"Destabilising" Russian Space Threat

Grey Havoc said:
He who holds the high ground....

I'd say we are going to be seeing a lot of nuclear armed systems in orbit in the near future. Not only ASATs but things like MOBS (orbital MIRV platforms).
Click to expand...

I doubt it, because I think at some point such systems simply are engaged as hostile targets launched at the U.S.
 
Josh_TN said:
I doubt it, because I think at some point such systems simply are engaged as hostile targets launched at the U.S.
Click to expand...
Indeed, launching a nuclear warhead into space is basically an act of war, and it becomes fair game.
 
Forest Green said:
Indeed, launching a nuclear warhead into space is basically an act of war, and it becomes fair game.
Click to expand...
No, all it would do would to signal the final and irrevocable dissolution of the Outer Space Treaty. Attacking a sovereign spacecraft, nuclear armed or otherwise, on the other hand would be an Act of War.
 
Grey Havoc said:
No, all it would do would to signal the final and irrevocable dissolution of the Outer Space Treaty. Attacking a sovereign spacecraft, nuclear armed or otherwise, on the other hand would be an Act of War.
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want, I doubt the U.S. would simply live under a nuclear weapon passing over the country on a daily basis.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Would depend on the Party/Administration in power, I suspect.
Click to expand...

I actually rather doubt it. I cannot believe any president would allow that; even if they thought preemptive engagement was a bad idea the political pressure from voters would be massive and the opposing party would beat them over the head with it. I think if Russia gets to the point of having a completed system that an explicit policy to engage upon detection will be articulated ahead of time to discourage Russia.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
No, all it would do would to signal the final and irrevocable dissolution of the Outer Space Treaty. Attacking a sovereign spacecraft, nuclear armed or otherwise, on the other hand would be an Act of War.
Click to expand...
From the moment a nuclear warhead is launched into orbit it's already an act of war. It's also fundamentally unsafe as well as being an imminent threat. It could also be hacked by rogue parties, there's lots of ways it could go wrong.

Bottom line is that nobody's going to tolerate it being there, any more than MRBMs in Cuba. They can choose to escalate if they wish but at least there'll be more time to see it coming.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Yeah, that is not encouraging. I am pretty convinced a Russian effort to orbit a nuclear warhead will lead to a direct confrontation.
Click to expand...
No resolution is required because there's already a treaty and it's the same treaty that prohibits nukes in space that provides for free navigation of space above otherwise hostile airspace IIRC. So being a nuke, it falls outside that treaty, hence right to freedom of navigation is voided and it can legally be shot down above any nation that deems it a threat.

At the end of the day, Russia downed a drone in international airspace, so they have no right to complaint anyway.
 
If this is the reason for the US concern, and you have to believe from the evidence so far that it is. This is a consequence of Russia's decline. They know they cannot compete with Starlink or Starshield so will act assymetrically. We can expect the Chinese to have a similar capability, though it has to be said the Chinese who are looking to develop their own LEO satellite constellations may balk because they could end up having as much to lose as the US.

If anything, in a sane world, this should harden US desire to support Ukraine as Putin's downfall following defeat would be the best way of stopping this...or at least hoping to.
 
Meanwhile, the X-37B is being prepared for its next secret mission. I can understand why the Russians are concerned. I can also see a direct counter to a nuclear warhead in space. A device is built to push it out of range, and toward the Sun.
 
Things like bombsats and MOBS are likely to have anti-tamper defences and the like though.
 
edwest4 said:
Meanwhile, the X-37B is being prepared for its next secret mission. I can understand why the Russians are concerned. I can also see a direct counter to a nuclear warhead in space. A device is built to push it out of range, and toward the Sun.
Click to expand...
Review how much delta-V is required to push something out of solar orbit.




edwest4 said:
I agree. That's why a few astronauts get sent on the next secret X-37B mission and do some work in outer space designed to disable anti-tamper systems.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no.

There's literally no space for an Astronaut in the X37B, this forum has been over that point ad nauseam.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Review how much delta-V is required to push something out of solar orbit.





Yeah, no.

