Golden Dome for America

Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming however much the 3rd stage of the SM3 has.
Edit: something like 1.5km/s, I think.
Click to expand...
Main question is, how much delta-v would individual interceptors need? The most costly part is inclination change; but raising/lowering the orbit to meet the missile would require burning engines too.
 
Dilandu said:
Main question is, how much delta-v would individual interceptors need? The most costly part is inclination change; but raising/lowering the orbit to meet the missile would require burning engines too.
Click to expand...
Inclination change is so expensive in delta-v that you might as well launch directly into that.

I'm thinking more like 90deg off the usual approach vectors so that you can merely speed up or slow down to make the intercept, but I can't easily visualize the amount of delta-v to get in the way of a target. And a 1.5km/s main engine can do a lot in those conditions, I think.
 
If the "garage" has the 360x360 view seekers to get the Brilliant Pebble pointed and initially lined up correctly, you could definitely get away with a smaller KKV. Still probably the size of a couple of coffee cans stacked on top of each other, but not too huge.

Just a reminder, I'm actually talking about a pretty big garage here (much bigger than I originally thought): Starlink V2 Mini satellites are about 4.1 meters (13 feet) wide, weigh around 800 kg (1,760 pounds) at launch, and can have a solar panel span of up to 30 meters (100 feet).
 
Flyaway said:
https://spacenews.com/starlink-compatible-radios-sought-for-golden-dome-interceptor-satellite-demo/
Click to expand...
The planned demonstration would use radio-frequency communications terminals to establish satellite-to-satellite links between a government-owned communications satellite and a mock space-based interceptor (SBI).

“The government believes that the best approach for a low size, weight, and power (SWaP) solution in support of Golden Dome space-based interceptor (SBI) risk reduction and notional comm requirements will fall within the L/S-band spectrum and use the Link-182 waveform,” the BAA stated.
Click to expand...
 
Russia, according to current estimates, could launch about 1700 nuclear warheads in an attack. America has 450 Minuteman silos (50 of which are empty at any given time and luckily which ones are a closely guarded secret). Assuming Putin isn't completely suicidal, he would aim 900 warheads at those silos. The US also has between 450 and 500 military bases on its own soil and 750 abroad. And then other NATO members have their own military bases, 2 of them (Britain and France) are also nuclear armed. Russia simply doesn't have enough nukes to hit civilian targets. Of course, such an attack would lead to civilian casualties from nuclear fallout and blast and heat on communities near military bases, but the idea of every city in the west being reduced to rubble can be ruled out. Residents of Colorado Springs have more to fear than those in New York City.

And this goes to further what I've been saying that we should focus most of our efforts on defending our missile silos.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
If you aim all the warheads at the silos and the silos launch before the warheads get there, you just wasted all your nukes and got obliterated for your efforts.
Click to expand...
And that is how Mutually Assured Destruction is supposed to work. But what if Russia's leadership, caught in its echo chamber, decides that the US is about to launch an attack and the only option is to try a hail mary to destroy as many of our missiles as they can before they can be launched? It's also inevitable that many of our missiles, due to mechanical issues and human errors, won't be able to make it out of their silos in the time between when the President orders a launch and when the Russian missiles hit.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
And that is how Mutually Assured Destruction is supposed to work. But what if Russia's leadership, caught in its echo chamber, decides that the US is about to launch an attack and the only option is to try a hail mary to destroy as many of our missiles as they can before they can be launched? It's also inevitable that many of our missiles, due to mechanical issues and human errors, won't be able to make it out of their silos in the time between when the President orders a launch and when the Russian missiles hit.
Click to expand...
Half hour flight time.

Let's just say it doesn't take that long to bring the missiles online.
 
Given how many startups are jumping on this, I'm thinking the idea was proposed to Trump by one or more members of the Paypal Mafia, who stand to make a lot of money if one of those firms gets chosen to build the systems.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Of course, such an attack would lead to civilian casualties from nuclear fallout and blast and heat on communities near military bases, but the idea of every city in the west being reduced to rubble can be ruled out. Residents of Colorado Springs have more to fear than those in New York City.
Click to expand...
Your data is kinda wrong. In 2000s US military tried to calculate casualties from limited nuclear war scenarios, and came to unexpected conclusion: the number of victims from the counterforce attack would far exceed the number of victims from countervalue attack.

The reason was, that countervalue strikes against cities would likely be airbursts at sufficient heigh. Massive destruction, but little to no fallout. While counterforce strikes against ICBM siloes would be groundbursts with ENORMOUS ammount of fallout released. The total number of indirect casualties from heavy fallout would be far worse than from direct attacks against cities.
 
Dilandu said:
Your data is kinda wrong. In 2000s US military tried to calculate casualties from limited nuclear war scenarios, and came to unexpected conclusion: the number of victims from the counterforce attack would far exceed the number of victims from countervalue attack.

The reason was, that countervalue strikes against cities would likely be airbursts at sufficient heigh. Massive destruction, but little to no fallout. While counterforce strikes against ICBM siloes would be groundbursts with ENORMOUS ammount of fallout released. The total number of indirect casualties from heavy fallout would be far worse than from direct attacks against cities.
Click to expand...
Citation needed
 
Deterrence only works if you hold value at risk, empty silos in Wyoming is not that. Maybe back in the day of 10,000 ICBMs you could target the silos, but nowadays it would be a waste. Only Russia can even target them and they wont do it. RVs will be hitting cities.
 
Desertfox said:
Deterrence only works if you hold value at risk, empty silos in Wyoming is not that. Maybe back in the day of 10,000 ICBMs you could target the silos, but nowadays it would be a waste. Only Russia can even target them and they wont do it. RVs will be hitting cities.
Click to expand...
Make it make sense: Russia hits our cities without trying to take out our nuclear forces because...
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Make it make sense: Russia hits our cities without trying to take out our nuclear forces because...
Click to expand...
Because they only need 200ish warheads to cause major damage to our cities, keeping the bulk of their force in reserve for a 2nd strike. If they go after the silos, they blow 2/3s of their force on empty holes.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
And that is how Mutually Assured Destruction is supposed to work. But what if Russia's leadership, caught in its echo chamber, decides that the US is about to launch an attack and the only option is to try a hail mary to destroy as many of our missiles as they can before they can be launched? It's also inevitable that many of our missiles, due to mechanical issues and human errors, won't be able to make it out of their silos in the time between when the President orders a launch and when the Russian missiles hit.
Click to expand...
Except the destruction isn't mutually assured if you only aim for silos and your adversary gets off even half the missiles and destroys your largest cities and industrial regions.

exclaimedleech8 said:
View attachment 787289 This sums up the problem of boost phase defense
Click to expand...
In reality the tank is something equally vulnerable, so the soldier should have a Javelin and a tractor.
 
Desertfox said:
Because they only need 200ish warheads to cause major damage to our cities, keeping the bulk of their force in reserve for a 2nd strike. If they go after the silos, they blow 2/3s of their force on empty holes.
Click to expand...
And then that leaves the US with 1700 nuclear warheads to wipe out Russia. And Russia's population and industry is way more concentrated. Moscow serves the same role to Russia that New York, Washington, and Chicago put together serve to America.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
And then that leaves the US with 1700 nuclear warheads to wipe out Russia. And Russia's population and industry is way more concentrated. Moscow serves the same role to Russia that New York, Washington, and Chicago put together serve to America.
Click to expand...
And thats how you get MAD, because Russia still has 1500 warheads left in that scenario to throw back. Using 2/3rd of your entire arsenal to maybe (highly unlikely) take out 400 US warheads is not worth it.
 
Dilandu said:
I'll try to recall the exact source.
Click to expand...
That's why Sprint came into being--to keep the fireball from touching the ground, IIRC

SDI gave us Clementine, so I don't consider it a waste--especially if geared towards smaller nations missiles.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
And then that leaves the US with 1700 nuclear warheads to wipe out Russia. And Russia's population and industry is way more concentrated. Moscow serves the same role to Russia that New York, Washington, and Chicago put together serve to America.
Click to expand...
The US has a higher urbanization rate than Russia.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
And Russia's population and industry is way more concentrated. Moscow serves the same role to Russia that New York, Washington, and Chicago put together serve to America.
Click to expand...
sienar said:
The US has a higher urbanization rate than Russia.
Click to expand...

The bulk of the Russian Federation's population is concentrated in and around two cities - Moscow and St. Petersburg, here's a population distribution map:

Gy5yW6GXYAAUIo9

russia.pdf

960px-Russia_Population_Density_Map_2021.png


An all out thermonuclear war would do far more damage to the population of the Russian Federation than to the USA and the rest of the West.
 
The fact that nuclear warhead sizes have shrunk over the decades as accuracy has improved (from 5 megatons in the early 60s to 1 megaton by the 70s, and down to 500 kilotons or less since the end of the Cold War) tells me that the plan is not to use them to wage genocide but to destroy specific strategic targets. Nuclear armed ICBMs are incredibly expensive and only worth it for targets that need to be destroyed very quickly. If Russia wanted to bomb our cities, they would probably use fighter jets and cruise missiles.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
The fact that nuclear warhead sizes have shrunk over the decades as accuracy has improved (from 5 megatons in the early 60s to 1 megaton by the 70s, and down to 500 kilotons or less since the end of the Cold War) tells me that the plan is not to use them to wage genocide but to destroy specific strategic targets. Nuclear armed ICBMs are incredibly expensive and only worth it for targets that need to be destroyed very quickly. If Russia wanted to bomb our cities, they would probably use fighter jets and cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
Remember that a cluster of lower-yield warheads delivers greater destruction than a single large warhead.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that a cluster of lower-yield warheads delivers greater destruction than a single large warhead.
Click to expand...

The Polaris A3 for example bracketed its' target with three MRVs with each Mk-2 MRV carrying a 200KT W-58 instead of a single Mk-1 RV carrying a 1.2MT W-47Y2 warhead.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that a cluster of lower-yield warheads delivers greater destruction than a single large warhead.
Click to expand...
If you're implying that we've moved to a larger number of smaller warheads; there are far fewer warheads overall nowadays. The immense improvements in accuracy mean that conventional weapons can destroy what once required nuclear weapons.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom