'There's no place like space,' Trump said during the meeting. Image Credit: NASA
This brand new branch of the US military will aim to establish American dominance in outer space.
The controversial move, which was announced at a meeting of the National Space Council yesterday, seeks to prevent other countries such as China and Russia taking the lead off-world.
"When it comes to space, too often, for too many years, our dreams of exploration and discovery were really squandered by politics and bureaucracy, and we knocked that out," Trump said.
"We don't want China and Russia and other countries leading us."
"The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security."
"When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. So important."
Exactly what form this new space force will actually take however remains unclear.
Well let me rephrase it then. If somebody dropped a rock on Dallas or Houston or Topeka or Seattle or any other American city, do you think the military and our government  would be restrained by a treaty? I think a counter strike would likely have huge popular support.  One of the most common ends of a treaty is a war. Dropping a space rock on a city is an act of war.  Would you suspect if we had the power to prevent it, we would engage in a game of checkers with an adversary and keep dropping rocks on each other's cities or try to end the war in a decisive way? I was not real... [More]
Not necessarily. The issue is the rod and nuclear weapon would be used to target drastically different things.  Nuclear weapons are essentially super massive air burst weapons that do little to no damage to hardened targets or stuff built underground unless you get a direct hit at the target but the ground/hardened target ends up absorbing a lot of the energy and drastically reduces the effect of the nuclear weapon. The rods though would work more as a massive armor penatration round and would be able to deliver massive amount of damage to a hardened or underground structure with limited da... [More]
Maybe just blow off the blogs for a week or so, go out and see a movie or just hang out at a bar for the night instead of here. In fact, that last one sounds pretty good... see ya!
You are thinking of subterranean targets, like nuke production facilities in Iran and North Korea, right? Â Sounds good, and one reason for avoiding the use of nukes is all the radiation lingering in an environment that isn't very healthy in the first place. (I'm talking about the difference between temperate & deciduous vs. 'Mediterranean' and arid) However, isn't there a radiological component to this, or am I thinking wrong there? I'm not even sure what metal they would use, D.U. and some Tungsten alloy would seem the best bets.Â
Someone did earlier I’m this thread if memory serves. Not that I doubt that the researchers working on this project are mistaken in their assumptions.
a 6.1 m × 0.3 mtungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite) according to  the wiki on the concept.
The nuclear production facilities would be ideal weapons for such a weapon system but so would nuclear missile launch sites of any nation. The rods would be near impossible to intercept and unlike with nuclear warheads where you would almost certainly need multiple warheads scoring direct hits to knock out a launch site a single rod would probably be enough if aimed right. Tungsten would probably be better then depleted uranium but either would work. The only thing is tungsten is easier to work with then depleted uranium, which is largely why Russia uses tungsten anti armor rounds instead ... [More]
Please Login or Register to post a comment.