How to Weaponise Space (Cold War Edition)

And yet another clickbait-y title to help attract users and yes, I am wondering how in the name of sweet shites can one make weapons in space with Cold War technology? What possible options are there for weaponisation of space in a world where the Outer Space Treaty is never signed?

Oh, and yes, this coincides with my earlier: How to Make a Practical Rocket: N1 Edition. So, if you are wondering about the following document I am about to link....prepare to make references to that earlier thread. :p

To the Planets Beyond

WARNING: It is incomplete, so expect a lot of inconsistencies, and yes, it is a work-in-progress.........
 
Orion Project!! Battleships and nukes in space.

On the plus side a successful Orion project makes hardened consumer electronics a must and things like bases on the moon much more feasible.
 
The difficulty with weaponizing Earth Orbit is that there's really not much advantage to stationing nuclear weapons in Earth Orbit at any altitude. ICBMs are already difficult to intercept, much cheaper than an orbiting platform, and give only minutes of warning time. They can also launch at any moment, whereas low-orbiting platforms are only over a given target for a few minutes per orbit. And unlike submarines, orbiting weapon platforms are very easy to track.

The only thing I can possibly imagine that could justify something like an Orion-propelled atomic battleship would be as an Ultimate Deterrent--a weapons platform, not close to Earth, but somewhere off closer to the Moon (or even interplanetary space), something totally immune to first-strikes (because it would take months for the projectiles to reach it), that lies near-silent until the time to fire bombs (probably unmanned, because a manned spacecraft would glow in the IR spectrum like nobody's business), and which fires off a string of atomic bombs (probably in the Tsar Bomba class) for the purpose of setting the world on fire with a sustained, unending atomic bombardment that continues for months or years after the initial exchange.

In other words, the US or USSR would need to decide that Dr. Strangelove is actually a policy suggestion.
 
The difficulty with weaponizing Earth Orbit is that there's really not much advantage to stationing nuclear weapons in Earth Orbit at any altitude. ICBMs are already difficult to intercept, much cheaper than an orbiting platform, and give only minutes of warning time. They can also launch at any moment, whereas low-orbiting platforms are only over a given target for a few minutes per orbit. And unlike submarines, orbiting weapon platforms are very easy to track.

While surface bombardment from space doesn't make much sense, there are targets in space that might be worth having weapons in place to attack. I'm thinking particularly of early warning and communications satellites.
 
Put nukes in space. Gives you an extra layer of defense in addition to all your other nukes on the ground or submarines or wherever. Best of all it isn't too hard for less major players like Pakistan or South Africa to do it assuming they cough up enough money. I also like those Soviet space stations with weapons mounted on them. And anti-satellite warfare is always fun too.

In case people abolish nukes for some reason or want a non-nuclear solution, see my thread in the Future History section of this site regarding orbital bombardment. Some good discussion about what you could do with it even if you weren't a major player in things.
 
From a diplomatic context, nukes in space - even if they can be tracked - is just another chip on the table. Even if the enemy takes out your orbital nukes, that provokes a war, so they'll stay there... EMP Style Weapons at Weakest, Targetting cities at Strongest, it avoids the diplomatic necessity of needing to station nuclear weapons in a foreign country - which might be deemed worth it in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis requiring the United States to withdraw from Turkey.

But that's a dangerous token to put on the table of Cold War calculus, mind you...
 
we drop it

Possible non nuclear weapons in space. A platform that drops a platinum rod with a tungsten core. Impossible to intercept and no fallout so no needless killing.
 
Possible non nuclear weapons in space. A platform that drops a platinum rod with a tungsten core. Impossible to intercept and no fallout so no needless killing.

Yep, but unless you have more efficient launch systems (as in Project Orion-tier minimum or some future tech like space elevators, launch loops, etc.), it's barely competitive with a strategic bomber plus in case you do or some other circumstance it's just as threatening as nukes. But it is a very interesting weapon regardless and I'm amazed it was never researched as much as its potential might imply (if only by powers like North Korea, Iran, etc.).
 
Put nukes in space. Gives you an extra layer of defense in addition to all your other nukes on the ground or submarines or wherever.

Nuclear bombardment from orbit sounds cool but it's not practical. They're expensive, they're vulnerable to attack, they're only in position to fire once every few hours or so. Their only real advantage is as a first-strike weapon, cutting the warning time from fifteen to five minutes - which is extremely destabilizing. There are very good reasons neither the US nor Russia ever built them.

Possible non nuclear weapons in space. A platform that drops a platinum rod with a tungsten core. Impossible to intercept and no fallout so no needless killing.

Yep, but unless you have more efficient launch systems (as in Project Orion-tier minimum or some future tech like space elevators, launch loops, etc.), it's barely competitive with a strategic bomber plus in case you do or some other circumstance it's just as threatening as nukes. But it is a very interesting weapon regardless and I'm amazed it was never researched as much as its potential might imply (if only by powers like North Korea, Iran, etc.).

It's not "barely competitive", it's not competitive at all. KEWs are absurdly expensive unless you have the space industry to build them in orbit. Certainly third-tier powers like North Korea or Iran could never afford them. And for a superpower, they're overkill against a third-tier target, and against a peer competitor they suffer from the same problems as orbital nukes, except they're even more expensive.
 
Nuclear bombardment from orbit sounds cool but it's not practical.

One acronym for you: FOBS. As expensive and practical as any ICBM. The big problem is...

cutting the warning time from fifteen to five minutes
That. Under such a strategic situation your main options are to either delegate launch authority to such a degree that individual wing commanders have the ability to decide whether to launch-on-warning or to automate the retaliation process entirely. The former runs into the Dr. Strangelove problem where even a single unstable individual can start WW3. The latter runs into the problem of a computer glitch or a flock of birds registering as incoming bombers starting WW3. It's just too destabilizing a step to make.
 
One acronym for you: FOBS. As expensive and practical as any ICBM. The big problem is...

That. Under such a strategic situation your main options are to either delegate launch authority to such a degree that individual wing commanders have the ability to decide whether to launch-on-warning or to automate the retaliation process entirely. The former runs into the Dr. Strangelove problem where even a single unstable individual can start WW3. The latter runs into the problem of a computer glitch or a flock of birds registering as incoming bombers starting WW3. It's just too destabilizing a step to make.

FOBS isn't the same thing as orbital basing, not at all. In particular, FOBS launches can be detected by satellites.
 
Top