Paranoid uses for starship

[kerbiloid]

53 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

how does it get on the moon?

By rocket.

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

By rocket.

And how much does that rocket cost to fly?

Can SpaceX throw cheap stainless rockets at the moon for less than cold war era rockets can send anti-starship weapons? Can america force you to drain your economy stopping them?

Edited September 7, 2021 by Rakaydos

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

And how much does that rocket cost to fly?

I forgot, that still nothing has ever landed on the Moon because there was no Starship, sorry.

[Rakaydos]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I forgot, that still nothing has ever landed on the Moon because there was no Starship, sorry.

Again you deflect and avoid the question.

Your cold war rockets, that put probes on the moon before the americans... how much do they cost to fly?

Can starship literally flood the skies with landers for less than it would cost to put enough defensive weapons to stop them? Can your nation sustain that kind of economc drag?

[kerbiloid]

38 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Again you deflect and avoid the question.

Really?

39 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Your cold war rockets, that put probes on the moon before the americans... how much do they cost to fly?

Enough cheap to use them in 1960s hundreds of times and keep using today.

39 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Can starship literally flood the skies with landers

Yes, if it uses cheat codes to spawn them for free.

And any anti-starship rocket is many times cheaper than starship. Because, as the Russian proverb says, "To break is not to make." _{Ломать не строить.}

43 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Can your nation sustain that kind of economc drag?

Can your nation sustain at least more lunar lander per year, let alone the "flooded sky"?

Of course, under the assumption that SH/SS can ever fly, but this is a given condition in this thread.

[SOXBLOX]

Exactly. Even if someone got to the Moon before Starship, Starship has so much payload and Δ-V margin that nothing could compete. It could easily carry electronic and kinetic defenses, and it can outmaneuver and missile light enough to be put on the Moon by any other rocket.

[Rakaydos]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, if it uses cheat codes to spawn them for free.

Those "cheat codes" are the entire reason this thread exists. A properly paranoid person wouldnt just take Elon's "5 mil to build, 2 mil to launch" numbers on faith, but actually assume it will be CHEAPER, that Elon is making it sound more expensive to milk more money out of the goverment.

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Even if someone got to the Moon before Starship, Starship has so much payload and Δ-V margin that nothing could compete. It could easily carry electronic and kinetic defenses, and it can outmaneuver and missile light enough to be put on the Moon by any other rocket.

A 1950s bomber could carry more payload than Starship, and its delta-V doesn't allow it perform any maneuver.

A shrapnel shot would penetrate its 6 mm (or how much thick) hull in several places even without an explosion, just after being put on collision course.

22 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

A properly paranoid person wouldnt just take Elon's "5 mil to build, 2 mil to launch" numbers on faith, but actually assume it will be CHEAPER

If it was cheaper, it would be declared. Only when it's expensiver, it makes sense to make a smoke around.

***

A hint: an anti-starship rocket can be launched in opposite orbit direction.

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Starship is just another flying aim.

This, but bigger and on the Moon.

  Hide contents

 

This is an explosively formed penetrator, they have limited range, guess its some hundreds meters, yes it would be longer in space because no air but you are still limited by how accurate the explosion is. 
The sound detection will also not work in space  

I would rater used a missile or even a gun, pretty sure you could get some insane ranges with rifle caliber guns with no air resistance and an good mount and fire control system. 

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This is an explosively formed penetrator, they have limited range, guess its some hundreds meters, yes it would be longer in space because no air but you are still limited by how accurate the explosion is. 

As I noticed a little bit later,  

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

P.S.
I don't mean that the anti-chopper mined from the picture is what's needed. It's just illustrating the whole idea.

Actually, a kinetic or a nuke rocket is what's needed.

But same small.

 

[MKI]

21 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If put the rocket on the Moon - just a half-hour.

How fast would you need to launch something to get to the moon in half an hour? :O

 

The other consideration is even if Starship is vulnerable to fire... how do you stop 15 of them when you can't build them that fast or launch as fast? Its the same principle that decided large scale battles of the past. Where volume and production power wins the day. Of course you could strike the infrastructure, but then that turns into its own geopolitical mess that could involve nukes.

