NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, are they?

I consider them to be. Just because something hasn't been deployed in RL doesn't mean we don't have the technology to do so. They sound fully plausible to me for MT, and I wouldn't put it past the US to have some without telling anyone.

Definitely. I keep a number of them in orbit.

I suppose so...

i dont see them being used anytime, soon so i dont believe they are MT

Thank you, this is all just to settle an arguement. Leocardia is ignoring my God Rods like a little girl and says he can becasue they are PMT.

i dont see them being used anytime, soon so i dont believe they are MT

They were banned by SALT II

They were banned by SALT II

They actually weren't, space based nukes were, but tungsten rods which kill by kinetic energy(what "god rods" are) were not.


They are at least MT+1 in my opinion. Not just because they haven't been implemented, but because of all the things that could go wrong in the development(that hasn't happened) that would prove them to be possible. The technical expertise required to construct, launch, maintain, target and fire such as system hasn't been fleshed out, and therefore its definitely not MT imo. Most nations, whether they know it or not are MT+1 though... In the end it comes down to what the individual player thinks. Anyone remember the certain nation that claimed LIDAR wasn't MT? :eek:

Blackhelm... check your TG... "His Noodly Goodness" is me.

What is 'LIDAR'?

What is 'LIDAR'?

LIDAR = LIght Detection And Ranging.

its essentially RADAR using light instead of radio waves, its been used in the civilian sector for years.

They actually weren't, space based nukes were, but tungsten rods which kill by kinetic energy(what "god rods" are) were not.


They are at least MT+1 in my opinion. Not just because they haven't been implemented, but because of all the things that could go wrong in the development(that hasn't happened) that would prove them to be possible. The technical expertise required to construct, launch, maintain, target and fire such as system hasn't been fleshed out, and therefore its definitely not MT imo. Most nations, whether they know it or not are MT+1 though... In the end it comes down to what the individual player thinks. Anyone remember the certain nation that claimed LIDAR wasn't MT? :eek:


SALT banned all orbital weapons of mass destrution if I am correct, and this would fall under such a category.

No, because a big chunk of metal does not qualify as a nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapon and because you can make the rods small enough to do the same damage as a conventional air-dropped bomb.

Actually a lot of research was done on them and they are fairly feasible in thier msot basic incarnations, its just that both american and russian scientists realised that for all the effort and expense of actually getting them into space you could biuld A LOT more ICBMs that would be far more effective anyway. The target list for orbital kinetic weapons is a fairly short one and largely consists of things that would be better off attacked with nukes anyway...

In PMT and FT orbital kinetic energy weapons become a bit more useful and worthwhile but by that stage people start using james bond style giant space lasers...

2 responses to the primary against arguements:
1. They are MT, it's just that the cost of making them is a bit much for real nations. However, our online nations with horrendously large defense budgets could finance and maintain them no problem.
2. They do not cause mass destruction and are therefore not banned by SALT. One god rod can level a building. That's about it.

Well, they're possible in MT. Just not cost effective. IIRC, it costs something in the range of $100K per pound to get something into space, and to be of any use, the godrods are going to have to mass something around a few tonnes, so it usually just ends up being cheaper to use an ICBM.

Of course, godrods do have nifty advantages, such as a low amount of collateral damage near their target, as well as a deeper crater than a conventional explosive would manage, as well as being rather difficult to intercept. Then again, the disadvantages (low yield compared to, say, tac-nukes, long drop time, difficult to use anything but inertial guidance, and that godawful cost) do tend to outweigh the advantages...

Godrods are certainly possible in MT, but not really cost efficient unless you don't have to launch them in the first place (eg produce them in space).

Of course that requires you to have a very large space industry.

Not to mention a massive strain on your tungsten reserves.

They are ideal for FT, it does not cost much to stick a piece of metal in orbit in future tech. But in modern tech, they would be a secret weapon, used for very special situations, not something to use in every day situations like killing tanks.

It's just cost. They can be done, with serious issues regarding everything fropm construction to use to maintenence in MT, but you're spending literally tens of millions of dollars for something that can do little more then bring down a regular sized house. Is it really cost effective in MT?
I don't think so. And of course, anyone who fires them by the truckload is going to go bankrupt very very quickly.

I think the reason it's not commonly used today is it's so damn expensive.

I think the reason it's not commonly used today is it's so damn expensive.

That's correct. Remember President Bush was looking into god rods to take out underground command centers our tunnel complexes where the Taliban could be.

The most effective thing to use godrods on are SuperDreadnoughts and those massive fortifications/bunkers that are pretty much everywhere on NS.

Not to mention a massive strain on your tungsten reserves.

Well, you don't HAVE to make them out of tungsten. Just that it's one of the better materials available.

Actually, many people believe that God Rods wouldn't work because traveling at such immense speeds would cause them to vaporize on contact before being able to penetrate the earth's surface.

Thus you would have to slow them down in some way (e.g. with retro-rockets), and reduce their potential.

Actually, many people believe that God Rods wouldn't work because traveling at such immense speeds would cause them to vaporize on contact before being able to penetrate the earth's surface.

Thus you would have to slow them down in some way (e.g. with retro-rockets), and reduce their potential.

Then many people are fools. Meteorites are a lot less tough and in general, moving a lot faster than a tungsten rod would be, and they make it to the ground all the time.

And employed in the form that one encounters the most on NS, they do about the same damage as a 250 kilogram bomb (this I got from the RAND study available on teh internetz). One with a really focused charge. Largest MT/PMT ortillery I've seen on NS was ZMI's high velocity (translunar slingshot) 70 tonne biconic (I think) impactor that yielded 2 kilotons worth of damage upon impact. He had the thought experiment on some thread around here.

Well, you don't HAVE to make them out of tungsten. Just that it's one of the better materials available.

True, but call me a perfectionist. I'd never consider anything but the proven best for a superweapon. :D
Wonder how titanium would work out?

Not very well, I'd think. It's light for it's strength, isn't it? Strength doesn't count for jack in hypervelocity impacts, it's just mass that counts.

Despite the argument, has the United States not tried switching out their nuclear arsenal with 'godrods'? I believe they could be MT. If anything, PMT.

And employed in the form that one encounters the most on NS, they do about the same damage as a 250 kilogram bomb (this I got from the RAND study available on teh internetz). One with a really focused charge. Largest MT/PMT ortillery I've seen on NS was ZMI's high velocity (translunar slingshot) 70 tonne biconic (I think) impactor that yielded 2 kilotons worth of damage upon impact. He had the thought experiment on some thread around here.

My personal preference for godrods tends to go for telephone pole sized monstrosities, but those are meant primarily for use against naval vessels.

My personal preference for godrods tends to go for telephone pole sized monstrosities, but those are meant primarily for use against naval vessels.

Well what are the other kinds? I just assumed that all godrods were roughly the size of a caber launched from space rather than scotsmen.

just read wikipedia damnit!
The most described system is 'an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance.' The weapon can be down-scaled as small as several metres long, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.

Well that answers my question.

In my professional opinion (which is none), godrods are MT - but they're also inefficient, especially for peewee states. Maybe if you've got a trillion+ defense budget that doesn't mind the risks of missing the target or using it against static defenses, that would be a fine expense.

Firstly, they can't be MT.

If the United States started developing Star Wars-ish weaponry, it doesn't entirely mean it's modern technology. It's still very advanced technology in our modern world.

Firstly, they can't be MT.
Why not? The US and other countries have repeatedly demonstrated that they can lift things into outer space. How exactly is this any different? Heck, the idea of orbital weaponry has been around since Sputnik.

Firstly, they can't be MT.

If the United States started developing Star Wars-ish weaponry, it doesn't entirely mean it's modern technology. It's still very advanced technology in our modern world.

A) This is not remotely similar to Star War-ish weaponry. We are talking about dropping a piece of metal from space versus lasers.
B) This stuff is completely feasible with technology existing now. It is just the cost of launching so much weight (also due to needing so many satellites to cover the earth) into space that turns people off.
C) It is barely different than just attaching a tungsten rod onto an ICBM and launching it (the difference being that with the satellite it starts in space).

What exists in our modern world is not the same thing as what could exist if we had an infinite supply of materials, people, and money as in NS.

My personal preference for godrods tends to go for telephone pole sized monstrosities, but those are meant primarily for use against naval vessels.

And how would you hit a moving vessel travelling 30 knots +. I also consider god rods WMD so depending on the situation a suitable counter weapon would be employed likely in the chemical range.

Firstly, they can't be MT.

If the United States started developing Star Wars-ish weaponry, it doesn't entirely mean it's modern technology. It's still very advanced technology in our modern world.
How about actually showing reasons for your argument of them not being mt, instead of just declaring that they are not mt?

The technology is there, and the idea to use orbital weaponry is nothing new, it in fact pre dates Sputnik by a long way (back to the day of Jules Werne, in fact)

Well, anyone using Jules Verne as a reference for implementable technology would just be invited to find a point twenty thousand leagues up their own backside, I think, but more seriously now...

This is probably not a question that can be answered in concrete form outside of closed RP groups (such as A Modern World).

On the one hand it can quite reasonably be argued, as has been the case in this thread, that they are a theoretical possibility given the state of modern technology.

I would say that one of the more significant counter arguments is that since they're not real in the modern world there is no existing countermeasure that players can employ based on modern technology. Modern nations would be forced into first-strikes against control centres or orbiting weapons, making an already war-obsessed multiverse all the more so, or else into employing future-tech systems to intercept incoming rods, spoiling the whole MT environment.

I'd very much prefer they be left out of modern tech, for the most part (there's almost always exceptions, such as between previously consenting players).

If you read my words better, mate, you will notice that I never said that Verne invented the technology (which we both know he did not), but instead came up with the basic idea.

A lot of technology in modern times does owe it's existense to science fiction authors that dreamt up the basic idea, almost as much as it owes it's existence to the scientists that got their hands dirty and mad the dream a reality.

Then many people are fools. Meteorites are a lot less tough and in general, moving a lot faster than a tungsten rod would be, and they make it to the ground all the time.

Most meteors DON'T make it to the ground; if they did, we'd look like the moon. Only the larger meteors can make it to the ground without burning from air friction. Tungsten IS very heat-resistant (it's used in the filiments of light bulbs) so maybe a large tungsten rod could make it to the ground without vaporizing.

IMHO, godrods aren't really that effective against a nuclear nation. If things are bad enough that your enemy is dropping rods from orbit on you, it's probably bad enough to lauch the n00ks.

I read fine, mate, thanks.

As such, what I wrote still holds water, light-hearted though it was.

Most meteors DON'T make it to the ground; if they did, we'd look like the moon. Only the larger meteors can make it to the ground without burning from air friction. Tungsten IS very heat-resistant (it's used in the filiments of light bulbs) so maybe a large tungsten rod could make it to the ground without vaporizing.

IMHO, godrods aren't really that effective against a nuclear nation. If things are bad enough that your enemy is dropping rods from orbit on you, it's probably bad enough to lauch the n00ks.

I said meteorites, not meteors. Meteorites are the ones that actually get to the ground.

Godrods are effective when they are not used in a retarded way, ie, in an attempt to replace NBC weapons. They are tactical weapons, for use against specific targets, not strategic weapons.

I always get a laugh when I see someone trying to destroy a city with them.

Godrods are conceivably MT, they're just not cost-effective, inefficient, etc. -- hauling something up into space is pretty expensive; while the rods themselves would be relatively cheap, the satellites launching them won't be. And the effect will be approximately that of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon, except a great deal more expensive. Nonetheless, the impression has developed that they're some kind of superweapon; godrod has come to mean "uninterceptable n00k", which is why I'm rather hesitant about allowing them in my RPs.

Tungsten IS very heat-resistant (it's used in the filiments of light bulbs) so maybe a large tungsten rod could make it to the ground without vaporizing.
Simple solution: Give the rod a heat shield. Slather on some nice ceramic with a melting point around 10,000 degrees, and the rod should survive just fine.

They are at least MT+1 in my opinion. Not just because they haven't been implemented, but because of all the things that could go wrong in the development(that hasn't happened) that would prove them to be possible. The technical expertise required to construct, launch, maintain, target and fire such as system hasn't been fleshed out, and therefore its definitely not MT imo.
Well if you have enough money (as in the US) it shouldn't be too hard, (At least the really small sized ones), now back when they were first thought up (Before SALTII) it would have been very hard however.

Godrods are conceivably MT, they're just not cost-effective, inefficient, etc. -- hauling something up into space is pretty expensive; while the rods themselves would be relatively cheap, the satellites launching them won't be. And the effect will be approximately that of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon, except a great deal more expensive. Nonetheless, the impression has developed that they're some kind of superweapon; godrod has come to mean "uninterceptable n00k", which is why I'm rather hesitant about allowing them in my RPs.

Which is why I use free floating small telephone pole sized ones. Small rocket, small aiming computer and that's it.
They equal more to an artillery barrage but are cheaper.

Who says you can't knock a god rod off course. If you can detect it as it launches, you can use a fast firing laser guided missile with a large blast radius to knock it off course. It may not destroy the god rod, but it might have a chance of knocking it away from the intended target.

The problem of course is being able to detect the launch...

I'm sure a nearby small scale atmospheric deatonation would ruin a god rod's ability to do it's intended role. At the very least it would screw up it's trajectory.

And no, it's not the same as a small nuke. Ortillery, in the capabilities of MT lifting, are little more then a few hundred kilogram bomb concentrated on one point. No splash, nothing but what it hits gets damaged. So if you dropped on on a city, and let's say it hits Uncle Joe's Corner Store, well poor Uncle Joe is going to have a nasty mess with the insurance people, but that intelligence centre accross the street will be unharmed and plotting how to retaliate. If they're WMDs, they're very very ineffective ones.

I said meteorites, not meteors. Meteorites are the ones that actually get to the ground.

Kind of a silly point to begin with. The meteorite that results may be one size, but the meteor it came from (which is what we are talking about if comparing it to God Rod trying to make it through the atmosphere) may be 100X...


Guys, I think it's pretty hard to deny the fact that this isn't very complicated technology. It most definitely can exist now, it is just a matter of cost. As for its actual capabilities and defense against it... that's another argument.

They are, but I consider their use a justifiable condition for me to use nuclear strike as a return policy.