Starlink as a means to win at nuclear war(ioc.exchange)
ioc.exchange
Starlink as a means to win at nuclear war
https://ioc.exchange/@muskfiles/112522370451697720
61 comments
According to a National Academy of Sciences study, the intercept can happen within a couple minutes if the satellite deploying the interceptor is over the enemy territory launching the ICBM..
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13189/making-sense...
(Sorry you have to login as guest to download the PDF)
This compares to ~20-30min for existing ICBMs and their ground based interceptors
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13189/making-sense...
(Sorry you have to login as guest to download the PDF)
This compares to ~20-30min for existing ICBMs and their ground based interceptors
The sentence I am criticizing is not about interception of ICBMs, so your link is not relevant.
In particular, when the goal is to intercept an ICBM, the enemy helpfully raises the target to be (briefly) at the same altitude as the satellite. (An ICBM's max altitude is much higher than low-earth orbit.) If the goal is for a satellite to attack a city, the enemy does not helpfully raise the city to orbital altitudes.
In particular, when the goal is to intercept an ICBM, the enemy helpfully raises the target to be (briefly) at the same altitude as the satellite. (An ICBM's max altitude is much higher than low-earth orbit.) If the goal is for a satellite to attack a city, the enemy does not helpfully raise the city to orbital altitudes.
I think the idea is in an arms race, if you can't launch ICBM nukes anymore (because of Musk's orbital interceptors) then you have to pre-launch nukes into orbit. THOSE nukes can then strike faster than ICBMs (just like interceptors can).
I understood the we were talking about "pre-launching" nukes into orbit.
I also understand that those nukes regularly get deliciously close to their targets (100 miles or so) (delicious from the point of view of the attacker).
I stand by my assertion however: to be explicit, for the same energy budget, it is quicker to hit a target from the ground half-way around the world from the target than it is to hit the target from orbit even if the satellite is directly above the target. The exception to that is laser weapons because a laser beam has no momentum whereas all the "strategic" nukes in the US arsenal weigh at least 200 lb, which is a lot of momentum when moving at orbital speed.
(Also, it is vastly cheaper to maintain infrastructure on the ground than in orbit.)
I also understand that those nukes regularly get deliciously close to their targets (100 miles or so) (delicious from the point of view of the attacker).
I stand by my assertion however: to be explicit, for the same energy budget, it is quicker to hit a target from the ground half-way around the world from the target than it is to hit the target from orbit even if the satellite is directly above the target. The exception to that is laser weapons because a laser beam has no momentum whereas all the "strategic" nukes in the US arsenal weigh at least 200 lb, which is a lot of momentum when moving at orbital speed.
(Also, it is vastly cheaper to maintain infrastructure on the ground than in orbit.)
The satellite can deploy a hypersonic glide vehicle and utilize it's orbital velocity to manueve within the atmosphere.
See Fractional Orbital Bombardment. China tested theirs last year.
...SpaceX people are building it here: https://www.castelion.com/team
See Fractional Orbital Bombardment. China tested theirs last year.
...SpaceX people are building it here: https://www.castelion.com/team
I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. Thanks for the info.
The problem is that most of your orbital assets will be in the wrong place when the conflict kicks off. Just look at a map of Starlink and observe how many satellites are nowhere near Russia/China. You'd have to launch a ridiculous number of satellites which would never be used.
I also don't understand why intercepting faster is worth anything.
I also don't understand why intercepting faster is worth anything.
If the interceptors can also function at midcourse then it's not just the ones over Russia that participate.
If you look at Starlink orbits, every single satellite in the constellation goes over any given point on Earth (e.g. Moscow) within a 12 hour period.
So if the conflict lasts that long, the whole constellation can be unloaded.
If you look at Starlink orbits, every single satellite in the constellation goes over any given point on Earth (e.g. Moscow) within a 12 hour period.
So if the conflict lasts that long, the whole constellation can be unloaded.
I havent done the numbers but you are probably right.
