Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Air Force Plans for War In Space
arhca writes "Wired has an article about the U.S. Air Force's plans to put military weapons in outer space. Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground, space-based lasers and large mirrors to reflect the beams at targets on the ground, and a space-based radio frequency energy weapon to destroy or disable foreign satellites. The Air Force's PDF can be found here."
Well, yes and no.
The stated goal of the Reagan SDI was along those lines, but the real plan of the SDI was to create a technological race that the USSR had no chance of matching, which launched the US into prominence and bankrupted the USSR.
It worked well, apparently.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
The war in Iraq proved to have the least number of non-combatant casualties of ANY war, EVER before. That seems to indicate IMPROVED accuracy. No, not perfect yet (that won't ever happen), but much, MUCH better. Accidents did occur, weapons did misfire, and hit non-target areas, yes. But overall, the Iraq war was far, FAR safer for non-combatants than any war ever before.
Any significant conflict involving orbital space will leave so much debris that satellites and spacecraft will run much higher risks of collisions. The consequences of a war in space may be devastating to our communication and weather networks.
The United States withdrew from the ABM treaty, as permitted in the provisions of the treaty. The treaty was not "broken". Get your facts straight before you start jerking your knees.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Wrong film. Tomorrow Never Dies was the one about the media maniac, the sunken Royal Navy ship and the stolen GPS controller.
-- Soruk
There is no Palestine. You can't free something that doesn't exist.
gg nextmap
Didn't you RTFA or were you too interested in getting a +5 FP and scoring a political shot against the Bush administration? Let me quote:
Mind you that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or that I'm endorsing it. But it's certainly not illegal or in violation of any treaty.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"$66.4 million is being spent on a research project to "deny, disrupt and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems." He said another $79 million is funding efforts to build a "constellation of optical sensing satellites to track and identify space forces."
In other news, $0 million is currently being spent to save the Hubble Space Telescope, an optical sensing satellite to track and identify the wonders of space.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Starting in the late 1950s the Soviets began working on an nuclear orbital bombardment system that would bypass US early warning systems. There was also Salyut 3 in 1975 which carried a 23mm cannon that was used to fire at a target satellite
Firefly.
No sound in space. Fairly accurate physical model. Check out the DVDs, it's a great series that was cut down before its prime.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
Interestingly the Gatling Gun was first made to be a weapon so terrible that people would see the futility of war and not fight any more.. (credits to the History Channel) The opposite happened. Increasing destructive power has always only served throughout history to up the ante when it comes to the price of fighting a war...and ultimately has made the world a more dangerous place to live.
You might be thinking of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. ABM didn't govern proliferation of nuclear weapons, it was a treaty to prevent the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. It was signed to prevent either side from making the other's nuclear arsenal irrelevant, which would clear the way for a one-sided nuclear war. As far as I know, ABM was never actually violated by either side, although the SDI (and more recently, THAAD and Brilliant Eyes/Brilliant Pebbles) would have been clear violations.
Put aside the arms race issue, and the financial issues, ability to develop the technology, etc.
The big problem is what happens once we start blowing up satellites in orbit. The debris will all enter new orbits, and there's a good chance that some of this debris will strike other satellites, which will strike others, which will destroy low-earth orbit for 50 years. That's probably why the US would not focus on kinetic weapons, which could hve chaotic consequences. OTOH, other countries with less dependence on space (and fearful of having their satellites blown up while the US satellites continue to function), would be more apt to use kinetic weapons and risk destroying loads of stuff in low-earth orbit. Don't worry, this won't affect GPS or DirecTV.
Wasn't there some project with this idea in the 70's or 80's? Called Thor?
IIRC, it was basically a bunch of orbiting metal rods with minimal guidance rockets and radar. The radar has preprogrammed siluettes of what a tank (or whatever) looks like from above.
When these things received a signal, they'd drop out orbit over the battle field, and use thier radar to look for enemy tanks, then fall on it. 50lbs of steel traveling at terminal velocity will take out pretty much anything short of a battleship.
Foreign countries are allowed to have weapons, as LONG as they're not as powerful as our own.
Most countries have voluntarily agreed to this through international treaties, like the non-proliferation treaty and the Geneva convention. As long as countries live up to their obligations to these agreements, they can do whatever they want. If they break their word, then the international community has every reason to get pissed.
