tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post7889581595795795647..comments2024-03-29T02:47:44.652-05:00Comments on Future War Stories: FWS Topics: Orbital BombardmentWilliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17218428427067689631noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-27361053231649630022016-08-21T08:57:08.954-05:002016-08-21T08:57:08.954-05:00I don't know who is running this site but than...I don't know who is running this site but thank you Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675030755263413889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-85295430139877230882014-12-06T23:39:29.334-06:002014-12-06T23:39:29.334-06:00Some excellent stuff here.
I see there's been...Some excellent stuff here.<br /><br />I see there's been some discussion on The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and Space-Based Weaponry. One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that most of the prohibitions concerning military activities only apply to celestial bodies. Aside from WMD's, there's really nothing concerning activities conducted in space itself, or even in orbit around a celestial body. I think it's unlikely we'll be fighting over the Moon or Mars anytime too soon, so I think there's a good chance that warfare in space will be taking place before we ever have to worry about treaty violations. While I'm sure that at some point we'll want to take fighting to the surface of some place besides Earth, orbital warfare will probably dominate for quite some time before surface warfare off of Earth is practical and desirable. <br /><br />Which brings me to thoughts on how well this treaty will hold up when it comes time for someone to want to violate it. I think that the greatest strength of this treaty is that the equipment necessary to violate it is expensive and will probably require some specialized R&D. Even a run of the mill infantry assault rifle will likely need to be modified to function well on the surface of Mars. So the deterrent against violating it is that it takes a significant investment just to prepare to violate it.<br /><br />The downside of course is that if your adversary violates the treaty then you get put at a significant disadvantage, much more so than the use of any other banned weapon. Hollowpoints may give your adversary and advantage over your FMJ using forces, but at the end of the day actually hitting the target counts for much more than what you hit the target with.<br /><br />Of course the treaty may never even make it to the point of being violated. Enough states may pull out to make it irrelevant. While it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, imagine if North Korea or Iran were to decide they want land military forces on Mars to claim it for themselves. I can't imagine that the US would stay with the treaty for long. And if the US drops out then odds are good that Russia will drop to counter the US, China drops to counter the both of them, India drops to counter China, and then Pakistan drops to counter India. Which as some of you may notice, is similar to the order that nuclear weapons were acquired. All it takes is one state to drop out, and the treaty will probably only have a handful of minor players left as parties to it.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to mention one other orbital bombardment example, one from Star Wars. Although we never got to see it in the movies, the Expanded Universe has mentioned the Republic and then Imperial Navy's Base Delta Zero procedure. Apparently it was similar to Covenant glassing, and could according to Wookiepedia could be carried out by a single Star Destroyer in a single day. But for practical reasons it wasn't used on every planet like the Covenant did. And then I suppose that the Death Star does technically count as orbital bombardment as well.Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-91865718929200293172014-12-04T02:32:52.486-06:002014-12-04T02:32:52.486-06:00About the 1967 space treaty, it will most likely h...About the 1967 space treaty, it will most likely hold up among modern governments even if expanded to say, a Martian colony. Why? Because we still abide by rules placed forth by the Geneva and Hague conventions a century later, despite the fact that their arbitrary restrictions set forth have certainly cost soldiers their lives. A prime example is the performance of 5.56 NATO, what's lethality has been questioned due to reports of targets remaining standing and fighting despite taking multiple hits to center mass. This is typically attributed to the bullets failure to perform, as the 5.56 relies on the bullets propensity to tumble end over end in soft tissue: without tumbling, M855 is really no different than a standard FMJ. When the projectile fails to tumble it's lethality drops greatly, and getting the bullets to tumble consistently, particularly at extended ranges, has proved difficult. The Hague convention prohibited use of hollow pointed ammunition in war, yet hollow points would be the best way to increase consistency of lethality. The military must abide by this rule despite the very real possibility that it's limitation has cost soldiers their lives. With hollow points, a 55 grain .223 can knock a fist - sized hole in a 200 pound deers chest and drop it immediately, I've seen it myself. Despite this, military acquisitions personnel hands are tied, and