View Single Post
  #13  
Old December 17th 16, 09:21 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default The Space Race was about Power Projection - Miles O'Brien

From David Spain:
On 12/15/2016 10:03 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
From David Spain:
On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Stuf4 wrote:

Nuclear ICBMs are the only fielded weapon that has NEVER undergone an end-to-end test.

Well technically for a "ballistic missile" that is correct. However
historically for a non-ballistic missile or non-ballistic rocket, of
intermediate range (Thor) not true.


I specifically stated INTER-CONTINENTAL ballistic missiles, and you come back with (paraphrase) "That's not true, there were cases of INTERMEDIATE RANGE..."

Hello? I was operating under the assumption that we were speaking the same language. Maybe I should try putting your reply into Google Translate..


Please don't paraphrase when the exact wording is available to you.
I said "technically for a "ballistic missile"" and left unsaid "of
INTER-CONTINENTAL range" since that was what you were describing and I
said you were correct. No disagreement. I did NOT say "That's not
true.... blah", I said "However..." and described a different scenario
where that was not the case. Please don't put words in my mouth I did
not use.

I would not think translation would be necessary.


It would appear that the disconnect here is that you were trying to *add* information to what I had stated, when the words you picked were presented in a way that gave the appearance of *correcting* what I had stated.

If you see no need to alter your manner of presentation, I would just say that this would be a set up for misunderstanding in future interactions.

As for my own decision to paraphrase, I was attempting to shed light on how your message was being received. For whatever that might be worth to you.

snip
Good we are in agreement then.


I am very glad to have these moments myself.


On 12/12/2016 10:00 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
How would any other country know that it had a nuclear warhead when it was launched?

Point taken. There may be historical record of test objects launched as
prototype nuclear warheads that had the mass/design-shape needed for
missilery but without the required nuclear material. I can't document
that fact just now, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact I'm
certain it did, quite a bit...


I do not know the exact protocol, but I would expect that countries be required to register (perhaps with the UN?) any plan to launch any missile or rocket that had the range of impacting other countries.

Or maybe this guess is mistaken, and that instead there is a long tradition of countries unilaterally doing whatever they want. No notice at all.

Your guess is mistaken. And the later is true. A country may, as a
courtesy, inform other countries of a test, but when a test does not
involve their airspace there is no requirement. BTW a country is free to
orbit anything in space regardless of what territory it crosses. When
North Korea does this we can rant, fume, bloviate all we want but they
are not doing anything any other country or private corporation has not
already done.


And I would submit that this was the exact reason why Eisenhower deliberately lagged in the Space Race. He is blamed for having lost it. But he wanted the USSR to set the precedent of free overflight.

It seems to me that a spotlight has been shined on a deficient area of space history. One that I myself cannot recall reading about:
How can something like even the Space Shuttle be launched without a country on the other side of the planet not be terrified that the US just launched a nuclear warhead at them?


Countries capable of a response also have national means to identify
whether a rocket trajectory is on a path that would allow something to
fall on their territory or not. The space shuttle would obviously not
qualify as an attack due to its trajectory. And even if subject to a
catastrophic failure it would instead present a debris field that would
obviously not qualify as an attack to anyone experienced in the field of
missile detection.

Countries without the means of detecting such probably don't have the
means to retaliate either and therefore would not be considered a threat
and unlikely to be targeted in the first place.


I disagree with you totally here. Specifically, this statement:
"The space shuttle would obviously not qualify as an attack due to its trajectory."

I see this to be a perfect Trojan Horse candidate. No one suspects the shuttle. It overflies all these nations. If the US wanted to initiate a nuclear attack, a very easy way to do that would be by launching the shuttle with a nuke warhead FOBS-type platform in the payload bay. You've just achieved the element of surprise.

I'm very glad this didn't happen. And I'm glad that no one talked about it during the Cold War. But if it ever came to light that the Pentagon actually had a plan worked up as an option, I would not be too surprised.

There was probably a section inside the Pentagon, or more likely at SAC headquarters in Offut, where they dreamt up scenarios where the US could do things to achieve maximum surprise in initiating WWIII. Sneak warhead into the USSR by truck, or whatever. Then coordinate the detonation. Shuttle or some other space platform could have been part of such a plan.


If a surprise attack was intended, it would be very easy to roll video tape of astronauts being strapped
into the cabin while in fact warhead were there.


It would a particularly unusual method of attack. One that would leave
the perpetrator susceptible to a counter-attack unless other strategic
forces were engaged at the same time. And if not attacking an enemy
capable of retaliation why all the subterfuge? Also it's pretty hard to
disguise the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.


Yes, what I was talking about was only the initial detonations of a massive strategic strike involving the entirety of SAC Bombers, ICBMs and also SLBMs. "Win" WWIII before they ever knew what hit them.

You can detect Minuteman launches. Bombardment by Space Shuttle would have a much greater element of surprise.

There was even a Star Trek episode from 1967ish that showed the Saturn V as launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet Union.


OK I'll concede that this is space history only in the sense that it
involves a Science Fiction TV show episode about space explorers that
aired in the 1960s... And you are not quite recalling that episode
correctly... :-) The rocket was launching an orbiting nuclear warhead
platform not "launching a bunch of nuclear warheads at the Soviet
Union". The TV series was Star Trek and the name of that episode was
"Assignment: Earth" It guest starred Robert Lansing as "Gary Seven" and
Teri Garr as his assistant "Roberta Lincoln".

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_Seven


I was not trying to say that Star Trek was making space history. Clearly the tv show was fiction.

As for the actual plot of this episode, my description was perfectly accurate.

Your description was accurate too.

Now here's how both descriptions fit: The US intended to do what you're saying. After the sabotoge, what actually happened is what I stated.

Have any space historians, the folks who do this as a profession, ever mentioned this a single time? Again, if so, I haven't seen it.

Mentioned what? Countries launching stuff into space unilaterally? Using
astronauts to disguise a secret attack? Or the Start Trek episode?


The Trek thing.

If I was a space historian writing about how the Space Race tied in to the nuclear arms race, I would mention this Gary Seven episode. Actually an entire book could, and should, be written on how the Saturn V fit in perfectly with the deterrence strategy of the United States nuclear arsenal.

The Cold War posturing was far more than just the Triad. Key aspects included systematic the nuclear warhead detonations that are ubiquitously referred to as "testing", when conducting experiments was not the primary purpose for many of those. Or rather, it should be asserted, *MOST* of those. They were detonating proven technology. The primary purpose was intimidation..

So there's the Triad + Nevada etc "testing". And on top of all that was NASA's "peaceful" stuff. Here the ubiquitous justification was stated to be "science" and "exploration", when that too was not at all the primary purpose.

All of it was about nuclear intimidation. Power projection.

~ CT