tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post2072358732798463553..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Decelerando?Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-71520719958251889792011-04-15T10:27:40.910-07:002011-04-15T10:27:40.910-07:00Arguably this is a natural process. Maximum travel...Arguably this is a natural process. Maximum travel speed did not change much from the development of the chariot and horseback riding in the Bronze Age to the beginning of the railroad era. <br /><br />Most of the increase took place in not much more than a century, c. 1830-1960, and technology then overshot the requirement. The airline industry has no significant interest in SSTs - the additional time they save is not worth the development and operating costs.<br /><br />Interplanetary travel could add another order of magnitude, to ~100 km/s, as a sort of coda to the industrial revolution. Probably not much more than that, because required drive power goes up as the cube of travel speed, making Really Fast interplanetary travel an economic loser.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-14751436662923063872011-04-15T06:28:14.190-07:002011-04-15T06:28:14.190-07:00http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487045...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704587004576242450234233350.html<br /><br />more at the link<br /><br />Putting on the Brakes: Mankind Nears the End of the Age of Speed<br /><br />The human race is slowing down.<br /><br />When the U.S. space shuttle completes its final flight, planned for June, mankind will take another step back from its top speed. Space shuttles are the fastest reusable manned vehicles ever built. Their maximum was only exceeded by single-shot moon rockets.<br /><br />The shuttles' retirement follows the grounding over recent years of other ultrafast people carriers, including the supersonic Concorde and the speedier SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. With nothing ready to replace them, our species is decelerating—perhaps for the first time in history.<br /><br />It has been a good two-century sprint, says Neil Armstrong, who in 1969 covered almost 240,000 miles in less than four days to plant the first human footprint on the Moon. Through the 18th century, he noted in an email exchange, humans could travel by foot or horse at approximately six miles per hour. "In the 19th, with trains, they reached 60 mph. In the 20th, with jet aircraft, we could travel at 600 mph. Can we expect 6,000 mph in the 21st?" he wondered.<br /><br />"It does not seem likely," Mr. Armstrong continued, although he holds out some hope.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-35969941926894566562011-03-21T09:43:52.766-07:002011-03-21T09:43:52.766-07:00Welcome to the comment threads!
I have no idea wh...Welcome to the comment threads!<br /><br />I have no idea why Cowan's e-pamphlet wouldn't be available to Canadian accounts. Does Amazon have a separate Canadian site (a la Amazon.co.uk)?<br /><br />Maybe googling would get you to a site where you can order it?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-88240019733490872572011-03-20T20:26:05.392-07:002011-03-20T20:26:05.392-07:00It's odd, the "e-Panphlet" you linke...It's odd, the "e-Panphlet" you linked from Tyler Cowen to isn't available to Canadian accounts. What's the deal?Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-60467204295203320022011-03-14T17:07:44.670-07:002011-03-14T17:07:44.670-07:00So long as there is some sort of rational calculat...So long as there is some sort of rational calculation of cost/benefit, then the best we can hope for is nations weilding hypersonic boost glide weapons are willing to back down once they have made their point (or the sudden application of force overwhelms the opponents political machinery and they declare defeat or ceasefire).<br /><br />The arguments that retaliation will involve large numbers of weapons is the one which I think is mooted here, you would probably assign a pair of boost glide missiles to ensure one gets through, which is a certain signal of restraint (a wave of incoming missiles would be a pretty clear sign the gloves are coming off).<br /><br />Of course, no one can always count on being rationalThucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-9983896263227580562011-03-13T21:22:40.272-07:002011-03-13T21:22:40.272-07:00But the underlying for main force conflict between...But the underlying for main force conflict between major industrial poers is one that was supposedly expressed by a Navy guy in the 80s, who described our war plan against the Soviets as "Fight with conventional weapons until we're losing, then fight with tactical nukes until we're losing, then blow up the world."<br /><br />Powers can tit for tat each other, and so long as someone backs down, none the worse off (except for the odd carrier group, etc.). <br /><br />But if the loser in any round considers losing unacceptable, it is on to the next round, and after a few rounds things get seriously out of hand ...Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15521740334251268312011-03-13T19:40:08.251-07:002011-03-13T19:40:08.251-07:00Near future developments will make even these calc...Near future developments will make even these calculations somewhat suspect. The Indian military operates the <b>BrahMos</b> supersonic cruise missile and is developing a hypersonic version. The USAF is developing a hypersonic <b>Prompt Global Strike</b> "boost/glide" missile which can travel thousands of miles in minutes.<br /><br />BrahMos comes in air, sea and land based versions, which means the strike is not only very fast, but also comes at you from any direction (a heavy truck carrying a ground launch version, any ship capable of housing the beast in the sea launch version, and a heavy bomber or strike plane for the air launched version).<br /><br />This would allow "tit for tat" strikes using conventional weapons (I take your aircraft carrier, you hit an airbase) without raising the nuclear threshold.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-13502257941245442112011-03-11T15:03:12.519-08:002011-03-11T15:03:12.519-08:00Scott: I have to agree with Tony; a sub could fire...Scott: I have to agree with Tony; a sub could fire a single missile and then leve the area at high speed; shoot-n-scoot. By the time enemy forces could respond to the area that the missile was launched from, the sub would be tens of miles away at the very least; more probably closer to 100; if you couldn't find it before, what makes you think you could find it now?<br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43318269228545148252011-03-08T08:10:05.921-08:002011-03-08T08:10:05.921-08:00Re: Scott
I have to agree that ICBMs are out, for...Re: Scott<br /><br />I have to agree that ICBMs are out, for more reasons than the ones you mentioned.<br /><br />But what's this worry about a single SLBM launch leading to the loss of a boat? As already mentioned, a missile could be launched from the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands and still reach well into China. There's not going to be any Chinese ASW activity there. (Or if there is, we have bigger problems than losing a single missile boat.)<br /><br />Likewise, what's the idea with gravity bomb equipped bombers? For a limited strike, we would use ALCM, which, if fired from a 500 mile standoff, could reach up to 1000 miles inland. (At least -- official figures generally understate capabilities.)Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-37350868926594640172011-03-07T16:58:01.951-08:002011-03-07T16:58:01.951-08:00Eh, remember how many missiles/bombers would be ne...Eh, remember how many missiles/bombers would be needed to get one warhead to the target.<br /><br />An absolute-minimum launch would be a single Minuteman III (3x 375kt), but that requires the Russians to not panic when that set of MIRVs goes over their heads. No thanks, I don't want to risk involving the Russians in a US/China dispute on the Chinese side.<br /><br />Next-smallest release would be a single Trident II/D5 (~12x 375kt). Problem is, launching one D5 reveals the position of 23 more, so you would need to launch enough to not cripple your response when you lose that sub. I estimate *that* minimum number as at least 6 birds, possibly as many as 12. And it still carries a substantial risk of involving the Russians.<br /><br />Bombers? 24+ warheads per plane, and each plane operates with 2 friends (based on Linebacker raids during Vietnam, supposedly following nuclear-war doctrine), plus however many additional attacks to clear a path to the real targets. A minimum of 72 warheads in a single flight, times a minimum of 3-4 flights.<br /><br />All this makes even a "limited" nuclear attack an awful lot bigger than most people would have considered.<br /><br />Once you run through *that* calculus, using a nuke for your opening bid becomes very unattractive.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12419811642177614092011-03-07T10:34:18.198-08:002011-03-07T10:34:18.198-08:00Ferrell:
"As far as nuclear exchanges' b...Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"As far as nuclear exchanges' between the U.S. and China goes; even a two to one response would put our point across and not alienate anyone too badly; You nuked one of our CBGs, we nuke one of your navy ports and an airbase; do it again and we'll nuke four military targets, ect; the U.S. can do this a lot longer than the Chinese can aford to."</i><br /><br />The Chinese only have to do it once. They take out a CVBG or two, take their lumps, succeed in whatever initiative they're taking, and anything the US can do later is presumably moot. As I already said, US non-retaliation in kind is the Chinese best case, and the result they would work to achieve. But taking a nuke or two in retaliation deosn't mean they lose.