Do We Really Need Space Weapons?

tcd004 writes "The U.S. military is developing technology to disable, jam, and even destroy enemy satellites. But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race.

Comments

A dissent

[ar32h]

I disagree.
Space is essentially worthless until it is militarized.
Nothing worthwhile is left unguarded.

A space race would be a good thing, in my opinion, because it focuses the much-maligned military-industrial complex on a worthy goal: human occupancy in space.
It may be more efficient to send up the sleek craft of the X-Prize and other private ventures, but heavy lift will probably only come with military ventures.
Getting to space en mass via the military will doubtless cause distress to many who feel that space should be kept pure, untouched by the dirty and unwholesome aspects of human existence.
Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.

Re:A dissent

[justanyone]

I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.

Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).

However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY:
* War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods;
* War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good);
* War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.

The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.

This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.

Re:A dissent

[ArbitraryConstant]

NASA's budget is $16.5 billion. The US deficit is $318 billion.

How will cutting NASA funding pay down the debt?

Re:A dissent

[cens0r]

Neither the military, nor government agencies have been able to make major infrastructural changes in our country.

The interstate highway system?

From the article...

[tcopeland]

No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare.

Well, sure, but that seems a bit disingenuous... it's like saying that there were zero shuttle accidents between 1000 and 1900.

Space weapons? We've got better things to do

[madro]

Am I totally opposed to space weapons? Well, not really. Krepon's arguments include:
1) North Korea and Iran don't have space programs. Space weapons would be useful against only Russia and China.
2) The US is the world's most important rule maker or rule breaker. We should set an example and develop a code of conduct.

My response to (1) is that militarily, it sucks to get leapfrogged. You don't want to get passed because of complacency. As for (2), bad actors tend not to follow rules anyway, so will the conduct of the US really shape the behavior of the rest of the world? (I would guess that many outside the US would hope not.)

That said, the opportunity cost for space weapons is *huge*. It feeds into the whole asymmetrical warfare concept -- the US can disable satellites but can't stop an insurgency that everybody saw coming except the secretary of defense.

Furthermore, even within military spending there are better places to spend the money than space weapon deployment. More unmanned systems, better infantry-level support, or faster mobilization (so that the US doesn't build up a force and then claim it's so expensive to keep them there that we have to start the war *right now* -- there were people who said we couldn't wait through a summer ... about $200 billion ago.)

But the best place to spend money, in my opinion, is accelerated research that supports reduced reliance on oil. (Yes, I'm a Thomas Friedman fan.) I wouldn't mind a grant or two to a brilliant poli sci researcher who could figure out how to sell the public on a large gas tax. (and mitigate the effects on the poor?) I think most economists would say a gas tax (or more generally, a carbon tax) is the most efficient way to spur adoption of renewable energy sources. Otherwise, you're hoping the government can pick technological winners and losers. (While reps are getting nice contributions from the farm lobby.)

We don't, but the brass do

[motorsabbath]

Space weapons have nothing to do with security and everything to do with generating a fresh revenue stream for the military/industrial complex.

Too late.

[LWATCDR]

Sorry but the old USSR already built and deployed space base weapons. They deployed orbital ASAT systems in the early 70s and even armed one of their manned space stations.
The idea that space is weapons free is a myth. If you do not think that spy satellites are not weapons you are just nuts.

Other countries gain more by disabling satellites

[jurt1235]

Quote from the article:
MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants.

So in short, you can reduce the efficiency of the US army by taking out their satellites. Since other countries are denied access to space, this would be a good tactic for such a country. They will be more dependent and more trained in a war without satellite information, and will be enabled by such a move to get the upperhand in a conflict.

I think the US better invest in protecting their own satellites since they are the softpoint.

PS Disabling satellites by large lasers might work since you could fry just a few components like a photo optic chip, the rest of the satellite is packed in a heat blanket to reflect sunlight and thus a laser will just reflect of that too (at least most of it, rendering it pretty useless, if the atmosphere didn't do that yet)

Yes, let's turn our backs on space weapons.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Because we all know how well banning weapons has worked before.

The first attempt I can remember was when the Pope tried to prohibit crossbows. The most recent is the Japanese ban on firearms - which worked quite well until Admiral Perry showed up.

Re:To put it in scientific terms...

[Loco3KGT]

I think it's up to the US taxpayer to put a stop to this insanity.

Gotta be honest, as a U.S. tax payer I this. The ability to take out other satellites helps us in the event of a major military conflicts with other technologically advanced nations. Since I personally feel that a hostile take over of Taiwan by China is inevitable, I look at this as something that could help us to protect Taiwan. No one ever thinks a strong military is worth keeping around until they're on the receiving end of an invasion. Then everyone stands around wondering why their military didn't do anything to prevent it. There's a lot to be said for having a military powerful enough to deter attack.

Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.

Maybe someone else on here can contribute more but the last I checked missile range is not a big issue anymore, atleast not for Russia or the United States. What this adds is another area of launching attacks from. Hell, it might even add another dimension to efficiency. wouldn't take much for something falling from that height to reach a pretty extreme speed I'd imagine. Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space?

Beg your pardon but who said we were? Creating defenses for investments in space and our nation is entirely different from us stating "We own space, piss off." I mean, last I checked we didn't declare ownership of the moon even though we planted our flag on it.

Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?

How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to, I'm hoping someone else does. And at what point do you think it's fair to say airspace ends?

And I think "Most violent nation in the world" might be bit of an extreme statement. We might be the only nation currently involved in conflicts in two separate countries but it's not exactly like we showed up to fill a bloodlust. Hell, how many conflicts has Europe started by in other country's affairs that it refuses to fix *cough*Africa*cough*.

Natural progression

[kent, knower of all]

Weapons in space is inevitable. Looking at militiary history, it's also logical.

100 years ago wars were fought as ground wars.

When planes first appeared in warfare, they were used simply for data gathering -- They would fly over the enemy position and the pilot would report his observations.

The military soon realized that if they could knock out their enemy's use of aerial surveylance they would realize a huge tactical advantage and Air combat was born.

The same thing holds true with satellites. The launch of the first communcations / spy satellite ensured that one day someone would develop the ability to neutralize enemy satellites.

We don't have to like it, but it is inevitable.

Re:Another idiotarian

[Shaper_pmp]

Leaving aside the GP's (apparently) incorrect assessment of the M-I Complex's fortunes...

"People like you (Liberal Democrats) have made defense contracting a hard place to break even, much less make a profit! I suggest you go learn a little something about a field you obviously do not know a single thing about, other than the name."

And how is that a bad thing?

You seem to be implying that it's something they've done wrong, but I can't see a much more progressive step for the world than making it economically unviable to get rich by enabling the deaths or maiming of millions...

Let's be honest - the US is never (at least, not before the Big Post-Bush Economic Collapse) going to be unable to afford weapons to defend itself.

Given your country's always going to be safe and well-supplied, what's wrong with making it damn hard for people to acquire wealth and influence by profiting from human misery and suffering?

Frankly, it'd be a better world if weapons were totally unnecessary, but I'll settle for now for them being merely prohibitively expensive.

Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria. The fact was that these WMD's existed. They were used, and this is documented. There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.

Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.

Quoth Scott Ritter:

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.

Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.

Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.

There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.

While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.

And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.

one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.

You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.

Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Seriously though, I don't think you can claim a moral high ground for defending "cultural and historical" nor even sovereignty of nations against the overthrow of a tyranical govenment that allows things like Saddam's Iraq did. The sad thing is that the UN did not act a long time ago - International law sucks

One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.

Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.

Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.

Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.

Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.

I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.

A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.