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

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.

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: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

[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: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?