Interesting article on KEWs ...

[James Sena]

Scanning Facebook I found this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forc ... lverticals

[John Fairbairn]

Interesting indeed. As a member of the US military (US Army Security Agency) in 1963 - 1967, and having been (very briefly) in SE Asia during 1966, I was aware of the KEWS-style weapons being deployed. These were used, among other things, to 'seed' rice paddies where Viet Cong were hiding. They were very effective for that purpose. They also were used for two purposes in Cambodia: 1) against active infiltration columns on the Ho Chi Min Trail, and 2) to uproot/clear away overhanging vegetation along that trail so that movements on it could be tracked. Again, they were very effective, and could be used with much less collateral damage than HE drops.

However, I was unaware of any proposals to upgrade/modernize that concept to be deployed from orbital platforms. The results, as noted in such of DW's work as Cauldron of Ghosts, would be utter destruction of the target, and would require very careful consideration of the possible collateral consequences. About the only thing that can be said in its favor is the lack of nuclear fallout. Frankly, I am not in favor of any such weaponry. The possible resulting 'unintended consequences' are way too numerous and devastating.

Just one such consequence involves accuracy. In DW's novels, he does not go into much on how an accurate, pinpoint strike is managed. My own understanding of the nature of the thing is that the initiation of that kind of drop must be calculated to and executed within a microsecond or less, and even then the expected accuracy is 'somewhere within a 500 meter radius'. Using a 10 kilo titanium rod dropped from 150 km on a city-block-sized building, if it hits one corner, you would take out an adjacent four blocks radius of buildings. A 400 m miss from the target center would almost entirely miss significantly damaging the target and instead take out mostly collateral material. From a military view, that's not a very good prospect. It tends to fail the mission and raise the ire of those 'collateral' civilians in the actual impact area.

Regards -

In Service of the Queen!

John Fairbairn
Chief Petty Officer - RMN
Bosun, HMS Lodestone

[Philip Culmer]

I recall some discussion of the concept in speculative and science fiction circles some time ago - things such as "smart rocks", "brilliant pebbles", and "flying crowbars" - one name that was mentioned was Project Thor.
As I understand it, part of the intention was for such missiles to have some manoeuvrability; I know that in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they started with grain barges and moved onto rocks, delivered by a magnetic accelerator, and could potentially divert planned strikes up until a fairly late stage of the "delivery" process.
I suppose part of the question is how much planning time you have, how much manoeuvrability, and how much your missile is vulnerable to windage.

[John Fairbairn]

As I understand it, part of the intention was for such missiles to have some manoeuvrability; ... and could potentially divert planned strikes up until a fairly late stage of the "delivery" process. I suppose part of the question is how much planning time you have, how much manoeuvrability, and how much your missile is vulnerable to windage.

Frankly, at the time I looked at the base concept and dismissed it as too catastrophic. I have not given it any further thought, but you do raise some interesting questions. I suppose if the missile was not entirely a 'rock' but had a dim brain and could steer, that might alleviate a lot of my issues. And we have come a very long way in developing tiny computers that cold fit the bill to do just that sort of thing. The cost, computational size, computing power, and power requirements of a 'computer' in 1966-67 was excessive for anything much smaller than an ICBM. Even for that, it was a major portion of the cost of a Minuteman II. Compared to the computer in a cell phone today, those Minuteman computers were almost as smart as a spanner of the wrong size.

Windage effects would depend largely on how long and fat the rod is. When you are talking about something traveling at the speed of sound and above, windage still plays a part but it is vastly smaller (because of reduced time) than for slower devices. I should think that a 10-meter long, 12.5 cm diameter rod would experience very little windage for anything less than hurricane or tornado level winds. With a 2 cm hole drilled end to end and packed with C-4 and an electric fuse, it could be destroyed right down to target level to abort the major impact caused by 3.9 m3 of titanium hitting the surface.

So yes, theoretically it's possible. I still don't like it though. JIMHO, we need an international accord to forbid them.

Regards -

[Philip Culmer]

With a 2 cm hole drilled end to end and packed with C-4 and an electric fuse, it could be destroyed right down to target level to abort the major impact caused by 3.9 m3 of titanium hitting the surface.

Well, it could be dispersed, anyway, which might dilute the damage somewhat. You're still going to have 3.9m3 of titanium hitting somewhere with a lot of KE, even if it is over a wider area, and in smaller pieces. There's also the issue of a fuze that can withstand the amount of heat building up - though that may be less than I'd imagine, thinking about it.

I agree with you about the need for an international agreement, but I suspect it would be somewhat pointless. As with similar international conventions and protocols, anyone who is actually in a position to deploy KEWs would most probably either refuse to subscribe, or sign up and then ignore it.

[John Fairbairn]

I agree with you about the need for an international agreement, but I suspect it would be somewhat pointless. As with similar international conventions and protocols, anyone who is actually in a position to deploy KEWs would most probably either refuse to subscribe, or sign up and then ignore it.

Sadly, I am afraid you are right. Still, the overall international community does have some pacifying effect on most rational regimes. The remaining ones who flout the agreements tend to stand out pretty clearly, as does the US with regard to the international global warming emissions agreement. It couldn't hurt to try.

Regards -