Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapons 878
ranson writes "The New York Times is reporting that U.S. Air Force officials are seeking Bush's Approval to begin researching and developing space arms. While analysts feel this move will be unwelcome in the international community, military officials believe that "Space superiority ... is our destiny, ... our vision for the future.""
$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this a variant of how sticky-note Bill are attached (and passed) under another guaranteed Bill?
I'm sure in order to bring weapons into the space, a lot of technologies will have to be developed, which hopefully will benefit many other sectors.
Its not like anyone is going to wait for us (Score:2, Interesting)
Why it is newsworthy is beyond me? Perhaps to say "Hey we really really really don't have these things yet" Or perhaps it is too alert the not so bright that yeah, someone is bound to do it so lets make sure we are there and ready.
In a perfect world this type of waste would not be needed, unfortunately a few nutjobs out there are trying to get nuclear weapons or have them and they have very few moral reasons to not use them except self preservation. With the current idiocy of allowing Iran to become a fully fledged nuclear power just how long before they try to become a spaceborne power?
I don't think the Chinese would tell anyone either until after they threaten to use such capability on Taiwan.
As for the UN, I figure on some good old bashing of America for doing something that so obviously is going to be done by anyone who can lob it up there.
Hell now that I think of it it almost seems as if it were bait.
A few quotes from TFA: (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup...nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.
Apparently they weren't listening a few years ago when Dubya called 'dibs'.
'Rods of God'? Just when I think that the neoconservatives can't get any more arrogant, they serve up this gem. Way to go, guys.
Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius [imdb.com].
Ahh, yes...the Death Star...just in time for the release of Revenge of the Sith. I wonder how much George paid George for that tie-in.
We Need Space Defense (Score:2, Interesting)
Right now, the US undisputablly has the technogical superiority over the rest of the world. It's high time we develop a space strategy while we still have the edge. Right now, there are no enemies that can attack from space, but you never know in 20 years or so.
It's time to get the ball rolling. Reagan had it right with Star Wars, and he only helped bankrupt the Soviet Union by funding it. I hope Bush follows in Reagan's footsteps.
defence? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure it will defend against missile attack but suitecase bombs and various other things are
more apparent problems.
Seeing America getting them more and more into debt, without any real sign of stopping, and
arming themself up even further is very disturbing.
Ok maybe I need to find my tinfoil hat but this seems to look even more like getting
armed to the teeth for a land grab, how else they going to get the money.
Imagine This ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Presently, there's very little we could do about it. We'd basically just sit and watch helplessly as the missile tracked onto our soil and exploded.
With space-based weapons, we could at least have a chance to prevent it.
Having a reasonable space-based defense just makes sense. The only alternative is to promise Mutual Assured Destruction to anyone who'd launch something like that at us -- and that only works if the one who's doing the launching is rational, and isn't more than willing to die.
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:3, Interesting)
It has all been planned in the cold war and it wasn't realized back then *for a reason*. And afterall the US doesn't lack technology in current affairs...
Bad bad foreign policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Repudiating treaties will come back to haunt us and it will serve us right. We have a treaty that says space is not supposed to be weaponised. We should honor that treaty. While we're at it how about respecting the human and basic legal rights of the prisoners we are illegally holding without charge and without trial and torturing.
Me stops rant and goes looking for a stiff drink so I can hold off reality for a while.
Are our policy makers blind? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is our open southern border which guys like Osama and the like can exploit fully three yeras after 9/11 and with an elected president "fighting the war on terror".
The problem is out-sourcing which is eroding our industrial base to the extent that already, about one-third of our defense machinery is foreign made.
The problem is the lack of competitive leverage that is now known of American workers. This is helping out-sourcing.
The problem is big business. This is evidenced by the fact that all innovation in important fields is coming from Europe/Asia. Look around your living room and tell me what you see. Where were those electronics made?
The problem is hypocricy. Consider this: In year one, India and Pakistan must not have nuclear weapons and all efforts are taken to ensure this is the case. In year two, they are our best allies even after testing the same weapons. You know why? It's because we do not have an answer to a nuclear bomb. This bomb once on its way to its destination, it cannot be stopped. That's why we as USA do not want Iran to get this weapon.
