Slashdot Mirror


US Military Plans Space Combat

MacDork writes "Wired news is reporting that the US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise. From potential Chinese militarization of space to commercial spy satellites their reasoning seems obvious, but there are just as obvious consequences of such actions. Just glancing at the PDF, I don't see any plans for the aftermath..."

19 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Nah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    By international consent, space is demilitarized (at least until the pod people attack us, or whatever). I doubt the US can afford breaking any more treaties.

    1. Re:Nah. by ShieldWolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are incorrect.

      The 1967 Outer Space Treaty only restricts the use or deployment of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION (more info here ) in space. Conventional warfare is not restricted. What has kept everyone from weaponizing space is:

      a) It is expensive
      b) Soldiers, Ports, Airstrips and Radar stations are not found there
      c) The first nation to do it will be universally despised
      d) It is expensive

      Now however there are enough 'assets' in space that the US is beginning to fret that a space Pearl Harbour is a distinct possibility because of the military's (over) reliance on GPS and other satellite-based communication. Therefore the costs, both economic and political, are becoming less important to military thinkers.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    2. Re:Nah. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No political will. Setting aside the problems of states like Ireland, Switzerland and Finland - states with a firm tradition of military neutrality - the will to expend the economic resources in order to achieve parity with the US simply isn't there
      And what good would it be for? Another pissing-contest cold war? Unlike the Soviet Union, the European Union is not hell-bent into converting the whole world to communism.

      The US certainly won't invade Europe. What advantage would they get?

      No, the US is strong-arming itself just because it is AFRAID. It is afraid of the rest of the world, generally because people are afraid of what they don't understand, and if there is something the americans are severely lacking, is the ability to understand others. The same comment goes for the british, too, and is exemplified with theyr half-hearted all brakes-on adhesion to the European Union.
  2. Consequences? I'd say! by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Space junk will be the least of our worries if we make it a habit of shooting down everyone elses technology from space.

    I swear, especially under this new administration, America has taken on the roll of big brother / playground bully to a degree I'm not comfortable with.

    Yes we need to be afraid of attack. Yes we need to protect ourselves. No that doesn't mean we have exclusive rights to space.

    If we start shooting down China et al's space technology, the next target will be painted on our foreheads, and every other soveriegn country on earth will have their fingers on the trigger.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
  3. English. by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I don't any plans for the aftermath..."

    And I don't any verb.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  4. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Foggiano · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Commandant to the graduating class of the military academy that Bart and Lisa joined:

    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. Thank you.

  5. Re:Consequences? I'd say! by jdhutchins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just becuase we have the ability to do it, doesn't mean we'll use it. We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them. That doesn't mean we should get a rid of them. It's better to be able to do this kind of stuff and not use it than to need it but not have it. And besides, we've worked on this in the past, it's not like this is a new idea.

  6. Defending against who? by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In case you hadn't noticed, the US is far more open to low cost (how much do twenty box cutters cost?) and low tech ("just teach me how to point this thing down") attacks.

    This is just another transfer of Federal tax dollars to Boeing and TRW with no real defense benefit.

  7. Typical Stuff by inKubus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say the Air Force has thousands of plans for all kinds of different contingencies. This is just another needle in the haystack. War in the modern age is based on information more than pure might, and the side with the control of the information will win.

    That said, I think that releasing this information to the public may cause tension polically between us and other countries. Everyone already knew it, but you just don't talk about some things. I'm sure there's plans to nuke children in Africa, for instance, but you don't talk about that because it's better for everyone if we don't have to think about such possibilities...

    An interesting thing also, is that our society is quite vulnerable to attacks such as these. Imagine the damage high-altitude air burst EMP weapons could do to our digital economy. Everything from money to the title of your home is based on the old ones and zeros now which tend to be a little more fragile than paper and ink..

    There are downsides to technology and it's really imperative that everyone tries to get along in this day and age or we risk going back to the turn of the century in a few hours.

    What with the new laws in place now, even a few whackos in the upper echelons of the government could give orders and literally turn off the world in a few minutes and all military electronics are typically protected from EMP, whereas your average consumer stuff ISN'T.

    And of course there are already contingencies in place if such a thing happens.

    Interesting side note, I was reading on one of those crazy whacko conspiracy sites about something called "TACMARS", which are basically tactical markings on signs and stuff that you wouldn't normally notice but could be used by people to organize movements in the absence of sophisiticated computerized mapping and logistics systems. They mentioned something about those bright reflective tags you sometimes see on the backs of road signs, and how you'd use a quadrant system (left corner, right corner, etc.) to make a code which gives someone directions covertly. Interesting ideas, even if it's nutty. Do a search sometime.

    Anyway, the point is, we live in a very fragile age, and the people we (Americans) pay to worry about such things do.

    Whether they are bad or good of course depends on how you vote next month ;)

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  8. Sexy stuff, but I really hope it's not necessary by AnwerB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish they would spend just 10% of the time and money that spend on making a better war machine into making sure that they don't have to use it.

    This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.

    For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times. A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off. Even when he officially became bad (after Kuwait), there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt, but we vetoed every time the UN suggested it. I don't want to go too far into this, because then it would be off-topic...

  9. Re:Consequences? I'd say! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is war planning. There are schools for thinking up plans incase something happens. For the vast majority of the plans, even if the conflict comes, they are not used.

    I get Air and Space Power Journal and I can tell you that war planning for space has been a staple of the US/NATO and Soviet planning for decades.

  10. What does this administration have to do with it? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, we have a military to defend ourselves. We use it for other things as well, and that you can critique a particular administration on, but our military in general is around for defense. Well a large part of that is contingency planning, playing what if games so you've got some plans if one actually happens. You do not want something to happen and everyone to go "Hmmmm, we didn't think about this, we're not sure what to do."

    War in space is becomming a possibility, thus our military needs to plan for it. Doesn't mean we are going to go randomly shooting at other satalites, just that we'll be ready should the shooting start. We don't want our military planners to stick their heads in the sand and go "We'll just hope it doesn't happen."

    It's the same thing as our nuclear contingencies. No sane human wants nuclear war, however that doesn't mean we should just pretend the possibility doesn't exist. Our military has plans as to what to do in the event of one, and the plans are different for different types. Hopefully, they'll be be nothing more than hypothetical documents, but I'd rather we have a plan than just pretend like it can't happen.

    This is the same thing. RTFA. The Air Force is NOT saying "let's just start shotting down satalites for fun." They are saying "In the event of a war, where satalites could be used against us, let's have a plan to eliminate them." This is no different than other nations working on ways to jam/counter GPS, and working on their own navigation networks as to not need to rely on the US for it. It's not that they want to fight the US or destroy GPS, but if push came to shove, they want to have some contengiency plans.

    Please, RTFA and get a little perspective. Our military plans for just about everything all the time. We even have plans in the event of a war with our allies. It's pretty much unthinkable, but again, better to have a plan. Having a plan doesn't mean using that plan.

    I have a plan for what I'd do in the event of a home invasion, fire, etc, etc. Doesn't mean I jsut go around randomly implementing the plans. I just think things through so that if something dangerous happens, I can just follow my plan (which Ithought of while I was calm and rational) rather than run around and panic and try to come up with something (when I'm excited and alarmist).

  11. ...and this is a surprise? by fitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise.

    News must be very slow lately... seems like all these places are just stating some obvious stuff in order to fill up their pages or put something with today's date on it.

    Of *course* the US Air Force have has these plans for a long time now. Why in the world would this be something just now "found out"? Is this supposed to be some new scuttlebutt just "unearthed" (pardon the pun)? Is there anyone out there who *didn't* think the USAF had these type plans for decades now?

  12. Re:Consequences? I'd say! by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them."

    They *are* used; as weapons of terror.

    The atmosphere of terror created by threat of their use is their actual value.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  13. Re:What does this administration have to do with i by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does this administration have to do with it?

    Everything.

    The message this administration sends to the world is "We'll decide what's best for the world, we'll decide who we do and don't invade, we'll decide whether it's right for you to have nuclear weapons (which we have in unfathonable amounts), we'll decide whether it's right for you to have long range weapons capabilities (again, we have more than anyone), etc etc etc".

    We want the entire planet to play with a different set of rules than we play with, and do it with a smile on their faces. And if they don't, they'll be next (once we get out of Iraq in 2037).

    The entire Cold War took place because 2 super powers had plans. Neither side acted on them, but they had them, and it turned into one big pissin' match.

    The more we try to keep the battlefield uneven in the world, the worse this will become. Space is no exception. And this administration is worse than any other in this regard. Just ask anyone besides Tony Blair.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
  14. Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us by gordgekko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Work to develop anti-satellite weapons has been underway for decades with Russia and China taking an active role in research and development. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this makes the United States and George W. Bush evil/stupid?

    Do you think it's a good idea for two potential enemies to have a capability that could cause catastrophic damage to American interests and the Americans just close their eyes to it?

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  15. Protest? by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mean, stand around inside a cage called a free speech zone? Or be out in the street with cops with rifles on the building tops, military helos over head, and sonic cannons and whatnot pointed at you?

    That's the state of "protest" today in the US and why most people don't engage in it. Everyone knows it's one incident away from beoming a bad news scene with a lot of people hurt, and better than even odds some undercover "officer" agent provocateurs starting it.

    Everything else by the way of protest in the traditional way they can and will ignore, they could care less about letters to the editor or any emails you send them basically. Petitions, bah, ignored. Redress of grievences? Sure, you have the "right" to cough up thousands of dollars to begin talking to some lawyer, then it gets more expensive from there. He's gonna giggle all the way to his mercedes dealer while you sue the government over something. And the vote? See the so called "official national presidential debates"? An infomercial for the NWO corporate party basically, as much diversity and differences of opinion there as at any regular Klan meeting....and for backup they have new & improved voting, courtesy of blackbox diebold..

    Funny, for the primaries and the debates for the two for one party they seem to have no problems finding enough podiums for half a dozen guys up on stage, but once down to the wire,for the biggee, all they can find is two podiums. Funny how that works out. Let me see, two dudes, frat bros for some elitist neo nazi satanic frat, both wearing black suits, wives wearing white suits....Yep, a true difference, there's your choice, and you can protest it all you want..but it won't change a dang thing either....

    Nope, we are graciously "allowed" the illusion of protest, but americans know what's up, and what's upo is basically "shutup, sit down, do what you are told or else, here, have some trinkets and gadgets and cheap beer and nascar and football, that's it, don't rock the boat too hard..or ELSE!'".

    It's not as bad yet as say north korea, but give it some time, it'll get there. That's eventually what these technofeudalists want, that's why red china is their poster boy model nation, BTW, they dig on that scene there. it's efficient. A few folks give the orders, you get to "vote", and they throw you some bones.

    If folks don't agree it will get there,as bad as them other places are now, let them try an easy experiment. Next time you are stopped at a "random courtesy checkpoint" roadblock, you know, those kinds that never existed except for the last few years and are now common, where everyone gets stopped and checked for their "paperz, pleezz! and whatnot" by Darth Vader officer friendly with the glock and MP5, just..don't stop! They don't have any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, they are just stopping you because they can, so go for it, keep driving on your merry way, see what happens, see if it isn't already a lot closer to north korea than you want to contemplate. Of course, you might not make it to even report back, either...in "free" america today.

    There's no real protest anymore, people talk about protest, play-act at protest, but the authorites control protest close to 100% now, and they aren't giving up that sort of power. It'sincremental, on a thousand fronts, we read about it all the time here, but it's relentlessly forward for those globalists. That's their plan, you and me and we can "protest" all we want as long as we follow thier rules, their schedule, their methods, manner and location, and remain satisfied with the outcome of any such "protest", which is carved in stone, "they win, you lose."

  16. Re:Problems? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Huh? War sucks. But if you find yourself in one, you'd better be prepared to win it by any means possible.

    I see no problem planning for stuff - it would be irresponsible to stick your head in the sand and not prepare for new potential battle venues.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  17. Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us by Eric+Damron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I like the idea of having a shield that would keep us safe from incoming missiles. However, that statement makes the assumption that the system works. I believe that with enough research and development it could.

    There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    It might protect us from a terrorist organization launching a missile in the unlikely event that they could get one. The real threat, however, is that a terrorist group might get the materials they need to construct a small nuclear devise and then sneak it into one of our poorly guarded sea ports. They could place it in a cargo ship heading to whichever major port city they wanted to destroy.

    So we've got to make some tough decisions. Where would our money better spent?

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!