 

Even a paranoid general understands getting into a direct confrontation or full scale war is a terrible idea due to the potential of MAD. You either let the US win and "win" through indirect means, or you continue to keep pace. 

Obviously the indirect methods are probably more sensible, stuff like spreading misinformation ("USA spending $ on claiming space rocks instead of helping YOU!"), directly or indirectly attacking infrastructure (the cost of methane is HOW MUCH?), or any other methods that could undermine the overall supporting infrastructure of such an endeavor as Starship supported space-bases. All of which might be cheaper/easier than building your own Starship. 

But as a paranoid general I'd execute both plans, and the harder of the two is making my own Starship prototype, so I'd focus the most on that area.  

 

 

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, MKI said:

How fast would you need to launch something to get to the moon in half an hour? :O

From the Moon surface? About 2 km/s or so.

16 minutes ago, MKI said:

if Starship is vulnerable to fire

A 6 mm steel barrel is vulnerable even to a rifle.  Try flechettes.

17 minutes ago, MKI said:

how do you stop 15 of them when you can't build them that fast or launch as fast?

15 times more rockets? One meganuke on their landing site? Just once hit their destination and never more care of those Starships?

20 minutes ago, MKI said:

but then that turns into its own geopolitical mess that could involve nukes.

While the battle stays away from the national population, everyone will try to keep it there.

A thousand of lunar craters more, a thousand less... 

22 minutes ago, MKI said:

Even a paranoid general understands getting into a direct confrontation or full scale war is a terrible idea due to the potential of MAD. You either let the US win and "win" through indirect means, or you continue to keep pace. 

Should I copy the link once again and remind of several wars in SE Asia in 1950s..1970s?

***

Dear Starship Troopers!

Please, realize that the Starship is a Zeppelin, not a U-Boot.

Same bulky and flimsy.

[Vanamonde]

Guys, as we moderators keep suggesting, if somebody REALLY bugs you, just set that person to ignore. Posting to say how much that person bugs you is off-topic and the kind of personal remark that we ask our forum members to avoid. The forum is not improved for anyone if it fills up with posts complaining about other posts. 

Some comments removed. 

[MKI]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

While the battle stays away from the national population, everyone will try to keep it there.

No it wont, why would it? If you attack a military installation with a large force, the opposing military will escalate and do the same. The only difference is a first strike on a moon base has little significant military value on earth, and is incredible difficult to execute. In comparison a conventional military base can be attacked by conventional means.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Should I copy the link once again and remind of several wars in SE Asia in 1950s..1970s?

All of these cold-wars fall into "win through indirect means", in that an overwhelming force loses to a more resilient enemy being supported by your own force. 

This sort of battle is actually more reverse, when it comes to space. Where a direct attack is required to do even the slightest damage to an opposing force that is in space. Namely launching a giant rocket toward your target. If its a base, then it its just an incredible slow visible attack that is launched from an extravagant facility that costs a bunch of money to maintain and launch a single payload.  If its a moving target (like a Starship fleet) its even more complex and less likely to succeed unless you have your own high output launch facility to launch attacks as Starship(s) depart.

A successful first strike also assumes your enemy is an idiot and puts all their eggs into 1 basket with 0 defenses to get obliterated in 1 strike in the first place. If targets are spread out, and defended your in an even tougher situation. Something as simple as just hiding bases underground mean you have no chance at really doing anything simply due to the vast distances you need to cross with a first strike, and the wide range of potential target areas, and the complete lack of intelligence in the field of battle.

Its one thing to give some weapons to the local forces, and provide supporting capabilities and letting them "wear the enemy down". Its another to make any kind of direct strike on space infrastructure of any kind, to the point you need significant scale to make any kind of strike to work.

 

I'd compare this to winning WW2 via U-boats by starving Britain of shipments in the Battle of the Atlantic. The differences is your U-boats are not capable of being re-fitted after their initial attack. You only win in this scenario if you can build more U-boats than the US can build Liberty ships. If U-boats are existing space-launch systems, and Liberty ships are Starship's supplying/building a moon-base(Britain) you always lose unless you have your own Starship prototype that can be refitted, then you at least have a chance.

 

You could also argue making a full-large scale attack on the mainland, except this has even less chances of working due to the difficulties in dealing large enough damage onto targets.

 

If your goal is to win a battle on the lunar surface, you will always lose due to the "scale factor" of Starship. If you take the battle elsewhere (like direct attacks on Earth) you get into the realm of full large-scale direct confrontational war, which is a whole topic all together. There isn't really an in-between, because Starship unlocked the solar system and the US decided to lock you out of it. 

Again I'm the "paranoid general", pushing for funding of my own "keep pace" ability, of which without we would be at the mercy of the US's domination of the rest of the solar system. As only the dumbest generals plan for a battle they could avoid, as a direct confrontation with the US in any form would be a complete tactical disaster.

 

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

From the Moon surface? About 2 km/s or so.

This doesn't make any sense. The Moon's surface is the target, and your launch facilities are all Earth based. What is required to get a payload to the Moon's surface within half an hour? (I'm too lazy to do the math)

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

I don’t think all of this discussion of “taking” the Moon makes sense. It doesn’t matter so long as SpaceX and NASA mission control centers are going to be destroyed in a nuclear strike anyways. Which is probably what will happen if the Moon is “lost”, or is bound to happen if people are fighting a war on the Moon anyways.

18 hours ago, DDE said:

I'll admit, the current sincere, vicious spatfest between SpaceX and BO does put some holes into that theory.

Within the context of discussing this “theory”, it is possible there is infighting among their CIA masters.

Just because the Japanese Army and Navy both had allegiance to the Emperor did not mean there couldn’t be vicious competition between the two. I would imagine the same is possible for the different sections of the CIA responsible for controlling each of the two companies (SpaceX and BO).

[Spacescifi]

5 hours ago, MKI said:

No it wont, why would it? If you attack a military installation with a large force, the opposing military will escalate and do the same. The only difference is a first strike on a moon base has little significant military value on earth, and is incredible difficult to execute. In comparison a conventional military base can be attacked by conventional means.

All of these cold-wars fall into "win through indirect means", in that an overwhelming force loses to a more resilient enemy being supported by your own force. 

This sort of battle is actually more reverse, when it comes to space. Where a direct attack is required to do even the slightest damage to an opposing force that is in space. Namely launching a giant rocket toward your target. If its a base, then it its just an incredible slow visible attack that is launched from an extravagant facility that costs a bunch of money to maintain and launch a single payload.  If its a moving target (like a Starship fleet) its even more complex and less likely to succeed unless you have your own high output launch facility to launch attacks as Starship(s) depart.

A successful first strike also assumes your enemy is an idiot and puts all their eggs into 1 basket with 0 defenses to get obliterated in 1 strike in the first place. If targets are spread out, and defended your in an even tougher situation. Something as simple as just hiding bases underground mean you have no chance at really doing anything simply due to the vast distances you need to cross with a first strike, and the wide range of potential target areas, and the complete lack of intelligence in the field of battle.

Its one thing to give some weapons to the local forces, and provide supporting capabilities and letting them "wear the enemy down". Its another to make any kind of direct strike on space infrastructure of any kind, to the point you need significant scale to make any kind of strike to work.

 

I'd compare this to winning WW2 via U-boats by starving Britain of shipments in the Battle of the Atlantic. The differences is your U-boats are not capable of being re-fitted after their initial attack. You only win in this scenario if you can build more U-boats than the US can build Liberty ships. If U-boats are existing space-launch systems, and Liberty ships are Starship's supplying/building a moon-base(Britain) you always lose unless you have your own Starship prototype that can be refitted, then you at least have a chance.

 

You could also argue making a full-large scale attack on the mainland, except this has even less chances of working due to the difficulties in dealing large enough damage onto targets.

 

If your goal is to win a battle on the lunar surface, you will always lose due to the "scale factor" of Starship. If you take the battle elsewhere (like direct attacks on Earth) you get into the realm of full large-scale direct confrontational war, which is a whole topic all together. There isn't really an in-between, because Starship unlocked the solar system and the US decided to lock you out of it. 

Again I'm the "paranoid general", pushing for funding of my own "keep pace" ability, of which without we would be at the mercy of the US's domination of the rest of the solar system. As only the dumbest generals plan for a battle they could avoid, as a direct confrontation with the US in any form would be a complete tactical disaster.

 

This doesn't make any sense. The Moon's surface is the target, and your launch facilities are all Earth based. What is required to get a payload to the Moon's surface within half an hour? (I'm too lazy to do the math)

 

 

 

Without any bias, the facts are:

Russia will defintely lose a certain degree of space dominance if Elon's system works as intended... so it should not come as a surprise if any dislike Starship while they are stuck with less funds for playing KSP IRL.

Until another nation can and has the will to commit a similar amount of resources to do something similar to Elon... this whole conversation is simply an unrealistic scenario... that requires peer rival nations with USA abilities.

It is not as if the USA has a peer rival for sheer supremacy in resources and power projection, and by the time any nation does the USA will either have surpassed their current strength or have ceased to exist.

 

Because power management is not static... it's fluid.

Rivals love to poke jabs at each other, but it does not change the reality of the situation at hand.

Surpassing a rival leads to snippiness from the surpassed rival, and bragging rights from the upsurper.

On and on. This is per the usual in human history BTW.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/business/russia-space-dmitry-rogozin-elon-musk/index.html

Edited September 8, 2021 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, MKI said:

No it wont, why would it?

It would. Because nobody wants its homeland to be destroyed when the war is not about this homeland existence.
The devastated noone's Moon is  definitely not a reason to get your home burnt.

Most of wars in history finished at borders. Very rarely they became a total devastation.

That's why (see the link above) numerous local incidents and foreign wars didn't cause a global nuclear war.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

If you attack a military installation with a large force, the opposing military will escalate and do the same.

The real world is not a basic arythmetics. Until the vital things are under attack, no local military loss is enough significant to start the total war.

That's why Korean and Indo-China wars, where all three countries were directly involved, haven't escalated into a nuclear war.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

The only difference is a first strike on a moon base has little significant military value on earth, and is incredible difficult to execute. In comparison a conventional military base can be attacked by conventional means.

The Moon may get totally radioactive, but all it can cause on the Earth is the spaceports destruction.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

This sort of battle is actually more reverse, when it comes to space. Where a direct attack is required to do even the slightest damage to an opposing force that is in space. Namely launching a giant rocket toward your target. If its a base, then it its just an incredible slow visible attack that is launched from an extravagant facility that costs a bunch of money to maintain and launch a single payload.  If its a moving target (like a Starship fleet) its even more complex and less likely to succeed unless you have your own high output launch facility to launch attacks as Starship(s) depart.

A successful first strike also assumes your enemy is an idiot and puts all their eggs into 1 basket with 0 defenses to get obliterated in 1 strike in the first place. If targets are spread out, and defended your in an even tougher situation. Something as simple as just hiding bases underground mean you have no chance at really doing anything simply due to the vast distances you need to cross with a first strike, and the wide range of potential target areas, and the complete lack of intelligence in the field of battle.

See above.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

Its one thing to give some weapons to the local forces, and provide supporting capabilities and letting them "wear the enemy down". Its another to make any kind of direct strike on space infrastructure of any kind, to the point you need significant scale to make any kind of strike to work.

The lunar military base is not as vital as the early warning system or the communications.

Its destruction would not be a "clear and present danger", so would not make to risk with the homeland war.

Actually, in the described situation even a Starship launch site  destruction would not cause a total war. At the most - a dedicated single anti-spaceport strike.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

I'd compare this to winning WW2 via U-boats by starving Britain of shipments in the Battle of the Atlantic. The differences is your U-boats are not capable of being re-fitted after their initial attack. You only win in this scenario if you can build more U-boats than the US can build Liberty ships. If U-boats are existing space-launch systems, and Liberty ships are Starship's supplying/building a moon-base(Britain) you always lose unless you have your own Starship prototype that can be refitted, then you at least have a chance.

Not a relevant example, because every lunar launch costs much more than a cargo ship cruise.
And the lunar equipment costs billions, rather than raw materials and WWII tanks.

The lunar cargo shippers would go bankrupt much earlier.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

If your goal is to win a battle on the lunar surface, you will always lose due to the "scale factor" of Starship.

The "scale factor" of a Proton-class rocket is much greater when every Starship gets expendable.

Even if take seriously that marketing nonsense about 5 mln USD per flight, this value presumes that the Starship is not hit every flight.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

This doesn't make any sense.

This makes as much sense as every existing and used system of distance mining.

9 hours ago, MKI said:

The Moon's surface is the target,

The Moon surface is a location. The target is approaching from the Earth, has limited maneuvering capability, known destination point, and has to brake on descent. Almost ideal target.

 

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think all of this discussion of “taking” the Moon makes sense.

It was making sense in 1960s, when the spysats used film capsules, as the electronics was weak.

Currently the sense is more questionable.

4 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Russia will defintely lose a certain degree of space dominance if Elon's system works as intended...

The are absolutely unrelated things.
Just the money previously brought by launches will be taken from other source. The space infrastructure would not be significantly affected by the Musk's business.

[Spacescifi]

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It would. Because nobody wants its homeland to be destroyed when the war is not about this homeland existence.
The devastated noone's Moon is  definitely not a reason to get your home burnt.

Most of wars in history finished at borders. Very rarely they became a total devastation.

That's why (see the link above) numerous local incidents and foreign wars didn't cause a global nuclear war.

The real world is not a basic arythmetics. Until the vital things are under attack, no local military loss is enough significant to start the total war.

That's why Korean and Indo-China wars, where all three countries were directly involved, haven't escalated into a nuclear war.

The Moon may get totally radioactive, but all it can cause on the Earth is the spaceports destruction.

See above.

The lunar military base is not as vital as the early warning system or the communications.

Its destruction would not be a "clear and present danger", so would not make to risk with the homeland war.

Actually, in the described situation even a Starship launch site  destruction would not cause a total war. At the most - a dedicated single anti-spaceport strike.

Not a relevant example, because every lunar launch costs much more than a cargo ship cruise.
And the lunar equipment costs billions, rather than raw materials and WWII tanks.

The lunar cargo shippers would go bankrupt much earlier.

The "scale factor" of a Proton-class rocket is much greater when every Starship gets expendable.

Even if take seriously that marketing nonsense about 5 mln USD per flight, this value presumes that the Starship is not hit every flight.

This makes as much sense as every existing and used system of distance mining.

The Moon surface is a location. The target is approaching from the Earth, has limited maneuvering capability, known destination point, and has to brake on descent. Almost ideal target.

 

It was making sense in 1960s, when the spysats used film capsules, as the electronics was weak.

Currently the sense is more questionable.

The are absolutely unrelated things.
Just the money previously brought by launches will be taken from other source. The space infrastructure would not be significantly affected by the Musk's business.

 

Money supply is effected by UN sanctions. Civil unrest,  literal wildfires... I could go on. 

In theory Russia could do a lot. Physics and science allow for it... what stops them is always people. From within and from out.

Because who is going to spend the same amount of resources competing with Musk when you have more pressing 'wildfires' all around to quench... or at least attempt to?

Edited September 8, 2021 by Spacescifi

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Because who is going to spend the same amount of resources competing with Musk when you have more pressing 'wildfires' all around to quench... or at least attempt to?

The idea of claiming the Moon in the manner you suggest is quite silly. Even with Starship there is no way you could "capture" the Moon. If you take one position the potential adversary can just land 1000 km away.

I think this thread is supposed to be about potential uses of Starship in a "real" war. Not some Vietnam in space. Full on apocalypse, tactical nukes all around, just mere hours away from full scale MAD. In the latter situation, it doesn't matter if you have rapid reuse Starship to "capture" the Moon- mission control, the factories, the launch sites, and the landing pads will all be destroyed by a nuclear blast.