Sigh, slashdot physics... :)
.01, but the acceleration of the projectile will be 1/1 = 1.
Actually, the force on both objects is necessarily equal and opposite in direction. You are correct that F=ma plays a role though.
If m(cannon) = 100 and m(projectile) = 1, and the forces are equal, let's say F=1, then the acceleration a(cannon) will be 1/100 =
I say we transfer the program to the deparement of education on the grounds that it'll make for some good physics textbook examples.
But it will improve the lives of American citizens. Who else do you think is going to get a well paid and interesting jobs designing and building these things.
If you think the US has never missed a target with guided-missiles, you are mistaken.
And whether or not it was human error, the end result is still the same. See: here and here among others.
So all the bombings of hospitals, schools and other "soft" targets was no mistakes then, but done "consistently"?
Is this perhaps part of the "Shock and Awe" intended to win the hears and minds of Iraqies? I guess the US officers really know how to show helpfullness
I think you're confusing the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and maybe what exactly they ban.
The ABM treaty restricts anti-ballistic missile systems to limited areas that can't protect the entire country. At the moment nobody has a functional anti-ballistic missile system, and only the US has so much as a plain old anti-missile system. None of these are availible on the black market. The US withdrew from this, which the treaty allowed. Whether that was a good idea is another story.
The NPT bans nuclear powers giving non-nuclear powers weapons, and non-nuclear powers from trying to find or build their own. It does allow helping developing nations with nuclear power. You could make the argument that this is meaningless, since somebody probably gave Israel nukes, and maybe North Korea has a model from somewhere to work from, but the State Department still prefers to respect it.
The Outer Space Treaty bans putting nuclear weapons platfroms in space, and using celestial bodies for any military use at all. This doesn't violate that treaty, since the moon and nukes aren't involved.
Maybe you could rephrase, specifying what treaties you're actually talking about.
This gets Insightful?
Just who is going to be out there attacking us from space? Just how do you expect that these hypothetical attackers can test their space systems without being observed by any of our intelligence satellites? Who has the money and the motivation to launch such a massive undertaking?
Due to the economics, the U.S. has a great deal more to fear in the way of small, disgruntled terrorists who may construct biological, chemical or radioactive bombs. All the space based defenses in the universe won't keep you safe from those people.
The weaponisation of space is a very poor idea. The so called Outer Space treaty signed by the United States bans the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in orbit. This agreement was signed by the U.S., the U.S.S.R, and China, along with many other nations. While weapons of a more limited scope are not directly prohibited by this treaty, developing a significant capability to deliever weapons systems of a more conventional nature into space will undoubtably be viewed rather dimly by other nations, since it is clear that such technology and capacity could be quickly retargeted towards other uses.
Recent administrations have viewed these and other non-proliferation treaties as insignificant and not binding. It's a tragic failure of our foreign policy, and enormously short sighted.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
I remember something that Lockeed had done a ways back called ERIS. It was a manned space fighter. I don't know if it's real or not but it stands a pretty good chance of it (seeing they have claimed a few launches. Found a couple of links about it here and here. Looks like it started back in 1985... It had two test launches and actually shot down a few things (for the gun crowd out there the 'muzzle velocity' was 44,000 fps). The tech went into cruise missles, ICBM's and missle defense programs.
User not found: Please check the world and try again.
You sir, are extremely misinformed. The fact that you pushed some of the buttons means nothing to me.
What about:
The restaruant and the three houses that were destroyed because we thought Saddam "might" have been there. He wasn't, we killed dozens of civilians. The stories about "smart" bombs missing their target are plentiful, but the targets themselves being wrong are even more worrisome.
Check out this link. So, I assume you had nothing to do with cluster bombing? Well, that's good. You at least left that to other US servicemen... Iraqi children are still picking up the bomblets (5-20% do not go off, leaving little toy like objects around to make kids armless. Nice.)
And as far as FoxNews, don't get me started...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
Well, that's the problem - everyone will. China can do it, India can do it, Russia can do it, Europe can do it. Maybe others will in the future too. Consider that if the USA puts weapons up there then all these other powers will feel compelled to develop their own. And even those countries that don't have the launch capability might find a friend in the above groups who'll launch / sell the tech for or to them.
Now if the USA had honoured previous commitments to keep space non-militarised, then perhaps these other space-capable powers would decide not to put weapons up there for fear of provoking the USA into competition (which they would have trouble competing with). A wonderful opportunity is being missed here.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Pope Urban II made crossbows illegal in 1097, fearing that the weapon would lead to man's extinction. Pope Innocent II forbade the "deadly and God-detested art of slingers and archers." Of course the Vatican allowed archers to be employed if they were on a crusade.
(1) You must have forgotten about the British and the Soviets. Britain ruled Iraq for a while and organised the coup that brought the Ba'athists to power. Iraq was later a Soviet client state up until the collapse of the USSR (which explains all those Soviet tanks, aircraft, and missiles they were using no?).
(2) Would you care to list up the technology that the military technology that the US supplied to Iraq? Here's a hint - the list would have 0 lines. The US provided Iraq with financial support for a while during the Iran-Iraq war, and some military intelligence, but never any sort of technology.
Randy Newman put that better over 30 years ago.
Political Science Lyrics
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. My platoon of Marines are here to make sure you can't reach me with your sticks and your stones.
So...your opinion is that making MORE enemies while permitting FEWER enemies to attack is better than having FEWER enemies but permitting MORE of them to attack?
Sorry, as I pointed out here that treaty only says you can't put nukes into space. It say nothing about non-nuclear weapons.
1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;
Would you have preferred that the US Senate refused to ratify it? Because that's exactly what would have happened if Bush hadn't pulled out of it.
2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;
See previous point about US Senate.
3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements
Most Americans don't think free-trade and NAFTA/WTO are all they are cracked up to be. We are tired of seeing our high-paying jobs outsourced overseas and watching your Government subsidized businesses (*cough* Airbus *cough*) compete with ours. Bush was carrying out the will of a large portion of his people on that one. I only wish he had the guts to stay with it.
Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate
No point in disputing that one.
The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office
Yeah but those treaties allowed us to withdraw after giving them six months notice. Very technically speaking if the Russians had wanted to scrap them they could have. We didn't "break" those treaties.
Face facts, when it comes to international relations, there's a lot that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about. Pretend all you want, but the current US government has set back US-World relationships more than any other in history. It took all the goodwill and support the World had to offer after September 11 and either pissed it away or threw it back into people's faces.
I'm not going to argue that one. Please try that remember that at least 50% of the people over here hate Bush at least as much as you do (it's not your personal freedoms he's taking away -- his domestic policies are as big of a disaster as his foreign policies) -- he stands a very good chance of not being re-elected.
My problem with Bush isn't that he puts America's interests first when it comes to international relations. All of our leaders have done that. All of your leaders have done that. My problem with Bush is that he wouldn't know the meaning of diplomacy if he tripped over it. There's usually a way to get most of what you want without offending people or making them think you are trying to conquer the planet.
I'd also agree with your 9/11 statements. That was a huge chance to right a lot of old wrongs -- the example that first pops into my head is Cuba -- Castro condemned the attacks -- what better chance to end our foolish embargo against him without losing face then that? Unfortunately the neo-cons are running things and they don't give a damn about what you or I think. And I happen to be an American citizen. They seem to think that losing the popular vote by 500,000 gives them some sort of mandate to impose their right-wing agenda on us and the rest of the World.
God I hope Bush loses come November.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
yeah.... i'm gonna trust what coal companies are saying about global warming. especially when they do not say who they actually are on their webpage. unless you where mearly showing that there is propaganda on both sides, in which case, bully for you.
3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements;s es/2003/12/20 031204-5.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea
that one just says that over a year after he placed the tarrifs he lifted them, at least for steel. your link doesn't mention the lumber and other imports. how was that not violating them again?
-Pakistan
-Saudi Arabia
-Turkmenistan (?)
-Egypt (?)
An why can't Israel be on the list?
It's "such a special country"? They are our friends"?
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
> I'm just wondering what oppressive right-wing regimes we are currently supporting.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Haiti. These are just some of the major ones, a little research will uncover plenty more. Right-wing, left-wing, no-wing, who cares--they're all oppressive and they're all regimes.
If memory serves there were several international agreements with the purpose of preventing ALL WEAPONRY IN SPACE.
From an international standpoint though it doesn't matter, despite American military rhetoric nuclear weapons ARE ultimate weapons. The specifications for shelters to protect humans from GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR are sufficiently difficult that the survivors would number in the tens of thousands. And of course all major powers probably have really dirty bombs set up to go off every few dozen years after the initial war so that nuclear winter can last several hundred years. The American's because they are vindictive enough to kill everything and everyone else because if such a war occures we don't deserve to exist.
