Weapons in Space 939
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
The bad side of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, China.
That's Because (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this
Not forbidden? (Score:4, Interesting)
Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.
Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).
Didn't Salyut 3 do this first? (Score:5, Interesting)
On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.
Ronnie Ray-gun. Beam weapons = a waste of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinetic energy weapons are probably useful, but testing and re-use are extremely difficult things in the harsh space environment.
If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.
Weapons ARE banned from orbit (some of them anyho) (Score:2, Interesting)
So, pretty much any military activity in space is banned by THAT treaty. Okay so not everyone accepts it, but then the US not accepting the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean no-one else is going to uphold it.
Soviet Weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
Not exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
Cool! (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Space Arms (Score:4, Interesting)
This is necessary (Score:4, Interesting)
Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...
Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.
Re:That's Because (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think it would be nice to keep it that way.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:1, Interesting)
China has already started preparing for this. They have started on projects to send a man to the moon and more. A cold war with China would be very dangerous. Unlike Russia, China has the economy to pay for their weapon production and research. The US economy is awful compared with China. There are no incentives for American students to go into engineering fields. China is a growing superpower based on a knowledge economy in engineering and research.
Re:Soviet Weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
they discuss the mounted cannon at the end of the article.
Generally accepted to be a Nudelmann 23MM AA gun.
Re:The States (Score:1, Interesting)
Care to cite a published paper about this from a peer-review article? Global warming is definately real, and had been going on for over 2000 years.
I am not against enivironmental policies(I support MUCH higher gas taxes in the US) but Kyoto was obviously designed to hurt the US economy. But that's just another day's work at the UN.
Ahh, that "lacuna" word again (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Didn't Salyut 3 do this first? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing wrong with it (Score:2, Interesting)
For the longest time NATO and the Soviets kept systems out of orbit because they didn't want to expand thier military spending out there, not because of some higher reason like space was to be a DMZ. They were afraid someone would get the initative from up that would allow a decapitation strike.
But even then the US and Soviets worked on FOBS and other systems for combat and bombardment in space
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ogch.htm
Since so much of the military and commercial sectors for the United States, NATO, EU rely on space, it's just sensable from a defense standpoint to have systems to defend them. Maybe it's from China, maybe it's from a resurgant Russia it doesn't matter.
Re:Ban on non-proliferation? (Score:3, Interesting)
History doesn't agree with you. It took violence on a truly massive scale to destroy Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Dialog may work when dealing with reasonable people, but many people only respect the threat of armed response by superior military forces.
Someone once told me why Japan has such a cohesive society. For many centuries, they chopped off the heads of all of the people who didn't get with the program. It worked.
"we sell it to our enemies" (Score:4, Interesting)
During the Cold War that was the case, but times have changed. The US military is getting to the point where it is dominated by information systems rather than hardware platforms. The hardware platforms are merely modular components that are the eyes, ears, and fists of the network.
It's essentially impossible to export an all-encompassing data-driven warfighting structure. The US can still export individual components such as planes and tanks, but even then hardly anyone can afford the most up-to-date American equipment. So yes, we often do face American equipment on the battlefield, but combatting soldiers who wield M-16s and drive M60A3 tanks isn't in the same league as fighting an opponent that has laser-guided munitions, ubiquitous night-fighting capabilities, and GPS down to the squad level.
If you're worried about our enemies getting a hold of space weaponry, you're barking up the wrong tree. Just remember that our most sophisticated aerial and space reconnaissance equipment hardware has never been sold to anyone, even during the height of the Cold War.
For fiscal and geopolotical reasons I'm not sure that we need to militarize space, but the argument that such technology will be used against us is a bit far-fetched, given the technology imblance between the US military and the rest of the world.
Re:Neal Boortz says it best... (Score:3, Interesting)
Russia, China, US.... guess what, they're all just as bad. The US is NOT the good guy. History has more than proven that regardless of the political and economical structures in place, superpowers inadvertently end up being rules by an elite that will procede to screw over anyone else if they think they can get away with it.
The only thing that has kept a global nuclear armageddon at bay is the the global nuclear balance with Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as an inevibility. If the US manages to build an effective (or perceived as effective) ICBM defense the other nuclear powers wil have to follow suit or sooner or later the US will nuke another country because it can, there's nothing there to plunder and it's a lot cheaper than invading.
So Who's the Opposition? (Score:3, Interesting)
All the serious analyses of future warefare that I've seen have third-world "rogue states" and semi-organized terrorists as opponents. How do space weapons help here? I don't think we have to worry about some future Saddam Hussein's space capabilities.
Note also that, given high-tech opposition (from who? I dunno.) the US has a *lot* more to lose than anybody else. Check out what a Keyhole satellite costs
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, your history needs work. Yes, China invaded Tibet--a country they beleived to be a) a break-away province and b) a backward theocracy in need of modernization (sound familiar?). China did not invade South Korea. Chinese forces entered the KOrean penninsula after US ordinance fell on their territory. True, they were waiting for any reason but it is also just as true that they were responding justifiably and, furthermore, were aiding an ally--I believe we aided the South Vietnamese and Koreans...lands that are not ours. Same deal goes for Vietnam.
Finally. Your last assertion that China's 200? ninvasion of Taiwan is "history" is rediculous. You can't predicate history on your personal beliefs, that is, unless you don't mind showing your ignorance.
Put down the Tom Clancy, turn off Bill O'Reilley and get an education.
Re:Who really cares about "weapons" in space? (Score:1, Interesting)
>to impact, and you've got the most powerful
>weapon known to man.
You don't even need a targeting system.
"I have the power to drop rocks on Earth. Maybe they'll land in the ocean, maybe in Kansas, maybe in downtown Helsinki. I don't know. You will continuously appease me if you don't want to find out."
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:1, Interesting)
(Perhaps compare China's problem with Taiwan with the American Civil War)
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this so bad? We achieved a lot during the cold war technical wise. Had it continued, perhaps we'd have a nice base on the moon by now.
Canadian military victories (Score:1, Interesting)
Not by a long shot.
Vimy Ridge is one of the more obvious examples - Britain and France had been trying to take the German strongpoint for _years_, and the Canadian Corps took it in a _day_.
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW
A second obvious example is D-Day. Canadians were given the second most heavily-defended beach (Juno), but penetrated farther inland than any other force, and were the only ones to fulfill all their objectives.
(http://www.stormpages.com/junobeach
That we don't fight often doesn't mean we aren't damn good at it.
Re:Hateing America (Score:2, Interesting)
The decline of the American Empire will be interesting reading when the smoke clears.
Parent message is truly insightful (Score:1, Interesting)
We did it as part of the neoconservative's grand vision of remaking the world with a pro-western democracy in the heart of the middle east. Trouble is, we're finding it's hard to spread democracy with the end of a gun.
Re:Space Beams (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with these space based weapons is that they produce no terror. They serve absolutely no deterrent purpose. They are useless unless fired and appear as a "bolt from the blue" to the affected parties. There is little or no warning or "Callback" involved.
I prefer old fashioned Nukes for terror. That big hot mushroom cloud tends to get into the immagination and work quite well. You have to shoot one at somebody every now and then for this to work. The concept of you or your devices being suddenly destroyed without apparent cause or warning just doesn't come into mind very well especially for those not so aware.
The point here was driven home to me by being in the Philippines and then talking with my family there. (I am American all the way but married to a filippina.) These were pretty connected people who had been to Clark and Subic. They were personal associates with the government types and quite a few were Armed Forces Types. They simply had no clue about the "Cold War" etc.
It has been said that, "A truly successful army is one nobody dares to fight." This emphasis on high tech and super weapons is not scaring anybody and as such is not succeding at saving us the wars. These are doubltless damned effective killing machines. They are just about worthless as negotiation tools.
Don't mark me as against these weapons, just that the misunderstanding of their effect is horrendous. These weapons are for "Survival" not for any other purpose. They assure that in conflict the other guy loses. They are an insurance policy against death.
Regards Iraq, I appreciate all of the comments about how we misjudged (We did!) or that we have problems, (We do!) and etc. The whole problem here seems to be one of a lack of time machines. We cannot go back to the decision point and change what happened. We may only do with where we are now. So here is the lowdown.
The USA is going to lose about 20,000 killed in Iraq and about 100,000 wounded before it gets over. Don't wish for cheaper it would only have a worse result. Pulling out shy of doing the full job would only cause worse to happen. This is the road we are on so folks lets ride and quit fussing about what we "Should have done."
Believe me that I wish we had done much differently!
Re:Ban on non-proliferation? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right. And in both the cases you mentioned (and many other vicious acts of aggression thoughout history), the driving force was a religious fervor, a sense that they had cornered the market on "truth" and were destined to make their religion/way of life the norm for the whole world.
It's eery how history repeats itself now with the Muslims. The bright spot is civilization has rebuffed these threats before, once there was a man to come forward as a true leader. No world leader has ever before determined to take on the terrorists of the world. Will he succeed? It's not certain, but Americans feel better about this war than any we ever engaged in. WW2 was won in part by the influx of American enthusiam to stop a madman.
The physics says... (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
My two cents
-Iowa
How would you determine...? (Score:3, Interesting)
A quick google turns up these interesting sites:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HUN311A.h
http://www.coastalpost.com/02/06/02.htm
http:/
http://www.
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, we need to resolve some of these problems, which will relieve a lot of the friction between the two sides. Unfortunalety I do not have the solution or else I would be sharing it with the world.
My point is that maybe we should direct more energy to these problems, rather than hunting down and killing terrorists. There has been massive bloodshed on both sides, and it has solved NOTHING. Rather than continuing contributing to this unecessary bloodshed, we should be trying other options.
And yes I do agree, if it came down to the people who I love, and a terrorist, I will take the terrorist down. I just think that maybe we should try other options as well, and maybe we could solve some of these unsolvable problems, or at least make some headway on them.