My idea behind a space station is that it can have nuclear weapons and act as a Sword of Damocles for the entire world.
An Examination of Extra-Universal Systems of Government
- Thread starter Ephraim Ben Raphael
- Start date
- Status
My idea behind a space station is that it can have nuclear weapons and act as a Sword of Damocles for the entire world.
TheHolyInquisition
Banned
Eh. Uranium hasn't been identified in asteroids yet, so you'd have to loft payloads to the station, and at that point it's only as good as a ICBM or FOBS, with a lot more infrastructure cost.
Now, you can say that uranium is present, enough to make nuclear weapons in orbit. But then you have to figure what implications that has with the rest of the world.
How about a space elevator connecting an island where most Nexans live to a space station where the ICBMs are, which allows getting nukes into orbit more easily? The space station usually orbits independently to get global targeting coverage, but regularly hooks up to the elevator to restock. This is obviously pretty advanced but then again WW3 could happen fairly far in the future.
Oh, my idea was that they took the remaining nuclear arsenals left over from WWIII, not that they are building their own.
Oh, good idea, I hadn't thought of that but it really makes sense.
TheHolyInquisition
Banned
Ah. So they're taking all the nukes into space, so they can't be stolen, and using them as a threat against anyone who tries to rearm.
This can't go wrong.
Skallagrim
Banned
It has a sort of coolness to it. "And now, children, you are going to stop fighting. You will each sit in your corner, and you'll be quiet and behaved." That attitude is ruthless, but in the context, it can be understood, and even defended.
Imagine it. Terrible global warfare, and then one organisation takes control of all the nukes, puts them on dozens of Damocles space stations, and promises that if anyone ever invades the neigbours again, the offender gets nuked back into the stone age. Peace, love and understanding... or else. It would even work, probably. Until someone unpleasant gains control of the organisation that has all this immense power. Or until the world decides it would prefer to be free from that "Big Brother". That last scenario has the most potential for interesting ethical considerations. Is it right to keep the peace by force? Or must the peoples be left free to decide their own fate, even if it may well mean a return to the old wars? Is it even acceptable to use nuclear annihilation as a pressure tool? After all, it may stop 99% of all conflicts, but what about that one mad warlord? Can it be 'right' to drop nukes on his people because he is a cruel lunatic?
...is this organisation a force for good, or is it automatically an evil thing, despite its best intentions?
(To be honest, bringing this back to the idea of Lex Luthor: I've always been a big fan of the stories that explored him as a more complex character than just a cardboard villain. In fact, I imagine Lex Luthor would be opposed to this kind of thing. His whole argument against Superman - in the best stories - is that Superman is basically a god, beyond all control, who is inherently dangerous to humans. To Lex Luthor, Superman must be destoyed so mankind can be free and safe from his boundless powers. In this analogy, the nukes in space are Superman, and Lex Luthor is the defender of national self-determination who wants those nukes plunged into the sun or something. With the implication that nationalism has its own evils, and that Lex Luthor may secretly be motivated by less noble motives, such as extreme nationalism...)
The Nexus system might be used to destroy some rogue state that makes North Korea-esque threats, and that pushes the rest of the world to reject it. Of course, they can't do much of anything, except starve the Nexus of resources. This leads the Nexus down the path to becoming its own society, motivated by self-preservation and not global defense first and foremost. It may even begin trading with the sort of rogue regimes it was built to destroy, if only because said regimes are willing to supply it with essential resources in exchange for the Nexus looking the other way.
I came to realize that after making my post. Of course, Lex doesn't strike me as the sort of guy who'd abandon control over the entire world's nuclear arsenal as a matter of principle. He struck me as the sort of guy who opposes Superman fundamentally because he thinks he should be the one in charge.
Skallagrim
Banned
Very true. The way I see it, Lex Luthor thinks Superman is a dangerous foe because of his unchecked power, and he can't see that Superman is actually a noble and trustworthy person because he can't imagine that anyone with that power wouldn't abuse it. Which shows that, even though he'd never admit it (and may not even consciously know it), he would abuse that power if he ever got it.
I wonder what kind of war this scenario's WWIII like? Is it based sometime in the past like during the Cold War or in the future? I'm mighty curious.
To have the tech level we're talking about it would have to take place in a future, but it doesn't have to be our future necessarily. If it was a future where the eastern bloc was still around, for example, the Nexus having to walk a balancing act between capitalist and socialist interests might be more interesting than two or more blocs of opposed capitalist nations.
EDIT: Trying to make a flag with my limited skills. I'm thinking a shield inset with a sword of damocles above a blue half-circle representing earth.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
That was an inspiration, but I thought about how the concept could be refined so as to not be a blatant post facto rationalization of nationalist hegemony, but more sincere.
I'm pretty sure the A4 thinks that they're not just an extension of American realpolitik, but otherwise good explanation.
- Status