There's literally no space for an Astronaut in the X37B, this forum has been over that point ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

Bottom line: the U.S. will not do nothing. The U.S. will not want to upset the Russians. Finally, Delta-V or no, a number of plans will be proposed and a few will be acted on.
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
Bottom line: the U.S. will not do nothing. The U.S. will not want to upset the Russians. Finally, Delta-V or no, a number of plans will be proposed and a few will be acted on.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of whether they're upset or not (that's they're default state), it's national security. Nuclear weapons in space are not safe. Just because Russia is losing in space technology race it doesn't mean they get to introduce a pigeon to the chessboard ignoring existing treaties, while still expecting other people to follow them.

For objects permitted by the 1967 Treaty, national airspace ends at 100km, for objects not permitted by the 1967 Treaty airspace does not end at 100km. And the US had no problem shooting down China's balloon as regards upset or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, hell.

SDI Project Prometheus. ( https://www.projectrho.com/public_h...hp#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges and scroll down a ways till you see the bubble titled "THIRD-GENERATION-WEAPON INNOVATION - DIRECTED THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES")

10kiloton ASAT. Instead of heating the tungsten plate into a plasma like for an Orion propulsion charge, you insulate it from the heat of detonation as much as you can and let it "fractionate" into millions of small fragments that are all flying along at 100km/sec. A single one of those 8 milligram fragments carries roughly 40kJ of kinetic energy. With as much work as people have put into prefragmented projectiles over the last 15ish years, I assume that making the tungsten plate fragments would not be difficult, nor would making sure that the fragments spread evenly. The example from Atomic Rockets puts one fragment per square meter at 2000km from the boom.

And I know the Russians can do the math to make a nuclear shaped charge. (Hell, if I had any mathematical heavy lifting to do, I would reach out to one of the Russian Universities math departments to get it done.)
Click to expand...
Perfect to test against asteroids.

I understand there is a movement to sell off the Kourou R-7 pad. I think that is a mistake. If a nuclear asteroid intercept is to be had---I'd like an R-7 to carry it from there.
 
publiusr said:
Perfect to test against asteroids.

I understand there is a movement to sell off the Kourou R-7 pad. I think that is a mistake. If a nuclear asteroid intercept is to be had---I'd like an R-7 to carry it from there.
Click to expand...
Asteroids are actually best shoved around by very big nukes. 25+ megatons.
 
publiusr said:
Perfect to test against asteroids.

I understand there is a movement to sell off the Kourou R-7 pad. I think that is a mistake. If a nuclear asteroid intercept is to be had---I'd like an R-7 to carry it from there.
Click to expand...
Wrong vehicle for it.
It is the right move to sell off the pad. the Russians don't need it.
 
I would like to think—one day when all this unpleasantness is over, it can be used to launch cosmonauts.

I don’t think it has that massive turntable originally used, or does it?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, hell.

SDI Project Prometheus. ( https://www.projectrho.com/public_h...hp#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges and scroll down a ways till you see the bubble titled "THIRD-GENERATION-WEAPON INNOVATION - DIRECTED THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES")

10kiloton ASAT. Instead of heating the tungsten plate into a plasma like for an Orion propulsion charge, you insulate it from the heat of detonation as much as you can and let it "fractionate" into millions of small fragments that are all flying along at 100km/sec. A single one of those 8 milligram fragments carries roughly 40kJ of kinetic energy. With as much work as people have put into prefragmented projectiles over the last 15ish years, I assume that making the tungsten plate fragments would not be difficult, nor would making sure that the fragments spread evenly. The example from Atomic Rockets puts one fragment per square meter at 2000km from the boom.

And I know the Russians can do the math to make a nuclear shaped charge. (Hell, if I had any mathematical heavy lifting to do, I would reach out to one of the Russian Universities math departments to get it done.)
Click to expand...
Best space-based nuclear weapon by far is the particle beam that fires Deuterium-Tritium pellets if the Russians want to play pigeon chess in space.

