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."
But wasn't that the plan of SDI back under Reagan?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Of course all this high powered weaponry will NOT MAKE A SOUND IN SPACE (not even cool 'zap' sounds). Perhaps they should put that into the article scifi movie writers will take note.
:-P
Note: This is a joke. Everytime I attempt humor on slashdot, the mods get it, but I get about 50 replies explaining why what I wrote is wrong. If you have no sense of humor, get off the net and go find some
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
hypervelocity n : excessive velocity; "the meteorites struck the earth with hypervelocity impacts"
Are these rods the size of VWs or something? That's pretty ambitious, if you ask me.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
The Alan Parsons Project!
"There's no defense like a good offense."
Now what about the popcorn...
Ah the sheer scope of our commitement to killing each other is staggering.
Technology? Progress? Dude, nothing has changed since my ancestral parent kicked your acestral parent's ass with a bone club.
Web pages, blogs, palm pilots....big fucking deal.
So these weapons will float up there without an enemy (at the moment) but once a foreign nation is considered "evildoers" the U.S. can rain down destruction as their war-machine infrastructure is already in place.
Naturally the American taxpayers will be told that this will make the world a safer place.
Trolling is a art,
Well, this will certainly put an end to the arms race.
I invented this business plan:
1. Place giant LASER on moon/giant dridgible.
2. Hold citizens of earth hostage for 1 BILLION dollars.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!
- Dr. Evil
Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax
" More space junk. It's getting pretty crowded up there already."
Yeah really man! Me an a couple friends were up in space last weekend and I was all like, "dude, space has become soooooo crowded" and he was like "dude totally".
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
Its a bird
Its a plane
No Wait
OH SH#T
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
God, I read too much Sci-Fi.
Final proof, if proof were needed, that George W really does believe Star Trek is real. He's no doubt drafted the orders for this from behind his sofa, trembling in his ST pyjamas at the thought of Klingons coming for him and stealing his oil.
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
watching this....
I am NaN
Let's just hope that our own satellites don't get hacked and the weapon is used against us. I'm curious to know if this is just an extension of Ronald Reagan's plans of the space missile defense systems (which at the time people scoffed at).
The ability to take out enemy satellites is also interesting. As an American, I cant' help but notice that the rules of engagement have been as follows: "Foreign countries are allowed to have weapons, as LONG as they're not as powerful as our own." which is obviously okay with me, as an American, however, so much for a fair playing field.
I had a room mate who was in the military, as he worked for the New York City counter terrorist unit, and he used to bring home videos from work that showed how we were able to target individual people from miles above the air. I'll never figure out why we'll use a bomb which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to snipe someone... when a 10 cent bullet would do the trick just fine. Now we can do it from space?
Flame me if you like, my karma sucks anyway.
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.
Get me out of this looney bin. I didn't sign up to be American, it was just bad luck.
Un-news
[obscure]
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
If you are wondering what country this might come in handy against in the future...
China
Casual Games/Downloads
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
Heating a giant Jiffy-Pop bag of course. (Joke lost on anyone who hasn't seen the movie)
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Great, something else to breakup and rain down on us in 30 years
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Wrong film. Tomorrow Never Dies was the one about the media maniac, the sunken Royal Navy ship and the stolen GPS controller.
-- Soruk
The United States signs treaties banning such things. ( ABM Treaty (1972) and Space Treaty (1967) ) Then they back out of it when THEY feel like developing/advancing the technology. Next, some country like France is gonna try the same thing and Bush will go in for the attack.
Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground.
I'm not up to date on my space program figures. But it is expensive as hell to put a kilogram of material into orbit. I'd much rather pay for a plain old bomb, or even a reusable space laser. Carrying a rod into space to shoot it back down to earth is not cost effective.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
At least this way we can start picking off the alien invaders before they get too close.
Trust Your Technolust
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.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
There is no Palestine. You can't free something that doesn't exist.
gg nextmap
And in other news, the United States Air force came under attack today from a group of hackers known as Slashdot. For over five hours, a "denial of service" attack was conducted against an Air Force webserver. Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, said he is looking into the matter, and that he is expects arrests will be made shortly.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
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.
While I want to make cynical remarks about the Air Force getting funding for space-based weapons and NASA's research stuff (particularly the Hubble and the Space Shuttle) getting the shaft, I also hope that any advances that one makes gets spread around to the other...
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Im much more worried if the US have those kinds of weapons than if some broke desert shithole gets their hands on some mustard gas. What exactly is the US doing this arms race against? Aliens?
The US no doubt has the power to keep space off limits for anyone for military arms race. Why in gods name then do they push the envelope so that other countries has to follow?
Warmongers, thats what i see.
Lets hope the administration gets changed to something less warhappy and perhaps a it more interested in all US citizens than of enriching a few select people.
HTTP/1.1 400
Also, am I the only one who is a mite worried about their ability to aim correctly at the target, as they didn't do a particularly good job of that in Iraq with a much shorter range to worry about.
You're either misinformed, or terminally stupid. I'm inclined to think the latter.
The US airstrikes consistently landed within feet, and oft times inches, or their intended targets. This was after traveling hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles away. I know, I was there, I pushed some of the buttons that launched those airstrikes. I also worked with one of the guys who designed the GPS guided smart bombs; they're as accurate, or more so, as Fox News reported.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
White Sands is on the ground, not in orbit. HELTF doesn't violate UN Resolution 2222 overview, text, which the US has signed (but the Senate has not ratified). This would. So it's not mindless Bush bashing crap, it's an awareness of the fact that the Bush Administration is perfectly willing to do the same thing (violating UN Resolutions) that it considered to be a causus belli when Iraq did it. (And you can forget the arguments about how we went into Iraq to topple a vile dictator, if that were the real reason we'd be at war with N. Korea.)
They'll put a bunch of quirky geniuses to work on the project, but they won't really understand what they're woring on. They'll build a super-laser and pass their class!
And then... they'll figure out that they've been duped into building a weapon and redirect the laser test to pop and shitload of popcorn in the prof's house. The house will overflow with popcorn and children will play in it without getting cut by glass and nails and stuff from the torn apart house.
And then Laslo will win lots of cool prizes.
Chance favors the prepared mind....our military has contingency plans for EVERYTHING. There are departments in every branch whose only job is to constantly think up the most outlandish scenarios, idea, plans, etc. With every possible variant of enemies, allies, strength of forces, technology. I once saw a detailed plan of battle in the event that Canada and Mexico ally and attack the US. This same philosophy applies to funding projects. If congress suddenly gets a bug under it's ass about space defense, the Air Force can whip out this portfolio and say "Well, with only $60 million, we can put these forces in place." What's funny is to watch the public react when some of these plans leak. All sorts of people freak out, like a few years ago when a contingency plan for invading China leaked out at the same time that there was tension regarding Taiwan. Now maybe this proposal for space has advanced beyond that wild ass idea phase, and if that's the case then it's because the Air Force thinks Congress might go for it.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Brief overview of a proposal in front of the UN to ban all space-based weaponry which the US is actively part of.
This, the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the landmine treaty. Doesn't the US have ANY respect left for other countries let alone their own integrity? This is just getting disgusting.
This is not a sig.
"$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.
I wonder if "Sarge" Will operate the space-based hypervelocity rod gun.
At least Im sure that how the USAF see's it. You have several countries that are trying to get themselves into space. A few of which are a precieved threat to US interests. China of course comes to mind. We are at a crossroads of sorts. We are at a point where we are still the only contry that is able to put up large scale space based weapons. In five to ten years time, this will not be the case. My guess is we will put them up there and use the as leverage against other contries to insure that they do not attempt to place their own weapons in orbit. Im not saying its a good idea, im just assuming this is the pentagons thinking. I did serve in the USAF so I do have some idea of the ways in which they think.
true, definitely true. but the weary middle-aged male in me isn't looking forward to eating catfood out of a can with my fingers in my retirement, what with all the output of our economy whizzing around in space over our heads.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
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
"Hold on... Wait a second, they have laser weapons and mass drivers sure enough, but they're pointed _toward_ the planet."
"No way! That doesn't make a lot of sense. They're vulnerable to meteor strikes, comets, ... attack from unfriendly aliens."
"Hmm. Maybe it's a prison planet, and the satellites prevent escape."
"That could be. We saw that moon base, and those could be the jailers."
"Yeah, and have you seen their entertainment? Only hardcore prisoners would like that stuff."
-- Fratz, human
To the "I'm sorry I'm American" crowd
I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?
Being able to drop MORE weapons on other nations does not do ANYTHING to "protect" the US citizens.
We already spend more money on our military than anyone else in the world.
What possible threat will this "protect" us from?
Back in the "Cold War" era, this might have been useful. Now it is just a waste.
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?
(I know I'm gonna regret this...) You know, it's not like the Soviet Union, with whom the treaty was signed, ever adhered to the ABM.
You are right, you are going to regret this.
The ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) limited the number and type (non nationwide) of ABM systems a country could have.
The ABM treat was resigned, in 1992. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) signed the treaty with us, the US. Of course, the US pulled out of the ABM in 2002. But the ABM never had to do with the weapon systems that "evil do-er" ever were after...
You can read all about it Here
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
There is a treaty but the Bush administration doesn't give a shit.
Just like it didn't give a shit about:
1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;
2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;
3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements;
4. Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate, hence the UN-bashing when the US didn't get close to getting what it wanted (no, the previous decade old resolutions were not sufficient, if they were the US wouldn't have been looking for a new resolution green-lighting the war in late 2002 and it wouldn't have got so shitty with France and the other countries in the Security Council that promised to veto any such resolution);
5. 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.
And that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head.
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.
Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be.
It's not hard to find "Bush bashing crap". The man's done a lot of crap that's worthy of bashing.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I had the distinct impression that the original space charters drawn up made weapons and war in space against international law. Then again the US often ignores these things (and who's gonna' do anything about it, eh?). Hrmmm.
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
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.
