Slashdot Mirror
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.
There will be no need to worry about weapons based in space...someone will just send a ship up and steal the whole satellite.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
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.
Not just that, but it would certainly help breath new life into the NASA. Let's face it, NASA is currently being crushed by its own beauracracy.
It may not be long range space missions to Mars and such, but it will certainly help move space flight from where it currently is at the edge of the envelope. The same thing happened with aviation in WWI and WWII. The US and other military powers invested hevily in making aircraft more common place and exploring the variety of roles in which they could be employed. This made aviation safer, more commonplace and in general made the public more aware of it. If the same happens to space flight, only good can come of it.
Do we need to defend ourselves to the best degree possible in times of war? Certainly, we do.
Do we need war at all? Certainly, we don't.
Is war inevitable, space weapons or not? 3,000 years of history says it is.
Which is more practical, pretending that war won't happen or accepting that it will? With the latter being more realistic, we may then follow through with the most effective defense and proceed with developing space weapons.
We've always been in some weapons race, though not necessarily at the pace of the Cold War. Space weapons won't initiate any Cold War-esque weapons race as much as any of our other weapons have. They're not holocaust devices like nukes or any NBC weaponry. Without anti-satellite weapons, we're back at traditional warfare. With those weapons, we only take it outside of earth.
Space weaponry if anything will reduce war to a battle of communications and intelligence, where space coverage matters more than occupying ground. With troops and conventional weapons reduced in importance, satellites will be the main casualties, as long as they directly affect the ground war below.
People seem to forget or ignore the fact that deploying space-based wepondry goes against the ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) Treaties signed by us and the USSR. Bush has already broken these treaties in testing many of his toys. Does no one care that he has such disregard for them? He has stated that the treaties are too limimting and therefore aren't in the best interest of our country, a fact I wholeheartedly disagree with.
today is spelling optional day.
Space weapon race doesn't promote Human Occupancy in space. All they need is something in the space to shoot down or jam other satellites or fighter jets.
Today, you have to do research or your grand children will be poor farmers. Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Cut something less important. Say, only start serious wars. Sure, a democratic arab country would make the world a better place -- but there has to be a cheaper way!
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
The problem isn't littering space which, as you point out, is pretty much a non-issue.
The problem is poluting low-Earth orbit, a narrow sphere around our planet. Putting even the most malicious space-based weapons somewhere in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri is no big deal. Ading a bunch of items to an already crowded area including the ISS, most shuttle flight paths, communications satellites, etc. would probably not be the best idea.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
The existence of a weapon means the possibility of being killed by the weapon, regardless of all other considerations. The first person to make the weapon is responsible for any death ever caused by the escalation thereof. There is zero excuse.
So the first guy to hit another guy with a stick is to blame for all the
bludgeoning deaths in the last 10,000 years? That's one of the most ridiculous
arguments I've ever heard.
*sigh* back to work...
The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria.
Yeah. Uh huh. The administration who sold the world on WMD doesn't have enough shovels to look for them. Why don't you do yourself a favor and read Kay's testimony yourself? He had all the resources he wanted. He conclusion? We made a big, big mistake on the WMD issue (he still supports the war, though).
The fact was that these WMD's existed.
Yes, they did. In 1991.
They were used
Yes, they were, in 1982-1987. When we were supporting Iraq against Iran.
and this is documented.
Not only is it documented, but the Reagan adminstration blocked a call for ceasing weapons sales to their ally Iraq at the time.
There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.
Quite true, but there is ample *evidence* in every line of investigation. There was no documentation that Oswald shot Kennedy, but there's plenty of evidence.
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
The heck it did! Quit making stuff up. One thing it did call for, I may note, is a nuclear-free zone in the middle east (*cough* Israel *cough*)
Iraq had no right to ignore it based on silly "spy!" claims.
A) The majority of the Security Council was in agreement with them in that the US and British had no right to be there.
B) The US *was* spying on them, not only through the No-Fly Zones, but through the inspection teams (to the disdain of many of the inspectors, who saw it as sabotaging their work). I already gave a ref - need more?
Attacks on these peacekeepers were entirely illegal and unprovoked aggression.
1) Read the bloody resolution
2) Read France, Russia, and China's comments on the subject (the majority of the SC)
3) I already gave refs documenting the extreme examples of provocation, including direct, deliberate, admitted attempts to goad Iraq into war.
To stop these attacks alone, the allies had the right to whomp Saddam's terrorist infrascture as hard as possible.
The "terrorist" issue was well referenced in the last post (same response to your next snippet, cut out)
The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.
I *seriously* hope you're not one of those delusional "Iraq did Sept. 11th" nuts.
Blix's own reports detailed large infractions.
I bloody quoted Blix for you! What more do you need, him to tell you in person? The US media only reported the infractions and played them up. Blix himself stated that they were minor, and all of them were resolved. Now, if you want to talk about major, unresolved infractions in the middle east...
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this.
Nothing true about it? He was bloody killed over it. He was the very reason that the Iraqi biological program was exposed. Look, deny reality all you want, but that's your own little fantasy world you'll be living in.
If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections.
In case you forgot history, they *did* welcome inspections.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying.
The heck there isn't! One has a goal of finding WMDs; the other had the goal of assassinating Saddam and uncovering his conventional forces and how best to defeat them.
Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain.
To complain about *spying*? Point to me the "US gets to spy on anything they want in Iraq to pursue the
I wish people would stop comparing JÃnsi to God. He's good, but he's no JÃnsi.