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."
Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless, we should be ready to do it when it's necessary. China isn't getting into space to study science.
meteor defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh... guys... (Score:5, Interesting)
I call alarmist BS, nothing new here.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
From the treaty;
Article IV
States 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.
I guess destroying some other nations satellite would not count as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's a crappy idea. I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.
Not exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"weapons of mass destruction" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, Europeans like me. I wrote to three persons in Clark county, Ohio and explained them who this election affects much, much more than themselves and why Bush is a bad republican. There are good republicans and bad ones, you know. I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.
China isn't getting into space to study science.
Neither was USA or USSR. So?
Current Policies are Outdated (Score:2, Interesting)
There probably will be no more conventional world wars, we (the U.S.) have enough nukes to dissuade any global conflict. So, since we don't have to worry about a ground assault, we need to concentrate on air/space defense that can shoot down any ICBMs from unstable dictatorial states, or trigger all holy hell on enemy before they have the time to prepare their defenses in case we start feeling threatened by them.
I'd like to believe that Kerry administration would have taken a different approach to preserving the empire, something that would benefit both us and the world, but Bush, being a cowboy that he is, clearly has no regard for global opinion. (Note that I'm not saying that we should let the French shit on us if we do need to defend ourselves, but that we don't really have a right to "liberate" whomever we want through a half-baked war.)
We'll see where the world will be 20-30 years from now in terms of military alleigances...
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.
The nation doing a huge military buildup is the US, not China. China's forces just scream defensive, from their tiny number of nuclear weapons (20 DF-6's) and deployment strategies, to their overall budget.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Militarization in it's most basic form just means using for military purposes, like intel satellites. Almost from the get-go, space has been militarized in this manner. In fact, one reason that we were slow in launching a satellite is to let the Soviets establish the practise of satellite overflights of other countries.
Weaponization means positioning weapons in space - something that is not forbidden either so long as the weapons are not WMD. That means anti-sat weapons could be deployed, as well as space based missiles targeting ground positions. Just no WMD. In fact, the Soviets had positioned proto-type weapons in space long ago - actually painting a shuttle with a laser at one point.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:4, Interesting)
Something else of note... this indicates that the celestial bodies are restricted in use to States Parties. Exactly where do "independent contractors" (today's political phrase for "mercenaries") fit into that? Could the US government just contract out the militarization of the moon to Haliburton and still be, legally, in the clear on this treaty?
Re:meteor defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, they have nothing in common except shooting something upwards. ICBMs are on a parabola path - that is to say, they start on Earth, arch, and then come right back down. It is a very, very quick process - a full-blown nuclear war need only take half an hour.
The targets are very small (relative to an Earth-killing celestial object), intentionally spoofing your radar, and very, very close to the target (again, relatively). The good news is, they're packed with explosives, and since they're so close, a laser defense system could at least conceivably work. The Israelis supposedly have something working that could handle tasks somewhat like this (Arrow II?).
Compare this to a meteor. Meteors (that we would worry about) are very large compared to an ICBM. They're moving really fast, yes, but with an active detection system, we would probably have a couple years of notice. What's _best_ is that the meteor would be moving on a relatively stable and straight path, and we only need to deflect it - if we knock it off course a year out, it's a non-problem. Blowing the thing to meteor bits is overkill.
This is not quite as easy as it sounds, but I think it's doable with today's technology.
So, really, they are two separate problems. ICBM defense requires a highly accurate system that can engage many, many small targets at close range. Meteor defense requires a system which can engage a single, huge target at massive distances.
I knew that "Collisions in Space" course would be handy someday.
-Erwos
Nothing new here either... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If we didn't do it China would (Score:2, Interesting)
if it's about China trying if they have the opportunity it's a 3-score INSIGHTFUL?
sheez, dont be too obvious.,..
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:1, Interesting)
2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests. [yale.edu]
As you can see this treaty was never violated. Add to that the fact that the nation we signed the treaty with no longer even existed and your argument falls short.
Re:Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Now go explain 'mass' to the American people, because I'm fairly sure the majority of my countrymen only think of 'massive' when they hear the word.
Re:Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Biased or not the space arms race begins (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone had to something with Bush winning, it was Bin Laden. He wants the American and the British to continue alienating the islamic world until all of it is at war against them. He got what he wanted. There was a lot of banter on Slashdot about him influencing the Spanish elections. Well... dunno about Spain, but he definitely got what he wanted in the US. That tape several days before the election was the most brilliant propaganda move in the Bush campaing. At the right time to make everyone scared and not giving enough time to get the White House to answer WTF is it doing in Iraq when enemy no 1 is still alive and kicking elsewhere. In fact if Bin Laden did not make the tape the Bush camp would have had to fake it. Or may be they did???
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
The United States have a large military machine, but their nation operates with huge deficits. The biggest kid on the playground often gets his way, but that does not make him the leader.
The US has had some good leaders in the past, but so have other countries. Strong leaders that have been respected. It is unfortunate that the current President is not. Hopefully he will realize that bigger guns, more expensive toys, and invasions / conquests are not the way to garner respect.
My only fear....
(NOTE - THIS IS A SCIENCE FICTION MUSING - NOT A RECOMMENDATION)
After this 'constellation' is in place, the US government will create a malignant law that somehow negates their huge debts to other countries and their people, sieze control of all foreign interests on their soil, and declare themselves "leader" of the "free" world.
Sure - it's a little extreme, but I'm an extreme guy.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Its certainly not outside the reach of governments such as china, india or pakistan. What would these people be willing to do in order to protect themselves from American weapons?
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything dropped from space has kinetic energy equivalent to about 15 times its weight in TNT, at most.
Your 2-meter crowbar will weigh maybe 30 lbs.
Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?
I don't think so either.
Space-based weapons are very nice as terror weapons, and tolerably adequate as assasination tools if you know where the target is but don't have weapon platforms nearby. They're ok for knocking out other satellites or even spacecraft, if suitably armed. What they're not good at is defeating conventional armies or cracking fortified targets.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Other Countries Stuff" Might Be Orbiting N-Wea (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and that explaines it all, right ? Such weapons shall be deployed just-in-case ? This just smells as the cold war.
To me this seems again the same story as when Uncle Sam objected on E.U.&co. deploying their own GPS system too, stating that would provide U.S.'s possible enemies with possible unwanted tactical advantage in case of war.
What if those bloody europeans suddenly got to their senses and started to look upon the U.S. as offensive - on their rights, freedoms, daily lives ? Oh, well, that would just prove them "right" (well, what an obfuscated use of the word).
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how well you stated your case, the fact that it was a non-American saying it would cause most people here to summarily dismiss it. The fact that it was an organized campaign turned that dismissal into an angry backlash.
I'm not saying that led to President Bush being reelected, but it certainly didn't help Senator Kerry.
Don't bother to respond about the evils U.S. interventionism; I'm just explaining our reaction.
Here you go (Score:4, Interesting)
"THE TEST OF a weaponized UAV took place only after the US State Department lifted its objections because of concerns that a "weaponized" Predator could breach the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Officials were concerned a Predator carrying a laser-guided Hellfire could be classified as a ground-launch cruise missile, which is restricted by the treaty. The State Department official was also worried that demonstrating Predator's ability to launch a Hellfire would worry the governments of Russia and European allies, which could host the platform in the future. Inside The Air Force first reported on the issue Dec. 8, 2000."
I said I'm "pretty" sure because multiple high level organazations were concerned about the legality but proceeded anyway. What changed to ease their concerns? It is not that the Predator became less deadly. I would suggest the War on Terror gave them additional leeway.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarke got in the game a little late. But yes, Clarke would have stood a better chance than Kerry I'd imagine. Clarke had some baggage but they could be handled.
If I ran the Democrat party I would have put Clarke and Lieberman on a ticket and beaten Bush silly. Clarke had the military background and be able to hammer Bush on Vietnam service and his experience with Kosovo. Lieberman would have appealed to the religious right and blunted the GOP's standing with the religious right.
But no. You had a New England Democrat instead. It's not the US really. It's the Democrat party base. They're the one that selected Kerry. I could see myself, a Republican, voting for Clarke or Lieberman sooner than I could ever vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, both Clarke and Lieberman are perceived to be too conservative for the Democrat base.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:4, Interesting)
It likely is if it's a focused shaped charge to a single 1" circle....which is basically the entire idea of the crowbar-dropped-from-orbit idea.
I seriously doubt this, if the bunker is deep enough to resist conventional explosive attack (or tactical nuclear warheads). Remember, the 1/e velocity distance is the distance at which the penetrator has displaced an amount of material comparable to its own mass. That'd be at most 10-20 metres of earth for your crowbar. By comparison, the bunker would be on the order of 100 metres down.
The idea isn't to demolish the bunker, it's to kill a single person *despite* that person being in a bunker
This requires demolishing the bunker, as you don't know where they are inside it. If you have a spy in there, there are far cheaper ways of killing the target.
And I'm completely agreed with that idea- but NEITHER can fortified targets or conventional armies stop an attack from space. Multiply that crobar by thousands- even millions- of similar crowbars taking out *specific* ground based targets (of the command and communications variety) and your ground-based army gets one heck of a lot easier to defeat.
The problem is that it's ludicrously expensive to stock that much mass in space. You'd be better off carpet-bombing with napalm and raining down conventional missiles on hardened targets. Space weapons only make practical sense vs. missile-delivered weapons if they use very little mass per shot, as would be the case for anti-satellite weapons or perhaps very energetic particle beam weapons (which are too expensive to lift with chemical rockets).
A very cheap launch technology, like a space elevator, would change all of this, but as long as we're stuck with conventional launch techniques, space is only useful for surveillance and for anti-space weapons.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:1, Interesting)
Double standards and I hope the rest of the world stand up and say 'No Bush, you will not put anything up in space!'
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Interesting)
They have irredentist aims on Tibet which they then invaded, border disputes with India and Russia involving relatively small areas, and territorial sovereignty issues with Taiwan. This doesn't begin to equate with expansionism or beligerence. China's history has for hundreds of years been "leave us the hell alone, we'll run our country our way and we'll kick you out by force if we have to". This as opposed to the USA and Soviet empires telling everyone else how to run their countries, or else face shown much inclination to change that by beeing their internal enemies materially supported with armament, or even outright invasion. China has zero ability to project its power, and hasn't suilding up a modern navy or airlift capacity. They talk tough, but in the end, they just want to keep running their country their way.
Just goes to show (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of the Serbs in Yugoslavia using microwave ovens as decoys for our missiles which home in on microwaves (targetting communications or anti-aircraft targetting systems).
This is because every complex system will have weaknesses which can be targetted by something simpler.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said what about the ASAT tests that the USSR did and the prototype space weapons platform they tried to launch? What about the photorecon, sigint, navigation, and commsats that are already in orbit. I would say that it is too late.
The GPS and keyhole sats are already used to target weapons.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
The historical record shows very clearly that Europe has been continually unable to manage it's affairs in such a manner as to prevent periodic despotic rampages. Napoleon, the British Empire, Hitler, the Hammer & Sickle
It is true that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but if you look at that historical record again, you'll find that it is a direct result of the outcome of World War II and the Cold War that followed. You'd best be grateful for that military presence: it was the tattered remnants of the British Empire backed by American industrialism that stopped Hitler, and it was the U.S. keeping the pressure on the Soviets that halted their expansionism in the decades that followed. Had the European leadership had been better able to handle Hitler and his rise to power, we would still be Yamamoto's "sleeping giant."
analysis of the current state of USA (Score:2, Interesting)
I just have this feeling that your president has understood that it is real easy to control the majority of the population as long as he is able to point towards some enemy.
Whenever the elite in the US need something (taxcuts, cheap labour, protection from competition or a new system of controlling the mindless public) they manage to come up with a good enemy. Your last enemy is as you all know the spooky "terrorists". Well, face it terrorism is not exactly a new enemy. Oh and terrorists usually fight for a cause, does america? Oh, yeah... you fight for your right to be the only superpower with the ability to fuck the rest of the world with polution, shitty food, and crap products (face it, american products went into a decline decades ago.)
Oh, and the american values thingy.. When did christianity promote an eye for an eye (ok, in the old testament). Jesus (the mythological stoner) promoted the direct opposite. If you want people to treat you nicely you will have to look beyond their faults. I seriously doubt that Jesus for instance would be denying people the right to abortion (they might be punished by god, however hell was invented about 1200 year ago, so the punishment shouldn't be too bad).
Oh, Jesus never had a girl, right (maybe the maria magdalena character, though). What the fuck do the right wing religius nutjobs think he was? Asexual, a wanker or GAY?
Okay, let me get back on topic here.
Why on earth do your government think they even have the right to attack other nations, and on top of that they havbe the nerve to try and make it impossible to retaliate. I really think that your government tries to isolate you... And a large portion of the population does not even notice (offtopic again, sorry)..
One thing is for certain, this will not make you less prone to attacks from terrorists.
Oh, and I am not trolling. Just expressing my view, as a norwegian (located in Europe for those that went to a public school in the mid-west.)
Just to finish of, those of you who voted for Kerry or Nader: Thank you. You've proved that not the entire american population is totally brainwashed. Now I can say that I like most of your big cities.
Damn, can't finish off just yet. As a student (School of management and economics) I studied with quite a few american exchange students. They seemed like nice people, even those from texas! And i've met several other americans around Europe, however I've never met anybody admitting to support the republicans! Is the republican party the worlds most elaborate hoax, or are republicans hiding underground in their atomic proof bunkers?
ouch.. this is really gonna get modded down, if anybody reads it, that is.
Oh, and english is not my primary language, so please excuse any gramatical errors.