Slashdot Mirror
US Ready to put Weapons in Space
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'."
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
I'd like to point out that space superiority does not necessarily mean the militarization of space. Already, the presence and testing of ICBMs skirts the issue, and so, too would many other technologies.
That's not that I agree that this should be a direction we want to go, I'm just pointing out that the treaty isn't worth much. To me the millitary objective of space is right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?
This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.
Trolling is a art,
America has never been shy of ignoring treaties or the wishes of the international community, when it comes to establishing and protecting its interests.
Put this in the pile next to Kyoto and the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, etc...
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
A more descriptive article about this can be found here. I found this portion to be most interesting...
The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.
A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?
First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.
And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.
And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.
And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.
I do security
has the current US Administration cared about treaties?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Don't tell me China wouldn't try if they didn't have the opportunity.
Space-based assets are simultaneously very valuable and very vulnerable. In a tense international standoff (Cuban Missile Crisis style) they inject a strong "use it or lose it" incentive to go for a first strike. On balance, this is probably not a plus.
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Since when has the US government given a shit about treaties and guidelines? And although my foil hat is rather loose today, who doesn't believe that this hasn't already happened to some extent by either the US or other top countries around the nation?
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.
The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it. I don't like it, or read it, but I do respect the quality of writing.
In truth though, is attempting to influence the result of an election in another country wrong? If the Washington Post was to print a series of anti Blair articles in the run up to the UK elections, would that be wrong? I can't see how...
Assasination - fair enough - stupid thing to print - shoddy editorial staff for not picking it up before it went to press.
Bullshit.
I think the whole "if someone tries to advance it's economy / technology / society it's a danger to us"-thinking pretty dangerious and provoking which you imply relating to the subject. In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
I read this the same way. The treaty is talking about WMDs. Sat. Jammers, Sat. Killers and missile interceptors don't quailfy.
The treaty only bans nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The Air Force want anti-satellite weapons, which are not in either category.
This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.
Proverbs 21:19
I'm pretty sure putting missiles on the unmanned Predator drones over Afghanistan was a violation of a similar treaty, one that said you can't weaponize drones (and thus make a hideous, inhuman robot army).
But that one kind of slipped by in the name of the War on Terror.
I have to say, what appears as a near-total disregard for the other countries in the world on the part of the US regarding sensitive and dangerous military issues bothers me, and I live here. Doctrine of Pre-Emptive war was a dangerous road to start walking down. The people who wrote the Weaponization of Space treaties knew that it was a also a treacherous path, and yet it seems we're about to start down that road too? What kind of future are we heading towards?
In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.
No one needs to assume that, the historical record bears it out well. Maintaining hegemony is the #1 American priority, over all else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not destroy mass. Nuclear weapons generate their explosive energy from the destruction of mass due to nuclear fission. Thus, only nukes are truly weapons of mass destruction.
China isn't getting into space *exclusively* to study science. Don't kid yourself, as an emerging economic powerhouse, they'll do some science too.
:)
Note that right now the militarization of space has been well on the way, in some sense with GPS (guiding precision weapon strikes) and spy satellites (target location/identification/tracking) and other such 'non WMD' uses of space.
Controlling the 'high ground' has always had advantages in intelligence and planning, and in this case, earth orbit has some profound advantages for seeing what other people are doing. And of course, if you can see what they are doing militarily, you can also spot annoying things they might not like brought up like mass graves, environmental catastrophes, prison camps, army buildups, etc. And you can take a good look at what kind of industrial facilities they are running or setting up. Even with a strictly corporate intelligence perspective, this knowledge is quite valuable (given some inherent ability to interpret the satellite photos with efficacy).
Space was destined to be weaponized the minute it became important to the resource bases or security of major countries. It now is starting to be, hence the trend. Any 'treaties' to block this were conveniences of the moment or dreams and naive ones I suspect. Of course, everyone who isn't in a position to either have a major world interest to defend or the power and technology and money to defend that interest can sit back and complain about how they don't want militarization (obviously they don't since they can't play) or how they'd never do it (unless of course they had the ability to do so, but that's never said).
Besides, on a humorous note, we'll need those weapons when the nasty landmark destroying aliens arrive and they prove resistant to country music, the common cold, and are not Mac-compatible.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
RTFA. The treaty outlaws Nuclear weapons and WMDs. So long as anything we put up there does not fall under either of those two categories we are still within the treaty. By the way, since the USSR is the only other signatory of that treaty, and they are no longer around, does that mean it is still valid?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
"The Guardian" didn't call for the assassination of the President of the United States. In order to properly say that, such a call to action would have to appear as an unattributed editorial on their editorial page, thus representing the views of the editorial staff.
Instead, according to the very article you link to, it was a tasteless joke by one writer, in an article that appeared in the TV listings.
This is like saying that the National Review called on the United States to invade Arab countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity. Allowing something to be printed in a publication isn't the same thing as endorsing it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
>> ...I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky..."
How would you feel about that if the "other countries stuff" included satellites carrying nuclear weapons or biowarfare payloads?
Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Not US, just Taiwan -- over 600 missiles are pointed at the island from China, plus lots of other weaponry.
And Taiwan is America's ally. So, there...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's niether funny nor flamebait - it's the truth. In America, the surest way to change an "undecided" voter's mind against what you want is to tell him or her how to vote.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
No, it wouldn't be wrong for the Washington Post to do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Britons had a lowered opinion of the paper afterwards.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Given the innate warlike nature of humans, expecting space to remain non-military was just plain foolish.
Nice fantasy, though.
Proposal:
To change the title of this site.
From: slashdot.org
to: (select one)
A) FUD.org
B) LiberalPropaganda.org
C) [close site, simply forward traffic to the tinfoill hattery already present at www.democraticunderground.com]
For those still not getting it, Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. is applicable to precisely 0% of the Guardian article.
-Styopa
That treaty exists between the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me know if the political entity known as the USSR has any objections.
I think simply asserting that they can't is an oversimplification. They also can't hold foreign citizens taken during a military conflict indefinitely and without recourse because that would violate treaties relating to POW's. But they do, because if they don't call them POW's then the rule doesn't apply. Would the government not use the same logic to justify circumventing the treaty, while at the same time enforcing it for other countries?
If you can track their orbit (relatively easy) and can launch small bucket containing millions of tiny ball bearings in the same orbit but opposite direction you can kill them easily. (relative speeds can be 10-50 km/sec)
For slow orbit spy satellites this is quite feasible for many contries.
Relevance: If there is weapons in the sky, you can expect countries to prepare for countermeasures. After first major space battle against well prepared enemy our low orbit space will be full of fast flying tiny metal objects, satellite parts, and other space junk for decades/centuries.
And suddenly space travel is more dangerous and more expensive for all.
Dyslexics have more fnu.
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
Nothing can really stop a dirty bomb from going off in Manhattan. There are bigger threats out there though, a dirty bomb in Manhattan might wipe out a few buildings and throw some fallout around. The number of people that would be killed would be fairly low. A ICBM in the wrong hands however could kill millions.
I don't think anybody would call alcohol a poison unless they were trying for propaganda. Certainly it can cause damage, but the truth is that it is "poisonous in excessive doses", sort of like Vitamin A. Especially since certain alcoholic beverages have been shown to be helpful in moderation.
So what I mean is, it would not be mere bias if I said "we should ban alcohol because it is poisonous" -- that is not the truth. A glass of wine now and then is simply not bad for you at all; the science is there.
Bias would be if my publication said "we should ban alcohol because there were X alcohol-related deaths last year" without mentioning what happened last time we banned alcohol, etc. That would be truth, though incomplete and biased.
I do feel that people should be less flexible with regard to what is true and what is not. Everybody knows that there is bias and that everybody is biased, but that cannot be an excuse for lies.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
So let me get this straight, on Slashdot:
Corporate FUD => Bad.
Political FUD => Insightful.
!hoD
why? It makes more sense than invading another country in order to change their leadership.
Not sure I'd classify Taiwan as America's ally. The US basically told taiwan that they (the US) will not recognize it's independance. This might have something to do with the amount of the US foreign debt that China currently holds tho....
Worst would be to help recalling a democratically elected president in another country.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
The United States has set precedent in cases similar to Taiwan and China. China has every right to retake this "state in open rebellion". Much like a Lincoln-led United States did with certain "states in open rebellion" over a century ago.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Having just gotten out of the Air Force, I can tell you that "Air and Space Superiority" has been an Air Force catch phrase for YEARS. This 'recent' developement stuff simply means 'This hasn't been publicized before, and not many people have heard of this, so it must be new.' Wrong.
* Unless you happen to be a member of the clergy, or anyone who can "convincingly" say Vote for Candidate X or you will go straight to hell.
Theres seems ot be a general gross over estimation of the importance of the islamic world. Their numerous but don't have the political or military might to kick the US out of Saudi arabai (and their holliest of cities). Thei'r not unified, not organized, and would get their ass handed to them by a force 1/20 as large as the US (see isreal). When the oil runs out in 40 years, no one will care about the middle east. It'll be like africa. They coudl all starve and no one care. Isreal coudl wipe out palastien and no one will care. Give it 40 years. After 40 we'll be concerned with the unstable Alberta/canada relationship and the volitile venezuela area (both contain 33% of all oil in the world. for a total of 66%).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Most corporate FUD is actually lies and smokescreen, intended to promote the other corporation. Most people who talk about the government in a less-than-flattering way do so because there is copious evidence that the current government is not trustworthy, does not have the interest of its people at heart, is in bed with corporate and militaristic interests, and would like nothing more than to rape our natural resources and leave the wilderness ravaged.
Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.
These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.
Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
See here.
To quote from the link (from October 25th):
Can you say appeasement for trade?As a citizen of the olden days version of Mars, Australia, may I say "Thanks!", all them criminal types certainly made a damn nice country down here. :D
Well, sure - let's grant that precedent. Would it not then be Taiwan who has a right to retake mainland China? After all, the current Taiwanese government is the antecedent of the original (pre-1949) Republic of China. The People's Republic is the portion that seceded. It just happens to be much larger, and if unaided, Taiwan would not be able to win a war - but in terms of precedent (if accepted), it's still Taiwan that has the right to reinvade China, not the other way around.
-Graham
> The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it.
You give them credit for this why? Journalism should have NO BIAS. Only objective reporting of the facts. That is the expectation the public should have from journalists, unless they are specifically looking for opinion, in which case they can turn to the editorial section.
A newspaper with any credibility will have no bias whatsoever and will take pains to make sure that no subjective editorial opinion does not appear in its news pages. Sadly, there are very few such papers with said credibility. The Guardian is cannot be said to be an objective newspaper, and the fact that its bias is blatantly apparent does not earn it points or credit whatsoever, it makes it look like just another unobjective and partisan (and therefore useless) paper.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
By an interesting coincidence, that is the same way one leads a pig.
Well, I guess it was perfectly OK for Bush to attempt to influence the Australian election. Looks like he succeeded, too.
Perhaps it would be even more instructive to look to China's own history. For thousands of years, the Dynastic cycle has gone as follows: A new, strong government comes to power after defeating the previous incumbents, due to the ineptitude and corruption in the previous government, and also the strategic genius and perhaps popular support of the leaders of the new one. Then time passes, and the inheritors of that power become complacent and lazy, until a new force comes along to repeat the cycle.
The revolution that threw out the last official Emperor was one such event; the Communist revolution was the next.
Taiwan just hasn't caught up with the times yet. :)
Though seriously, it makes sense for Taiwan to eventually reunify with China, for both their benefits. But it's also definitely in Taiwan's interest to delay this, until China's government becomes sufficiently democratic, or at least can be trusted not to dick around with them too much. Both such processes -- democratization and renunification -- must be allowed to happen in their own good time. And it's best for the U.S. to stay out of it, except to use its influence on Taiwan to keep the situation calm.
If you're wondering about why, even though I maintain it's inevitable, China shouldn't be in any special hurry for democratization -- just look at the recent U.S. election results, and remember a few things about China: (1) They have 800 million "country folk", with little awareness of the outside world, who would easily be swayed by a charismatic leader, no matter the agenda; and (2) they have a demonstrated capability of succumbing to nationwide madness (i.e. the Cultural Revolution). The Communist Party aren't the only ones in China who are afraid to rock the boat.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
You hit the heart of the matter: How is the rape, torture, and murder of political dissidents -- or of members of their families -- considered an acceptable form of government? (China, Cuba, North Korea, the Sudan, Libya, the former Iraqi dictatorship and Zimbabwe)
Many democratic countries have laws where if you witness a murder and do nothing, you are complicit in the crime. How long do we watch governments maintain power by murdering their own people, and do nothing but pass petty resolutions or sanctions that only state it is atrocious?
Don't get me wrong: we'll always have the small group of individuals taking advantage of their strength. What matters then is how a government deals with it. Abu Gharaib and the recent mercy killing of a young boy were both very wrong, staining the honor of our allied forces and meriting prison and hanging for the US troops involved. There's a huge distinction between that and having to watch the government-sanctioned rape of your wife and daughter before you're executed with a machete (Zimbabwe).
Beware: I believe all are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Once again, for the hard of thinking...
The piece that 'called for the assassination of the President' was not a leader column, not an editorial comment, not a news story. It was written by humorist and comedian Charlie Brooker in his weekly TV preview column, Brooker being the creator of TV Go Home, which should give you an idea of his style of humour.
The Guardian did make a mistake in putting the column up on its website where, out of the context of the youth-oriented, anti-establishment Guardian Weekend supplement, it was given the same weight as any other story and so could be jumped on by sneaky or obtuse Bush supporters as another example of the Guardian's left-wing evil.
If you actually read the piece, Brooker never says "Bush must die!", instead listing several infamous assassins and wondering where they are when we need them. Not the same thing, and perfectly in keeping with his often brutal style of comedy. Yet more FUD about the Guardian from the hard right.
Besides, why shouldn't a non-US newspaper try to influence the result of the US election? It's not like the US hasn't tried (sometimes with bullets rather than words) to influence the results of many other democratic elections around the world to benefit its own interests...
You must think in Russian.