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.""
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
That's no moon that's a space station!!!!
__________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
It's to enable them to legally deploy them. From TFA:
With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.
I'm wondering if perhaps this isn't also the military wanting to show off a little and provide the public a glimpse of yesterday's technology, similar to what happened with the F-117 circa 1990. Maybe they want to show us what the Aurora really looks like.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
He's never going to sign this... right? Not Bush... Right. That guy is a conservative who hates spending our tax money on pie in the sky ideas, and loves life... right? He believes we've already got the best weapons in the world, and couldn't imagine us needing more...right? Besides, at his heart, Bush is a diplomat who understands that the US can't go it alone in the world and far be it for him to swing his cock around... right? Right?
DefenceTech.org Times' shaky spacewar story:
"[Global Strike] -- which we first looked at back in November 2003 -- is legit, with a hefty $91 million invested into it over the last two years. But, by making so little distinction between this effort and more pie-in-the-sky plans, the Times does its readers a bit of a disservice."
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
From informative, well researched fiction by Stephen Baxter (Moonseed) and others, I gather than the USAF has long held a grudge against NASA. Could this be the not so thin edge of the wedge of moving all space funding to a militarily organisation rather than a civilian one?
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
Yup...nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.
Apparently they weren't listening a few years ago when Dubya called 'dibs'.
'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.
Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
Here Bush goes will go breaking international laws again...
a sp
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space.
The treaty's key arms control provisions are in Article IV. States-parties commit not to:
* Place in orbit around the Earth or other celestial bodies any nuclear weapons or objects carrying WMD.
* Install WMD on celestial bodies or station WMD in outer space in any other manner.
* Establish military bases or installations, test "any type of weapons," or conduct military exercises on the moon and other celestial bodies.
The USA fully signed and ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
http://www.peaceinspace.com/sp_faq.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace.
(among others)
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.
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?
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..
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.
See, the truths we cling to depend greatly on one's point of view. We're not really closing bases - we're simply relocating them 200 miles up and phasing out the manpower in favor of automation. :)
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
they want their star wars plans back.
Meh.
...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
Imagine if some terrorist organization hacked into the communications channel to something like 'Rods of God' and fired at will on America?
What am I thinking? It's not like the terrorists would ever think of using our own technology against us.
This is not to say I support Mr. Bush, but as parent clearly indicates in the rest of his post, the 1967 treaty concerns WMD -- not all weapons. Quoth TFA: "no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction."
Moreover, the pentagon isn't stupid. Using (or threatening to use) nuclear weapons is not a central aspect of US security at the moment. The main threats come either from dictatorships (think N. Korea) or terrorism. Neither kind of enemy can be deterred with nuclear weapons. They are probably trying to revive SDI (i.e. place energy/kinetic antimissile weapons in space), but they may have plans for space-to-ground weapons that are not WMD.
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.
Well, we need that to maintain the Stargate program.
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.
Assuming these military industrial complex string pullers get their way, we will probably find ourselves in another version of the Starwars type programs Ronald Reagan tried to push during the 80's. It will for sure cost tens/hundreds of billions of dollars, makes go deeper in debt, and will bring nothing but space war stalemate.
The old USSR already did deploy weapons in space.t icles/sovtion3.htm
The USSR deployed a network of anti Satellite weapons.
The USSR deployed a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
One of the Some of the Soviet manned missions where military missions.
The Soviets tried to launch a space battle station it failed to make it to orbit.
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/ar
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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!
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.
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!
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.
That's ((7200*5280/3600)^2 * 100 / 2) ft lbs * 1.356 joules/ft lb = 7560622080 joules
A megaton bomb releases 4.185 x 10^15 joules I'm not sure why they would use the comparison of a nuclear weapon for this unless they're using a really big rod. When one compares a weapon to a nuclear bomb, most people think of a substantial weapon, at least a kiloton yield. For comparison, a 20 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph delivers about the explosive force of a substantial carbomb.
Time for a reality check!
I can't speak for the other continents, but as for Europe, we don't hate you for reinventing the republic (do you, honestly, think that the people of Europe actually enjoyed being opressed by their governments? Do you think the French revolution was just for fun?).
What we do hate you for is, that when we did learn from your example and introduced proper parliamentary democracy, freedom of speach etc., you turned the tables on us and became an endlessly more arrogant colonial opressor than we ever were! That is what pisses us off.
We don't envy your success - we are inspired by it. But if, when we try to emulate your success, you attempt to force Coca-Cola down our throat, we will revolt! You see, it all boils down to each individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (does any of those words ring any bells with you..?).
And finally, has it ever occured to you that, if everyone didn't hate you (for, more or less, well founded reasons), things like 9-11, USS Cole, ebassy bombings, etc. wouldn't happen in the first place..?
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.