Space Weapons/SDI: Military uses for the Space Shuttle

>>32526431

It's pretty obvious that the Shuttle was not a military weapon.

>>32526431
Its illegal to put weapons of mass destruction into orbit.

>>32526469
Not true, I knew a guy who was the door gunner on the Endeavor.

>>32526469
Something with a payload bay so large that it makes a B-36 look like a P-8 Poseidon, that can launch on short notice if needed and change its orbital inclination on the fly potentially evading non-nuclear anti-satellite weapons by maneuvering alone, has immense potential as a weapons delivery system, regardless of who actually ended up operating it.

>>32526474
There are always loopholes.

Remember how the CIA/NRO wanted to skirt the "no aircraft overflights of the Soviet Union" agreement with the planned A-12 Oxcart successor (the Isinglass and Rheinberry projects) by flying above the Karmann line so it technically wouldn't be an aircraft?

There's always a work-around if there's the desire and money to make it work.

File: 1480593197085.png (909KB, 965x552px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 965x552px

>>32526431

OK OP, well that's a lot of sperging out, but let me try and translate your post for normal people:

>Did the Soviet Union build the Buran to counter some sort of secret military capability possessed by the Shuttle?

The answer to this is: Obviously not, lol

There were plenty of non-military reasons for the US to build the Shuttle, reasons which the Soviets were also aware of and had in mind when building the Buran. The Shuttle is the only spacecraft ever made that can take something into space, put it into a very precise orbit/location, and then come back later to bring it back to Earth. There are a lot of things you can do with a vehicle like that...like build the ISS, or retrieve damaged satellites, etc. Stuff you simply cannot do with any other vehicle.

It really isn't surprising that the Soviets wanted one too.

Of course the Shuttle did some military missions, but those were pretty much just "put spy sat up, take spy sat down", not "OH MY GOD LET'S FILL IT FULL OF NUKES [increasingly loud masturbation sounds fill the halls of NASA]", that's something that only kiddos fresh from the last call of duty installment think is a realistic scenario.

The super scary serious weapons we actually used when the Shuttle was in service were ICBM's, a weapon system that is much more interesting and actually existed. You might want to check those out, they're pretty cool.

>>32526570
It also stops being sovereign airspace above the karmann line.

I suppose you could argue that kinetic bombardment would be a weapon of mass effect not a weapon of mass distraction, but you couldn't put conventional wmds up there.

>>32526570
>Something with a payload bay so large that it makes a B-36 look like a P-8 Poseidon

Doesn't matter. Nukes are extremely small.

>that can launch on short notice if needed

Haha, no. This absolutely does NOT describe the Shuttle. It was infamous for its launch delays due to less-than-perfect weather or some system fault.

>and change its orbital inclination on the fly potentially evading non-nuclear anti-satellite weapons by maneuvering alone,

No, this is ridiculous. The Shuttle went very fast on its way up but maneuvered extremely slowly once in space. ICBM's flew a LOT faster and could be programmed to evade stuff/deploy countermeasures anyway.

>has immense potential as a weapons delivery system, regardless of who actually ended up operating it.

I don't think you really understand what the Shuttle was and what ICBM's are. This is like suggesting that we buy 1 VW bus, pack it with TNT, and then send it out to defend the Fulda Gap from the commie hordes, when we already have tanks and planes and shit to do that instead.

>>32526658
>Haha, no. This absolutely does NOT describe the Shuttle. It was infamous for its launch delays due to less-than-perfect weather or some system fault.

It was also launched from a gigantic, fragile above-ground launch pad, only 2(?) of which ever existed.

Meanwhile we have 450 hardened underground ICBM silos in the western USA as we speak...and this is a historical low.

>>32526607
OP here. The advantage of a space based nuke is that potentially you would only have ~5 minutes to respond to a strike by one, making it the perfect decapitating strike weapon.

Don't get me wrong, though, I have a huge boner for ICBM's.

Though to this day I still can't wrap my head around the USAF's logic behind not developing at least the MGM-134 Midgetman into an air-launched ballistic missile.

Something launchable by a B-52 or C-130 would be the perfect American equivalent to the USSR's Siberian truck-launched missiles in terms of its ability to disappear, etc.

>>32526431
>>32526570
>>32526682
Another mutation of gliderfag

>>32526725
I'm honored

>>32526682
>The advantage of a space based nuke is that potentially you would only have ~5 minutes to respond to a strike by one, making it the perfect decapitating strike weapon.

Which is why they were banned and never put into space.

Do you want the Russians to put nukes into space? Or the Chinese? There are reasons why we don't escalate these things.

> I still can't wrap my head around the USAF's logic behind not developing at least the MGM-134 Midgetman into an air-launched ballistic missile.

Because it was traded away in one of the arms reduction treaties. We built them to scare the reds and keep them from trying to do the same thing.

Are you noticing a pattern here?

>Something launchable by a B-52 or C-130 would be the perfect American equivalent to the USSR's Siberian truck-launched missiles in terms of its ability to disappear, etc.

Why? We already have sub-launched missiles. Those are far superior in terms of capability, payload, and survivability. There's really no good counter to a nuke-carrying sub unless you happen to know exactly where it is 30 minutes before it launches.