US Ready to put Weapons in Space 1023
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'."
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
No Violations Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that space superiority does not necessarily mean the militarization of space. Already, the presence and testing of ICBMs skirts the issue, and so, too would many other technologies.
That's not that I agree that this should be a direction we want to go, I'm just pointing out that the treaty isn't worth much. To me the millitary objective of space is right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas.
Military Welfare... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?
This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.
Does this surprise anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Put this in the pile next to Kyoto and the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, etc...
Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
He's *not* Darth Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.
A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?
I'll repeat what I posted at Fark (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.
And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.
And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.
And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.
Since when... (Score:2, Insightful)
If we didn't do it China would (Score:2, Insightful)
This is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
Re:Military Welfare... (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it more simple to give that money to consumers/companies etc.? Or still better leave it at the people, they are far better at "trickling it down" - and much fewer humans die in the process.
Soooo.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
In truth though, is attempting to influence the result of an election in another country wrong? If the Washington Post was to print a series of anti Blair articles in the run up to the UK elections, would that be wrong? I can't see how...
Assasination - fair enough - stupid thing to print - shoddy editorial staff for not picking it up before it went to press.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
I think the whole "if someone tries to advance it's economy / technology / society it's a danger to us"-thinking pretty dangerious and provoking which you imply relating to the subject. In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not ban ALL weapons. (Score:3, Insightful)
This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.
Sneaking In (Score:2, Insightful)
But that one kind of slipped by in the name of the War on Terror.
I have to say, what appears as a near-total disregard for the other countries in the world on the part of the US regarding sensitive and dangerous military issues bothers me, and I live here. Doctrine of Pre-Emptive war was a dangerous road to start walking down. The people who wrote the Weaponization of Space treaties knew that it was a also a treacherous path, and yet it seems we're about to start down that road too? What kind of future are we heading towards?
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
No one needs to assume that, the historical record bears it out well. Maintaining hegemony is the #1 American priority, over all else.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:2, Insightful)
Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not destroy mass. Nuclear weapons generate their explosive energy from the destruction of mass due to nuclear fission. Thus, only nukes are truly weapons of mass destruction.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that right now the militarization of space has been well on the way, in some sense with GPS (guiding precision weapon strikes) and spy satellites (target location/identification/tracking) and other such 'non WMD' uses of space.
Controlling the 'high ground' has always had advantages in intelligence and planning, and in this case, earth orbit has some profound advantages for seeing what other people are doing. And of course, if you can see what they are doing militarily, you can also spot annoying things they might not like brought up like mass graves, environmental catastrophes, prison camps, army buildups, etc. And you can take a good look at what kind of industrial facilities they are running or setting up. Even with a strictly corporate intelligence perspective, this knowledge is quite valuable (given some inherent ability to interpret the satellite photos with efficacy).
Space was destined to be weaponized the minute it became important to the resource bases or security of major countries. It now is starting to be, hence the trend. Any 'treaties' to block this were conveniences of the moment or dreams and naive ones I suspect. Of course, everyone who isn't in a position to either have a major world interest to defend or the power and technology and money to defend that interest can sit back and complain about how they don't want militarization (obviously they don't since they can't play) or how they'd never do it (unless of course they had the ability to do so, but that's never said).
Besides, on a humorous note, we'll need those weapons when the nasty landmark destroying aliens arrive and they prove resistant to country music, the common cold, and are not Mac-compatible.
Re:Dear USA and/or the Administration, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the difference between some space based platform that launches a missle from LEO and a huge spy glass that directs a stealth plane to fire a missle on an enemy target?
Nothing. Space got militerized years and years ago. The moment governments started lauching satelites with visual and sigint capability, space became militerized.
Do you really think Boeing / UT whove been spending billions developing heavy lift booster technology is so Hughes can put a couple more DirecTV satelites in orbit?
The hardware has probably already been built, been shake and baked and is crated ready to go.
What is surpising is that mass media is only figuring it out now.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, according to the very article you link to, it was a tasteless joke by one writer, in an article that appeared in the TV listings.
This is like saying that the National Review called on the United States to invade Arab countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity [nationalreview.com]. Allowing something to be printed in a publication isn't the same thing as endorsing it.
Re:I'll repeat what I posted at Fark (Score:1, Insightful)
No, seriously.
I can understand Russia and China - but India.
Neat. That's probably the only country in that region that supports us, which has a pacificist attitude and is the world's largest democracy - surrounded by an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship on one side (Pakistan) and a communist dictatorship on the other (China). The only guys who may actually support us in case we go to war with either of these guys.
But no, I'm quite certain that India considers the US to be a threat and has looked into disarming our satellites. So let's stop them before they attack us.
Lets do the world a favor and wipe it out in all its entirety. What say you?
Let's nuke India! At the very least, poor Americans can get their outsourced jobs from those people who gave us Gandhi, Buddhism and Yoga, who follow a religion of peace that even fobids them to eat meat.
Nope. India is a threat. And do you know what's scary? That the present administration may actually take that line.
"Other Countries Stuff" Might Be Orbiting N-Weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
How would you feel about that if the "other countries stuff" included satellites carrying nuclear weapons or biowarfare payloads?
Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Not US, just Taiwan -- over 600 missiles are pointed at the island from China, plus lots of other weaponry.
And Taiwan is America's ally. So, there...
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Military Welfare... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
It works the other way as well: treaties often come from the realization (usually after a horrible war) that war itself is not worth fighting. The problem is that we forget the lessons of past wars, and the consensus that made the treaty possible dissapears. And another generation gives war a try.
This is hardly surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice fantasy, though.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterterrorism efforts are certainly worthwhile, but to imagine that our best response to terrorist attacks was to launch a $6.7 billion a month war in a country that had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks is insanity. I'd rather have seen such funds thrown at rebuilding the WTC towers as an illustration that the terror tactics didn't work.
You do realize that by having a fearful -- nay, terrified -- reaction to these kinds of attacks, we are contributing to their success?
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
What extraordinary events do you refer to?
As to the other treaties...did we agree to them, or not? Did we violate them, or not?
I'm sorry, but in my perception the current administration adheres to such treaties as it finds convenient, using them as an excuse to override inconvenient laws, and wantonly ignores such treaties as it finds inconvenient. Labelling the particular treaties is an exercise in frustration, as what is inconvenient one day will be convenient the next, so saying that a particular treaty is honored or ignored depends on the weather as much as on anything else that's predictable.
Re:If we didn't do it China would (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there not some irony here? Treaties like this are made precisely to avoid such a justification for militarization. You can either try to get everyone to agree, or try to beat everyone to the punch. The later is easier (and costs more), but the former is more rewarding.
RFP (Score:2, Insightful)
To change the title of this site.
From: slashdot.org
to: (select one)
A) FUD.org
B) LiberalPropaganda.org
C) [close site, simply forward traffic to the tinfoill hattery already present at www.democraticunderground.com]
For those still not getting it, Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. is applicable to precisely 0% of the Guardian article.
Violation Schmiolation (Score:3, Insightful)
That treaty exists between the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me know if the political entity known as the USSR has any objections.
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:3, Insightful)
Our grim space future (Score:2, Insightful)
For slow orbit spy satellites this is quite feasible for many contries.
Relevance: If there is weapons in the sky, you can expect countries to prepare for countermeasures. After first major space battle against well prepared enemy our low orbit space will be full of fast flying tiny metal objects, satellite parts, and other space junk for decades/centuries.
And suddenly space travel is more dangerous and more expensive for all.
Re:Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing can really stop a dirty bomb from going off in Manhattan. There are bigger threats out there though, a dirty bomb in Manhattan might wipe out a few buildings and throw some fallout around. The number of people that would be killed would be fairly low. A ICBM in the wrong hands however could kill millions.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds good... until you realize that one of the things they are most upset at is "Western Culture" moving into their world and disrupting their control of the people.
McDonald's, Coke, Britney Spears, and Madonna are things they are upset over. It isn't that anyone is getting hurt other than they believe their religious and cultural ideals are getting eroded by Western Ideas and the religious leaders power base gets questioned by a more "enlightened" populace. For these things, they believe that it is OK to kill innocent people (Westerners, and Americans in particular).
Re:No Violations Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Insightful)
So what I mean is, it would not be mere bias if I said "we should ban alcohol because it is poisonous" -- that is not the truth. A glass of wine now and then is simply not bad for you at all; the science is there.
Bias would be if my publication said "we should ban alcohol because there were X alcohol-related deaths last year" without mentioning what happened last time we banned alcohol, etc. That would be truth, though incomplete and biased.
I do feel that people should be less flexible with regard to what is true and what is not. Everybody knows that there is bias and that everybody is biased, but that cannot be an excuse for lies.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate FUD => Bad.
Political FUD => Insightful.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:2, Insightful)
And this justifies blowing buildings in what way?
war in a country that had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks
Regardless of the truth of this steatement, at least a terrible dictator that has killed millions of innocent people is now behind bars. I think it's worth it, and I bet most of the troops over there think it's worth it.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure Zarquawi would be a pig farmer had we not done anything, but well, he is a full bloomed terrorist now, and we are fighting him THERE, not here.
Maybe your idea of "standing tall" includes doing nothing, or maybe sending a few tomahawk missiles as a response (that did nothing, but also "attacked innocents" according to the rest of the world), but real men's idea are linked directly with fighting for what is right.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Insightful)
While this would work, it requires a large amount of mass in space. Until something like the space elevator comes along, it'll probably be cheaper to send the payload by ICBM or medium-range missile than from orbit (which requires bringing it into orbit in the first place, which is at _least_ as expensive as sending it by ICBM; comparable delta-v required).
It would also be unlikely to work against tacnuke-rated bunkers, which are deeper than even the grand slam bomb can penetrate.
Air Force Space Superiority (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
* Unless you happen to be a member of the clergy, or anyone who can "convincingly" say Vote for Candidate X or you will go straight to hell.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.
These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.
Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose [newamericancentury.org].
Taiwan - US ally - but for how long? (Score:1, Insightful)
See here [reuters.com].
To quote from the link (from October 25th):
Can you say appeasement for trade?As a citizen of the good ol' days Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
-Graham
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
And, back to the main point, while you may believe that "many of them are quite proud", there are also many who are devasted and disgusted that their government would send their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters to die for an unjust cause.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
> The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it.
You give them credit for this why? Journalism should have NO BIAS. Only objective reporting of the facts. That is the expectation the public should have from journalists, unless they are specifically looking for opinion, in which case they can turn to the editorial section.
A newspaper with any credibility will have no bias whatsoever and will take pains to make sure that no subjective editorial opinion does not appear in its news pages. Sadly, there are very few such papers with said credibility. The Guardian is cannot be said to be an objective newspaper, and the fact that its bias is blatantly apparent does not earn it points or credit whatsoever, it makes it look like just another unobjective and partisan (and therefore useless) paper.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
By an interesting coincidence, that is the same way one leads a pig.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it would be even more instructive to look to China's own history. For thousands of years, the Dynastic cycle has gone as follows: A new, strong government comes to power after defeating the previous incumbents, due to the ineptitude and corruption in the previous government, and also the strategic genius and perhaps popular support of the leaders of the new one. Then time passes, and the inheritors of that power become complacent and lazy, until a new force comes along to repeat the cycle.
The revolution that threw out the last official Emperor was one such event; the Communist revolution was the next.
Taiwan just hasn't caught up with the times yet. :)
Though seriously, it makes sense for Taiwan to eventually reunify with China, for both their benefits. But it's also definitely in Taiwan's interest to delay this, until China's government becomes sufficiently democratic, or at least can be trusted not to dick around with them too much. Both such processes -- democratization and renunification -- must be allowed to happen in their own good time. And it's best for the U.S. to stay out of it, except to use its influence on Taiwan to keep the situation calm.
If you're wondering about why, even though I maintain it's inevitable, China shouldn't be in any special hurry for democratization -- just look at the recent U.S. election results, and remember a few things about China: (1) They have 800 million "country folk", with little awareness of the outside world, who would easily be swayed by a charismatic leader, no matter the agenda; and (2) they have a demonstrated capability of succumbing to nationwide madness (i.e. the Cultural Revolution). The Communist Party aren't the only ones in China who are afraid to rock the boat.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:4, Insightful)
This scenario has been well studied. You are overlooking a tactic that makes it a million times worse. That detonation you suggest really doesn't get the ball bearings moving very fast, and to the extent you do give them that random velocity you are putting them into almost useless elliptical orbits. Almost half will be kicked down into an orbit that burns them up in the atmosphere, with the other half get kicked up and then fall back down into the atmosphere.
No, the nasty way to do it is to boost it into orbit and keep going - you swing it around the moon. You then come back into earth orbit - but going in the OPPOSITE direction. And forget the ball bearings, just go with sand or small gravel. Now you gently scatter it. You now have all that shrapnal stable and parked in the target orbit, gently dispersing. They just sit there in that orbit going in the opposite direction. Any satallite in that orbit gets hit HEAD-ON at DOUBLE ORBITAL VELOCITY.
You could easily wipe out the crucial geostationary orbit belt this way. The whole region would be completely unsable for decades or centuries.
-
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Insightful)
Many democratic countries have laws where if you witness a murder and do nothing, you are complicit in the crime. How long do we watch governments maintain power by murdering their own people, and do nothing but pass petty resolutions or sanctions that only state it is atrocious?
Don't get me wrong: we'll always have the small group of individuals taking advantage of their strength. What matters then is how a government deals with it. Abu Gharaib and the recent mercy killing of a young boy were both very wrong, staining the honor of our allied forces and meriting prison and hanging for the US troops involved. There's a huge distinction between that and having to watch the government-sanctioned rape of your wife and daughter before you're executed with a machete (Zimbabwe).
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:1, Insightful)
And who said it did?
Throwing in random non sequiturs doesn't make your argument any more correct.
> at least a terrible dictator that has killed millions of innocent people is now
> behind bars. I think it's worth it, and I bet most of the troops over there
> think it's worth it.
And what do the Iraqis think?
What do the families of the 100,000 Iraqis killed so far think? (link [nytimes.com])
Why is our opinion on someone else's leader the most important factor?
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:1, Insightful)
You could make a rather clean case out of any attack on the US being an act of self-defense. Like it or not, the Arabs didn't start this spiral of madness, the US did.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again, for the hard of thinking...
The piece that 'called for the assassination of the President' was not a leader column, not an editorial comment, not a news story. It was written by humorist and comedian Charlie Brooker in his weekly TV preview column, Brooker being the creator of TV Go Home [tvgohome.com], which should give you an idea of his style of humour.
The Guardian did make a mistake in putting the column up on its website where, out of the context of the youth-oriented, anti-establishment Guardian Weekend supplement, it was given the same weight as any other story and so could be jumped on by sneaky or obtuse Bush supporters as another example of the Guardian's left-wing evil.
If you actually read the piece, Brooker never says "Bush must die!", instead listing several infamous assassins and wondering where they are when we need them. Not the same thing, and perfectly in keeping with his often brutal style of comedy. Yet more FUD about the Guardian from the hard right.
Besides, why shouldn't a non-US newspaper try to influence the result of the US election? It's not like the US hasn't tried (sometimes with bullets rather than words) to influence the results of many other democratic elections around the world to benefit its own interests...