This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wonder if it would look like a modified AMRAAM with a LEAP [Lightweight Exo-Atmosphereic Projectile] kinetic interceptor (in fact I discovered while writing this that work was already done in 2008 on using an AMRAAM derivative as a boost-phase ballistic-missile interceptor). The AMRAAM weighs about 350 pounds, which makes it lighter than e.g. the original 500-pound Starlink satellite (current Starlink satellites are clocking in at almost 3,000 pounds, it looks like). I'm not sure you'd need anything in space besides the interceptor itself, so even if we assume an extra 150 pounds for comic radiation shielding you're looking at a smallsat sized package. (Incidentally, the AMRAAM has a 44 pound warhead, which should be plenty of mass to house the LEAP interceptor).
Of course Brilliant Pebbles interceptors as designed were apparently only about 3 feet long and it looks like there was at least some talk about making them, say, as small as 5 pounds plus fuel, so maybe a clean-sheet design would be a much better idea here – even 200-pound interceptors would have a significant advantage over a 350 pound AMRAAM-sized one.
Is it? I mean, yes, it is, but what I really mean is – is it harder than midcourse and especially terminal interceptions? Because we already prepare to carry those out.
It looks like Brilliant Pebbles contemplated 7,000 to, uh, 100,000 during maximalist conceptions. These numbers aren't insane if you consider that Starlink has put about 7,000 satellites – all probably heavier than a Pebbles interceptor – in orbit in about five years. Supposing you're able to put four "pebbles" in orbit for each Starlink satellite and you launch at a similar rate, you're looking at, let's say, 4,000/year – so you reach limited usefulness in the first year of operation, but it still takes 25 years to build "complete coverage" at that rate (longer if we consider that the service life of the interceptors might not be 25 years!) If we can get 10 pebbles in orbit for each Starlink satellite, now you're looking at full deployment of 100,000 in ten years, or five years if 20 pebbles-per-Starlink, etc.
Something that I think has escaped many geopolitical observers is that the United States has assiduously maintained the "high ground" – in this case, an orbital high ground – in anticipation of a future conflict. We can absolutely outcompete the rest of the world in getting stuff to orbit. Part of what has me interested in the utility of such a system (and hoping that you write more on it as you track it) obviously it is potentially amazing if it works, potentially rendering ICBM threats toothless. But it seems to me that any satellite is a potential target for surface fires, and there are lots of other ways to deliver WMDs, so I am not sure it's worth it, particularly in a maximal way.
It's all bunk because intercepting salvos of maneuvering hypersonic missiles is really, really hard. So while thing will result deterrents moving to something else..
Additionally, it's pretty destabilizing.
Well part of the benefit of intercepting them in the boost phase is that they aren't hypersonic yet. I don't think they are typically "maneuvering" either (at least, to defeat interceptors, although that's probably not hard to add in).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One immediately thinks of ASM-135 but that's ancient at this point, I'm sure they've made lots of classified progress since. Although I'm just now learning that the US banned air-to-space missile testing as recently as 2022, maybe they finally had something that didn't require further testing?
The last time I looked into this was back in 2008 when they shot down USA-193 with a modified anti-ship missile. It doesn't seem that difficult to imagine that USSF has some plausibly deniable interceptors up there right now.
I do wonder if the recent advances in cruise missiles make all these ballistic shenanigans moot though.
My understanding is that there isn't much distinction between mid-course anti-ballistic-missile weapons, which the US has several advertised systems for (such as that used for USA-193) and targeting LEO satellites, which are at comparable altitudes, if somewhat higher velocities.
More options
Context Copy link
The SM-3 isn't really an anti-ship missile - it is basically purpose-built as an anti-ballistic missile. I wouldn't be surprised if it has an anti-ship mode, but that's been a secondary role for all of the Standards.
I think Space Force has some non-kinetic ASAT weapons, plus I assume the SM-3s have some ASAT capability, but also there's the X-37 which I think could easily host an anti-satellite weapon.
An interesting question, particularly now that long-range maneuvering hypersonic missiles seem to be in play. Russia, of course, has already preempted an anti-ballistic-missile shield by making an intercontinental nuclear torpedo, which is honestly very cool in a "James Bond villain superweapon" sort of way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link