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.
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...
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one who's sick of deliberately provocative and inflammatory rhetoric like "weaponization of space" and "militarization of space?" When navys first started developing seagoing military vessels, did partisan pundits of the day describe it as the "weaponization of the seas?" When governments first recognized the military potential of flight, did people cry how it was the "weaponization of the skies?"
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I'm sick of double-standards. Weapons on land, sea, and air: OK. Weapons in space: end of civilized mankind. I don't buy it.
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:$82 Billion Well Spent (Score:3, Funny)
+1, Vile Pun.
Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only. The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
Just as the US's nukes begat the USSR's, which begat China's, which begat India's, which begat Pakistan's, any overt US militarisation of space would only lead to others following suit.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Air flight
Computer Networking
Atomic Research
Satellites
etc...
Face it... the only institution that can continue to pour money somewhere before it is profitable to do so is the military. Space will progress just like everything else has: the military pours money into advancing technology, then when technology is sufficiently advanced private industry picks it up and innovates more.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Funny)
cool! i can hardly wait until orbiting mini-nuke-tipped bunker-busters are available in walmart!
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. The Department of Education, for example, is not profitable. NASA isn't profitable. The Forestry Department isn't profitable. Amtrak isn't profitable. The Corporation for Public Broadcast isn't profitable. The UN isn't profitable (jokes aside).
And in case you're thinking being unprofitable is the sole domain of government, Amazon spent years being not-profitable, and businesses and government aside, there are plenty of non-profit organizations.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
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:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:4, Insightful)
however, I also agree with the poster who noted that the space program's greatest successes came under the duress of the Cold War. Strife stimulates uncommon innovation. The same cold war that begat those nukes is responsible for everything up to the still functioning mars landers.
I'm opposed to war on the one hand, but I've accepted the notion that man is inherently warlike; it's something programmed into our genes. The same folks who espouse pacifism on the one hand scream bloody murder at football matches on the other, somehow missing the fact that all sports games are metaphors for war. that said, my hopes for a sudden paradigmatic shift in the very nature of the species is not something I'd put any money on.
If we're going to live in a warlike world, I'd like to be on the winning team. Call me a frontrunner if you wish, but if anybody is going to have space weapons, I'd certainly like it to be us. As a matter of fact, being the cynic that I am, I'd be surprised if there aren't some already - and these statements are just to warm us up to the fact before the government starts actively using them.
In regards to fostering positive relations with countries like China and regions like the Middle East, the issue here is fundamentalism, be it culture or religion. These are forces that will bend slowly at best, if at all. So the idea of genuine open positive relations with these regions is unlikely, in my estimation. The only way to foster change, in my estimation, is to actively promote american media in those regions (let MTV re-educate Afghani youth) and ride those guys into office, at which time we can deal with them. Can't deal with the hard line guys in office now.
All of which to say, space weapons now will put humans on the moon soon, and into the cosmos, where I think some iteration of humanity ultimately belongs.
Britain's Castles of Steel (Score:4, Insightful)
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only.
Given our not-so-stellar record, that's unlikely.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
China, except for small altercations with Taiwan and Japan, seems to be taking the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' approach. I agree that any move towards weaponization of space would be matched by them.
There is an excellent book by Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought : Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War [amazon.com] about World War I and Britain's efforts to stay ahead of Germany, to maintain their sea advantage as their land army was weaker. IIRC, they wanted to maintain a 3:1 ratio over the Germans. Britain as this sort of weakening power, overextended, struggling to maintain it's colonies across all parts of the globe, the sun never setting on their empire, yet the hordes ready to crush their Hadrian's Wall.
Now the U.S. in a similar situation, relatively unopposed superpower, but it's unclear where the financial and technical ability to invest in Space technology would come from not too far in the future.
One would think it imperative for the U.S. to balance the budget, start paying off debt, and likewise continuing to keep it's schools (whether college or grade school) top notch.
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.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Funny)
2. Aim from space.
3. Fire a pulse light right over someones head and assasinate them.
4. End war on terror.
Are you nuts? Posting these kind of threats in public will get the Secret Service after you in no time flat.
Question: How do you tell one rag-head camel jocky from all the rest when viewing them from above?
Oooooh, you meant..... Never mind
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, putting anything in space as a weapon is not a very dependable weapon for the very reason you say: "...you can see it..."
When it's in orbit over China, if China doesn't like it, they'll take it out before it becomes operational or after it's first used against them. You don't think China (and USA for that matter) aren't already able to take out anything they wan
Re:But that's not how the space program works! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Space Race was about winning headlines, and proving the superiority of capitalism/democracy over communism (and vice versa), not military advantages.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, only under international treaties. Which be safely ignored by suitably arrogant, nuclear armed superpowers.
"The Soviets had an automatic cannon installed in several of their Salyut space vehicles."
cool. Links?
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:4, Informative)
The only one that I'm aware of is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty [state.gov]. It prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit, such as the fractional orbit bombardment systems (FOBS) that were viewed as the next step beyond the ICBM back in the 1960s.
There are a lot of people who are quick to claim that the United States ignores its treaty obligations. Would it be too much to ask for them to back up their assertions with some facts?
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
There might well be an idiot in this discussion but if you can't join the dots between one country doing something then one of its rivals playing catch-up then, well, I'm not the one who should be having the idiot tag hung around his neck.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to make sure that the other guy doesn't have a gun pointing at your head it's smarter to make sure that he's horrified by the very thought of putting a gun to your head rather than making sure that you've got a gun pointing at his head first.
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good. I was sitting here trying to think of an example of why no one wants to invest in basic research any more. And now you've given it. Basic scientific research perhaps does, but military applications in general *don't* trickle down.
You can say "NASA" and "velcro" all you want but the fact is that we haven't commercialized half of the tech that was on a space shuttl
Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion... (Score:3, Informative)
NASA didn't invent Velcro, it was invented by George de Mestral, a Swiss mountaineer, more than a decade before NASA was formed.
Dulce Et Decorum Est, pro patria mori (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they might not - hasn't this been the excuse for ever more destructive weapons since time immemorial 'they'll save more lives than they destroy'? It has never turned out to be true. The aim of war is never minimal loss of lives to both sides.
The agressive militarisation of a domain which all space-capable countri
Obligatory.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obligatory.. (Score:5, Funny)
Screw bills....we'll drop pennies [xmission.com] on them.
Re:Obligatory.. (Score:5, Funny)
after the war is over and we've killed all the terrorists, the people who are still alive can rebuild their country by picking the pennies from the skulls of the dead people. Not only will we have won the war, but we don't even have to worry about paying war reparations. It's the perfect plan because everybody wins. We kill all the evil terrorists, and give them some of our own currency to rebuild their country with. Eventually when we open the first Starbucks in their country, we won't even have to worry about currency exchange because they can use the left-over money to buy beverages, and let's face it, who could resist an ice cold frappuccino after a long war?
The request isn't to develop the weapons (Score:5, Informative)
With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.
I'm wondering if perhaps this isn't also the military wanting to show off a little and provide the public a glimpse of yesterday's technology, similar to what happened with the F-117 circa 1990. Maybe they want to show us what the Aurora really looks like.
There's no way... right? (Score:5, Funny)
"Times' shaky spacewar story" (Score:5, Informative)
"[Global Strike] -- which we first looked at back in November 2003 -- is legit, with a hefty $91 million invested into it over the last two years. But, by making so little distinction between this effort and more pie-in-the-sky plans, the Times does its readers a bit of a disservice."
NASA vs USAF (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution of Warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
You might need it some rainy day,
Dreams can come true again,
When ev'ry thing old is new again!
- Throw rock
- Hit other guy with stick
- Throw rock with stick on the end of it
- Shoot stick with rock on end of it at guy with curved stick
- Hit rock with fire, make copper, bronze, iron, steel rocks to put on ends of stick
- Put fire in tube, throw rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal tube, throw metal rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal rocks, drop exploding rocks on other guy
- Drop rocks made of unstable atomic metals on other guy
- Head for the asteroid belt. Throw rock
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.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell yeah it sounds like us. America fights to win. Now maybe we fight too often and in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons (I'm not interested in debating the appropriateness of the most recent war, I hate it, but that's not the question at hand), but when we fight, we don't just march out some poor draftees in front of enemy machine guns to be fair to the enemy. We airstrike them and snipe them and smartbomb them, because we're not there to be fair, we're there to win. We're there to liberate or conquer or raze, but we're not there to die.
I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
It is as great a crime to send our boys in defenseless, ill-equipped, and without backup to die as it is to subjugate and persecute the enemy.
And as for the name 'rod of god', it's a nickname for Pete's sake. It's not official marketingspeak from the government, it's a bloody nickname! And a pretty damned good one, too.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us (that *certainly* doesn't help "secure peace" in the world!), it's about not militarizing *space* (once we do it, Russia and China will follow--how would *you* feel knowing the Chinese can nuke us from space? Now imagine Chinese space nukes when Taiwan declares independence.), and it's about not being grotesque monsters who nuke whole populations of innocent people.
Hell yeah, fight to win, but let's remain a people worthy of winning, if we can.
The neocons suffer from a severe case of hubris. No one's saying "don't fight to win", they're saying, "the only winning move is not to play the game". How can we be so utterly stupid as to be the ones to *start* the game? It's one thing to be forced into it (you can't help that), but voluntarily starting it?
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the only winning move is not to play the game".
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, noth
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern warfare demands uncomfortable comprom
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
The French were in the game and didn't know it. It only takes *one* party to start a war. Right now there's no real space war going on. In other words, *no one* is playing the game. It's disgusting to think *we'd* be the ones to start the game.
WWII *is* a good example. We didn't start it, but we helped finish it. That's the way it should be. Starting down the path to war undermines ones moral authority.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
Ivy Mike was tested 1st November 1952, and that was by Americans, in case you dont know.
The Russians tested theirs on 12th August 1953, a MUCH simpler design, which could barely be considered a functional hydrogen bomb.
Try again.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited? So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous? When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
There are many motives for hatred, and "jealousy" is one of the feeblest.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
If you're referring to WWII, they *did* like us. Liking someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. They were very glad for the help.
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
That's a huge load. We've asked for *plenty*. We've asked for permanent military bases, we've asked for money and for troops to help us fight our unpopular wars.
Most of our military actions ever since Korea have been exceedingly unwelcome by the people of the countries we've invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked.
No, the world doesn't hate us for when we offer true assistance--they hate us when we assert our will on them. They hate us when *we* are responsible for death and destruction.
We're like the corrupt police who beat people and extort from the innocent. The people *hate* those police, and it's not because they are jealous, or because they are ungrateful for the times the police actually *do* protect them, it's for the times when the police abuse their power, and betray the public trust.
The world was *overwhelmingly* with us after 9/11. They were with us on Afghanistan. They listened to us make the case for Iraq, and then said, "No, you're wrong." We went ahead anyway, and it turns out we *were* wrong.
If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit.
Sure we will. But that credit also comes with the cost of the war--how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will it have taken by the end?
Not to mention the fact that we are *directly* responsible for Saddam's party gaining power in Iraq long ago, and we supported Saddam when he was gassing people, which we now hypocritically condemn him for.
The world will certainly give us *all* the credit we are due, good and bad.
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
The current Iraq war isn't the beginning of American aggression in the world, it's just an extremely visible example. In other words, for many people, hatred of America was already legitimate.
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you in one sense: In a time of war we need to protect our American soldiers using every means possible, including technological superiority.
In a just war, space-based weaponry could be an incredible asset. However, there is at least one negative consequence to be considered: Such weaponry can lower the bar for what, in Americans' minds, is proper justification to go to war. The more "smart" weapons we have in our arsenal, the easier it is for our leaders to convince Congress and the American
Re:A few quotes from TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
+4 insightful???!!!Too bad I don't have any mod points left and I can't mod you down enough.
These weapons, like the "rods of god" are offensive weapons of mass destruction. The international community works hard to reduce the numbers of weapons of mass destruction and what does the US do? They want more!
The current US administration snobbs the united nations, have opted out of several international treat
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.
It's not really a matter of choce (Score:4, Insightful)
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
Re:It's not really a matter of choce (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's a moot point, anyway. All it takes is a well-aimed bucket of gravel in the right orbit to take out a space-based system. Launching buckets of gravel is pretty cheap, so unless the US system is 100% effective, this system will suffer from the same flaws as the anti-missile system - it's easy to overwhelm it with a lot of cheap countermeasures.
Too late (Score:4, Informative)
The USSR deployed a network of anti Satellite weapons.
The USSR deployed a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
One of the Some of the Soviet manned missions where military missions.
The Soviets tried to launch a space battle station it failed to make it to orbit.
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/ar
Re:It's not really a matter of choce (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is. We don't have to *choose* to deploy weapons now, and *that's* the choice some of us are making, poorly.
Will some nation eventually deploy weapons in space? I'd say there's a high liklihood.
Probably. It would be *stupid* to do it before it's necessary, though.
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
We're the USA, if someone starts to militarize space, we'll just knock their systems down. If they get a legitimate toe-hold in space, *then* we can jump in--it certainly won't take us long to dominate.
There's just no way a country would pre-emptively attack us from space without an overwhelming chance of victory. But if we begin to truly militarize space, then Russia and China (and India) will as well (unless we truly undertake to conquer the world, shudder). As we all build-up together, it will be far easier for the countries involved to put up enough firepower to launch (and even believe they can win) a first-strike.
No thanks!
Re:It's not really a matter of choce (Score:3, Insightful)
Why dont we spend one trillion dollars on building a giant golden pyramid? If we don't the chinese will surely do it before us.
There is a misconception that if the chinese are first to develop space weapons then they would gain a huge advantage. Fact is, space weapons can be destroyed very easily (and
Re:It's not really a matter of choce (Score:3, Informative)
You're really naive.
I suggest reading a history book or two. Look up Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, East Timor [rotten.com]. Read about the lives of Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Richard Nixon, George G.W. Bush, Robert McNamara.
Escalation (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to win the war on terrorism!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You never know when Al Qaeda is going to build a rocket.
Those kids in Explorers [imdb.com] did.
Re:Way to win the war on terrorism!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of Ronald Reagan (Score:4, Insightful)
"As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments."
Sad how little has changed.
RE: Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapo (Score:3, Informative)
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space.
The treaty's key arms control provisions are in Article IV. States-parties commit not to:
* Place in orbit around the Earth or other celestial bodies any nuclear weapons or objects carrying WMD.
* Install WMD on celestial bodies or station WMD in outer space in any other manner.
* Establish military bases or installations, test "any type of weapons," or conduct military exercises on the moon and other celestial bodies.
The USA fully signed and ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
http://www.peaceinspace.com/sp_faq.shtml [peaceinspace.com]
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace.
(among others)
Re: Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapo (Score:5, Informative)
This is not to say I support Mr. Bush, but as parent clearly indicates in the rest of his post, the 1967 treaty concerns WMD -- not all weapons. Quoth TFA: "no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction."
Moreover, the pentagon isn't stupid. Using (or threatening to use) nuclear weapons is not a central aspect of US security at the moment. The main threats come either from dictatorships (think N. Korea) or terrorism. Neither kind of enemy can be deterred with nuclear weapons. They are probably trying to revive SDI [wikipedia.org] (i.e. place energy/kinetic antimissile weapons in space), but they may have plans for space-to-ground weapons that are not WMD.
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.
Re: Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapo (Score:4, Informative)
That's ((7200*5280/3600)^2 * 100 / 2) ft lbs * 1.356 joules/ft lb = 7560622080 joules
A megaton bomb releases 4.185 x 10^15 joules I'm not sure why they would use the comparison of a nuclear weapon for this unless they're using a really big rod. When one compares a weapon to a nuclear bomb, most people think of a substantial weapon, at least a kiloton yield. For comparison, a 20 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph delivers about the explosive force of a substantial carbomb.
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..
Space Superiority (Score:3, Insightful)
The 80's called... (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't we sign a treaty... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Didn't we sign a treaty... (Score:4, Informative)
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, you did.
Another starwars program... (Score:3, Funny)
I guess that's the power of the dark side of the farce.
Re:Another starwars program... (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's compare it to a movie that did extremely well financially despite a half baked idea behind it. Viola, we have "Star Wars, The Phantom Menace"
The Trouble with Orbital Weapons... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you think of the cost of putting such systems into orbit, let alone maintaining systems with enormous destructive power (remember what the Hubble and ISS pricetags have been so far?), it's enough to bankrupt many a nation. And of course we also have to ensure that they can't be tampered with by other satellites or massive EM storms like the recent one.
The point of all this is not to say that space should stay completely demilitarized--much as everyone would like that, the odds are that it's a pipe dream. If the United States decides to play the altruist and refrain on ideological grounds from militarizing space, that's just an invitation for less scrupulous powers like North Korea to try it at a future time. At some point the issue will inevitably come up.
But this does not necessarily mean that America needs to be proactive in the deployment (though it certainly does in the development) of such systems. The astronomical pricetag and tremendous practical issues associated with any space-based weapons deployment are such that any country attempting it, including hostile countries, could not do so without extensive difficulty and a very long time, and wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being clandestine about it.
In other words, it is unlikely given America's current military superiority that we need to militarize space at this point. We would likely (for the time being, when anti-missile lasers are not yet practical) have sufficient time to destroy any hostile nation's weapons systems and implement our own--sharing the cost with our allies instead of unliaterally bankrupting ourselves for the sake of pie-in-the-sky showboating. Frankly, now is not the time to start the arms race when we don't have to. Keep space weapons free until such time as we reasonably expect to need space-based weapons (are we really going to need tungsten rods with the kinetic energy of tactical nukes in order to take out guerilla fighters and small terrorist bands? What's the immediate large-scale military threat that requires this sort of tech?).
We can't kid ourselves that it will never happen, but we can for the time being avoid spending astronomical sums on an unproven system to address a threat that doesn't exist at the expense of international censure. The arms race doesn't need to happen now.
80's Starwars program all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
No Biggie (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Space is the high ground making it highly strategic. All in all I think the US is better suited to handling the power of being first more than say China. ESA would be a good candidate too but they are pretty damn happy to sit back and let the US handle all the shit jobs and ensuing flak.
3) Very surprised nobody has put together the other obvious piece in this puzzle with Griffon announcing a major new initiative by NASA to deploy space based nuclear reactors. Lasers in space have to have gigantic sources of power... Solar arrays are not very feasible and they remove darkside firing. Nuclear power will provide both power for weapons and propulsion that does not exist today. At the very least this will bring about serious space based observation platforms. Think AWACS in Geosync over a Theater of operations. One of the military thriller wirters used that for a book a while back... can't remember which one but the title was Silver Tower.
4) for the gravel in space folks. Granted it can be effective... but I am not sure you grasp just how big an area you are talking about. Also, if you grasp orbital mechanics you will understand anything that is a continual problem (ie remains in orbit) you can match orbits with it to remove danger (small relative differences in velocities) or launch clean up efforts.
5) For those that think space is silly considering you need ground troops I suggest you read up on what people thought about air power prior to WWII. A single laser system with a good rate of fire, capable of tracking an air target long enough to destroy it will alter the face of war in a way not seen since the introduction of mechanized assault. If it cost 100 billion to develop and 100 billion to launch it would be cheap. Check out the cost of the air force... then consider such a weapon could theoretically render it obsolete. Make it like mounted Calvary taking on tanks.
It's a movie! (Score:3, Funny)
1) Dubya sees advance screening of SW6
2) Dubya demands urgent funding to develop space weapons to protect against Sith invasion.
3) George Lucas is sent to Guantanamo.
4) Dubya blows up the moon, certain that it holds enough WMD to wipe out planets in a single burst.
5) Barbra calls Dubya and tells him it's just a movie.
Re:Base Closings (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for the military industrial complex and all. But there's not a whole lot here technology wise. A kinetic kill weapon just needs a ride up. And since I don't seem them reexamining nuclear rockets for those rides, it's just a sink for cash as opposed to an investment. It the want to get a high band gap semiconductor laser array going, woohoo, but I somehow doubt that's on the near term chistmas list.
I love how the republicans ran on a platform of strengthening Americas military, and all they're doing is cutting back, complicating logistics, DURING the invasion of two countries. Biggest. WTF. Evar.
