Earth vs x

[Mike DiCenso]

Too many unknowns here to plan adequtely for. If it's the worse case scenario. Kiss Humanity's collective ass good-bye. Nothing you can do.

In a modestly worst case situation, you gather as many forces as possible for a holding action, while building space-going arks with the best in stealth technology available , load them with the best of the human race that you can muster and hope to get them on their way to another habitiable star system before the aliens arrive.
-Mike

[Narsil]

My answer assumed such a worst-case scenario. 'Tis merely a case of getting laid a fucking lot before the End of the World. Though being that there isn't actually an impending invasion of evil aliens bent on destroying all other lifeforms that I know about, I can also worry about the issues of education, what I'm going to do with my life and why I'm going to do it.

[l33telboi]

Shoot the hadron collider at them, of course.

[General Mayhem]

Shoot the hadron collider at them, of course.

Could that be converted to a ground based weapon?

[Roondar]

Shoot the hadron collider at them, of course.

Wouldn't we be better of just firing a nuke?

(As in the Hadron thingy is not built as a weapon so it likely does not have the range, accuracy or power to actually do anything worthwhile)

Anyway, 10 years is peanuts. Trying to create a significant new set of military designs or fleets or warships is clearly not realistic.

For reference, building a single aircraft carrier can take up to seven years (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm) and costs you $4 billion. And that is from an existing design.
(there is a reason why the USA has like 8 of them instead of 100 and cost + buildtime is it)

The same with fantasies about 150MT nukes. We have had exactly one 50MT nuke built in the world. Ever.

Hence, we've never even built them so big and nuclear countries are in fact busy making their nukes smaller, so why exactly expect that we have the technology and capacity to build tons of 150MT nukes?
(Realize that a 150MT nuke means a weapon clocking in at around 900 metric tons of weight (Hydrogen bombs are about 6 tons per mt). Nukes ain't easy to produce either - if they where Iran would have a whole hoard of them by now)

Even if we did put all of the worlds resources behind it we'd still fall short - many of the items named either need entirely new factories built for them (if the tech even exists) or need to be sourced from a very small set of existing factories. We don't have the infrastructure in place to build lots of space vehicles. Building such an infrastructure would take years and years and hence we'd lose again!

A more realistic scenario of an attack made by us would be to attempt to retrofit warheads on existing rockets and hoping the aliens can't shoot them down.

Which won't work because any alien force that can get from their world to ours in a reasonable time and undetected fashion is so advanced compared to us that they'd surely be smart enough not to attack unless they knew they'd win. Or at least have technology vastly superior to anything we can think of.

[Flectarn]

...

Yeah, more or less my view of things

[General Mayhem]

Well say what you like you do realise that the Tsar Bomba was designed as a 100MT weapon and it was very large, 8m long and was 27 tonnes. I would like to point out that this has evolved into fleet plans for the next 50 or so years as well as some ships that canbe built in the next 10 years, the smaller ships carry all of their missiles on hard poins on the out side of the ship. btw the Tsar Bomba was reduced in power to lower fallout over Russian lands. it would not be that hard to make it a 150mt weapon for gun boats. if such a war happened the big ships would be eather late war or post war. Its like planing a fleet of battleships for later and building PT boats now. at least thats the idea.

[Roondar]

Well say what you like you do realise that the Tsar Bomba was designed as a 100MT weapon and it was very large, 8m long and was 27 tonnes. I would like to point out that this has evolved into fleet plans for the next 50 or so years as well as some ships that canbe built in the next 10 years, the smaller ships carry all of their missiles on hard poins on the out side of the ship. btw the Tsar Bomba was reduced in power to lower fallout over Russian lands. it would not be that hard to make it a 150mt weapon for gun boats. if such a war happened the big ships would be eather late war or post war. Its like planing a fleet of battleships for later and building PT boats now. at least thats the idea.

The Tsar Bomba is so small because it could not propel itself. One ton/mt is about average for todays missiles. Bombs are indeed smaller but also quite useless in space ;)

Yield wise, I don't disagree that a 150MT weapon is possible. However, I don't think it's anywhere near as easy as you make it sound to build them in mass production. Building one test-ready bomb is not the same as being able to mass produce them.

As to the development of a full weapon, I disagree there. If it where so easy to make functional space weapons, we'd have tons by now. The truth is that current Earth based space vehicles have tiny payloads (the space shuttle can carry only three tons beyond low earth orbit, the ariane five manages only six). Due to the lack of research in this area (payload) I'm not thinking this will increase greatly by the time the OP mentions.

And then we get 10 years to suddenly design and build a fleet of gunboats powered by as yet non-existent engines, shooting of weapons that weigh 30 odd tons each (without propellant) with the assumption we'll be able to hold them off long enough to design even bigger ships (which alone will take many years, design is not done over night), build them too and supply them with more of those weapons. Oh and set up a space based infrastructure which takes care of little things like keeping the ships fueled up and armed.

This is not realistic. It's makes for nice fiction, but it'll never ever be possible in the real world. At least not in the time frame we'd have.

Seriously, if building and maintaining a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats was so easy we'd already have them zooming overhead. Every major power on this planet has wet dreams over the mere idea of controlling Earth from orbit. None of them have ever succeeded.

[Who is like God arbour]

Seriously, if building and maintaining a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats was so easy we'd already have them zooming overhead. Every major power on this planet has wet dreams over the mere idea of controlling Earth from orbit. None of them have ever succeeded.

Outer Space Treaty

Mutual assured destruction

Balance of terror

Escalation / De-escalation

Cuban Missile Crisis

Not that I'm saying, that we would have already "a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats". But the motivation to spend efforts in the development and creation of such a fleet may not have been as big as you assume.

