Do We Really Need Space Weapons? 938
tcd004 writes "The U.S. military is developing technology to disable, jam, and even destroy enemy satellites. But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race.
Re:Obviously no. (Score:3, Informative)
China and Russia may be an essential trading partner (though I suspect we could live without their crap), but they are hardly either of the other two.
::oveclocked:: Podcast (Score:2, Informative)
http://overclocked.libsyn.com/ [libsyn.com]
Re:Against treaties (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Score:5, Informative)
The above document spells out the blueprint for world dominance, starting with seizing the oil in Iraq. It goes on and pushes for space warfare. Ugly document written by ugly people.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the peacenik in me hates to agree with this kind of thinking, but I must agree.
Don't forget that many military ventures on earth resulted in significant scientific advances. For example, World War II gave us Penecillin (spelling?); the jet engine; and without the funding for the Manhattan project, it may have taken many additional years before nuclear power was properly harnessed.
Re:Against treaties (Score:5, Informative)
The ABM treaty is no longer in effect and is irrelevant to this discussion. There are no legal obligations preventing the US from deploying space weapons. It is solely a technical and policy and/or moral decision.
- Necron69
Re:Against treaties (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Haven't you heard? (Score:5, Informative)
So, to begin with, the notion that the treaty was broken is false. There was an exit clause placed in the treaty and that clause was properly executed.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we decided to pull out of the treaty. However, in regards to your question of "So why did the US sign them in the first place?" and whether or not such treaties are in our self interest... it appears obvious that the leaders that first signed them thought that it would be likely that either side might in the future decide that the treaty should no longer apply. They put that clause in there after all.
I'm not trying to debate the point of whether or not it is a good treaty with respect to our self interest. Frankly, I really don't know. Personally I feel that ABMs are only likely to increase the desire of potential enemies to build up the number of weapons they have capable of reaching us. And it is a particularly bad solution when the cost of an ABM weapon is greater than the cost of the BM it is designed to counter. However, this all comes from my rather limited viewpoint.
But as to the notion of the U.S. breaking the treaty, or whether or not the leaders who signed it thought it was in our best interest to be permanently constrained by such a treaty... it is pretty clear that it was not broken, and the leaders who signed it provided an exit clause.
selective quoting leads to inaccurate moderation (Score:3, Informative)
"MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."
this is a forward looking statement [eg 'sets a precedent'].
your statement that it is inaccurate because it has not happened in the past is a gross mischaracterization of what is actually being said.
sum.zero
Well, we already know ... (Score:3, Informative)
... that international law and treaties is of no concern for the United States...
Outer Space Treaty of 1963 [unvienna.org]
Yes, I know those "space weapons" will (officially) not be nuclear. Have a look at article 8, however. I doubt the US wants to pay for foreign satellites, development and launch costs.
Overall, I think if the US would finally stop bullying the rest of this planet around, they would be a lot more liked.
Re:Too late. (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapo
"Stung by the Russian deployment the USAF revived its own ASAT program. From 1977 Vought developed an ASAT to attack satellites in LEO, the three stage missile was fired by an F-15 in a steep climb and carried a miniature homing vehicle (MHV) to track and then destroy the target kinetically. The first test was in 1983 and the first successful interception, of the defunct US satellite P78 SolWind, was on September 13, 1985."
Just a FYI (Score:2, Informative)
Space Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space (Henry L. Stimson Center, 2003).
Paperback: 133 pages Publisher: The Henry L. Stimson Center (April 1, 2003) ISBN: 0974725528
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:4, Informative)
1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.
2) The inspections teams were on the same track; the IAEA was reportedly close to declaring Iraq nuclear-free, while UNMOVIC was working on verifying chemical weapon destruction quantities based on the amount of residual chemicals in the destruction zones. The residuals were evident, but the quantity of source material was unknown. Both have now stated that they believe, just like Kay, that there were not WMDs in Iraq. In short, every inspection team sent to Iraq has reached that same conclusion.
3) The highest profile Iraqi defector in history, Hussein Kamel [wikipedia.org] (Saddam's son-in-law), in addition to giving a bunch of humiliating information on Iraq that he later got assassinated for (exposing Iraq's biological warfare program and leading them to the information, pointing out that UNSCOM's head's personal translator was a double agent, etc), informed the teams that Iraq *had* destroyed its chemical and biological agents in order to try and get the embargo lifted and limit inspection team knowlege of how much their scientists knew.
Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspections
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government. Blix - the more harsh of the two organization heads - stated that "Iraq wwas guilty of only small infractions" [guardian.co.uk]. Most of the Iraqi complaints were of the US spying to gather information for war, which turned out to be true [washingtonpost.com]. And lets not forget the peace initiatives [wikipedia.org].
active promotion of terrorism
The closest thing Iraq did to active promotion of terrorism was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to compensate for Israel's policy of destroying the families' homes. Of course, Saudi Arabia did the exact same thing. Beyond that, there was very, very little that could be construed as supporting terrorism (a lot of misinformation went around on this subject: read up on Ansar al-Islam [bbc.co.uk] (more) [baltimoresun.com], Ramzi Yousef [prisonplanet.com] (mirror), Abu Nidal [wikipedia.org], and Salman Pak [wikipedia.org]).
Now, if you want countries with clear, major ties to funding terrorists, you need to look at Iran and the United States.
Illegal attacks on peacekeepers
Oh, this is just rich. The No-Fly Zones were not UN-accepted; the French, Russians, and Chinese considered the joint US-British "No Fly" enforcement to be both illegal and counterproductive violation of Iraq's airspace. Then, before war began, we began bombing essentially at will [timesonline.co.uk] to try and goad Iraq into attacking the US. The reason we were able to start the war with a ground assault was that our air assault began long before the war started.
Re:Too late. (Score:3, Informative)
The weapon isn't in the artifact, but in the use. If I suffocate you with a Care Bear, I suspect the prosecution at my murder trial would hold out the bear (Friend Bear, in this case) as a weapon. And my defense team would make absolutely no headway against such an accusation by saying "That's not a weapon!"
A telescope becomes a sniper's scope. A steak knife becomes a bayonet. Binoculars, used by an Air Force combat controller, becomes part of an air strike system which puts 500 pound bombs on target. The bomb can't kill as effectively without the airplane, or the pilot's poopey suit [wikipedia.org], or the mechanic's wrench, or those binoculars.
Everything's a weapon. Ask the ghost of Abel [wikipedia.org] next time you look at a rock in the garden.
Militirization versus weaponization (Score:2, Informative)
Space has been militarized, but not weaponized, that is to say the military is using space, but there are no weapons in space. This is somewhat analogous to the internet - in that the military uses the internet, but there are no known military weapons for use on the internet that aren't available to the public. To respond to a previous poster's comment on spy satelites as weapons, I've used google maps, and I wasn't able to blow anything up.
That being said, space weapons that actually attack targets on the ground are highly unlikely. Space based lasers would have problems with - cloud cover, large amount of fuel required (600 lbs if I remember correctly) and easy defence (a large pool of water over the building, thick ceilings). Kinetic weapons working on the principle of Force = Mass * Acceleration, instead of explosive power aren't that much more effective than conventional weapons. Add to all that the cost of defending these specialized weapons leads another arms race, that thankfully no country really wants to run.
As implied in the article satelites are the real vulnerability, because they provide such essential communications technology. However, the threats aren't there yet. So, nothing against the Air Force, but they need to be focused on the real issues and threats of today, not Buck Rogers time.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:4, Informative)
1) Richard Butler was in charge of UNSCOM in 1998 (before Desert Fox, which you mentioned), not Hans Blix. Blix was later instated as the head of UNMOVIC for the recent inspection regime.
2) Butler did *not* remove the inspection teams because of "supposed obstinance" - Butler removed his teams (without SC approval) because he was informed by Washington that they would be bombing in twenty-four hours. His cited reason for the withdrawl was the protection of his inspectors.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody that I know of. Satellites are only geostationary on the equator, geosynchronous satellites elsewhere "move" north-south, and I don't believe Brazil or Indonesia are operating any such satellites (but I could be wrong).
And at what point do you think it's fair to say airspace ends?
By treaty, outer space is currently not allowed to be owned by any nation, and the international boundary of space is generally recognized as 100 km.
You confuse what was known then with now ... (Score:4, Informative)
You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist. In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe.
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Excuse me, at one point the U.N. teams left because they were not permitted to do their job. You are referring to an exceptionally narrow timeframe and missing the big picture that Iraq sometimes cooperated and sometimes did not. The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end. You mentioned that Sadaam destroyed stockpiles. Why did he not do so under UN supervision? Clearly he wanted people to believe he still had WMD. He assumed it would enhance his ability to "negotiate" and provide a deterrent. Given the UN's spotty record, being suprised by his nuclear program and later his bio program, it was prudent to believe be a bit cautious with preliminary and politicised UN reports.
In general you confuse to separate issues: "Does Sadaam still have WMD?" and "Is an attack on the west imminent?". The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while, it had become a political wedge issue wield for political gain. Sometimes wielded by those who agreed Sadaam had WMD at the time, just like Bush, and some who even voted for force at the time. If you fail to consider the politics you will never truly understand events and will be easily manipulated. The left is as guilty as the right.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:3, Informative)
Don't want to take the word of the organizations tasked to enforce the resolutions? Take the word of the Security Council: 3 of the 5 permanent members of the security council felt the same way.
Don't like the permanent security council? Even with the enormous financial, political, and military weight of the United States, and using all of the dirty tricks in the book (bugging, bribing, and all of the other scandals that came out), we still couldn't get enough support from the temporary council for a war resolution. And lets not even get into the general assembly - it was obvious how they would have voted. Even more extreme? The world public itself, for which was about 3/4 opposed.
How about the VX gas used on his own people in Basra
1) The only documented use of chemical agents in Basra was not VX - it was Mustard Gas and Tabun, in 1987.
2) The target wasn't his own people, but was Iranian forces.
3) There are no documented uses of Iraqi VX, although they developed it, and there are some suspected sites
4) All of this was during the time that the Reagan administration was actively assisting Iraq, and working to shield it from international condemnation for such weapons usage (actually suggesting in many cases that it was *Iran* who was *really* using the chemical agents)
Perhaps you meant "Halabja", concerning the famous attack on the Kurds. Apart from the fact that it wasn't VX, Halabja was a military stronghold for PUK (the same sort of excuse we had for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - military installations, factories, and a demonstration to the local populace), and the Kurds are about as much "Saddam's own people" as the Cherokees were Andrew Jackson's.
Re:You confuse what was known then with now ... (Score:3, Informative)
The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies?
What a creative job of editing you have there. I actually wrote: "In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example." I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have simply had a shallow understanding of events but now I am beginning to suspect that you simply have a political agenda. There are honorable and intelligent anti-war arguments, "we did not find WMD" is not one of them. That is armchair quarterbacking. A more intelligent argument would be one involving "imminent threat" not "WMD existence".
"The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while"
Perchance, since Bush's hand-picked inspector concluded that, and I quote, "We got it very, very wrong"?"
After one year of unfettered access and crawling all over the place. If Sadaam had permitted such access in the first place, or something close to it, there would have been no war. Again, your argument fails because at the time of the invasion it was prudent and reasonable to believe that Sadaam may still have WMD, as anti-war nations such as Germany, Russia, and Jordam honestly believed. The argument at the time was really how much more time would the UN inspectors need to find out one way or the other, and whether the UN was able to do so at all.