Challenge: nuclear armed satellites

A camouflaged fobs system on spy-satellites:
Might be the perfect way for a first strike on c4 (more on the United States, because of their more high tech c4) done by EMP and some deep penetrating warheads. This could be done by camouflage reconaissance satellites suddenly releasing deep penetrating warheads in rentry vehicles on communications centres and by detonating high yield warheads in the upper athmosphere to create an emp effect. There would be nearly no early warning and suspiscion, beacuse these reconaissance satellites are flying quite low and would overfly naturally these c4 centers on a regular basis until they reveal their true nature.
Shortly after that, the bomber bases, missile fields and ssbn bases would be taken out by ss-18 and slbm.

Decapitation strike would be also feasible, but maybe not prefered for political reasons, because after the counterforce first strike there has the be someone left for blackmail on countervalue afterward.
 
A camouflaged fobs system on spy-satellites:
Might be the perfect way for a first strike on c4 (more on the United States, because of their more high tech c4) done by EMP and some deep penetrating warheads. This could be done by camouflage reconaissance satellites suddenly releasing deep penetrating warheads in rentry vehicles on communications centres and by detonating high yield warheads in the upper athmosphere to create an emp effect. There would be nearly no early warning and suspiscion, beacuse these reconaissance satellites are flying quite low and would overfly naturally these c4 centers on a regular basis until they reveal their true nature.
Shortly after that, the bomber bases, missile fields and ssbn bases would be taken out by ss-18 and slbm.

Decapitation strike would be also feasible, but maybe not prefered for political reasons, because after the counterforce first strike there has the be someone left for blackmail on countervalue afterward.

Bunkers are usually shielded against EMP attack, and you might as well use stealth bombers because you would have to carry enough fuel on board the satellites to deorbit them, Also, cameras on the ground would be able to detect the nukes (they would probably have to be shaped specially for reentry). Something that makes more sense would be something like a denial-of-space weapon to disable satellites in orbit over a wide area using EMP and small nukes.
 
The reason the Soviets never fully exploited the loophole regarding FOBS is because of the instability orbital weapons brought. Simply put, sattelite-based weapons shortened response times so much that it would result in a situation rather comparable to a hostage situation stand-off with a extremely stressed hostage taker... even the slightest movement could result in a bloodbath.

The Soviets figured that the time-advantages gained in orbital weapons wasn't worth pushing their foes into a state-of-mind which would make accidental nuclear war a very plausible scenario.
 
What about the nuclear orbital platforms seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The ones seen orbiting in the film are, in order of appearance, USAF, German Luftwaffe, French Armee de l'Aire, and Chinese PLAAF.
 
The answer, if you're just going to ignore the Outer Space Treaty is geosync orbital platforms. Coupled with high-acceleration missiles (like a space-based version of the Sprint) with city-buster warheads and radar-absorbent coating, and parked over the longitude of you enemy, you could actually get the time-to-target close to an ICBM (or even less, depending on the quality of the heat shield), but with potentially less warning. That would be something close to the orbital weapons in 2001.

Of course, such systems are massively more expensive than missile subs, for not much advantage. They are only really plausible in a Cold War situation where sub detection becomes so trivial as to force the development of orbital platforms.
 
"Bunkers are usually shielded against EMP attack, and you might as well use stealth bombers because you would have to carry enough fuel on board the satellites to deorbit them, Also, cameras on the ground would be able to detect the nukes (they would probably have to be shaped specially for reentry)."

Sure, bunkers and some millitary communications are hardened against EMP. The electromagnetic pulse would be used to wreak havoc on unhardened communication. The release of reentry vehicles with deep penetration warheads would do the job on hardened targets. I a not sure, how early before passing over the target, the warhead would have to be released, and how much fuel would be needed for de-orbit, but I guess it would shorten the response time to the extreme, espescially as a surprise strike from so-thought spy-sats.

This of course could also be done by SLBM's, espescially regarding the long coast lines of CONUS, but the USSR had real problems developing silent submarines.

Stealth bombers on the other hand, were very hard to devellop and very dependent on material sience and computer models, areas where the ussr stood behind in technology.

Also a stealth bomber is not an invisible plane, just harder to spot for radar. The ussr had the densest radar system ever built.

Decapitation by SLBM from the NATO was much harder to achieve, because the main communication centres of the were much more in the backland of the eurasian continent.

It is interesting, that nato in fact had a first strike decaptitation system, the Pershing 2. From its bases in europe, it would have had about 5-10 minutes flighttime into the main centres of the ussr. The soviets feared this system so much, that they developed an dead hand system for nuclear autorisation and put their ICBMs on rail wagons, so the nato would be unable to track them all for decapitation.
 
The answer, if you're just going to ignore the Outer Space Treaty is geosync orbital platforms. Coupled with high-acceleration missiles (like a space-based version of the Sprint) with city-buster warheads and radar-absorbent coating, and parked over the longitude of you enemy, you could actually get the time-to-target close to an ICBM (or even less, depending on the quality of the heat shield), but with potentially less warning. That would be something close to the orbital weapons in 2001.

I dont think so, because you cant fire a missile just "down" to its target from geosync orbit. This would of course have been a second strike platform, but no surprise attack system that I envsioned.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The reason the Soviets never fully exploited the loophole regarding FOBS is because of the instability orbital weapons brought. Simply put, sattelite-based weapons shortened response times so much that it would result in a situation rather comparable to a hostage situation stand-off with a extremely stressed hostage taker... even the slightest movement could result in a bloodbath.

The Soviets figured that the time-advantages gained in orbital weapons wasn't worth pushing their foes into a state-of-mind which would make accidental nuclear war a very plausible scenario.

How much does the orbital weapons shorten the response time?
 
How much does the orbital weapons shorten the response time?

Assuming these are pre-placed warheads, the time between 'launch' and detonation is 1 to 5 minutes depending on the details. Essentially, you have bypassed the boost and the majority of the terminal phase for an ICBM. In terms of reaction time? Virtually none under the current system. It would take something like 5 minutes just to inform the President. There are only two ways to realistically respond in time, one is to remove the human element, ie: automate the detection, decision, and firing mechanisms. For rather obvious reasons, this is dangerous.

The other is to watch for indications of an enemy first-strike and then try to pre-empt him. This is also problematic for reasons regarding human judgement.
 
hmmm.....so it is so much of a destabilization that war becomes even more likely? hmmm......so any realistic POD where they actually get deployed?
 
The problem with nuclear armed satellites is that everyone knows where they are, and thus can station several conventionally armed satellites near them. Also, in LEO you have to have a barrage of the things to ensure one is always over the enemy (at least, when the enemy is smallish, like Britain or France), or if they're in Geosynch Orbit you need to attach massive boosters to ensure arrival times of minutes rather than hours.
 
The problem with nuclear armed satellites is that everyone knows where they are, and thus can station several conventionally armed satellites near them. Also, in LEO you have to have a barrage of the things to ensure one is always over the enemy (at least, when the enemy is smallish, like Britain or France), or if they're in Geosynch Orbit you need to attach massive boosters to ensure arrival times of minutes rather than hours.

cue stealth satellites
 
Top