Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» The impeached deadhead signs a defense bill to create a SPACE FORCE. Makes sense. He certainly is spacey. Will he join?
Actually, a "space force" does make sense, considering this:
I don't believe China is party to any of the treaties that prohibit placing weapons in space. China is researching railgun technologies. China is planning to create a "mining base" on the moon.
A railgun on the moon (or on a satellite) can launch a "bullet" that will hit with the power of a nuclear strike, but without the radiation. There is no defense against such a missile. It could easily penetrate even Cheyenne Mountain (NORAD Command). Such a "bullet" could be small and fast enough, that there would be no (or very little) warning.
India has also launched probes to the moon. You can bet if they believe China is creating a military base on the moon, India will try to do so. We are facing a possible space-arms race.
3) Fifteen to thirty minutes later, nuclear missiles from US land or submarine-based forces obliterate China.
If China wants to follow in the United States' Cold War idiocy of spending trillions on militarily useless weapons, I don't see why other nation-states should feel compelled to imitate their idiocy.
If the theory of MAD was an actual deterrent, there wouldn't have been a nuclear arms race in the first place. Politicians are seldom rational thinkers. They are usually emotional reactionaries.
Our nuclear deterrence depends on enough warning to get a message out for a retaliatory strike. With C&C gone without warning - remaining forces would have no idea where to hit back. Subs, in fact, would have no idea anything happened ... because there would be no message from C&C.
A) If anyone said "No, that's enough", they faced the possible domestic political consequence of being called "Soft on Communism"
B) The Congressional-Military-Industrial complex made metric butt-loads of money off of it. If that money could have been more useful to society being spent on schools, or hospitals, or more teachers, or subsidizing college tuition, they didn't give a f***. They were getting theirs.
As far back as the Eisenhower administration, rational non-paranoid people recognized that the consequences of nuclear war, even if one side 'won' were fundamentally not acceptable.
I will concede that IF someone built the (mindbogglingly expensive) moon-based rail gun, they could maybe get off a "decapitation" strike and confuse the United States military for a short period.
Or, at a tiny fraction of the cost of the rail gun, the US could implement command and control procedures where nuclear forces would automatically retaliate against China should positive control with NORAD/the Pentagon/the White House be lost.
That would put the world much closer to the brink of an accidental world-ending nuclear war. But it's a comparatively easy and obvious countermeasure to any Chinese "space force".
A and B proves my point that politicians are seldom rational thinkers. Thus their tendency to build large weapon systems to counter "enemy" weapon systems.
We could use a missile to launch a warhead deploying thousands of BBs in the path of an ICBM, to cripple it. That would be much less expensive than building thousands of our own ICBMs and interceptor missiles. But it's not as "showy", with explosions ... so the politicians don't get the emotional charge out of it.
Remember Reagan's sky bubble or whatever he planned to protect the country? How does this mesh with that Walt? Thank you for your reply.
This post was edited by RosieG at December 21, 2019 11:12 AM MST
Walt O'Reagun 