Yes, nuclear weapons are really just big incendiary bombs on a Planet and big neutron bombs in space. Excellent weapons for defeating your foe.
Same was said when nuclear weapons were first invented. All we got was a double edged sword that inflamed popultaions and caused paranoia all around the world. We can only say we know for certain what happens on a planet since we have used and tested them.
As for space, there is credible evidence on what may or could happen and you may feel free to post as many calculations as you want proving your theroy. But theroys are theroys untill proven by fact and detonating nuclear warheads in space won't happen in our lifetimes. So knowing the true effect and later impact of using them is impossible now we can only guess.
False dilemma, civilian ships will not have military grade weapons on them, armor plating, ECM/ECCM packages, and other military hardware. All that is detectable.
What about weapon parts? Disassemble modern firearms now and they become unreconizable. ECM/ECCM, would these even be neccesery? Since there is no horrizon in space whats the point? Or would teconology advance to the point that ECM/ECCM is obsoloete? Armor plating?, we're talking about potential long range widely used space travel, armor plating could possibly be required on all ships to deal with the eviroment of space. The largest ships we have at sea now are oil tankers and cruise ships. Each are so large if you took the empire state building turned it on its side and cast it to sea on a voyage, you will come close to how big these ships actualy are. Both of which are outfitted with extra thick doublewalled hulls, carry advanced telecommunication centers, and are outfitted with ECM to help them deal with highseas piracy that still exists today. The space shuttle is military hardware, the shuttle is decended from and comprised of hardware and teconology that exists as military application. Alot of things are.
Anyone who builds nuclear rockets and damn what others say. Nuclear power is the only feasible way to propel the massive ships we need to settle the solar system and beyond. With it comes nuclear weapons.
We tried that allready as a people and look at the state of things now. Not to long before the industrural revoloution the only feasible way to cross the ocean was windpower. Nuclear power, its concept or even the word nuclear didn't even exist in the minds of the greatest and brightest men. The scientific world is constantly on a path of discovery, and when the world comes to the point of space travel. We could find ourselves using a tecnology that doesn't exist in form or concept or even as a word to describe it today.
Nuke spamming and missile spamming is precisely what is going to happen, deal with it.
Missle spamming was thought to be the future back in the 50's for dogfighting, it didn't work out much to the expense of the lives of pilots. Everything about the future now exists as thoughts. These things are what we think is going to happen.
And will make a missile even better to use. Sorry, but you need to put up the calcs to prove your bold assertion.
This is an argument based on assumptions of tactics based on assumptions on how combat exists in space. You argue nuke missle spamming is the way. I argue nuke missle spamming would not be the way. I just feel detonating massive neutron warheads in space in large quantities is a bad idea. Calcs or no calcs I don't have to prove an assertion.
It you who must concede the debate, not me. Now put up the calcs for fighter vs a missile to prove your point or concede. Just because we have FTL doesn't mean fighters become viable.
I'll put up the calcs when you put up the realworld application for them. The U.S. Airforce tried back in the 50's to replace the need for fighters by having flying missle and bomber platforms. It made sense to do it but the U.S. quickly found the error of its ways. The calcs exist merely as a theroy and don't exist as military pratice (yet). Just because we have FTL doesn't meen missles become viable either.
If the day comes and the calcs are proven right and missles are the key weapons in space fighting. Feel free to find me in the afterlife, point your finger at me and go "HAHA TOLD YOU SO!"
If we meet aliens, they will no doubt be repulsed by you.
:Queen Smoking Hot Green Alien Chick, "Thank you Master Chief Captian Sir. Coolness you have saved my planet of space amazons from the ruthless space pirates. Our military ways of fighting with pillows and water-hoses could not have possibly saved us if not for your massive and impressive fleet." [Eyes cast downward with sugestive body language]"I wish to reward you for your bravery...but I am unsure of and inexperianced with your people's more "intimate" rituals."
:Master Chief Captian Sir. Coolness, [embracing Queen Smoking Hot Green Alien chick] "Queen Smoking Hot Green Alien Chick, I am known as "Master Chief" for many reasons. After our culture's rituals collide, you will come to know me as the "Amazing Master Chief"."
Don't be angry at Master Chief Captin Sir. Coolness simply because he exists in a universe of awsomeness piloting the starship of maximum awsomeness while your busy building a universe that is full of things that can exist but are not as awsome. Deal with it =P
Once again the missile can perform manuevers that would kill a human and are not limited by human reflexes to avoid PDF fire. Put forth calcs to prove your theory.
With that said we have allready shot a satalite out of the sky using a missle and china can "ping" satalites as much as it feels like. Missile combat could be rendered useless after measures and counter measures are devoloped. Missles only have an advantage in the atmosphere due to the limitations of other craft fighting in an atmosphere. Tactics for space combat hasn't been proven in actual space combat. Your educated guess, my fantasy guess and that ranting hobo standing on the corner's guess are about as good as anyone else's.
Space is not an ocean and it is the Air Force which will likely get control of the Space Forces, not the Navy.
Naval tactics and strategy does not apply in space. Nor the terminology.
Of course space is not an ocean. I was using it as an analogy to make the point that regardless of our best guess by even the best and the brightest amoung us we got it wrong. In a 1000, 10000, or however many years it takes for space travel to happen. Future generations could possibly look back on us now as we did with Leonardo da Vinci and say, "Well there were good ideas but could never work due to principals they never knew about."