Slashdot Mirror
Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapons
ranson writes "The New York Times is reporting that U.S. Air Force officials are seeking Bush's Approval to begin researching and developing space arms. While analysts feel this move will be unwelcome in the international community, military officials believe that "Space superiority ... is our destiny, ... our vision for the future.""
You might need it some rainy day,
Dreams can come true again,
When ev'ry thing old is new again!
- Throw rock
- Hit other guy with stick
- Throw rock with stick on the end of it
- Shoot stick with rock on end of it at guy with curved stick
- Hit rock with fire, make copper, bronze, iron, steel rocks to put on ends of stick
- Put fire in tube, throw rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal tube, throw metal rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal rocks, drop exploding rocks on other guy
- Drop rocks made of unstable atomic metals on other guy
- Head for the asteroid belt. Throw rock
Will some nation eventually deploy weapons in space? I'd say there's a high liklihood.
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This is an escalation targetted against the rest of the world, and will be taken as such.
Nothing will defeat terrorism like billion dollar space weapons!!!
You never know when Al Qaeda is going to build a rocket.
Those kids in Explorers did.
Remember his speech, now known in history as the "Star Wars" speech.
"As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments."
Sad how little has changed.
Linux Resources
Oh they're closing Submarine and Bomber bases too.
I'm all for the military industrial complex and all. But there's not a whole lot here technology wise. A kinetic kill weapon just needs a ride up. And since I don't seem them reexamining nuclear rockets for those rides, it's just a sink for cash as opposed to an investment. It the want to get a high band gap semiconductor laser array going, woohoo, but I somehow doubt that's on the near term chistmas list.
I love how the republicans ran on a platform of strengthening Americas military, and all they're doing is cutting back, complicating logistics, DURING the invasion of two countries. Biggest. WTF. Evar.
Its sad to see that the 'militarization' of space is the only 'hope' that we have of making additional space ventures.
Do you honestly think they would launch a missile (expensive to develop) that is very easily tracked back to the source rather than smuggling something in? Tons of drugs are imported to this country every year and you don't think they could get a nuke on site, and avoid retaliation?
I'll bite. Why? As long as we have enough bases to serve or armed soldiers, why do we need a few extra in, say, South Dakota? To repel an invasion from the inner Canadian provinces? I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
It's a dangerous idea, one devoid of morals
As opposed to guided missiles? Supersonic bombers? Flamethrowers? Trebuchets? The tool/venue is, by definition not a moral issue. What you do is. So, if China starts taking out our satellites, and we've got no means by which to prevent it... that's a good thing?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...regarding NOT militarizing space?
zork% mv *.asp
283 files eaten by a grue
I'd rather see no further manned exploration in space for another 50 years than see any exploration (exploitation?) that's driven by a military agenda: all that will acheive is a military build up in space with the US and most probably China developing space-based weapons.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only. The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
Just as the US's nukes begat the USSR's, which begat China's, which begat India's, which begat Pakistan's, any overt US militarisation of space would only lead to others following suit.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Enemies? Wake up. We're in the information age. The thing that controls these space weapons is information. We can spend all this money putting up creative technology in space, and all our enemies have to do is gather the information to control it.
My point is that we need to get rid of our enemies. And the only way to do that is to spend money on convincing our enemies that we're not their enemies at all.
When you think of the cost of putting such systems into orbit, let alone maintaining systems with enormous destructive power (remember what the Hubble and ISS pricetags have been so far?), it's enough to bankrupt many a nation. And of course we also have to ensure that they can't be tampered with by other satellites or massive EM storms like the recent one.
The point of all this is not to say that space should stay completely demilitarized--much as everyone would like that, the odds are that it's a pipe dream. If the United States decides to play the altruist and refrain on ideological grounds from militarizing space, that's just an invitation for less scrupulous powers like North Korea to try it at a future time. At some point the issue will inevitably come up.
But this does not necessarily mean that America needs to be proactive in the deployment (though it certainly does in the development) of such systems. The astronomical pricetag and tremendous practical issues associated with any space-based weapons deployment are such that any country attempting it, including hostile countries, could not do so without extensive difficulty and a very long time, and wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being clandestine about it.
In other words, it is unlikely given America's current military superiority that we need to militarize space at this point. We would likely (for the time being, when anti-missile lasers are not yet practical) have sufficient time to destroy any hostile nation's weapons systems and implement our own--sharing the cost with our allies instead of unliaterally bankrupting ourselves for the sake of pie-in-the-sky showboating. Frankly, now is not the time to start the arms race when we don't have to. Keep space weapons free until such time as we reasonably expect to need space-based weapons (are we really going to need tungsten rods with the kinetic energy of tactical nukes in order to take out guerilla fighters and small terrorist bands? What's the immediate large-scale military threat that requires this sort of tech?).
We can't kid ourselves that it will never happen, but we can for the time being avoid spending astronomical sums on an unproven system to address a threat that doesn't exist at the expense of international censure. The arms race doesn't need to happen now.
The original space ventures weren't exactly done for pure science you know. Superiority in space was seen as a major military objective in the 1950s and 1960s, which, combined with the propaganda value, is why the government was willing to pour so much money into it. Apollo would never have happened if we weren't trying to defeat the Soviets.
You obviously.. ...haven't read the "Patriot Act" have you?
Neither did the Senate.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us (that *certainly* doesn't help "secure peace" in the world!), it's about not militarizing *space* (once we do it, Russia and China will follow--how would *you* feel knowing the Chinese can nuke us from space? Now imagine Chinese space nukes when Taiwan declares independence.), and it's about not being grotesque monsters who nuke whole populations of innocent people.
Hell yeah, fight to win, but let's remain a people worthy of winning, if we can.
The neocons suffer from a severe case of hubris. No one's saying "don't fight to win", they're saying, "the only winning move is not to play the game". How can we be so utterly stupid as to be the ones to *start* the game? It's one thing to be forced into it (you can't help that), but voluntarily starting it?
1) Like it or not the US no longer holds to the no weapons in space treaty. Bush pulled out of that a couple years ago. So everyone stop whining about Bush breaking international treaties. I don't like him either but at least focus on what he is really doing.
2) Space is the high ground making it highly strategic. All in all I think the US is better suited to handling the power of being first more than say China. ESA would be a good candidate too but they are pretty damn happy to sit back and let the US handle all the shit jobs and ensuing flak.
3) Very surprised nobody has put together the other obvious piece in this puzzle with Griffon announcing a major new initiative by NASA to deploy space based nuclear reactors. Lasers in space have to have gigantic sources of power... Solar arrays are not very feasible and they remove darkside firing. Nuclear power will provide both power for weapons and propulsion that does not exist today. At the very least this will bring about serious space based observation platforms. Think AWACS in Geosync over a Theater of operations. One of the military thriller wirters used that for a book a while back... can't remember which one but the title was Silver Tower.
4) for the gravel in space folks. Granted it can be effective... but I am not sure you grasp just how big an area you are talking about. Also, if you grasp orbital mechanics you will understand anything that is a continual problem (ie remains in orbit) you can match orbits with it to remove danger (small relative differences in velocities) or launch clean up efforts.
5) For those that think space is silly considering you need ground troops I suggest you read up on what people thought about air power prior to WWII. A single laser system with a good rate of fire, capable of tracking an air target long enough to destroy it will alter the face of war in a way not seen since the introduction of mechanized assault. If it cost 100 billion to develop and 100 billion to launch it would be cheap. Check out the cost of the air force... then consider such a weapon could theoretically render it obsolete. Make it like mounted Calvary taking on tanks.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
A great advantage of having lots of little bases everywhere is that it means that there is less of a civilian/military divide and that the military is a part of the community. Put all the bases in the southern states and this divide will grow significantly greater as people in northern states see military personel as "different". They may already - but at least having members of the military visible in the community makes people see them as part of their community. Take the bases away and they won't. If people don't view military personel as a part of their community, they won't care so much when they are deployed - and might be willing to vote for deployments that they would otherwise vote against.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only.
Given our not-so-stellar record, that's unlikely.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
China, except for small altercations with Taiwan and Japan, seems to be taking the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' approach. I agree that any move towards weaponization of space would be matched by them.
There is an excellent book by Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought : Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War about World War I and Britain's efforts to stay ahead of Germany, to maintain their sea advantage as their land army was weaker. IIRC, they wanted to maintain a 3:1 ratio over the Germans. Britain as this sort of weakening power, overextended, struggling to maintain it's colonies across all parts of the globe, the sun never setting on their empire, yet the hordes ready to crush their Hadrian's Wall.
Now the U.S. in a similar situation, relatively unopposed superpower, but it's unclear where the financial and technical ability to invest in Space technology would come from not too far in the future.
One would think it imperative for the U.S. to balance the budget, start paying off debt, and likewise continuing to keep it's schools (whether college or grade school) top notch.
I've got guns in my house. I use most of them for fetching various things to eat. I keep a couple of them around because I am morally in tune with the prospect of using them to defend my family. From your perspective, owning anything lethal makes you equal to a murderer.
That's incredibly simple-minded, and a *huge* bugaboo of the right. Any call for peace boils down to you can't protect your family!
How disgusting.
Do you not see a difference between owning a gun, and placing WMDs in space? Hmm?
Keep your gun, I really don't care. I think you live in a fantasy world if you think you need it to protect your family (that, or you live in a strangely dangerous place where home invasions are the norm--I mean, really! If someone stormed your house with a gun, do you think you'd reach your gun in time? lol).
On the other hand, do you think you ought to be able to keep a nuke in your house?
Right now, space is relatively unarmed. *If* China, Russia, whoever, started putting weapons up there, then we can give it a go. It's disturbing to hear Americans demand that *we* be first. Once we do it, the rest of the world will follow more quickly.
What's the fascination of the right with rushing to armageddon?
Placing weapons in space, I'm sure, is something a lot of Chinese and Russians would like to do. But it's quite expensive, and they've got other priorities right now. But if *we* do it, they'll be "forced" to follow suit.
If we found out that China, for example, was going to launch a nuclear space station, we would just go to the UN and demand a resolution to stop them, with the provision that we can shoot it down.
As it stands, the US (and *maybe* Russia--with our consent) is the only nation that could begin to seriously begin to militarize space. That day might be inevitable, but there's no reason to rush into the prospect!
the very nature of working in that environment (not to mention orbital mechanics and whatnot) means you have to be pro-active, not re-active.
*If* we wanted to militarize space, we could do it in two years without breaking a sweat. There's no hurry.
"the only winning move is not to play the game".
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
The French were in the game and didn't know it. It only takes *one* party to start a war. Right now there's no real space war going on. In other words, *no one* is playing the game. It's disgusting to think *we'd* be the ones to start the game.
WWII *is* a good example. We didn't start it, but we helped finish it. That's the way it should be. Starting down the path to war undermines ones moral authority.
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
If you're referring to WWII, they *did* like us. Liking someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. They were very glad for the help.
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
That's a huge load. We've asked for *plenty*. We've asked for permanent military bases, we've asked for money and for troops to help us fight our unpopular wars.
Most of our military actions ever since Korea have been exceedingly unwelcome by the people of the countries we've invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked.
No, the world doesn't hate us for when we offer true assistance--they hate us when we assert our will on them. They hate us when *we* are responsible for death and destruction.
We're like the corrupt police who beat people and extort from the innocent. The people *hate* those police, and it's not because they are jealous, or because they are ungrateful for the times the police actually *do* protect them, it's for the times when the police abuse their power, and betray the public trust.
The world was *overwhelmingly* with us after 9/11. They were with us on Afghanistan. They listened to us make the case for Iraq, and then said, "No, you're wrong." We went ahead anyway, and it turns out we *were* wrong.
If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit.
Sure we will. But that credit also comes with the cost of the war--how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will it have taken by the end?
Not to mention the fact that we are *directly* responsible for Saddam's party gaining power in Iraq long ago, and we supported Saddam when he was gassing people, which we now hypocritically condemn him for.
The world will certainly give us *all* the credit we are due, good and bad.
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
The current Iraq war isn't the beginning of American aggression in the world, it's just an extremely visible example. In other words, for many people, hatred of America was already legitimate.