by bigyabai | 2025-07-23 00:25:13+00:00
We learned all of these lessons 50 years ago.

> All other countries bordering russia/china do as well..

Do they ever shoot down the routine Tu-95 flights that head for the pacific ocean? Doesn't seem like it, they could open their bays whenever they wanted outside Anchorage or Seattle: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/01/30/russian-...

> Once detected, the US navy and airforce can plan interceptions.

The fastest ocean craft the Navy has can't pull 40 knots in regular conditions. It takes an F/A-18 far too long to cover 250 miles even at mil-speed, same for Air Force F-15s. They aren't planning much of anything, particularly if they can't see the missile. NORAD won't see them and naval radars are far too small to cover even the West coast.

> Which way would a cruise missile go and how much fuel would it need to reach the US?... let's be real here.

Wherever it wants. Modernized Kalibr missiles can fly in excess of 2,500 miles... after being launched from a vehicle with it's own range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalibr_(missile_family)#Domest...

> just laser their thrusters once in range during peacetime... who's going to do what?

You make it sound so easy. What if the ground operators detect your intercept and decide to fight back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

> That's a bit naive considering russia's behavior.

It was very realistic and feasibly attainable during the Reykjavík summit, half a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union and Balkanization of nuclear-armed states.

> Russia isn't looking too capable right now for another one

The USSR wasn't fighting NATO forces when their strategic weapons were valuable. What were they going to do in the 80s, nuke the Mujahideen? Russia has their nukes, and they have casus belli even if their war in Ukraine is bogus. The ICBMs are already built, it doesn't cost them extra to fire a solid-fuel rocket. I'm as skeptical of Russia's nuclear arsenal as anyone, but to discount it entirely is nuts.

> Yes it would, so what would it take for them to work?

An unprecedented level of trust? Who do you think owns the satellites, Uncle Sam and his American Eagle? It's a private system. The DOD does not control the Starlink satellites, they have no desire to build the backbone of their nuclear defense system out of an LEO system in another billionaire's playground. Even a pants-on-head stupid eminent domain plan like you're insinuating would be failure-prone, not to mention profoundly moronic from a compensation and liability standpoint. In an emergency situation, we can't guarantee that the DOD would or could take control. Or that the satellites could fill the mission they demand.

You can give the US every feasible advantage and Starlink still comes up short. Modern TEL missiles come pre-fuelled and can be launched faster than satellites can coordinate. An ICBM TEL can employ FOBS, meaning that you don't have a launch azimuth just by seeing where the rocket is aimed. You would need satellites proportional to the area-of-uncertainty in low earth orbit to intercept an ICBM during boost phase with a satellite, which is a radius <800 miles wide being traversed in the span of ~60 seconds. Not to mention, Russia or China could rapidly deplete satellite propellant just by driving TELs cross-country on a regular basis. Much cheaper than the Tu-95 scares they've relied on.

> you missed nuke subs, so the MAD is still around unless the US has a way to kill them if they get too close to the us

If you want to be completely pedantic, intercepting SLBMs doesn't even remotely stop your enemy from nuking you either. Kalibr missiles can be launched from a submarine too, or SRBMs that don't have a long enough ballistic phase to intercept from space. It's no-win regardless of your satellite defenses.

This is the last time I'll say it, since it's becoming quickly apparent that we're playing by the Calvinball rules of deterrence; the only realistic nuclear defense is nonproliferation. Yes, it's far-fetched, but it's ~1,000x more attainable than hard-killing a submarine nuke using a satellite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...