The reason American's seem to be saying that nuclear weapons aren't the ultimate weapon is because of menas of delivery, hence they try and track Russian Nuclear subs (good luck) and keep track of the 20,000+ nuclear war heads pointed at their citizens. (note they can't stop 1 with current technology). The nature of their nuclear testing indicates this ignorance in that they have been experimenting with diffrent delivery methods such as long range cannon. How stupid is that these are bomb's, other countries know how to get bombs around, planes trains and automobiles. For $3000 I will smuggle a nuclear bomb into downtown New York and place it centrally in a location that will render it undetectable for the next 1000 years($1000 to bribe U.S. Border guard while saying it's cigarretes, $2000 to undercut the construction costs and gain access to the corner stone [6ft by 6ft] of a skyscraper) There will be no 3 minute missile flight when I become angry.
So everyone has figured this out except for the states, so why does the states still think it can push ANYONE around? I mean even Andora could probably put together $50,004,000 to buy a nuke off the Russians or pay an unethical physicist.
Well if we assume that it's fairly cheap and easy on the government scale to obtain nukes and I've shown it's even easier to deliver them in a manner which will offer no insight into the government responsible. Then America is pushing everyone around and if someone fought back no one would win. (I wouldn't define it as a win if 10,000 people who decided to kill everyone else survived, maybe it's just me.) But American imperalism continues, why? Why do people let smaller bullies push them around? Because the cost of fighting is higher than aquiescing, however if it continues long enough the cost of a bullet is cheap.
Don't push the world much farther, some people aren't as patient as others and if one of them finds you stealing from the mouths of their citizens to buy SUV's and they have a bomb in Central Park that button will look more and more tempting. Especially since there will be no focus for retaliation, of course if you continue with your current pogrom of random recrimination everyone else might find themselves pushing buttons in unison.
I am assuming you are referring to the recent impass between the EU and the US. The NA in NAFTA stands for North American. Last I checked neither Canada nor Mexico were members of the EU.
Or he could be reffering to the massive tarrifs the Bush administration has been levying on Canadian softwood lumber for the past couple of years.
CBC Story
BC Government
Euros aren't the only ones who feel the sting of American protectionism
-Pinkoir
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
co2andclimate.org -
public relations and lobbying organization funded by the Western Fuels Association that is skeptical of the potential for catastrophic climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity.
Hmmmm, hardly biased reporting.
Now if the USA had honoured previous commitments to keep space non-militarised, then perhaps these other space-capable powers would decide not to put weapons up there for fear of provoking the USA into competition (which they would have trouble competing with). A wonderful opportunity is being missed here.
RTFA! in the article they say that this is completely legal vis a vis treaties.
Despite such technical hurdles, space-based arms are legal. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from orbit.
The ABM treaty, if we were still bound to it, would only prevent us from building a system specifically designed to stop Ballistic Missles as I understand it.
Rates of crimes other than murder are significantly higher in much of Europe than in the US. In addition, crime rates in the US have been dropping dramatically while those in Europe have been increasing.
Prepared to refute you with data from the United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network's statistics page, I found that a lot of what you said to be true -- except maybe the "significantly much higher" bit. The USA has hovered at about 5-6K crimes per 100K people with a slight decreasing trend, while all EU member nations have seen between 10%-50% increase in crime from 1980 to 1997.
However, in terms of violent crime, the USA is still king. Our murder, rape, and robbery rates are from 4-10 times larger than in EU states, and our incarceration rates are 7 times that of European nations outside of the former Warsaw Pact states. Apparently, while crime is more prolific in Europe (in spite of our much harsher drug laws), they are overwhelmingly not serious crimes.
Now, Japan is another story entirely. Crime rates in Japan went from about 11 in 1000 to 15 in 1000 over the same period of time. Violent crimes are nearly nonexistant (though on the rise). Having been to Japan, I can say that you really could leave a wallet on the bar without much worry in most places in Tokyo (and Sendai too). This is becoming less and less true now as a younger, less traditional generation is supplanting the values of the old, but Japan is much, much safer than America.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
my guess is this is aR TGAM .20040219.wruss0219/BNPrint/International/
reaction to
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/