I mean, if we have a war with Russia that involves destroying satellites, it seems like there is a pretty big chance that means it's going nuclear and we'll have bigger fish to fry.
A lot of deterrence credibility depends on at least pretending you think you can get into a fight without it inevitably going nuclear.
After all, if America’s military thinkers all believe if America fought China it would inevitably result in mutually assured destruction - then American security guarantees for Taiwan lose all credibility.
Most American military planners assume that if China invades Taiwan they'll use smaller "tactical" nuclear missles to do things like destory carrier groups to test the will of the US on MAD. Predicting, probably correctly, that the US will not respond with a full scale nuclear strike in response to the destruction of a military target just because nuclear weapons were used.
We no longer have the culture, the expertise, or the infrastructure to do these things. They moved it all overseas and to Mexico to save a quick buck. America is dead.
SpaceX has >11,000 satellites whipping around the planet. They increased the number of LEO sats by nearly one order of magnitude in bit more than 5 years.
So apparently the culture, expertise and infrastructure do exist to do these things.
This is true for everything. They gutted the whole country. There is nothing left. Sold for parts. Collapse soon. That is why they are gearing up for total fascism, they know people are going to be pissed when the quality of life dies off for all of the US and there are no jobs.
To paraphrase patio11, a disagreement between you and the market is not a shortage.
I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.
People literally do just that every day.. and it's not some magical force that makes them want to obtain training, education, or security clearances (where needed).. they do it for money. Specifically, the money they get paid by doing the work that those things allow them to do.
[see work requirements] -> [obtain thing] -> [obtain work]. If you don't believe people can string 3 things together, I don't know what to say. People can be dumb, but not that dumb.
They can hire people they can train. They chose not to, instead (whenever possible) whine for visas so they can steal trained professionals off less developed countries
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (because you want a $5k car and they don't exist in your market) or serious (because you want a $5k car from China which they do actually sell at that price).
I think there would be a Kessler Syndrome within a few weeks of an anti-satellite campaign at which point trying to launch replacements wouldn't make any sense.
Wouldn't that depend a lot on what and how much were targeted?
Seems a sufficient number of satellites in a particular orbital altitude and inclination would be required to create a self-sustaining cascade.
Even then, the Delta-V of tens to hundreds of m/sec to for violent intercepts seems unlikely to eject debris into different orbital regimes; e.g., it takes nearly 4km/sec Delta-V to move from LEO to Geosynchronous orbit. So, totally Kessler-Syndrome-destroying the LEO orbital range would still leave GEO orbital range available...?
You could say the same thing about any military hardware during a peace-time economy. It’s not a matter if it exists, it’s a matter if the relevant knowledge exists in domestic/friendly industrial base. The U.S. is making more satellites than the rest of the world combined right now.
It's also whether it matters if you have people available to replace the things. Any conflict that gets to the point of taking out satellites will almost certainly trigger Kessler syndrome, at which point whether you can launch any more satellites becomes moot.
They are likely expecting the same kind of war we are already in with Russia; in which Russia tries to keep its attacks just below the threshold of open war and its rhetoric and "negotiations" about "seeking peace".
Russia have already attacked subsea cables, openly assassinated targets in many countries, shot down civilian airliners, made multiple drone attacks in Europe, and more. They go for plausible deniability and/or exploit western politicians' desire to avoid conflict and "not escalate" on their watch (and nevermind western politicians already craven to them from the current US President to other parties including AfD, French National Party, etc.).
It is entirely plausible this will escalate to Russia taking out a few satellites, with either kinetic or directed-energy weapons, and the need to replace them. Indeed Russia has been observed testing such systems in the recent years.
There is no need to assume nuke use at all for something to get to the stage of taking out satellites. Taking out satellites with kinetic or energy weapons would definitely leave millions of graduates alive.
Unfortunately, you don't always get that choice. Just look at what Putin did to Ukraine. There was absolutely no reason for him to play that, but he did.
Yes, you should work for peace, but beware that it's not always possible. Or maybe I should say not always acceptable. It certainly would have been possible for Ukraine to give in, but I don't blame them for not accepting that option.
Ukraine had many, many opportunities to avoid war. It would have required some unpleasant but perfectly tolerable concessions, nothing in the same universe as the damage this war has done. Unfortunately, Western leaders spent years pushing and cajoling the country into an unwinnable confrontation, making them promises we knew we could not honor. Our leaders wanted the electoral boost of "being tough" and "not giving in", while hoping that the inevitable explosion would wait until they were out of office.
