Space has all sorts of interesting military applications. You can spy on people from orbit with spy satellites, use satellites to communicate, or built space vehicles to take out the former two. However, what I'm after is some real 'weaponising' of LEO and beyond: nukes in orbit, space lasers, orbital troop transport, et cetera. Now, my question is if these kinds of applications were economically and/or physically feasible in the twentieth century. Could the Space Race have been an arms race? If not, why not? I'm afraid this matter will have no greater purpose than sating my own curiosity, but hey, a fun space thread is fun (by definition)!
Could Outer Space have been weaponised in the 20th century?
- Thread starter TheInnerMoon
- Start date
Well I am aware that the possibility exists, but I was wondering if it's economically viable as well. After all, no one put nukes in orbit in the actual Space Race. Perhaps they're easier to track and take down than those in silos? Maybe they're harder to aim? These are the sorts of questions I am looking to answer.
There is some utility to atomic weapons in orbit, for very rapid first-strikes, and, early on, to evade early warning radars. Unfortunately (for this question, not for us!) the Eisenhower Administration's interest in space weaponry was essentially zero--their interests were limited to spy satellites, which are better served if space is generally demilitarized.
I suspect you'd need to have someone else in the White House to get real space militarization. A useful POD would be the early development of an ICBM in the U.S.--the Atlas program's predecessor, Mx-774B, was cancelled in 1947 in favor of cruise missiles. But if it weren't, the U.S. could have had an ICBM with decent orbital payload in 1955 or 1956.
I suspect you'd need to have someone else in the White House to get real space militarization. A useful POD would be the early development of an ICBM in the U.S.--the Atlas program's predecessor, Mx-774B, was cancelled in 1947 in favor of cruise missiles. But if it weren't, the U.S. could have had an ICBM with decent orbital payload in 1955 or 1956.
Isn't this technically OTL? Polyus carried a megawatt carbon dioxide laser for destroying SDI satellites, and the only reason it never went into orbit is because it was destroyed mid-launch because of a technical fault. Sure, it's ion cannon or rod from god platform, but it's a start 
I know I'm being pedantic, but I was looking for anything but satellite killers. Sure, at some point the line between orbital weapon for orbital use and 'true' orbital weapon blurs, like one that blows up manned craft. Were there plans for a Polyus to blow up the space shuttle itself? That could be scary.Isn't this technically OTL? Polyus carried a megawatt carbon dioxide laser for destroying SDI satellites, and the only reason it never went into orbit is because it was destroyed mid-launch because of a technical fault. Sure, it's ion cannon or rod from god platform, but it's a start
So it went wrong at the start, eh? Do you happen to know why the Soviets didn't develop orbital nukes? I've heard of at least one space station of them that had artillery attached, is that correct?
That's an interesting PoD. This site can always use more space AH.
They actually did develop orbital nuclear weapons--or rather, a super-ICBM that was to be fired south and go into orbit before striking the U.S. However, by the time it was ready, the USSR signed the Outer Space Treaty that prohibited stationing WMDs in orbit, and the U.S. developed early warning satellites that could detect a launch, making it obsolete. Fractional orbital bombardment system, they called it.
Would this PoD also help?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...space-race-starting-six-years-earlier.398685/
Starting the space race a bit earlier and making people a little paranoid earlier could help with weaponization.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...space-race-starting-six-years-earlier.398685/
Starting the space race a bit earlier and making people a little paranoid earlier could help with weaponization.
Again, very interesting. However, was the Outer Space Treaty a proper cause for the lack of orbital nuclear weapons, or was it more an acknowledgement of a Cold War standoff, where early warning systems would counter such attempts at orbital trickery? It seems hardly enforceable otherwise.
The USSR also experimented with 23mm machine cannon in space.Isn't this technically OTL? Polyus carried a megawatt carbon dioxide laser for destroying SDI satellites, and the only reason it never went into orbit is because it was destroyed mid-launch because of a technical fault. Sure, it's ion cannon or rod from god platform, but it's a start
There were several nuclear weapons detonated in space; Starfish Prime in 1964 is probably the best known.
Archibald
Banned
My TL will have militarized space in the 80's. It has already started with Blue Helios, the military Big Gemini. Polyus (which true name was Skif) has a fascinating history.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39787.0
Brief story: one of the Polyus political supporter was Olev Baklanov - which was also one of the August 1991 plotters against Gorbachev. Baklanov had Polyus launched to embarass Gorbachev, who was uneasy about Reagan Star Wars particularly because he believed the Soviet military had no such program.
Which mean Polyus has a limited but real impact over the fall of the Soviet Union. How about that ?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39787.0
Brief story: one of the Polyus political supporter was Olev Baklanov - which was also one of the August 1991 plotters against Gorbachev. Baklanov had Polyus launched to embarass Gorbachev, who was uneasy about Reagan Star Wars particularly because he believed the Soviet military had no such program.
Which mean Polyus has a limited but real impact over the fall of the Soviet Union. How about that ?
generally its quite easy to militarize space, however that in mind and the biggest fear is that what goes up - just might come back down ( and quickly at that ). The primary reason it has not been militarized is 1. maintaince would have been quite tough early on, 2. If we do it, then the soviets do it, 3. its only real use is first strike .. that sets a bad precedent. but yes it was quite doable
Archibald
Banned
Well, it didn't happened with all those varied Soviet nukes IOTL (a damn miracle when you think about it) so why would it happen with orbital nukes ?
Yes space could have been militarized but there was an outbreak of sanity on both sides and they moved back from that brink. Why, you might ask?
Space-based weapons are inherently ridiculously destabilizing. They provide a really fast first strike capability, so fast that there's not really any time for human judgment to be employed (matter of less than a few minutes from detection that something MAY be up to canned sunshine). This means that a lot of responses are going to have to be automated, which means that false alarms get a LOT more alarming. Both sides recognized this and thus they agreed to a treaty forbidding it.
Space-based weapons are inherently ridiculously destabilizing. They provide a really fast first strike capability, so fast that there's not really any time for human judgment to be employed (matter of less than a few minutes from detection that something MAY be up to canned sunshine). This means that a lot of responses are going to have to be automated, which means that false alarms get a LOT more alarming. Both sides recognized this and thus they agreed to a treaty forbidding it.