Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Jammer

Posted by Zonk on from the no-talking-during-the-war-please dept.

kpwoodr writes "An interesting article at the Washington Times makes note of a recent satellite launch by the U.S. It seems we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will. From the article: 'The U.S. military is bracing for future attacks in space, and the Air Force has deployed an electronic-warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites, the general in charge of space defenses says. "You can't go to war and win without space."'"

4 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. With apologies to Sid Meier... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... by MoralHazard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I beg to differ about the definition of a weapon, here. Anything that you take to war, from your rifles and tanks to your canteens, first-aid kits, and radios, is a weapon.

      Moreso even than the items you're using to actively kill people, the support equipment will help determine how effectively you can fight. Body armor is a case-in-point, here: troops with effective personal body armor suffer less casualties, and are therefore more reliable in combat and less costly to support... meaning you can have a LOT more of them in the field. Also, effective armor allows soldiers to take risks in combat that they would otherwise shirk from: if one side is more willing to stick it's heads up and take shots than the other side is (because of a body armor disparity), the former can be more aggressive and tactically effective.

      But communications, both in use and denial-of-use, are the REALLY important thing. You can be in command of Starship Troopers armed with nuclear warheads, and it's not going to win you any battles against horse-riding Indians with flintlocks if they're in communication and aware, and you're not.

      Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings about cops: Police aren't effective because of their uniforms, badges, guns, or nightsticks, they're effective because of their radios.

    2. Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... by dfjunior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm *far* more worried about the definition of "enemy" which will be employed...

  2. Re:Can't win without space? by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess they haven't been paying much attention to Iraq.

    No kidding. I think it is worth rereading Sun Tsu and noting that he had more timeless advoce-- that at least one reading of The Art of War indicates that victory is primarily political and secondarily military. This is the problem in Iraq (though it may turn out to be an unsoluable problem).

    Note that in Iraq in Vietnam (against the US), in Afghanistan (against the USSR), and in many other places, you can see plenty of examples where individuals who felt that they were defending their homeland were able to take on technologically superior forces and eventually wear them down to the point where it was politically problematic to continue. The same may be happening in Iraq today.

    This general's statement only works when everything else is equal. It might work in a situation like Kosovo where we were *helping* those who were defending their homeland. But had we gotten sucked into a land war in, say, Serbia, it would have been far different.

    I don't think the parent was a troll. I think he should be modded up insightful.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP