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."

Comments

Re:Correct me if I am wrong

[NightSpots]

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.

Nothing new

[SirWhoopass]

This really isn't anything new. Space-based weapons have been thought of for at least as long as man has been in space.

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

Re:Arms Race

[Dutchmaan]

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.

Re:Hypervelocity?

[kuhneng]

Sigh, slashdot physics... :)

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 = .01, but the acceleration of the projectile will be 1/1 = 1.

I say we transfer the program to the deparement of education on the grounds that it'll make for some good physics textbook examples.

Re:Just what we need

[eclectic4]

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...

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

[h4rm0ny]

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.