New Space Race

[Patrick Degan]

Parking bombs in the same orbit with the big, fancy deathbeam platform would be a cheap and effective countermeasure, easily available to any nation even capable of putting satellites in orbit in the first place. One reason why such projects have no basis in reality, no matter what the Church of the High Frontier say. The expense would not be worth the effort to put up what essentially would be an indefensible high-tech target.

An orbitally-deployed device is hardly invulnerable,[/qupte]

I'd say not at all (though I think you meant to use the world "indefensible").

and a platform can be shielded against EMP, forcing such a device to be used at a distance to where the radiation sleet has the primary effect. Obviously in a conflict it would be targeted and destroyed before it reached that range.

Yes, yes, yes, all nice and that. The fact remains that the physics of putting an object into orbit means that said object must have as little mass as possible. Which means a fragile structure. Something that a decent shrapnel-bomb could make a real mess of.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, you're correct on the first word. That was a bit slangy of me (and so was that for that matter).

Armouring against shrapnel, even in a microgravity enviroment, isn't a major consideration. We'd just need a better (more powerful) launch vehicle to put up a platform properly protected. If we're serious about deploying such a system we could have such a launch vehicle available by the time such a platform is feasable, in the next decade or two. ABM defence will be ground-based until then, and Stravo's idea isn't cost effective in general.

I suspect that you wouldn't even need to provide shrapnel protection: It would probably be easy enough to deploy an effective system to detect and intercept even very small shrapnel bombs, and I know we have very good detection of orbital debris already.

[salm]

i´m not sure if there would be any legal problems. it would be a stupid thing to do anyway. i mean, when some one has the power to strike a deadly attack on anything at any time it doesn´t give people a good feeling. the usa would lose even more image and even more people worldwide are going to hate the usa.
of course like always, the us government won´t give a shit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

i´m not sure if there would be any legal problems. it would be a stupid thing to do anyway. i mean, when some one has the power to strike a deadly attack on anything at any time it doesn´t give people a good feeling. the usa would lose even more image and even more people worldwide are going to hate the usa.
of course like always, the us government won´t give a shit.

No, people would be terrified of us - Or at least those who have a reason to, at any rate. And that terror would, furthermore, only last as long as we were applying that power against those who warranted to suffer from its application. But the terror would be useful, in that it would cow others, and cause them to avoid from falling under it themselves. There's a basic misunderstanding of how things work in the presumption that the application of force makes people angry, especially on a large scale.

If you weren't going to fight something before you knew its strength, you're far less likely to when its strength has been demonstrated to be great. Images of carnage and bloodshed - Nobody wants these things to occur upon their persons, their relatives, or their nation. So naturally such things work as a restraining factor on the human psyche. Weakness, however, invites attack, because it promises less suffering for the attacker before the desired aim is met.

[Patrick Degan]

Armouring against shrapnel, even in a microgravity enviroment, isn't a major consideration. We'd just need a better (more powerful) launch vehicle to put up a platform properly protected. If we're serious about deploying such a system we could have such a launch vehicle available by the time such a platform is feasable, in the next decade or two. ABM defence will be ground-based until then, and Stravo's idea isn't cost effective in general.

That's an amusing assertion to make, considering that we're pretty much at the limit as to what we can accomplish with chemical rockets. I hate to have to put a dent in this lovely fantasy, but physics does not yield to politics. Ever.

I suspect that you wouldn't even need to provide shrapnel protection: It would probably be easy enough to deploy an effective system to detect and intercept even very small shrapnel bombs, and I know we have very good detection of orbital debris already.

Unfortunately, it's a different problem altogether to avoid a sudden cloud of debris than it is to detect it, even with instruments such as the Haystack radar at your disposal.

And one of the advantages of the cheap and simple orbital cannister is that once it releases its cloud of debris (ball-bearings, or even nails) in the pathway of its target, either by self-detonation or impact with another object, it's accomplished its mission. The target's own momentum will do the rest.

[Darth Wong]

Here's a hypothetical. Say that in the current atmosphere of growing American militarism and a more offensive posture in terms of use of militray might, say that Bush decides to implement a program that would begin placing space based weapons like satellites that can fire particle beams onto the surface of the Earth with pinpoint accuracy by the start of teh next decade.