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-19247544225659220692011-03-07T05:31:03.390-08:002011-03-07T05:31:03.390-08:00Part of the problem is that by launching nukes the...Part of the problem is that by launching nukes the host nation makes the *launchers* targets...and most likely, target numero uno.<br /><br />Nuclear silos are often well hidden and well reinforced. Submarines are the former, but I suspect the Chinese navy doesn't have a huge amount of them. Bombers are neither, but they are the easiest path for nuclear delivery from a technological perspective.<br /><br />Even if the US isn't wanting to retaliate in a nuclear manner, one would presume that at the point of nuclear use by the Chinese on a strict military target the only options are to utterly destroy the Chinese launch capacity, or to cease whatever war effort exists in the first place.<br /><br />And the dirty truth is I don't think the US flat out has enough ordinance to do that in the conventional manner. Sure, we have all sorts of ways of knocking out bombers, but I don't think bombers are going to be a primary threat to CBGs (It's not like CBGs aren't loaded to the gills with interceptors and AA defenses)<br /><br />So that leaves sub-hunting and bunker-hunting...no one is really going to mess all that much with a sub-hunt, they'll just start demolishing resupply ports, and if those prove too hardened for conventional assault, we'll either have to get dirty or get peaceful.<br /><br />As for silos...well, there's an ugly truth to that. We all know what it is. There's a reason that both Russia and the US viewed total nuclear annihilation as the deterrent for ICBM attacks.<br /><br />That's the problem with nukes...they essentially force a total war situation, and total war with nuclear equipped opponents is not a pretty scenario.<br /><br />Also: there's a reason nuclear bunker busters never made it past the drawing board.ElAntoniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02956319289431286882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-82368227840361028922011-03-04T20:57:24.475-08:002011-03-04T20:57:24.475-08:00Jollyreaper:
"But the political pressure of ...Jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"But the political pressure of retaliating in kind, I don't think that could be resisted. If they sink a carrier group, we're going to have to hit them back, hard. Possibly confining the retaliatory strike to military targets, we might not jump immediately to taking out cities. But I would find it incredibly, extremely surprising to see the US nuked and not nuke back."</i><br /><br />I think the US's chief objective here would be to win whatever conflict of interest inspired the Chinese to try nuking them in the first place. They would now be willing to use nukes in pursuit of this objective, but they wouldn't use more than they need to - but also no less.<br /><br />I don't expect anyone to simply launch a nuke for the sake of launching a nuke, even in retaliation. But at this point the US would not back down from the war because "we can't win without resorting to nukes", if it comes to that.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-47243409081952655862011-03-03T17:57:47.415-08:002011-03-03T17:57:47.415-08:00As far as nuclear exchanges' between the U.S. ...As far as nuclear exchanges' between the U.S. and China goes; even a two to one response would put our point across and not alienate anyone too badly; You nuked one of our CBGs, we nuke one of your navy ports and an airbase; do it again and we'll nuke four military targets, ect; the U.S. can do this a lot longer than the Chinese can aford to.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-30783690688086256802011-03-03T14:53:26.621-08:002011-03-03T14:53:26.621-08:00Rick:
"All of this is a bit abstract, really...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"All of this is a bit abstract, really, because there'd have to be some context of why the Chinese decided on nuclear release in the first place."</i><br /><br />They don't have CVBGs, but they have nukes and MRBMs, and they consider whatever operation the US sends the CVBGs against worth extreme measures to protect. <br /><br /><i>"But I'll stand by my general point, that while there are no absolute guarantees whatsoever, the prospect of getting nuked back has great power to concentrate the mind.<br /><br />Note that India and Pakistan have gotten a great deal more circumspect with each other since they became nuclear powers."</i><br /><br />Of course. But when we start believeing that nothing is worth using a nuke against, we start making ourselves vulnerable to nuclear use.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-6517583078323616902011-03-03T12:36:29.656-08:002011-03-03T12:36:29.656-08:00All of this is a bit abstract, really, because the...All of this is a bit abstract, really, because there'd have to be some context of why the Chinese decided on nuclear release in the first place.