So I'm sure as all of you were wondering as was I was wondering, in today's documentary viewings there was something quite strange. Although SDI or Reagan's Star Wars project was extremely far-fetched, many people were afraid of attacks from space, especially in the European countries. But being only a defensive measure to destabilize MAD and nuclear war as a whole, what were people so worried about? after doing some research I came to a very tantalizing answer in the form of some extreme science. I found this article from the NY times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-9.html?_r=0
You should read it, it is interesting. So what does this mean? Well the original concept creator Jerry Pournell made the idea of Project Thor, a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from earth's orbit to the ground. Yes indeed, orbital satellites that can raid down hell fire just like "Thor" the Nordic God. And these are not your regular missile my fellow peers, these kinetic rods would have global strike capability, would be able to hit their targets within mono digits minutes, and impact at speeds of Mach 10. Pretty intense if you ask me. But why don't we have these types of weapons if they are so great? Well in 1979, arms limitation talks between US and USSR known as SALT II, the world powers limited orbital weapons to just conventional weapons, so no WMD; chemical, nuclear, biological, radiological weapons in space could be used. So with all the extremely scary weapons out of the way, what types of damage could they actually do? well depending on the size of the projectile, a 6.1m by 0,3m tungsten rod impacting at Mach 10 has the kinetic energy equivalency 11.5 tons of TNT. To put that into perspective, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima yielded a explosion equivalent to 16 kilotons of TNT. So if we did have these types of weapons, they wouldn't be nearly as effective as a nuclear strike, especially a Hydrogen bomb. If we were to have a Kinetic Bombardment system in space, its only real military application would be that it would be very fast to its target, and very accurate.
Great post Dean. As I read about the "Star Wars" initiative from a political and economic perspective, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all. Reaganomics cut welfare programs and cut taxes. So why was Reagan so intent on spending enormous amount of money on this extremely complex new defense system? One argument for the SDI is that safety should come first and, if we needed satellites firing laser beams to accomplish this, then so be it. That form of thinking seems oddly similar to the Soviets' approach to government spending for 50 years after WWII: spend lots on the military, and cut spending on the people. (Think about the "butter vs. guns" graph.) Not only that, but many scientists considered the SDI an impossible goal. It could have turned into a whirlwind spending project that got way out of control. If Reagan really intended on going forward with SDI, I personally think it was a bad idea. (at least in retrospect)
ReplyDeleteHowever, some sources, including the American Pageant, say Star Wars was a bit of a bluff. The idea was, if we made the Cold War a spending war, the Soviets would lose and then come to the United States government ready to negotiate peace. If the true intention was to bluff (and, to be honest, I don't think anyone in the White House was quite sure whether this whole Star Wars thing was a bluff or not) then I think it was a great idea. Its much better to lose precious dollars than precious lives.
Anyways, I thought I'd give my perspective on the political and economic implications of SDI. I apologize for talking in hypothetical terms; It seems like no one was quite sure whether Star Wars was a bluff or not.
Cool post! I was always curious as to how the United States would execute such a project and now I know. It's good the United States and the USSR put a limitation on the weapons that could be used in space or else tensions would have soared to a new height.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post, Dean. I think that the reason this weapon is so devastating is not necessarily its destructive force, but its near-instant bunker-busting capability. In addition, it is a non-nuclear weapon, which makes it a lot easier to deploy from a political standpoint versus a nuclear weapon. I could equate this to a personal experience, where it was easier to do something non-drastic versus taking a serious action. This combination yields an armament, that, if deployed cost-effectively, could be very strategically beneficial.
ReplyDelete