It may result to a new progression in the development of the military arsenals...
Posted in the press:
"
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday.
The prototype weapon proved it could manoeuvre so quickly as to make "any missile defence useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.
He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to manoeuvre while in orbit, thereby making it able to dodge an enemy's missile shield.
"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defence useless."
Baluyevsky's comment followed a statement by President Vladimir Putin, who said Wednesday after attending rocket launches from the Plesetsk launch pad in northern Russia that experiments conducted during the military manoeuvres had proven that Russia could build new strategic weapons that would be unrivalled in the world.
Putin said that the development of new weapons was not directed against the United States, and Baluyevsky reaffirmed the statement, saying that the experiment shouldn't be seen as Russia's response to U.S. missile defence plans.
"The experiment conducted by us must not be interpreted as a warning to the Americans not to build their missile defence because we designed this thing," Baluyevsky told The Associated Press.
In Washington, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by reporters about the Putin statement.
"If you're in that business - intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads - you want them to be survivable, and manoeuvrability is one way to increase their survivability against any potential defences," he said.
Putin said that Russia had no intention of immediately deploying new weapons based on the experimental vehicle.
Baluyevsky concurred.
"We have demonstrated our capability, but we have no intention of building this craft tomorrow," he said, adding that Russia had told the United States about its plans to conduct the experiment.
He said that the new vehicle had "ceased to exist" after the experiment, presumably burning up in the atmosphere.
Baluyevsky refused to comment on what kind of engine the vehicle had, how long its flight lasted and
02/20/04
"
To Quote the mighty Bill Hicks:
People are always asking me, "Bill, are you proud to be an American? Proud to be an American? Like I had a choice, proud to be an American, well my parents fucked there. I was a disembodied soul floating around going , "fuck in paris! fuck in paris!", but they fucked here. Ok I'm proud. Why don't they put that on the flag? It's hard to get some boot stomping rallying around a picture of your dad spanking your mom's 4 by 4 ass."
That was from memory, apologies if I got it wrong.
Is that why the US managed to hit a clearly located Red Cross compound in Afghanistan not once but twice? Or why it managed to hit a Chinese embassy building in the Balkans?
It's not just about your bombs landing where they are aimed. It's about making sure that they are aimed in the right place as well. Without the latter, the former is pointless.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
had already planned defenses against this.
;)
Didn't George Bush say they had attempted to buy significant amounts of mirrors from African Nations, with which they were planning to coat important buildings
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
Actually, we spend more on our military than all other industrialized countries COMBINED.
And, suggesting that putting weapons in space makes the US, or the world for that matter, a safer is nearly laughable. This will only instill even MORE fear in the eyes of all "others". Which, coincidentally, is the reason for the growing animosity felt towards the US at the moment. No, this does only one thing, bring power to even fewer people... those who put those weapons in space. Do we (the US) become supreme ruler of all simply because we are the most powerful? Do I have to explain the numerous and disastrous problems with that sentiment?
We are simply creating the reasons to PUT those weapons in space. It will make many people rich and powerful, but making the world a safer place it will certainly not do.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Anyone who has read sci fi knows that this stuff has been around for about 40 years. The principles haven't changed, and they're just being re-tread by the military.
The article seems woefully unknowledgeable about the physics of the situation. I'm only quoting the sci-fi authors who brought up these topics originally: (Larry Niven, A.C. Clarke, etc...)
"Even more outlandish is the Hypervelocity Rod Bundles research project. That effort calls for creating a system of metal poles, fired from space, that could strike anywhere on the planet. It's a long-held -- and long-ridiculed -- idea. Keeping the rods from liquefying as they enter the atmosphere is a daunting task,"
From what I know of the system (did not read the whole AF brief) the proposal is to have a satellite orbit geosynchronously relatively above the target, and just fire the projectile downwards. The heat generated by re-entry is because of the horizontal motion of the craft, but a projectile of this type would only have vertical motion with respect to the atmosphere, and therefore relatively little heat generated. Please correct me if I'm wrong, physicists!
"and could only deliver one-ninth the destructive energy per gram as a conventional bomb."
Given that the military already uses kinetic kill technology (horizontally fired from vehicles, no explosives) that are able to penetrate main battle tank armor, why would dropping a similarly size projectile from orbit (wouldn't the terminal velocity be tremendous) be less than traditional explosives? I'm confused by their assertion.
"In theory, lasers -- fired from the ground, from space, or from the air -- would bounce off these blimp-borne mirrors, to track or even destroy enemy missiles. "
Why would you loft a laser platform into orbit and fire it through all that atmosphere down to a blimp, when you could just mount it on a large aircraft? The cost of getting it into orbit and having a blimp hovering around has to be less than strapping it into a 747, plus, you have less diffusion from a lower-altitude. Again, it sounds like the military is getting a little outlandish when simplicity might work better. (imagine that)
"But the Air Force report goes far beyond these defensive capabilities, calling for weapons that can cripple other countries' orbiters. "
Again, from what I've been told, it's not hard to destroy satellites. They are orbiting at ridiculously high speeds. Wouldn't just releasing a cloud of marbles (or even sand!) in their trajectory, orbiting in the opposite direction, easily shred the enemy satellite? The energy released by that impact would have a factor of twice the actual rotational velocity of the satellite -- a very large number, I would think. I don't think that there's any way to protect an orbiter from something like that. Again, if my physics is wrong, please correct me.