And its operating system is written by Microsoft. Run like hell, everybody!

Say you get a lead that a member of a terrorist cell is in a car driving to a meet in Sudan, you fire up the particle beam weapon, aim and fire, the car explodes into a fireball and all of it lasted a total of fifteen minutes. This would take pressure off our militray and allow the US to respond to threats or potential targets of oppurtunity without having to deploy troops or ask permission to cross sovereign territory to get to where we're going.

Got an Al-Qaeda cell building vest bombs for suicide bombers in a ghetto in Pakistan....BLAM, the building is gone with little or no collateral damage.

So you execute people anywhere in the world without trial or even close-in inspection and verification of their activities, based SOLELY on leads from the CIA? You've got a "lead" on something, and that's good enough to fire weapons on people, blow up entire buildings even though you can't possibly tell who else is in there from orbit, and ignore national sovereignty?

If you storm a building and confirm that they were making vest bombs, that's one thing. But what you're talking about is killing people and blowing up buildings anywhere on Earth based solely on intel.

The question becomes rather obvious, would the rest of the world stand for this weapons platform in US hands or would some powers decide to either get their own platforms in place or more likely try to develop counter measures?

The rest of the world would demand that the US not orbit a weapon like that over their territories. It is no less provocative than loading up B-2's with nuclear weapons and then circling over a foreign nation continuously.

WOuld such an platform kick off a space race like the one for the moon with every major power trying to get a platform up in space OR would they rely on diplomatic means to try and pressure the US to NOT deploy the system and what sort of arguments would you make to convince the US to NOT deploy it that sound rational. ( I want to avoid any virulent anti-Americanism here, think of yourself as a head of state of another nation and how you might approach the problem.)

The argument is simple: you need permission to overfly our land with military aircraft, and this satellite is no communications satellite. It is a military spacecraft, and we demand that you not violate our national sovereignty by overflying our territory with it.

[Patrick Degan]

i´m not sure if there would be any legal problems. it would be a stupid thing to do anyway. i mean, when some one has the power to strike a deadly attack on anything at any time it doesn´t give people a good feeling. the usa would lose even more image and even more people worldwide are going to hate the usa. of course like always, the us government won´t give a shit.

No, people would be terrified of us - Or at least those who have a reason to, at any rate. And that terror would, furthermore, only last as long as we were applying that power against those who warranted to suffer from its application. But the terror would be useful, in that it would cow others, and cause them to avoid from falling under it themselves.

Or it might cause them to attempt a preemptive strike before we could get any such capability. The doctrine of preemption will not remain an exclusive U.S. property, I'm afraid.

There's a basic misunderstanding of how things work in the presumption that the application of force makes people angry, especially on a large scale.

Um, the application of force on a large scale does make people angry and they tend to respond to it with force. See World War II.

If you weren't going to fight something before you knew its strength, you're far less likely to when its strength has been demonstrated to be great. Images of carnage and bloodshed - Nobody wants these things to occur upon their persons, their relatives, or their nation. So naturally such things work as a restraining factor on the human psyche. Weakness, however, invites attack, because it promises less suffering for the attacker before the desired aim is met.

The entire history of warfare refutes this lovely fantasy.

[Darth Wong]

It seems like Marina is advocating global rule by fear, ie- inciting terror in order to effect political change. Wait a minute, isn't there already a word for that?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Or it might cause them to attempt a preemptive strike before we could get any such capability. The doctrine of preemption will not remain an exclusive U.S. property, I'm afraid.

We didn't launch a preemptive attack, for the war with Iraq had legal basis. Another debate, though, that is.

A second consideration for this: Our supremacy is sufficient that even if a strike was able to disable whatever we were developing, our conventional (or if necessary unconventional) arms would be sufficient for the retaliation at this point.

Such a weapons system is purely building on the strength we already have, nothing more.

Um, the application of force on a large scale does make people angry and they tend to respond to it with force. See World War II.