More problems: Cuba/China and so many others. Have a good nite guys.
Cb..
Re:Space Superiority (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand a giant laser beam cutting through our atmosphere and slicing up countries does sound amazing...probably best if it were left to comic books and movies.
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kind of funny, but I'm actually Machiavelianly cheering this initiative on, despite being somewhat of a pacifist, because it will take money from other military programs and put them toward developing space technology instead, and at the same time help push other powers (Europe, China, etc) to improve their space tech and reduce any reservations they have about taking more diplomatically/economically forceful measures to stop the US from violating widespread international public opinion.
It's sort of like I'm cheering on the bill to ban women from serving in combat zones despite being a feminist because it'll make it even harder for the military to meet its quotas and thus hasten our exit from Iraq (and because it wouldn't last half a year in almost any future Democrat-dominated government).
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right reason, wrong fall guy. It was actually Nixon who demanded that NASA and the military work together to produce a singular craft. He wanted to "save money" by reducing the number of space vehicles. Both sides (NASA and the USAF) were pretty unhappy with the arrangement but couldn't do much about it. Thus we have an expensive spacecraft that can *almost* put military craft into orbit, has an extensive cross range ability, and has sufficient life support to carry a full crew for over a month.
FWIW, if the military develops Nuclear Thermal Rockets or Orion Nuclear Pulse craft, then I'm all for militarization. Maybe they can push things through where NASA can't.
A safe distance?: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is much written about the effect that not having to fight a war face to face with the risk of great loss of life on your own part has on the way a society perceives war.
Additionally, are you okay with countries that perceive the US as the enemy sending suicide bombers or missles or biological weapons over to the US from a safe distance?
Re: Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapo (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, it might not be nuclear, but "force of a small nuclear weapon" sounds to me like it qualifies for the full intent and meaning of a WMD.
military does not guarantee anything (Score:2, Interesting)
You however, say the military is just part of a natural evolution of technology. You are only half right. Some new technologies have been developed by the military first, like the internet. There are also many other inventions/technologies that were the product of a small group of inventors researchers...like powered human flight.
The military's track record with developing new technologies is mixed at best.
As far as the best way to explore space? It has to be a partnership of industry (not necessarily corporations per se), national space agencies (NASA, etc.), private investors, and the military if absolutely necessary. Just like America was "developed". It might not be perfect but it's the best idea yet.
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Space territory next? (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that US strategic doctrine has been consistent and unchanged for 6 decades: any nation that uses WMD against us will be immediately and completely destroyed by our own nuclear weapons. No "measured response"
The US is waning as a global superpower. Get over it.
No. Take a close look at our defense budget, and compare it to every other nation in the world. Then take a closer look at how much of that budget is R&D and compare that to every other nation's R&D. If anything, the gap between the US and every other nation in the world is widening.
Yes, we have issues with a huge budget deficit and growing national debt - but on the whole, our debt is manageable, our economy is strong, and our military is unparalleled. The term 'hyperpower' was coined for a reason.
Get over it.
You've missed the science... (Score:2, Interesting)
Moral arguements aside, (although I do believe they are relevant when people are dying of hunger, et cetera,) space simply cannot be controlled. It is not a teritory that can be occupied like a country can, and there are several basic reasons for this.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone. As an extension of this, they can also be tracked easily because they follow simple orbits, and thinking forward, this makes the weapons themselves vulnerable to attack. The United States and Russia have both already demonstrated effective precision anti-satellite capabilities, but a simpler approach would be to simply explode a nuclear weapon relatively nearby - something any major nuclear power could already do. Of course, a nuclear blast would damage other satellites as well, and not only directly. The destruction of satellites would create a huge amount of space debris, already a significant problem. In fact, intentionally launching debris would be another basic anti-satellite technique.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Also, anti-satellite weapons cost orders of magnitude less than outer space weapons in terms of cost to develop or deploy, meaning there is no strategic advantage to being the first country to deploy space weapons. In fact, by deploying such weapons first, the United States may end up committing itself to an asymmetrical arms race in an attempt to protect its space assets - especially asymmetrical because of the prohibitive cost of space launches. Finally, you have to examine the motivation for space weaponization. The U.S. military is already by far the dominant world force. No other country in the world is currently undertaking serious research to weaponize space. Russia has unilaterally pledged not to be the first country to weaponize space and China is considering such a declaration itself. The allocation of money is not neutral, it must come from somewhere. This means either a decrease in other military forces or in domestic programs. Space weaponization is a waste of money, does nothing to solve current problems, and may very well create new international tensions, something that both the Russian and Chinese ambassadors have made quite clear.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You obviously.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I dispise the patriot act and the rationale behind it. I also think our system of lawmaking is broken.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:4, Interesting)
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers ... Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The Bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post, don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating. Now we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. You know ... My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. My God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel. Now some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood, shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friends face, you'll know what to do. Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose. Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, What did you do in the great World War Two? You won't have to say, Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana. Alright now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere. That's all."
General George S. Patton, Jr.
BTW - I believe this is an abridged version of his original speech.
Re:military does not guarantee anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone's track record with developing new technology is mixed at best. There is in fact, no significant advantage to any single method. Single inventors, private companies and the military (read: the functional arm of the government) are all pretty random when it comes to new stuff.
NASA has been struggling for about 20 years because it's led by a bureacracy that lost its unity after the moon landing. Corporations and investors don't see near and clear results, and governments historically do not work well together. The military is the ONLY group that really sees practical benefit from space, which makes them the most likely to seriously produce results from it.
I say let them have at it. At least we can be sure military funding will employ US engineers and not be outsourced!
Follow Up from MSNBC (Score:2, Interesting)
Article describes how they want to simply protect Satellites, while also revealing the counter-point regarding how this could turn into a Space Weapon race.
Concerns such as:
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, "This is a military system that is unnecessary and provocative. It will lead other states to pursue military systems to knock out our space-based assets. The rationale of this program is to defend those assets. But this will have the reverse effect." Kimball said any move by the United States to start developing and testing space-based weapons will be met with very strong international condemnation, from foes and allies alike.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:5, Interesting)
Weaponizing space is a great idea. Weaponizing Earth is the questionable one.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern warfare demands uncomfortable compromises in international affairs.
Re:Dulce Et Decorum Est, pro patria mori (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, for christ's sake, if you're going to make shit up at least make up stuff that's hard to refute. Despite all the handwringing about Iraq, the entire war still hasn't resulted in total American casualties equal to one day of WWII. And if you make the more difficult estimate of civilian and enemy deaths, I'm still willing to bet the total still isn't up to one good day of carpet bombing in WWII. You can argue war is always too much, but you can't argue that there's no interest in the military on sparing lives. They spend huge amounts of their budget using smart weapons when the same job could be done for a tenth of the cost if they didn't care about collateral damage.
The agressive militarisation of a domain which all space-capable countries have explicitly agreed not to militarise is an insane, hubristic waste of money which will backfire when China, Europe, India et al decide they can't tolerate a US with space weapons and start to arm their satellites.
You're right, it is arrogant. Let's not have to be the first anymore. Let's wait until China develops military satellites before we start thinking about this. That way, the Europeans will think better of us, and we'll have that nice feeling of moral superiority. And that's what's important. Do you really think China gives a shit about anything we could get them to sign? Do you really think their efforts at human space flight have been anything other than military R&D?
The US has no need of a bigger, better, weapon - they already spend more on weapons than any other nation
True. So maybe our military really is sincere about wanting more precise weapons. It certainly makes more sense than the cynical conspiracy theories around here.
Re:The request isn't to develop the weapons (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm [fas.org]
Re:Imagine This ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it - every phone booth can be your military headquarters from which you can destroy whole country. And sure, they can detect the origin of the radioactives. Say, Soviet Union, some of the lost warheads. Or one of reactors in the US.
Re:Too late (Score:3, Interesting)
From astronautix.com: