Minuteman III ICBM replacement.

[JMH]

Would it be better to replace the Minuteman III ICBM with a system of a few thousand Orbital Bombardment Satellites, armed with Nuclear and conventional warheads, kinetic energy cannons and lasers? This system could be divided into four constellations of satellites (One over the North Pole, One over the South Pole, One over the Eastern Hemisphere and one over the Western Hemisphere) that are divided into battle groups of twelve satellites each. The satellites in this system would consist of four types:

1,800 Battle Satellites, armed with a Kinetic Energy rail gun and six hundred projectiles. Used to fire projectiles through the stratosphere at a target on the earth with the same affect of a small meteor that has struck the surface of the earth, causing massive fires and small earthquakes in the targeted area.

600 Laser Battle Satellites, A satellite armed with a laser, capable of striking targets on the surface of the Earth.
This satellite could be used to attack high value soft targets, electrical grids, power stations, and used in "surgical strikes" against targets in densely populated areas.

250 Strategic Bombardment Satellites: armed with two nuclear missiles, each with six nuclear warheads. Used, to replace the land-based element of the Nuclear Triad with a spaced based system.

350 Electronic Attack Satellites, used to escort satellites and to attack other satellites.

Each Battle group would consist of: One Strategic Bombardment Satellite, seven Electronic Attack Satellites, twelve Laser Battle Satellites and thirty-six Electronic Attack Satellites.

These Battle groups would be dived into four constellations:

North Pole Constellation
25 Battle groups of 12 satellites each.

South Pole Constellation
25 Battle groups of 12 Satellites each.

Eastern Hemisphere Constellation
100 Battle groups of 12 Satellites each.

Western Hemisphere Constellation
100 Battle groups of 12 Satellites each.

All these satellites could be networked to battle commanders based in space, on ships and submarines at sea, command and control bunkers on Earth and command and control aircraft.

[SnowLeopard]

I'll set aside the treaty and satellite technology angles, just for a moment.

First of all, realize that trying to put something like that up will make a lot of people around the world quite upset and that's putting in quite mildly. The arguements, both internal and external, would probably ground it quicker than any technical hitch.

Secondly, how is it to be maintained? We have three shuttles, on limited launch schedules, on limited orbital planes, only to ISS. After that, we really don't have anything to fixing satellites in orbit .... so I guess the theory is to replace them.

Thirdly, if it is to replace them, then what happens to the old weapons satellite? Is it allowed to burn up in re-entry...... The world went nuts enough when the Soviet nuclear powered satellite re-entered in the 70's; a reentering nuclear warhead is rather unimaginable terrible.

Fourth, space launching ability is not perfect. Launching a lot of nuclear armed satellites is like launching nuclear waste to the sun. It sounds great in concept, but in reality ........ range safety officers, those who hit the destruct button on a wayward rocket, are there for a real reason, not the outside chance.

Fifth, one thing about ICBMs, SLBMs is that they are rather on US territory and can be protected. A satellite up in orbit, however, is potentially (more) vulnerable to attack, seizure, or a computer network takeover. Even if we put the people arguments aside, I don't think our own nuclear people would allow so many nuclear arms to be in a position where they are not tightly secured.

There you go.
-----------------------------------------------
("Forgive me, father, for I have sinned."--Bond in the confessional
"That's putting it mildly, double 0 7."--Q in disquise, (w,stte), "For Your Eyes Only")

[Blademaster]

Not only that, it would be cost prohibitive. It would not offer a better bang for buck.

The SLBMs does the job quite nicely. If you are worried about fast time responses, in this case, it is way better to have a long response time as hair trigger responses inevitably leads to a world wide holocaust.

[SRB]

I will say SF.

And there is arrangement about no weapons in space. If I remember Soviets in '60 launch some weird ICBM which work different. It pay loaded warhead in orbit and warhead became satellite and it could stay in space for long time. Once it recive
command it could start moving to target. I think after test launch of that system US and USSR agree that space wouldnt be armed.

[zraver]

With that system the rest of the world would ahve to go to war with us jsut to protect themselves. No trade, miltiary action, supporting groups that wanted to do us harm, each according to thier abilities. The system you outlined even if it was cost feasable, technologically feasable, and we felt our networks and nukes would be safe enough is a loaded gun pointed at every person on the planet, even US citizens.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Secondly, how is it to be maintained? We have three shuttles, on limited launch schedules, on limited orbital planes, only to ISS.

Oh, that's easy: we'll pay the Russians to do it.

[texacali]

Snow Leopard:
I think you hit the nail on the head where you said the weapons would be exposed to vulnerability of hostile takeover. With todays satellite reconnaisance, launches can be observed in time for an immediate response. Less likely is the retrieval of command and control functions in case of computer or space borne offense. If I may digress, I believe the theat now is smuggled nuclear weapons into a target area.
texacali

[entropy]

Oh, that's easy: we'll pay the Russians to do it.

We will make Orbital Distillers out of your satellites.

[taygone]

Can someone say Operation Chrome Dome? From I recall of the top of my head a B-52 crashed over a body of water and it's nuclear payload was dropped. What if a satelite were to come down over land? Will the nukes explode? Will there be leakage? What happens if some other claims the nukes like Iran? Conventional weapons like a type of meteor sounds ok but how much would that cost to guide them through the atmosphere? MOABs and other smart bombs cost a pretty penny. Maybe in a few years with better technology. And there could be a new armed forces branch called Space Force or something cooler sounding.