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

When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous...

[It doesn't come easy]

There will be no need to worry about weapons based in space...someone will just send a ship up and steal the whole satellite.

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.

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.

Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous.

[Monkey Angst]

There will be no need to worry about weapons based in space...someone will just send a ship up and steal the whole satellite.

This is why we need the snooping powers provided by the USA-PATRIOT act. All we need do to foil the plots of satellite-stealing villains is track the purchases of large numbers of silver jumpsuits and miniskirts. An ounce of prevention...

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.

Talk about short sighted!

[BerntB]

Cut all funding from NASA except the bare minimum [and launch] a new and improved NASA in 15-20 years

You are the kind of guy that would happily eat your seed potatoes if you get a bit hungry in the winter.

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!

Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous.

[Golias]

Well, if Michael Krepon, the director of something called the "Space Security Project" for something called the "Stimson Center" says we don't need space-based weapons, that pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it?

I mean, he's an EXPERT!

It sounds like he might even be an expert on SCIENCE and stuff!

What more is there to discuss!?