World War II is an example of the exact opposite. Countries from all over Europe "Bandwagoned" with Nazi Germany (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland, Spain, in varying order and for varying interests, but the alignment and reordering remained the same) as Nazi Germany rose back to the position of the old Second Reich as regional hegemon. Success brought satellites (I'm intentionally discounting their Slovakian puppet state and the Vichy Regime, along with things like the Quisling government - The ones I listed were voluntary realignments), who often imitated Nazi or Fascist organization with varying forms of success, and rode the tide of Hitler's power while the going was good.

Nazi Germany did not encounter a coalition which could form effectual opposition to its advance until it moved into the spheres of power of two other regional hegemons - The USSR (as delineated during the non-aggression pact) and the USA (violation of merchant shipping via unrestricted warfare). Once it did that, those two regional hegemons smacked down the overreaching European hegemon, and in doing so positioned themselves to become contenders for world hegemony (and picked up satellites of their own in their process).

The entire history of warfare refutes this lovely fantasy.

There's only about one example of a conflict in the past 525 years which doesn't well support maximal realism, and it happened in the late 17th century. I say the exact same thing about minimal-realism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It seems like Marina is advocating global rule by fear, ie- inciting terror in order to effect political change. Wait a minute, isn't there already a word for that?

What we call terrorism is really just the operations of irregular military forces against non-military targets. It's not a new thing at all.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It seems like Marina is advocating global rule by fear, ie- inciting terror in order to effect political change. Wait a minute, isn't there already a word for that?

Fear is simply a motivating force, and one that occurs inevitably as a result of some actions. It is also a suppressor of certain things and certain undesireable activities.

To be blunt: I do not desire any country to be ruled by fear, but the international system has always worked best when the nations of the globe have held fear for the power of a hegemon. I think the distinction there, however, is the vital part of it.

[Crown]

Armouring against shrapnel, even in a microgravity enviroment, isn't a major consideration. We'd just need a better (more powerful) launch vehicle to put up a platform properly protected. If we're serious about deploying such a system we could have such a launch vehicle available by the time such a platform is feasable, in the next decade or two. ABM defence will be ground-based until then, and Stravo's idea isn't cost effective in general.

I suspect that you wouldn't even need to provide shrapnel protection: It would probably be easy enough to deploy an effective system to detect and intercept even very small shrapnel bombs, and I know we have very good detection of orbital debris already.

Your over-estimation of my industry is astounding. Duchess while I don't want to get into a debate about the rationale behind such a project with you, please don't masticate my profession and then spit it out as fact. The capabilities that are required are not 'a couple of decades away'. Trust me on this, even if you never believe me in nothing else.

An effective NMD system is a pipedream. Frankly a waste of material, money and time. But then again it's your money so.... *shrug*

[Patrick Degan]

Or it might cause them to attempt a preemptive strike before we could get any such capability. The doctrine of preemption will not remain an exclusive U.S. property, I'm afraid.

We didn't launch a preemptive attack, for the war with Iraq had legal basis. Another debate, though, that is.

In a word, bullshit. But you're right that it is the subject of another debate.

A second consideration for this: Our supremacy is sufficient that even if a strike was able to disable whatever we were developing, our conventional (or if necessary unconventional) arms would be sufficient for the retaliation at this point.

You just don't see the larger picture, do you? If the entire point of the SPECTRE Deathbeam satellite is to terrify other nations into submission to the U.S., and instead it results in a preemptive strike and a general war, then the object of the exercise has necessarily failed. And if any nation were to launch such a strike, do you imagine that they would not consider the possibility of retaliation beforehand and have already figured that into their plans?

Such a weapons system is purely building on the strength we already have, nothing more.

No, it is making a qualitative change in the balance of power, which automatically requires a response.

Um, the application of force on a large scale does make people angry and they tend to respond to it with force. See World War II.

World War II is an example of the exact opposite. Countries from all over Europe "Bandwagoned" with Nazi Germany (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland, Spain, in varying order and for varying interests, but the alignment and reordering remained the same) as Nazi Germany rose back to the position of the old Second Reich as regional hegemon. Success brought satellites (I'm intentionally discounting their Slovakian puppet state and the Vichy Regime, along with things like the Quisling government - The ones I listed were voluntary realignments), who often imitated Nazi or Fascist organization with varying forms of success, and rode the tide of Hitler's power while the going was good.

Right —up until the moment Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were attacked. Your attempted argument does not negate this one iota. Nazi Germany applied massive force on a large scale, and got stomped flat for its trouble.

Nazi Germany did not encounter a coalition which could form effectual opposition to its advance until it moved into the spheres of power of two other regional hegemons - The USSR (as delineated during the non-aggression pact) and the USA (violation of merchant shipping via unrestricted warfare). Once it did that, those two regional hegemons smacked down the overreaching European hegemon, and in doing so positioned themselves to become contenders for world hegemony (and picked up satellites of their own in their process).

And this refutes the central point that Nazi Germany got flattened how, exactly?

There's only about one example of a conflict in the past 525 years which doesn't well support maximal realism, and it happened in the late 17th century. I say the exact same thing about minimal-realism.

Sigh... The Trojan War, the Punic Wars, the Anglo/Spanish War of 1585, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, The American Civil War, World War II... Merely a few examples in history where war was neither deterred by perception of strength of the one side nor quickly decided on the basis of the opposing side's apparent weakness.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's an amusing assertion to make, considering that we're pretty much at the limit as to what we can accomplish with chemical rockets. I hate to have to put a dent in this lovely fantasy, but physics does not yield to politics. Ever.

I'm not a physicist, and I have seen some projections for large chemical boosters. I believe there was a website for them... You might be aware of it, and some problems in their proposal, then? I know the N1 - a Soviet design proposal of the 60s - was nearly put into production, and it was intended to launch a 75 ton payload into a 300km orbit. The Soviets considered it well within their technical capabilities. Another similiar proposal, if one that did not get quite so far, was for 151 tons into LEO. An armoured weapons satellite could potentially fall into that range - And hardly needs to be launched in a single piece.

And one of the advantages of the cheap and simple orbital cannister is that once it releases its cloud of debris (ball-bearings, or even nails) in the pathway of its target, either by self-detonation or impact with another object, it's accomplished its mission. The target's own momentum will do the rest.

The spread would have to be wide enough to avoid simple changes in trajectory; there might be some potential defence possible against magnetic objects; and more relevant than the second (if not the first), if detected, such objects themselves could potentially be eliminated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You just don't see the larger picture, do you? If the entire point of the SPECTRE Deathbeam satellite is to terrify other nations into submission to the U.S., and instead it results in a preemptive strike and a general war, then the object of the exercise has necessarily failed. And if any nation were to launch such a strike, do you imagine that they would not consider the possibility of retaliation beforehand and have already figured that into their plans?

Exactly so on the last part - Which is why anyone sensible wouldn't engage in such a preemptive strike. Irrational leaders are a problem, but honestly rarely occur (and the world is safer without them).

No, it is making a qualitative change in the balance of power, which automatically requires a response.

How would it be changing the balance of power? How does it do something that our armed forces can't already do? It doesn't - It just does it faster.

Right —up until the moment Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were attacked. Your attempted argument does not negate this one iota. Nazi Germany applied massive force on a large scale, and got stomped flat for its trouble.

They were stalemated against Britain only because of Britain's naval supremacy, and were seriously threatening the British lines of supply in the Mid-East. Britain might have easily sought peace by '42, exhausted of will. Nazi Germany was the regional hegemon of Europe and things were going exactly as maximal realism would suggest at that point. Then Nazi Germany overstepped by invading the regional sphere of the USSR and, again, interfering in the regional sphere of the USA - which eventually let to war there as well.

Nazi Germany was doing just fine within the context of its role as a regional hegemon. Once it made a play for world hegemony the world's other hegemons responded/were forced to respond, and that's when Nazi Germany started to lose.

And this refutes the central point that Nazi Germany got flattened how, exactly?

That isn't the central point. The central point is that Nazi Germany got flattened for a reason other than the one you state. Namely, they were an exceptionally powerful (and successful) regional hegemon - But had no business trying to exert world influence. They tried to anyway and duly paid the price for it.

When you said: Right —up until the moment Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were attacked. - You essentially made my point for me. Removing Britain from that, which can credibly argued, Nazi Germany was winning the war as long as it stayed inside its own regional power sphere, and other countries there were "bandwagoning" to ride along on its power and reap the benefits of doing so. Once it overstepped into the regional spheres of the USSR and the USA, however - two other regional hegemons - it exceeded the range of its capabilities and paid the price for doing so.

Sigh... The Trojan War,

And what do we accurately know about the politics of the Trojan War?

the Punic Wars,

Classic example of maximal-realism. The Romans had established a hegemony over the greek-speaking city-states of lower Italy, and were gradually bringing them further into the Roman Confederation. Carthage had established a hegemony over the western Mediterranean, including western Sicily. Eastern Sicily, with a Greek-speaking populace, was a grey area. The Carthaginians considered it part of their sphere of influence and went after it. The locals identified with the hegemony Rome had established and appealed to it for help. Thus begins the First Punic War.

Round two involves Carthage encroaching in Spain on the territory of a Roman ally - Part of the Roman hegemony. Rome responds as-is necessary to defend its hegemonic status. Round three sees Carthage finished off as a lesson to those who will oppose Rome's hegemonic power, which by then dominated the whole Mediterranean world.

the Anglo/Spanish War of 1585,

The current hegemon, Spain, was facing an internal revolt in its Netherlands provinces which made it appear weak, thus inviting challenge. The English did just that and when the Spanish tried to enforce their hegemony they proved incapable of doing so. The Dutch and the English rose to dominate the overseas trade from Europe.

the American Revolution,

Britain, which dominated the overseas trade, faced a rebellion in her colonial territories. This made the British hegemony there appear weak, and so France, the regional hegemony of Europe (British involvement in continental affairs at this time was not heavy enough to rate Britain in the continental sphere), joined in the effort on the side of the rebels to weak Britain's hegemony and make an effort to restore France to the position of effective world hegemon. They were successful in the immediate goal, but it was already overstretch for the exhausted French nation, and the economic drain of the conflict led to the French Revolution.

the War of 1812,

The regional hegemon of the American continent faces off against the rising world hegemon, Great Britain. British distraction in continental Europe allows us to get away with a draw.

The American Civil War,

Internal conflict - And besides, look how fast the Confederacy came apart after Sherman's march.

World War II...

See above.

[phongn]

An effective NMD system is a pipedream. Frankly a waste of material, money and time. But then again it's your money so.... *shrug*

You don't need a pK of 1, just enough to induce uncertainty into the targetting scheme. Hell, enough to knock down an accidential-launch scenario ("actual" launch or target misidentification) is worth the price.

[MKSheppard]

You don't need a pK of 1, just enough to induce uncertainty into the targetting scheme. Hell, enough to knock down an accidential-launch scenario ("actual" launch or target misidentification) is worth the price.

For fuck's sake people, don't launch ONE ABM at the incoming missile,
launch FOUR or FIVE, and watch your pK go up...ABMs are cheap
compared to the devastation caused by a single warhead if it gets thru...

[Sea Skimmer]

You don't need a pK of 1, just enough to induce uncertainty into the targetting scheme. Hell, enough to knock down an accidential-launch scenario ("actual" launch or target misidentification) is worth the price.

For fuck's sake people, don't launch ONE ABM at the incoming missile,
launch FOUR or FIVE, and watch your pK go up...ABMs are cheap
compared to the devastation caused by a single warhead if it gets thru...

And fairly cheep compared to the cost of an ICBM, its warheads and the silo or sub to keep it in. However the fact that 5000 ABM weapons work better then 1000 doesn't mean the 1000 don't work quite well.

[MKSheppard]

However the fact that 5000 ABM weapons work better then 1000 doesn't mean the 1000 don't work quite well.

It was SOP in the PVO to launch both an IR guided missile, and a radar-guided
missile to assure target destruction. Why can't we do the same with
incoming ballistic missiles?

[Patrick Degan]

That's an amusing assertion to make, considering that we're pretty much at the limit as to what we can accomplish with chemical rockets. I hate to have to put a dent in this lovely fantasy, but physics does not yield to politics. Ever.

I'm not a physicist,

That much is obvious.

and I have seen some projections for large chemical boosters. I believe there was a website for them... You might be aware of it, and some problems in their proposal, then? I know the N1 - a Soviet design proposal of the 60s - was nearly put into production, and it was intended to launch a 75 ton payload into a 300km orbit. The Soviets considered it well within their technical capabilities. Another similiar proposal, if one that did not get quite so far, was for 151 tons into LEO. An armoured weapons satellite could potentially fall into that range - And hardly needs to be launched in a single piece.

I'm well aware of Glusko's N1. Two of them blew up on the pad and the entire thing was not more powerful than the American Saturn V.

As for the rest of your idea, you are aware, are you not, that the larger you make your rocket, the more fuel it must carry to be able to reach orbit? Which means that you do not gain in payload lift capacity to any great degree since 90% of the rocket is its own fuel mass. Stick armour plate on your SPECTRE Deathbeam platform and you've cut down on the available mass for fuel. Which sort of defeats the entire purpose of building a larger rocket in the first place.

Neither the Apollo CSM nor the LM massed much more than the heaviest satellite loads of the day. The entire purpose of such a large rocket was to gain sufficent altitude for the translunar injection. By contrast, it took the entire power of the Saturn V to put Skylab into LEO and that thing was made literally of aluminum foil and tubing.

And one of the advantages of the cheap and simple orbital cannister is that once it releases its cloud of debris (ball-bearings, or even nails) in the pathway of its target, either by self-detonation or impact with another object, it's accomplished its mission. The target's own momentum will do the rest.

The spread would have to be wide enough to avoid simple changes in trajectory; there might be some potential defence possible against magnetic objects; and more relevant than the second (if not the first), if detected, such objects themselves could potentially be eliminated.

I see. So, in addition to armour plating and ECM hardening to add to your SPECTRE Deathbeam platform, you're also going to add the fuel mass necessary to course-correct to higher or lower orbits? Oh, and to be able to do so in sufficent time to avoid a cloud of solid objects within the period of the platform's orbit, then reestablish the optimum orbit to target sites on the ground, assuming you don't have to avoid subsequent cannisters? And what happens once you've run out of the fuel necessary for evasive manoeuvering?

And who says the cannister has to be loaded with magnetic objects? All you need is solid mass, and there are plenty of nonmagnetic metals available.

[phongn]

Any projections on how heavy this orbital weapons platform would be? LEO payload for the S-V was 118 tons. Energia could get 88 tons. I somehow doubt that either would be able to get an orbital energy-weapons satellite up, not without several launches and assembly.

Polyus alone was 80 tons and was equipped with defenses against incoming ASAT and energy weapons. The proposed Zenith Star SDI satellite would have weighed 39.4 tons but had no defenses other than it's ABM laser. Marina's hypothetical system would have to be much larger than either, likely.

Polyus required an Energia launch; Zenith Star would have taken two Titan 4 launchers or a single (proposed) Barbarian heavy launcher.

[Vympel]

It's probably result in ASAT weapons being launched by nations such as China and France to prevent the weaponization of space. ASAT aren't extremely difficult to make these days, so it's quite plausible that sometime after it's first used, somebody's going to try to get rid of it. I believe that the US is already developing an ASAT so as to remove satelite threats before a military action...

Currently two MiG-31D aircraft exist that were tested by the Soviet Union in the late 80s, modified to fly high enough and equipped with a pair of ASAT missiles manufactured by Vympel (hehe).

So the tech is definitely out there. Fuck I know I wouldn't stand for attacks on my sovereign territory by the United States, I wouldn't care what they were shooting at.

[Sea Skimmer]

It was SOP in the PVO to launch both an IR guided missile, and a radar-guided
missile to assure target destruction. Why can't we do the same with
incoming ballistic missiles?

The POV also had a couple fighters for every bomber it faced. It simply orbits back to cost. A limited ABM system makes a major nuclear atack very diffacult becuase you can't be sure you'll get key targets.

So the question becomes, now that we've made an already somewhat unlikely mass attack even more unlikely, do we want and or need to spend even more money to make it impossibul? Or would that money be better spent on more basic air defenses, which suck in the US, or far more often used conventional forces?

A system that can kill every warhead is desirable, but probably an unnecessary luxury. Where talking about hundreds of billions of dollars difference.

[phongn]

It's probably result in ASAT weapons being launched by nations such as China and France to prevent the weaponization of space. ASAT aren't extremely difficult to make these days, so it's quite plausible that sometime after it's first used, somebody's going to try to get rid of it. I believe that the US is already developing an ASAT so as to remove satelite threats before a military action...

Currently two MiG-31D aircraft exist that were tested by the Soviet Union in the late 80s, modified to fly high enough and equipped with a pair of ASAT missiles manufactured by Vympel (hehe).

How did they compare to the early F-15/ASAT combo?

So the tech is definitely out there. Fuck I know I wouldn't stand for attacks on my sovereign territory by the United States, I wouldn't care what they were shooting at.

Indeed. It'd be incredibly stupid (and more or less an act of war, at that) to use this orbital weapons satellite to start blasting stuff without consent of that nation.

[Patrick Degan]

You just don't see the larger picture, do you? If the entire point of the SPECTRE Deathbeam satellite is to terrify other nations into submission to the U.S., and instead it results in a preemptive strike and a general war, then the object of the exercise has necessarily failed. And if any nation were to launch such a strike, do you imagine that they would not consider the possibility of retaliation beforehand and have already figured that into their plans?

Exactly so on the last part - Which is why anyone sensible wouldn't engage in such a preemptive strike. Irrational leaders are a problem, but honestly rarely occur (and the world is safer without them).

Wrong. A preemptive strike is one of the most natural countermoves any rational leader would consider, if the alternative is to be placed in a position of permanent disadvantage and ultimately a threat to national independence and survival.

No, it is making a qualitative change in the balance of power, which automatically requires a response.

How would it be changing the balance of power? How does it do something that our armed forces can't already do? It doesn't - It just does it faster.

Either you are so wrapped up in these High Frontier fantasies that you've lost the ability to even see a larger picture, or you really have not thought the steps out all the way. You're talking about a weapons system which could target ground installations from orbit with markedly reduced response time for the targeted nation to ready its defences. It was precisely these concerns which motivated our own panic when the Russians put Sputnik into orbit in the first place. No national leader in his right mind would allow such an imbalance to go unanswered. We wouldn't.

Right —up until the moment Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were attacked. Your attempted argument does not negate this one iota. Nazi Germany applied massive force on a large scale, and got stomped flat for its trouble.

They were stalemated against Britain only because of Britain's naval supremacy, and were seriously threatening the British lines of supply in the Mid-East. Britain might have easily sought peace by '42, exhausted of will. Nazi Germany was the regional hegemon of Europe and things were going exactly as maximal realism would suggest at that point. Then Nazi Germany overstepped by invading the regional sphere of the USSR and, again, interfering in the regional sphere of the USA - which eventually let to war there as well.

My, my, my, how you scramble so desperately to avoid the central issue —that Nazi Germany attempted to apply massive force to impose its will and got stomped flat for its trouble. You can keep trying to invoke all these petty details for as long as you like and it still works out to the same result. Britain could have sued for peace in 1942 —but only if the United States is not actively joined in the war on the British side. And the Nazis did more than interfere in the American sphere of influence, they declared war against us outright. They applied massive force, caught the Victory Disease, and tried to take on three world powers simultaneously. And got stomped flat.

And this refutes the central point that Nazi Germany got flattened how, exactly?

That isn't the central point. The central point is that Nazi Germany got flattened for a reason other than the one you state. Namely, they were an exceptionally powerful (and successful) regional hegemon - But had no business trying to exert world influence. They tried to anyway and duly paid the price for it.

No, that is precisely the central point. Something you'd see if you weren't so wrapped up in your pettifoggery about maximal realism and the Nazis' regional successes prior to 1941.

When you said: Right —up until the moment Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were attacked. - You essentially made my point for me.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal...

Removing Britain from that, which can credibly argued, Nazi Germany was winning the war as long as it stayed inside its own regional power sphere, and other countries there were "bandwagoning" to ride along on its power and reap the benefits of doing so. Once it overstepped into the regional spheres of the USSR and the USA, however - two other regional hegemons - it exceeded the range of its capabilities and paid the price for doing so.

Except we can't "remove Britain" from the equation. Nazi Germany's successes in the region were mostly diplomatic and political, not military. The invasion of Poland, however, guaranteed a Nazi/Soviet war, and the attack on France made any equation where Britain was not at war with Germany an utter impossibility. Indeed, Nazi Germany cannot survive so long as Britain remains able to resist them, and Nazi designs for lebensraum force no other decision but war with Russia. The central point stands.

And what do we accurately know about the politics of the Trojan War?

We may know little to nothing about the political details of the Trojan War, but we do have a good idea of the military balance of power between Troy and the Greek States which decided to pursue war against Priam.

The Romans had established a hegemony over the greek-speaking city-states of lower Italy, and were gradually bringing them further into the Roman Confederation. Carthage had established a hegemony over the western Mediterranean, including western Sicily. Eastern Sicily, with a Greek-speaking populace, was a grey area. The Carthaginians considered it part of their sphere of influence and went after it. The locals identified with the hegemony Rome had established and appealed to it for help. Thus begins the First Punic War.

Round two involves Carthage encroaching in Spain on the territory of a Roman ally - Part of the Roman hegemony. Rome responds as-is necessary to defend its hegemonic status. Round three sees Carthage finished off as a lesson to those who will oppose Rome's hegemonic power, which by then dominated the whole Mediterranean world.

Which has little to do with the raw equation of military power and perceptions of strength or weakness by either Rome or Carthage in regards to the other. You keep arguing the wrong point entirely.

the Anglo/Spanish War of 1585,

The current hegemon, Spain, was facing an internal revolt in its Netherlands provinces which made it appear weak, thus inviting challenge. The English did just that and when the Spanish tried to enforce their hegemony they proved incapable of doing so. The Dutch and the English rose to dominate the overseas trade from Europe.

And again, you keep arguing the wrong point. England pursued commerce war against a vastly superior military power to keep it off-balance to deter an invasion. Same vastly superior military power decided it could take England in a general war. England fought back despite having a numerically inferior navy but which had a qualitative edge against its overweight opponnent. The English had no illusions about Spain's military power; Elizabeth knew the risky game she was playing, which also included the treacherous religious politics of the period.

the American Revolution,

Britain, which dominated the overseas trade, faced a rebellion in her colonial territories. This made the British hegemony there appear weak, and so France, the regional hegemony of Europe (British involvement in continental affairs at this time was not heavy enough to rate Britain in the continental sphere), joined in the effort on the side of the rebels to weak Britain's hegemony and make an effort to restore France to the position of effective world hegemon. They were successful in the immediate goal, but it was already overstretch for the exhausted French nation, and the economic drain of the conflict led to the French Revolution.

I wasn't talking about why the French intervened, I was talking about the American colonists deciding to secede from the Empire in the first place, despite knowing the odds against them and nearly losing the war altogether in New Jersey and New York. And France wasn't attempting to restore herself to her former position as much as trying to cut Britain down to her level to forestall an imperial war at a later date. The fact that the Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in and triggered the downfall of the French Monarchy as a result is a seperate issue.

the War of 1812,

The regional hegemon of the American continent faces off against the rising world hegemon, Great Britain. British distraction in continental Europe allows us to get away with a draw.

The regional hegemon of the American continent was still Great Britain, or have you forgotten Canada? There was also the heavy Spanish presence on the Continent (Louisiana, Mexico, Florida). And once more, we're talking about war being pursued despite perceptions of strength or weakness; considering that the logical analysis of the situation was that the fledgling United States really had no hope in hell of winning that war. A piece of reasoning which was beyond the War Hawks in Congress, however and over which the New England states nearly seceeded.

The American Civil War,

Internal conflict - And besides, look how fast the Confederacy came apart after Sherman's march.

"Internal conflict" depends upon your point of view in regards to the national status of the Confederacy. And the CSA went to war regardless of the demonstrable material and military superiority of the Union states; yet came close to pulling off their bid for independence. Up until Gettysburg, the South had a reasonable chance of winning the war, if not outright militarily then by establishing sufficent success to move the European powers to mediate the conflict and thus win politically.

World War II...

See above.

You mean where you persist in arguing the wrong point altogether?