All of this seems to me like they're just ignoring physics (in arguments for and against the systems) just like those who said Goddard couldn't fly a craft in space because you'd have no air to push off of.
Sorry for the long post. This is just a very fascinating topic, and I suppose its good to see the media/military pick up on something that's only been fiction 'til now.
Osama is building a Deathstar or what is the justification?
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.
Please stop the planet so I can get off...
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Wow, President Carter, I didn't you read Slashdot!
Why care about a far away "big dead rock" which "may have held life at some point", when we can make our own planet a big dead rock which may have held life at some point? In two hundred years, we won't need to go to Mars because we will have a planet-sized replica just here on Earth! Won't it be convenient?
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
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
It will be a great day
when our schools get all the money they need
and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber
Do we really need this stuff? I could see arguments for more communications hardware up there, but hypervelocity weapons and lasers? How many decades will pass before something even remotely workable is off the drawing boards? Ike must be rolling in his grave.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
Unless you consider "might makes right" the only thing you'll ever need to know about morality.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
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.
'War is the continuation of politics by other means' - Clausewitz
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
just make fun of people who wear star trek pajamas, did you?
Kiss your karma goodbye.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
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.
uses an amatuer rocket setup and lauches say 5000 lbs of NON-METALLIC ball bearings into HEAVILY used geo-synch orbits patterns at decent relative velocity and tears holes in Trillions of $$$'s worth of satelites, making the area unuseable for orbiters or requiring a HUGE expenditure to clean....Seems like a relatively under the radar way to really HURT a huge number of companies, and government services.
Obviously the NSA, CIA etc has 'other' resources but physics determines the LIMITED location and availability of stable accessible orbit slots...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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
Very true. Detonations of a spaceship with an atmosphere inside will cause a sound you could hear at a short distance. The sound would travel (for a short while) along the expanding gas.
I have been wondering when the military was going to take care of that surveillance satellite operated by Major League Baseball.
[obscure]
Me too. These coat hangers just aren't working as well as they once did.
[obscure +1/2]
It might be legal, but I don't see the point nor the ethics. Aren't there enough weapons already? The US has already won the arms race, yet they still want to enlarge that gap. Not everyone is pro-american, but with this behavour the US is feeding those people's fears.. Why do they need so much weapons if it isn't for world domination? Furthermore, an orbital weapon isn't useful against a terrorist, it's meant for war.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
from the article:
.... "This will certainly prompt China into actually moving forward" on space weapon plans of its own, she added. "The Russians are likely to respond with something as well."
...further driving the point home. Is it really worth it?
"I don't think other countries will be taking this lying down," said Theresa Hitchens, the vice president of the Center for Defense Information.
The Chinese, in particular are willing to spend a lot more on their space program. Despite being latecomer to the space game, they're playing catch up extremely well.
This year, the Air Force will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to find ways to track enemy satellites -- and, if necessary, blind those eyes in the sky.
What is to stop them from doing the same to us? I'd say we have a lot more to loose since we are so much more heavily invested in using space as a military resource.
But it's unclear whether putting weapons into space would provide much protection. The arms themselves could become sitting ducks in orbit -- giving the United States a new weakness, not a new strength. Satellites are already a weak "center of gravity" in American militarty planning, argues Bruce DeBlois, the editor of Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought. They're vulnerbale to electronic jamming, orbiting projectiles and nuclear detonations in near-Earth space. The space-based weapons would have all of the same vulnerabilities -- and would make that center of gravity a more inviting target.
My point exactly...
"America is the country with the most satellites, he explained. By developing anti-satellite weapons, "it legitimizes systems that the U.S. has the most to lose from." Other countries could start pursuing long-taboo space weapons efforts. And while countries like China don't have the technical sophistication of the United States, they already have the capabilities to hurt us in space -- medium range missiles, and nuclear warheads.
Wright added, "This could trigger a backlash that actually leaves the U.S. worse off."
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
If your dropping bombs on someone then you are at war. Pilots getting shot down is part of war.
Unless you want to use these space based wepons covertly, without a declaration of war. Ignoring that space based wepons are illegal, engaging in hostilities before declaration of war is illegal, and has been formaly so for more then a century. Before then it happened as a matter of honor. Hell, 50 years after it happened - long after all the political figures were dead - the US forced Japan to apologize for Perl Harbour.
Actually that's only partially right. According to a recent book that I read about the Cold War Khrushchev mitiousally planned the Soviet economy back in the 60s to overtake the West in about 20 years. Had the economy stayed where it was in the 60s (manufacturing, steel, raw resources -- basically the paradigm that had ruled since the industrial revolution) the West would have been screwed in an economic sense. Probably not a military one, because there's always the nuclear deterrent (the whole point of which was originally to stop the Russians from taking over Western Europe -- we had our doubts as to our ability to defeat their massed tank armies), but it's something to consider.
