🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <93002.204240SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>A functioning economy (a whole one - heavy manufacturing, food growing,
>service sector, the whole nine yards) on the Moon is in a what military
>position with respect to the earth?

"Largely insignificant" is the description you are looking for.

Despite a lot of science-fiction plots pivoting on the Moon's supposed
strategic importance, the fact is that it's not in an especially good
position to exert military control over Earth.  Most of those plots
stack the deck for dramatic effect.

The Moon's fundamental military defect is simple:  it's *too far away*.
Missiles launched from the Moon would take days to reach Earth, as
opposed to minutes from an Earthly launch site, giving lots of time
for warnings, countermeasures, interceptions.  Beam weapons would be
nearly useless at that distance due to diffraction, unless they were
truly enormous.

The one significant asset of the Moon is its position at the top of
Earth's gravity well.  But even this is much exaggerated in SF.  The
Moon has a noticeable gravity well of its own, which must be overcome
before you can launch kinetic-energy weapons at Earth.  The physics
of the situation amplify the energy provided by your launch system,
but by no means infinitely -- the advantage is about a factor of 25.
The only good way to exploit this is to build some sort of catapult
system capable of catapulting large masses... but such a catapult
is a big fixed target, not enormously difficult to locate and bomb.
If you want kiloton- or megaton-range weapons, nuclear-tipped missiles
are less vulnerable and much cheaper.  If you're really thinking big,
you want mass you don't have to launch, e.g. an Earth-approaching
asteroid or comet.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry