• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

U.S.Airforce want no-warning strike force!

#2
Or less than sixty minutes. The "Rods From God." These are 20' x 1' tungsten rods ejected from an orbiting battlestation. These rods, which could be dropped on a
target with as little as 15 minutes notice, would enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 36,000 feet per second--about as fast as a meteor. Upon impact, the rod would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without any of the radioactive fallout.


The linked article says that once the button is pushed, these things strike the target within fifteen minutes.

The Rods from God
Are kinetic-energy weapons the future of space warfare?
by Michael Goldfarb
06/08/2005 12:00:00 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/700oklkt.asp?pg=1

The article doesn't go into specifics but suggests that the cost of lofting a bunch of 20' tungsten poles into earth orbit could be considerable.
 
#3
Also known as Project THOR. For those who think science fiction is a fantastical waste of time, I first read about Project THOR in a sci fi book about 25 years ago, when I was still a kid in Middle School.
 
#4
spike7451 said:
Just read this on Military.com.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,86947,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Is it me,or is Dubbya trying to dominate the world? A scary thought if the U.S get the means to strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes of a strike threat being detected!
Spike
Naw, we're not trying to achieve military overmatch against any possible opponent. We Yanks know that would upset puddin' heads like you. We figure we'll just kick back and spit tobacco, and allow say, the Iranians and the Chinese Communists to achieve world dominance. We know that people like you will be far more comfortable knowing you're sheltering under the nuclear umbrella of the ayatollahs.

Good luck with that. :roll:
 
#6
Biscuits_Brown said:
I first read about Project THOR in a sci fi book about 25 years ago, when I was still a kid in Middle School.
Heinlein's "Footfall"?
Actually, it was Pournelle and Niven who wrote "Footfall", but THOR was detailed in a proposal paper which was included in one of Pournelle's "There Will Be War" Anthologies back in the '80s. I think THOR *may* have been detailed in "Footfall", but it's been many, many moons since I read it. Wouldn't be surprised.
 
#7
spike7451 said:
Just read this on Military.com.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,86947,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Is it me,or is Dubbya trying to dominate the world? A scary thought if the U.S get the means to strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes of a strike threat being detected!
Spike
I think you're jealous. So am I; the last time we had the sort of global supremacy the spams have now, was when HMS Warrior was steaming round the world happily capable of taking on any foreign Navy, singly or all at once.

How dare those pesky Americans want to ensure they remain Top Dog. Anyway, the Americans have had the ability to strike anywhere in the world since the middle of the last century, as have we, the chinks and the Rooskies, with buckets of instant sunshine. Surely this is not as much a threat as Mr "Glow in the dark" Trident?
 
#8
'Footfall' was the one about alines who looked like baby elephants, yes?

In fact the US has been looking at Force AppLication from CONtinental usa (FALCON) for a while now.
 
#10
yes, they drop a small Saturn moon in the South Pacific

a strange but good book

the intrsting thing is at that speed you don't even need a warheard
 
#12
Ariane 5 ECA can take a payload of nearly 10 tonnes, so one rod at a time. That's not a cheap weapon.
From :Arianespace website
The Ariane 5 ECA is the latest – and most powerful member – of the Ariane 5 family, with a hefty payload lift capacity of 9,600 kg. to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
I'm pretty sure this is a chepaer way of getting things into space than the shuttle
 
#14
lazystudent said:
Ariane 5 ECA can take a payload of nearly 10 tonnes, so one rod at a time. That's not a cheap weapon.
From :Arianespace website
The Ariane 5 ECA is the latest – and most powerful member – of the Ariane 5 family, with a hefty payload lift capacity of 9,600 kg. to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
I'm pretty sure this is a chepaer way of getting things into space than the shuttle

I don't think there is a more expensive way of getting *anything* into space than the shuttle. Probably launch it with a Delta rocket or some such.

I had always envisioned THOR as a system with more tactical applications, though. Much smaller rods for rather smaller booms. Example: Satellite recon has a bead on Bin Ladin, "Somewhere in Afghanistan (TM)" A THOR satellite is maneuvered into launch position over his location, and a single rod is dropped on his head. The house in which Bin Ladin shelters is vaporized, the rest of the neighborhood is undamaged, mission accomplished.

The system they're envisioning here would take out the whole valley in which he sheltered! 8O
 
#15
Yank_Lurker said:
spike7451 said:
Just read this on Military.com.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,86947,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Is it me,or is Dubbya trying to dominate the world? A scary thought if the U.S get the means to strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes of a strike threat being detected!
Spike
Naw, we're not trying to achieve military overmatch against any possible opponent. We Yanks know that would upset puddin' heads like you. We figure we'll just kick back and spit tobacco, and allow say, the Iranians and the Chinese Communists to achieve world dominance. We know that people like you will be far more comfortable knowing you're sheltering under the nuclear umbrella of the ayatollahs.

Good luck with that. :roll:
Must be great having all these super-dupper weapons! Pity your colleagues can't find a decent target to hit and one of the ones that you do hit is in an allied country and resulted in enough civilian casualties to thoroughly p1ss off that countries government!

Tell me, how does possessing so many nukes deter OBL?
 
#16
MikeMcc said:
Yank_Lurker said:
spike7451 said:
Just read this on Military.com.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,86947,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Is it me,or is Dubbya trying to dominate the world? A scary thought if the U.S get the means to strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes of a strike threat being detected!
Spike
Naw, we're not trying to achieve military overmatch against any possible opponent. We Yanks know that would upset puddin' heads like you. We figure we'll just kick back and spit tobacco, and allow say, the Iranians and the Chinese Communists to achieve world dominance. We know that people like you will be far more comfortable knowing you're sheltering under the nuclear umbrella of the ayatollahs.

Good luck with that. :roll:
Must be great having all these super-dupper weapons! Pity your colleagues can't find a decent target to hit and one of the ones that you do hit is in an allied country and resulted in enough civilian casualties to thoroughly p1ss off that countries government!

Tell me, how does possessing so many nukes deter OBL?
*Yawn*. Firstly, those "civilian casualties" were primarily either terrorists, or persons harboring known terrorists. Secondly, the "Allied Country" in which they were located is barely qualified for that appellation, and they certainly exercise little to no control over the area hit. Thirdly, do you really find that trolling after Yanks compensates for your small penis size? :)
 
#17
At least I was only aiming at your militaries lack of understanding about the potential adverseries they face and the exhorbitent expenditure involved in wishing arming themselves against non-existent enemies. I was avoiding getting personal, but at least I am not the one with a penis fixation. :roll:

If you think I am trolling, then you must be somewhat thin skinned to allow yourself to be such an easy target, especially with your own troll like replies...
 
#18
MikeMcc said:
At least I was only aiming at your militaries lack of understanding about the potential adverseries they face and the exhorbitent expenditure involved in wishing arming themselves against non-existent enemies. I was avoiding getting personal, but at least I am not the one with a penis fixation. :roll:

If you think I am trolling, then you must be somewhat thin skinned to allow yourself to be such an easy target, especially with your own troll like replies...
The tone of your post was certainly not one of dispassionate debate, but one of "I've got a chip on my shoulder, and points to score". With an attitude about "those stupid Yanks" not understanding their enemy. And certainly had an air of (penis) envy about it. All of which add up to....TIRESOME. :roll:

Perhaps you ought to ask HM Gov't if all those nukes you folks own really make you safer--or are you one of those nuclear disarmament whack-biscuits? In which case, you're even less worthy of response than you've already made yourself out to be. And for all your pissing and moaning about "all those nukes" we have, we've managed to abstain from using them, save for twice, during an all-out conflict, and with full knowledge and consent of our allies. Presumably you don't think we should have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either. I don't believe however, that this thread had anything to do with nuclear weapons (...checking...) nope! No nukes here...until you brought them into the thread. Why don't you take them out again, and close the door behind you? Thanks much! :)
 
#19
1) Trident (and Polaris before it) were useful in their day, but the Soviet threat to the UK is no more. There are cheaper alternatives than a replacement. I'd rather see a stealthy cruise missile type replacement.

2) The thread was looking at another hyper-expensive potential weapon that is unlikely to have a useful target identified for it, a similar situation to the present nuclear arsenals. Therefore is a relevant topic of discussion, if you care to look you will find a couple of threads on this forum where we have discussed it in detail.

3) At no point have I referrred to "those stupid Yanks", nor even to refer to any of your countrymen as 'Yanks'. But if the cap fits...

4) Looking at the bombs in Japan, Horoshima was justified. Nagasaki, IMO, was not. Though the intelligence received suggested that the Japanese cabinet was willing to continue to fight, this would not have lasted long in the face of a blockade.

5) Kindly don't suggest when I should finish with discussion. I'll do that myself, not have it determined by you, or is it that you only like discussions with those who agree with you?
 
#20
MikeMcc said:
5) Kindly don't suggest when I should finish with discussion. I'll do that myself, not have it determined by you, or is it that you only like discussions with those who agree with you?
Actually, "discussions" begun in the manner with which you approached me usually end up with a fist in the gob of the person with the chip on his shoulder. Things were rather civil in here until you popped up with your whiny "Must be nice to have such super-duper weapons, too bad your colleagues don't know who to shoot them with!"...along with assorted dreck about the geographical location of terrorists we terminate. If that is not whiny and confrontational, I don't know what is. And no, I'm not particularly in the mood for argumentation right now; things were rather civil until your advent, and in an hour I can go home and get bytched at by my soon-to-be-ex-wife. Why in the world would I want to get into a weeny-measuring contest with you? :roll:
 

Latest Threads