If there were spaceships armed with weapons they'd be so far apart that they couldn't see each other, also because of the distance the last known location on radar or whatever they have would not be wholly reliable for a moving ship so you'd need scatter weapons or fleets of drones
>>7583004 As of today, having satellit overview of enemy territory offers a huge advantage, so naturally, in case of a war of two nations with space program, each nation would try to destroy the satellites of the other nation
>>7582991 sci fi has explored this extensively. Of the more hard stuff, there are two main approaches. 1. cloaked bombs will pursue the enemy ship as stealthily as possible. Speed is less important as not being detected. Short of landing the ship somewhere and getting away from it, one's target is generally doomed. 2. Use incredible amounts of fast dumb projectiles to fill all possible vectors the enemy ship can take with death. This can burn through resources fairly quickly depending upon distance (more distance = more possible escape vectors to fill with death), so battles will largely be decided by whom can afford to shoot first.
Basically real space warfare will largely be uninteresting.
Defending a planet from space based warfare is a much more interesting topic.
I highly recommend reading through the "Atomic Rockets" website
It's basically a collection of articles written and curated by one guy, with lots of sections written by guest authors. The website aims to dispel common inaccurate sci-fi tropes and to realistically speculate about how advanced spaceflight, space warfare, etc. would actually work.
It's pretty much the "hardest" sci-fi treatment of these topics I've found online. Nearly everything is firmly rooted in known physics and engineering principles.
>>7583136 >1. cloaked bombs will pursue the enemy ship as stealthily as possible. Speed is less important as not being detected. Short of landing the ship somewhere and getting away from it, one's target is generally doomed. How are you gonna cloak in space?
Fighting will be done through diplomacy and careful navigation across rivers of knife edges. Consider how fragile humans are after leaving earth and compare it to our current state of warfare. Island nation is throwing rocks and calling you a dick? Carpet bomb. They pick up the pieces, repair infrastructure, and escalate. Repeat until one nation has too many new assholes ripped in it and surrenders. In space and offworld colonies, this isn't how it goes down, because it's much harder to be self sufficient off earth. Phobos-ites are singing their hippy crap too loud it's keeping the Martians up. All the martians would have to do is cut off the water/food supply and keep an eye out for resupply ships coming from elsewhere in the system. Papers are signed, agreements are reached, and everyone goes on with their lives. Earthlings are pissed at the Phobos-ites, pissed enough to plunge into total war. All it takes is a single bomb, the right size and in the right place, and everyone on that sad rock is gone. Same for a space station or an asteroid base or anything else except a planet-based colony decades into development, long enough for them to get shit underground. It's the cold war all over again, except all it takes is a single nuke. It will be boring, mostly political, and at the same time terrifying, because one off-comment can start the path towards very scary things.
>>7582991 High tech police forces shitting on bands of insurgents. You think MAD is a problem with war right now? In space, MAD is turned up to 11 thousand. Conventional warfare simply won't be worth it.
Military forces are generally scaled inversely to the complexity of the environment, that is, high complexity : small combatants :: low complexity : large combatants (Compare the environments where battleships and navy seals are employed). Improvements in firepower, range, and detection ramp up complexity in all environments over time, so the future of warfare looks much the same in all arenas: swarms of tiny stealth bomb robots. Space will be no exception.
>>7582994 >hurl asteroid the size of the moon towards your planet And just how the fuck do you propose to do that, genius? >>7584163 >muh capital ships >muh nuclear propulsion >Economic costs and detectability be damned Yeah, nah.
>>7584309 It doesn't have to include anti-matter propulsion systems or these "ships" you're talking about. It'll most likely be satellites shooting at other satellites in order to knock out the enemy's communication or visuals, at least in the beginning.
>>7584362 It wouldn't be possible to defend against anything up there. It would be a waste of resources to even try. It would be too easy to send rockets to destroy satellites. Nothing can defend against nukes.
>>7583274 >cloaking in space We already have decent multispectrum cloaking, it just doesn't work well on the ground. Works just fine in space. It's also relatively hard to spot a missile that's only emitting any kind of signature when it's making a course correction.
>>7584167 I think lasers, although they provide the best ballistic properties, are easily countered. Just make the outer shell of your ship a mirror. Yet, one would have to give up current stealth technology.
>>7582991 1) Flak guns... flak guns everywhere. There's no need for nuclear missiles or high powered lasers when you can just fling clouds of high-speed shrapnel at enemy ships and tear them to pieces.
2) Tactics and navigation will become the predominant force in space battles - combat will be more like chess - both opponents see each other's moves and can respond long before those moves become relevant. Combat then becomes about predicting your opponent's next ten moves and setting traps for them to fall into. You don't fire where your opponent is, you fire where you're going to force him to be in 20 minutes.
>>7583004 >What's there to fight over in space? Strategic positions in space such as Lagrange points. Strategic positions on the moon like Peaks of Eternal Lights or resources like He3 rich moon dust. Access to fuel lakes of Titan or metal asteroids like Psyche having an enormous value.
I am sure there are plenty more cases. So there are good reasons for why guys in uniform are considering space war.
As to how to fight, well probably by sabotaging space vehicles on ground before launch. Or by taking over the command channel to fail the mission. Or by massive jamming to prevent command uplink to adjust orbit preventing dive into atmosphere.
There are plenty of ways that do not involve futuristic weapons.
>>7582991 High velocity rail guns and coordination nets of sensors will determine everything. Bombs are pretty useless in space, there's not much besides the energy of their explosive shrabnel to do damage; so the most effective ones will be like rpgs, using cavitation with their explosion to cause more damage. EMP bombs will also be useful but they can be guarded against. in the end, precise targeting and lasers will take care of most targets, as they can fire over an infinite distance
>>7582994 > hurl asteroid the size of the moon Not necessary.
Just park a spaceship in the Asteroid Belt. If your propulsion system is Newtonian, or you have a magnetic rail device of any significant size, you should be able to push thousands of smaller asteroids, say 0.5 to 1km wide each.
It's the difference between dropping a piano on someone or shooting them with a shotgun. They're dead either way.
>>7584350 As part of my evil genius phase I designed a way to do it without an insane amount of resources. Using existing technology that any large government or multinational corporation could get. It is not very fast often taking 5 to 10 years depending on the path, but the decaying orbital path means the energy needed to stop it grows to ridiculous levels very fast making it next to impossible to stop.
>>7586999 James Bond. No, seriously get a spy to join the enemies ranks and do something.
I haven't thought this through but I guess sabotage life support while air-force blockades resupply ships. Then take station. If turrets are still up have the spy turn them off or throw disposable decoys to deplete turret ammo if spy died with everyone else.
>>7586605 Larger lasers can overwhelm all known material structures, including mirror armor. This would only make longer cool down cycles and larger radiators on laser cannons which are annoyances, but wouldn't stop them from shooting you to death.
Granted if you can stack enough annoyances war could be go a different way, but it going to need a lot more then just mirror armor.
>>7587058 correct, it is much easier then my old moon pushing scheme.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.