Beam Weapons - Atomic Rockets

projectrho.com projectrho.com

DT fuel contains about 330 TJ/kg of energy, meaning that there is an energy multiplication effect of 66,000 at 100 km/s (assuming 100% burnup) and the energy gain can be maintained at up to 25,690 km/s!
Click to expand...
A 1 MW accelerator would be firing off 2,500 of these projectiles per second. Up to 64 GW of fusion energy could then be released at the target.
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

DOD Official Confirms Russia Is Developing an 'Indiscriminate' Space Nuke

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John F. Plumb warned lawmakers that Russia is developing a nuclear weapon in space.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
It's going to get shot because:

1. It's against International Law.

2. It's an accident waiting to happen.

3. It could be more than an anti-satellite weapon - EMPs don't just affect space objects, they affect ground equipment too. It could also be a Casaba howitzer.

Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com www.projectrho.com

4. The vast majority of countries will support the US shooting it down because nobody wants a nuke in orbit above them.

5. Even the Soviets weren't this mental.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
It's going to get shot because:

1. It's against International Law.

2. It's an accident waiting to happen.

3. It could be more than an anti-satellite weapon - EMPs don't just affect space objects, they affect ground equipment too. It could also be a Casaba howitzer.

Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com www.projectrho.com

4. The vast majority of countries will support the US shooting it down because nobody wants a nuke in orbit above them.

5. Even the Soviets weren't this mental.
Click to expand...
I think we should look at this only as a threat for political purposes, not as a real military strategy. Russia is ruled by a zampolit, not a general.
 
Forest Green said:
It's going to get shot because:

1. It's against International Law.

2. It's an accident waiting to happen.

3. It could be more than an anti-satellite weapon - EMPs don't just affect space objects, they affect ground equipment too. It could also be a Casaba howitzer.

Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com www.projectrho.com

4. The vast majority of countries will support the US shooting it down because nobody wants a nuke in orbit above them.

5. Even the Soviets weren't this mental.
Click to expand...
Scorched Earth becomes scorched space strategy
 
Forest Green said:
It's going to get shot because:

1. It's against International Law.

2. It's an accident waiting to happen.

3. It could be more than an anti-satellite weapon - EMPs don't just affect space objects, they affect ground equipment too. It could also be a Casaba howitzer.

Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets

www.projectrho.com www.projectrho.com

4. The vast majority of countries will support the US shooting it down because nobody wants a nuke in orbit above them.

5. Even the Soviets weren't this mental.
Click to expand...

"shooting it down"? How would that be accomplished?
 
Justo Miranda said:
I think we should look at this only as a threat for political purposes, not as a real military strategy. Russia is ruled by a zampolit, not a general.
Click to expand...

This is an old idea. It goes back to the 1950s. Putin is very intelligent. His KGB experience serves him well. I lived through most of the Cold War; I didn't worry about it. I had a great time in the 1960s. I lived in a major target city. Again, I didn't worry about it. Should it be attacked in space, Bezos and Zuckerberg will have to pay to put everything back.
 
Forest Green said:
It's going to get shot because:

1. It's against International Law.
Click to expand...
It's against international law only if it's placed there. Russia is confirmed to be bound with the 1967 OST.
Like it isn't even a first space-directed nuclear weapon - just something optimized, as it appears.

And for all US moves, no one has provided any proof of that (like it's pointless anyway - why bother with hardening when you can simply launch it up). Conveniently solves all the intercept wannabes here - good luck intercepting direct ascent vehicle.

And, more importantly, good luck living through consequences of shooting at Russian space assets. Where it will go, hmmm.

Another thing, of course, will be a space - deep space, - deterrent ... but that requires Russian lead in space propulsion etc, not lagging behind as is the case atm.
 
edwest4 said:
"shooting it down"? How would that be accomplished?
Click to expand...

SM-3 has a known ASAT capability. The Ground-based Mid purse Defense likely does as well. The U.S. has previously teased having other offensive capabilities, and based on the self imposed ban on kinetic interception testing, I suspect it is not kinetic. I think something like an HPM might be used. Or course doing anything to a satellite filled with plutonium is problematic…
 
Josh_TN said:
SM-3 has a known ASAT capability. The Ground-based Mid purse Defense likely does as well. The U.S. has previously teased having other offensive capabilities, and based on the self imposed ban on kinetic interception testing, I suspect it is not kinetic. I think something like an HPM might be used. Or course doing anything to a satellite filled with plutonium is problematic…
Click to expand...

Sure. What if it detonates? Then what?
 
edwest4 said:
Sure. What if it detonates? Then what?
Click to expand...

