undefined | Better HN

0 pointsremarkEon11d ago0 comments

True. But the next rung up the escalation ladder is of course disrupting the satellites.

0 comments

b11211d ago

I envision them all gone seconds into any large scale war.

The G forces are another thing. I wonder why they aren't stsrting wth missle platforms instead.

Sure, winged flight has uses, but taking a missle platform, adding small munitions instead of a big bang?

I'm not sure about this. Space is big and these satellite constellations are getting very large, with lots of redundancy. I know I'm sort of arguing against my previous point, but bear with me for a sec. You'd need an anti-satellite system that either destroys them kinetically (accepting the cost of the debris field) or one that breaks them electronically (an EMP or another device that defeats them electronically). The United States' underlying philosophy on advanced weapons has, for a long time, been precision so I could see the emergence of in-orbit interception & defeat/disable platforms. But you'd need a lot of them for the doctrine to be effective, which means a lot of mass-to-orbit logistics. Adversaries do not have this, so I would expect e.g. PRC to have an alternate strategy of rendering entire orbits unusable or dangerous, which I think is easier.

Regarding your missile platform question, there are several companies that already manufacturing loitering munitions, and long-range loitering cruise missiles are on the roadmap, so to speak.

b11210d ago

Interesting point re: satellites, I'd say the best tactic here is to presume all gone immediately. Eg, from a planning perspective. The reality may be that the war may need to stretch out a bit, before action is taken.

Of course any planned action would likely try to strike first, by some means.

1 more reply

Eddy_Viscosity211d ago

> I wonder why they aren't stsrting wth missle platforms instead

Price and ease of manufacture. Missiles are expensive and hard to build.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse