What if China militarized the moon?

[maccollo]

I'm asking because I came across this article.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131203000106

"the moon could hypothetically be used as a military battle station and ballistic missiles could be launched against any military target on Earth"

Now turning the moon into the death start sounds sort of funny, and this might just be vacuous propaganda,

but never mind whether this is in any way practical or not. What if China actually began to militarize the moon?

How would other space faring nations react, and would this have a positive or negative influence on and space travel and exploration?

I've always thought that if China were to exceed the height of the the American space program it would serve as a wake up call.

Presenting themselves as a threat while doing so would amplify this to the extreme.

However instead of increasing the pace of space exploration it might just lead to a bunch of weapon technologies designed to take out targets in space, which would be unfortunate.

[louddifference]

i'm pretty sure I've heard that bringing a weapon into space is against he laws of the united nations and as soon as the project started so would war.

at least that's what i think

[Cesrate]

I'm not good at talking about things after 2050.

And, China won't abuse military resources.

PS, China won't get out from the preliminary stage of socialism until 2050.

[jwenting]

i'm pretty sure I've heard that bringing a weapon into space is against he laws of the united nations and as soon as the project started so would war.

at least that's what i think

AFAIK China never signed and ratified that treaty so wouldn't feel themselves bound by it.

And even if, if it's in their national best interest they'd just ignore the treaty and do it anyway. As they're right now the only country that has the capability of putting heavy stuff on the moon they need not fear their plans being interrupted before they can set up defensive systems to stop any incoming strike...

Of course putting ballistic missiles on the moon to bombard earth isn't really sensible. The flight times are so long anyone can see them coming for days in advance and launch their own strike using ICBMs and SLBMs against China using earth based systems that would destroy China before their first strike from the moon ever arrives at its target.

The moon is far more desirable as a sensor platform, a spy station, for that same reason. Any attempt to disable it can be seen coming for days and appropriate countermeasures taken.

[Tex_NL]

Putting ballistic missiles on the moon just to shoot them back at earth would be a ludicrous waste of resources. The fuel, materials and money spend to just get a single missile there could be used to send half a dozen, or more, to any place on earth.

But just in case it would really happen it would surely give the US space program a boost. The US government is already the earths bully. If they can't get the moon themselves they sure as hell won't let China claim it.

[Camacha]

PS, China won't get out from the preliminary stage of socialism until 2050.

Can you explain? I am not at all knowledgeable on the past and future plans of China, so I would really love to hear!

[Nibb31]

That article is pure rubbish.

The Moon is just about the stupidest place to put a missile launcher. It would take 3 days for a nuke to reach a target on Earth, with plenty of time for it to be detected and for your home country to be annihilated. Plus, any targetting would have to rely on a launch window that might only occur once a month or less.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Tex_NL]

That article is pure rubbish.

The Moon is just about the stupidest place to put a missile launcher. It would take 3 days for a nuke to reach a target on Earth, with plenty of time for it to be detected and for your home country to be annihilated. Plus, any targetting would have to rely on a launch window that might only occur once a month or less.

Good point. Logistically it wouldn't make sense. And like you said strategically it wouldn't either.

Launch windows would occur once a day. The moon is tidally locked to earth so it always faces earth the same way. The only rotation you'll have to account for is that of earth.

[Camacha]

i'm pretty sure I've heard that bringing a weapon into space is against he laws of the united nations

Show me any war that was fought by 'the rules'. The notion that it is okay to shoot people to pieces as long as you follow certain rules is quite ridiculous, to be honest. Wars are dirty affairs, with every party taking what they can.

[Klingon Admiral]

Show me any war that was fought by 'the rules'. The notion that it is okay to shoot people to pieces as long as you follow certain rules is quite ridiculous, to be honest. Wars are dirty affairs, with every party taking what they can.

A violation of the Outer Space Treaty, which China has both signed and ratified, would most likely result in the rest of the world ganging up on China.

[Nibb31]

Good point. Logistically it wouldn't make sense. And like you said strategically it wouldn't either.

Launch windows would occur once a day. The moon is tidally locked to earth so it always faces earth the same way. The only rotation you'll have to account for is that of earth.

Latitude and longitude are hard to get right. This old video explains the orbital mechanics for reaching a precise landing point on a Moon - Earth trajectory for Apollo. It would be pretty similar for a nuke launched from the Moon, and it's not trivial.

[lajoswinkler]

If you take a look at the news portal itself, you can see it's filled with various political propaganda. It's one of those media outlets that stirs **** by frightening people and giving various assholes with power the reason to start problems.

The article is stupid and intended for gullible people.

[Tex_NL]

Latitude and longitude are hard to get right. This old video explains the orbital mechanics for reaching a precise landing point on a Moon - Earth trajectory for Apollo. It would be pretty similar for a nuke launched from the Moon, and it's not trivial.

You're right, I was focusing too much on longitude. Latitude is indeed a lot harder. But as we all have learned from KSP you can do plane changes while transferring to another body.

It might not be fuel efficient but few wars ever are. Who cares about efficiency if it means you can you devastate your enemy with a single swift blow.

[John FX]

I have said for a while that the first nation to gain a proper foothold in the asteroid belt will have thousands if not millions of ballistic missiles (asteroids) which would only require a small nudge to send them against any point on planets or moons in a lower orbit. Mars could be used for slingshot to increase speed and thereby reaction time for the affected victims. Small engines for last minute (week) adjustments could remove the accuracy issue if the descent is fairly vertical. I think accuracy on the scale of a major continent should be possible.

No need for nukes (weak things that they are), no need for weapons in space violating any treaties. No need for a big fanfare. No need for a static target on the moon which is really obvious and hard to build. Just a simple "Oh, no that big rock is going to land on our enemies who don`t even think there is a war going on" about 5 years after a secret military launch (or a hidden piggyback on a mars mission)

Wars that are arranged to have a start date with everyone lining up beforehand ended with chivalric charges. It is stupid to fight that way now.

The best war is the one you win before your enemy realises it has started...

Also, this is as valid whichever nation gets there first. Whichever country you are in you know that some of the politicians in your country are attracted by this idea.

You're right, I was focusing too much on longitude. Latitude is indeed a lot harder. But as we all have learned from KSP you can do plane changes while transferring to another body.

It might not be fuel efficient but few wars ever are. Who cares about efficiency if it means you can you devastate your enemy with a single swift blow.

Exactly. If you can just send a single mission to an asteroid that will not be efficient or fast but will completely remove your enemy in 5-10 years then you do the launch and suck it up for a while then laugh as they panic like ant under a descending foot.

Remember, a large rock at the right speed has MUCH more power than a nuclear bomb...

Edited December 22, 2013 by John FX

[MBobrik]

Putting your missiles somewhere where they stay immobile visible, defenseless and several days of flight away from their targets makes no military sense. If someone wanted to have his stash of space nukes he would send them to randomly distributed wide chaotic orbits around the earth-moon system so that they stay mobile, invisible and their position unpredictable.

[Scotius]

I have said for a while that the first nation to gain a proper foothold in the asteroid belt will have thousands if not millions of ballistic missiles (asteroids) which would only require a small nudge to send them against any point on planets or moons in a lower orbit. Mars could be used for slingshot to increase speed and thereby reaction time for the affected victims. Small engines for last minute (week) adjustments could remove the accuracy issue if the descent is fairly vertical. I think accuracy on the scale of a major continent should be possible.

No need for nukes (weak things that they are), no need for weapons in space violating any treaties. No need for a big fanfare. No need for a static target on the moon which is really obvious and hard to build. Just a simple "Oh, no that big rock is going to land on our enemies who don`t even think there is a war going on" about 5 years after a secret military launch (or a hidden piggyback on a mars mission)

Wars that are arranged to have a start date with everyone lining up beforehand ended with chivalric charges. It is stupid to fight that way now.

The best war is the one you win before your enemy realises it has started...

Also, this is as valid whichever nation gets there first. Whichever country you are in you know that some of the politicians in your country are attracted by this idea.

Exactly. If you can just send a single mission to an asteroid that will not be efficient or fast but will completely remove your enemy in 5-10 years then you do the launch and suck it up for a while then laugh as they panic like ant under a descending foot.

Remember, a large rock at the right speed has MUCH more power than a nuclear bomb...

I don't think you can aim an asteroid precisely enough to destroy city-sized targets. If you are going for nation-killing asteroid strikes you are: A) suicidal, because it will wreck global environment, terrorist that need to be put down like a rabid dog.

[Tommygun]

A nuclear missile base on the Moon Sounds like a great way to bankrupt a nation.

It's also redundant when a missile silo will get the ICBM to the target faster, cheaper and better.

It would probably be more effective to just send them hidden in 40 foot shipping containers.

[Superfluous J]

Launch windows would occur once a day. The Moon is tidally locked to earth so it always faces earth the same way. The only rotation you'll have to account for is that of earth.

That assumes the missiles travel in a set path. Any missile I'd bother sending to the Moon would have a throttle and a brain, and you could launch it at any time and it'd throttle up or down appropriately to hit a precise location on the planet at the precise time that my desired target had rotated to that position.

Latitude and longitude are hard to get right.

That's what computers are for. By the time China could get a nuke base set up on the Moon, they'll like be able to say (in Chinese of course), "Siri, fire a missile at New York City"

As many have said, the whole idea is preposterous, though, because there is no way a missile would make it all the way from the Moon to Earth without getting shot down. Doctor Evil had a much better idea. "LASER"s.

(which are just as dumb. You'd need a HUGE and vulnerable solar array to generate the power required to even start a fire on Earth, from the Moon)

[Kryten]

China's nuclear doctrine is what they call 'minimal credible deterrence'; which is why they've only got maybe 250 nukes and a few dozen ICBMs, compared to thousands and hundreds of both respectively for Russia and the US. This... wouldn't exactly fit with that, even if we pretended it was technologically plausible.

[liweih]

You can read a comic named Moonlight Mile. It talks about a fictional competition both in space and on the moon between China and the US. The most interesting things is the author draw this comic even before China's 1st manned mission.

[Naten]

Their ballistic missiles will need ~1,400 m/s of DV. I guess they won't be able to carry a ton of missiles with that capability to the Moon, then.

[jwenting]

A violation of the Outer Space Treaty, which China has both signed and ratified, would most likely result in the rest of the world ganging up on China.

hmm, the militarisation of space treaty is not the outer space treaty... The outer space treaty bars them from claiming the moon and its resources as their own, no more.

And ganging up on China? Forget it. If a country can pull off such a stunt and create an orbital weapons system that can hold the entire planet hostage without its construction being detected and identified as such, the world will have no choice but to bow to the inevitable as anyone who doesn't would be quickly and thoroughly reminded of who's boss now.

Were that to happen, that treaty is null and void in practice even while the politicians scream in the UN general assembly how angry they are.

[nhnifong]

The USA once threatened to blow up the moon with nuclear weapons when they were done with it, just to prevent the USSR from landing on it. Just goes to show that those Apollo-era guys weren't so smart after all.

[Kryten]

hmm, the militarisation of space treaty is not the outer space treaty... The outer space treaty bars them from claiming the moon and its resources as their own, no more.

Really?

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.

tenchars

[Karriz]

The USA once threatened to blow up the moon with nuclear weapons when they were done with it, just to prevent the USSR from landing on it. Just goes to show that those Apollo-era guys weren't so smart after all.

I've never heard of that one. I know that US military planned on detonating a nuclear device on the Moon in late 1950s, as some sort of a response to Sputnik, but thankfully the project never took off. Obviously it wouldn't have done much damage to Moon itself, though; just another small crater.