ITT: Theoretical Superweapons

Starting with a classic: Rods from God. Though relatively weak in their initial configuration, advancements in electromagnetic means of propulsion as well as the addition of something like a nuclear shaped charge for propellant could greatly increase the force of a rod.

Attached: 980x.jpg (430x242, 28K)

I find the number of things that a nuke in orbit couldn’t kill, that a tungsten rod with an ablative pusher plate pushed by nukes could kill to be relatively small.
Ultra-deep bunkers? That’s about it.

Why would you use a rod when you could just use a nuke and do far more damage for the same effort?

This weapons has always relied on the idea that nukes just magically don't exist, but they do. So what's the point?

Your manner of thinking is too small and constrained. A nuclear pulse would allow you to push a heavier projectile, more so if it's already given a boost by a mass driver. Instead of a thin rod, you could push a nice big bullet. Because of its immense speed, it is far more difficult if not impossible to intercept. With some careful mathematics and planning, it could also be a decent "fire and forget" weapon for conflict at interplanetary distances.

Why orbital? Just have a tungsten rod with a rocket or ramjet motor dropped from a B-52

That's exactly what they were intended for, hardened facilities that the shockwave of a conventional nuclear weapon wouldn't have much effect on. All of a KB weapon's energy is directed almost straight down into the ground, so a dense projectile is used such that it's enormous energy simply forces less dense materials out of it's way, allowing it to penetrate far into the ground and destroy deeply buried facilities.
Nukes are insufficiently discriminate for most purposes not to mention MAD means any time a nuclear weapon is employed there is risk of nuclear retaliation. Using a KB weapon is less serious as there is practically no damage to anything that isn't the weapon's target.

The big problem with rods from god is that you have to get that tungsten into orbit. Getting stuff into orbit is crazy expensive, a better option would be to add guidance to asteroids and de-orbit them onto targets with MPD or ion drives.

>Why orbital?
This guy asks the fatal question. There's no good answer, and that's why things like this don't exist. Suborbital surface-surface shots do the same job cheaper

Getting asteroids is much more difficult than getting material from the surface to LEO. To retrieve an asteroid you have to get your asteroid-grabber from the surface to LEO, it's propulsion and power systems to LEO, and it's propellant to LEO. To operate an MPD powerful enough to shove an asteroid (in a useful timescale) your power supply will have to be nuclear and demand significant heat rejection systems as a result. All of this obviously will be visible long in advance of the weapon actually being ready, it's heat and the light of it's drives will be visible all the way from it's startup in orbit to it's return from the belt, and as a result of being powered by MPDs it will not be able to accelerate fast enough to avoid being shot down by a conventional chemically propelled weapon, since striking down objects in LEO does not demand a lot of delta-v. Asteroids are also less than desirable as a projectile for reentry because their shapes are uneven and large portions of their mass will be ablated away during reentry and they will be liable to explode mid-flight as thermal shocking causes parts of the rock to heat unevenly.

Cost per warhead.

If you have the tech to propel huge rods to a speed where the kinetic energy is more devastating than the payload you could mount in the rod, this would be a cleaner, cheaper and more controllable version of tactical nuclear strikes.

>there is practically no damage to anything that isn't the weapon's target

1) Sounds like a pretty shit "superweapon" to me

2) Just use a cruise missile. Target too big for one missile? Use more.

There's no reason for this cartoon bullshit, I honestly don't understand why anyone entertains these ideas aside from "space is cool", which it is. But even if something is cool you should still be able to acknowledge its shortcomings and understand why this thing doesn't exist in the real world.

If you think putting up one of these ridiculous satellites and maintaining it for decades is cheaper than keeping an ICBM in a silo you haven't the faintest clue.

Just because you think of it as a superweapon doesn't make it one. It's just a kinetic weapon like a bullet, except that it accelerates to much higher speeds and doesn't come out of a barrel. A KB weapon is not a WMD, it's a fundamentally conventional weapon with a very niche application, which is why it was never used by anyone.

I'm basing my argument on the assumption that there is widespread space based industry and population because up until this point ballistic missiles can do it better for cheaper. Slow propulsion methods work fine for moving material to a point where they can be fitted with beefier propulsion for actually delivering it to a target.

Like I said, if the technology was there to construct megastructures in orbit, the cost per warhead would be in the thousands rather than hundreds of millions. Plus the fallout wouldn't be radioactive, and the size and location would be more precise.

What I want are some sonic weapons thaf can cause women to spontaneously abort their pregnancies. Imagine how demoralizing it would be to have your next generation taken from you. It could be used to control the population in turd world countries. Also, a sonic weapon that can disrupt the crystalline matrix of bone, turning them to dust. Imagine turning into a fleshy puddle of cramps, desperately trying to inflate your lungs before you asphyxiate on yourself.

You know you have to give it all that potential energy when you launch it into orbit, right?
Also it’d be a terribly obvious weapon as nuclear plus propulsion is a ostentatious way to move a payload. What’s stopping the target from retaliating during the transit time? You still have the non-deflectable problem.

> nuclear shaped charge propulsion
At that point just use that as the weapon and don't both with the rod at all. Casaba howitzer will fuck up your target and if NPP won't trigger a nuclear exchange, neither will they.
The only advantage is that with a half dozen satellites you can get ordnance to any target on Earth in ~10 minutes. Problem is that its expensive, we already have good force projection, and their obvious and fragile.
They don't violate treaties and are less likely to trigger a nuclear war. They were initially meant to be nuclear silo killers - because of the decreased response time, in a First Strike or Launch on Warning scenario, you could kill more of their silos before launch than with other counterforce weapons. When they were first thought up, they were also immune to many forms of launch warning though this advantage no longer applies.
In that role, they're actually a good idea. But its not the Cold War anymore, and we're have a Second Strike only policy. We don't do LoW.💯

...

At that point you may as well start dropping rocks.

>you have to get that tungsten into orbit
Only if it's mined from earth.

Chinese Black Project Super Stealth Bomber

-Uses a soundless engine that is possible of supercruise, baffles Americans when it passes by their cities.

Drones with .22s that have access to facebook's advertising algorithm. Fucking terrifies me that for the low cost of like 70 grand you could completely eliminate the opposition

Only really works with a space elevator. Unless you changed your idea from "rods" to "giant fuckoff BBs", it really wouldn't be profitable. If you shot a GI how style cylinder into space but cut each rod into several pieces you instantly gain 3 or 4 or 5 times the practical destructive capability by applying the same mass in a case by case basis for better efficacy. The biggest problem is still the fact that it's expensive as fuck to put something in space, let alone something that works specifically along the lines of "weight+really long fall=big bada boom"

Super laser projector that can burn through armor, reinforced buildings and bunker.

>Also, a sonic weapon that can disrupt the crystalline matrix of bone, turning them to dust.
This is impossible for so many reasons and idk man but if you’re just gonna make shit up by being so ridiculously off base, why not just talk about a weapon that makes you disappear into thin air by shooting photons at you or whatever

And where does this laser projector get power? You do realize that no matter how you obtain the several MW you'd need to even come close to doing any signifficant damage on the ground, the satellite will a glow in the dark nigger because of all the waste heat. Combine that with orbits being nice and predictable with having fuck all armor because that's heavy and you have yourself a nice target for ground based laser...

easy question, the russian fun cannon.

Attached: sturgeon smile.jpg (793x533, 61K)

Attached: shiva star.png (1024x812, 1.87M)