Thus, while the suggestion of use of Starship as a surface-to-surface missile and combat transport made sense as part of this thread, I don't see how "taking the Moon" makes sense or is relevant.

I only make this comment as if you are going to bring in "real world stuff" outside of the technical capabilities of Starship and some realistic space warfare scenarios- by real stuff I mean sanctions, economy and what not- you need to bring in the "other real world stuff"- the terrestrial forces and the military action on Earth. And if you bring that in it will probably just end in nuclear war. Which is why taking the Moon doesn't make sense.

[DDE]

38 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think this thread is supposed to be about potential uses of Starship in a "real" war. Not some Vietnam in space. Full on apocalypse, tactical nukes all around, just mere hours away from full scale MAD.

Doesn't sound accurate, though. All of the likely parties involved have conceptualized various forms of escalation control precisely so that they can keep comitting low-level military action against each other or proxies.

[MKI]

17 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think all of this discussion of “taking” the Moon makes sense. It doesn’t matter so long as SpaceX and NASA mission control centers are going to be destroyed in a nuclear strike anyways. Which is probably what will happen if the Moon is “lost”, or is bound to happen if people are fighting a war on the Moon anyways.

The act of "taking" the moon isn't something like invading a foreign country. Its more a slow establishment over time, none of which need to be militaristic what so ever. 

A paranoid general isn't only scared of a full-on high stakes declaration of the US declaring the Moon their property. A paranoid general would be scared of the full on US lead slow build-up of the Moon over time. You don't need to put a US military base on the Moon to "win" that sort of scenario. You just keep building out your moon base(s) and you essentially "own it" through just being the only ones being there. 

In this scenario a "first-strike" would be incredibly foolish and akin to more of a terrorist attack as there isn't any existing military value in striking such a target, such as a civilian Moon base. This again doesn't mean its impossible because the Moon base has military value or even significant defenses, but you basically don't get any piece of the pie now or later. 

Its fun to imagine some sort of high-end space battle between a Lunar base and Earth, but in reality a large scale direct confrontation just ends up with a bunch of losers on both sides for a hunk of rock. Any general worth their salt understands that, they also understand "keeping pace" with such technologies gives them a chance at keeping the status quo, or potentially overtaking your rivals over time either directly or indirectly. 

 

Going back to the "paranoid general", lets assume they do get funding to build a similar space launch system to Starship, except more limited in scope to just support a Lunar base of their own. Such a situation would result in a similar status quo, where even if a weaker/lamer/more-expensive version of Starship is supported (or just more funding is directed toward a more limited launch vehicle) it would at least be possible to "keep pace" for the foreseeable future of a Lunar base. This status quo is what you'd aim for, as it gives you the capabilities to keep pace with anything that could occur. Its one thing if the US starts building secret Moon bases and you can't get there, its another if your both on the Moon doing civilian based science tasks together while keeping an eye on the other side (Think the ISS but on the Moon). 

 

Ultimately a paranoid general would push for the capabilities of Starship's ability to build large scale Lunar infrastructure over time, which is capabilities basically beyond all existing platforms. Yes a "first-strike" would damage any significant lunar infrastructure, along with any "first-strike" targets such as launch facilities on Earth, but again only a foolish general prepares for an avoidable war. The topic is a "paranoid general", not a warmongering idiotic one, there is a difference.

A smart general would also understand Starship is a massive risk, its possible it isn't economical or feasible to build such a platform, but you don't want to be left behind if it does appear to be capable. I'd start stealing designs now and building my own to keep pace. Which is exactly what the CNSA is doing.

 

Finally its worth noting a paranoid general could push the original idea I gave about a "US take over of the moon", its what you push to politicians who push it on people to get political support, as that is what ultimately provides the funds. The space race was built on military technology meeting with scientific endeavors to further both realms. I see a Starship based Lunar base as just another technology that could further both realms as well. As such I'd say we need our own, even if it ends up being only a scientific venture, both realms benefit. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by MKI

[DDE]

38 minutes ago, MKI said:

In this scenario a "first-strike" would be incredibly foolish and akin to more of a terrorist attack as there isn't any existing military value in striking such a target, such as a civilian Moon base.

Careful, you're giving me more opportunities to throw quotes from PDFs I picked from Dmitry Stefanovich's Twitter feed.

Quote

Precision-guided weapons—together with new means of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance—have afforded the Russian military the ability to target key elements of an adversary’s critical infrastructure. The emphasis is placed on targets whose destruction has the potential to create cascading effects on the system as a whole. The ultimate point of using conventional weapons against particular types of critical targets is to affect escalation management, creating a specific level of psychological coercion that will convince an adversary of the futility of further conflict, given any continued or potential escalation in damage. Of course targets may, and likely will, include those that have both a deterrent effect and practical military value should the conflict continue; that is, there are targets which may be considered dual purpose.  Military writings generally divide targets based on their strategic significance and collateral effects. For example, “vitally important objects” are understood to be targets the damage to which leads to significant economic losses and population loss (such as hazardous industries, hydrocarbon facilities, and hydro and nuclear power plants). These targets could be engaged, or threatened, for the purposes of intimidation (fear inducement) to convince an adversary of the unacceptable costs of continuing a conflict with Russia. In contrast to vitally important targets, “targets of significant value” are military-economic targets the damage to which can create significant economic losses, affecting the livelihood of the population and military command and control, but which will not lead to a significant loss of life (these include satellite systems, power stations, electrical substations, and others).

...

In 2011, an article written by a young 46 TsNII researcher [Скрыпник, “Методический аппарат ранжирования критически важных объектов противника в целях решения задачи силового стратегического сдерживания.”] highlighted some of the potential directions of the evolution of targeting in the future. His approach divides military targets into two categories: active and passive:

• Military active objects: strategic nuclear forces and strategic nonnuclear forces
• Military passive objects: strategic government and military command posts, launch control posts, air and missile defense objects, ISR and communication nodes, space reconnaissance elements, armament storage
• Economic objects: industry and administrative buildings, hydrocarbon facilities, chemical industry, power stations (hydro and nuclear power plants, electric grid).

The researcher also proposes an additional category of “unquantifiable targets.” These objects could include objects important to the elites or leadership of the country, such as country homes, trade or industrial assets, or objects of specific relevance to the individuals in charge (unquantifiable targets 1, in Figure 12). Another subset of targets includes those objects that provide high standards of living and spiritual development—e.g., cultural centers, religious buildings, and historical monuments. These (unquantifiable targets 2, in Figure 12, below) are meant to psychologically affect the population. Broadly speaking, these two targeting strategies exist which are not mutually exclusive: targets that impact the leadership, and those that impact the civilian population. Targets within these sets are prioritized, as depicted in Figure 12, developed by CNA based on the article. To be clear, this article is only one example, and is not necessarily representative of the net sum of Russian thinking on targeting strategy. 

 

[MKI]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Careful, you're giving me more opportunities to throw quotes from PDFs I picked from Dmitry Stefanovich's Twitter feed.

If Russia wanted to make a first-strike I'm sure they will succeed in executing such tasks to a point. I'm not sure if having a Lunar base presence manned by solely the US is an event worth executing such a first-strike at this time, and would at least involve large amounts of politics before such an engagement would occur. 

There is also the question about being able to strike any targets on the Lunar surface/sub-terrain/orbit.  Since such targets don't exist, you'd need new technologies and or plans to attack such infrastructure reliably. Its one thing if the Lunar base is just an outpost reliant on shipments from Earth, its another if its a large scale self-sustaining operation. Obviously such things would be far in the future relative to now, but you'd plan for such outcomes now.

Regardless however, a paranoid general would consider the long term ramifications of the US having such capabilities and their own countries lack of such capabilities. 

 

 

A unparanoid general wouldn't see Starship as a threat, and would justify their lack of paranoia on all the points you are describing.... except that wasn't the thread hahaha 

[kerbiloid]

Let's recall that the real (not sci-fi) Moon projects started from the Project Horizon, which was devoted to the fortified semi-underground military base, protected by minefields, with permanent infantry squad of twelve, armed by wands with direct-shot fragmentation charges.

(Did I miss something?)

It was started in mid-1950s, before any satellite had been put into orbit anywhere on the Earth.

(And that the pdf links in the wiki about this project got dead a year or so ago).

Edited September 8, 2021 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

14 hours ago, MKI said:

The act of "taking" the moon isn't something like invading a foreign country. Its more a slow establishment over time, none of which need to be militaristic what so ever. 

A paranoid general isn't only scared of a full-on high stakes declaration of the US declaring the Moon their property. A paranoid general would be scared of the full on US lead slow build-up of the Moon over time. You don't need to put a US military base on the Moon to "win" that sort of scenario. You just keep building out your moon base(s) and you essentially "own it" through just being the only ones being there. 

In this scenario a "first-strike" would be incredibly foolish and akin to more of a terrorist attack as there isn't any existing military value in striking such a target, such as a civilian Moon base. This again doesn't mean its impossible because the Moon base has military value or even significant defenses, but you basically don't get any piece of the pie now or later. 

Its fun to imagine some sort of high-end space battle between a Lunar base and Earth, but in reality a large scale direct confrontation just ends up with a bunch of losers on both sides for a hunk of rock. Any general worth their salt understands that, they also understand "keeping pace" with such technologies gives them a chance at keeping the status quo, or potentially overtaking your rivals over time either directly or indirectly. 

 

Going back to the "paranoid general", lets assume they do get funding to build a similar space launch system to Starship, except more limited in scope to just support a Lunar base of their own. Such a situation would result in a similar status quo, where even if a weaker/lamer/more-expensive version of Starship is supported (or just more funding is directed toward a more limited launch vehicle) it would at least be possible to "keep pace" for the foreseeable future of a Lunar base. This status quo is what you'd aim for, as it gives you the capabilities to keep pace with anything that could occur. Its one thing if the US starts building secret Moon bases and you can't get there, its another if your both on the Moon doing civilian based science tasks together while keeping an eye on the other side (Think the ISS but on the Moon). 

 

Ultimately a paranoid general would push for the capabilities of Starship's ability to build large scale Lunar infrastructure over time, which is capabilities basically beyond all existing platforms. Yes a "first-strike" would damage any significant lunar infrastructure, along with any "first-strike" targets such as launch facilities on Earth, but again only a foolish general prepares for an avoidable war. The topic is a "paranoid general", not a warmongering idiotic one, there is a difference.

A smart general would also understand Starship is a massive risk, its possible it isn't economical or feasible to build such a platform, but you don't want to be left behind if it does appear to be capable. I'd start stealing designs now and building my own to keep pace. Which is exactly what the CNSA is doing.

 

Finally its worth noting a paranoid general could push the original idea I gave about a "US take over of the moon", its what you push to politicians who push it on people to get political support, as that is what ultimately provides the funds. The space race was built on military technology meeting with scientific endeavors to further both realms. I see a Starship based Lunar base as just another technology that could further both realms as well. As such I'd say we need our own, even if it ends up being only a scientific venture, both realms benefit. 

I don't disagree with some of your points, but I would like to comment that even with Starship "taking" the Moon in the long term scenario you proposed also feels unfeasible to me. It is just too big.

20 hours ago, DDE said:

Doesn't sound accurate, though. All of the likely parties involved have conceptualized various forms of escalation control precisely so that they can keep comitting low-level military action against each other or proxies.

For a Russia-NATO conflict scenario I would agree, but with China and the US I am more skeptical of eachother's willingness to de-escalate and "keep calm".

The highest likelihood scenario for war between the two isn't just simple sphere of influence conflicts- it is the equivalent of Texas trying to secede and having a foreign power support it on the one hand, and tantamount to the loss of one's dominant position in a highly important region of the world on the other.

EDIT- To be clear, when I said "full on apocalypse" I didn't mean going from small shoot out on the border to full scale nuclear exchange within 4 hours, I meant the full on apocalypse that comes after maybe a week or two of conventional combat, and only after a major redline for one side is pushed (which I think the other side does not have the wisdom to not push). This is my personal opinion however.

Edited September 9, 2021 by SunlitZelkova