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 -
Mods, this is my 2nd post in thread, please let me know if this topic isn’t suitable for CW Roundup.
Relevant to the aerospace and defense industry is an executive order (or action?) signed on the 27th by Trump ‘The Iron Dome for America’. We should know far more soon as the order asks the Sec of Def to submit a reference architecture within 60 days. I won’t do an exhaustive run through of each of its key points but Sec. 3 Implementation holds some interesting demands.
a(ii) Acceleration of the deployment of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor layer; My guess is that if this is a space based layer they will go with a standard ground observation LEO shell.
a(iii) Development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept; Space-based boost-phase interceptors? What does that even look like? These are again likely based on a platform deployed in LEO, which upon detection de-orbits in a manner which can intercept a missile in its boost phase. I will not beat around the bush this is a very hard problem to solve. And at the same time you likely need tens if not hundreds of the platforms to get good ground coverage.
aaa(viii) Development and deployment of non-kinetic capabilities to augment the kinetic defeat of ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks; Keywords ‘non-kinetic capabilities’, now this could mean EM (read jamming) but I seriously would not be surprised if a directed energy weapon was considered. It is not as far fetched as one may think. Note here this would also full-fill the boost-stage intercept requirement, however the a satellite with such a laser would likely have a huge power requirement.
This is my first real go round for following in-depth a defense project from the very beginning of implementation, where it goes from here I can’t say, but if 1/10 of the requested assets go into production there is going a huge market boost for contract winners and industry as a whole. And both the hard and soft geopolitical implications of such a program will be interesting to see shake out.
TLDR: The White House wants project Star Wars 2.0, kinetic fires and possibly lasers in space. If successful the true age of militarisation of space will have begun.
How is this even physically possible? What do you do against nuclear powered cruise missiles that can come in at low altitude and high speed flying nap of the earth? What do you do about nuclear powered torpedoes? Nukes detonating in space to blind your sensors and ECM your space-based interceptors? Decoy spam?
Missile defence does not work in the broad sense of 'we can shield our cities against missiles'. At most you can raise the cost of missile attack, defend some military targets against conventional attacks and deny much weaker opponents. See how Iran fired a couple of moderately small volleys and broke through Israeli-American air and missile defences that must've cost vastly more than the attacking force. Yemen (not usually considered a major power) can pierce Israeli air defences from time to time with fairly unsophisticated drones and missiles. Patriots have not shielded Ukraine from missile attacks. Russian missile defence lets things through too, it doesn't fully work like it would need to for 'defend its citizens and critical infrastructure against any foreign aerial attack'.
Mass is always a good countermeasure. Big rockets with MIRV and decoys aren't cheap but they're not very complicated to produce technologically. The Soviets churned out thousands of launchers. Warheads are cheap and only a few hundred need to get through to wreck even a big country like the US.
Unlike last time, the opponents are Russia AND China, who now possesses the largest industrial base on the planet. The US retains a significant lead in space thanks to SpaceX but it's not just space launch that matters. It's the full range of sensors, PGMs, hypersonics (where the US is behind) and mass. It's an inherently uphill battle against tough opponents with lots of tricks they can play.
From another angle, the Sentinel ICBM program is falling behind schedule and costs are ballooning. The Columbia-class missile submarines are eating up too much dockyard capacity and skilled labour. NGAD seems to have become a complete shambles, transforming from one to three aircraft last I heard. Does the US really need an even more ridiculously expensive aerospace program right now?
And the reward for finally pulling ahead (or even seeming to pull ahead) in this missile-defence game might just be a pre-emptive war before you can finish your defences and escape mutually assured destruction!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link