Re:Base Closings (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq is the biggest clusterfuck since Vietnam. More than 100,000 dead (1,600 US Soldiers) and there isn't any modicum of hope for that place within sight.
Considering that it was going to pay for itself, and we've only sunk $300 Billion into it, why not put another $82 Billion into space weapons.
Why would we need to replenish our depleted Military disposables?
God help us, and we have 3.5 more years of G.W. still to
Re:Base Closings (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. Why? As long as we have enough bases to serve or armed soldiers, why do we need a few extra in, say, South Dakota? To repel an invasion from the inner Canadian provinces? I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
Re:Base Closings (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Base Closings (Score:3, Funny)
Muahaha! That's what's so brilliant! We've just been biding our time until the right moment to strike presents itself! But soon, sooooon, we will rush down like the proverbial Mongol hoard we are and destroy you with our... our... our submarine and, err, carribou! And then, just when you think you've had enough, we'll apologize profusely and go home. He he he, the perfect plan!
Re:Base Closings (Score:4, Funny)
Space weapons sound cool? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd better not make a mistake with one.
You'd better hope their orbits are stable.
You'd better hope their orbits don't decay
What if one gets fired by accident or software bug?
The basic problem is that once the weapon is deployed into orbit, it's already half fired.
Re:Base Closings (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is, it looks like states are fighting closures because they want the money they bring. It seems to be pretty rare that the Pentagon actually has liberties to determine what they need for the mandates they were given. It seems like they are often being told what to develop, what to buy, even
Re:Base Closings (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to guided missiles? Supersonic bombers? Flamethrowers? Trebuchets? The tool/venue is, by definition not a moral issue. What you do is. So, if China starts taking out our satellites, and we've got no means by which to prevent it... that's a good thing?
Re:Base Closings (Score:3)
Right, actions are moral or immoral. Placing weapons in space is an action.
Re:Base Closings (Score:5, Insightful)
That's incredibly simple-minded, and a *huge* bugaboo of the right. Any call for peace boils down to you can't protect your family!
How disgusting.
Do you not see a difference between owning a gun, and placing WMDs in space? Hmm?
Keep your gun, I really don't care. I think you live in a fantasy world if you think you need it to protect your family (that, or you live in a strangely dangerous place where home invasions are the norm--I mean, really! If someone stormed your house with a gun, do you think you'd reach your gun in time? lol).
On the other hand, do you think you ought to be able to keep a nuke in your house?
Right now, space is relatively unarmed. *If* China, Russia, whoever, started putting weapons up there, then we can give it a go. It's disturbing to hear Americans demand that *we* be first. Once we do it, the rest of the world will follow more quickly.
What's the fascination of the right with rushing to armageddon?
Placing weapons in space, I'm sure, is something a lot of Chinese and Russians would like to do. But it's quite expensive, and they've got other priorities right now. But if *we* do it, they'll be "forced" to follow suit.
If we found out that China, for example, was going to launch a nuclear space station, we would just go to the UN and demand a resolution to stop them, with the provision that we can shoot it down.
As it stands, the US (and *maybe* Russia--with our consent) is the only nation that could begin to seriously begin to militarize space. That day might be inevitable, but there's no reason to rush into the prospect!
the very nature of working in that environment (not to mention orbital mechanics and whatnot) means you have to be pro-active, not re-active.
*If* we wanted to militarize space, we could do it in two years without breaking a sweat. There's no hurry.
Re:Base Closings (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Base Closings (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Imagine This ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Imagine This ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Imagine This ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What am I thinking? It's not like the terrorists would ever think of using our own technology against us.
Re:We Need Space Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that we need to get rid of our enemies. And the only way to do that is to spend money on convincing our enemies that we're not their enemies at all.
Re:We Need Space Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We Need Space Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly what do you think would happen to the US if china decided to stop exporting goods. What if all the asian countries got together and stopped exporting goods? No more electronics thats for sure.
The US building up arms is just as bad for global stability as the middle east building up arms. Most countries are worried the US will attack them and other
Re:U.S. should have space weapons. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You obviously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You obviously.. ...haven't read the "Patriot Act" have you?
Neither did the Senate.
Re:You obviously.. (Score:3, 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"