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."
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.
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,
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.
Um, bad movie where this happens. Under Seige 2 Superman... 3? There are many bad movie references I could make here.. Wasn't this the Star Wars program? Or part of it?
Article IV of the treaty follows:
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.
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
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?
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......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
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
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.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
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.
That's it: ...
1) Put weapons in space.
2) Send Snake Pliskin to LA to pick up the black box.
3) Snake Pliskin rolls everything back to Stone Age
4) Profit ???
Please stop being mega-jerks and maybe start keeping SOME of the promises you make. I believe you did just re-elect someone who campaigned on 'values' or some such business - abiding by international treaties probably falls somewhere under that category.
Thanks,
the rest of the world
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Who needs good public schools or child healthcare... we're go'na have mother f***'n space lasers!
Now, if anyone tries to have a gay marriage, they'll be fired upon from the United Defense death star orbiting above.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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.
As is so often the case, the summary gets the facts wrong.
The treaty does NOT forbid the militarization of space. It forbids placement of weapons on celestial bodies, and it forbids nuclear and other 'WMD's from being placed in space.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
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.
Good thing they're not a bunch of socialist, America-hating, yellow journalists or anything!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Possibly. But knocking an enemy's satellite out can hardly be considered "mass" destruction.
on space weapons and why they might not be a good idea see the union of concerned scientist's page on space weapons.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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 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...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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?
Don't forget Real Genius with the huge, frickin' hotter-than-the-sun laser that could disintegrate a single human from space or, even more frighteningly, overcome a two-story home with a giant container of Jiffy Pop popcorn!
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Hubble shot down in friendly fire incident.
AT&ROFLMAO
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.
Bush: Alright, how's the ladder going, General? Are we beating the Japanese?
General: Not quite, but we have a new problem, Mr. President. Our recon team on the ladder just found new evidence of threats... from Saddam Hussein.
Bush: Saddam Hussein? But... we killed him! We secretly took him out months ago!
General: Yes sir. And now we believe he's building weapons of mass destruction... in heaven.
- South Park, "Ladder to Heaven"
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
Now we're safe from aliens too. Take that, ET!
What? They're pointed back at Earth?Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
When you can't even fly to your space station on your own. It's time for Russians to renew their anti-satellite program. Yeah, the one that they've developed back in the "Star Wars" day to shoot satellites down using a high-intensity military laser sitting on the ground.
This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.
>> ...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"
How do you plan on getting those weapons past the firmament?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Space forces support involves launching satellites and other high-value payloads into space using a variety of expendable launch vehicles and operating those satellites once in the medium of space.
Space control ensures friendly use of space through the conduct of counterspace operations encompassing surveillance, negation and protection.
Force enhancement provides weather, communications, intelligence, missile warning and navigation. Force enhancement is support to the warfighter.
Force application involves maintaining and operating a rapid response land-based ICBM force as the Air Force's only on-alert strategic deterrent.
More info here.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
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.,..
Space? They can't even put a laser on a frickin' shark!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Given the innate warlike nature of humans, expecting space to remain non-military was just plain foolish.
Nice fantasy, though.
If we don't militarily dominate space, how will we be able to ensure our right to force global warming on the rest of the planet?!
This is a must. We need nukes up there like yesterday. I shit you not my fellow christian white Americans. This is a matter of supreme national security.
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.
Don't tell me China wouldn't try if they didn't have the opportunity.
Is there not some irony here? Treaties like this are made precisely to avoid such a justification for militarization. You can either try to get everyone to agree, or try to beat everyone to the punch. The later is easier (and costs more), but the former is more rewarding.
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.
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.
Orbital Mind Control Lasers! Those crazy Gnomes of Zurich...
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).
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.
The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.
Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
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.
Guantanamo bay. A large number of prisoners are being kept there without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation, and without having had a hearing to decide whether they are in fact "nonlegal combatants" as the US administration claims, or just ordinary PoWs (in which case they are entitled to legal counsel) or civillians (in which case they are entitled to a trial or else being released).
I am trolling
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.
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
A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.
The treaty bans the following:
- Space-based nuclear weapons
- Space-based weapons of mass destruction
That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.
Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.
As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
*whoosh*
Sorry...that was supposed to be a humorous quote from a humorous movie.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.