I was talking to a Vietnam war vet a few months ago. He was serving at the tail end of the conflict. This Retired Marine served on an artillery battalion, he told me that each battalion had at least one Davy Crockett warhead with them. As he said it was just incase China wanted to "dance" with them.
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3.
A couple things. Just the sonic boom and over pressure from a meteorite over Russia a few years ago blew out windows and damaged buildings, injuring and even killing a few. Also, the rod would be covered in carbon-carbon, just as our nuclear MERVS are, which protects the object from reentry heat. Lastly, nukes typically detonate at some altitude and this thing would actually impact into the ground. Not sure what effect that would have, but a meteorite again over Russia leveled a huge swath of forest about 100 years ago without actually impacting the ground.
It wouldn’t have to be covered in carbon-carbon because the melting point is above that of the reentry heat. Tungsten can naturally resist the high temperatures, unlike nukes with lower heat tolerance.
question ,how does a "ROD" fall aerodynamicly from space, what keeps it from tumbling into the atmosphere and just burning up or worse going somewhere you didnt plan on hitting, hmm how does an arrow flying in a vacuum.
I believe this weapon would be more suited to penetrating deep and destroying a underground base. Or other type of fortified structure underground. It would be much better to somehow refine the tungsten on the moon or elsewhere though. Super expensive to get that much tungsten in the first place and even more to ship it from earth into space. Would love to know what rhe space force is playing with up there.
This was very cool! I love science fiction weaponry. I don't know how much time you cut out with the editing, but this could maybe have been a livestream. Seems to be popular as well in these corona times. I would definitely like more videos of sci-fi weapons!
Um... the only thing stopping the US from actually launching satellites of this nature is the cost of launching something with that much weight behind it into orbit, definitely not a Sci-Fi weapon.
You left out the possibility of gaining the desired kinetic force needed for a larger radius of destruction through means of utilizing a large (spring triggered launch). If you were to add in the force you may get from a very large spring inside the rod containment device then you should be able to gain a significant amount of kinetic force adding to the overall total destruction right...??
As for spring integrity/tension retaining issues that may arise due to cold snap, I would say try using a Titanium spring. If you also insulated the barrel (made of aluminum) with a very thin layer of space blanket material, (depositing vaporized aluminum onto plastic,) then I think we may have reached the (plausible) range of capability of a "space based spring fired tungsten rod..." *Food for thought* I hope to see an updated video talking about these possibilities. Much love.
@@buttafan4010 I think the whole point of these things is pure momentum without making it an actual missile or something like that. So I think that would go against the point of the thing
Actually the kinetic factor. You could build a graph that would connect the area of destruction with the mass of the bomb, taking into account the loss of kinetic energy at different volumetric area ratios, and then we would get the optimal size values this weapon. speeds. I assumed I would go to extremes - ordinary light bombs of 200-500 kg that lose almost all speed. It can be assumed that the other extreme is to drop a 150 ton bomb, which obviously will not lose much in speed. If we make the bombs smaller, we hit more objects and a larger area. If we make the bombs bigger, we save more kinetic energy but concentrate the impact on a small area, which is ineffective.
Hitting a target with any kind of reasonable accuracy would be very very difficult without some means of steering the projectile. You're talking about hitting within a few hundred feet from an altitude of 1200 miles.
You did not account for the air density at various altitudes and wind pressures at various altitudes. As the higher altitudes have a lower density of air pressures. Which reduces the induced drag at altitudes. The kenetic energy is close to a 50kt tsar bomba.
the biggest problem would be developing a navigation computer, GPS antenna, and missile fin mechanics that can survive the 2000 degree heat of the upper atmosphere while still maintaining the high velocity the missile needs to be destructive. otherwise the missile would be hugely inaccurate.
@@thurlravenscroft2572 That is not true, ICBM-s are steered via thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles, path correction micro rockets in space and with fins in atmosphere. Corrections on ballistic trajectory are made by internal guidance system (ballistic calculator) which has number of sensor consisted of GPS, INS and THERCOM. It is true that on some older ICBM-s warheads go on free fall once separated from boosters but that is only because of shire power of nuclear weapons, even if they miss couple hundreds of meters it would make no difference, the target would still be destroyed 100%. But newer ICMB warhead have capability to maneuver in air, it is mostly made that way to avoid and confuse Anti Ballistic Missile Systems but also for precision striking.
@@youmad7068 you are incorrect. Do some more research. Once the delivery vehicle is released from the magazine, it uses small rockets to induce a stabilizing spin. Those tiny little rockets do not have thrust vectoring capability. Even if they did, the only thing they would accomplish is destabilizing the delivery vehicle in flight.
As a result, I assume that the optimal size ratio for a space weapon is something close to a mass of several tons, containing 1/3 1/2 explosives and a significant amount of ready-made large, up to a kilogram, damaging metal elements. Such a bomb should fly to the point while maintaining a maximum speed of up to 3-4 km per second (if more is better) and explode at the final stage of the trajectory creating a rain of striking elements equivalent in armor penetration to the de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projektilbildende_Ladung (1000+ for one bomb). When calculating that one impact core per square of 3 * 3 meters is guaranteed to destroy all the equipment, we will get an area of destruction of the order of 9000 square meters in combination with an explosion of 2.5 tons of TNT. A circle with a diameter of about 100 meters will be almost completely destroyed. Tanks, concrete defense structures, manpower will be hit by a shock wave. At the same time, starship spacex will be able to deliver 20-20 such strikes. That is, destroy everything in a diameter of 400+ meters, which is comparable to a tactical nuclear strike
I think kinetic orbital weapons are a little misunderstood. Let's take a look at Starship SpaceX. It is capable of carrying 100-150 tons of bombs (aircraft, 50 or less). It can stay in the air for months (the plane is a little more than a day). It is higher than any air defense except for anti-satellite missiles. His preparation time is 24 hours, b2 51 hours. He can strike in the crown of 10 minutes 2 hours in any part of the world. These are the primary advantages of orbital weapons kinetic energy are secondary.
This is a really good video. I crunched out some of the math before this video at times, and always came up with some number that was way off from the kiloton range as well. And even though it's technically very cool, there's still a lot of problems; how do you get the rod on target? It's hard enough trying to get a round on target 30 kilometers away with an artillery shell. And sure, you could put a guidance package on it, but how are you gonna guide this thing to the target when it's travelling at 7 kilometers a second, through the atmosphere? That thing is gonna get mighty hot, and maybe the tungsten can take it, but I doubt the electronics will, and what's the CEP gonna be when that thing is fried and it's falling down on its own? At least at the moment, kinetic bombardment is...kind of too expensive, for pretty measly results.
The one thing that doesn't.make sense to me is the drop. If the satellite remains in orbit it seems the rod would too if it was just released. I'm not a physicist, but wouldn't this need propulsion to get it moving away from the satellite? Or would it drop because of its density?
what about the consideration towards the utility of placement in space being able to carry out strikes within minutes whereas compare to conventional strikes ETA time
Good job. Not a WMD but it should force Iran to build all their facilities 4x deeper than before. Also gotta believe this renders aircraft carriers useless.
Let's get back to starship spaceix. Suppose it carries conventional glide bombs or their orbital equivalent. JDAM weighs 200+ kg. Suppose the orbital analogue of the bullet weighs 300 or even 500 kg. Suppose it loses most of its speed and falls at a speed of 1-2 km per second at the end of the flight. It's still 200-500 guided bombs per hour to anywhere in the world. Such bombs cost from 100 thousand dollars. So the volley is worth at least 20 million by itself. If we assume that the starship will fly for a price ten times higher than the declared one - 15 million, we still get X2 of the cost. That is, for increasing the price from 100000 apiece to 200000 apiece, we get the opportunity to hit anywhere in the world in an hou
A smaller and lighter Version would be a good Warship destroyer, mainly because all Anti Missile Systems will fail against it. Maybe a Rod of 1.0-1.5m length and a diameter of 10-15 cm will do it. The Mass of the Rod i guess up to 600-800kg. Then use if necessary a little more alltitude, lets say 500km and maybe a buster like a rocket to max. speed so Mass and all other can be more limited. Just think about it, every Vessel sunk with just one shot, no way to defend.
47 tones of TNT? Most powerful American non nuclear weapon MOAB makes explosion equivalent to about 11 tonnes of TNT and Russian FOAB witch never entered mass production made explosion equivalent to 44 tonnes of TNT.
that was burning first the resistant rumor is that Hes bola hid ordnance under the many bags of NFO fertilizer or some one dumped tons of liquid explosive on the pile (but that assumes that the NFO was not bagged prill, but loose)....
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real, but not the whole story.
The CB-107 proved this theory true. And kinetic energy weapons are used today. And yes physics says the telephone poles would act like asteroid impact with force like nukes.
You make 2 very stupid assumptions.. the orbital height and the construction of the rod, but yes the rod should have a considerable wolfram type exterior, but solid of that substance.. you have to be crazy as there are numerous better fillers that by many are considered inert, but are not.. flat entry angles with high cross country orbital speeds was rejected a long time ago rocket boost it downwards from near geostationary orbit and the time passing through that atmosphere is rather negligible and even hard to see the flash as it passes through and your kinetic energy is soo much higher
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real, but not the whole story.
I hope we don't have to but when they invade Taiwan, i think we'll have no choice. But, will their retaliation be nuclear? They will either not know it wasn't a nuke, or they'll pretend they didn't know. It's a slippery slope. While I am all but certain that we have some of these in orbit, I doubt we have many. We'd need hundreds to totally neutralize China's nuclear cabability in a single strike (assuming our strike is non-nuclear). China doesn't have many ICBMs - their only weapon capable of reaching continental US - but they'll bomb Guam, Japan, South Korea, maybe even Australia and Hawaii. We cannot allow this.
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real (drones), but not the whole story.
I was talking to a Vietnam war vet a few months ago. He was serving at the tail end of the conflict. This Retired Marine served on an artillery battalion, he told me that each battalion had at least one Davy Crockett warhead with them. As he said it was just incase China wanted to "dance" with them.
Col. Sanders...did you approve of the latest KFC advertisements - "Come on down to KFC! At KFC, the only thing missing is U!!"
Lay off the crack
I just love this.
Stopped binge watching TV to watch this
haha really happy to hear that
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3.
As someone who enjoys physics, math, and war this was an awesome video
Adam- You should move to Huntsville, Alabama. Rocket City.
A couple things. Just the sonic boom and over pressure from a meteorite over Russia a few years ago blew out windows and damaged buildings, injuring and even killing a few. Also, the rod would be covered in carbon-carbon, just as our nuclear MERVS are, which protects the object from reentry heat. Lastly, nukes typically detonate at some altitude and this thing would actually impact into the ground. Not sure what effect that would have, but a meteorite again over Russia leveled a huge swath of forest about 100 years ago without actually impacting the ground.
Chelyabinsk meteorite was (+/-) 20m in diameter, 12,000 tonnes initial mass. Tunguska - multiple times bigger...
It wouldn’t have to be covered in carbon-carbon because the melting point is above that of the reentry heat. Tungsten can naturally resist the high temperatures, unlike nukes with lower heat tolerance.
question ,how does a "ROD" fall aerodynamicly from space, what keeps it from tumbling into the atmosphere and just burning up or worse going somewhere you didnt plan on hitting, hmm how does an arrow flying in a vacuum.
engines..in the concept each rod had engines like any regular missile
I believe this weapon would be more suited to penetrating deep and destroying a underground base. Or other type of fortified structure underground. It would be much better to somehow refine the tungsten on the moon or elsewhere though. Super expensive to get that much tungsten in the first place and even more to ship it from earth into space. Would love to know what rhe space force is playing with up there.
This was very cool! I love science fiction weaponry.
I don't know how much time you cut out with the editing, but this could maybe have been a livestream.
Seems to be popular as well in these corona times.
I would definitely like more videos of sci-fi weapons!
It was live - I announced it on the TH-cam community page.. But I'm not sure how many gets the messages
But thanks Bjartur
Um... the only thing stopping the US from actually launching satellites of this nature is the cost of launching something with that much weight behind it into orbit, definitely not a Sci-Fi weapon.
You left out the possibility of gaining the desired kinetic force needed for a larger radius of destruction through means of utilizing a large (spring triggered launch). If you were to add in the force you may get from a very large spring inside the rod containment device then you should be able to gain a significant amount of kinetic force adding to the overall total destruction right...??
As for spring integrity/tension retaining issues that may arise due to cold snap, I would say try using a Titanium spring. If you also insulated the barrel (made of aluminum) with a very thin layer of space blanket material, (depositing vaporized aluminum onto plastic,) then I think we may have reached the (plausible) range of capability of a "space based spring fired tungsten rod..." *Food for thought* I hope to see an updated video talking about these possibilities. Much love.
@@nameredacted3095 Not just spring, what about a coil gun?
Just put a rocket engine on it unless you're going for top secrecy.
@@buttafan4010 I think the whole point of these things is pure momentum without making it an actual missile or something like that. So I think that would go against the point of the thing
Interesting analysis! Thanks for uploading :D
Actually the kinetic factor. You could build a graph that would connect the area of destruction with the mass of the bomb, taking into account the loss of kinetic energy at different volumetric area ratios, and then we would get the optimal size values this weapon. speeds. I assumed I would go to extremes - ordinary light bombs of 200-500 kg that lose almost all speed. It can be assumed that the other extreme is to drop a 150 ton bomb, which obviously will not lose much in speed. If we make the bombs smaller, we hit more objects and a larger area. If we make the bombs bigger, we save more kinetic energy but concentrate the impact on a small area, which is ineffective.
Hitting a target with any kind of reasonable accuracy would be very very difficult without some means of steering the projectile. You're talking about hitting within a few hundred feet from an altitude of 1200 miles.
Now imagine this, dropping tungsten rods from space to mariana's trench.
You did not account for the air density at various altitudes and wind pressures at various altitudes. As the higher altitudes have a lower density of air pressures. Which reduces the induced drag at altitudes. The kenetic energy is close to a 50kt tsar bomba.
the biggest problem would be developing a navigation computer, GPS antenna, and missile fin mechanics that can survive the 2000 degree heat of the upper atmosphere while still maintaining the high velocity the missile needs to be destructive. otherwise the missile would be hugely inaccurate.
ICBM warheads don’t have a guidance system attached. Once on its final trajectory, it falls to earth unguided.
@@thurlravenscroft2572
Source?
@@whoknows8264 personal experience.
@@thurlravenscroft2572 That is not true, ICBM-s are steered via thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles, path correction micro rockets in space and with fins in atmosphere. Corrections on ballistic trajectory are made by internal guidance system (ballistic calculator) which has number of sensor consisted of GPS, INS and THERCOM. It is true that on some older ICBM-s warheads go on free fall once separated from boosters but that is only because of shire power of nuclear weapons, even if they miss couple hundreds of meters it would make no difference, the target would still be destroyed 100%. But newer ICMB warhead have capability to maneuver in air, it is mostly made that way to avoid and confuse Anti Ballistic Missile Systems but also for precision striking.
@@youmad7068 you are incorrect. Do some more research. Once the delivery vehicle is released from the magazine, it uses small rockets to induce a stabilizing spin. Those tiny little rockets do not have thrust vectoring capability. Even if they did, the only thing they would accomplish is destabilizing the delivery vehicle in flight.
The legend returns
As a result, I assume that the optimal size ratio for a space weapon is something close to a mass of several tons, containing 1/3 1/2 explosives and a significant amount of ready-made large, up to a kilogram, damaging metal elements. Such a bomb should fly to the point while maintaining a maximum speed of up to 3-4 km per second (if more is better) and explode at the final stage of the trajectory creating a rain of striking elements equivalent in armor penetration to the de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projektilbildende_Ladung (1000+ for one bomb). When calculating that one impact core per square of 3 * 3 meters is guaranteed to destroy all the equipment, we will get an area of destruction of the order of 9000 square meters in combination with an explosion of 2.5 tons of TNT. A circle with a diameter of about 100 meters will be almost completely destroyed. Tanks, concrete defense structures, manpower will be hit by a shock wave. At the same time, starship spacex will be able to deliver 20-20 such strikes. That is, destroy everything in a diameter of 400+ meters, which is comparable to a tactical nuclear strike
I think kinetic orbital weapons are a little misunderstood. Let's take a look at Starship SpaceX. It is capable of carrying 100-150 tons of bombs (aircraft, 50 or less). It can stay in the air for months (the plane is a little more than a day). It is higher than any air defense except for anti-satellite missiles. His preparation time is 24 hours, b2 51 hours. He can strike in the crown of 10 minutes 2 hours in any part of the world. These are the primary advantages of orbital weapons kinetic energy are secondary.
This is a really good video. I crunched out some of the math before this video at times, and always came up with some number that was way off from the kiloton range as well.
And even though it's technically very cool, there's still a lot of problems; how do you get the rod on target? It's hard enough trying to get a round on target 30 kilometers away with an artillery shell.
And sure, you could put a guidance package on it, but how are you gonna guide this thing to the target when it's travelling at 7 kilometers a second, through the atmosphere? That thing is gonna get mighty hot, and maybe the tungsten can take it, but I doubt the electronics will, and what's the CEP gonna be when that thing is fried and it's falling down on its own?
At least at the moment, kinetic bombardment is...kind of too expensive, for pretty measly results.
The one thing that doesn't.make sense to me is the drop. If the satellite remains in orbit it seems the rod would too if it was just released. I'm not a physicist, but wouldn't this need propulsion to get it moving away from the satellite? Or would it drop because of its density?
you are abselouty correct, it would need some repulsion in order the change the directory from orbit to atmospheric entry
what about the consideration towards the utility of placement in space being able to carry out strikes within minutes whereas compare to conventional strikes ETA time
Good job. Not a WMD but it should force Iran to build all their facilities 4x deeper than before. Also gotta believe this renders aircraft carriers useless.
This is why i love physics, ive never had this much fun learning physics :D
Let's get back to starship spaceix. Suppose it carries conventional glide bombs or their orbital equivalent. JDAM weighs 200+ kg. Suppose the orbital analogue of the bullet weighs 300 or even 500 kg. Suppose it loses most of its speed and falls at a speed of 1-2 km per second at the end of the flight. It's still 200-500 guided bombs per hour to anywhere in the world. Such bombs cost from 100 thousand dollars. So the volley is worth at least 20 million by itself. If we assume that the starship will fly for a price ten times higher than the declared one - 15 million, we still get X2 of the cost. That is, for increasing the price from 100000 apiece to 200000 apiece, we get the opportunity to hit anywhere in the world in an hou
Very informative video.
A smaller and lighter Version would be a good Warship destroyer, mainly because all Anti Missile Systems will fail against it. Maybe a Rod of 1.0-1.5m length and a diameter of 10-15 cm will do it. The Mass of the Rod i guess up to 600-800kg. Then use if necessary a little more alltitude, lets say 500km and maybe a buster like a rocket to max. speed so Mass and all other can be more limited. Just think about it, every Vessel sunk with just one shot, no way to defend.
Tungsten-rhenium alloy would be a more suitable metal.
Brilliant! I am so glad YOU know the math... I just want to know the results! 🤣
Yooo, I wish, I know your channel earlier, your explanation is really good, thank you for uploading this video!
A very nice summary, and quite interesting- your use of so many disciplines! Thank you! 👍
Is it possible to increase the energy of impact by sending it to a slingshot around the moon?
Sure but good luck making it accurate doing that.
I see you got this from a news magazine article
GREAT EXPLANATION HIGGSY!!💥👍LOVE FROM AUSTRALIA!!💚💢❤💛🙌
Looks like We have 2.) Satanic Monuments down 🤘🏻🌞🤘🏻 The Georgia Guide/Tombstones and The Obelisk in Vigan City, Philippines:) What do You Think?
MOAB does not fit in a bomber. It must be delivered via cargo plane.
47 tones of TNT? Most powerful American non nuclear weapon MOAB makes explosion equivalent to about 11 tonnes of TNT and Russian FOAB witch never entered mass production made explosion equivalent to 44 tonnes of TNT.
thanks, just what i was looking for
And Lebanon?
that was burning first the resistant rumor is that Hes bola hid ordnance under the many bags of NFO fertilizer or some one dumped tons of liquid explosive on the pile (but that assumes that the NFO was not bagged prill, but loose)....
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real, but not the whole story.
Short boost for the rod? Maybe
Thank you Vettel
My country need this
Hmmm. This would explain that debris field "nibiru" is bringing in.
How about mass and velocity, gravity has nothing to do with it, unless you think without gravity it wouldn't work!
Mass destruction... Lol.
Nice.
Or... is it a Weapon of "MINIMAL" Destruction (wmd) 😎👉🏼👉🏼 ayyyy
The Disney bomb is a Mickey Mouse joke...the punch line costs fifty trillion! Ha!
Thank you for this excellent explanation. I even share it on fb.
I imagine that could be Elon's hundreds satellites full of tungsten. Could be.
They show how it works in the movie gi joe 2 !
Dziękuję so so much!
The CB-107 proved this theory true. And kinetic energy weapons are used today. And yes physics says the telephone poles would act like asteroid impact with force like nukes.
Good
The real reason space x is trying things.... ;P
Voice Reminds me of Dr Strangelove
You make 2 very stupid assumptions.. the orbital height and the construction of the rod, but yes the rod should have a considerable wolfram type exterior, but solid of that substance.. you have to be crazy as there are numerous better fillers that by many are considered inert, but are not.. flat entry angles with high cross country orbital speeds was rejected a long time ago rocket boost it downwards from near geostationary orbit and the time passing through that atmosphere is rather negligible and even hard to see the flash as it passes through and your kinetic energy is soo much higher
Literally first
Beruit
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real, but not the whole story.
We need to use these on CCP man made islands. What about the rod punching through a man made island into wet sand ? steam explosion as well ?
I hope we don't have to but when they invade Taiwan, i think we'll have no choice. But, will their retaliation be nuclear? They will either not know it wasn't a nuke, or they'll pretend they didn't know. It's a slippery slope.
While I am all but certain that we have some of these in orbit, I doubt we have many. We'd need hundreds to totally neutralize China's nuclear cabability in a single strike (assuming our strike is non-nuclear). China doesn't have many ICBMs - their only weapon capable of reaching continental US - but they'll bomb Guam, Japan, South Korea, maybe even Australia and Hawaii. We cannot allow this.
Elon musk can put the system in space for $200k and can launch 30 in a month.
Doesn't this kind of sound like how the towers were hit on 9/11
I don't see much similarity.
That was a controlled demo
No it doesn't you fucking idiot
Researchers at the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center in France calculated that the Beirut Port explosion of 2020 had a magnitude equivalent to an M 3.4 earthquake, while the USGS reported a lower magnitude of 3.3. Up until I watched this video I had forgotten about kinetic bombardment and was thinking it could have been a 2 kt pure fusion nuke - bunker buster or detonation in an underground shaft that produced the Wilson shock wave cloud without emp, fission products, or a flash; using the ammonium nitrate as a cover story ... like jet airliners on 9/!! ... real (drones), but not the whole story.
Mate. Less is more. Stop waffling and get to the facts
He did.