Slashdot Mirror
Weapons in Space
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sure the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) has a low-orbit only kill-vehicle now, but how long before it has an Electron Beam Device that can annihilate a person playing golf or taking a shower (possibly with company)?
Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..
We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.
Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets examine this. China is wanting to go into space. Do we REALLY want China to be the first ones with space weapons pointing back at us?
We'll have a space weapons gap!
Why not negotiate a treaty to keep weapons out of space without a global threat, as determined by the UN? Well, that would just be UnAmerican. We should just put weapons up there. That'll show those commie bastards.
Even to the most hawkish, another cold war can't be that appealing. Why not nip it in the bud?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Ahh, yes, like the treaty that North Korea signed promising not to build nuclear weapons if we (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) gave him two nuclear reactors?
You can always trust evil dictators!
Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?
Thats insanely short sighted.
If I remember correctly, one of the co-inventors of the first nuke was quoted as saying that it would mean the end of war, as noone would be crazy enough to use it.
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
We know that other nations are getting to be space-capable. Are we just to trust that they won't put weapons up there? Has China really got that great a record with respecting human rights? And do we really think that Pakistan/India wouldn't put a weapon system up if the other was suspected of having one?
The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
Aside from my doubts that the force imparted by a bullet on a multi-ton object would cause it to move a few miles between shots at the same target...
Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.
weapons in space are used to counter weapons that travel through space to reach intended targets. China has weapons that travel through space, so to say that we are being racist or judgemental is false. there is a real threat by weapons that travel through space, and china has those weapons.
To say that china has an amicable relationship with the US is false. they crashed a jet into a radar plane of ours, and we had to do some real legwork to get the crew back.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
history of invading neighbours? that makes America safe then.
whereas the USA has a history of invading or installing dictatorships anywhere in the world it pleases to.
These are two different things. Space has been militarized almost from the get-go.
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries.
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
The US isn't going to put nuclear weapons into space because it doesn't fulfill any strategic goal.
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Also, considering the huge advances the US has made in stealth technology, wrapping the whole thing up in a stealthy package that a foreign governments radar based space tracking equipment couldn't see seems very logical.
Here's something to think about as well. When the US retired the SR-71 from active service, did you really think they didn't have a replacement coming into active service? Space based sensing is nice but it has some inherent limitations.
I would take an uneducated guess that the US has a top secret spy plane that has eclipsed all of the short comings of the SR-71.
Also, why would the US need to put nuclear weapons into space when it has a state of the art fleet of nuclear missle submarines that are roaming all over the world with lots of ICBM's that can be launched from anywhere anytime and hit anything.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Us: Puts some space defense.
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The reason we developed the first nuke was that we believed that Germany was well on their way to developing their own nuke during WWII. Who were the nuclear physicists who made this possible? German jews fleeing the Nazi regime.
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
I know this is going to start a flame-war but...
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
That doesn't mean one should do it...
The wording of that paragraph indicates that WMDs are banned in space, and military activity is banned on the surface of planets and moons, but I don't see where applies to Weapons of Less Than Mass Destruction in free orbit. So we are free to put up a pinpoint weapon that can take out just The Terrorists (tm) from outer space, while leaving the surrounding area unharmed.
However, I think that this kind of "silver bullet" thinking is a waste of money until they figure out a better way to choose targets. It was clear from the latest Iraq war that when they used smart bombs and cruise missiles to precisely wipe out a target, they often had little clue as to what was actually inside the target, and they often had no idea where the people they really wanted to get were located.
I would prefer if they used the $Billions that they're sinking into these high-tech boondoggles to hire and train old-fashioned spies instead. If we had only had a few reliable high-level moles in Iraq, we could have avoided that whole war altogether. We would have known that WMDs weren't an issue, and the pissing match between Saddam and the Bush clan could have been handled by just killing Saddam & sons. (This could have been accomplished an off-the-shelf cruise missile if we had actual accurate information about where they were. There would have been some international protest about "illegal assasination", but that would have blown over much quicker than the current quagmire.) This would have saved thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
One of the most potent weapons we have uses the GPS network orbiting the earth to assit targeting.
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
How about the person who wants to be educated?
What, the five year old child? Yeah, what a bunch of freeloading bastards those 1st graders are!
Whats that, you believe the parents should pay directly for their childs education? O.K, sounds like a plan as long as you know how to take care of those children unfortunate enough to have only one parent through no fault of their own.
Libertarionism wouldn't be a bad idea if it didn't constantly ignore many of the realities of life.
>>Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
>>Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
>>Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
>>Bush: Most job losses since great depression
These are one and the same. Umm... Bigest bubble since the great depresion. Linux.com having a greater value than SGI??? A lot of that expansion was pure bubble. The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Lets not forget that what real growth was caused by a little thing called the Internet. Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
>>Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
>>Bush: War in Iraq with NO international suppor
What about Hati? What about the Cruise Missle attack on the Sudan? What about Somalia?
And as far as Terrorism what about the first World Trade Center Bombing? The Federal Building bombing?
What about no increase of funding for NASA even though there was a huge surplus?
As far as Gay rights what about don't ask don't tell and the defence of Marrage act?
It is just that simple????
Clinton Good? Sorry I just do not see it.
I am not all that thrilled with Bush but Clinton was a NIGHTMARE!!!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The way I see it, this is one big pork barrel. From a military perspective, it seems quite useless. The two major threats to the US are terrorism and nuclear missiles. I don't see how space militarization will be more than marginally effective against terrorism. Furthermore, we know that a space shield is probably never going to be effective at stopping nukes. Tests to take down simple ballistic missiles were only marginally succesful and there are plenty of ways to increase the effectiveness of nukes. Multiple warheads and scramjet propulsion are just two techniques which complicate the interception of nukes by many orders of a magnitude.
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
No, it's the parent's responsibility to make sure the child gets an education by either homeschooling them or sending them to either the state provided school system or a private school.
It is the responsiblity of the state and federal government to make sure every child has access to at least elementary and high school education and the oppurtunity to further that education. That is why state and federal dollars go to public schools and universities.
that would be an incredibly useful military weapon. Remeber when Bill Clinton "wagged the dog" during Lewinskigate and tried to kill Osama by lobbing a few missles at him? The time it took for the missiles to travel to their destination gave Bin Laden ample time to escape.
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
This is plain laughable.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?
Military fighters were stationed within reach and could easily have shot down these planes if official reaction and decision time were as short as you suggest.
The only way of abolishing terror is by changing the policies that feed the responsible organizations.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
No 9/11, doubtful. How would you determine that a 747 was on course for the WTC until the jet was almost on top of it? An error in judgement would have killed a lot of American civilians and caused a revolt of massive proportions. A sucessful defense so close to downtown New York would have killed civilians on the groud around the tower. There are hundreds of flights a day out of NYC, again, I highly doubt that this would be an effective defense in a situation like that. My opinion anyhoo.
IANALOOA
OK.
New revised Slashbot ideals:
#1. Republicans suck.
#2. Democrats suck.
Mix with reality:
#3. There is no alternative to the two.
The only problem with this is that it puts all of us into that category of people called 'radicals'. After all, even if both sides are total shit, you *have* to support one of them or else noone listens to a word you say.
Try to bash Bush and you get people attacking Clinton, saying he was no better.
Try to attack Clinton and you get the anti-Bush rhetoric that started this thread.
Try to say that the whole system sucks and you get people labelling you a tin-foil mad hatter.
Politics make me want to cry.
The facts have never been on the pro-Saddam side.
There never was a "pro-Saddam" side. Anti-war != pro-Saddam, just as those who oppose the pro-life movement on abortion are not "pro-death".
Those of us who opposed the war didn't do so because we loved Saddam, we did so because we felt that our tax dollars would be better spent on ending conflicts (Afghanistan, Palestine, possibly parts of Africa) than on starting new ones - that, to put it bluntly, while the invasion of Iraq certainly rescued a few hundred thousand Iraqis from an oppressive and evil regime, the money we spent on that, if we'd used it for other things, could have rescued millions of Asians and Africans from other equally nasty regimes.
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
But on a more serious note do you really think this would solve terrorism? Bin Ladin and his ilk desire a World dominated by an Islamic form of Government that would make the Taliban look like a champion of individual liberties and justice. I'm sorry but I'm not ready for my girlfriend/mother/sister to wear a Burka nor am I ready for my younger brother to have his hand cut off because he got caught shoplifting a few years ago.
Changing our policies might deny them a few followers (i.e: the common-man on the street in the Muslim World hating the US and our allies) but it's not going to stop or deter them. Unfortunately it seems like the only way to stop the true fanatics is to kill them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't buy the negative portrayals of either Kerry or Bush, though. Too many people get their information from the attack ads of opposing candidates, rather than actually bothering to learn about their real records.
As far as I'm concerned, either one would do a fairly good job as President for the upcoming term, and neither would be perfect.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Umm, we would have won? Some things are worth fighting for -- freedom is one of them. Talk to a Korean War vet and ask them what they thought of the retreat from the Yulu River -- having to abandon villages and cities they had liberated to the communists. Villages that had welcomed them as heroes and liberators.
In hindsight McArthur was right. The Chinese didn't have nukes at this time and the Russians only had a few -- and they had been unwilling to directly involve themselves in the war. There would be a united Korea today and quite possibly a free China. But instead of using a few tactical nukes on the Chinese soldiers when they attacked us we let it turn into a stalemate along the lines of the Western Front in WW1. Millions of people died (mostly Chinese and North Koreans but that's small comfort -- a Human Being is a Human Being) for no gain.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Space defense has all the appearance of a Maginot line. Its very expensive to build and very easy to defeat, especially in an age of asymmetric warfare. When the most devastating attack in U.S. history was done with civilian airlines explain to me the value of fixating on missile defense. Its a relic of cold war thinking when the one true threat the U.S. had was a missile attack from the U.S.S.R.
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
@de_machina
I can just see it now.... Some alien species is going to see this and wonder "WTF, they have space weapons, and they're pointed at themselves!?"
Weapons in space have been in existence for some time. If you call a duck a duck, then a satellite with a sole response of killing another satellite is a weapon. The Soviets demonstrated their capabilities quite some time ago to perform this maneuver. To be honest, Star Wars scared the beejeesus out of the Soviets and they tried every measure possible to stop us from developing it. When we "won" the cold war, there wasn't a reason to keep the measure alive since no other country was so capable of putting a nuke on our doorstep in minutes.
This is why Cuba was such a huge issue for us. No time to counter a first strike. If you'll note, we always strike with a heavy first blow, because it's strategically important to do so.
Getting back on-topic. Given the facts above, I really question the credility or motives of the "Expert" cited in the article. Anyone involved in Space, and most certainly any Air Force related personnel, would know about the previous weapons. I've got a copy of the USAF Space Handbook (issued to AF Officers in Space Command), dated over 10 years ago, which outline the Soviet's program in good detail.
The rest of the posts on here seem to really stray off topic, but I'll entertain a few. The problem the US has had is that we see things differently than a good number out there. Conversely, they each see things differently than every one else as well. So there's two foreign policies you can follow:
1. Isolationism
2. Work with the other governments to further your agenda
I'd say anyone even remotely familiar with history would agree that option 1 is no option at all. We tried ignoring Osama Bin Laden, the Japanese and German agression in WWIII and others, yet we eventually get sucked in anyway. We can engage in the "chicken and egg", or cause and effect conversation until we're each sleepy or bored, yet neither of us will ever have the definitive correct answer. The key to courage is to make the best of what you have today and move forward.
This is why we've changed our posture. Is it aggressive? Sure. But so have our enemies...
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
No. It's known as "knowing thy enemy."
The best way to end any war is to convince your enemy not to fight it. If you can do so by taking actions that do not compromise your position, you should do so.
Since the terrorist's main real claim is our abhorrent treatment of other nations, the best way to stop the terrorists is to stop mistreating the various nations they come from.
As for the other significant causes of terrorism--How about we just leave Israel alone for a few years, and let that problem sort itself out?
Sure, but don't kid yourself about how they got there.
It's less of a coalition and more like paying for the boss' birthday present. Even if they think he is a jackass, most people put in a few bucks and write a phony greeting on the card. Especially, as in this case, if the boss has made it clear that anyone who doesn't contribute will face problems in the work place.
Some governments decided that good relations with the US was more important than other considerations, and ponyed up some troops. But the population of every single country in the "alliance" is/was strongly against the war, including the UK. All in all, a pretty funny way of fighting for democracy, IMHO...
Some of those countries received quite substantial monetary favors in exchange for their support, which is why it's been called "The coalition of the billing'.