Turn kinetic bombardment leads to more militarization and an

arms race the CP is net worse.

Brooking 13 (E.T Brooking -- Emerson T. Brooking is a research fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, studying the intersection of social media and conflict. His research interests include
information warfare; social media and virality; the history of propaganda; and the relationship between
the internet and politics. He served previously as research associate for defense policy at the Council
on Foreign Relations. Brooking has held earlier affiliations with the New America Foundation and
Brookings Institution. His work has been published in The Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Policy, and Popular
Science, among others. He holds a BA in political science and classical studies from the University of
Pennsylvania, where his thesisa study of Roman counter-revolt practiceswon the departmental
prize. --http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/10712-Rods-From-God-The-Truth-of-
Call-of-Duty-s-Killer-Satellite -- 11/3/13) S.L
While the events of Ghosts are fiction, the ideas and science of ODIN are very real.
Alternately referred to as Project Thor, hypervelocity rod bundles, and even
Rods from God, research into kinetic bombardment has enjoyed a
colorful 60-year history among both science fiction writers and U.S.
defense planners. While it has yet to move from design to execution, its underlying technologies continue
to improve. And should a real-life ODIN ever be built, it would carry truly terrible consequences. Like many of the
weapon ideas that emerged from the dark days of the Cold War, the idea of kinetic bombardment sounds torn from
the pages of science fiction. In this case, the concept has danced especially strangely between these worlds. Even
the first scientist to seriously study kinetic bombardment in the 1950s, Jerry Pournelle, would eventually leave the
research field to become a sci-fi writer. In the 1950s and 60s, U.S. and Soviet physicists each struggled to turn
satellites into viable weapons. While the U.S. concluded early on that space weapons were clumsy and ineffective
ways of doing a job, both sides kept at it, with the Soviet Union even bringing parts of a system to final test. This
competition only stopped with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which firmly banned the militarization of space. At
the same time, the idea of kinetic bombardment crept more and more into popular culture through the 1960s, 70s,
and 80s. Among the most notable examples is Robert HeinleinsThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which a weak,
poorly armed lunar colonists (loonies) declare independence from the powerful empires of Earth. In doing so, they
repurpose an interstellar catapult once used to transport grain and fill it with steel projectiles instead. When
Earth authorities refuse to allow the Moon to secede peacefully, the loonies pepper the Earths surface with
hypersonic pieces of metal that impact with the force of atomic bombs. After that, the Earth says goodbye to the
Moon in a hurry.The U.S. military found renewed interest in kinetic bombardment in the late 1990s and early 00s. In
a widely reported 2003 document, the Air Force made it clear it wanted the capability to strike ground targets
anywhere in the world from space. That same year, the U.S. quietly changed positions to annul any treaties that
limited its freedom of action in space. Distracted by wars abroad and troubles at home, however, the nation has
had little time to work on killer space stations. Today, the U.S. military seems to have again lost interest in kinetic
bombardment but popular culture sure hasnt. Traces of ODIN are everywhere: in Tom Clancys EndWar, its an
American superweapon. Its Nazis who use it inIron Sky, while its Cobra who use it in G.I. Joe 2. Its a mod in Kerbal
Space Program and a gag in Mass Effect 2. ME2s gunnery sergeant describes kinetic bombardment best: [This is
why] Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space!
An important question so far left unresolved is: why? Whats the argument for technologies like kinetic
bombardment? How does it work? And, most importantly, is it worth it?
The best argument for ODIN-style weapons is speed. Simply to maintain a stationary orbit over Earth, satellites
must travel at roughly 11,300 kilometers per hour nearly twice the speed of the fastest jet ever produced. In order
to actually circle the planet, satellites must go even faster. Launch several such satellites at once and you have a
system that can strike anywhere in the world far quicker than a conventional bomb or missile. Furthermore, once
rods have been released plunging downward at hypersonic speeds theyre essentially impossible to stop or
intercept.
The other argument for kinetic bombardment is versatility. The tungsten rods of an ODIN-like device dont need to
carry nuclear warheads or any warhead at all, eliminating the perils of radioactivity and fallout. They can also pierce
the earth with force several times that of the strongest bunker buster bomb, rendering all possible enemy
strongholds useless. U.S. force planners have traditionally seen kinetic bombardment as just one more tool in the
arsenal not as an outright replacement for nuclear weapons.
Basic design of ODIN-style weaponry is remarkably elegant. The giant rods are giant and rod-shaped in order to
maximize mass while minimizing surface area. Theyre made of tungsten because of tungstens absolutely insane
melting point (3,422 C), which is high enough to survive atmospheric re-entry. While there are still plenty of
engineering challenges namely, how to make the rods hit the right place at the right time the whole system is
still a lot simpler than your average, nuclear-equipped ballistic missile.
One big, remaining obstacle is money. Putting something in space is stupid expensive it takes roughly 40 to 50
kilograms of propellant for every kilo launched. When youre moving literal tons of rare-earth metal, sculpted to be
as heavy as possible, those costs add up fast. Launching a single, relatively small rod might cost $30 million dollars.
Sending up multiple, large rods spread across multiple satellites would cost many, many dozens of times this.
The biggest problem with kinetic bombardment, however, is the same problem thats dogged armchair generals
since time began: the enemy also gets a vote.
Satellites and space stations are not exactly safe from harm. In the past decade, the U.S. and China have each
experimented with ways of disabling space-borne objects. Satellite jamming is an effective, low-cost strategy that
remains very tough to counter. Ground-based lasers even those with relatively small energy output can also put
the sensitive electronics of a satellite out of commission.
The most direct, effective anti-satellite techniques involve simply blowing these objects out of the sky. In 2010, the
U.S. successfully tested an unmanned space plane able to freely maneuver (and likely shoot) in high orbit. Both the
U.S. and China have occasionally used missiles to destroy old or failing satellites. One such Chinese test, conducted
in 2007, left 40,000 fragments of metal, essentially doubling the manmade debris orbiting the planet. If too many
objects were ever destroyed in this same manner, the resulting space junk might keep humans trapped on Earth for
good.
an ODIN-style device would be an extremely expensive, extremely
So to recap,
vulnerable weapons platform whose destruction could well doom humanity
forever. In return for all these cons, military planners would get a weapon good at
destroying fortified bunkers. On the net, it remains a pretty poor bargain. But
what if ODIN were built anyway? What if a group of fabulously wealthy, sci-fi
loving engineers (perhaps after playing Ghosts) built and launched their own
system of kinetic bombardment?
Put simply, doing so would open all of space to militarization and push
nations across the world to build their own variants. The result would be
an arms race not seen since the invention of the atom bomb. The U.S. alone
has spent roughly $8 trillion (in 2013 dollars) on the development, testing, and
maintenance of nuclear weapons in the years since. Its difficult to see where
this new arms race would end once begun or how it could do anyone
much good. Kinetic bombardment remains one of the coolest weapons in pop
culture, thanks to zany writers and inventive game designers everywhere. Lets
hope it stays fiction.