A fission-fusion nuclear warhead requires a pretty complex chain of events to fuse properly. A KE impact likely does not achieve even critical mass of the first stage, or if it does so, probably manages to do it in a way far, far less efficient than a deliberately detonated explosive lens working on a tritium boosted pit. Even a worse case detonation would be a fizzle by strategic nuclear standards, and as such probably an order of magnitude or two lower in yield. So probably not a major concern. That said, I would not want to minimize the issue of a plutonium pit floating around in orbit or re-entering the atmosphere. But I think it is very clear that it would be more dangerous to leave an operational warhead in place then to engage it. Such a warhead, detonated over the US, would likely cause catastrophic infrastructure damage and potentially cripple numerous command and control systems, as well as space monitoring and early warning systems. It would make basing nukes in Cuba look benign in comparison.
 
Josh_TN said:
A fission-fusion nuclear warhead requires a pretty complex chain of events to fuse properly. A KE impact likely does not achieve even critical mass of the first stage, or if it does so, probably manages to do it in a way far, far less efficient than a deliberately detonated explosive lens working on a tritium boosted pit. Even a worse case detonation would be a fizzle by strategic nuclear standards, and as such probably an order of magnitude or two lower in yield. So probably not a major concern. That said, I would not want to minimize the issue of a plutonium pit floating around in orbit or re-entering the atmosphere. But I think it is very clear that it would be more dangerous to leave an operational warhead in place then to engage it. Such a warhead, detonated over the US, would likely cause catastrophic infrastructure damage and potentially cripple numerous command and control systems, as well as space monitoring and early warning systems. It would make basing nukes in Cuba look benign in comparison.
Click to expand...

Another poster here mentioned an anti-tamper device. The exact type is not known. I'm sure the Russians have good intelligence about existing ways that could be used to shoot down something like this. They would likely add other means to detonate the warhead if it is engaged with the intent to shoot it doww, which would give the desired result. The United States would take the blame. I think the U.S. intelligence community knows this.
 
edwest4 said:
"shooting it down"? How would that be accomplished?
Click to expand...
SM-3 or GBI.

edwest4 said:
Sure. What if it detonates? Then what?
Click to expand...
Seized Russian assets pay for the damage to all parties, because once again they broke International Law by putting a nuke in space. Crime and punishment.

Justo Miranda said:
I think we should look at this only as a threat for political purposes, not as a real military strategy. Russia is ruled by a zampolit, not a general.
Click to expand...
That would be exceptionally naive.

Ainen said:
It's against international law only if it's placed there. Russia is confirmed to be bound with the 1967 OST.
Like it isn't even a first space-directed nuclear weapon - just something optimized, as it appears.
Click to expand...
So why did Russia veto the UN resolution if it intended to abide by it anyway? A specific direct ascent nuke would be redundant, since any nuke-equipped missile could be sent into space and detonated.

Ainen said:
And, more importantly, good luck living through consequences of shooting at Russian space assets. Where it will go, hmmm.
Click to expand...
Consequences of not shooting it down are greater.
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
Another poster here mentioned an anti-tamper device. The exact type is not known. I'm sure the Russians have good intelligence about existing ways that could be used to shoot down something like this. They would likely add other means to detonate the warhead if it is engaged with the intent to shoot it doww, which would give the desired result. The United States would take the blame. I think the U.S. intelligence community knows this.
Click to expand...

Any evidence of US involvement likely gets vaporized if it comes to that. And it would still be a Russian initiated explosion. The U.S. is not going to allow a strategic nuclear weapon to pass over it’s territory on a daily basis.
 
Josh_TN said:
Any evidence of US involvement likely gets vaporized if it comes to that. And it would still be a Russian initiated explosion. The U.S. is not going to allow a strategic nuclear weapon to pass over it’s territory on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
And no other country wants it passing over theirs either for that matter. It's the kind of insanity that makes Stalin look sensible.
 
Forest Green said:
And no other country wants it passing over theirs either for that matter. It's the kind of insanity that makes Stalin look sensible.
Click to expand...
To be fair, as of now, it looks like a pure US propaganda idea - sorta like biolabs in Ukraine, but with nothing even remotely similar to evidence.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom