Slashdot Mirror
Space Wars
There have been lots of interesting stories recently about the US's growing reliance on satellites to control gee-whiz weaponry and provide detailed real-time images to battlefield commanders. MSNBC has a story on the military's growing bandwidth crunch. The AP has a story about how many other nations are putting up their own spy and communications satellites, suggesting that the US edge in space imagery might disappear (unless we start shooting other satellites down, of course). And Bruce Sterling has a fun story in Wired (fun in writing style, not in its implications) suggesting that we're entering an age of Pax Americana, where the US military is so dominant that competitors exist only at our sufferance (though that might not stop people from trying).
This is some information on a treaty from 1983 which prohibits use of force against satellites and also prohibits using satellites to shoot at the earth.
0xB
This is kind of scary stuff really. When I was in the military there were several times when we were using Satellite Communications Uplinks and we had to sit around on our asses waiting for the right time so we could get an allotted frequency. There is so much demand for the few frequencies that the military satellites possess that you can end up waiting quite a while. The bad thing was sometimes you REALLY needed it. And you could get it...in 30 minutes.
For what its worth...
le sigh
I'd love to know how you'd propose turning a space-based kinetic kill vehicle into something you could conceivably use against a ground target. Or for that matter an orbitting laser.
Do a little research on kinetic kill vehicles from the old Reagan-era "Star Wars" program. It's essentially a hunk of dense metal with a few thrusters and an infrared seeker on the front. It has no explosives and doesn't need any; it kills its target by impact at orbital velocities (18,000mph). Using this against a ground target would result in either (a) a burnt-up kill vehicle or (b) a small hole in the ground about the size of a trashcan. Offensive weapon? Unlikely.
What about space-based lasers? Well, let's forget for a moment that no easily-loftable laser is currently available, and if it was it'd be hideously expensive to launch. Let's focus on the physics, namely "blooming". No, we're not talking about flowers here, we're talking about atmospheric attenuation of a laser beam. You could try shooting a ground target with an orbiting laser, but you'd lose a ton of beam power just punching through 50 miles of atmosphere. And again, all you'd get is a very small impact. You'd do much more damage with a cruise missle.
No one is proposing lofting any orbiting nukes, and even if they did, so what? What can an orbiting nuke hit that an ICBM or nuclear-tipped cruise missle can't already hit with impunity?
Or were you referring to space-vs-space offensive weaponry? Well, what would we shoot down with our lasers and KKV's? Comm and surveillance satellites perhaps, but we'd risk war by doing so, and for what gain? The only folks on earth who have a sizable space presence other than the U.S. and the E.U. is the former Soviet Union. Last I checked, the cold war was over, so I don't think they're our target. China is starting to get into the game, but a conflict with them would have to be decades off if China wants any hopes at actually winning anything.
So, in short, take your knee-jerk reaction and apply a little logic and common sense to it. Space-based weaponry right now pretty much HAS to be defensive, because we lack the technology to make an offensive use practical or even economical. If you're so concerned about indiscriminate use of offensive weapons, why not choose weapons that are actually useful at what they do, like cruise missles.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Just to put a little perspective on your comment, the Roman Empire was the most dominant empire in the history of man in terms of total amount of world population under their control as well as territory, technology, and medicine. They lasted for much longer than any other modern empire on record, and formed the basis of a representative democracy which you now participate in.
Granted they were brutal in some of their rule, but you cannot ignore the benefits they brought to this world in the midst of said brutality. If you're going to use them as an example, you must speak on BOTH sides of the issue, not just the one that happens to support your argument.
Using the Third Reich is a poor example and you know it. You might as well use the Taliban as an example.
Before you start calling other people myopic, it might do you a little good to open your eyes a bit more yourself. The world is not a pretty place, but that does not make it evil. Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible, and you are not in a position to criticize the very system you benefit from without sounding a tad hypocritical.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
One of the biggest roadblocks to military bandwidth is the number of TDRS satellites in orbit. These guys (Tracking Data Relay Satellites) are the backbone of modern space communications and have been in orbit since the early 80s.
The TDRS network was originally put in place to support the Space Shuttle and provide 24x7 communications access to ground control. Before TDRS, there had to be tracking stations around the world and in expensive ships crewed by hundreds. Before TDRS, re-entering spacecraft would experience a communications blackout because the ionized gases of the reentry blocked line of sight transmissions from the ground.
With TDRS, there is almost always a relay satellite around to link a spacecraft (or military satellite) to ground. Re-entering space shuttles now have contact with ground control through the entire entry sequence because the antennas can 'see' the TDRS network above them, unblocked by the plasma around the nose.
The problem? The TDRS network (which is continuosly refreshed with new satellites as older ones go out of service) is based on protocols from the 1970s that were supposed to provide voice and telemetry. Now, they're being tasked to channel still images and even video in some circumstances, and not just by the shuttle fleet and NASA. The military uses TDRS on occasion to get spy satellite data too, further sapping the infrastructure.
It's time to start upping a new network of satellites with K band or better transmitters and receivers (which use more power) and so on.
Folks, this is not good military analysis, this is just Bruce selling an article.
It is true that the satellites provide massive reconaissance and communications force multipliers to the military. It is also true that we are very dependent on them not just for military functions but also for tele-economic industries (making them juicy targets). And it is true that America's constant investment in various technologies mean a uni-polar world re: conventional military power.
What Bruce fails to realize is that these tools are just that- tools that can be broken, circumvented or worse copied and used better by others.
For instance, if we follow through with heavy DEWAD use (Directed Energy Weapon Air Defense), yes we can knock down missiles and rule the skies- for a while. Then our enemies will eventually duplicate the technology, and knock down our cruise missiles, UAVs and bombers. Then all the satellites in the world won't help our inability to affect events on the ground with airpower.
Even if we have a Rumsfeldian dream US Space Force, that doesn't stop the VW driving in from Mexico City with the nuke in the trunk.
Our enemies will move around our military power. Take a looksee at this translation of two Chinese colonels writing about our Desert War dominance, and how to circumvent and defeat the US in spite of military superiority. Somehow in his rush to sell his article, he did not deal with assymetric warfare.
Pax Americana needs these toys to happen, but the toys by themselves can be beaten. What we really need is plenty of mutual interest (read money and self-determination) for most of the world to participate in Pax Americana, the will to crush in Cold or Hot War those who will take away self-determination and money from others in the name of an ism (even if they are American), and the spread of fair legal and financial system to the average world citizen.
We will win with satellite TV moreso then satellite lasers.
I don't know what happened to Bruce- way too many blue hawaiians on Austin's Sixth Street I imagine.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
- "On the other hand, Washington's war wonks don't seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let's face it, the world might do much worse."
Leave that mod button alone for a sec--I'm trying to present an honest viewpoint, not troll. I don't hate the US. But this smug, presumtuous attitude is a problem. I agree that there must be measures in place to stop factions like the Taleban from damaging our own society. But I believe this should be something that is done through international cooperation. A single country cannot assign itself as judge, jury and executioner simply because its the most powerful. When people do that, they're called bullies.The article seems to take the attitude that the "Usian way" is the "right way"; that it's just fine for the US to target whomever they please in order to ensure their own safety. You can't build a "New World Order" by simply crushing anyone who disagrees with you. And if you're on the side that would benefit from such a New World Order, you should probably be concerned about how your way of life is built, and who will be the next target after all the opposition is gone (hint: the population of this New World Order).
Once again, please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to bash the US; I would like to question the article itself for assuming that the world must go along with the US or be beaten into submission, because to me that's what it seems to say. The problem is primarily with the leaders, who are people apparently intoxicated with their own power and completely without the wisdom or responsibility to use it with restraint; and also with the population, who are apathetic to the attitude their leaders hold as long as their easy way of life continues.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is without cause for its actions. I don't want to make any judgements on who is in the right in specific instances. But the reckless attitude of "Global Cop" put forward in the article, as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, is something that is heavily, heavily resented, and not just by radical Middle-Eastern parties. I don't feel I speak for myself alone. As a New Zealander and former South African I know that what I'm saying is a fairly prevalent viewpoint in both those countries. One only need watch TV to hear Bush commenting on the Israeli activities of the last few days: words to the effect of "I am not going to put up with this." Perhaps to people in the US these sound like strong words, but to people in other countries they sound like the words of a spoiled man with no real understanding of what he's talking about, assuming that the power he has gives him some right to dictate the actions of other countries. Of course I'm not saying that Sharon is right or that Bush is wrong--I agree with Bush's intent, but not his conviction that whatever he wants another country to do must happen, however true that is.
This attitude is what I see in the article. I imagine I'll be heavily downmodded for this post, since this is a Usiacentric forum, but I'm hoping open minds entertain differing ideas, on the supposition that most Slashdot readers are fairly open-minded and will realise that I'm trying to state an honest viewpoint as inoffensively as I can.