WI: US violates Outer Space Treaty after USSR collapses?

What if the US, during some time between 1992 - 2001, uses the vaccum of power created by the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union to go ahead and build Orbital WMDs and Conventional Weaponry in Space?

What would happen?
 
I don't know if there'd be much fallout from violating that treaty, but there is likely to be major backlash against building orbital nuclear platforms.
 

Ian_W

Banned
What if the US, during some time between 1992 - 2001, uses the vaccum of power created by the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union to go ahead and build Orbital WMDs and Conventional Weaponry in Space?

What would happen?

Well, for a start, the US would waste an absolute fuckton of money.

The reason for this is orbital WMDs are like earth-based WMDs, only way more expensive, and conventional weapons in space are best put on the ground (see also : Chinese anti-satellite test).
 
Uh, why? What's the point of doing this?

As for what happens, it depends what we put up there.
 

Yuelang

Banned
as soon as 9/11 happened, Afghanistan get pummeled by series of orbital kinetic strikes. No need to have boots on the ground... Millions died.
 
Okay, things banned by the Outer Space Treaty:
  • WMDs in space: Why on earth would the US want to put them there? It's expensive, and doesn't serve any real point.
  • Military activities on celestial bodies: Practically, this means the Moon. Putting a base there or carrying out manoeuvres would dwarf the Apollo program for expense, and achieve absolutely nothing.
  • Territorial claims on celestial bodies: I suppose that theoretically, the US could claim the moon. In the absence of any real ability to exploit or defend that claim, it'll be a legal curiosity for decades to come.
  • Not accepting liability for damage caused by a space object: Well, that's just being irresponsible. The international response would be the same as if the USA didn't accept responsibility for damage done by aircraft or ships. Namely, lots of indignation.
  • Allowing non-state entities to operate in space without authorisation or oversight: This could be an interesting one. If the US says, in effect 'don't blow up Florida, and we don't care what happens outside our airspace or on orbit', then all sorts of shenanigans become de facto legal for private satellite operators. The rest of the world will get very annoyed very fast. Elon Musk could, if he so wished, start Space Vegas complete with hookers, blow, and stratospheric laser light shows, and thumb his nose at the rest of the world until they shoot it down or send up Space Marines. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but complete deregulation of orbital space would get very messy.
Incidentally, conventional weapons aren't banned. The US could perfectly legally launch an orbital kinetic bombardment system or killer laser of death tomorrow. That nobody has done so in the last 50 years probably indicates how useful such systems would be.
 
[*]Not accepting liability for damage caused by a space object: Well, that's just being irresponsible. The international response would be the same as if the USA didn't accept responsibility for damage done by aircraft or ships. Namely, lots of indignation.

Couldn't this be used as a weapon, though? "Oops, we're sorry that this satellite fell on your town, we're also sorry it was filled with explosive/radioactive materials"
 
Couldn't this be used as a weapon, though? "Oops, we're sorry that this satellite fell on your town, we're also sorry it was filled with explosive/radioactive materials"

At that point, you're shooting at each other, so nobody gives a damn what the treaty says.
 
What makes a big Tungsten Rod a WMD?

Nothing, as RLBH said, it's an (admittedly exotic) conventional weapon:

Incidentally, conventional weapons aren't banned. The US could perfectly legally launch an orbital kinetic bombardment system or killer laser of death tomorrow. That nobody has done so in the last 50 years probably indicates how useful such systems would be.

On the wider issue, I agree with those who've suggested minimal impact. Part of the reason the Treaty has held so long is because it's so trivial to stick to. There's no strong reason to want to do any of the things it bans, so why honk off other nations by withdrawing from something that costs you virtually nothing to obey?
 
That wouldn't happen. If the US had any interest in killing millions of Afghans they would have.

On the other hand, THOR might have been helpful in targeting deep caves.

And on the even OTHER hand, testing an ORION would now be legal...:cool:


By now 14 years in, we might have something that could have already visited Mars, and be in the process of moving an asteroid to Earth Orbit.


Debate could be ongoing about starting the process of Terraforming Mars.
 
On the other hand, THOR might have been helpful in targeting deep caves.

And on the even OTHER hand, testing an ORION would now be legal...:cool:
Orion's not limited by the OST, it's limited by the Partial Test Ban Treaty (as far as using it to reach orbit) and simple common sense (as far as the fact that even when it was a going concern they couldn't find a way to not see the pusher plates so fast it wasn't practical). And to get an Orion in orbit, you'd still have to launch it from the ground--which would require LVs larger than Saturn V by no small margin.
 
Orion's not limited by the OST, it's limited by the Partial Test Ban Treaty (as far as using it to reach orbit) and simple common sense (as far as the fact that even when it was a going concern they couldn't find a way to not see the pusher plates so fast it wasn't practical). And to get an Orion in orbit, you'd still have to launch it from the ground--which would require LVs larger than Saturn V by no small margin.

Agreed, but minor note: the PTBT bans using it in orbit, too. Only place you could legally use an Orion is underground.
 
Top