the convention must be abided by lest one be accused of war crimes. As long as the possibility of major retribution exists, the rules shall be followed with one notable exception. Counter-Terrorism units frequently use hollow - point ammunition as they are not considered regular military, instead acting as a police force. As you can see, even if the rules cannot be broken, they can be bent somewhat. As an example, one could have a high-energy laser mounted on a space station or ship to protect it from space debris strikes, calling it a "space broom" or "counter-asteroid system" despite the fact that it could easily puncture an enemy crafts hull. Technicalities such as these are typically thought of as a scourge to todays modern read-the-fine-print-or-else way of covering ones ass, but they can be easily exploited as a convenient and believable excuse for weaponization of space or any other legal stumbling block one may encounter in writing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-81737270855029756152014-12-01T13:50:27.540-06:002014-12-01T13:50:27.540-06:00Flying to Valhalla (1993) is the first book by Cha...Flying to Valhalla (1993) is the first book by Charles R. Pellegrino concerning relativistic attack, The Killing Star is the second (with George Zebrowski, 1995)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-38459636056234444522014-11-29T06:35:54.314-06:002014-11-29T06:35:54.314-06:00About that 1967 space treaty. Do u actually believ...About that 1967 space treaty. Do u actually believe that it's gonna hold up. Based on my experience in life...NO. We'll trample a guys skull til it pops off on black Friday for a copy of halo the master BETA!!!!! Collection. Yeah a treaty isn't gonna stop a space war. What do you think. Also the UNSC navy had an orbital bombardment called the mac cannon ( can use in halo wars) it's pretty cool to use. And as a thought for the next post or something u should look.into private military contractors Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555953556972572471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-2790353353166336592014-11-27T11:14:13.650-06:002014-11-27T11:14:13.650-06:00My own belief is that lasers would be used for pre...My own belief is that lasers would be used for precision, kinetic energy for bombardment. <br />First off, directed energy weapons: lasers are subject to atmospheric phenomenon like dust and clouds but on a clear day, could provide precise and powerful strikes, and be in target faster than any other form of artillery. Perfectly suited to fast-moving ground operations, limited only by human error so they would likely be partially computer controlled. However there are still limitations to laser beam intensity. If an area is too saturated by a high-intensity photon beam, the atmospheric absorption of energy would create a dense mass of air that could defocus the beam, rendering it ineffective as a weapon but could cause spectacular mid-air shockwaves. <br />Particle beams lose energy rapidly in anything but vacuum, so the amount of energy put into the system would be orders of magnitude higher than the actual damage-output that would be felt planetside. Particle beams also ionize the air in random patterns, so they are about as accurate as a lightning bolt. Pre-ionizing the air with a laser and creating a comductive channel for the particle beam to travel could be a viable option, but would be as complex as both a laser and particle beam combined, and would still lose energy with range. Another option is neutral particle beams, but these are most likely for use in vacuum, as this limits the electrostatic repulsion that positive or negative beams experience have that limit their range in space: the individual particles repel away from each other and defocus from a tight destructive beam with great damage and pentration to a defocused swath of particles more easily defeated by standard spacecraft radiation shielding. <br />Kinetic energy weapons would be less precise, but could be very powerful as they can be scaled to necessary size and damage. Their advantages over bombs or explosive shells is they are cheaper and harder to destroy: a laser could prematurely detonate explosives by heating them past their autoignition temperature, but a kinetic energy weapon would have to be vaporized, or at the least enough damage done to the ablative shielding as to make the atmosphere rip the slug or rod to pieces. Still, orbital craft would be limited by the number of projectiles they carry whereas lasers would only be limited by power and cooling. So, an intitial bombardment would be most likely done using KE weapons and, aftrr ground forces are delpoyed, sustained bombardment by laser DEWs. Particle beams could potentially be used for disrupting the power grid and disrupting communications, but then again priority targeting could accomplish the same goal with less specialized equipment. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-73119797174312691032014-11-26T17:31:06.117-06:002014-11-26T17:31:06.117-06:00Interesting post, William, it is kind of crazy tha...Interesting post, William, it is kind of crazy that the Air Force already has concepts for orbital bombardment. The problem, of course, is how to put all those heavy satellites into Earth orbit with our current launchers. :-)<br /><br />I wondered, watching Akira, what the response time of the laser satellite was from the call for a strike to the laser zeroing in and firing. Depending on what orbit it is in, it may not pass over certain areas of the Earth at all- this is why spy satellites are in polar orbits. In a polar orbit, a satellite passes over every area of the Earth, eventually. But it will only show up over a target zone at certain predictable times. So what do you do if all your kill sats are on the wrong position to launch a strike when you need orbital support? <br /><br />Of course, Heinlein pointed out in one of his books that an orbiting nuclear warhead can't "fall" on a city that is directly beneath it- it must begin to deorbit itself thousands of miles from its target so that it arcs down to atmospheric reentry over the hapless target. The same would be true of a "rod from god".<br /><br />With beam weapons, I would have other concerns... will a laser beam penetrate the atmosphere effectively? What about clouds? Particle cannons might seem a surer thing, except that all the atmospheric mass is a heck of a lot of shielding. Also, while neutral particle beams work best in vacuum, charged particle beams work best in an atmosphere- except that the orbiting kill sat has to deal with both. There are probably solutions to these problems but they are something to think about.<br /><br />I think your comment that the greatest danger posed by orbital bombardment is over-use is quite insightful. In SF these weapons are often apocalyptic when used en masse... in real life heavy bombardment with asteroids could trigger a "nuclear winter" in addition to all the damage done by the impacts. At this point in history, controlling WMDs before their use destroys us remains one of the challenges of our time.<br /><br />Even more "surgical" strikes could be devastating to the people in the areas hit. Think of all the damage bombing does in war zones today. But, because such strikes can be done from a safe distance without endangering your own personnel, the public could easily fall into the fallacy that they are fighting a "clean war". But what would happen to us if some orbiting alien were to wipe out transport networks, hospitals, power, and sewage systems? Bombing someone back into the stone age from a distance can hardly be called clean.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04512692183298804775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-74906273289062796172014-11-25T08:58:08.868-06:002014-11-25T08:58:08.868-06:00No
Check the numbers, that near-future orbital rod...No<br />Check the numbers, that near-future orbital rod lancer has a R.E. factor of chemical explosions. Meaning you can use CONVENTIONAL bomb with the SAME mass as the rod and achieve the same devastation or better. If you want equivalent of 12Kton of TNT you will need to lance to orbit an 8,500 ton tungsten rod with a few thousands ton of decelerate rocket…<br />Those kinetic rods aren’t the non-radioactive nukes that movies, books & video games claim them to be.<br /><br />Yoel <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-68335970426816330822014-11-25T00:40:07.000-06:002014-11-25T00:40:07.000-06:00"so why develop a killer rods satellite? &quo..."so why develop a killer rods satellite? "<br />If any nuclear nation on earth were to launch it's weapons the reaction would be instant. the Us developed systems to spot the launch and allow retaliation. The Russians did the same. The Chinese likely have followed suit. the stealthiest ICBM launch option is a submarine like the US Ohio class but once she fires everyone knows there is a nuke flying. <br />What I see systems like Thor as first strike options. the opening action that is intended to render a enemy defenceless in the first surgical action. thee effect of a KE Orbital strike would be a instant near surface impact event akin to a earthquake, that would have the effect akin to a small tactical nuclear strike. <br />the launch limitations however would prevent extensive deployment of such a system a Work around of course would be something like autonomous orbital assembly. like we see in Darpa's Phoenix program, what has been theorized as under testing by the Russians and Chinese as well. LCONhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04841691624835390231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-54512262820445907252014-11-24T09:05:08.853-06:002014-11-24T09:05:08.853-06:00Great comments!
I agree Moran, kinetic weaponry i...Great comments! <br />I agree Moran, kinetic weaponry is much more deadly than DEW, and the idea of rods-from-god would be a terrifying reality. Tell me more of your work Moran. <br />Thanks for the more detailed information on the orbital bombardment in the WH40K universe, Shas. Been a long time since I played WH40K...around President Clinton's first term in office. <br />Yes, FWS will be discussing Space Drop Infantry or "Spacebourne" forces and their drop pods/modules in a upcoming blogpost...most likely around January of 2015. <br />Your explanation of kinetic bombardment Yoel is brilliant. Most believe that rods-from-god would be a super-weapon and all powerful. Like most weapons, there are pluses and minuses. I like the IDF joke...very true Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17218428427067689631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-19402325330879413482014-11-24T08:37:06.530-06:002014-11-24T08:37:06.530-06:00Great post and an interesting subject!
About the ...Great post and an interesting subject!<br /><br />About the "rods-from-god" concept I believe it faulty, my reasons:<br />1. Impact power <br />One ton of tungsten rod moving at 10 mach (3430 m/s) has a kinetic energy of 5882.45 MJ.<br />Ek=0.5*1000Kg*(3430m/s)^2=5882.45 MJ<br />One ton of slowly falling TNT bomb has 4184MJ energy.<br /> That mean that tungsten rod moving at 10 mach have relative effectiveness factor, or R.E. factor, of 1.4. That not really impressive…<br />According to Wiki there are explosives with higher R.E. factor than 1.4<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor<br />And I bet there more powerful HE still unknown to Wiki in the militaries arsenals.<br />2. Penetration<br />Giving the low R.E. factor some suggest that the rods could be used for "bunker buster".<br />However, "bunker buster" bomb not only penetrate the bunker roof, that the easy part, but else penetrate it while deliver the explosive inside the strong shell to be dentate after impact. Tungsten rod can't do that.<br />Even if all you need is roof penetration that could be done easier using a shaped charged bomb, similar to what inside antitank missile but bigger.<br />Another thing usually not considers – the rods aren’t simply dropped from orbit, each rod must have a rocket engine to decelerate it for entry trajectory.<br />When penetration is needed the most effective way is dropping the bomb at 90 degrees angle. Very hard to do with heavenly rod, you need a powerful rocket to decelerate the rod tangential velocity from the orbit velocity to target velocity (earth rotate so even bunkers have tangential velocity!). Bigger rod rocket meaning more expensive system and more expensive lancer to put the satellite with the rods and their boosters.<br />3. Response time<br />While it's true that time between deployment and strike is shorter that ICBM what is also true is that satellite rotates around earth and not hovers around. It could take hours till the satellite is in the right position to lance the rod (lance not drop!).<br />4. Intercepting<br />There aren’t (yet) known certain method to intercept incoming ICBMs, so why develop a killer rods satellite? <br /><br />That "dangers of friendly fire" explaining remained me of a grim joke in the IDF:<br />"A paratrooper made a mistake – a paratrooper is dead, artilleryman made a mistake – a paratrooper is dead"<br /><br />Yoel<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-32359154954938992912014-11-24T08:16:43.417-06:002014-11-24T08:16:43.417-06:00Btw: FWS will research in the topic of generally s...Btw: FWS will research in the topic of generally speaking "drop pods"? You already cover the dropships but what about single use (or in some cases multiple use) drop pods in the potential future military actions?Shashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06772329154615576984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-76383440218639553212014-11-24T05:56:20.280-06:002014-11-24T05:56:20.280-06:00A little correction, you made mistake in W40k. Not...A little correction, you made mistake in W40k. Not "Exterminates" but "Exterminatus"... and to be more precise Exterminatus extremis. <br /><br />It is more of absolutely planetary annihilation procedure then an classic orbital bombardment. One of the best description of that procedure is destruction of Isstvan V by the hand of Archtraitor Horus Lupercal of Lunar Wolves/Son's of Horus Legion. <br /><br />First they use a Virus Bombs with the Life-Eater Virus that annihilate all organic life on the planet in very fast speed. This generate a gigantic level of flammable gases in atmosphere, then a single lance strike ignite it. And we receive an extinction level firestorm that purge a surface and burn out the atmosphere. <br /><br />Similar effect gives the atmospheric Incinerator torpedo.<br /><br />The most catastrophic in effect is a Cyclonic torpedo, it delivery system is tasked to punch through planet surface and drill deep in to the core there explosion of Melta warhead destabilize the planetary core and break it from inside. It is used against non biological Xenos. Shashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06772329154615576984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-37199330802810431762014-11-23T18:57:26.206-06:002014-11-23T18:57:26.206-06:00A really informative post, so thanks. The power o...A really informative post, so thanks. The power of a kinetic orbital weapon is quite terrifying, once you realise that if they were in position, there is little to stop them being used, unlike nuclear weapons. The same applies with lasers or any other DEW system. I think that if such systems are ever used then it will be KE, rather than DEW, because the 'rods from god' can be made as large or samll as needed, while DEW systems have a minimum power before they become practical, and also require large amounts of power. <br /> Of the two types of DEW, laser and particle beam. Lasers seem the most likly, as they have the benefit of accuracy, allowing them to be used in support of ground troops. Particle beams will be inacurate due to wind sheer as they pass through the atmosphere, and so ould be better suited to strategic rather than tactical operations.<br /> In my own work kinetic weapons are most commonly used, unless the mission is to render the planet inhabitable, in which case a DEW system is used. This system is composed of particle beams firing heavey antimater particles. THese beams are used to target weak spots in the crust of the planet, activating hundreds of volcanos simultaniously. The dust thrown into the air by the erruptions, along with mousture boiled from the ocean by the beams, puts the planet into a nuclear winter that will last for at least twenty to thirty years, and make almost all life forms extinct.<br /><br />Moran Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com