Discussion Solving the problems of space combat in Orbiter

[Sky Captain]

Well, why DEWs then. A fighter would either launch missiles from medium-long range or use kinetic weapons at short range, either conventional shells or gyroshells. Any laser powerful enough to damage the target by impulse would require one hell of a powerplant and some heavy radiator, but a smaller one could help damage sensor and electronics, and as countermeasure against incoming missiles. But why lase your enemy when you can pump him full of steel...

Lasers and particle beams have huge advantage of being able to strike at the speed of light while missiles and projectiles with realistic technology are limited to few dozen km/s at most. If engagements happen at ranges of several hundred thousand kilometers it would take hours for missiles to reach the opponent - that`s plenty of time to intercept or avoid those missiles. On the other hand energy weapons at those ranges have a lag of about a second.

Also I think we should define what space fighter really is, is it something the size of Deltaglider or the size of XR5. If the former then it`s too small to mount a nuclear engine and will be hopelessly outclassed by larger nuclear powered ships, if the later then it`s big enough to have gas core nuclear engines and some useful weapons although still such a craft would be outclassed by proper warships.

Also, fighters have a stealth advantage: Many small objects are harder to detect than a single large object. If this buys you a few seconds of surprise, this can be worth a lot. But still, this would be far away from the usual space combat in movies. Maybe a bit closer to Babylon 5.

If they have are maneuvering or heated up by sun then there is no stealth.

Plus, it may only take one fighter that slips through to do significant damage and either allow other fighters to finish the job, or the capital ship to blow the other capital ship to pieces. The advantage here is a distributed attack. A single ship, if one system is crippled, the entire ship might be crippled.

Unlikely since those fighters will have to somehow get to their targets and during the burn they all will show up on IR sensors.

In the end there is a question what fighter can do better than a two stage missile since if fighters are used to launch a missile attack then they essentially are first stage for their missiles and since fighter is expected to come back it can`t give as much initial velocity to it`s missiles than a dedicated expandable first stage with the same delta v than a fighter could give.

 

[Eagle]

In the end there is a question what fighter can do better than a two stage missile since if fighters are used to launch a missile attack then they essentially are first stage for their missiles and since fighter is expected to come back it can`t give as much initial velocity to it`s missiles than a dedicated expandable first stage with the same delta v than a fighter could give.

Don't limit your ideas. You could have a large tender/carrier that launches 1-4 person corvettes/fighters each of which can carry self-propelled (expendable) missile pods which then do the actual engagement. The fighter provides human command and control better than a more remote station which may be several light-minutes or more away.

That's sort of still space fighters.

If you get more than a few light-seconds away even lasers and very fast particle beams become much less effective. Aside from the beam's natural spreading out a ship changing its velocity by less than m/s can result in a miss.

A less focused beam could be fired, but that has the problem of having less effectiveness as the same power is spread over a larger area. Sure you can get a larger beam, but that just pushes engagement out a little further, which needs a more spread out beam because the target could be present in more places.

 

[Hielor]

Don't limit your ideas. You could have a large tender/carrier that launches 1-4 person corvettes/fighters each of which can carry self-propelled (expendable) missile pods which then do the actual engagement. The fighter provides human command and control better than a more remote station which may be several light-minutes or more away.

That's sort of still space fighters.

You're limiting your ideas to modern concepts. By the time technology is at a point where space combat is feasible, computer guidance will be several orders of magnitude better than what it is now. Computer-controlled "first stages" would be more precise, capable of withstanding higher accelerations for longer periods, and more morally expendable than human-controlled vessels. That's why Battlestar Galactica space combat is unrealistic--the Cylon fighters should be able to vastly outperform the human craft. It's like taking a Korean War era fighter (the humans) against an F-22 (the Cylons) and expecting good things to happen for the humans.

If you design them to be expendable, you only need a good bit less than half of the delta-v required for a manned craft, which has to come back.

At the point a "fighter" is capable of travelling "several light-minutes" away from its carrier, it's already has a huge delta-v budget just to get there. Turning around and coming back quadruples that. If you have a strike you need to make that's light minutes away, you'll fire a computer-controlled missile to do it. Human control will be limited to the absolute highest-level commands--ie, "abort," if there's still time left.

 

[Andy44]

Heilor is right.

IMO there will be no manned "fighters", in fact few combat space vehicles will be manned at all. The only vehicles that need to be manned are troop carriers.

Humans are required to take and hold territory, but spaceflight is dynamic, and all math and precision, which is what machines are good for.

Look at the present day. What would war in space look like in the near future? Let's say the US and China go at it in a regional conflict. There will be attempt to reduce or eliminate the use of space lines of communication by both sides. China will want to harm US orbital assests, and the US will want to to defend against suborbital ballistic missiles. It will involve missiles, and maybe energy weapons, but no manned space vehicles would be involved. They are too slow, too expensive, too vulnerable.

Back in the 1960s we came as close as we ever did to a "space fighter" in the form of the X-20 Dynasoar. But the X-20 wasn't meant to be used in direct combat; rather it would support the USAF's missions to establish a space presence. If it existed in our hypothetical US/China war, it would've been used before the fighting to deploy or repair orbiting systems, maybe as a recon plane, but once the shooting starts you'd never launch it; it's a sitting duck for ASAT missiles and lasers. The reaction speed of the X-20 system (space and ground segments) would be too slow to deal with such an attack, and the pilot would never knew what hit him.

 

[yagni01]

The Mote in God's Eye, and The Gripping Hand both have interesting interplanetary battles that are somewhat based in physical reality. Just ignore the Langston Field.

 

[Andy44]

The Mote in God's Eye, and The Gripping Hand both have interesting interplanetary battles that are somewhat based in physical reality. Just ignore the Langston Field.

Yes, Pournelle's novels are excellent and they are fairly "hard" SF.

But as you say, there is the Langston Field, which is a fine bit of handwavium. Worse, though, is the high delta-V, high-acceleration drive systems (which, according to one Pournelle book, also use the Langston Field tech in their internal nozzle designs), which is much worse handwavium. Pournelle's space navy vessels can sustain high G's for a shockingly long length of time, and they enter combat by nearly matching speeds with their opponents for a sustained low-rvel encounter a la Star Trek, which is hard to swallow.

I'd really like to see Jerry Pournelle's homework and theory on his tech.

 

[Sky Captain]

Heilor is right.

IMO there will be no manned "fighters", in fact few combat space vehicles will be manned at all. The only vehicles that need to be manned are troop carriers.

Humans are required to take and hold territory, but spaceflight is dynamic, and all math and precision, which is what machines are good for.

I think manned craft will be only the largest most powerful and survivable spacecraft since it might still be useful to have humans nearby to take important strategical decisions for which AI might not be capable. Also it might be politically unacceptable to have only AI in charge of a combat spacecraft capable of turning entire countries to ash with it`s nuclear weapon loadout.

 

[Andy44]

Well, if you go far enough up the chain, there is always a human in charge, it's just a matter of how close he has to be to the shooting. Currently, the US is flying unmanned drones on combat missions in Afghanistan, while the pilots are in the United States. There is a political cost to this, but it seems to be the wave of the future.

 

[Eagle]

You're limiting your ideas to modern concepts. By the time technology is at a point where space combat is feasible, computer guidance will be several orders of magnitude better than what it is now. Computer-controlled "first stages" would be more precise, capable of withstanding higher accelerations for longer periods, and more morally expendable than human-controlled vessels. That's why Battlestar Galactica space combat is unrealistic--the Cylon fighters should be able to vastly outperform the human craft. It's like taking a Korean War era fighter (the humans) against an F-22 (the Cylons) and expecting good things to happen for the humans.

Well, there are some moral concerns about fully robotic engagement. There is a difference between detection and identification. How much can you trust a computer to determine if the ship is an enemy vessel, captured enemy vessel, friendly, or some poor merchant out of the normal lanes whose transponder is broken?

Morally it is important to have a human close enough to determine weapons release action. The required window depends upon the time between identification and engagement.

In a relativistic environment there is no such thing as perfect AI either.

 

[Ghostrider]

Apart from that, if the enemy can jam or subvert the control channel between the drones and their control you end up with some very expensive meteors (space) or a very expensive rain of metal (planetside).

 

[Hielor]

Well, there are some moral concerns about fully robotic engagement. There is a difference between detection and identification. How much can you trust a computer to determine if the ship is an enemy vessel, captured enemy vessel, friendly, or some poor merchant out of the normal lanes whose transponder is broken?

Morally it is important to have a human close enough to determine weapons release action. The required window depends upon the time between identification and engagement.

In a relativistic environment there is no such thing as perfect AI either.

Sensor technology will also have improved. There's a discussion on the Atomic Rockets page ( http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html , section "Decoys are Worthless as Well") about how easy it is to determine the mass (and therefore, approximate type) of a vessel given its acceleration and exhaust plume. Presumably, civilian vessels will have lower performance characteristics than military vessels.

Even with human pilots, mistakes are still made and you end up with collateral damage. At least if it was a computer that did it, you're don't have a pilot who is now living with that guilt.

If a pilot closes to visual confirmation range on a vessel that is hostile, it's guaranteed death for that pilot.

 

[Eagle]

Sensor technology will also have improved. There's a discussion on the Atomic Rockets page ( http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html , section "Decoys are Worthless as Well") about how easy it is to determine the mass (and therefore, approximate type) of a vessel given its acceleration and exhaust plume. Presumably, civilian vessels will have lower performance characteristics than military vessels.

Even with human pilots, mistakes are still made and you end up with collateral damage. At least if it was a computer that did it, you're don't have a pilot who is now living with that guilt.

If a pilot closes to visual confirmation range on a vessel that is hostile, it's guaranteed death for that pilot.

Please stop straw manning me. You may need to put a telescope within resolving range, but the pilot/weapons officer can be further back as long as he is within the required decision distance.

And who is responsible for the collateral damage inflicted? The person who last serviced and launched the drone? The AI programmer? The planner who decided where drones should patrol? 'de gubermint? Nobody? We can make motion sensor guided machine guns for border security right now. Care to guess why we doing use them?

Don't expect to be able to identify military craft just by its exhaust and mass. Because then the other guy will give their ship the same mass and engines as a civilian freighter. Don't think its impossible to spoof your exhaust spectrum either. Note that at long ranges only spectrum and luminosity can be determined.

 

[Andy44]

Current day safeguards put in place on US forces operating in the Middle East or on the Mexican border are rooted in current day politics and circumstances. The US is fighting "4th Generation" warfare. In the case of WWII or the never-fought WWIII, there was and would've been very litle concern for civilian casualties and mistakes.

I expect an interplanetary war would be much like the notional US-Soviet war, with both sides trying to wipe out the other as soon as possible, using nuclear weapons and not holding anything back.

In the event the war is more of a counter-insurgency affair, there won't be any space combat. The greater power will have cleared the skies prior to ground operations, and that sky-clearing would be done with robotic equipment.

 

[Hielor]

Please stop straw manning me. You may need to put a telescope within resolving range, but the pilot/weapons officer can be further back as long as he is within the required decision distance.

At which point it's no longer a "fighter" in the traditional sense. At that point, since larger vessels will have more efficient engines (as has already been discussed) you're best off using a larger vessel.

And who is responsible for the collateral damage inflicted? The person who last serviced and launched the drone? The AI programmer? The planner who decided where drones should patrol? 'de gubermint? Nobody? We can make motion sensor guided machine guns for border security right now. Care to guess why we doing use them?

Responsibility for the collateral damage inflicted lies with the civilians who knowingly wandered into a war zone.

We aren't using motion sensor guided machine guns at the moment because the public doesn't trust machines. In a couple hundred years, when robots are doing surgery on their own, that will be a far different story.

Don't expect to be able to identify military craft just by its exhaust and mass. Because then the other guy will give their ship the same mass and engines as a civilian freighter. Don't think its impossible to spoof your exhaust spectrum either. Note that at long ranges only spectrum and luminosity can be determined.

Did you read the article I linked?

Apart from that, if the enemy can jam or subvert the control channel between the drones and their control you end up with some very expensive meteors (space) or a very expensive rain of metal (planetside).

This isn't Star Wars Ep I where the drones have no logic and are controlled remotely. The drones would of necessity be self-sufficient, with only limited override capability. That's the point.

 

[Eagle]

At which point it's no longer a "fighter" in the traditional sense. At that point, since larger vessels will have more efficient engines (as has already been discussed) you're best off using a larger vessel.

Larger ships are more expensive, so you end up having them patrol larger areas, which means they need to launch ancillary ships to control a larger area, some of which need to be manned to provide decision making within the required time. That puts you back exactly where you were before.

'Fighter' is just a label anyways. Call it a controller corvette if you like. Or make up any label and definition as you like.

Responsibility for the collateral damage inflicted lies with the civilians who knowingly wandered into a war zone.

The war zone can be pretty much anywhere. In the American Revolution, American Privateers raided shipping between Ireland and Great Britain. The surface area of a sphere increases at the square of the radius and the volume at the cube. Space is big.

And what if a manned troop transport is destroyed? In 1994 two F-15s shot down two Army Black Hawk helicopters over Iraq. The helicopters were using the wrong IFF frequency and their flight plan wasn't communicated to the Joint Air Component correctly. The AWACS originally had them marked as friendlies, but lost them on RADAR as they went between the mountains but didn't remark them when they reacquired. The F-15s visually misidentified them as Hind helicopters with rocket pods and requested a shoot down order which they got. Know who got sacked? The pilots, the AWACS commander, The AF Chief of Staff and many others. Don't think incidents won't happen and don't argue for any less accountability than this.

Did you read the article I linked?

Yes, I've been on Project Rho many times. Take what you read there with a grain of salt as well. Its mostly accurate, but it is not gospel.


-----Post Added-----

I expect an interplanetary war would be much like the notional US-Soviet war, with both sides trying to wipe out the other as soon as possible, using nuclear weapons and not holding anything back.

So interplanetary/interstellar war will only be genocide? Please.

There's more to war than killing the other guy. War is fundamentally political. Why murder planets when you can isolate star systems by destroying outgoing or incoming vessels (trading and otherwise)?

What good is a dead/uninhabitable planet anyways? Sure space stations can be easily destroyed and rebuilt, but there is likely to be many of them spread throughout a star system.

 

[Andy44]

So interplanetary/interstellar war will only be genocide? Please.

Sorry, I didn't come here to pick a fight with anyone.

 

[Hielor]

Larger ships are more expensive, so you end up having them patrol larger areas, which means they need to launch ancillary ships to control a larger area, some of which need to be manned to provide decision making within the required time. That puts you back exactly where you were before.

This is where the issue comes in that you're not going to have "patrols" in deep space. It doesn't logistically make sense. You won't "protect" a shipping "route" in space the same way you do on the ocean, because there are no such routes. You'd send escorts with the ships you wanted protected. You would defend key points (planets/stations/etc), because you cannot possibly expect to control everything that comes into a given large region of space.

The war zone can be pretty much anywhere. In the American Revolution, American Privateers raided shipping between Ireland and Great Britain. The surface area of a sphere increases at the square of the radius and the volume at the cube. Space is big.

The "shipping route" between the Earth and the Moon is always changing. If you head to the moon today, and I head out tomorrow, the path that we go through will be very different. You can't have a ship waiting in ambush there. Moreover, from the "there is no stealth in space" theme, we know that any vessel will be very aware of all vessels nearby.

A privateer vessel would have to target individual vessels, not lie in wait on a nonexistant "shipping lane." The target would be able to see that they had a vessel on an intersect course. Either the hostiles are attempting to capture the freighter, at which point the best place to defend is at the freighter itself, or they're going to try to destroy it, at which point you'll have to rely on defensive measures to protect it because space is too big to send patrols around to intercept any possible attackers.

Yes, space is big--which is why modern analogies don't work.

And what if a manned troop transport is destroyed? In 1994 two F-15s shot down two Army Black Hawk helicopters over Iraq. The helicopters were using the wrong IFF frequency and their flight plan wasn't communicated to the Joint Air Component correctly. The AWACS originally had them marked as friendlies, but lost them on RADAR as they went between the mountains but didn't remark them when they reacquired. The F-15s visually misidentified them as Hind helicopters with rocket pods and requested a shoot down order which they got. Know who got sacked? The pilots, the AWACS commander, The AF Chief of Staff and many others. Don't think incidents won't happen and don't argue for any less accountability than this.

Clearly, pilots are not the incredibly reliable decision-makers you claim them to be. Humans can make mistakes too.

Your account of the results of that tragedy appear to be rather mistaken. One of the pilots was not even charged. The other was court martialled but acquitted. As for the others, "Pilkington, Emery, and Richardson received letters of admonishment. Martin, May, O'Brien, Tracy, Wickson, and Wilson received letters of reprimand. Halcli accepted an Article 15 action which resulted in his receiving a letter of reprimand." No one, least of all the AF Chief of Staff, got "sacked."

Of course accidents will happen, and they happen anyway, even if you have a human deciding whether or not to pull the trigger. Saying that having a human near enough to make the final decision will make things better is just plan wrong. Humans are more likely to make errors in judgement than computers are. And if the computer made a decision that people felt was incorrect, you have a precise explanation. For example, "The target vessel was not communicating on any frequencies and changed to an intercept course of the known civilian freighter, without using any alternate signaling methods acceptable to be used in the event of comm failure." (Obviously there would be a very large rule set that would be considered). If the vessel then gets shot down for acting like a hostile, well...blame lies with them. Not all situations can be covered, so you could easily have the guidance err on the side of safety in the event it encounters a problem it doesn't have a solution for. Human operators likely won't be more than a few light-seconds away anyway--see the "no battles in deep space" thing.

Human operators do not provide immunity to mistakes, which is why you're saying the expense of manned fighters is necessary.

So interplanetary/interstellar war will only be genocide? Please.

That is indeed the most efficient way to do it.

There's more to war than killing the other guy. War is fundamentally political. Why murder planets when you can isolate star systems by destroying outgoing or incoming vessels (trading and otherwise)?

Because, as you said earlier, space is big. Very, very big. In order to interdict a noticeable number of freighters, you'd have to be in close enough proximity to the target of interest that they would be able to retaliate relatively easily. Space combat will not be fought in deep space.

What good is a dead/uninhabitable planet anyways? Sure space stations can be easily destroyed and rebuilt, but there is likely to be many of them spread throughout a star system.

A dead/uninhabitable planet is better than a planet with billions of your enemies on it. In an large interstellar war (if we allow ourselves to consider such a possibility without getting into the finer points of why it doesn't work), you've got plenty of planets to deal with. The "save the planet" thinking will only happen in situations where habitable space is at a premium. By the same token, what good is a country that has been nuked into oblivion? But that was the plan during the Cold War.

 

[Eagle]

The "shipping route" between the Earth and the Moon is always changing. If you head to the moon today, and I head out tomorrow, the path that we go through will be very different. You can't have a ship waiting in ambush there. Moreover, from the "there is no stealth in space" theme, we know that any vessel will be very aware of all vessels nearby.

However the location of the shipping route is known for each launch window. If you're leaving for the moon on Monday on a two day transfer, I can reduce your probable route to a very reasonable area.

Stars don't move past each other very fast either and target vessels can be tracked from their launch. The 'star lanes' are known. This is why deep space battles can occur.

Your account of the results of that tragedy appear to be rather mistaken.

Read further down the article.

Fogleman then announced that he had directed that Wickson, May, Wang, Halcli, and Wilson be disqualified from aviation service duties for at least three years. Also, Fogleman wrote and placed "letters of evaluation" in the permanent personnel files of Wickson, May, Wang, Halcli, Wilson, Pilkington, and Emery that stated that each had failed "to meet Air Force standards in job knowledge, judgment and leadership". In addition, a military decoration awarded to O'Brien for his service during OPC was rescinded. A videotape in which Fogleman described his actions related to the incident and his views on standards and accountability was distributed throughout the USAF and all USAF officers, senior non-commissioned officers, and senior executive service civilians were ordered to view it.[58] Fogleman further stated that he had found that the military justice system had "worked as it was designed to work".[59]

Humans are more likely to make errors in judgement than computers are.

I find your first statement very unlikely for anything more complex than managing a nuclear reactor. A computer will only consider what its programed to. Take it from a computer scientist, even theoretically perfect AI is dumb.

A dead/uninhabitable planet is better than a planet with billions of your enemies on it. In an large interstellar war (if we allow ourselves to consider such a possibility without getting into the finer points of why it doesn't work), you've got plenty of planets to deal with. The "save the planet" thinking will only happen in situations where habitable space is at a premium. By the same token, what good is a country that has been nuked into oblivion? But that was the plan during the Cold War.

Total war is possible. But does it achieve your objectives? Remember the purpose of such a conflict.

Annother note is that just because you slag a planet doesn't make the system uninhabitable.

 

[Hielor]

However the location of the shipping route is known for each launch window. If you're leaving for the moon on Monday on a two day transfer, I can reduce your probable route to a very reasonable area.

Stars don't move past each other very fast either and target vessels can be tracked from their launch. The 'star lanes' are known. This is why deep space battles can occur.

But how far in the future are we thinking, now? Given values which would be considered realistic delta-V margins, it's impractical to sit along one of those routes, and then match velocities with anyone who happens to come along in order to board and plunder. And if you see a vessel sitting stationary along one of these routes, you know they're up to no good.

Read further down the article.