[General Mayhem]

You do understand that the propulsion systems for my ships is based on tech from the 1950s, my ships are basicly Orion pulse nuclear powered, I just used a magnetic feild to replace the pusher plate, so the tech can be worked out atleast for that part. also my gunboat is based on the Orion Mars explorer from the mid 1950s. the reactors exist right now. and launching a 27 tonne warhead from the earth is far harder then launching it from a space ship. btw the orion mars vehicle was designed to deliver 4,000 tons to mars, i don't think carring any nukes we or the russians have will be a problem.

[Roondar]

You do understand that the propulsion systems for my ships is based on tech from the 1950s, my ships are basicly Orion pulse nuclear powered, I just used a magnetic feild to replace the pusher plate, so the tech can be worked out atleast for that part. also my gunboat is based on the Orion Mars explorer from the mid 1950s. the reactors exist right now. and launching a 27 tonne warhead from the earth is far harder then launching it from a space ship. btw the orion mars vehicle was designed to deliver 4,000 tons to mars, i don't think carring any nukes we or the russians have will be a problem.

Yes I do understand that.

However, I also understand that no such ship has ever been build, the design is untested as such - even though it appears workable. However, that hardly refutes my problem with your plan. Building big stuff is slow.

Redesigning those ships for combat (i.e. adding the hardpoints, designing the warhead and missiles, space-proofing the lot, allowing it to survive launch from earth) is just not easy. I know it sounds simple enough, but you're really underestimating how much time such things take.

There are there are tons of examples to back all that up. All on simpler projects than this. A good example is the space-shuttle replacement. The research for that was started all the way back in the 1990's and we still don't have it done. Another military one: laser weapons, been under design since the 80's and still no mass production available. Nuclear weapons - took one or two decades after being figured out to be formed into compact(ish) and reliable missiles. The list goes on and on (with the ISS, which is a project started in the 90's and one that won't be finished until 2010 - twenty years build time for one space station that weighs only 400 odd tons).

I just don't believe we can design, test and build a whole fleet of ships, plus their support, plus the infrastructure needed and the arms needed and push it all into orbit in just under ten years.

[Roondar]

Seriously, if building and maintaining a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats was so easy we'd already have them zooming overhead. Every major power on this planet has wet dreams over the mere idea of controlling Earth from orbit. None of them have ever succeeded.

Outer Space Treaty

Mutual assured destruction

Balance of terror

Escalation / De-escalation

Cuban Missile Crisis

Not that I'm saying, that we would have already "a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats". But the motivation to spend efforts in the development and creation of such a fleet may not have been as big as you assume.

The powers involved in those treaties only keep to them if they are convenient. Witness the Bush administration and their cancellation of several international treaties on Nuclear weapons because it didn't suit their purpose.

Make no mistake - if any of the USA/Russia/China group had the ability to control space (and hence earth) they would do it.

[Who is like God arbour]

1. There is only one treaty.
2. It's not as if one of these powers could do it in a moment. It would need time in which the other powers would react and an arms race would be the consequence.
3. Even someone like Bush knows his limits. Look what a furore his plan to station missile interceptor missiles in Poland and Czech Republic has created in Russia 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6.
   
   Imagine how Russia would react, if they learn, that the USA is developing and creating "a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats".
4. I also think, that these powers would ignore each treaty as soon as they think, that it is advantageous to them.
   
   But they have always to consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world.
   
   And the risk of escalation is not worth, what a superpower could win.
   
   If you are already a superpower and have enough weapons to obliterate each attacking nation if necessary, the need for even more weapons of mass destruction is relative low.
   
   They are not able to achieve more than mutual assured destruction anyway.

[Flectarn]

Theres simply just no reason at present to have space based military assets, particularly in the form of ships. Theres no external threat, there are no competing interests to compete as most space exploration has been quite well internationalized. more over the advantages of a space based system for bombarding our own planet are few over say an SSBN firing from relatively close to shore. and WMD's are just frowned on generaly, and anyhitng fired from space is likely to be a WMD.

*edit* and thats not even getting into the technological challenges associated with the proposition. It would be an enormous undertaking of limited utility

[Roondar]

1. There is only one treaty.
2. It's not as if one of these powers could do it in a moment. It would need time in which the other powers would react and an arms race would be the consequence.
3. Even someone like Bush knows his limits. Look what a furore his plan to station missile interceptor missiles in Poland and Czech Republic has created in Russia 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6.
   
   Imagine how Russia would react, if they learn, that the USA is developing and creating "a fleet of space based nuclear capable gunboats".
4. I also think, that these powers would ignore each treaty as soon as they think, that it is advantageous to them.
   
   But they have always to consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world.
   
   And the risk of escalation is not worth, what a superpower could win.
   
   If you are already a superpower and have enough weapons to obliterate each attacking nation if necessary, the need for even more weapons of mass destruction is relative low.
   
   They are not able to achieve more than mutual assured destruction anyway.

All this is true.

Yet none of it changes the fundamental issue - building a fleet of space based nuclear gunboats is such an enormous challenge (in money, technology and resources) with what we can achieve in space today that it's pretty much impossible to begin with.

Just for a sense of scale in the whole space thing, in the past 48 years we've had a grand total of 262 manned spaceflights1. That translates to about six per year.

Just six.

Now consider that statistic and then tell me that having whole fleets of heavily armed spacecraft sounds like a realistic option, given ten years prep-time (or about 60 flights (not ships) in total). And please do take into consideration that most of these flights where only just into orbit. If we go for flights that went anywhere 'far away', like say the moon, we're going to reach a number below ten flights.