Why wasn't there any orbital nuclear strike platforms? Why

>>31071327
The threat of Kessler syndrome outweighs the minimal benefits gained from it. ICBMs can do the job cheaper and easier.

>>31071327
>ICBMs can do the job cheaper and easier.
this

>>31071327
Airforce was furious about amount of money spent on space and they fucked everything up with their lobby.

>>31071356
Don't ICBMs compound the problems posed by the Kessler syndrome?

>>31071555
ICBM boost stages don't have the energy to reach or stay in orbit.

weapon platforms in space would create an arms race of anti satellite weapons. which would be used in the first strike to take out said space weapons.

>>31071327

There are treaties about putting WMD's into space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

>>31071686
Doesn't say anything about kinetic-strike weapons, time to start building.

>>31072896
Except how about no
>needs to be nearly perfectly aligned to hit intended target
>costs exorbitant amounts to ship satalites and munitions to space
>no way to effectively defend station from attacks
>no way to effectively guide munitions to target without negating bonuses achieved of use
>can't be used on a moments notice without risk of missing intended target
Please please please just go back to call of duty ghosts.

>>31071327
too expensive, too vulnerable. why have your nukes on a stationary target everyone can see if you can have it on ICBMS in subs by half the price

>>31073186
>needs to be nearly perfectly aligned to hit intended target
>perfectly aligned to hit intended target
>intended target
I think you misunderstood the objective.

>>31072896
>Doesn't say anything about kinetic-strike weapons, time to start building.

building rockets and space stations so that you can drop rocks on people's heads is the most ass-backwards approach to combat efficiency I have ever heard of

File: fobs1.jpg (9KB, 188x139px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 188x139px

>>31071673

The R-36 says otherwise.

>>31071327

>Why wasn't there any orbital nuclear strike platforms?

There were.

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36ORB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36ORB

>Why were they banned?

They became obselete with the advent of satellites who could pickup the massive IR signal of a major rocket/missile being launched and any object inserted into orbit is tracked by various means by both the military and the space agencies.

File: 1459819654885.jpg (34KB, 460x477px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x477px

>>31072896
Here is the point about it that I just can't get over.

>you are building a super secret WMD
>that has never been tested and by no means can be tested
>when instead you could, I don't know, USE A PREEXISTING WMD AND PUT IT IN SPACE
>You would hide it anyway so the law makes no fucking difference

Not to mention the physics of putting the goddamn piece of steel/tungsten/iron into space. And even if it was done, there is no way that the people that watch the sky for a living and those who do it for fun wouldn't see an unscheduled and undocumented rocket of that size go up.

>>31073963
Now a moon base dropping a Greyhound bus sized rock on a target with a solar/Thorium nuclear powered mass driver would be a crowd pleaser.

>>31073986
They use Atlas 4 rockets with a few boosters to shoot space probes out of the solar system.

>>31073986
>The R-36 says otherwise.

It does not.

>>31071327
Why expend a small fortune in putting a warhead into suspended lower orbit when you could hide it in a silo in Montana for 1/100th of the price?

File: 1466108017786.gif (987KB, 200x180px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 200x180px

>>31074108
So much this.