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.

Comments

The bad side of course...

[Biotech9]

...is it could be the start of a new cold war, or at least cause some countries to get a little nervous about the U.S.

Specifically, China.

That's Because

[technomancerX]

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this

Not forbidden?

[jawtheshark]

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.

Wrong.

[Chess_the_cat]

From a quick Google search: The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, outlawing "the appropriation of space" by any nation, bans orbiting vehicles bearing nuclear weapons. Earliest negotiations between the superpowers on arms limitations, SALT I, resulted in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The ABM Treaty forbids missile defense shields such as Ronald Reagan's 1983 Star Wars initiative. Likewise, it outlaws the Ballistic Missile Defense boondoggle currently under development. The two space technology programs have cost taxpayers over $100 billion dollars and if pursued, could cost $250 billion more. But Russia says Nyet"to abrogating or amending the ABM Treaty to permit "space defenses."

Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).

Didn't Salyut 3 do this first?

[jeff.paulsen]

There have been persistent rumors that Salyut-3 had a 23mm autocannon mounted, and occasional denials.

On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.

Re:Didn't Salyut 3 do this first?

[jeff.paulsen]

Hate to reply to my own post, but I found a reference (it's Wikipedia, but that's something - even if I'm wrong, I'm not the only one):

Salyut 3 was launched on June 25, 1974. It was another Almaz military space station, this one launched successfully. It tested a wide variety of reconnaissance sensors, returning a canister of film for analysis. On January 24, 1975 trials of the on-board 23mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon (other sources say it was a Nudelmann NR-30 30mm gun) were conducted with positive results at ranges from 3000 m to 500 m. Cosmonauts have confirmed that a target satellite was destroyed in the test. The next day, the station was ordered to deorbit. Only one of the three intended crews successfully boarded and manned the sation, brought by Soyuz 14; Soyuz 15 attempted to bring a second crew but failed to dock. Nevertheless, Salyut 3 was an overall success.

Also, Astronautix has a couple of inconclusive pictures (the purported gun is in the lower left, and while clearly not axially mounted, is at least aligned with the long axis of the craft): large inconclusive pic zoomed in inconclusive pic. For comparison, here's a good picture of an NR-23 autocannon: Nudelmann-Richter 23mm Cannon.

Soviet Weapons

[Detritus]

The Soviets have already deployed offensive weapons in space. A large calibre cannon was included on the Salyut-3 space station. In tests, it is reported to have destroyed a target satellite during testing.

This is necessary

[kjdames]

It's a vicious circle - [insert country name here] needs to have this because if we don't, [insert country name here] will.

Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...

Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.

The physics says...

[Iowaguy]

When you look at the euqations for the optical properties of metals, all of them do well in reflecting long wavelength light (such as IR or microwave) with near perfection. Foil hat would work great.

Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston. :)

I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.

My two cents
-Iowa