Weapons in Space 939
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
Space Beams (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure there's some sort of reflective headgear you could wear to protect against this.
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Funny)
Please, people, the right hat for the right job!
The physics says... (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
My two cents
-Iowa
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's example, think how convenient it would be to have snuffed that new troublemaker in Iraq? The tin hats really will be in fashion. All the crazies will have all their followers parading around in them. Not with any fantasy of blocking the high energy beams. Just trying to confuse the spotters who would be able to direct the beam to the target.
The current violence-based situation in Iraq is that the country is dangling on the edge of total chaos. The Sunnis have been causing trouble all along, mostly because they had it relatively good under Saddam. Now the Shia are on the edge of general revolt. They're still the majority, and they've been sort of quiet on the theory that they would get control when "democracy" arrived. [Can't imagine how they got that idea if they were paying any attention to Florida 2000 and 5-4.] Since the Shia have apparently woken up and realized they're getting conned, it isn't likely to quiet down now. All that's left is for the Kurds to go nuts again. And why not? The Kurds know they're going to get screwed again no matter who wins, so they might as well get what they can while the getting's good.
The neocon fantasy of ruling by pure force just doesn't work. You can only stay awake so long, and when you blink, when you drop the barrel of the gun for the shortest moment, hell breaks loose. If they have nothing to lose, their ONLY remaining interest is how to take you with them.
The solution is sharing the toys. People that have something to lose have the tendency to want to keep it.
Nah, it will never work. The BushCo people got rich because they were greedy and wanted more. The kernel of greed is not to be satisfied, but always to want more, and more, and more. More guns. Less sleep.
Until the big thud.
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Funny)
Heh. And there was me thinking that you Americans didn't do ironic understatement.
Re:Space Beams (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, you want recent? What about the White House supporting the people who tried to orchestrate a Coup d'etat against the democracy in Venezuela? When the coup failed, President Chavez said that the CIA had involvement, with video.
Or how about when New Zealand said they didn't support war against Iraq, so the US shut them out of Free Trade talks, leaving Australia in instead?
Or what about the US' long laundry list of vetoes [informatio...house.info] in the UN? What's the count, 35 resolutions concerning Israel vetoed [everything2.com] by the US? Even being the sole dissenting vote in many cases. Of course this is abuse of the US' power, to please the Jewish and Christian Zionist voters back home. These weren't all binding, and some of them were common sense "S/17769/Rev. 1: Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places." Why should the US, the supposed "peace broker" of the Middle East, block that, and stand as the sole vote againt?
Want more?
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
This is plain laughable.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?
Military fighters were stationed within reach and could easily have shot down these planes if official reaction and decision time were as short as you suggest.
The only way of abolishing terror is by changing the policies that feed the responsible organizations.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
But on a more serious note do you really think this would solve terrorism? Bin Ladin and his ilk desire a World dominated by an Islamic form of Government that would make the Taliban look like a champion of individual liberties and justice. I'm sorry but I'm not ready for my girlfriend/mother/sister to wear a Burka nor am I ready for my younger brother to have his hand cut off because he got caught shoplifting a few years ago.
Changing our policies might deny them a few followers (i.e: the common-man on the street in the Muslim World hating the US and our allies) but it's not going to stop or deter them. Unfortunately it seems like the only way to stop the true fanatics is to kill them.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's known as "knowing thy enemy."
The best way to end any war is to convince your enemy not to fight it. If you can do so by taking actions that do not compromise your position, you should do so.
Since the terrorist's main real claim is our abhorrent treatment of other nations, the best way to stop the terrorists is to stop mistreating the various nations they come from.
As for the other significant causes of terrorism--How about we just leave Israel alone for a few years, and let that problem sort itself out?
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Funny)
Just like Noah, we need to cleanse the planet of the terrorists, so that we can repopulate in our own image. Is that so wrong?
The bad side of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, China.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:4, Funny)
This is very bad in my opinion but what has this administration done that isn't bad?
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:3, Troll)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Clinton: Good
Bush: Bad
It is that simple. Restore Integrity my ass.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
>>Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
>>Bush: Most job losses since great depression
These are one and the same. Umm... Bigest bubble since the great depresion. Linux.com having a greater value than SGI??? A lot of that expansion was pure bubble. The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Lets not forget that what real growth was caused by a little thing called the Internet. Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
>>Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
>>Bush: War in Iraq with NO international suppor
What about Hati? What about the Cruise Missle attack on the Sudan? What about Somalia?