They were still not "sacked," and considering that it's the AF Chief of Staff who said that, he most definitely did not get "sacked." Your orginial statement is still incorrect.

I find your first statement very unlikely for anything more complex than managing a nuclear reactor. A computer will only consider what its programed to. Take it from a computer scientist, even theoretically perfect AI is dumb.

A computer can react faster than a human and, when it comes to controlling the vessel, perform more precise maneuvers. They can only consider what they're programmed to, yes, but if you make the considerations for when to abort and when not to sufficiently broad it will be an acceptable decision-maker.

The point is moot anyway: shipping "lanes" will be in one of two categories; either local (within a planetary system), in which case you will not need a mobile "fighter" to close in on the target because any central command & control will be within a few light-seconds, or interplanetary, in which case anything that needs to be defended will need a dedicated escort of some kind, which means local human C&C will be within a few light-seconds of any confrontation.

Additionally in the interplanetary case, noncombatant ships will be on extremely predictable trajectories (either drifting or low-ISP constant thrust) and any suspicious deviation therefrom without accompanying transmissions could easily be justification for action of some kind.

For example, if a single planet/moon was under the control of an introverted faction, they could establish the rule that entering a given radius of their area without an active, approved transponder is grounds for defensive action. There is precedent for such action--Russian pilots shot down at least two civilian passenger planes during the Cold War, and those pilots (who presumably were human) had plenty of opportunities to identify the jets as being civilian, yet they still brought them down.

Total war is possible. But does it achieve your objectives? Remember the purpose of such a conflict.

Annother note is that just because you slag a planet doesn't make the system uninhabitable.

The objective is to win. Humans have proven that they will do whatever it takes to win.

And I don't recall saying that slagging a planet makes the system uninhabitable. Just that in the case where inhabitable area is low, slagging would be less likely to be chosen.

There's many different types of defensive strategies just in the cultures of our own planet, and if there are extraterrestrial civilizations they will also have a whole host of their own tactics.

What you're talking about is suitable for a "peacekeeping" situation, in which one is attempting to defend their own areas from potential attackers who you may or may not be actively at war against. In that situation yes, it does make sense to confirm that you are not, in fact, attacking your own civilians.

In an actual war situation, however, more aggressive actions must be taken, especially on the "border." In those cases, it's inefficient and wasteful to send more than a guided warhead, because the decision to destroy the other craft has already been made.

I think we can both agree that "fighters" in the traditional, modern sense will not exist in the space theatre of war. What you're describing is more of a forward command vessel, for tactical decisions but not for any direct fighting, which can make sense in some circumstances.

 

[Andy44]

"shipping lanes" in the traditional sense do not exist in space, as Heilor has explained, but lines of communication do exist. They are not static as they are on a planetary surface, of course, they move both in space and time. To physically affect them, you have to think in terms of time and energy required.

In discussing the control of physical traffic between the Earth and Moon, for instance, there are very limited places to "park" a blocking force. The Lagrange point between Earth and Moon, for instance, is a low energy station, and puts you within reasonable intercept energy of anyone doing a lunar transfer, but it has it's disadvantages as well. Another might be a GEO orbit above the terrestrial launch site. This allows you to detect any launches and possibly attack them. A third is a high lunar orbit, possibly with two units for continuous coverage, although if you see someone coming you will have ample time to adjust your orbit.

Then you have to ask the question "what is a blocking force?". A manned vessel is the first thing people think of, having grown up on Star Trek, but unmanned systems are so much cheaper to operate and can stay on station for years, in addition to all the other advantages in mass savings and higher acceleration tolerance. Perhaps even better would be to station your force on the surface, in the form of missiles in silos. They would be much easier to service there and, from the Moon, go almost anywhere very fast.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about current-day tech, nothing fancy. One of the interesting alternate history scenarios to think about is the USAF idea to use Project Orion nuclear pulse propulsion vehicles placed in very high orbits as a strategic nuclear deterrent. In the event of a war, the ship would drop its perigee down into an attack profile and start a nuclear delivery run. The Soviets would see the maneuver, and have several hours before the weapons are actually deployed. This delayed retaliation strike would've given the US a slow-motion, easily defended deterrent force that could be easily called off, unlike silo-based missiles, which must always be ready to end the world at a moment's notice lest they get caught by a surprise attack, or bombers, which are less and less survivable as years go by, or submarines, which must remain unseen and hard to contact in order to be effective.