Orbits are very unintuitive things. For starters they're much higher than a suborbital trajectory.
You would also need to pre-target to stage in orbit and at that point you're locked into that trajectory unless you brought A LOT of extra fuel. This would inevitably be slower and less flexible regardless.
The only way for this to have any advantage is to stage a ton of nukes in orbit at different trajectories, which is politically insane.
Orbits are very unintuitive things. For starters they're much higher than a suborbital trajectory.
You would also need to pre-target to stage in orbit and at that point you're locked into that trajectory unless you brought A LOT of extra fuel. This would inevitably be slower and less flexible regardless.
The only way for this to have any advantage is to stage a ton of nukes in orbit at different trajectories, which is politically insane.
FYI, OP got banned from reddit for sock puppeting and doxxing (assuming it was the same person). He created a fake reddit user using the name of someone and registered it to their private email address. https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1d4qenj/fyi_the_u...
Has anyone publicly confronted/asked Elon about Strategic Defense Initiative?
I can't find him _ever_ touching the subject, which is strange given it's huge significance.
I can't find him _ever_ touching the subject, which is strange given it's huge significance.
> Others believe -- mainly on the political -- that Brilliant Pebbles is a classic fallacy that attracts those who believe there is a technological solution to everything without understanding the value of diplomacy and the fundamental interdependence of humanity. It is thought unlikely to be reliable and will inevitably lead to an arms race where either side shortens the time to launch nukes (by pre-launching / staging them in orbit or otherwise).
Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. Several countries have enough nukes to kill the whole population of earth multiple times over.
Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death.
The question for this type of system isn't "Could I picture any scenario where it works?" but rather "Can I picture any scenario where it doesn't?"
Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives. Several countries have enough nukes to kill the whole population of earth multiple times over.
Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death.
The question for this type of system isn't "Could I picture any scenario where it works?" but rather "Can I picture any scenario where it doesn't?"
I was interested in the claim that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe ourselves out.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-...
I guess it depends on how you want to wipe out humanity. Nuclear winter or ecosystem disruption might do it, but explosions and radiation probably won't.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/460/do-we-have-...
I guess it depends on how you want to wipe out humanity. Nuclear winter or ecosystem disruption might do it, but explosions and radiation probably won't.
>Yeah I just don't see a technological solution to nuclear explosives.
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. (See my full comment elsewhere.)
>Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death.
No such alternative delivery method is 100% guaranteed to get through to the target as ICBMs were (until recently). There is always the risk that a ship carrying nukes is intercepted, that a weapon smuggled into the enemy's territory is detected, that counterintelligence will identify agents before they can act, etc.
In a MAD scenario, nuclear weapons have to be 100% effective, barring the odd technical failure. Otherwise the enemy will respond in kind.
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. (See my full comment elsewhere.)
>Even without rockets at all I can imagine alternative ways a nation could get nuclear explosives into all the major cities of another country if it was life-or-death.
No such alternative delivery method is 100% guaranteed to get through to the target as ICBMs were (until recently). There is always the risk that a ship carrying nukes is intercepted, that a weapon smuggled into the enemy's territory is detected, that counterintelligence will identify agents before they can act, etc.
In a MAD scenario, nuclear weapons have to be 100% effective, barring the odd technical failure. Otherwise the enemy will respond in kind.
In support of this, a bunch of SpaceX-ers who worked on Starshield joined a startup that is building hypersonic warheads "at massive scale" (according to their website: https://www.castelion.com/team )
These would be ideal as interceptors staged in orbit onboard Starlink/Starshield satellites.
These would be ideal as interceptors staged in orbit onboard Starlink/Starshield satellites.
People leave companies to go found other companies all the type.
Just look at: https://www.alumnifounders.com/
Calling this "connected to Starshield" is pretty nonsense.
Just look at: https://www.alumnifounders.com/
Calling this "connected to Starshield" is pretty nonsense.
to be fair it is weird that Castelion is all Starshield guys and Mike Griffin and his SDI deputy Lisa Porter are advisors.
"Win", at nuclear war?
Just when I thought the modern disconenct from physical reality couldn't get any worse...
Just when I thought the modern disconenct from physical reality couldn't get any worse...
[deleted]
Let me repost what I posted yesterday the last time this was posted. Everyone should know that the original source of this is a random person from reddit. It's not backed up by facts of any kind so it's surprising that it's gotten so much attention.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40509016#40518795
> I've very recently seen numerous posts starting to show up on both reddit and various websites as well as anonymous wikipedia editors pushing this conspiracy theory. They all repeat the same thing. They'll claim Griffin as basically a founder of SpaceX (who in reality had almost no involvement with starting SpaceX) and they'll claim Griffin basically "gave" SpaceX its first government contracts even though NASA administrators have almost no sway over where contracts go (that'd be illegal). They'll also claim other things like that Starlink is somehow developing weapons to be put in orbit to reproduce SDI.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40509016#40518795
> I've very recently seen numerous posts starting to show up on both reddit and various websites as well as anonymous wikipedia editors pushing this conspiracy theory. They all repeat the same thing. They'll claim Griffin as basically a founder of SpaceX (who in reality had almost no involvement with starting SpaceX) and they'll claim Griffin basically "gave" SpaceX its first government contracts even though NASA administrators have almost no sway over where contracts go (that'd be illegal). They'll also claim other things like that Starlink is somehow developing weapons to be put in orbit to reproduce SDI.
Wouldn't "large, low-earth orbit constellation" be a less hysterical title?
So what happens when you intercept and blow up an ICBM in the atmosphere? Not good things, I think.
The first few ICBMs are expected to be detonated in the atmosphere to cause an EMP wave to kill the communication, including nearby satellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
Studies I've seen are not so clear that an EMP would kill many satellites. They would raise radiation levels 10x over normal for few months, but most Starlink satellites would be fine (as seen in the last solar CME event).
The US tested a nuke in space, dubbed Starfish Prime
It took out 3 satellites initially (there were very few at the time)
> In the months that followed, these man-made radiation belts eventually caused six or more satellites to fail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects
It took out 3 satellites initially (there were very few at the time)
> In the months that followed, these man-made radiation belts eventually caused six or more satellites to fail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects
[deleted]
Pu-239 and U-235, the most common elements in nukes, are not very radioactive. Both alpha decay, meaning they're only really dangerous if inhaled as dust (or if they fission, obviously). Pu-239 has a half-life of around 24k years iirc, while U-235 is over 700 million years.
Depends on where it blows up, but if you hit it at its apogee, a lot of it will burn up in the atmophere.
>> if you hit it at its apogee, a lot of it will burn up in the atmophere.
Having several pounds of plutonium burn up in the atmosphere just means it will be spread over a very wide area which is much worse than a chunk of it falling somewhere.
Having several pounds of plutonium burn up in the atmosphere just means it will be spread over a very wide area which is much worse than a chunk of it falling somewhere.
Pu-239 is not particularly dangerous, however. It can cause cancer if inhaled in sufficient quantities — which doesn't need much, but is unlikely if it's scattered in the atmosphere.
U-235 is basically harmless.
U-235 is basically harmless.
If it's in the boost phase, it's over the enemy's country. If it's in reentry, it's only the RV (Reentry Vehicle). So some kg of Uranium or Plutonium gets scattered about, but that's it. Much better than vaporizing half a city.
Light might in theory reach an ICBM in boost, but anything you launch is going to need to go through its own acceleration phase to possibly hit the ICBM.
Further your ignoring submarines and early proximity detonation on the nukes. The most likely result of building such a system is an early nuclear EMP clearing orbit before the nukes get through anyway.
Further your ignoring submarines and early proximity detonation on the nukes. The most likely result of building such a system is an early nuclear EMP clearing orbit before the nukes get through anyway.
The NAS study seems to think kinetic interceptors can reach the booster in minutes but yes it requires a kick stage for the delta V.
That seems optimistic in any sort of realistic scenario. The everything works perfectly and there’s one ICBM and nobody modifies anything as we start launching all this stuff into orbit, then maybe.
How many satellites do you need to reach that kind of coverage? And how many interceptors per satellite to hit everything from one or more nuclear subs launching from the same location near a major city. How long does it take you to react without risking false positives making the system useless etc.
The problem just gets ugly fast.
How many satellites do you need to reach that kind of coverage? And how many interceptors per satellite to hit everything from one or more nuclear subs launching from the same location near a major city. How long does it take you to react without risking false positives making the system useless etc.
The problem just gets ugly fast.
That study said 1600 satellites are needed in a Delta Walker configuration (same as Starlink, but Starlink has more satellites already).
The number of interceptors per satellite was unclear but this USAF captain said "composite rocket motor and micro-missile system capable of fielding a rocket pod of 100 interceptors at a cost of approximately $60,000 per micro-missile" https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Di...
The number of interceptors per satellite was unclear but this USAF captain said "composite rocket motor and micro-missile system capable of fielding a rocket pod of 100 interceptors at a cost of approximately $60,000 per micro-missile" https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Di...
I mean... It's better than the ICBM warhead detonating.
Really any of the nuclear material will just disperse into the atmosphere relatively harmlessly, especially if it's somewhere over an ocean. Plutonium in seawater measures in the parts per billion anyway.
Really any of the nuclear material will just disperse into the atmosphere relatively harmlessly, especially if it's somewhere over an ocean. Plutonium in seawater measures in the parts per billion anyway.
The adverse effects are trivial compared to the other possible effects of an ICBM launch.
The plutonium, uranium, and other high explosives fall back to earth. Pretty tame compared to what happens if you fail to intercept!
Nothing notably bad happens. Nuclear explosions are highly sensitive and engineered events. If you destroy the ignition mechanism, then it will become a dud.
FWIW, there has been a number of nuclear explosion tests in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
FWIW, there has been a number of nuclear explosion tests in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Sorry but no: there is no way to win a nuclear war. Nuclear wars as a concept exists with a simple patter: if some attacker is strong enough to overpower me I'll commit suicide bringing with me the rest of the humanity. Nukes are not attack weapons but last-resort killers.
[deleted]
This is obvious but I don't see it discussed or mentioned that often, so far.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering any kind of cargo has huge and complex implications.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across oceans was a big deal.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across continents by rail/road was a big deal.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo by air was a big deal.
"Big deal" here means all kinds of things, but let's talk about war.
Every one of the above mentioned steps caused radical changes in how wars were fought.
What have we seen over the past few years, even prior to 2022, in terms of drones? Massively decreasing the cost of precisely delivering small explosives over short ranges, with drones in this case, has been a game changer.
Even without a fully functional and reusable Starship system, SpaceX has greatly decreased the cost, cadence and reliability of delivering cargo into space. I understand the price they charge for individual launches is only 'somewhat' below the competition. That incremental but rather sudden decrease has already opened up a lot of doors.
A fully reusable Starship system drops that cost by at least another order of magnitude.
We are on the cusp of another revolution in warfare, and it's happening far, far more quickly than any of the other previous revolutions.
Imagine hundreds of thousands of smart kinetic munitions in many LEO orbital inclinations. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment a 20kg tungsten kinetic munition in LEO would deliver about 11 tons of TNT to the ground. Each SpaceX fully reusable launch to LEO could deliver about 2,000 of these. I didn't look it up, but I believe SpaceX has done about 150 Starlink launches so far. If each of these had delivered 2,000 kinetic munitions, there would already be 300,000 up there.
As far as I know, there's absolutely no defense against this kind of munition. In LEO they're moving at about 8km/s, and just before sea level impact they're moving around 3.5km/s. At best there could be a few minutes of warning.
Any entity that controls such a constellation would have what is effectively absolute and permanent air supremacy while risking no 'friendly' human life.
As far as command/control/tracking/sensing? Very low $/kg to LEO fixes that too. See Starlink and Star Shield, right now.
Nobody can predict how this will go, except that it will definitely 'go' in unexpected directions.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering any kind of cargo has huge and complex implications.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across oceans was a big deal.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo across continents by rail/road was a big deal.
Massively decreasing the per mass cost of delivering cargo by air was a big deal.
"Big deal" here means all kinds of things, but let's talk about war.
Every one of the above mentioned steps caused radical changes in how wars were fought.
What have we seen over the past few years, even prior to 2022, in terms of drones? Massively decreasing the cost of precisely delivering small explosives over short ranges, with drones in this case, has been a game changer.
Even without a fully functional and reusable Starship system, SpaceX has greatly decreased the cost, cadence and reliability of delivering cargo into space. I understand the price they charge for individual launches is only 'somewhat' below the competition. That incremental but rather sudden decrease has already opened up a lot of doors.
A fully reusable Starship system drops that cost by at least another order of magnitude.
We are on the cusp of another revolution in warfare, and it's happening far, far more quickly than any of the other previous revolutions.
Imagine hundreds of thousands of smart kinetic munitions in many LEO orbital inclinations. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment a 20kg tungsten kinetic munition in LEO would deliver about 11 tons of TNT to the ground. Each SpaceX fully reusable launch to LEO could deliver about 2,000 of these. I didn't look it up, but I believe SpaceX has done about 150 Starlink launches so far. If each of these had delivered 2,000 kinetic munitions, there would already be 300,000 up there.
As far as I know, there's absolutely no defense against this kind of munition. In LEO they're moving at about 8km/s, and just before sea level impact they're moving around 3.5km/s. At best there could be a few minutes of warning.
Any entity that controls such a constellation would have what is effectively absolute and permanent air supremacy while risking no 'friendly' human life.
As far as command/control/tracking/sensing? Very low $/kg to LEO fixes that too. See Starlink and Star Shield, right now.
Nobody can predict how this will go, except that it will definitely 'go' in unexpected directions.
Agree.. and no coincidence we're in this situation. The funding, key advisors, and the Elon-directed designs at SpaceX have always been very SDI and military aligned.
Mars is a great way to inspire engineers that would otherwise not work at defense companies.
Mars is a great way to inspire engineers that would otherwise not work at defense companies.
Can you actually "win" a nuclear war? I thought we all understood that as foolish. Yet presently the governments of the West think such a thing is possible, otherwise they would not be poking the bear like they are.
I read somewhere this week that China removed their charter clause that "nuclear is a war that cannot be won" as a response to the U.S. potentially having capability to intercept / block their retaliatory strike.
I read a few books about that question, short answer no, long answer no.
When the enemy attacks, you have minutes to contact the president (in the us case) and he has only minutes to decide, which way it goes. You have to get your planes flying and launch your icbms before they get destroyed from the incoming missiles.
There is no time to wait and see, one of the first things that will happen is, that the enemy is detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere near your land or near the horizon of your radars. The electromagnetic radiation blinds your radar and from now on you are blind. No radar how many missiles where launched after the initial firing.
Your have to counter strike with full force, now! Now or never, the probability is very very high that you will only have this chance, before many of the people in the chain of command are killed, nowhere to be found or incapable to act. Somewhere in the us, there will be someone in the chain of command that is authorized to act, but the person has not much to do. That will not happen in days, that will happen in hours, probably in the first 2.
The icbms will hit in the first 25-40 minutes, that planes will take hours, but think about it: the pilots and crew will deliver the bombs at any cost, because there is nothing to go home to.
Submarines will also fire a few missiles to strategic targets, but will mainly act as backup, IF you need them after the first „rodeo“.
There is also to this day no concept of ending a nuclear war. How to contact the enemy to make peace, when everything is gone. Who can you trust, who is the real person in charge.
In reality, the living will envy the dead.
When the enemy attacks, you have minutes to contact the president (in the us case) and he has only minutes to decide, which way it goes. You have to get your planes flying and launch your icbms before they get destroyed from the incoming missiles.
There is no time to wait and see, one of the first things that will happen is, that the enemy is detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere near your land or near the horizon of your radars. The electromagnetic radiation blinds your radar and from now on you are blind. No radar how many missiles where launched after the initial firing.
Your have to counter strike with full force, now! Now or never, the probability is very very high that you will only have this chance, before many of the people in the chain of command are killed, nowhere to be found or incapable to act. Somewhere in the us, there will be someone in the chain of command that is authorized to act, but the person has not much to do. That will not happen in days, that will happen in hours, probably in the first 2.
The icbms will hit in the first 25-40 minutes, that planes will take hours, but think about it: the pilots and crew will deliver the bombs at any cost, because there is nothing to go home to.
Submarines will also fire a few missiles to strategic targets, but will mainly act as backup, IF you need them after the first „rodeo“.
There is also to this day no concept of ending a nuclear war. How to contact the enemy to make peace, when everything is gone. Who can you trust, who is the real person in charge.
In reality, the living will envy the dead.
What bear are western governments poking? And what have they done that implies those western governments think they can 'win' a nuclear war?
> Can you actually "win" a nuclear war? I thought we all understood that as foolish.
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. The recent Iranian strike was a useful small-scale live test of the technology, but both Aegis and THAAD have been tested and worked on for long enough for the US to have reasonable confidence in them.
This is not including things like laser weapon descendants of YAL-1, or Starship deploying Brilliant Pebbles en masse into orbit, or thousands of Starshield satellites watching every inch of the planet (and/or carrying Brilliant Pebbles). They would be helpful, and possibly superior, but Aegis and THAAD are enough, in theory.
There is nothing, except cost, preventing the US from building enough Aegis/Aegis Ashore/THAAD launchers to defend the entire US. The recent Iranian strike was a useful small-scale live test of the technology, but both Aegis and THAAD have been tested and worked on for long enough for the US to have reasonable confidence in them.
This is not including things like laser weapon descendants of YAL-1, or Starship deploying Brilliant Pebbles en masse into orbit, or thousands of Starshield satellites watching every inch of the planet (and/or carrying Brilliant Pebbles). They would be helpful, and possibly superior, but Aegis and THAAD are enough, in theory.
[deleted]
Yes, by making sure they don't hit back. The United States won a nuclear war against Japan in WW2. In theory, it's possible to intercept all the missiles from an enemy, see Iran's attack on Israel recently.
Iran notified the U.S. About the attack in advance.
The US was the only one with functioning nukes. That short period was not a nuclear war.
If your nukes are intercepted before any of them can hit their targets, do they count as functioning nukes?
Putin knows that if he initiates a nuclear war, he will lose as much as everyone else.
Helping Ukraine defend against the invaders is not "poking the bear".
Helping Ukraine defend against the invaders is not "poking the bear".
Except he doesn't have to start (or take action likely leading to) a full-scale attack in order to have a reasonable chance of drumming up a successful outcome.
For example he could set off a single low-yield high-altitude explosion to demonstrate that he "means business". And watch with delicious expectation as the Western world shits its pants.
It is unfortunately a comparatively low-risk, but sickeningly attractive proposition for him to consider -- especially if he finds himself backed into a corner with his own survival threatened (as will be the case if the war reaches a point where he is seen to be intractably failing).
For example he could set off a single low-yield high-altitude explosion to demonstrate that he "means business". And watch with delicious expectation as the Western world shits its pants.
It is unfortunately a comparatively low-risk, but sickeningly attractive proposition for him to consider -- especially if he finds himself backed into a corner with his own survival threatened (as will be the case if the war reaches a point where he is seen to be intractably failing).
if he does this he gives a lot of proliferation happy countries a free pass, Taiwan equips itself with nukes faster than you can say "Xi"
Assuming he means, "shorten the time to deliver the nuke," I'm guessing he is mistaken here: having the nuke in orbit lengthens the time needed to deliver the nuke, not shorten it.