<br /><br />But I'll stand by my general point, that while there are no absolute guarantees whatsoever, the prospect of getting nuked back has great power to concentrate the mind.<br /><br />Note that India and Pakistan have gotten a great deal more circumspect with each other since they became nuclear powers.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-17229558336082696602011-03-03T11:06:05.883-08:002011-03-03T11:06:05.883-08:00The President has to take all of these things into...<i><br />The President has to take all of these things into consideration when choosing a response. He can't just lash out. And he's not going to get impeached -- Congress is going to be in as much turmoil as the Executive branch over something like that. He'll probably retaliate somehow, but he's not going to do anything drastic. </i><br /><br />If the Chinese leadership did nuke a CVBG, I'm sure that your line of reasoning would be exactly the same as they one they followed. I just think the plan relies too much on the US president behaving as expected. I could easily see him reacting in a way they weren't anticipating.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-67156619961841691032011-03-03T10:47:19.441-08:002011-03-03T10:47:19.441-08:00jollyreaper:
"As I said, if the Chinese laun...jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"As I said, if the Chinese launched a nuclear strike on American forces, I would not want to be sitting in their bunkers when America responds."</i><br /><br />If I were the Chinese nuking US carrier(s), I would immediately hold a rally at the Olympic stadium and have the whole Central Committee there, daring the US to nuke downtown Beijing in retaliation for a carrier battle group.<br /><br />IOW, you're simply not following the logic, j. The Chinese have just made a limited attack against a strictly military target. That significantly limits US options. It's not just the bloodthirsty portion of the US populace that the Administration has to worry about, but those who would object to a homeland attack in retaliation (a large plurality, if not a majority), and everybody in the international community (even our allies) who would turn their backs on us is we did such a thing.<br /><br />The President has to take all of these things into consideration when choosing a response. He can't just lash out. And he's not going to get impeached -- Congress is going to be in as much turmoil as the Executive branch over something like that. He'll probably retaliate somehow, but he's not going to do anything drastic.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-54353142714289993202011-03-03T10:21:18.872-08:002011-03-03T10:21:18.872-08:00WRT the subject, I think you're simply mistake...<i>WRT the subject, I think you're simply mistaken that a US President would engage massive retalialtion for a single, isolated attack against forces at sea. "If one flies, they all fly" is a Cold War logic, based on existential conflict between the US and USSR. That logic doesn't apply to the 21st Century. </i><br /><br />The USSR had the ability to wipe the US off the face of the Earth. China could probably ruin our decade but not obliterate us in 20 minutes. So there wouldn't be the same necessity to catch their birds on the ground before they're launched. <br /><br />But the political pressure of retaliating in kind, I don't think that could be resisted. If they sink a carrier group, we're going to have to hit them back, hard. Possibly confining the retaliatory strike to military targets, we might not jump immediately to taking out cities. But I would find it incredibly, extremely surprising to see the US nuked and not nuke back. If one of our cities got hit, we're going to nuke one of theirs. It wasn't all that long ago that western nations were willing to firebomb cities as a matter of course. <br /><br />Johnson was willing to stay in the Vietnam War after he knew it was lost because he didn't want to appear soft on communism. We killed what, an estimated two million Asians in that war? I've heard people go back and forth about it but I think the dead GI's did more to sour the public on the war than the dead Asians. <br /><br />As I said, if the Chinese launched a nuclear strike on American forces, I would not want to be sitting in their bunkers when America responds.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-52372676065948591602011-03-03T10:07:22.281-08:002011-03-03T10:07:22.281-08:00Re: jollyreaper
Who or what is "Faux"? ...Re: jollyreaper<br /><br />Who or what is "Faux"? If it's a partisan or politically motivated epithet, could you please stop? Gratuitously insulting editorial comments make you look small and silly, no matter who they are directed at.<br /><br />WRT the subject, I think you're simply mistaken that a US President would engage <i>massive</i> retalialtion for a single, isolated attack against forces at sea. "If one flies, they all fly" is a Cold War logic, based on existential conflict between the US and USSR. That logic doesn't apply to the 21st Century.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57672051319664002492011-03-03T09:05:42.717-08:002011-03-03T09:05:42.717-08:00I think you greatly overestimate our civility. Dep...I think you greatly overestimate our civility. Depending on whose figures you trust, we've killed anywhere from 0 to a million civilians in Iraq and the leadership has studiously ignored the war protests. I think people gave up even trying to object to it. <br /><br />If China made a nuclear strike on American carriers, I would not want to be sitting in their command bunkers waiting for the response. <br /><br />Personally, I thought the whole push towards making nukes usable on the battlefield was insanity. Nobody's going to care about your definition of what is and isn't a WMD. I don't care if it's a sub-kiloton weapon or even if it's some wonder-weapon that weighs as much as a bullet and can hit like a 10 ton bomb. If you can describe it as a nuclear explosion, people are going to lose their minds. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging had to be renamed because of that. <br /><br />1. It counts if it happens to Americans. <br />2. We don't care if it happens to others. <br /><br />Can you honestly tell me that Faux wouldn't go off the rails if America got nuked and Obama didn't nuke back back because he doesn't want to be a mass murderer? Articles of Impeachment would be whipped up faster than you can say "intern sex." <br /><br />Note: I'm not advocating a course of action, I'm not validating it. I'm just saying that I think it would be unlikely for China to do something like that but if they did, they couldn't count on the American response being reasonable or rational. Maybe everyone involved would surprise us but I wouldn't put money on it.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32846020338416677852011-03-03T08:55:25.127-08:002011-03-03T08:55:25.127-08:00The real problem with such self-assurance is that ...The real problem with such self-assurance is that I've been asserting China's best case for nuclear use against the USN at sea. They might be willing to trade an air or naval base and a medium sized city for the neutralization of a carrier battle group, if that's a war-winning trade. Massive retaliation is simply not going to be considered by a US President, no matter what his theoretical convictions ought to be. Nobody likely to be elected President is going to countenance being the greatest murderer* ever just to prove a point.<br /><br />*And it would be murder, because it would be so wildly disproportionate.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-18812633502519221792011-03-02T22:36:51.747-08:002011-03-02T22:36:51.747-08:00... the price of miscalculation is both dreadfully...<i>... the price of miscalculation is both dreadfully high and dreadfully obvious.</i><br /><br />And that, my friends, is <i><b>why</b></i> very few people actually consider using nukes. (much better said than I ever could)<br /><br />The only ones that do consider the idea are those that truly don't think they would face utter annihilation. Like India and Pakistan, possibly Saudi and DPRK.<br /><br />One of the points I was trying to make, that I believe was overlooked, is that this threat of utter annihilation is what convinces every country, even those that don't like the US at all, to keep tight control over delivery systems. You do not want to have someone who is not the head of state to decide to entangle the state in an annihilation event.<br /><br />Despite John Ringo's otherwise rant-filled prose, the story 'Ghost' makes a point that I wish the US would go on record with: WMD are WMD. bio = gas = dirty bomb = nukes. Use of any CBRN weapon will result in instant sunshine at the country-destroying level.<br /><br />If *any* attack on the US is an existential threat to the hosting nation, there will be no attacks on the US. Every other nation will make sure of that for America. I don't like ruling through fear, but murphy's 3rd law applies: If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876828579688122237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-74751838358318741982011-03-02T18:21:28.964-08:002011-03-02T18:21:28.964-08:00Though I suspect the Chinese leadership would find...Though I suspect the Chinese leadership would find itself less confident in this theory, because the price of miscalculation is both dreadfully high and dreadfully obvious.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-64585904715365828622011-03-02T16:08:20.006-08:002011-03-02T16:08:20.006-08:00As they say in fencing school, touché!As they say in fencing school, <i>touché!</i>Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.com