-1
$\begingroup$

So, as part of the timeline and the scenario posted here earlier, I am going to post this scenario for help. Side Effects of the First Extraplanetary War on Extraplanetary Policy Question In the scenario, the colonies have recently gained independence.

Fast forward 70 years later to 2466 CE, and we have a situation where the UN has given UNAPA full authority over the space forces of Earth and the governance of its remaining colonies, while the Asteroid Belt is basically a combination of Iraq War Era Iraq and Afghanistan (comparisons for our timeline), with the sole exception of the Union of Cererian States (the only sign of order in the region aside from UNAPA puppet regimes), the Trojans are a hub for black market operations, terrorist groups, crime syndicates and other illegal activities. Jupiter's Moons are contested between the Europan Confederation, and the People's Republic of Ganymede, while Io and Callisto are in a state of civil unrest and infighting. The Independent State of Titan has become the sole hegemon of Saturn's Moons, ans is home to the largest economy in the region after years of unrest and chaos. Then the Second Extrasolar War begins, and the conflict lasts for a decade. Now, the political issues are laid out.

The problem: that 7 years prior, the governments of the Outer Solar System begin a project to construct 5 large mass drivers with fusion drives (first generation, civilian grade Deuterium-Tritium ICF, that is) for course correction and backups in the Near Earth Object known as 1999 FN53, which is an actual asteroid that made a distant flyby last year, and this same asteroid is going to be redirected to slam into the Asia-Pacific Region. This is a last resort option, so do not expect it to be used until the end of the war, which is exactly what happens as the Outer Solar System fights a losing battle against UNAPA.

Assuming the asteroid is escorted to defend from the UNAPA Orbital Guard, and UNAPA's Space Force and Espatier Corps, and they are able to delay them long enough to have it slam into the Pacific Ocean (specifically, 2 km off the west coast of Guam, particularly Naval Base Guam (now the Guam Space Launch Complex), what political benefit would they [the governments of the Outer Solar System] have, assuming the damage is enough to force the UN to negotiate?

$\endgroup$

This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.

closed as off-topic by Philipp, Aify, Frostfyre, Hohmannfan, James Apr 12 '16 at 19:49

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ I thought 1999 FN53 would cause a mass extinction event regardless of where it hits? $\endgroup$ – Scott Downey Apr 12 '16 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ It is not big enough. It is literally 900 metres in diameter, and the smallest one to cause a mass extinction is 5 kilometres in diameter so no. $\endgroup$ – Future Historian Apr 12 '16 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ Reading list: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A Heinlein and Nemesis Games (and doubtless also the forthcoming Babylon's Ashes) by James S A Corey. $\endgroup$ – Mike Scott Apr 12 '16 at 18:49
3
$\begingroup$

I think you may be able to answer your own question, as you've apparently really thought through this plot pretty thoroughly.

What effects would smashing a large rock into the earth have on earth governments and forces?

It would destabilize the weather, possibly causing something like a nuclear winter.

Hitting the Asia Pacific region would disrupt the world economy pretty badly, since this would likely take out China, Japan, possibly Pakistan and India depending on where it hit, and maybe even the west coast of the United States, with tidal waves, earthquakes, etc.

A destabilized Earth would have a harder time fielding a space fleet, and would have to spend a lot of energy recovering.

The flip side of this is that the entire population of Earth would be screaming for blood, so I would expect a significant portion of Earths nuclear arsenal being launched toward anything that looks like a terrorist base. Thousands of missiles.

Also, it's questionable how well people could live in closed ecosystems in the outer planets without infusions of resources from Earth, so the terrorists would be harming their own cause indirectly.

It would cause a lot of terror though, which is what terrorists really want after all.

Edit
If the desired outcome is to get Earth to negotiate, then they might be better off with a cold war outcome in the short term. Send a smaller stealthed rock through Earths planetary defenses to show they can, and say "Hey, that was easy, but we don't want to fight. Leave us alone or we'll drop something bigger."

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, if you read the link displayed in the question, the colonists are genetically adapted to survive on these planets, and honestly, I can imagine at some point that they can develop self-sufficiency given some breakthroughs in genetic engineering. :/ $\endgroup$ – Future Historian Apr 12 '16 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ That and aside from the fact that the intention is to force Earth to negotiate. Would that have the intended effect or would that make things worse for the Outer Solar System's colonists? $\endgroup$ – Future Historian Apr 12 '16 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ Oh and the asteroids as well. $\endgroup$ – Future Historian Apr 12 '16 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @FutureHistorian Thats why I said you may be able to answer your own question. The OSS just dropped a big rock on Earth. Why would that make Earth want to negotiate, versus exterminate the OSS? Does the OSS have more rocks? Are Earths leaders the kind of people that would sue for peace instead of attacking? Depending on the point of impact Earth either just got a black eye, or got pushed back to the stone age. Those are all kind of dependent on you and the story you want to tell. $\endgroup$ – AndyD273 Apr 12 '16 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ It's like shooting someone. You shoot them in the foot and say "give up?". Depends on the person. Shoot them in the head... oops, over did it. $\endgroup$ – AndyD273 Apr 12 '16 at 15:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.