Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Stating the obvious
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 14:48:13 GMT
The big problem with orbital bombardment is that the corps are going to know
that it's on it's way. At least any of the big 8 will as well as large govts
etc. Any of these organisations will have their own satellites and monitoring
gear and can almost certainly determine wether that crowbar up in space is
likely to land on their Toys 'N Stuff subsid.

So what do they do ?

a) They issue a threat to the people who launched the missile (don't forget
these things will probably have to circle the earth once or twice at least).
Either you activate the self destruct or prepare for corp war !

b) They take counter measures. For missiles ecm circuitry, or how about
anti-missile missiles (Patriots I believe), heavy duty ground based lasers,
scrambled aircraft, the list could go on.

See why it would never really happen ?

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - Email address P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk | Let's get out there
Department Of Electrical & Electronic Engineering | and TWAT it !
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England |
Land of the mad Geordies | The Powerhouse
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 01:53:40 +0930
>
>The big problem with orbital bombardment is that the corps are going to know
>that it's on it's way. At least any of the big 8 will as well as large govts
>etc. Any of these organisations will have their own satellites and monitoring
>gear and can almost certainly determine wether that crowbar up in space is
>likely to land on their Toys 'N Stuff subsid.
>
They won't know for long. These things should come in FAST, and in a straight
line. We've got, what? 40 miles of atmosphere? At 5 mile/sec, it's in the air
for 8 seconds. Add a few more to take care of the fact these things are
launched from high up. At most, it's a minute between launch and impact.

>So what do they do ?
>
>a) They issue a threat to the people who launched the missile (don't forget
>these things will probably have to circle the earth once or twice at least).
>Either you activate the self destruct or prepare for corp war !
>
See above. There just isn't time, and what makes you think it'd have a self
destruct??

>b) They take counter measures. For missiles ecm circuitry, or how about
>anti-missile missiles (Patriots I believe), heavy duty ground based lasers,
>scrambled aircraft, the list could go on.
>
>See why it would never really happen ?
>
>Phill.

Nope. These aren't like ICBM's, which make lots of easily spotted heat bloom
when launched, take time to get into near-orbit, more time to cross the
distance, and still more time to land. About half an hour, I understand. These
crowbars are damn near invisible, due to their size, and they come in lighting
fast.

--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 3
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:25:35 GMT
Reply to Robert's reply:

The main problem Robert with your view is that you assume that these things
are launched and do not burn up. For that you are going to need a missile
so you may as well just make it a nuke.

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - Email address P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk | Let's get out there
Department Of Electrical & Electronic Engineering | and TWAT it !
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England |
Land of the mad Geordies | The Powerhouse
Message no. 4
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 10:42:57 -0600
On Thu, 9 Dec 1993, The Powerhouse wrote:

> Reply to Robert's reply:
>
> The main problem Robert with your view is that you assume that these things
> are launched and do not burn up. For that you are going to need a missile
> so you may as well just make it a nuke.

Right. I cannot see how this proposed system would be any more effective
than standard missiles or nukes.


____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> Expeditionary Force -- 1993-1951
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 5
From: Ben Acosta <BACOSTA1@*****.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 10:32:32 CST
Reply to Phill's reply to Robert's reply:

I believe the reason Project Thor type weapons do not use nukes is because its
supposed to be more of a selective target type weapon as opposed to just plain
old ordinary mass destruction. It's supposed to be able to take out targets as
surgically as possible, as opposed to a nuke which will just blast everything
within a certain radius. With a Thuderbolt (I like that term better than
crowbar and besides, it is called Project Thor) one can theoritically take out
individual targets without any collateral damage. Whether this would work as
well in practice as in theory is the real question. At the very least, Project
Thor technology would be sort of like orbital artillery. You can call down
fire onto anywhere and the only way to take out the artillery is with Anti-
Sattelite Weapons. Now wouldn't something like that be considered a great
strategic advantage in a military conflict. Being able to call on death from
above to smite any enemy targets anywhere would seem like a potent weapon to
me. Now the only problem is making the targeting system accurate enough to
hit what you want most of the time.

+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
:Benjamin J. Acosta : "When dog bites man, it's not a story. :
:BACOSTA1@*****.UA.EDU : When man bites dog, it's a story. :
:Science Fiction Fan : And when man and dog slug it out for :
:Comic Book Reader : twelve issues and the dog turns out :
:Role Playing Gamer : to be a mutant and Wolverine has a :
:Renaissance Man : guest appearance, It's a Marvel story!" :
:THIS SPACE FOR RENT : --A saying in the Marvel Comics Bullpen :
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 02:17:03 +0930
>
>Reply to Robert's reply:
>
>The main problem Robert with your view is that you assume that these things
>are launched and do not burn up. For that you are going to need a missile
>so you may as well just make it a nuke.
>
No you don't. You don't even really need the ceramic coating. All you need is a
material that won't boil that quickly. Metal would probably suit.

Like I said, it's in the atmosphere for 8 seconds, coming in in shortest
distance. It is very hard to boil the "crowbar" away. Even if it was ice, it'll
have a decent chance of hitting.

Molten steel would have the same effect as solid steel. If you don't believe
this, try falling off water skis sometime.



--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 7
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@***.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 17:54:09 -0500
Robert Hayden wrote:
>Right. I cannot see how this proposed system would be any more effective
>than standard missiles or nukes.

Well, these little widgets would only need to be big enough
for some sort of terminal guidance and a little mass to keep
the kinetic energy figure high. In other words, really small
frontal area and a low coefficient of drag. Make them a good
(super-high melting and vaporization point) alloy, coat them
in a something ablative, and they still wouldn't need to
weigh more than 50 pounds or so. And that kind of impact,
hitting a tank or vehicle from directly above, will *paste*
the sucker. No explosive or detonator needed.

The version I heard of (I think they called it Project Thor-
it's mentioned in _Footfall_ by Niven & Pournelle_) had
just enough brains to recognize a tank and steer toward it.
By 2050, that much brainpower will be dirt-cheap. In other
words, this is a tank-killer that costs a few nuyen plus
launch and boost. Not to shabby.



+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|
| "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, from Army of Darkness |
| I don't speak for anyone except myself, so drop it. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 8
From: Chris Ryan <chrisr@*******.FIT.QUT.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stating the obvious
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 10:10:59 --1000
> Right. I cannot see how this proposed system would be any more effective
> than standard missiles or nukes.

It has a major advantage over nukes - no radioactive mess.

In general though, unless you've got a good space-travel infrastructure,
it's not going to be worth it...

Chris

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Stating the obvious, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!