And as far as Terrorism what about the first World Trade Center Bombing? The Federal Building bombing?
What about no increase of funding for NASA even though there was a huge surplus?
As far as Gay rights what about don't ask don't tell and the defence of Marrage act?
It is just that simple????
Clinton Good? Sorry I just do not see it.
I am not all that thrilled with Bush but Clinton was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:4, Insightful)
New revised Slashbot ideals:
#1. Republicans suck.
#2. Democrats suck.
Mix with reality:
#3. There is no alternative to the two.
The only problem with this is that it puts all of us into that category of people called 'radicals'. After all, even if both sides are total shit, you *have* to support one of them or else noone listens to a word you say.
Try to bash Bush and you get people attacking Clinton, saying he was no better.
Try to attack Clinton and you get the anti-Bush rhetoric that started this thread.
Try to say that the whole system sucks and you get people labelling you a tin-foil mad hatter.
Politics make me want to cry.
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:5, Informative)
By The Associated Press
November 13, 2003, 4:40 PM EST
Countries besides the United States that are assisting in postwar Iraq:
Albania -- 71 non-combat troops in northern Iraq.
Azerbaijan -- 150 troops for law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.
Bulgaria -- 485 troops patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 are to be sent.
Dominican Republic - 300 troops
El Salvador - 360
Honduras - 360
Nicaragua - 120
Czech Republic -- 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.
Denmark -- 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia -- 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.
Estonia -- 55 troops.
Hungary -- 300 transportation troops.
Italy -- 3,000 troops.
Japan -- Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.
Kazakhstan -- 27 troops.
Latvia -- 106 troops.
Lithuania -- 90 troops.
Macedonia -- 28 troops.
Moldova -- Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands -- 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand -- 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway -- 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines -- 177 troops.
Poland -- 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal -- 120 police officers.
Romania -- 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia -- 82 military engineers.
South Korea -- 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.
Spain -- 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand -- 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine -- 1,640 troops.
United Kingdom -- 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned
The Birthday Card Coalition (Score:4, Insightful)
It's less of a coalition and more like paying for the boss' birthday present. Even if they think he is a jackass, most people put in a few bucks and write a phony greeting on the card. Especially, as in this case, if the boss has made it clear that anyone who doesn't contribute will face problems in the work place.
Some governments decided that good relations with the US was more important than other considerations, and ponyed up some troops. But the population of every single country in the "alliance" is/was strongly against the war, including the UK. All in all, a pretty funny way of fighting for democracy, IMHO...
Some of those countries received quite substantial monetary favors in exchange for their support, which is why it's been called "The coalition of the billing'.
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the BBC on it, thanks to 30 seconds in google:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm
"The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields."
"He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton."
"The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq."
"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency. "
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Informative)
Education is the responsibility of the child's parents, not the State or the national government.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the responsiblity of the state and federal government to make sure every child has access to at least elementary and high school education and the oppurtunity to further that education. That is why state and federal dollars go to public schools and universities.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
What, the five year old child? Yeah, what a bunch of freeloading bastards those 1st graders are!
Whats that, you believe the parents should pay directly for their childs education? O.K, sounds like a plan as long as you know how to take care of those children unfortunate enough to have only one parent through no fault of their own.
Libertarionism wouldn't be a bad idea if it didn't constantly ignore many of the realities of life.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy the negative portrayals of either Kerry or Bush, though. Too many people get their information from the attack ads of opposing candidates, rather than actually bothering to learn about their real records.
As far as I'm concerned, either one would do a fairly good job as President for the upcoming term, and neither would be perfect.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
But in reality, space does not clear after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets--all have already become tiny satellites, traveling at about 27,000 kilometers per hour, 10 times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. A marble traveling at such speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton saf
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I remember correctly, one of the co-inventors of the first nuke was quoted as saying that it would mean the end of war, as noone would be crazy enough to use it.
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
Talking about insanely short-sighted... (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
Re:Talking about insanely short-sighted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Several such events were the destruction of a norwegian heavy water plant, a borked raid on a deuterium-oxide facility and the sinking of a heavy water shipment en route to Germany.
Assault in Norway: Sabotaging the Nazi Nuclear Bomb.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975
Blood and Water Dan Kurzman, 1997
It was going to happen far sooner than 50 more years down the line.
Re:Talking about insanely short-sighted... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually no, Germany had abandoned a nuclear weapon before then when physicists made an incorrect series of measurements to determine the possibility of fast-fission in enriched uranium. They still believed that slow fission in a reactor would have been possible and continued work on a heavy water reactor.
Since at the time they had no idea of the existence of plutonium, it is safe to say that the German bomb project was very, very dead.
They continued to explore the possibility of a radiological bomb right up to the end of the War, but never developed a potent enough irradiation source.
An excellent book on this is The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, we would have won? Some things are worth fighting for -- freedom is one of them. Talk to a Korean War vet and ask them what they thought of the retreat from the Yulu River -- having to abandon villages and cities they had liberated to the communists. Villages that had welcomed them as heroes and liberators.
In hindsight McArthur was right. The Chinese didn't have nukes at this time and the Russians only had a few -- and they had been unwilling to directly involve themselves in the war. There would be a united Korea today and quite possibly a free China. But instead of using a few tactical nukes on the Chinese soldiers when they attacked us we let it turn into a stalemate along the lines of the Western Front in WW1. Millions of people died (mostly Chinese and North Koreans but that's small comfort -- a Human Being is a Human Being) for no gain.
"we sell it to our enemies" (Score:4, Interesting)
During the Cold War that was the case, but times have changed. The US military is getting to the point where it is dominated by information systems rather than hardware platforms. The hardware platforms are merely modular components that are the eyes, ears, and fists of the network.
It's essentially impossible to export an all-encompassing data-driven warfighting structure. The US can still export individual components such as planes and tanks, but even then hardly anyone can afford the most up-to-date American equipment. So yes, we often do face American equipment on the battlefield, but combatting soldiers who wield M-16s and drive M60A3 tanks isn't in the same league as fighting an opponent that has laser-guided munitions, ubiquitous night-fighting capabilities, and GPS down to the squad level.
If you're worried about our enemies getting a hold of space weaponry, you're barking up the wrong tree. Just remember that our most sophisticated aerial and space reconnaissance equipment hardware has never been sold to anyone, even during the height of the Cold War.
For fiscal and geopolotical reasons I'm not sure that we need to militarize space, but the argument that such technology will be used against us is a bit far-fetched, given the technology imblance between the US military and the rest of the world.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Informative)
But it does have one thing that is driving China's expansion - an insatiable thirst for oil and gas. China has just become a net importer of fossil fuels, most of which is being met from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia - both places where America has said it has strategic interests.
Chinese energy consumption will DOUBLE in the next five years, a large share of which will have to be met by imports, oil imports are growing by 30%+ per year and are now over 100 million tonnes per annum - a figure that was only expected to be reached in 2010.
And let's not forget, with its bumper surpluses, China can afford to buy all the oil it needs.
The Chinese State Petroleum company is now one of the largest operators in the Caspian region and of the huge gas reserves in Kazakhstan and is looking to sign exclusive details so that energy flows east not west.
China has plenty to fear about American control of the region, so it is looking to arm itself to compete with American global reach. Not in the next five years, but the next thirty when Middle Eastern oil is practically all that is left. A global military power needs access to space, and the Chinese will not allow the Americans to deprive them of it.
Best wishes,
Mike.
not (Score:5, Informative)
" In concluding, I would like to stress that efforts to achieve a ban on the weaponization of outer space must continue so as to protect the space assets of all nations in the interests of international peace and security."
That's Because (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this
Re:That's Because (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think it would be nice to keep it that way.
This is for reals! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's Because (Score:4, Insightful)
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
Re:That's Because (Score:3, Informative)
Spending even a moment's thought, it's fairly logical to see that weaker powers (i.e. all of them) are going to resort to attempted collective action to try to restrain a superpower, ESPECIALLY one not constrained by a count
Not forbidden? (Score:4, Interesting)
Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.
Re:Not forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the breakdown of the Sovjet union, the world cheered for peace and everyone did their best to join as many international treaties as possible. The few who didn't was the US. The reason: to easier fight back on socalled "evil" societies.
I find
Re:Not forbidden? (Score:5, Informative)
Ignorance can be cured, but I can't help it if your stupid. Have you bothered to check out facts about the whole thing or does your news just consist of getting a few anti-US that reaffirm your world view? Regardless I'm going to try to answer your questions.
As for direct Democratic control, US soldiers answer to the Commander in Chief aka the president. To answer the direct control question, this occurs because the Constitution gives it to him in order to assure the military answers to a leader democraticaly elected by the people. The cabinet as a whole has no control of the military.
As for treaties, the US doesn't sign a lot of treaties because they tend to bind us whilst other parties typicaly give them lip service at best. I'll provide two good examples. The Geneva convention which is supposed to protect soldiers in times of war and is probably the second most broken treaty in history, yet most countries have signed it. How about the UN human rights treaties?
http://www.bayefsky.com/
In theory these are supposed to protect about every person in the world. In reality most nations disregard the treaty like they do all the others. It does no good to enter a treaty with someone that will only pay lip service or is fundamentaly incapable of following it.
How are we supposed to believe other nations would stick to their obligations on things like Kyoto (have you actually read how lopsided it is?), when most nations can't even stick to the basics like human rights and treatment of enemy soldiers in battle?
Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The States (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
Re:The States (Score:3, Troll)
Then it should be a 'sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources' treaty and forget the Global Warming(tm) crap. There are very good reasons to limit reliance on fossil fuels, we don't need typical lefty lies to promote that.
"Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs"
You seriously
We're doomed... (Score:4, Funny)
I keep thinking... (Score:3, Funny)
Weapons in Space... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..
We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.
Didn't Salyut 3 do this first? (Score:5, Interesting)
On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.
Re:Didn't Salyut 3 do this first? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ronnie Ray-gun. Beam weapons = a waste of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinetic energy weapons are probably useful, but testing and re-use are extremely difficult things in the harsh space environment.
If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.
Our sources say... (Score:5, Funny)
blech
CB
Soviet Weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Soviet Weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
they discuss the mounted cannon at the end of the article.
Generally accepted to be a Nudelmann 23MM AA gun.
Not exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
Weren't these there already? (Score:3, Insightful)
When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?
no, no, no, but you were close.... (Score:5, Funny)
only Outlaws will have Orbital Weapons Platforms!
This is necessary (Score:4, Interesting)
Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...
Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.
Re:This is necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with the notion that humans are antagonistic. Granted, they are self-serving, but what is good for me may also be good for you. The entire notion of service industry commerce is based on that.
Star Wars (Score:3, Funny)
Why go back to the moon? Because in military conflict higher ground gives you an advantage. Why build a space station when we're already got a natural space station that orbits us already?
rant,rant,rant..
Here's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.
Wait for it... (Score:3, Funny)
I plan to turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star"
Related Star Wars Article (Score:5, Informative)
WHY STAR WARS IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T WORK By Carl Sagan, Hans A. Bethe, Henry W. Kendall, Kurt Gottfried, Richard L. Garwin, Victor F. Weisskopf
The following statement by six prominent scientists on the dangers of Star Wars appeared as part of a letter to The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 1985
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5561
A nearly impermeable strategic defense system would indeed have the capability to "save lives" rather than to "avenge them," to replace strategic deterrence by defense. But such a system is not in the cards, as even the program's director, General James Abrahamson, readily admits. Anything short of an impermeable system tends to undermine, not improve, US national security. Here are some of the reasons that we consider the Star Wars scheme unworkable and a grave danger to the United States:
-- Underflying: Star Wars does not defend against, or even address, low-altitude delivery systems--bombers and cruise missiles, and "suitcase" nuclear weapons. By themselves, they are able to destroy both nations; Star Wars would accelerate their development.
-- Overwhelming: The number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal (as in our own) is about 10,000. If even a few percent of these warheads exploded on US territory it would represent an unparalleled human disaster and effective collapse of the United States as a functioning political entity. The Soviets could keep ahead of any American Star Wars system because it is cheaper to build new warheads than to shoot down old ones (and easier to shoot down orbiting defensive systems than incoming missiles).
-- Outfoxing: It is cheaper to build countermeasures than to build Star Wars. Some decades in the future when a (still highly permeable) US Star Wars system might be deployed, the Soviets would have added tens or hundreds of thousands of decoys and other penetration aids to their arsenal. Their objective would be to fatally confuse the American Star Wars system, which can never be adequately tested except in a real nuclear war.
-- Cost: Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, and senior Pentagon spokesmen of this Administration, have all estimated the full Star Wars cost as hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.
-- Soviet preemption: Despite US reassurances, the Soviets perceive Star Wars as part of a US first strike strategy, allowing us to launch a preemptive attack and then to destroy the remnant of any surviving Soviet retaliatory forces. In a time of severe crisis, this may tempt the Soviet Union to make a preemptive first strike against the United States.
-- Institutional momentum: When a trillion dollars is waved at the US aerospace industry, the project in question will rapidly acquire a life of its own--independent of the validity of its public justifications. With jobs, corporate profits, and civilian and military promotions at stake, a project of this magnitude, once started, becomes a juggernaut, the more difficult to stop the longer it rolls on.
We do not oppose defense in principle. We are in favor of carefully bounded research in this area, as in many others; we are also concerned that the line between research and early deployment of key Star Wars components not be blurred. Several of us have devoted considerable effort to research on missile defense. Some of us have advocated missile defense for individual missile silos. But we agree with Department of Defense experts who make it clear that cities cannot be so protected. Mr. Schlesinger has said "in our lifetime and that of our children, cities will be protected by forebearance of those on the other side, or through effective deterrence."
Hans A. Bethe
Richard L. Garwin
Kurt Gottfried
Henry W. Kendall
Carl Sagan
Victor Weisskopf
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Re:Related Star Wars Article (Score:5, Insightful)
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
Militarization != weaponization (Score:3, Insightful)
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
Good For Us (Score:3, Insightful)
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
Re:Good For Us (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple reason is that its a new and final chance. There are no more new frontiers. Do we still have to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, or can we actually act on what we have learned time and again through costly experience, that weapons don't bring peace, and war is just self-destructive.
This is invertanly good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean one should do it...
Military Space Programs - more info... (Score:4, Informative)
detailed information about any death machine you could possibly think of.
Also see missile defense [fas.org] (Condi's favourite),
or nukes [fas.org]
or conventional weapons [fas.org].
Tons of material there...
But does it take the WMD's? (Score:3, Funny)
Part of a weapon system(s) is already there (Score:4, Insightful)
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
Kinetic missiles? (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds to me a lot like the "kinetic harpoons" described in the "Night's Dawn Triology" by Peter F Hamilton.
A recommended SF read too, if you like the genre.
Bloody typical (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it that makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to ignore a worldwide ban on weapons research / deployment? What makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to use weapons of mass destruction if they had them?
Let's just say no weapons in space, full stop.
So Who's the Opposition? (Score:3, Interesting)
All the serious analyses of future warefare that I've seen have third-world "rogue states" and semi-organized terrorists as opponents. How do space weapons help here? I don't think we have to worry about some future Saddam Hussein's space capabilities.
Note also that, given high-tech opposition (from who? I dunno.) the US has a *lot* more to lose than anybody else. Check out what a Keyhole satellite costs
Maginot Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
What will Aliens think? (Score:5, Insightful)
From A US Space Command officer (Score:4, Insightful)
Weapons in space have been in existence for some time. If you call a duck a duck, then a satellite with a sole response of killing another satellite is a weapon. The Soviets demonstrated their capabilities quite some time ago to perform this maneuver. To be honest, Star Wars scared the beejeesus out of the Soviets and they tried every measure possible to stop us from developing it. When we "won" the cold war, there wasn't a reason to keep the measure alive since no other country was so capable of putting a nuke on our doorstep in minutes.
This is why Cuba was such a huge issue for us. No time to counter a first strike. If you'll note, we always strike with a heavy first blow, because it's strategically important to do so.
Getting back on-topic. Given the facts above, I really question the credility or motives of the "Expert" cited in the article. Anyone involved in Space, and most certainly any Air Force related personnel, would know about the previous weapons. I've got a copy of the USAF Space Handbook (issued to AF Officers in Space Command), dated over 10 years ago, which outline the Soviet's program in good detail.
The rest of the posts on here seem to really stray off topic, but I'll entertain a few. The problem the US has had is that we see things differently than a good number out there. Conversely, they each see things differently than every one else as well. So there's two foreign policies you can follow:
1. Isolationism
2. Work with the other governments to further your agenda
I'd say anyone even remotely familiar with history would agree that option 1 is no option at all. We tried ignoring Osama Bin Laden, the Japanese and German agression in WWIII and others, yet we eventually get sucked in anyway. We can engage in the "chicken and egg", or cause and effect conversation until we're each sleepy or bored, yet neither of us will ever have the definitive correct answer. The key to courage is to make the best of what you have today and move forward.
This is why we've changed our posture. Is it aggressive? Sure. But so have our enemies...
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll have a space weapons gap!
Why not negotiate a treaty to keep weapons out of space without a global threat, as determined by the UN? Well, that would just be UnAmerican. We should just put weapons up there. That'll show those commie bastards.
Even to the most hawkish, another cold war can't be that appealing. Why not nip it in the bud?
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Insightful)
You can always trust evil dictators!
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Funny)
Que Bono? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Insightful)
whereas the USA has a history of invading or installing dictatorships anywhere in the world it pleases to.
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that china has an amicable relationship with the US is false. they crashed a jet into a radar plane of ours, and we had to do some real legwork to get the crew back.
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes... that American military plane that was hanging around China for some strange reason. IIRC, they were happy enough to hand over the crew, but for some reason wouldn't comply with the US government's entirely reasonable request that they give back all the high-tech spying equipment that was also on the plane without looking at it
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space Arms (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Momentum (Score:4, Insightful)
Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.
Re:weapons in space (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Also, considering the huge advances the US has made in stealth technology, wrapping the whole thing up in a stealthy package that a foreign governments radar based space tracking equipment couldn't see seems very logical.
Here's something to think about as well. When the US retired the SR-71 from active service, did you really think they didn't have a replacement coming into active service? Space based sensing is nice but it has some inherent limitations.
I would take an uneducated guess that the US has a top secret spy plane that has eclipsed all of the short comings of the SR-71.
Also, why would the US need to put nuclear weapons into space when it has a state of the art fleet of nuclear missle submarines that are roaming all over the world with lots of ICBM's that can be launched from anywhere anytime and hit anything.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
Re:Weapons ARE banned from orbit (some of them any (Score:4, Insightful)
The wording of that paragraph indicates that WMDs are banned in space, and military activity is banned on the surface of planets and moons, but I don't see where applies to Weapons of Less Than Mass Destruction in free orbit. So we are free to put up a pinpoint weapon that can take out just The Terrorists (tm) from outer space, while leaving the surrounding area unharmed.
However, I think that this kind of "silver bullet" thinking is a waste of money until they figure out a better way to choose targets. It was clear from the latest Iraq war that when they used smart bombs and cruise missiles to precisely wipe out a target, they often had little clue as to what was actually inside the target, and they often had no idea where the people they really wanted to get were located.
I would prefer if they used the $Billions that they're sinking into these high-tech boondoggles to hire and train old-fashioned spies instead. If we had only had a few reliable high-level moles in Iraq, we could have avoided that whole war altogether. We would have known that WMDs weren't an issue, and the pissing match between Saddam and the Bush clan could have been handled by just killing Saddam & sons. (This could have been accomplished an off-the-shelf cruise missile if we had actual accurate information about where they were. There would have been some international protest about "illegal assasination", but that would have blown over much quicker than the current quagmire.) This would have saved thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Re:Ban on non-proliferation? (Score:3, Interesting)
History doesn't agree with you. It took violence on a truly massive scale to destroy Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Dialog may work when dealing with reasonable people, but many people only respect the threat of armed response by superior military forces.
Someone once told me why Japan h
Re:Neal Boortz says it best... (Score:3, Interesting)
Russia, China, US.... guess what, they're all just as bad. The US is NOT the good guy. History has more than proven that regardless of the political and economical structures in place, superpowers inadvertently end up being rules by an elite that will procede to screw over anyone else if they think they can get away with it.
The only thing that h