Armed satellite

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:24 PM

Ok this might be a stupid question. But why the hell does/did russia and the united states spend so much money on nuclera submarines and other ways of delivering nukes when they could just shot upp like 10 or so satellites armed with 10-15 nuclear warheads each??

Seems like it would be a cost effective solution especialy with the space shuttles and the loads they can carry upp there...

That way they would be able to fire nuclear weapons on any target, anywhere in the world at anytime.

The need for advanced icbm's and submarines would be gone if they did that. Or well a few subs would still be good incase the satellite somehow got knocked out with emp or similar.

Do you guys think they already have done that but keep it a secret??

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 05:29 PM

could be done already, who knows. I have often wondered this myself. I wonder if there would be a problem with re-entry detonation? just my speculation I have no idea.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by symatech

could be done already, who knows. I have often wondered this myself. I wonder if there would be a problem with re-entry detonation? just my speculation I have no idea.

Doesnt the icbm's go so high upp that they are almost outside of the atmosphere before hitting a target? In that case they have already solved the heat problem...

Maby they are scared to put a ****load of nukes into a shuttle because of the slim risk something might happen(like with the challanger)...but then again they construct nukes so **** sturdy that a explosion wouldnt detonate it...but maby crack it and spread the material all over..

But then again it seems like that risk would also be present with icbm's....

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 05:33 PM

very true. send the defense deptartment and e-mail and ask em

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by symatech

very true. send the defense deptartment and e-mail and ask em

good idea

if I mysteriously stop posting you can all assume the cia has kidnapped me cause I snopped around to much

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:37 PM

If they dont throw me down the hole in the pole so I can live with the ancient people inside the hollow earth

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 05:38 PM

your cool johan Ill avenge you! I just send a very strongly worded e-mail demanding to know where you are and then demanding that if you arent returned to AR immediately Ill have to take action! and they dont want that.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:39 PM

lol they sure dont

**Psychotron** · 09-19-2004, 05:43 PM

Because you cant see our subs, but you know where all satelites are.

**MMC78** · 09-19-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Psychotron

Because you cant see our subs, but you know where all satelites are.

exactly

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-19-2004, 05:46 PM

well Im sure a satelite can be stealthy constructed if needed. In ultra dark material so invisible to normal light and I desinged in the same way as stealth planes so no radar can detect it....If done like that I would think its harder to find it then to find a sub...

a question I always wondered about subs...cant they be dected from satelites? They must have some kind of heat emissions....

**inheritmylife** · 09-19-2004, 05:55 PM

Subs can be detected by satelites, but very few countries actualy have military satellites.

I'd be willing to bet it is cheaper to make 50 ICBM-armed subs than to build and put in orbit a satellite like you propose.

**Raven8264** · 09-19-2004, 07:10 PM

Because it's **** illegal and the United Nations would be in an uproar if they found out about it. We have a treaty with Russia called START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that specifies exactly what both countries are/aren't allowed to do, terms for surprise inspections of military facilities from the other country, reducing arms by certain #s within certain timeframes, etc.. Both countries take this treaty seriously and I have no doubt there would be severe repercussions if one side got caught breaking the rules.

**MMC78** · 09-19-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by johan

well Im sure a satelite can be stealthy constructed if needed. In ultra dark material so invisible to normal light and I desinged in the same way as stealth planes so no radar can detect it....If done like that I would think its harder to find it then to find a sub...

Just because something doesn't reflect visible light, doesn't mean it is undetectable. Stealth technology only goes so far. Our radar stations can reliably detect stealth planes.

a question I always wondered about subs...cant they be dected from satelites? They must have some kind of heat emissions....

Considering they're insulated by several thousand feet of water, no they don't have heat emissions.

**MIKE_XXL** · 09-19-2004, 08:53 PM

I don't think space shuddles have that much of carring capacity, i think most of it is used bringing the neccessary fuel to get out of orbit...XXL

**MIKE_XXL** · 09-19-2004, 08:55 PM

Also don't most ICBMs need oxygen for combustion to be fired

**decadbal** · 09-19-2004, 09:01 PM

seems like itd be a little easy to go up and steal them dont ya think..

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 09:04 PM

naw, the only people that could steal them already have them so it'd be a moot point

**decadbal** · 09-19-2004, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by symatech

naw, the only people that could steal them already have them so it'd be a moot point

if you aware on the prices of those weapons, then you know its never a moot subject..

**Rod Farva** · 09-19-2004, 09:11 PM

I'm no expert but I have read a few Tom Clancy novels. A satellite can only be in one place at a time (over one part of the Earth at a time). It has to keep orbiting. If China starts getting loud, we can send a bunch of subs over there to keep an eye but the satellite would have to keep orbiting so if the timed an attack we wouldn't be able to respod for hours til the satellite got back. You can have multiple satellites to keep the planet pretty well covered but as somebody mentioned that wouldn't be cheap. Not to mention there's a lot of space **** up there that they could bump into (other satellites, ...) in some sort of fluke.

I'm sure they do have some sort of space borne weapon though. You just can't really test it though so you have to have more conventional backup just in case.

**MMC78** · 09-19-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Rod Farva

I'm no expert but I have read a few Tom Clancy novels. A satellite can only be in one place at a time (over one part of the Earth at a time).

Are you saying that can or cannot remain over the same piece of ground? Because both regular orbits and geo-stationary orbits are possible

**Rod Farva** · 09-19-2004, 09:31 PM

I'm saying that I'm talking out of my ass.

I know in the books, when they want satellite pics of a certain area, they have to wait for a flyover or some **** like that.

**Psychotron** · 09-19-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by MMC78

Are you saying that can or cannot remain over the same piece of ground? Because both regular orbits and geo-stationary orbits are possible

its not possible for a "satellite" to remain in one spot, thats the definition, it satellites around the object in orbit.

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Decadbal

if you aware on the prices of those weapons, then you know its never a moot subject..

Im well aware how much they cost. Which countries have the ability to go into space? China, the Us, russia? They may not all have money for good education but there is always money for building weapons. Again, I seriously doubt that space theft would even be a remote issue.

**symatech** · 09-19-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Psychotron

its not possible for a "satellite" to remain in one spot, thats the definition, it satellites around the object in orbit.

yes it is, geostationary sattelites orbit above the exact same place. Many GPS sattelites work this way as well as some communication ones. basically they are set at a specific altitude and their orbit velocity is matched exatcly to the velocity of the earth's rotation. a satellit by definition is something that orbits around another body that is true, but it doesnt have to orbit faster or slower than the parent body, it can -and they do- match its pace

edit: well if you want to get technical they actually move faster since they are farther out from the earth, think of a carousel. the outer rim moves faster than the inner rim yet they both travel the same distance over the same amount of time.

**MMC78** · 09-19-2004, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Psychotron

its not possible for a "satellite" to remain in one spot, thats the definition, it satellites around the object in orbit.

Yes, it's entirely possible for a satelite to remain in the same spot over the Earth.

There are also 4 Lagrange points between the Earth, Moon and Sun where any placed object will remain.

**Rod Farva** · 09-20-2004, 12:14 AM

Wow...we have some smart meatheads on this board.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-20-2004, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by MMC78

Just because something doesn't reflect visible light, doesn't mean it is undetectable. Stealth technology only goes so far. Our radar stations can reliably detect stealth planes.

Yeah I know that, thats why I mentioned it could also be designed on the same was as a stealth plane. Hell I think it would be easier to make a stealth satellite considering they dont have to have the same things in mind like when making a plane(no need to make it aerodynamical ect).