Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
Just in case you want to catch up on the last time we discussed this:
0 9/1333248
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon."
Here's the reality check. The US Navy exists to do a few things:
- Project power ashore (i.e. shoot and bomb things that don't float or fly)
- Guarantee US access to sea lanes of control
- Deny access to SLoCs to US enemies
Both the US Air Force and US Navy have space commands and with good cause. Clearly access to orbit is as critical now as access to the seas were 100 years ago. It is in every nation's self-interest to guarantee its access to orbit. It's not much of a leap to get from there to seeing that having technologies to deny that access to enemies is a strategic advantage. How many lives (on either side of a conflict) might be saved by neutralizing an enemy's communications and recon satellites? It's a no-brainer policy. (Insert Bush joke here...)If you believe what you just said, you're not only not a rocket scientist, but you have no idea how orbital mechanics works.
While it's not impossible to put something in space in such a way that it always stays over a single point on the planet, there are very limited number orbits in which this can be achieved, and they are all directly above the equator.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
I am afraid have drunk the koolaid yet again.
1. The USSR tested and deployed anti-satellite weapons.
2. The USSR armed manned space craft and I don't mean pistols for the crews for survival in case they came down outside the recovery zone.
3. The USSR tested a fractional orbital bombardment system for the SS-9.
So what the US is saying is simply this.
They intend to develop systems that can
a. take out anti-satellite systems that could be used to target US satellites.
b. take out other countries spy satellites.
Spreading fear of the US is a fun past time for many news services and government. They know that the US will not really harm them so they can try and act tough with no risk.
Truth is China is already stated that they are going to develop space based weapon systems. The USSR/Russia has already developed space based weapons systems and deployed them. Only their current lack of money is keeping them from deploying them right now. Of course they might be selling them.
The only big problem is making it public instead of keeping it a black program.
Space was militarized back in the early 60s. ROSATs, Elint satellites, and optical satellites are all deadly weapons and they have been in use for over 40 years.
So this is really worth about a yawn and a stretch as far as news. Makes nice scary headlines though.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Lets kick the list off with one your sure to recognise:
1. Saddam Hussein, Iraq
2. The current government in Iraq
3. The current government in Afghanistan
4. Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic
5. The South Korean government
6. South Vietnam's Government (defunct)
7. The Shah of Iran, Iran
8. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua
9. Manuel Noriega, Panama
The list goes on and on, into the hundreds. But that should be enough to get you started.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
USA sure does seem to have a military presence in a lot of countries.
Yup! Now, ask the Germans if they'd really like to see the US actually pull up stakes and vacate those military bases. Or ask the people in Kuwait. Hell, there are plenty of noisy protests in South Korea about the US presence, but when you actually poll the citizens (especially now that their crazy northern neighbor is in the middle of a new and more exciting tantrum) on whether they'd like to see the US presence (and the large boost to the local security and economy that it provides) go away, and you get a very quick negative response.
Do you think that the Jordanians, or the Egyptians, would really like to see the US leave the area? Not a chance, not while the crazies are still trying to set the calendar back a thousand years.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually, no. Prior to 1940, when the US began mobilizing its armed forces, we were pretty weak. Part of the reason was the Depression, which hit our industrial base hard, and partly because of isolationist sentiment.
There were three aircraft carriers in our entire Pacific fleet; the Japanese had 6 carriers in the Pearl Harbor strike force alone, with more protecting the Home Islands and raiding the Philippines and European colonies. Our standing Army was number 17 in numerical terms, behind Czechoslovakia, and a number of new recruits were being rejected because they had suffered from malnutrition growing up during the Depression. Modern aircraft were just beginning production but a large portion were being supplied to Great Britain and the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Agreement.
We were losing the Pacific War for the first six months, until the Battle of Midway. Even then, until Guadalcanal was secured (well into 1943), keeping lines-of-communication open to Australia wasn't a sure thing, much less victory in the PTO.
Atom bombs aside, the US defeated Japan and the Axis by out-producing them. During the period from 1941-45, the Japanese produced 13 aircraft carriers of all sizes. The US produced 137.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Several satellites (two would be good, three for optimal coverage if you need minimal angular divergence from the surface) in a Molniya orbit would provide coverage over a static point in space, not over the equator. For the vast majority of the orbit ( greater than 12 hours, 18 IIRC [it has been awhile since I've done orbital mechanics, I'm a missile guy]) the satellite is in clear view of the point. Russians have been using this technique for surveillance of American assets for decades. And yes, I am a Rocket Scientist.
Short note: Who supplied the Talibans and Iraqs with weapons that did those horrible things? Who supported their actions until they wasn't needed any more?
You could manage with 2, actually.
No, it would be significantly more difficult. At a 45% angle, you're firing through something like 50% more atmosphere, and at a 50% longer distance to the target.
It is concievable that lasers on satellites will become powerful enough to do that in the future, but it's anything but "amazingly easy".
(Not that the GP's post makes a lot of sense, either)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
I'm curious what you have to say about this story stating that we did, in fact, sell those materials to Iraq. Just a quick Google but I'm sure there is more where it came from.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
According to Wikipedia, not an entirely trustworthy source I know, the US built 22 aircraft carriers during WWII and converted 141 merchant vessels to carry airplanes. How many carriers the US built depends vary much on how you count. 137 sounds a reasonable number of aircraft carriers in WWII. These aircraft carriers were nothing like todays aircraft carriers obviously. The first suppercarrier, which is what we think of as aircraft carriers, was the Forrestal orderded on July 12, 1951 and launched on December 11, 1954 way after the war.