarized Moon with American and Soviet bases?

If you have military bases on the Moon it is even worse than it is for powers without orbital platforms. Can't shoot down the $%#%#$ Moon.

All you need to do from the Moon is throw rocks. Heinlien did a story based on that exact weapon (well it didn't start as a weapon, but...)

CalBear said:

All you need to do from the Moon is throw rocks. Heinlien did a story based on that exact weapon (well it didn't start as a weapon, but...)

Click to expand...

Ah yes- mass drivers are oh so easily converted into weapons.

In my Anglo-Dutch Empire TL, the Empire halts a war with Russia by dropping small chunks of space debris on the Tsar's major military bases

Can someone quickly explain what massive advantage any of this technology grants in war over the traditional strategic nuclear weapons?

Aha we can nuke you from orbit! It.. probably isn't that much quicker than firing from the earths surface, would have to push through the earths atmosphere and encourages each side to treat falling space debris as a potential weapon and push the big red button, but we can do it!

Space stations on the moon? Okay.. you nuke us from the moon, we shall nuke.. all of your earthen territory. Aha, your only survivors are on some small lunar base and not a great threat to the post mass death carve up.

Again, throw rocks? Hmmm, Radar suggests that numerous objects seem to be about to hit all, or a significant number, of our strategic weapons. A coincidence surely?

Surely all this does is add one further link to the MAD principle. Even if you destroy our earthen facilities first, we can still strike back. (Also.. if an ABM system existed with suitable ability to knock out earth based weapons, shouldn't it also be able to deal with those orbit launched?)

Earling said:

Can someone quickly explain what massive advantage any of this technology grants in war over the traditional strategic nuclear weapons?

Aha we can nuke you from orbit! It.. probably isn't that much quicker than firing from the earths surface, would have to push through the earths atmosphere and encourages each side to treat falling space debris as a potential weapon and push the big red button, but we can do it!

Space stations on the moon? Okay.. you nuke us from the moon, we shall nuke.. all of your earthen territory. Aha, your only survivors are on some small lunar base and not a great threat to the post mass death carve up.

Again, throw rocks? Hmmm, Radar suggests that numerous objects seem to be about to hit all, or a significant number, of our strategic weapons. A coincidence surely?

Surely all this does is add one further link to the MAD principle. Even if you destroy our earthen facilities first, we can still strike back. (Also.. if an ABM system existed with suitable ability to knock out earth based weapons, shouldn't it also be able to deal with those orbit launched?)

Click to expand...

The advantage of space based weapons is in the area of warning time. The space based platform (or, even better, a web of individual MIRVed pods) avoids the launch signature, the climb into ballistic trajectory, and the majority of the transit stage. Your radar doesn't see the attack until it realized that the weapon isn't keeping it's predicted path. Warning drops to almost nothing. If you do it correctly, you don't even need to use an active weapon warhead (The U.S. has been rumored to be working on kinetic energy penetrator weapons. No bomb just a superfast ceramic/metal dart launched from orbit.) No warning = no retalitory strike. If only one side has space-based weapons, that side has all the options.

As far as "rocks" you can use something that weighs 1000-2000 pounds, provided to get some giddy-up behind it. Pretty hard to counter-act something that small falling from the sky (it's a big-ass sky), especially since rocks that size skip off or burn up in the atmosphere every day. Going to do a massive launch on warning for every meteorite? By the time you figure out it's a ceramic coated penetrator it will be moving at 10K MPH and only 200 - 300K feet away. Not even enough time to say your prayers.

Spaced based weapons are the greatest fear of anyone who's ever read up on them. The perfect tyrant's weapon. Untouchable, totally unstoppable, and lethal in the extreme without being radioactive.

Earling said:

Can someone quickly explain what massive advantage any of this technology grants in war over the traditional strategic nuclear weapons?

Aha we can nuke you from orbit! It.. probably isn't that much quicker than firing from the earths surface, would have to push through the earths atmosphere and encourages each side to treat falling space debris as a potential weapon and push the big red button, but we can do it!

Click to expand...

Well, by my understanding an attack from directly over an enemy nation would hit much faster than a traditional attack from ICBM; as an ICBM has to travel several thousand miles while a space-based missile only has to cover less than a hundred. I am far from an expert in the field, but I believe that it was feared that a space attack could offer the dreaded disabling first strike, in essence taking out enough of the enemy's weapons before any response that MAD is negated. Hopefully someone with more knowledge in the field can provide details/corrections as needed.

Chengar Qordath said:

Well, by my understanding an attack from directly over an enemy nation would hit much faster than a traditional attack from ICBM; as an ICBM has to travel several thousand miles while a space-based missile only has to cover less than a hundred. I am far from an expert in the field, but I believe that it was feared that a space attack could offer the dreaded disabling first strike, in essence taking out enough of the enemy's weapons before any response that MAD is negated. Hopefully someone with more knowledge in the field can provide details/corrections as needed.

Click to expand...

That's why we have ICBMs in submarines... and it's far cheaper to build one of those than a space station. I would laugh my ass of if one country did build space weapons in the 50s and gone bankrupt only never to use them after those subs are introduced.

As far as "rocks" you can use something that weighs 1000-2000 pounds, provided to get some giddy-up behind it. Pretty hard to counter-act something that small falling from the sky (it's a big-ass sky), especially since rocks that size skip off or burn up in the atmosphere every day. Going to do a massive launch on warning for every meteorite? By the time you figure out it's a ceramic coated penetrator it will be moving at 10K MPH and only 200 - 300K feet away. Not even enough time to say your prayers.

Click to expand...

And supposedly the people on Earth will be going "Hm, deadly meteors raining right on top of our cities all the same day? Just a natural coincidence." You would need more than 1 to destroy a country, and if it is, they most certainly won't think that it's a coincidence.

Missles on the Moon? If you have enough power to place them there and launch them back, then a country on Earth will be able to do the same. And what's the point? You spend billions of dollars putting all those missles there, all the enemy has to do is put a powerful enough sattelite to detect them. You'd think not, but a) you can look directly at the launch sites and b) you have a week to detect them en route.

In any event, all this is ASB. Both countries were on their last breath when the space race was over. USSR was almost bankrupt, the US was somewhat too, but most importantly, public support was not there. Here you are talking about even more effort. Both countries would have to cancel all conventional armies, navies and airforces in order to finance that. You know how much the Apollo cost.