(Of course, Putin also could have decided not to "play". You are totally right about that. Not defending that criminal at all)
Planning only/mostly for a limited conflict when both parties are well armed, large industrial powers is pretty short sighted (not to mention both nuclear powers).
Conflicts escalate in unpredictable ways across history because once you start it's really hard to stop sometimes.
The US has grown used to been able to enter a war on its terms and exit on its terms and against the people they've been fighting since Korea that's been entirely possible because they can just leave and the combatants on the other side couldn't really do a lot to the US once they'd gone.
The US absolutely should expect for their industry to get hit in a conflict like that.
China knows that the general attitude towards war in the US population is strongly skewed by the fact that they haven't had to deal with the fallout of war on their home turf in recent memory. To the US, war is currently something that happens somewhere else, not at home.
In a conflict, it would just be smart to correct that attitude immediately, and China has the means to do so. Many data centers, major refineries, and other large industrial targets I'd expect to not last the week.
Also China is not going to sit there and let the US keep the industrial base that allows them project power overseas when it has the ability to hit that industrial base and enjoys the home-turf advantage, allowing them to fight the same war for cheaper, guaranteeing victory even if the US retaliates in kind.
>> Somehow I doubt that after a war with China, satellites would be high on the priority list of things that need rebuilding.
If GPS goes down, most of our communications will go down. A lot of other stuff falls from there. I suspect we'd be OK after a brief adjustment, but it would be very disruptive.
40 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 9.5 ms ] threadAfter all, if America’s military thinkers all believe if America fought China it would inevitably result in mutually assured destruction - then American security guarantees for Taiwan lose all credibility.
Here is a trade school that is actively training the needed workforce.
https://www.iyrs.edu/
So apparently the culture, expertise and infrastructure do exist to do these things.
Already at 25% functional unemployment
I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.
Companies can train people too.
[see work requirements] -> [obtain thing] -> [obtain work]. If you don't believe people can string 3 things together, I don't know what to say. People can be dumb, but not that dumb.
Seems a sufficient number of satellites in a particular orbital altitude and inclination would be required to create a self-sustaining cascade.
Even then, the Delta-V of tens to hundreds of m/sec to for violent intercepts seems unlikely to eject debris into different orbital regimes; e.g., it takes nearly 4km/sec Delta-V to move from LEO to Geosynchronous orbit. So, totally Kessler-Syndrome-destroying the LEO orbital range would still leave GEO orbital range available...?
population would be the first thing dropping off in the nuclear exchange
Russia have already attacked subsea cables, openly assassinated targets in many countries, shot down civilian airliners, made multiple drone attacks in Europe, and more. They go for plausible deniability and/or exploit western politicians' desire to avoid conflict and "not escalate" on their watch (and nevermind western politicians already craven to them from the current US President to other parties including AfD, French National Party, etc.).
It is entirely plausible this will escalate to Russia taking out a few satellites, with either kinetic or directed-energy weapons, and the need to replace them. Indeed Russia has been observed testing such systems in the recent years.
There is no need to assume nuke use at all for something to get to the stage of taking out satellites. Taking out satellites with kinetic or energy weapons would definitely leave millions of graduates alive.
Yes, you should work for peace, but beware that it's not always possible. Or maybe I should say not always acceptable. It certainly would have been possible for Ukraine to give in, but I don't blame them for not accepting that option.
(Of course, Putin also could have decided not to "play". You are totally right about that. Not defending that criminal at all)
Being invaded being the straw that broke the camel's back?
You'd probably start with rebuilding more basic manufacturing and refinery industry destroyed during the war.
Conflicts escalate in unpredictable ways across history because once you start it's really hard to stop sometimes.
The US has grown used to been able to enter a war on its terms and exit on its terms and against the people they've been fighting since Korea that's been entirely possible because they can just leave and the combatants on the other side couldn't really do a lot to the US once they'd gone.
China isn't that.
China knows that the general attitude towards war in the US population is strongly skewed by the fact that they haven't had to deal with the fallout of war on their home turf in recent memory. To the US, war is currently something that happens somewhere else, not at home.
In a conflict, it would just be smart to correct that attitude immediately, and China has the means to do so. Many data centers, major refineries, and other large industrial targets I'd expect to not last the week.
Also China is not going to sit there and let the US keep the industrial base that allows them project power overseas when it has the ability to hit that industrial base and enjoys the home-turf advantage, allowing them to fight the same war for cheaper, guaranteeing victory even if the US retaliates in kind.
If GPS goes down, most of our communications will go down. A lot of other stuff falls from there. I suspect we'd be OK after a brief adjustment, but it would be very disruptive.