Starlink scraps nuclear weapons? Don't brag for Musk

Author 丨Shi Jie

Responsible editor 丨 Cui Liwen

Edit 丨 Chic

Do you think that by exaggerating the power of the Star Chain infinitely, our military power will run naked?

A few days ago, when the War between Russia and Ukraine was in full swing, a screenshot was widely circulated.

"Musk recently issued his remarks: Starlink can directly take over and tamper with Russian software, paralyze Russia's navigation, and all nuclear weapons will be dudded, including the North Wind God-class nuclear submarine in russia's deep sea."

Some people said: "Musk can pass through the star chain to make Putin's nuclear weapons fail, the equilibrium between nuclear powers is broken, and the pattern of the world changes." ”

▲ Screenshot of rumors

Of course, there are views on the Internet that further amplify the panic: because Musk makes other countries' nuclear weapons no longer effective against the United States, these countries will only be unilaterally deterred by the United States and will be arbitrarily flattened.

As the current tech celebrity, Musk's magical ability is worshipped by many melon-eating masses, but is he really to the point of changing the political landscape?

01

Musk didn't say "abolish nuclear weapons."

I rummaged through sources and the truth is this: From mid to late March, Musk did "challenge" Putin on Twitter, but never mentioned nuclear weapons.

For example, in the middle of the year, Musk raised the bar with the president of the Russian Aerospace Group, Rogozin, and the twenties discussed martial arts judo with Zhao Changpeng, the founder of Binance, proving that the fight here is a real hand-to-hand challenge.

Musk challenged Putin's original text

The so-called starlink caused the failure of nuclear weapons, almost all of which are unreliable sources of Chinese websites.

▲ The president of the Russian Aerospace Corporation replied to Musk's challenge

Therefore, Musk and Putin, the fight, there, the abolition of nuclear weapons, is a fabrication, this is a fake news, just like the men's football team just lost 0-2 to Oman in the World Preliminaries, and had to add fuel to the fire that it lost in the World Cup match.

▲ Musk clearly wants to fight with Putin head-to-head

Musk posted a photo of himself playing against karate

However, the national football team did enter the World Cup once in 2002, so can Starlink really make nuclear weapons fail? That brings us to the second point.

02

Starlink is difficult to crack intercontinental missiles

If this is true, it will indeed lead to a reshuffle of the world pattern. Because the biggest role of nuclear weapons is nuclear deterrence, there is a saying that "nuclear weapons that are not launched are the most useful".

Everyone has seen the gunfight movie, two people pointing guns at each other, because both sides have the ability to shoot a deadly shot, from the perspective of the game, simply do not shoot, looking for a favorable situation for themselves, which is also known as "terror balance".

So, does Musk's Starlink have the ability to break the balance of terror between nuclear powers? This starts with the positioning technology and guidance technology of nuclear weapons.

Major powers are at war, and the main launch tool for nuclear weapons is intercontinental missiles. If we compare an ICBM bombing opponent to a taxi to a high-end restaurant, then you have to have three important messages: the initial location, I call a car, you have to be able to pick me up; the middle navigation, the route to the restaurant needs to be accurate; the destination location, the route to the restaurant eventually leads to the restaurant.

Launching an intercontinental missile to eat the enemy is actually in the same form, requiring an initial positioning position, requiring relatively high accuracy, a middle route, we have a term, called "relay guidance", and then the location of the target.

How are these three important pieces of information obtained? And how to achieve guidance? For icing missiles, inertial navigation and starlight navigation are the most commonly used means.

Inertial navigation relies on ultra-high-precision gyroscopes, which you can understand as "running with your eyes closed", but its accuracy is much higher than that of us humans, and the accumulated error is also small. Starlight navigation is based on the correction of the route based on the position of the star.

▲ Inertial guidance device

According to the explanation of the inertial navigation of intercontinental missiles by foreign authoritative institutions, there is a paragraph that can be used as a reference:

Missiles are programmed with predetermined flight paths. They use gyroscopic platforms and GPS to continuously determine the position of the missile in space. The guidance computers then combine the position information with velocity and direction information to generate commands that maintain the proper course. Such systems are advantageous because they don’t include electronic emissions from the missile or launch platform, which could be picked up by the enemy.

The translation is as follows: the missile's inertial guidance system is programmed into a pre-planned flight path. The inertial navigation system uses gyroscopes and GPS to continuously confirm the coordinate position of the missile in space. The navigation system combines coordinate information, speed information, and direction information to issue commands and maintain the correct flight path. Such a system has the advantage of not sending an electronic signal from the missile itself or the launch platform, and leaking the electronic signal may be detected by the enemy missile attack.

Therefore, after the launch of the intercontinental missile, the information of intermediate guidance and target position can completely eliminate satellite navigation and positioning.

There is only the initial position, and it is possible to rely on satellites to locate. Why is it said that it is "there is a certain possibility"? Icing-type missiles are divided into two categories: fixed launch and mobile launch.

The former category, mainly missiles launched from underground wells. In the latter category, there are road mobile launches, railway mobile launches, and strategic nuclear submarines underwater mobile launches. Fixed launches already know their own position, underwater nuclear submarines have long-wave radios, only road maneuvers and rail maneuver launches, inseparable from satellites to provide initial position information.

To sum up the second point: Starlink can not make the nuclear weapon fail, at most reduce the accuracy of some missiles, and if it is a nuclear missile that hits a city target, it basically does not care about the situation that the hit error is increased by tenfold.

As for the picture that some people make up for: once Starlink uses a little hacking technology, it can make missiles fly around. This is absolutely impossible.

After all, intercontinental missiles appeared in the 1950s and 1960s, and GPS satellite navigation did not have global coverage until the 1990s, so do you really think Musk can change the situation of nuclear forces? Too simple！ Too naive！

03

The power is not so high≠ the damage is not so great

However, we need to distinguish two things: on the one hand, StarLink is definitely not as powerful as some marketing numbers boast, and it is an interference intercontinental missile, and it is equivalent to a 6G network. It is just a complement to the lack of broadband coverage in North America. Starlink, on the other hand, can pose a threat to us.

This threat may come from the ability of Starlink. If Musk dares to violate the outer space treaty and use satellites to interfere with the navigation signals of a certain country in low orbit at the same frequency, it will not only prevent mobile missiles from obtaining initial position information, but also hinder the civilian functions of satellites in this country, so that people's livelihood will be dragged down.

Threats may also come from Starlink's flaws. Many people have heard an analogy: the Starlink program will eventually launch 12,000 satellites, which is 12,000 space junk (the final Starlink will have 42,000 satellites). At present, excluding the Starlink satellites, all other satellites add up to only about 6,000.

This is equivalent to occupying a parking space with a very cheap car, preventing other national satellites from finding "parking spaces" in space to achieve commercial value, not to mention, this cheap small satellite has a short lifespan, and after scrapping, it is space junk. This year, the mainland's space station was once in danger of being collided with a star-chain satellite, which is a proof.

The remark that "nuclear weapons can be abolished" appears, and it is clear that Musk's star chain has been blown up.

It doesn't hurt to blow it properly, but if you think that Musk has changed the global strategic power landscape and thus has no end to anxiety about international security, it will be too loud and scary.

Stone blade

Pen for sword, man for man,

But perfectly.

The heart is like a boat, and the dream becomes the sea,

Only into Datong.

Read

recommend

Lee wants what "9" is sold in the gourd

"Dead" the US market, what are Ningde and Guoxuan thinking?

The twilight of the "big factory"

- END -

Micro signal | C-dimensional