The Dozen Space Weapon Myths 191
Thanks to Disowned Sky for finding a good debunking piece on space based weapon systems. Slightly disheartening, because I really want to have solar energy satellites that are also lasers. The article does a good job of looking further afield at nations besides the United States efforts in this area.
My personal favorite (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran). I feel this is an accurate counterpoint to such an argument.
Terminating other sattelites (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
See, that's the beauty of nuclear weapons. Once you have them, other nations are really no longer in any position to lecture you about developing them -- unless of course they're willing to enter into nuclear war over it.
Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, all of 'em.
It seems from the story, and just pragmatism, the best option is to hope the folks who have the best weapons are the most friendly types. If the cold war is any lesson, the people with the most freedom create the best economic engine, and thus in turn the richest state, and then in turn again, the best weapons.
Item 5 is not a correct statement. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Terminating other sattelites (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the program got terminated in 1985, that means the weapons left from it are at least 22 years old. It strikes me that there's a fair chance that few to none of them even work any more, and that we don't have any way to produce more on a moment's notice. This exact situation is discussed in Tom Clancy's book "Red Storm Rising", in fact.
However, there's another thing: the current US military wants weapons they can deploy as fast as possible (the TacSat program is something of an example of this). Hunting down a trained F-15+ASAT pilot, hauling them to the right location for an intercept, and then launching is inefficient and slow compared to "select satellite to kill, launch intercontinental ASAT from pad". If, say, the Chinese are using their comm satellites to support an invasion of Taiwan, you want to kill them right the hell now, not in 12 hours.
still living the cold war (Score:0, Insightful)
Talk about fact checking.
Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works? (Score:1, Insightful)
Red Storm Rising is about as factually accurate as the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Re:My personal favorite (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it. It may not be moral, but it is logical to create any type of weapons in response to the fact the other side has done so.
However, this in itself in the past was a benefit to the US because it can afford to build such technologies whereas the other sides could not afford it and simply force them into submission by outspending them. (See: Regan vs the Soviets)
Sure, Iran could make nukes, but economically they are pointless to them other than nuclear energy since using them would entail the extermination of 90 million Iranians by a US retaliation response. Besides... The could inflict more political damage and gain so much more with using proxy groups like Hezbollah than actively taking on the US directly in a nuclear arms race.
However, China on the other hand... Well, we are seeing for the first time in 50 years a nation that could soon simply outspend us on the military front.
At sometime in the 2020s to 2030s it won't be us chiding others for doing things because we did them but rather trying to justify our new weapons because "China had them first."
Re:My personal favorite (Score:1, Insightful)
In Soviet MIR, telescope nukes you!! I keed! I keed! Or do I...
Shorter Space Review... (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is highly amateurish and just about content-free. Shorter "Space Review":
The Space Review: No they don't! (no citation given)
TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)
TSR: No they aren't! (no citation given)
TSR: So what, the Russians have the same capability!
TSR: Let's confuse the issue by only talking about boost-phase BMD intercept!
TSR: No they haven't! (no citation given)
TSR: Yes it did! (no citation given)
I stopped reading at this point. This whole article is nothing more than a fact-free propaganda screed. I can't believe Slashdot even bothered to post it... on second thought, yes I can.
Sean
Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is far, far less of a concern in other parts of the world where citizen and martyr can be used interchangably.
A serious consideration in the US attacking civilian targets in Soviet Russia was that the civilians were not exactly taking an active part in government. Do you really think that even in the face of a nuclear attack on Israel there would be a massive US retaliation on civilian targets? Especially if the attacking force was a stateless body like Hizbollah? Further, if a post-attack retribution bill was introduced into the US Senate, would a majority vote to wipe Iran off the face of the earth? Or maybe just try to find a few important targets?
Iran has nothing to fear from a US retalitation, and we have spent the last 20 years proving it. We either stop them on the front end, or we will do
Re:I Disagree With Your Assessment (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing. I posted a "yay, nuclear space drive!" post, and yet practically none of that thread is about nuclear space drives. In fact, it would seem that nearly the entire thread attempts to prove how "Bush [is] throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions". Heavy on anti-Bush comments, low on actual attempts to talk about nuclear space drives. Wonder why?
Oh no. In fact, I know there are a great many people who agree with me. However, when a large portion of Slashdot comes down on a particular side, people take notice. And it's what gives Slashdot a poor reputation as being reactionary. Especially when wild and accusatory comments like this [slashdot.org] or this [slashdot.org] are made at +2 by respected members of the community. Members who seem to have forgotten that people have differing opinions, rather than all being secret spies and collborators for Evil Entity X(TM). And they stir up quite a ruckus in their efforts, leading others to believe that the pro-Evil Entity Cabal really exists.
Or just as bad, threads that suppose [slashdot.org] that the actual policy of the President and the government is different from what the official document said.
Mr. "AC", you wish to accuse me of not accepting that others have opinions. (Which is particularly amusing when you link to a post [slashdot.org] where I state, "You have your opinion and I have mine.") Yet you fail to recognize that there was a LOT of posters who fell on the side of opposition to the space policy. A LOT of posters who now have a chance to reevaluate that position. Should we just ignore the progress made on the topic, or should we leave the topic closed? After all, this very article is a continuation of that topic.
What do you think? Should we just all stick our heads in the sand, or should we face these issues head on? See if we were correct? See if things change? See if our own opinions change?
I don't know about you, but I know that my own opinions have changed quite a bit over time. Not on this particular issue, mind you, but on many other hot topics. For example, I may have never liked the Patriot Act, but I did once argue that our government had (amazingly) not abused it to date. Well, a recent Slashdot story proved me wrong. (Yes, bolded so that you may gloat in silence.) While there was no intent to abuse it, it was abused because it was a form of power. And as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now, shall we all reevaluate our positions on this particular situation?
Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot! (Score:4, Insightful)
If I recall, that the 'Russians' had weapons that weren't detectable nor acknowledged and that was the justification for many of the cold war ramp-ups in defence spending (because they must have found some way to hide them from detection). That should have been a major cold war lesson. Sucks when the same logic is applied to US anti-sat weapons.
I'm not sure I follow your point, please elaborate. Are you arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? That's on approach guaranteed to be wrong when analyzing secret military projects.
Or that the USSR didn't have secret programs? We found just the opposite after the USSR collapsed - they were trying to keep up with us, on the B2 and other similar programs and wound up bankrupting themselves trying to do it.
Or that we don't have secret projects anymore?
Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot! (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia is right to be pissed off with missile batteries in Europe and is rightly pointing that they have no other function but to sour Russia relationship with Europe.
These missiles provide sabre rattling capability for some political elements in the ex-Soviet block who are anti-Russian to the point where they would like to have a Hitler statue erected on their capital's main squares. While every military specialist is aware that such missiles will be useless to "protect" the host country if the Russians decide to wipe it off the map, the politicians in question have no intention of telling this to their population. Just the opposite.
Through unilateral moves Poland, the Baltics and Chech republic (whose current president/prime minister clone pair are too Russophobic even for Lech Valensa to stomach) are trying to force the rest of Europe on a confrontation course with Russia. Things like this affect the military tactics and politics of all NATO. Poland is not in sole command of Nato, neither is the Chech republic. If they think that this type of confronation is especially good for everyone they should convince everyone to do so, instead of drawing everyone into it through the back door.
And at the end of the day, USA is still continuing their Cold War politics by inertia. They waste a phenomenal amount of resources to continue along lines that have no further meaning and use instead of even considering new threats. No wander they get their ex-best-friend to run a couple of planes into key buildings with such ease. And if they continue this way there is bound to be more of that.
Re:Shorter Space Review... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sean