Bluemofia t1_it5fclp wrote
Reply to comment by audigex in China looked at putting a monitoring satellite in retrograde geostationary orbit via the moon by OkOrdinary5299
What you're suggesting isn't something trivially done like magically temporarily stop all aircraft flying for a strategic leveling. It's more akin to permanently destroying Geostationary orbit functionally forever.
This is more like the Matrix's "Let's blot out the Sun forever to get an advantage against the Machines" level decision. Maybe useful for this one battle, but then even if you win, you are worse off than just flat out losing conventionally.
audigex t1_it5fvml wrote
It is, but there’s always the possibility that a country finds itself in an existential war
If they believe this decision could be a factor in the life and death of themselves and their people/families etc then it’s not beyond question that they do it, on the basis of “if we don’t do it, we definitely die, if we do it, we probably die, let’s worry about the consequences later, if we don’t die”
They don’t have to use this weapon, even - but if you have it you can decide whether or not to use it. If you don’t have it, you can’t.
I very much doubt it would ever be used - I generally agree that any country with the ability to develop and deploy it, is probably advanced enough that they don’t really feel that they need it… but that won’t necessarily stop someone developing it “just in case”
Bluemofia t1_it5hi5u wrote
It's Mutually Assured Destruction lite. Sure, Kessler Syndrome in GEO is less instantly lethal, but the point about MAD isn't for half-measures. You go big or you go home.
If you suffer an existential threat, you don't merely inconvenince future generations by making weather satellites more inconvenient. You threaten to kill everyone in nuclear hellfire to prevent existential threats.
AsimovAstronaut t1_it63hzy wrote
Worth noting that China has been developing space debris clean up programs in recent years.
audigex t1_it5ih44 wrote
But if you haven’t yet reached nuclear hellfire, perhaps you do this as a statement while pointing out that it’s a symbol of your willingness to go nuclear if necessary
Overall the cost of this weapon would be pretty low, I’m just saying that I can see why a country might want it in their back pocket
Bluemofia t1_it5ldru wrote
You are either facing an existential threat, or you aren't. MAD isn't about winning, it's about making everyone, including yourself, lose.
If you aren't facing an existential threat, you don't destroy something valuable to neutral and allied nations permanently just to get some temporary advantage or "to show you are serious". Destroying common resources permanently only pisses off others unrelated to the conflict and is guaranteed to escalate the conflict and push it closer towards an actual existential threat, making it more likely for everyone to all lose under MAD instead of simply threatening to push the button to get the enemy to back off.
If you are facing an existential threat, MAD with nukes is the best option. You don't need a "symbol of your willingness to go nuclear". You just show off your nukes, and then show a red button and threaten to press it. No half-steps, especially permanent half-steps like Kessler Syndrome GEO, because that just pisses people off and makes it more likely that you have to press the button, which you don't want to anyways because you will still die.
audigex t1_it5mcof wrote
You can be facing an existential threat without yet being at war
Again, see the USSR response to Able Archer - they believed that NATO was escalating to nuclear war, but they didn't immediately mash the nuclear button
Bluemofia t1_it5xtwh wrote
How is that an existential threat? No massive waves of nukes were fired out of their silos, no bombers entering Soviet airspace, no invasion crossed the borders. Impending threats yes, but not like they had their territory violated.
(EDIT: Misread it. Regardless, the USSR perceived an existential threat by NATO, and responded by threatening existential defeat for NATO by readying their nuclear weapons for launch. They didn't want to actually fire them until they have confirmation of nuclear war, and this is behaving in a manner consistent with MAD.)
Even if the USSR interpreted the malfunctioning early warning systems as an actual nuclear attack, and thus existential defeat is imminent, and behaved in your scenario by Kessler Syndroming GEO as a "symbol of their willingness to go nuclear" (pretend for a moment that Kessler Syndroming GEO is actually viable in the 80s), only find out that this was due to technical glitches and aggressive drills, what they would have done was escalate the scenario by destroying NATO assets, increasing the likelihood of leading to an actual nuclear war, which will be the lose condition for everyone.
What the USSR did in reality in response to believing that NATO was escalating to a first strike nuclear launch was more in line with the usual MAD response. They readied their nuclear arsenal (knowing that NATO would realize what they are doing), and prepared to fire back in the event of a nuclear strike.
Again, no one wants to activate MAD. It's purpose is that once a nation acknowledges existential defeat, it has the option to bring everyone else to hell with it in the hope that the threat of doing so is enough to avoid existential defeat in the first place.
[deleted] t1_it5yzig wrote
[removed]
chadenright t1_it5rmux wrote
This is essentially boiling down to the logic of mutually assured destruction. A reasonable party would rather not see his country get turned into a glass crater because he launched a first strike. But there's always the danger of some nutjob Putin or Kim who decides that having another five years in office is more important to them than the lives of every man, woman and child on earth.
Of course, what do they care? If they lose, they won't live long enough to see it, while if they win, sure the world is wrecked, but hey, they survived and kept hold of power, and that's the really important thing.
audigex t1_it5t7l8 wrote
It's similar logic to MAD, but a clear step down
But in any case, MAD never stopped countries from wanting nukes, why would it stop anyone from wanting this?
dan_dares t1_it6frrt wrote
Every country on the planet would be pissed at the one who launched that.
everyone who uses GPS in their car, or company that uses GPS time stamps (google for one)
GPS has literally become a mission-critical piece of human life.
(and by GPS i'm referring to all the positioning systems, not just the American system, they would all be wiped out)
Good analogy btw.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments