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."

Comments

Ah yes, the Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

The paper that tried to directly influence the United State Presidential election and called for the assassination of the President. I'm sure they're not biased at all.

Regardless, we should be ready to do it when it's necessary. China isn't getting into space to study science.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[nordicfrost]

The paper that tried to directly influence the United State Presidential election and called for the assassination of the President. I'm sure they're not biased at all.

Yup, Europeans like me. I wrote to three persons in Clark county, Ohio and explained them who this election affects much, much more than themselves and why Bush is a bad republican. There are good republicans and bad ones, you know. I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.

China isn't getting into space to study science.

Neither was USA or USSR. So?

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[Rei]

... nor easy to be bombed there. :) But the point is that China *does* do scientific research, and so it is unreasonable to expect them not to do it in space.

I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.

The nation doing a huge military buildup is the US, not China. China's forces just scream defensive, from their tiny number of nuclear weapons (20 DF-6's) and deployment strategies, to their overall budget.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[dingDaShan]

China is not an enemy of the United States. There is currently a trend away from major powers fighting. The Soviet Union is an example. A bi-polar system is inherently more stable than a multi-polar international system. The current trend is towards terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida that are highly organized, independant, and very spread out. Fighting these terrorists only gets more difficult. Once they are identified, troops must be sent in, and by the time the troops arrive, all the terrorists are gone. An instantaneous, precise, space based weapon would have amazing implications in the terrorist fighting business. If the terrorists can instantly be eradicated(laser) or immobilized (microwave weapons), then warfare will be revolutionized once more.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[(l.windthorst)]

There are no good Republicans and bad Republicans. There are only good people out there. Why this innane simplification? That if you disagree with someone, and you don't understand their vote, people begin to accuse them of being "bad" or "stupid?" It's not that simple. The US media did an awful job of covering this race, and the parties don't even try to understand what motivates the people who vote... I am a Republican from Ohio, and so is my whole family. We were split down the middle as to whether to vote for Kerry or not -- though we all agred we didn't want to vote for Bush. In the end we cancelled each other's votes (because my older brother, who would have voted for Kerry, was too lazy to get an absentee ballot). Our county was one of the lonell red counties up in the north east of the state. However, according to the media (here in DC, where I go to school, and which went 90% for Kerry) no one understands "why" people would vote for Bush. It is incomprehensible. They make pathetic jokes about rednecks and trucks and secession. You, being in Europe, have even less access to unbiased coverage, and in that respect are so out of the loop that I doubt your letter even made real political sense to the people you sent it to. Here's the point of what I am trying to say: you don't understand what motivated people to vote for Bush. Therefore, your arguments are usually of little value to the people of Clark County. Republicans are all good people, as are Democrats, as are the French and the Iraqis. Statistically, bad people don't even exist -- just selfish people, and those who have been influenced by selfish or self-serving institutions.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[arivanov]

Well... Then may be he deserved to win it. Basically you are saying that all of the so called undecided voters suffered from rabid xenophobia and acute isolationism and reacted to letters from a foreigner by running to support the exact opposite candidate. Well, frankly that is Bush electorate by definition. So the Guardian did not have to do anything with it.

If anyone had to something with Bush winning, it was Bin Laden. He wants the American and the British to continue alienating the islamic world until all of it is at war against them. He got what he wanted. There was a lot of banter on Slashdot about him influencing the Spanish elections. Well... dunno about Spain, but he definitely got what he wanted in the US. That tape several days before the election was the most brilliant propaganda move in the Bush campaing. At the right time to make everyone scared and not giving enough time to get the White House to answer WTF is it doing in Iraq when enemy no 1 is still alive and kicking elsewhere. In fact if Bin Laden did not make the tape the Bush camp would have had to fake it. Or may be they did???

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[avronius]

That viewpoint is interesting.

The United States have a large military machine, but their nation operates with huge deficits. The biggest kid on the playground often gets his way, but that does not make him the leader.

The US has had some good leaders in the past, but so have other countries. Strong leaders that have been respected. It is unfortunate that the current President is not. Hopefully he will realize that bigger guns, more expensive toys, and invasions / conquests are not the way to garner respect.

My only fear....
(NOTE - THIS IS A SCIENCE FICTION MUSING - NOT A RECOMMENDATION)
After this 'constellation' is in place, the US government will create a malignant law that somehow negates their huge debts to other countries and their people, sieze control of all foreign interests on their soil, and declare themselves "leader" of the "free" world.

Sure - it's a little extreme, but I'm an extreme guy.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[delta_avi_delta]

I wouldn't deride it too much: "...the sole reason it [the US economy] is still floating, is the willingness of China and Japan to buy US debt" : the Financial Times on Thursday.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[peragrin]

I wouldn't go quite that far. But Bush and other old time republicans have been wanting to "admend" the constitution for years now. ANY admendment that they do would probally revoke the term limits they put into place, so Bush can stay around longer.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[RealProgrammer]

The Guardian miscalculated the (U.S. of) American feelings of patriotism, xenophobia, parochialism, isolationism, desire for independence, distrust of Europe, and the resentment that would be rekindled by even a single letter like the one you sent. There's a sizable segment of our population which doesn't even want the U.S. to be a U.N. member.

No matter how well you stated your case, the fact that it was a non-American saying it would cause most people here to summarily dismiss it. The fact that it was an organized campaign turned that dismissal into an angry backlash.

I'm not saying that led to President Bush being reelected, but it certainly didn't help Senator Kerry.

Don't bother to respond about the evils U.S. interventionism; I'm just explaining our reaction.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[furball]

What puzzles me is why the US didn't pick a strong, smart and militarish guy like Clarke.

Clarke got in the game a little late. But yes, Clarke would have stood a better chance than Kerry I'd imagine. Clarke had some baggage but they could be handled.

If I ran the Democrat party I would have put Clarke and Lieberman on a ticket and beaten Bush silly. Clarke had the military background and be able to hammer Bush on Vietnam service and his experience with Kosovo. Lieberman would have appealed to the religious right and blunted the GOP's standing with the religious right.

But no. You had a New England Democrat instead. It's not the US really. It's the Democrat party base. They're the one that selected Kerry. I could see myself, a Republican, voting for Clarke or Lieberman sooner than I could ever vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, both Clarke and Lieberman are perceived to be too conservative for the Democrat base.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

> Correct me if I am wrong but isn't China one of the more belligerent nations on the planet?

They have irredentist aims on Tibet which they then invaded, border disputes with India and Russia involving relatively small areas, and territorial sovereignty issues with Taiwan. This doesn't begin to equate with expansionism or beligerence. China's history has for hundreds of years been "leave us the hell alone, we'll run our country our way and we'll kick you out by force if we have to". This as opposed to the USA and Soviet empires telling everyone else how to run their countries, or else face shown much inclination to change that by beeing their internal enemies materially supported with armament, or even outright invasion. China has zero ability to project its power, and hasn't suilding up a modern navy or airlift capacity. They talk tough, but in the end, they just want to keep running their country their way.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[LWATCDR]

Yes but do you undstand that being biased means you can trust the source, you have to check there facts many many times, and then find trusted sources to prove said facts.
That being said what about the ASAT tests that the USSR did and the prototype space weapons platform they tried to launch? What about the photorecon, sigint, navigation, and commsats that are already in orbit. I would say that it is too late.
The GPS and keyhole sats are already used to target weapons.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian

[ScrewMaster]

Actually ... you're full of little red ants. Up until the time of World War II, America couldn't have cared less about "hegemony" or imperialism or all the other things we get accused of nowadays. As a matter of fact, we were a very insular nation and had to be hauled kicking and screaming into World War II. Europe may not like the fact that we came out of our shell, but Europe is the reason why.

The historical record shows very clearly that Europe has been continually unable to manage it's affairs in such a manner as to prevent periodic despotic rampages. Napoleon, the British Empire, Hitler, the Hammer & Sickle ... my god, look at what you've done, and you complain about us? America simply can't afford a true Empire (I think a lot of you people don't understand what that is, and it certainly isn't the U.S.) and the population wouldn't stand for it anyway. It costs too much and we won't give up our big screen TV's and gas-guzzling SUVs just to annex your asses. Frankly you're not worth it. All this talk about American "Imperialism" is just sour grapes: European nations have built bigger empires in the last few hundred years, and killed more people in doing so, than we ever would or could.

It is true that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but if you look at that historical record again, you'll find that it is a direct result of the outcome of World War II and the Cold War that followed. You'd best be grateful for that military presence: it was the tattered remnants of the British Empire backed by American industrialism that stopped Hitler, and it was the U.S. keeping the pressure on the Soviets that halted their expansionism in the decades that followed. Had the European leadership had been better able to handle Hitler and his rise to power, we would still be Yamamoto's "sleeping giant."

meteor defense

[ericdano]

I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......

Re:meteor defense

[Erwos]

I'll bite.

Basically, they have nothing in common except shooting something upwards. ICBMs are on a parabola path - that is to say, they start on Earth, arch, and then come right back down. It is a very, very quick process - a full-blown nuclear war need only take half an hour.

The targets are very small (relative to an Earth-killing celestial object), intentionally spoofing your radar, and very, very close to the target (again, relatively). The good news is, they're packed with explosives, and since they're so close, a laser defense system could at least conceivably work. The Israelis supposedly have something working that could handle tasks somewhat like this (Arrow II?).

Compare this to a meteor. Meteors (that we would worry about) are very large compared to an ICBM. They're moving really fast, yes, but with an active detection system, we would probably have a couple years of notice. What's _best_ is that the meteor would be moving on a relatively stable and straight path, and we only need to deflect it - if we knock it off course a year out, it's a non-problem. Blowing the thing to meteor bits is overkill.

This is not quite as easy as it sounds, but I think it's doable with today's technology.

So, really, they are two separate problems. ICBM defense requires a highly accurate system that can engage many, many small targets at close range. Meteor defense requires a system which can engage a single, huge target at massive distances.

I knew that "Collisions in Space" course would be handy someday.

-Erwos

Uh... guys...

[boomgopher]

There has been this thing called "Space Command" in the Air Force for a long time now. There has even been talk of branching the space forces from the Air Force for a long while - like over ten years or so?

I call alarmist BS, nothing new here.

Re:No Violations Here

[shawn(at)fsu]

You've got a point.

From the treaty;
Article IV

States 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.

I guess destroying some other nations satellite would not count as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's a crappy idea. I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.

Not exactly

[stubear]

It appears the treaty only excludes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from being put into space or on any celestial bodies. According to the Guardian article (why do people take this rag seriously?) the US Air Force is looking to deploy a few small spacecraft, likely highly maneuverable satellites, that can destroy surface to surface missiles, enemy aircraft, and enemy satellites which may be used for surevillance or other tasks which offer an advantage on the battlefield. I'd wager these are laser based weapons and do not violate the treaty as they are neither nuclear nor weapons of mass destruction.

Re:"weapons of mass destruction"

[kngthdn]

Possibly. But knocking an enemy's satellite out can hardly be considered "mass" destruction.

Current Policies are Outdated

[Tibor the Hun]

I hate to say it, but this is probably a very neccessary step in assuring the survival and prosperity of the U.S. empire.

There probably will be no more conventional world wars, we (the U.S.) have enough nukes to dissuade any global conflict. So, since we don't have to worry about a ground assault, we need to concentrate on air/space defense that can shoot down any ICBMs from unstable dictatorial states, or trigger all holy hell on enemy before they have the time to prepare their defenses in case we start feeling threatened by them.

I'd like to believe that Kerry administration would have taken a different approach to preserving the empire, something that would benefit both us and the world, but Bush, being a cowboy that he is, clearly has no regard for global opinion. (Note that I'm not saying that we should let the French shit on us if we do need to defend ourselves, but that we don't really have a right to "liberate" whomever we want through a half-baked war.)

We'll see where the world will be 20-30 years from now in terms of military alleigances...

Re:No Violations Here

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Hmm- would my favortie space based weapon- guided 2-meter crowbars as a Weapon of Minimal Distruction- be legal then because it's specifically designed only for assasination inside of reinforced concrete bunkers?

Re:No Violations Here

[benj_e]

Actually, space is already militarized. It's just not *weaponized*, which is a quite different thing.

Militarization in it's most basic form just means using for military purposes, like intel satellites. Almost from the get-go, space has been militarized in this manner. In fact, one reason that we were slow in launching a satellite is to let the Soviets establish the practise of satellite overflights of other countries.

Weaponization means positioning weapons in space - something that is not forbidden either so long as the weapons are not WMD. That means anti-sat weapons could be deployed, as well as space based missiles targeting ground positions. Just no WMD. In fact, the Soviets had positioned proto-type weapons in space long ago - actually painting a shuttle with a laser at one point.

Re:No Violations Here

[phobos13013]

I highly recommend anyone who doesnt think the US has total intention to not only militarize outer space but also to totally dominate including who comes and goes from the Earth by the inclusion of space platforms and other methods should watch Arsenal of Hypocrisy and reconsider. The governments of the world cannot allow the US to do this or they will be completely beholden to US contorl on space travel.

Re:This does not violate the treaty

[Ioldanach]

shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty

Something else of note... this indicates that the celestial bodies are restricted in use to States Parties. Exactly where do "independent contractors" (today's political phrase for "mercenaries") fit into that? Could the US government just contract out the militarization of the moon to Haliburton and still be, legally, in the clear on this treaty?

Nothing new here either...

[JavaNPerl]

I used to be in Army worked with several Air Defense Artillery missile systems. As early as 1990, I recall THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) objectives being a high priority which included the ability to hit targets outside of the earth's atmosphere including low orbiting satellites with full anti-satellite capability being a longer term goal.

Re:If we didn't do it China would

[apostrophesemicolon]

oh so if it's about the US not caring international treaties it's called a TROLL..

if it's about China trying if they have the opportunity it's a 3-score INSIGHTFUL?

sheez, dont be too obvious.,..

Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens!

[iceperson]

I could waste my time refuting these but I really only have to point out one instance of you being wrong to make your whole point invalid.
2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
As you can see this treaty was never violated. Add to that the fact that the nation we signed the treaty with no longer even existed and your argument falls short.

Re:Only nukes are true WMDs

[Vengeance]

Hehehe. Cute. Of course the simple fact is that the mass is not destroyed, but merely converted into energy. So really they should be called Weapons of Mass Conversion ;-)

Now go explain 'mass' to the American people, because I'm fairly sure the majority of my countrymen only think of 'massive' when they hear the word.

Re:Only nukes are true WMDs

[Omkar]

Actually, the energy released by conventional explosives does result in a TINY mass decrease...think the mass equivalent of chemical bonds.

Re:Biased or not the space arms race begins

[BattleCat]

Well, actually in the beginning of the 80's , when Reagan's Star Wars initiative started to be discussed, Russian leading missile engineer offered even cheaper solution - load Progress cargo craft with a nuts and bolts and other small metal objects (Progress can take a few tons up there), put it in the high orbit and explode - in a few hours all orbiting gear will be pierced and perfectly malfunctioning.

Re:No Violations Here

[onion2k]

What this could lead to is some sort of "space terrorism". Imagine if someone launched a conventional bomb into space packed with a couple of hundred thousand small steel ball bearings, and detonated it... hell, what if they sent 20 of them up? Millions of lethal (to anything in orbit) weapons effectively stopping *any* space exploration for the foreseeable future.

Its certainly not outside the reach of governments such as china, india or pakistan. What would these people be willing to do in order to protect themselves from American weapons?

Re:No Violations Here

[Christopher Thomas]

Hmm- would my favortie space based weapon- guided 2-meter crowbars as a Weapon of Minimal Distruction- be legal then because it's specifically designed only for assasination inside of reinforced concrete bunkers?

Anything dropped from space has kinetic energy equivalent to about 15 times its weight in TNT, at most.

Your 2-meter crowbar will weigh maybe 30 lbs.

Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?

I don't think so either.

Space-based weapons are very nice as terror weapons, and tolerably adequate as assasination tools if you know where the target is but don't have weapon platforms nearby. They're ok for knocking out other satellites or even spacecraft, if suitably armed. What they're not good at is defeating conventional armies or cracking fortified targets.

Re:"Other Countries Stuff" Might Be Orbiting N-Wea

[l3v1]

Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?

Yes, and that explaines it all, right ? Such weapons shall be deployed just-in-case ? This just smells as the cold war.

To me this seems again the same story as when Uncle Sam objected on E.U.&co. deploying their own GPS system too, stating that would provide U.S.'s possible enemies with possible unwanted tactical advantage in case of war.

What if those bloody europeans suddenly got to their senses and started to look upon the U.S. as offensive - on their rights, freedoms, daily lives ? Oh, well, that would just prove them "right" (well, what an obfuscated use of the word).

Here you go

[Databass]

http://www.stratmag.com/issueApr-1/page02.htm/

"THE TEST OF a weaponized UAV took place only after the US State Department lifted its objections because of concerns that a "weaponized" Predator could breach the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the former Soviet Union.

Officials were concerned a Predator carrying a laser-guided Hellfire could be classified as a ground-launch cruise missile, which is restricted by the treaty. The State Department official was also worried that demonstrating Predator's ability to launch a Hellfire would worry the governments of Russia and European allies, which could host the platform in the future. Inside The Air Force first reported on the issue Dec. 8, 2000."

I said I'm "pretty" sure because multiple high level organazations were concerned about the legality but proceeded anyway. What changed to ease their concerns? It is not that the Predator became less deadly. I would suggest the War on Terror gave them additional leeway.

Re:No Violations Here

[TigerNut]

OK then... How about if the British (or anyone else with the required steel foundry infrastructure) resurrected the Tallboy or Grand Slam bombs used in WW2? Put a few of these into space in orbits that give decent time-to-target, and all you have to do is de-orbit them at the right time. If you can drop them from low earth orbit, then you don't even need any explosive. A ten-ton half-molten ingot dropping on a concrete bunker at several times the speed of sound has got to hurt.

Re:No Violations Here

[Christopher Thomas]

Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?

It likely is if it's a focused shaped charge to a single 1" circle....which is basically the entire idea of the crowbar-dropped-from-orbit idea.

I seriously doubt this, if the bunker is deep enough to resist conventional explosive attack (or tactical nuclear warheads). Remember, the 1/e velocity distance is the distance at which the penetrator has displaced an amount of material comparable to its own mass. That'd be at most 10-20 metres of earth for your crowbar. By comparison, the bunker would be on the order of 100 metres down.

The idea isn't to demolish the bunker, it's to kill a single person *despite* that person being in a bunker

This requires demolishing the bunker, as you don't know where they are inside it. If you have a spy in there, there are far cheaper ways of killing the target.

And I'm completely agreed with that idea- but NEITHER can fortified targets or conventional armies stop an attack from space. Multiply that crobar by thousands- even millions- of similar crowbars taking out *specific* ground based targets (of the command and communications variety) and your ground-based army gets one heck of a lot easier to defeat.

The problem is that it's ludicrously expensive to stock that much mass in space. You'd be better off carpet-bombing with napalm and raining down conventional missiles on hardened targets. Space weapons only make practical sense vs. missile-delivered weapons if they use very little mass per shot, as would be the case for anti-satellite weapons or perhaps very energetic particle beam weapons (which are too expensive to lift with chemical rockets).

A very cheap launch technology, like a space elevator, would change all of this, but as long as we're stuck with conventional launch techniques, space is only useful for surveillance and for anti-space weapons.

Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens!

[Anonymous Coward]

So was about the rights of the Afgan fighters in Cuba? Why are they being treated by the US military rather than the Afgan government?

Double standards and I hope the rest of the world stand up and say 'No Bush, you will not put anything up in space!'

Just goes to show

[einhverfr]

Every hightech weapon can be defeated by a less high-tech defence.

Reminds me of the Serbs in Yugoslavia using microwave ovens as decoys for our missiles which home in on microwaves (targetting communications or anti-aircraft targetting systems).

This is because every complex system will have weaknesses which can be targetted by something simpler.

analysis of the current state of USA

[tantrum]

This post is not directed toward every american, only the religious nutjobs (well, they sure ain't christian). It however turned out to a big rant, not really applying to the space-weapon race... Sorry about that.

I just have this feeling that your president has understood that it is real easy to control the majority of the population as long as he is able to point towards some enemy.

Whenever the elite in the US need something (taxcuts, cheap labour, protection from competition or a new system of controlling the mindless public) they manage to come up with a good enemy. Your last enemy is as you all know the spooky "terrorists". Well, face it terrorism is not exactly a new enemy. Oh and terrorists usually fight for a cause, does america? Oh, yeah... you fight for your right to be the only superpower with the ability to fuck the rest of the world with polution, shitty food, and crap products (face it, american products went into a decline decades ago.)

Oh, and the american values thingy.. When did christianity promote an eye for an eye (ok, in the old testament). Jesus (the mythological stoner) promoted the direct opposite. If you want people to treat you nicely you will have to look beyond their faults. I seriously doubt that Jesus for instance would be denying people the right to abortion (they might be punished by god, however hell was invented about 1200 year ago, so the punishment shouldn't be too bad).

Oh, Jesus never had a girl, right (maybe the maria magdalena character, though). What the fuck do the right wing religius nutjobs think he was? Asexual, a wanker or GAY?

Okay, let me get back on topic here.

Why on earth do your government think they even have the right to attack other nations, and on top of that they havbe the nerve to try and make it impossible to retaliate. I really think that your government tries to isolate you... And a large portion of the population does not even notice (offtopic again, sorry)..

One thing is for certain, this will not make you less prone to attacks from terrorists.

Oh, and I am not trolling. Just expressing my view, as a norwegian (located in Europe for those that went to a public school in the mid-west.)

Just to finish of, those of you who voted for Kerry or Nader: Thank you. You've proved that not the entire american population is totally brainwashed. Now I can say that I like most of your big cities.

Damn, can't finish off just yet. As a student (School of management and economics) I studied with quite a few american exchange students. They seemed like nice people, even those from texas! And i've met several other americans around Europe, however I've never met anybody admitting to support the republicans! Is the republican party the worlds most elaborate hoax, or are republicans hiding underground in their atomic proof bunkers?

ouch.. this is really gonna get modded down, if anybody reads it, that is.

Oh, and english is not my primary language, so please excuse any gramatical errors.