We already have it on earth - it’s called field artillery…my idea solves mobility and deployment timeline problems - the ability to attack/defend becomes immediate. And probably unstoppable…which is a value of it’s own.
This is exactly what I said. Field artillery. MLRS. You name it. We have it on Earth, and it works fine. And no, an orbital platform doesn’t have immediate reaction time, quite the contrary. You have to wait until it’s over the area you want to attack. A low polar orbit has a period of about 90 minutes, but the Earth rotates under it. Your response time, therefore, varies from 90 minutes to 12 hours. And once it’s out of its window, you need to wait another 12 hours to hit the same location. You do have some wiggle room, but Earth is big and you’re going fast. To alter the orbit significantly takes a lot of fuel. You could deal with it using multiple satellites, but again, doing this drives the costs up even further. It’s hardly unstoppable, either. Any system capable of shooting down an ICBM can shoot it down, too, either before or after it shoots. They can usually target terrestrial rockets and lately even tube arty shells, too, but the S-400 probably isn’t capable of nailing the launcher that fired it, which would be the case with an orbital one.
People likely have thought about it - and dismissed it as a very impractical proposition. There’s simply nothing orbital artillery can do better than terrestrial one. It’d be a worthless, vulnerable and politically risky boondogle that would get an ASAT in the face the moment a serious conflict started, because guess what, in orbit, there’s nowhere to hide.