Fortunately the global economy went hi-tech and the West (with our non-centrally planned system) proved able to adapt faster. Reagan might get some of the credit for tying the Russians down in a massive arms race (hard to focus on improving your technology and economy if you need to devote 40% of your GDP to the military to keep up with the capitalist pigs) but the Cold War was going to end one way or another. All Reagan did was force it to happen sooner which arguably destabilized the World -- and oh by the way, we'll all be paying for his military buildup for the next couple of decades...
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Someone get on the interocitor, and call Klaatu. I think we need him and Gort to pay us a visit.
Incredible as it sounds, the EAGLE effort is underway at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy division, sources there confirm. Also under research at the lab is the Ground-Based Laser, which, according to the Air Force report, would shoot "laser beams through the atmosphere" to knock out enemy spacecraft in low-earth orbit.
If you remember, shortly after one of those commercial reconnaisance satelites went into orbit and photographed a military base (Area 51?), the military basically informed the company that it has the capability of dropping the satelite from orbit. Now, whether they mean via the space shuttle or now, I don't know. I have a hunch that the US military already has missles that can take out a satelite, especially since ICBM's have been around for decades.
Shouldn't they be renamed "Space Force"? Maybe "Air and Space Force"?
Zoid.com
( ok they aren't colonies they are client-states)
i think the move is primarily strategic. as noted in the article, you're able to deliver far less energy using weapons from space than from terrestrial sources. the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day. space weapons allow the US to deliver military force *immediately* without having to worry about the next french/russian/german mutual masturbation festival, or what turkey's islamic parliament thinks about positioning infidel forces on its soil, or getting overfly rights from countries neighboring an enemy's territory.
also noted in the article: regardless of where the weapons are, there's a lot of communications stuff that *all* US forces depend on flying around up there. if it's possible, i imagine they want to protect that.
the US is in the unenviable position of being top-dog and being resented for it. china is playing it REAL smart, staying out of sight and biding its time as these global resentments and the resulting increased US military spending take their toll on the US economy.
oh well. i have no kids. if we can hold out another 30 years or so, i'm ok with that. i learned long ago that, even if you want to save the world, the world doesn't really give a fuck.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Let's not kid ourselves. Russian Space Web has a nice piece on the thoroughly demonstrated anti-satellite weapon systems of the former USSR. I don't know much about our (USA's) own anit-satellite system, but I do know that Russia has done much of this testing, and I would guess a lot more than the USA. I say that because Russia would know if we had tested the weapons, just as we knew that they did. And that information that they knew would be leaked, of course. So I think that Russia had a lot more antisatellite weaponry than the U.S., at least when it comes to kinetic energy weapons (i.e. a shrapnel bomb) in space.
With this in mind, I believe that the USA military has a legitimate interest in developing at least a similar system for weapons parity. I mean, the US military depends heavily on space for communications, and if that were knocked down by China (say, if China wants to invade Taiwan) or maybe a future threat, we would need to be able to knock down either their weapons before they reached our satellites or to knock down their own satellites to make it a level playing field.
And who knows. Russia seems of late to have forgotten what it means to be a democracy, so if some dictator arose in the future, it would have been nice to have at least thought of what to do beforehand. The future can't be predicted too accurately. 250 years ago, the most powerful nation on the earth today was a disjointed band of colonies under the rule of the British Empire. You never know. Hopefully the next great empire won't be like Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung and murder millions. Being a citizen of the USA, I believe that the USA should try to prevent such a murderous empire from taking control of the high ground and rain down their own fire from the skies.
P.S. I realize that this is a huge piece of flamebait, but as this is a democracy, there needs to be contrasting opinions (diversity of opinion) for us to really function fairly here at slashdot, so please respect my opinion, as I respect yours.
I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?
... by American standards ... PPO now that is a pale and distant last place to the plans I had in Europe).
... American sailor hangouts excepted! ... go use the toilet, come back, and no one will have touched it).
... remember, they stop counting people no longer eligable for unemployment benefits even though many are not reemployed in order to keep the numbers artificially, and dishonestly, low; etc.) has been accumulating a great deal of minuses, and losing many of its pluses.
Speaking as one American who has, in the past, lived for several years in Germany (pre and post reunification), the UK, Hong Kong (pre-reunification), and Japan, there is no "one" answer that applies to everywhere outside of this stupid country.
However, in Europe there is a great deal more personal freedom than in the United States in most areas (try drinking a beer in a public park in the US vs. England or Germany, for example). There is a great deal of protection against the distribution of personal information in Germany (read: virtaully no junk mail or junk phone calls). I have never had better health care than I had in Germany (and I have an excellent
Crime is lower in all of the places I've lived outside of the United states. It is lower in Europe and so much lower in Japan that the mind boggles (for example, you can leave your wallet on the bar in most parts of Tokyo
The list goes on. Every place has its pluses and minuses, but the United States, in its inability to be self critical and its profound policy of self-isolation and absolute denial of things that are obviously and painfully going wrong (such as the healthcare fiasco here; the massive debt; rising violent crime; the wholesale corporate export of well paying jobs; spiralling unemployment
Contrast this to the rest of the world, which remains a reasonable mix of pluses and minuses, and the outlook for quality of life in the United States gets grimmer by the day. Seing Bush on the Television touting his latest lies, and the passivity with which so many Americans are willing to accept them (rather than confront unpleasant truths about what we as a country have become) and the prognosis gets even worse.
It is a pity. The United States once stood for some very beautiful ideals, and was once a very nice place to live.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Why do you love a cowardly deserter so much?
I like Clinton for lots of reasons, mostly his curved cock. I wish I could grope women like he can without getting in trouble, guess I need to marry a power-hungry lesbian wife.
Someone who knows better could point out some international agreements on the free non-militar use of space?
I'm pretty sure there is some legal problems with putting weapons on space. For one, it create huge and complex geopolitical problems- US could just put a "military base" up everyone air space.
Second, in a more moral view is just stupid to think any human, country or power could own or control space.. is as idiotic as infamous phrases like "US owns the moon".
I don't know that there's any solid evidence of anyone who signed it violating the NPT; actually building a nuclear weapon isn't that difficult to do, if one can obtain the materials. Mining and enriching enough uranium or obtaining enough plutonium to build a bomb is the tricky part; once you've done that you just need a few halfway competent physicists to design the thing; the science behind it is more than 60 years old and not all that secret. This is why it's silly to start saying the problem was that Iraq having the technical knowledge necessary to build a bomb without having the materials was a imminent threat. You can walk into any university physics department and find a handful of graduate students with the "technical knowledge" necessary to build a crude bomb.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
That stupid Powell, keeping Bush and Rummsfeld from developing the greatest Pentagon program ever: The Death Star. And the renaming of the Marines is also encountering some annoying gridlock... Gah! We want our Stormtroopers now!
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.
Now the papers here have all picked up on the new Pentagon plans and our new PM, already embroiled in another scandal is backed into a corner of upsetting the electorate just before an election when his popularity is already falling, or upsetting the elephant living to the south of us.
You are completely disregarding all the bad things that will happen due to this, which FAR outweigh your fears.
We already have the final say when diplomacy fails. Ever hear of Iraq? The rest of the world did not want us to go to war with them. And, what did we do? And this was with a country that didn't present a clear and present danger to us. In fact, they didn't even scare it's neighbors.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Indeed, this is correct. However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker. The problem, is of course, to sign new agreements with strong states, or even weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
We'll wipe out all those terrorists now when we blow up their frickin planet.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
A glorious movie, very underrated and misunderstood by the critics.
Chris: I was contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?".
Chris: Kent, this is ice, this is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This is Kent,
this is what happens to people who get too sexually frustrated.
We already put this system in place in the movie SPIES LIKE US and Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd showed us in great detail the disaterous effect of these weapons with out source controlled guidance. Perhaps they will find a way for us to improve upon late '80 technology, but they tried this once and the fricken laser beam missed its target.
Also in regards to huge laser beams in space. Val Kilmer showed us that putting a large laser beam in a plane to kill people would not work in the movie REAL GENIUS. People trying to profit from weapons in space will always get outsmarted by engineers with silly a sense of humor. Perhaps this foiling will result in tremendous amounts of popcorn being popped, perhaps liquify the Stay Puff Marchmallow Man, or even cook a hot dog the size of a bus.
I think they should watch some movies before they start spending billions or even trillions of dollors. I think we have gone down these roads before.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
Steve
Wow! How amazingly talented the Graphic Designer was that put this together!
Now miscreants have an official vector-art image of the USAF logo, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs logo, and (drumroll), vector-converted signatures of both General Jumper USAF Chief of Staff, and Dr. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force.
Any manner of documents can now be forged. Someone could do something simple like faking a letter of recommendation from Dr. Roche...to...I shudder to think what could be done that would have more serious consequences.
Not that you couldn't scan these items in and recreate them, mind you, but why on earth make it that easy!
--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Read the final UNMOVIC/IAEA report.
The Bush administration, notably Rumsfeld, actively lies about the specifics of UNSCOM's departure from Iraq, claiming Sadaam expelled them. The state department web site is slightly more circumspect, using the passive voice "were expelled" without subject. That is arguably accurate, so long as you claim it was Clinton who expelled them. Officially, they withdrew on their own.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Never let the facts get in the way of a little agenda, eh?
The ABM treaty contains a clause for exiting the treaty. We followed that clause by officially notifying Russia 6 months in advance that we were formally withdrawing from the treaty, even though, technically, we didn't have to because the national entity with which we originally signed the treaty (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer existed.
So, we didn't break the treaty at all. In fact, we honored it far beyond the letter of the treaty required.
But, of course, you love hating Bush so much, that you really don't care what the facts are.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Hell yeah! Fire dead penguins at em!
I know I'll receive no karma for this since it is completely original humor and not an obscure inside joke referencing BSD, HHGG, or a Kevin Smith film.
We won the race? Really? The last time I looked, China hadn't stopped running to shake our hand and declare us the winner.
We're AHEAD in the race. We haven't won because the race isn't over.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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.
Thanks for what you did in Iraq or Afganistan (I can't tell if you were involved in both or just one).
Freeing the Iraqis from their dictator was one of the best things America has ever done, equal in importance to stopping the Holocaust. I don't know why all American's are not proud of this fact. I am and I don't particularly deserve to be. I know you are, and you should be.
Also, the accuracy of those weapons systems was one of the main reasons we had the political will to go through with the war. For the first time in history, there were no massacres of civilians. Mistakes, yes, but compared to the evil you fought, the mistakes were small. It's an awful calculus to have to make, but it's the truth.
the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day.
Yes, but it's the US that has changed, not the allies. When all your friends suddenly stop liking and trusting you, the chances are that it's you that's the problem, not your friends!
... the all-time classic by Robert A. Henlein
not only does this book explain how to organize a guerilla network to overthrow an entrenched power.
it also explains how you can easily terrorize earth by launching simple rocks from Moon's surface. you don't need much power to overcome Moon's gravity... so just build a (large) launcher, calculate the exact path it will take, and launch it... so it comes down on your enemy as a nice meteorite.
i didn't do the math, but i do have a feeling that Henlein did when he came up with the idea.. any physics students here?
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a book called Footfall back in '86.
Includes all the funs stuff like rods and gamma-ray lasers.
Brief synopsis: Space bad guys show up in orbit and use advance weaponry like rods to destroy tanks, drop meteors to destroy cities, etc. Lucky us they inherited the tech and aren't very imaginitive, so we strap nuclear bomb propulsion to a couple of shuttles and use nuclear powered gamma ray weapons to beat them into submission.
I'm not so sure I would consider this worthy news. I have been planning on taking over space for years.
What UN Inspection thing? You mean a dozen guys driving a jeep on a spot surprise insepction and suddenly getting caught in a roadblock until they told the Iraqi thug where their surprise inspection was going to be? Then another 45 minutes while they waited for the roadblock to "clear?"
Because, of course, any serious attempt at constructing these weapons could easily be hidden in under an hour, leaving no trace of their existence. Now we know where Santa's elves spend the off season.
It's fools like you who think with about three brain cells that get fooled by meaningless, symbolic gestures. It's a damn shame you can vote, too because then some intelligent, thinking person has to waste their ballot to counter your idiot vote.
Funny, I was just thinking that.
Mouser
This is not surprising. The US government has indicated pretty openly that they are going to militarize space. Their future Star Wars program, which will start rolling once the Missile Shield is "successful", will necessarily involve militarization of space.
Recent attempts by Bush administration to reshape NASA is also consistent with this space goal.
I have always claimed that the UN will collapse* if USA militarizes space. We'll see if I'm right.
(* If you wonder why I think this, it is because of human behaviour. When USA militarizes space, it will most likely start claiming territory on the moon, mars, etc as its own. This is pretty consistent with human behaviour over time (just think of colonization, circa 1500's/1600's/etc). Whoever that has power in space will have power over territory in space. This is true if human behaviour is the same as in the past (i.e. warmongering territorial animals)--I don't see why it be any different since humans stopped evolving tens of thousands of years ago. This will mean that the UN has no say in territory disputes in space, and the UN will have no power to promote peace. Once that happens, there is no point of having the UN. People always mistakenly assume that the most important elements of the UN are things like WHO, WTO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and so forth, but the truth of the matter is, UN is primarily a body that is responsible for territories (ie. borders of countries).... On a different note, I also have a hypothesis that the UN will collapse right before WWIII--just like how the League of Nations collapses just before WWII. This has nothing to do with militarization of space. )
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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").
Look, the military has plans for EVERYTHING. Part of being in the military means drawing up plans: "What would we do if XYZ happened?" So that in the odd chance that XYZ happens -- say, we get invaded by aliens -- then the military has a plan that they can execute.
And it's not just about plans for war in space. It's about plans for how chocolate-chip cookies should be made in the mess hall. Or for how clothes must be made, right down to the stitching, type of thread, precise colors and sizes.
It's part of the military's duty: Create a plan that any idiot can follow and execute given existing equipment, along with several acceptable alternatives, for any given scenario -- be it making a bunk bed for a training facility or the threat of Earth being mowed down by Vogons to build a hyperspace bypass.
Just because the military has plans to do something, doesn't mean they're going to do them. Because having plans they're not necessarily going to execute today is just part of what they do, so that if something DOES happen, they are prepared for it.
I guess I should be happy that the word was "adversary" and not "enemy" -- but it shocks me how many of my compatriots seem ready to abandon the Western alliance just because the Europeans had a difference of opinon with us. My God, look at what history usually produces and how closely aligned the nations of Western Europe and North America are, and you'll be more careful before flinging around accusations of adversarial intent.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
... we would have had a continuously manned space station (Manned Orbiting Laboratory or MOL) as well as a fleet of rapid turnover missile-or-aircraft launched, horizontal landing lifting body spacecraft (where do you think I got this nifty nick?) by 1975. Instead, we got von Braun's moon project. OK, so MOL and DynaSoar we to double as weapons platforms. We might have gotten to the moon later (and considering what's happened since, so what?), but we probably would have hda semi-permanent bases there now, and I'd give even money we'd have people who'd been to Mars and back.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You know, I think that instead of having a space race with the Russians, we should have talked to them and tried to understand their feelings, and then they would have gone away and everyone would live happily ever after. We should do the same thing with terrorism in the middle east--talk to them and understand their feelings. That will make the whole world peaceful. Of course, that's what Sarah Conner should have done with the cyberborg from the future in The Terminator. Remember how Reese was saying that it has no feelings and no remorse, and that it won't stop, ever, until she's dead? Well, I don't believe that. I'm sure that they could have gone to a diner together, talked to each other, and understood each others' feelings... Because violence is NEVER the answer, even if it's against an enemy that WILL kill you and will NOT back down, no matter what.
Stupid liberals.
beginning with your parenthetical: that is exactly my point. The debate is about technology and an arms race. Sure, technology improved little from 1700-1920 (mass land engagements)and then dramatically from 1920ish to 1945 (prevalance of tanks and air power). The death rates basically follow the trends as you point out... rather constant, then a spike up to 1945. I suggest that the paradigmn shift in weapon technology in 1945 (and the arms race/cold war) is responsible for the turnaround after WW2. I know it sounds cliche, but what better reason to keep conflicts 'small' than to prevent escalation into the unknown?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
This is neither news nor a surprise.
As a general rule, in combat, he who holds the high ground wins. Space is the new high ground.
Military organizations do endless contingency plans covering any possible threat they can see and how it might best be countered. The U.S. military is no exception. If they _didn't_ do this, they wouldn't be doing thier jobs.
An absolute essential in any combat situation is communications, command, and control (known as "C cubed"). Troops on the battlefield need effective intelligence on what they face, communications with thier fellows to coordinate responses, and communications from thier superiors about what those responses should be.
Satellites provide all of those things. If you can take out the other guy's satellites, you effectively blind him, and leave him at a severe disadvantage.
This doesn't even count the possibility of actual _weapons_ platforms in space, which are a whole other set of problems.
I'm not upset that the US military is looking at this area. It's part of thier job. I'm concerned with thier ability to get it right.
______
Dennis
the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day. space weapons allow the US to deliver military force *immediately* without having to worry about the next french/russian/german mutual masturbation festival, or what turkey's islamic parliament thinks about positioning infidel forces on its soil, or getting overfly rights from countries neighboring an enemy's territory.
Did it ever occur to you that this might also be the *reason* your allies are starting to consider you a strategic adversary? The US is already substantially ahead on military force, and they're quite obviously trying to remove dependance on their allies, and potential counter-attacks (missile shield), in short, the US is seeking to become all-powerful and invunerable.
Combine that with a progressively more agressive and arrogant US ever since the end of the cold war, not to mention the recent paranoia after 9/11, are you really surprised that the rest of the world, including your own allies, is worried? If so, I think you are living even more in your own world than I feared.
Not too long ago Europe let Germany come to a position of power like that. The rest of Europe didn't exactly see it coming then, and I don't think anyone sees it coming in the US now. But they know the danger of such a concentration of power better than you. You may have fought in the war, but we were the victims of it. And that time, we had the US to save Europe. If the US does the same to the world, who's to save us then?
Believe it or not, the rethoric of "We have to invade Afghanistan/Iraq (and maybe Iran, North Korea and a few more) in order to ensure the safety of the American people" isn't *that* far off from Hitlers "We have to invade Sudetendeutschland, Czechoslovakia, Poland (etc. etc.) to ensure the safety of the German people". And the "liberation" of the people not that far from the way Soviet Russia "liberated" the people of Eastern Europe, providing goverments friendly to the regime.
Now, you will argue that the US is doing this for the good of the world, or some bullshit like that. The US has shown a complete and utter disregard for the good of the world, last but not least shown by the rejection of the Kyoto agreement because it would hurt the American economy. The US couldn't give a damn about the rest of the world, as long as it doesn't hurt the almight US of A.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I guess the space elavator is comin soon then. Otherwise these are going to be some really expensive darts. And you better know which bunker you are busting because if you get the wrong one you justwasted millions if not billions of dollors.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
.. but heck, who's going to moderate us? :)
Nobody likes war, but you have to keep your guard up. If you don't, well... even Rome fell to barbarians in the end.
That's not entierly true.. Rome fell because of internal disputes and corruption. When those barbarians entered Rome, they found the emperor to be a (11y old iirc) kid!!!! Nobody else wanted to be an emperor because you'd get a knife between your ribs before you'd know. Rome rotted away from the inside, not because of external armies.
That's what they told me during my latin schooldays, at least..
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey