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.""

Comments

$82 Billion Well Spent

[fembots]

Based on the fact that a 82-billion-dollar emergency budget for military operations has just been approved, this "Space Arm Race" might just be the only realistic hope for us to see any space ventures in our life time.

Is this a variant of how sticky-note Bill are attached (and passed) under another guaranteed Bill?

I'm sure in order to bring weapons into the space, a lot of technologies will have to be developed, which hopefully will benefit many other sectors.

Re:$82 Billion Well Spent

[Rei]

It depends on your definition of "militarize" - I'd describe the German creation of the V2 a lot more toward "space militarization" than cosmonauts carrying pistols that would mean their lives if they fired it inside their capsules.

It's kind of funny, but I'm actually Machiavelianly cheering this initiative on, despite being somewhat of a pacifist, because it will take money from other military programs and put them toward developing space technology instead, and at the same time help push other powers (Europe, China, etc) to improve their space tech and reduce any reservations they have about taking more diplomatically/economically forceful measures to stop the US from violating widespread international public opinion.

It's sort of like I'm cheering on the bill to ban women from serving in combat zones despite being a feminist because it'll make it even harder for the military to meet its quotas and thus hasten our exit from Iraq (and because it wouldn't last half a year in almost any future Democrat-dominated government).

A few quotes from TFA:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Gen. Lance Lord, who leads the Air Force Space Command, told Congress recently. "Simply put, it's the American way of fighting."

Yup...nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.

And many of the nation's allies object to the idea that space is an American frontier.

Apparently they weren't listening a few years ago when Dubya called 'dibs'.

Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.

'Rods of God'? Just when I think that the neoconservatives can't get any more arrogant, they serve up this gem. Way to go, guys.

A third program would bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites or huge high-altitude blimps, redirecting the lethal rays down to targets around the world. A fourth seeks to turn radio waves into weapons whose powers could range "from tap on the shoulder to toast," in the words of an Air Force plan.

Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius.

No nation will "accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," Ms. Hitchens told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting last month. "I don't think the United States would find it very comforting if China were to develop a death star, a 24/7 on-orbit weapon that could strike at targets on the ground anywhere in 90 minutes."

Ahh, yes...the Death Star...just in time for the release of Revenge of the Sith. I wonder how much George paid George for that tie-in.

Re:A few quotes from TFA:

[TitanBL]

Your comment reminded me of this speech. Our foreign policy can be debated, but unchallengeable military superiority is obligatory. If that means weapons in space, then so be it.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers ... Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The Bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post, don't know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating. Now we have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. You know ... My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. My God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel. Now some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you'll all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood, shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friends face, you'll know what to do. Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose. Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you, What did you do in the great World War Two? You won't have to say, Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana. Alright now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere. That's all."
General George S. Patton, Jr.

BTW - I believe this is an abridged version of his original speech.

Bad bad foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US of A is the strongest country in the world then it can get away with whatever it wants to do. When, however, other countries finally become strong, they will govern themselves by the current behavior of Uncle Sam. If China becomes the next super power, we will complain bitterly if they behave themselves the way we are behaving now.

Repudiating treaties will come back to haunt us and it will serve us right. We have a treaty that says space is not supposed to be weaponised. We should honor that treaty. While we're at it how about respecting the human and basic legal rights of the prisoners we are illegally holding without charge and without trial and torturing.

Me stops rant and goes looking for a stiff drink so I can hold off reality for a while.

Are our policy makers blind?

[bogaboga]

Seriously...are our policy makers blind? I think so and here is why:

The problem is our open southern border which guys like Osama and the like can exploit fully three yeras after 9/11 and with an elected president "fighting the war on terror".

The problem is out-sourcing which is eroding our industrial base to the extent that already, about one-third of our defense machinery is foreign made.

The problem is the lack of competitive leverage that is now known of American workers. This is helping out-sourcing.

The problem is big business. This is evidenced by the fact that all innovation in important fields is coming from Europe/Asia. Look around your living room and tell me what you see. Where were those electronics made?

The problem is hypocricy. Consider this: In year one, India and Pakistan must not have nuclear weapons and all efforts are taken to ensure this is the case. In year two, they are our best allies even after testing the same weapons. You know why? It's because we do not have an answer to a nuclear bomb. This bomb once on its way to its destination, it cannot be stopped. That's why we as USA do not want Iran to get this weapon.

More problems: Cuba/China and so many others. Have a good nite guys.

Cb..

Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion...

[AKAImBatman]

the only reason the shuttle costs so much to yse is because of the damn military interfering demanding such a large payload capacity.

Right reason, wrong fall guy. It was actually Nixon who demanded that NASA and the military work together to produce a singular craft. He wanted to "save money" by reducing the number of space vehicles. Both sides (NASA and the USAF) were pretty unhappy with the arrangement but couldn't do much about it. Thus we have an expensive spacecraft that can *almost* put military craft into orbit, has an extensive cross range ability, and has sufficient life support to carry a full crew for over a month.

FWIW, if the military develops Nuclear Thermal Rockets or Orion Nuclear Pulse craft, then I'm all for militarization. Maybe they can push things through where NASA can't. :-)

Re:military does not guarantee anything

[Austerity Empowers]

The military is the only government agency that the general populace will allow to be funded without explicit consent or debate. It then decides, in absence of public opinion, which technologies are most beneficial for the offense and defense of the US. The military simply does not care if technology becomes successful in private industry or not.

Everyone's track record with developing new technology is mixed at best. There is in fact, no significant advantage to any single method. Single inventors, private companies and the military (read: the functional arm of the government) are all pretty random when it comes to new stuff.

NASA has been struggling for about 20 years because it's led by a bureacracy that lost its unity after the moon landing. Corporations and investors don't see near and clear results, and governments historically do not work well together. The military is the ONLY group that really sees practical benefit from space, which makes them the most likely to seriously produce results from it.

I say let them have at it. At least we can be sure military funding will employ US engineers and not be outsourced!

Re:Well spent? Well, that's a matter of opinion...

[zippthorne]

No no that's backwards. Space is far away, really big, nothing lives there, there's nothing even interesting for millions of miles in almost every direction, and we're shielded from bad things in space by a thick atmosphere (for radiation) and a magnetic bottle (for charged particles).

Weaponizing space is a great idea. Weaponizing Earth is the questionable one.