The Dozen Space Weapon Myths

Thanks to Disowned Sky for finding a good debunking piece on space based weapon systems. Slightly disheartening, because I really want to have solar energy satellites that are also lasers. The article does a good job of looking further afield at nations besides the United States efforts in this area.

Comments

Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[AKAImBatman]

Seems the author of the article reads Slashdot. Anyone remember back when the "official U.S. position on space weapons" story broke? As I recall, there was a torrent of comments (especially from those who failed to read the document) suggesting that the space policy was that only the U.S. was going to have access to space. Some even went as far as to suggest that just because it's not in the "official" document, that it was the actual policy regardless of what the public part of the document stated.

Well, here's The Space Review's take on it:

2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile, which translates to pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground infrastructure.

Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right "to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes," and that it claimed the right (some say "tacitly") for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: "They [the US] want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there."

But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to "deny" access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most alarmingly stark terms.

On another topic, the author makes a very good point about the 1967 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. i.e. The same treaty that is credited with preventing the development of the Orion nuclear pulse propulsion vehicle. As item 9 points out, the Soviets had continued nuclear space development in violation of a treaty that had been signed specifically to prevent them from doing that. The Polyus ASAT Platform that was launched on the back of the first Energia in 1987 (and thankfully failed to make orbit) was intended to have nuclear weapon capabilities. The translations of the Polyus diagrams show that it would have carried "Nuclear Space Mines" to target and destroy missiles and satellites.

So much for that treaty. :-/

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[voice_of_all_reason]

As item 9 points out, the Soviets had continued nuclear space development in violation of a treaty that had been signed specifically to prevent them from doing that.

See, that's the beauty of nuclear weapons. Once you have them, other nations are really no longer in any position to lecture you about developing them -- unless of course they're willing to enter into nuclear war over it.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[bill_mcgonigle]

So much for that treaty. :-/

Yeah, all of 'em.

It seems from the story, and just pragmatism, the best option is to hope the folks who have the best weapons are the most friendly types. If the cold war is any lesson, the people with the most freedom create the best economic engine, and thus in turn the richest state, and then in turn again, the best weapons.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[notque]

The intention of weaponizing space is clear. It's an attack system, and any and all such systems should be banned, and destroyed on launch.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroyed on launch how?
Presumably, by someone who has space weaponised so they can make attacks with their (OMG) attack system on other people's attack systems. And, of course, banning doesn't work if space isn't weaponised, because a ban with no enforcement is a ban of no effect.

(Yes, I'm feeding a troll, hence the AC. But it's such a lame troll, I feel compelled to.)

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that most Western nations have a moderately skilled intelligence community there is plenty of time to enact non-aggressive measures to stop nuclear weapons proliferation.

It takes a very long time to build the infrastructure to produce even one weapons grade nuclear device, then actually build it, test, maybe build a few more improved ones, then maybe do that whole process over for the means to deliver it much further than your immediate neighborhood. That and there is a very small number of people who actually know enough to get it done, although the relative density of leading edge nuclear scientists offering up Wikipedia links on Slashdot leads many to believe otherwise. Even if you can kidnap or smuggle in a real nuclear weapons expert, and somehow hide that from the above mentioned intelligence communities following his every move, his knowledge is likely so narrow in scope that you'd have to kidnap another dozen of his peers before you could get started.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[voice_of_all_reason]

I never understood that argument. Not every country has to go through the Manhattan Project stage again; the knowledge has already been discovered. They can theoretically buy/steal materials (enriched uranium) or parts (missile casings and launchers).

As for the other oft-used argument (not yours) that they would not be able to reach their primary target (problably the USA), or could be countered by them -- getting the ability to target a nearby enemy (probably Israel) might persuade other nearby powers to exert pressure on us not to go all cowboy -- after all they're the ones that risk retaliatory damage.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[sumdumass]

Actualy it does. It works under the considition that air based lasors that we are attempting to build works. We can deny any country access to space by this weapon alone if it works as advertised.

The situation would be something like this, Several of them would be deployed to hot spot areas. Some would be in patrol mode while other would be in standby mode. When we detect a launch, boom, it doesn't hit space and drops on the country that shot it.

It isn't like some peace loving country is going to just secretly build a weapon and a delivery system then for no reason launch it. Even the fanatics would make representations of their hostilities in public and we would have an idea of the threat. We would also get bonus points if we sold these weapons with limited capabilities to Russia and EU countries.

Unlike Reagon's starwars program, We don't need to enter space to do this. All we need to do is have friendly countries close by to allow us within effective range of the lasors. And if we cannot get close enough, I suggest building more powerfull lasors and detection systems that give us earlier warning from a farther distance.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[cdrguru]

The problem is that both the US and Soviets had an interest in maintaining their population of workers. Starting, or even fighting a war that involved loss of 10% of the population wasn't considered to be reasonable.

This is far, far less of a concern in other parts of the world where citizen and martyr can be used interchangably.

A serious consideration in the US attacking civilian targets in Soviet Russia was that the civilians were not exactly taking an active part in government. Do you really think that even in the face of a nuclear attack on Israel there would be a massive US retaliation on civilian targets? Especially if the attacking force was a stateless body like Hizbollah? Further, if a post-attack retribution bill was introduced into the US Senate, would a majority vote to wipe Iran off the face of the earth? Or maybe just try to find a few important targets?

Iran has nothing to fear from a US retalitation, and we have spent the last 20 years proving it. We either stop them on the front end, or we will do ... nothing. And they know it.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading this I find your nick oh so apropos.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[drgonzo59]

Well the Chinese then should just zap all our satellites from space then, because clearly many of our satellites are an attack system, and any and all such systems should be banned, and destroyed on launch.. Would you go for that? Or is U.S. somehow excempt because we are "God's country" or we have "freedom" and so on?

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Dr Caleb]

"If the cold war is any lesson, the people with the most freedom create the best economic engine, and thus in turn the richest state, and then in turn again, the best weapons."

FTA:

"Well, there's no official acknowledgement of them--that proves they exist in secret" (as if the absence of evidence were transformed into evidence of presence).

If I recall, that the 'Russians' had weapons that weren't detectable nor acknowledged and that was the justification for many of the cold war ramp-ups in defence spending (because they must have found some way to hide them from detection). That should have been a major cold war lesson. Sucks when the same logic is applied to US anti-sat weapons.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[LifeWithJustin]

Test?

Let me think about this for a moment.

Ah yes that's it.

Bad Scientist dude: Excuse Mr. I'll-blow-my-self-up Dude, would you be so kind to drive this truck near that US base right there and just hit this button.

Mr. I'll-blow-my-self-up Dude parks himself near the "Green Zone"

*Boom* *fizzz*

Bad Scientist dude: Huh? I know nothing of what just took place. I'm just trying to work on this stuff so that we have clean energy. [mumbles] Damn, I think I needed to *insert random science that I'm not going to pretend to understand* to make it more deadly.[/end mumbles]

Test? Riiiighhht... like that has to be done like "we'd do it."

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Spliffster]

I thought you are a reporter/professional writer. you should tell from which source the quote is, please.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Well, there's no official acknowledgement of them--that proves they exist in secret" (as if the absence of evidence were transformed into evidence of presence).

If I recall, that the 'Russians' had weapons that weren't detectable nor acknowledged and that was the justification for many of the cold war ramp-ups in defence spending (because they must have found some way to hide them from detection). That should have been a major cold war lesson. Sucks when the same logic is applied to US anti-sat weapons.

I'm not sure I follow your point, please elaborate. Are you arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? That's on approach guaranteed to be wrong when analyzing secret military projects.

Or that the USSR didn't have secret programs? We found just the opposite after the USSR collapsed - they were trying to keep up with us, on the B2 and other similar programs and wound up bankrupting themselves trying to do it.

Or that we don't have secret projects anymore?

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

the 'Russians' had weapons

To be pedantic for a moment, I believe you mean 'the Soviets'. It's a bit more precise and kinder to the general population of Russia. (Many of whom were very much opposed to the totalitarian Soviet government.) Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Rei]

I have problems with this article.

1. To a foe, our ability, which he admits, to blind or jam satellites, might as well be the ability to destroy them. Literally destroying them is certainly worse from an environmental perspective, but tactically, blinding them is just the same in the middle of a war, and one certainly ought to expect other countries (including those with less military resources who feel threatened by the US) to attempt to gain the same tactical ability to deny satellite access.

2. "But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to ?deny? access." One of many blatantly false claims in this article. I did "actually read" the policy, and it states:

The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests

3. Space-based weapons *do* have a major advantage over ground-based ones: there is no boost phase. They have the potential to give *much* less warning and reaction time. Consequently, they're more destabilizing. It's the same reason why short range (tactical) ballistic missiles were banned: they reached their targets too quickly. Also, is he really so daft as to believe that the Bush adminstration *hasn't* been trying to create "usable" nuclear weapons? There's a new statement from an "anonymous administration official" (and sometimes named ones) every month or so about things like nuclear bunker busters and the like.

4. "Most discussions leave the impression the Russian system simply doesn?t exist." Undoubtedly, the author is talking about the S-400/A-135 network. It's certainly a threat to even our best warplanes (think a patriot missile battery on steroids, with a much longer testing history), but with the 100 km upper range for the biggest missile configurations (if memory serves), it's not going to be shooting down satellites, even low ones, any time soon.

5. "Equating a boost-phase anti-missile weapon (based at sea, on an aircraft, or even in space) to an anti-satellite weapon overlooks a fundamental design difference, their guidance mode." -- Apparently this person has never heard of THAAD. Not all of our systems are boost phase.

6. Yes, and the Istrebitel Sputnik was a response to the US's SAINT program ('60-'62). Was the SAINT program a response to anything? Not really. We discontinued it, but it was too late by then. We started it. Now, it was long enough ago that arguments about who started it are pretty moot, but still, if you want to pick hairs, like this person does...

8. "The enormous advantage of an orbital system (even if launched only hours or days before making its attack) is that simply by selecting a larger booster, the weapon can be sent into nearly any orbit of potential interest, at any altitude" -- No, that's the advantage of a ground-based system. Having to enter orbit is an extra delay and takes extra energy. The lowest-energy, fastest way to intercept a satellite at 400km? Be below it and launch 400km straight up. Being in orbit allows for incremental homing of the killer satellite, providing a simpler, more reliable, but slower kill. And who knows what he's thinking about when he writes about changing the orbit with "the moon's gravity". If he's talking about a lunar transfer orbit, he must be ignorant of the huge amount of time and delta-V needed for such a maneuver; it'd be foolish. If he's talking about the lunar perturbations of satellites already orbitting at GEO, that takes years. I have no idea what he's thinking. Anyone have any clue?

9. Very low o

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[CodeBuster]

There is this persistent notion among some people that negotiation, international sanctions, and legal actions (i.e. lawsuits and the court systems) can resolve all of the worlds problems when in fact history clearly demonstrates that the opposite is the case. To be more specific, if you pass a "law" saying that all such systems are banned and that they should be "destroyed on launch" then who is going to enforce that and how? The enemies of the United States do not care about our laws and they have called out their challenge to a contest of arms in a fight to the death. There will be no enforcement of "destroyed on launch" unless you are willing to go to war and destroy it yourself by strength and force of arms. The civilized society that we enjoy here in the west is built upon the implicit threat of violent force to back up and maintain that system. The system, such as it is, cannot exist without that threat and therefore it is also trumped by the very same threat which is why it is sometimes necessary to fight or else give in and there is really no way around that.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad Scientist dude: Huh? I know nothing of what just took place. I'm just trying to work on this stuff so that we have clean energy.

During the reign of the Shah, he was strongly encouraged by the US to develop nuclear energy. This would allow Iran to export more oil, which is to this day the Iranian regime's primary source of income. Is it really as far-fetched as the media makes it out to be that they would want nuclear power?

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[zippthorne]

We've had enough media hysteria about "nookyoolear" that we don't even build nuclear power plants anymore. I think there would be sufficient public outcry following a nuclear attack (even just a "dirty-bomb") to release the nuclear arsenal. And politicians always do whatever they think will get or maintain power. Only a few clear-thinking military officers could stand in the way.

Which brings to mind the important question: "What should we do if attacked domestically with nuclear weapons by a non-state actor*?" And also, "What if it is Israel who is attacked?"

*and do such exist with that capability or is it merely convenient for the states involved to create the fiction?

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Dr Caleb]

"I'm not sure I follow your point, please elaborate."

I'm saying that the US used the 'absence of evidence' verified 'they have something we don't know about' to justify their past military buildups, including 'Star Wars'/SDI. It is just ironic when the same logic is used on the US anti-sat program, as the article states "(as if the absence of evidence were transformed into evidence of presence)", the exact same stategy the US used against the Soviets.

The US taught the world that strategy, I guess the lesson was well taken.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[hey!]

Well, I'm not satisfied with the qualification "to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes,".

It's too vague, and the international community has every right to be concerned about it.

Remember, the US has an executive branch who interprets the phrase "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended" to actually mean that the government does not need to provide a writ of habeas corpus to its citizens (see Alberto Gonzales' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jan 18, 2007)

The point here is not that the Bush Administration is Evil. This is and issue that goes way beyond the Bush Presidency.

Almost nobody takes the administration's position on Habeas Corpus seriously. It clearly is the opposite of what is written in plain language in the Constitution.

But what about "deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes"? What exactly does that mean? There are many ways to to define "adversary" and "hostile purposes", starting from the unreasonable, going through the reasonable, and back out the other side to unreasonable again. It almost goes without saying that there's a possible interpretation that would suit almost anybody. Policy needs to have some flexibilty, but being completely in the eye of the beholder goes too far.

Which makes this bad policy from the point of view of everybody but the people who are doing the interpretation. It would be beter to not have a policy at all, so that future administrations won't point to a meaningless one and claim they are fully justified in what they want to do. This is quite apart from whether you trust the Bush Administration or you distrust them. You shouldn't give a blank check to anybody who may occupy the White House in the fugure.

Much of the rest of TFA is as willfully illogical as the opinions it tries to refute. For example: "References to the "latent antisatellite capability" of the embryonic US anti-missile system in Alaska are somewhat disingenuous since Russia has a deployed anti-missile system with launchers around Moscow and in Kazakhstan, with much the same capability and nobody seems to complain."

As a parent I've been treated by my kids to this kind of sophistry. Me: You can't do X. Kid: It's not fair; Billy's parents allow him to do Y. The fact is that the US is allowed, under the ABM treaty, to build its own equivalent anti-missile system. The reason we don't is those systems are (in our strategic estimation) useless. Our own national missile defense plans are for a different kind of animal altogether, and details matter quite a bit.

Theater or city defenses intercept warheads at altitudes of 100km. The mid course interception strategy we are currently pursuing has clear potential for development of anti-satellite technology -- if it ever works. We're talking interception at altitudes of up to 1200km. This is greater than the maximum orbit of the Space Shuttle, and includes virtually all Earth observation satellites and some communications systems.

Which doesn't mean the US is building a anti-satellite system. It means we are researching a mid course ICBM interception system, but as a side effect we'll probably develop technologies with significant anti-satellite potential. If other countries are sufficiently cynical about our motives, they will certainly judge the anti-satellite spin off as the real motive. It's not an idea that can be waved aside. Even as an American I have no way of knowing what the "real" reason for SDI/NMD is. It boils down to trust.

Your linked article on the Polyus system makes my point for me. The Soviets did not believe Reagan was going to give them our SDI technology (as he once suggested as an answer to the question of destabilization). That would be one hell of a leap of faith. In their less trustful estimation, if SDI were effective, or if the US simply belived SDI were effective, the the deterrant value of their nuclear arsenal was compromised. They made a very rational decisi

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[tomz16]

You apparently know very little about lasers... what you are proposing is completely absurd and physically impossible.

-Tom

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Alzheimers]

All you need to do is threaten some brainy college kids, and boom: five-megawatt laser by mid-may, capable of vaporizing a human target from space.

Simple!

--files this comment under K for "toy"

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[arivanov]

You missed 12 which is complete and utter bullshit.

Russia is right to be pissed off with missile batteries in Europe and is rightly pointing that they have no other function but to sour Russia relationship with Europe.

These missiles provide sabre rattling capability for some political elements in the ex-Soviet block who are anti-Russian to the point where they would like to have a Hitler statue erected on their capital's main squares. While every military specialist is aware that such missiles will be useless to "protect" the host country if the Russians decide to wipe it off the map, the politicians in question have no intention of telling this to their population. Just the opposite.

Through unilateral moves Poland, the Baltics and Chech republic (whose current president/prime minister clone pair are too Russophobic even for Lech Valensa to stomach) are trying to force the rest of Europe on a confrontation course with Russia. Things like this affect the military tactics and politics of all NATO. Poland is not in sole command of Nato, neither is the Chech republic. If they think that this type of confronation is especially good for everyone they should convince everyone to do so, instead of drawing everyone into it through the back door.

And at the end of the day, USA is still continuing their Cold War politics by inertia. They waste a phenomenal amount of resources to continue along lines that have no further meaning and use instead of even considering new threats. No wander they get their ex-best-friend to run a couple of planes into key buildings with such ease. And if they continue this way there is bound to be more of that.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[AshtangiMan]

Sounds like he is proposing using a laser to punch a hole in a rocket. Why so impossible? Not sure about the ballistic prediction ("drop on the country who shot it" or something), depends on a lot of other stuff where it all comes down.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[tomz16]

The laser power requirements for his proposal are easily orders of magnitude beyond what we can currently do. On top of that in order to create and maintain a focused spot on a ballistic missile, you would require wavefront sensing that is well beyond our current capabilities and a multi conjugate adaptive optics system capable of operating at these powers (even more impossible with any current technology).

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[sumdumass]

you better tell these guys this, they seem to have built something that does just that.

I wonder how much money they waisted on building it before finding out that what they are doing couldn't be done? Notcie the tense there? In case your wondering, I'm under the understanding that they are doing exactly this.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Rei]

Not to mention that Iran's current power plants are aging (the country spent the 80s and first half of the 90s either at war or recovering from it), and yet their population growth is faster than ours and their GDP growth nearly twice as fast as ours. They really do need power. Prices of oil are high, so they certainly don't want to use that. I wouldn't be surprised, if they weren't able to use nuclear power, if they started importing coal. Joule per joule, it's a much cheaper. Coal is ~$25.00 per short ton (907 kg; 6.67kWh/kg -> 6 MWh) => $4/MWh. Let's use $50/barrel for oil (1 barrel->6.1 GJ -> 1.7 MWh) => $29/MWh. Even when you factor in shipping costs, you want to sell oil, not burn it. Oil is a source of energy, but it's one that comes in a particularly useful natural form. You can't just shove coal into your gas tank. Yes, you can make syncrude from coal, but then you have to pay for that expense.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[tomz16]

They are NOT doing exactly what the parent proposed... Nowhere near the same scale (they mount it on a 747 for a reason). So before you go mouthing off any more, I should point out that Boeing very actively recruits people from my PhD program to work on things like the ABL. A long range ground based laser anti ballistic missile defense system is still very much scifi.

-Tom

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Rei]

I should add that I'm not stating that Iran *doesn't* want nuclear weapons. Personally, I think that they see it as a "have your cake and eat it, too" situation: nuclear power, and if they ever need to, the ability to start a nuclear weapons program and complete it within a year of its inception.

My point is that even if you couldn't develop nuclear weapons using a civilian power program as cover, Iran would likely still want the program. It's a source of prestige, too. Iranians resent being seen as a third world nation. Even when they hate their government, they tend to be proud of what their scientists are able to accomplish. And for those who think that refining uranium is a small feat after the Manhattan project, think again. You have to strip out U-235, which makes up 0.7% of natural uranium, and has almost identical chemical properties to U-238 -- and you need to produce it in commercial quantities. This is generally done in the form of "hex" (uranium hexafluoride), a nasty chemical that generally requires teflon-lined, tightly sealed equipment. Yet, for gas centrifuges (the most common way to refine these days), you need very high speed rotors inside your chambers: you're combining "high corrosion environment", "highly stressed parts made of high-strength alloys", and "high speed movement". And you need these centrifuges produced in the tens of thousands, so add in "mass production" to the list.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[El_Oscuro]

We used to park submarines off the coast of Murmansk and tap their underwater cables. http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-E spionage/dp/006097771X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-15 93460-8987142?ie=UTF8&qid=1173741745&sr=1-38

In the 1980s, there was lots of debate about the existance of secret planes like the B-2 and steath fighters. Finally, one day, they showed them on CNN and said "Oh, yeah, we had this stuff in regular flight ops for 10 years.

Of course, we are kinder and genteler now, so we would never do sneaky stuff like this anymore...

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[sumdumass]

lol.. Are you talking about me or the AC i was in reply to? If ti was me, I will kindly restate what I said.

In reply to an AC who insinuated that we would need to weaponize space to implement a plan like this because a treaty with no enforcment is a treaty that has no effect. I then replied with

Actualy it does. It works under the considition that air based lasors that we are attempting to build works. We can deny any country access to space by this weapon alone if it works as advertised.

Were do you see anything claiming it is working today? Were do you see anything claiming it isn't fiction? I then went one to describe a possible scenario. You can tell it wasn't true by the wording The situation would be something like this,

So you seem to think it is impossible and I pointed out a team that think it isn't.

But ahh.. I see were the problem of disconect is now. You weren't talking to me at all, You were talking to the guy who made the reference to the movie "real genius" staring val kilmer.

I don't think he was trying to be serious. I was though.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[j35ter]

The civilized society that we enjoy here in the west is built upon the implicit threat of violent force to back up and maintain that system.

Not true, unless you regard the U.S. as the only civilized country in the world. The majority of "civilized" countries lead a peaceful existence *due* to the fact that they pose no threat to their neighbors. As for the U.S., you may be right, but don't forget that you are rapidly losing your economic and military supremacy which will turn your (enforced) peaceful existence upside down -- live by the sword....

The enemies of the United States do not care about our laws

Why should they, do you care about their laws? Often I can see the U.S. trying to pass their own interest as law (remember the International Court of Justice?).
"OMG, another madman is able to attack us on our soil. Let us pass a law through the U.N. to forbid him getting this ability!" Now this a sad stance.
Even sadder, I find, is the way the U.S. are disregarding other nations feelings in regarding that matter; believe me, I was scared shit when GWB was elected for a second term (Let's be honest, he is not the brightest guy around, and he holds his finger on the button. Now thats a dangerous combo!)
Lastly, I don't regard the article as entirely truthful. The main topic in Europe and Rusia is not whether the U.S. is building a satellite killer, it's rather about the planned stationing of anti-missile systems in Poland and the Baltic countries; just at the border with Russia. Imagine Iran stationing the same type of weapons on Cuba...oh, we had that already, almost brought us WW3.
I'm not a U.S. basher. I met quite a few reasonable people from the U.S. Unfortunately many people there believe in some kind of superiority over other people and nations. As long as you openly take such a stance, and as long as you openly endorse "patriotism" (Idiotic to be proud for something you did not achieve), there might be no real place for you amongst the truly civilized countries.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[evilviper]

If the cold war is any lesson, the people with the most freedom create the best economic engine, and thus in turn the richest state, and then in turn again, the best weapons.

First, that dismisses the current status of China... A huge economy, with very, very little freedom.

Second, it doesn't account for western Europe... They have plenty of freedom, and a very strong economy, but they are so loosely organized that they couldn't, and probably still can't, pose real opposition to a single large (totalitarian) state.

IMO, the US prevailed because of very good leadership over several decades. There are many, many individual policy decisions that, had they gone differently, could have significantly changed the balance of power.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[evilviper]

And at the end of the day, USA is still continuing their Cold War politics by inertia. They waste a phenomenal amount of resources to continue along lines that have no further meaning and use instead of even considering new threats. No wander they get their ex-best-friend to run a couple of planes into key buildings with such ease.

Interesting you'd use this wholly self-contradictory excuse. If the US was continuing "Cold War politics" they wouldn't have shut down the strategic air defense system, which could have tracked and stopped those "couple of planes" to begin with.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[asuffield]

It seems from the story, and just pragmatism, the best option is to hope the folks who have the best weapons are the most friendly types.

We're screwed.

If any lesson is to be learned from history, let it be this one: the most friendly types will always turn into the most unfriendly types given sufficient time. All those care-bears with nukes will eventually turn into politicians with nukes. The only question is how long we have left.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[drgonzo59]

Oh, yes, modded as Troll. How dare one not assume that America is superior on Slashdot. The nerds might be anti-social but they very are patriotic, that's good to know...

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Dun Malg]

Not every country has to go through the Manhattan Project stage again; the knowledge has already been discovered. They can theoretically buy/steal materials (enriched uranium) or parts (missile casings and launchers). Except that the Manhattan Project was all about discovering everything you left out. Just have uranium and a launch vehicle is not enough. That's the easy part. Making it explode reliably, that's the very, very hard part. There really is more to it than just smacking two chunks of uranium together any old way.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[TallestRocketScienti]

Rei: "And who knows what he's thinking about when he writes about changing the orbit with "the moon's gravity". If he's talking about a lunar transfer orbit, he must be ignorant of the huge amount of time and delta-V needed for such a maneuver; it'd be foolish. " I'll be a little more generous in treating your ignorance than you seem to be for this author. Using lunar swingby as a method to emplace 'space mines' near high-value US assets in GEO or 12-hr-GPS orbits is eminently doable, for long-lead time preparation (not for straight attack). And since the author was a trajectory officer in Mission Control for NASA, I wouldn't be so quick to declare him 'ignorant' about orbital mechanics. For example, the delta-V to get into GEO can often be less using a lunar fly-by than for a direct Hohman transfer -- that rescued commsat back in the 1990's proved it by pioneering the way, did you forget (or never know) about it?

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[AshtangiMan]

Maybe I read it wrong . . . I assumed parent was talking about the ABL (something I worked on for a number of years).

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[CodeBuster]

Not true, unless you regard the U.S. as the only civilized country in the world. The majority of "civilized" countries lead a peaceful existence *due* to the fact that they pose no threat to their neighbors.

You are not taking a long enough view of history. It is the nature of mankind to kill his fellow man and take what belongs to his neighbor for himself by force. This is the one constant throughout all of history from the stone age right up until recent times which can be regarded as anomalous compared to the previous 9,950 years of recorded history. War is not always waged due to a perceived threat from another nation, sometimes men and nations wage war simply because they want more and they have no qualms about killing to get what they want.

As for the U.S., you may be right, but don't forget that you are rapidly losing your economic and military supremacy which will turn your (enforced) peaceful existence upside down -- live by the sword....

This may be true in the grand scheme of things, although I don't agree with the rapidly part. Remember that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire was a gradual process taking hundreds of years to run its course and the United States is still a strong and growing nation. As for living by the sword well let us just say that on balance the United States uses far more carrot than stick when all things are considered. In fact I would argue that we have shown remarkable restraint thus far with Iran despite their nuclear saber rattling and this is not because we do not have the resources to engage them if it comes to that. The United States is using only a fraction of its power in the current conflicts...they don't call it the arsenal of democracy for nothing. I am not advocating that we, the United States, go looking for trouble, quite the opposite, I believe that our government is actually playing the North Korea and Iran issues fairly intelligently with the sanctions and other diplomatic measures. However, we are quite capable of handling the matters militarily if it comes to that which hopefully it will not, but with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and people shouting "death to America" it makes diplomacy difficult. At least the Russians were pragmatic about the situation whereas these Iranians and North Koreans are simply nuts.

Why should they, do you care about their laws? Often I can see the U.S. trying to pass their own interest as law (remember the International Court of Justice?).

That was precisely my point. International laws have always been and always will be without teeth and largely unenforceable. If you want to enforce your will or your law (i.e. no anti-satellite weapons) then you MAY...not always but MIGHT have to go to war to enforce it.

"OMG, another madman is able to attack us on our soil. Let us pass a law through the U.N. to forbid him getting this ability!" Now this a sad stance.

The United States is simply working their dispute through the proper channels, which includes UN resolutions and the Security Council. This what civilized people do BEFORE they pick up the guns. The Iranians and the other nations of the middle east would do well to heed this example. There is nothing sad about it, this is the proper way to pursue the matter diplomatically on an international level.

Even sadder, I find, is the way the U.S. are disregarding other nations feelings in regarding that matter; believe me, I was scared shit when GWB was elected for a second term (Let's be honest, he is not the brightest guy around, and he holds his finger on the button. Now thats a dangerous combo!)

How are we disregarding other nations feelings? If they wish to have an honest debate then the floor of the UN, the Security Council, and the court of world opinion are all open to them. The United States, unlike some other nations, does not suppress debate and the opinions of others. If they wish to spea

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[rtb61]

Eventually is all becomes rather pointless, as my nuke is bigger than you nuke idiots all start gambling with our lives. Just look at this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/04121 2081548.htm now strap a nuke to it, and try and stop it, and sure you can only target coastal cities and it going to take some time to get to target, but what difference does it make.

So you don't need space, or submarines and just like before nobody wins, except a bunch of asshat arms manufacturers who want to gamble with our lives and the lives of future generations.

Make no mistake the current arms race is all about profits for arms manufacturers and kick backs for politicians and has absolutely nothing to do with defence, their even trying to replace small arms not with better guns but just with more scifi looking ones.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[Criton]

The entire return to the moon plan might have an alternative military purpose. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolmcsd.htm It should be noted the orion CEV has almost the same on orbit delta V as the old apollo LEM CSD except it also can carry several tons of equipment.

Re:Hey look, just for Slashdot!

[TallestRocketScienti]

"Most discussions leave the impression the Russian system simply doesn?t exist." Undoubtedly, the author is talking about the S-400/A-135 network. It's certainly a threat to even our best warplanes (think a patriot missile battery on steroids, with a much longer testing history), but with the 100 km upper range for the biggest missile configurations (if memory serves), it's not going to be shooting down satellites, even low ones, any time soon." I thought the author was talking about the Russian anti-missile system, with launchers around Moscow and in Kazakhstan. In fact, I checked -- that is indeed his intent. Be more cautious in use of the word 'undoubtedly'. If you have a difference of opinion with somebody, it might not always be because they are morons -- you may have jumped to a wrong interpretation.

My personal favorite

[ArcherB]

12. Other nations are justified in building "space weapons" because the US has done so, or is about to do so.

This argument never seems to work both ways. It always justifies any other country's space weapons, laying the blame on something the US has done, may do, is thinking about doing, or is merely accused of doing in the mass media. But it never seems to justify any US hardware-development response to actual space weapons deployed by other countries, from the cannon mounted on a Soviet manned space station, to its operational killer satellites and orbital nuclear weapon launchers, to the recent Chinese anti-satellite missile test. The US did not respond in kind to those weapons because they made no military sense--there was no mindless reflex, but instead a rational assessment of security requirements. Those assessments usually can be made regardless of the actions of other parties, especially regarding the level of required space weapons.

Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran). I feel this is an accurate counterpoint to such an argument.

Re:My personal favorite

[vertinox]

Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran). I feel this is an accurate counterpoint to such an argument.

Um... That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it. It may not be moral, but it is logical to create any type of weapons in response to the fact the other side has done so.

However, this in itself in the past was a benefit to the US because it can afford to build such technologies whereas the other sides could not afford it and simply force them into submission by outspending them. (See: Regan vs the Soviets)

Sure, Iran could make nukes, but economically they are pointless to them other than nuclear energy since using them would entail the extermination of 90 million Iranians by a US retaliation response. Besides... The could inflict more political damage and gain so much more with using proxy groups like Hezbollah than actively taking on the US directly in a nuclear arms race.

However, China on the other hand... Well, we are seeing for the first time in 50 years a nation that could soon simply outspend us on the military front.

At sometime in the 2020s to 2030s it won't be us chiding others for doing things because we did them but rather trying to justify our new weapons because "China had them first."

Re:My personal favorite

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite? From 7,

Sure, the weapons existed, but they didn't work, so they were nothing to worry about.

Best laugh I had in a long time. My father who worked for Raytheon for almost 40 years would beg to differ. At least since the 80s, Kremlin knocks out one of ours, we knock out one of theirs. These so called experts who write about this stuff are no more reliable than the Kremlin polit bureau machinists who wanted us to believe otherwise (see 2,6,9, and 12).

In Soviet MIR, telescope nukes you!! I keed! I keed! Or do I...

Re:My personal favorite

[VWJedi]

Sure, Iran could make nukes, but economically they are pointless to them other than nuclear energy since using them would entail the extermination of 90 million Iranians by a US retaliation response. Besides... The could inflict more political damage and gain so much more with using proxy groups like Hezbollah than actively taking on the US directly in a nuclear arms race.

So if they do make some nukes, what's to stop them from giving them to one of these "proxy groups"? If they ever get traced back to Iran, the Iranians can say, "Those nukes were stolen last year. We didn't want to tell anyone because it would have caused a panic."

Re:My personal favorite

[ArcherB]

However, China on the other hand... Well, we are seeing for the first time in 50 years a nation that could soon simply outspend us on the military front.

China's military budget for FY2007 is about $44.94 billion. The US military budget for FY2007 is $532.8 billion. (source) Eventually, China may outspend the US, but they need about a 1250% increase to do so.

Um... That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it. It may not be moral, but it is logical to create any type of weapons in response to the fact the other side has done so.

Good point, but false on two counts:
1) The whole MAD excuse for Iran to have nuclear weapons doesn't fly when the US has had them for over 50 years and hasn't nuked Iran yet.
2) The argument for MAD assumes that both sides care about assured destruction. While the US doesn't want to be destroyed, I can't say the same for Iran (or at least it's Muslim based leadership). Many people believe that the rulers of Iran WANT Armageddon as signals the Muslim equivalent of "The Second Coming". From NPR:

It is said that in the 10th century, the 12th and last Imam of the Shiite branch of Islam disappeared. He is said to be hidden by God and will reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. But lately, actions by -- and rumors about -- Iran's president have renewed interest in the 12th Imam.

Centuries ago, this holy person is said to have disappeared, hidden by God, but kept alive since then, to reappear at the end of history to lead an era of Islamic justice. The belief, which helped to inspire Iran's Islamic Revolution 27 years ago, diminished in importance over the years.

Now it has found renewed inspiration in Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A better article can be found HERE, but I didn't think you'd give it credit considering the source.

So the threat of MAD does not apply to a country that has no fear destruction.

Re:My personal favorite

[Retric]

Keep a public list of countries to be nuked in the event of an attack. Let it be known you will nuke the fuck out of them in the event of an attack regardless of who caused this attack. Now watch those countries try and prevent such attacks on you.

See: Cuban missile crisis. Basically, the US says to Russia if they attack us we attack you do you really want them to be able to attack?

PS: When it comes to MAD it's not a question of "are you evil" but "are you sufficiently evil to be left alone".

Re:My personal favorite

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, a suicide-bomber doesn't care too much about MAD.

Of course, all muslims are not suicide-bombers. Of course, there are benevolent teachings in the muslim religion. I would never discriminate or harm someone just because they are muslim. However, when it comes to policy and military strategy, i think it wise to consider all muslim nations to be giant suicide-bombers.

Re:My personal favorite

[vertinox]

So the threat of MAD does not apply to a country that has no fear destruction.

I don't think you see the real point. They could only kill 10 million tops with a single hit in a single American city (unless of course they coordinated multiple attacks) and could possibly destroy Israel in a single blow or two.

Then the retaliation would result in again... 90 million Iranians dead. Followed by complete occupation of several million US soldiers that were drafted in a war that is supported by the American public (whether they have a choice in the matter is another question) and a constitution removed and interment camps for all person with a middle eastern dissent in US occupied territories.

Perhaps, it is really what they want, but I can't really see how it provides anyone with the progression of their religion if they are all dead.

Re:My personal favorite

[Anonymous Coward]

> Unfortunately, too many people use the "US does it" excuse to
> justify the nuclear proliferation of other countries (read: Iran)

Strange because I would of thought it more declaring other countries "Axis of Evil" would of been a better excuse.

Re:My personal favorite

[ArcherB]

I don't think you see the real point. They could only kill 10 million tops with a single hit in a single American city (unless of course they coordinated multiple attacks) and could possibly destroy Israel in a single blow or two.
Israel is the target. It is unlikely they would go after the US until Israel no longer exists. Of course, they face MAD with Israel probably more than with the US, which brings me to my next point.

Perhaps, it is really what they want, but I can't really see how it provides anyone with the progression of their religion if they are all dead.

The idea is that after Armageddon, the twelfth Imam shows up and leads whatever Muslims are left to conquer the world for Islam. It's really not much different than what is said in The Book of Revelation in the Bible, except most Christians are not trying to bring the Rapture on. The idea of martyrdom is held with high esteem in the Muslim culture. If the entire country if Iran is made to be martyrs, the leaders of Iran are OK with that.

Re:My personal favorite

[Sique]

You seem to forget that 90 mio dead people which are dead because they are just in the wrong country might cause another 1.2 billion people to get really angry. And if you finally killed 1.2 billion people Global Warming because of CO2 will be the least of your environmental problems.

Mr Ahmadineshad invented a new version of MAD. What ever you do, either enough of us survive and will be really fanatic, or we all are dead. Lets just hope this doesn't work out.

PS: If suicide bombing really made military sense, Israel would be conquered by now. It isn't. I always thought it a little like the flu: It is really annoying once you caught it, you can't really vaccinate against it (just against certain tribes), it kills thousands and hundred thousands of people each year, but in the end for most the live goes on after three days in bed.

Re:My personal favorite

[Chicken_Kickers]

I think the "The US does it" is a good excuse as any. Implicit in the argument is that the United States government is always rational. The debacle in Iraq have shown that the US can be as irrational as any other pariah state, which is even more dangerous given the US military strength. In all probability, the US did not develop weapons to counter the Soviet space weapons not because it is rational, but for budgetary reasons. Lets call a spade, a spade. The US is against Iran having nuclear weapons because it hates Iran, for a lack of better word. If the US is truly against nuclear proliferation, it should also impose sanctions on Israel for having nuclear weapons.

Re:My personal favorite

[evilviper]

That was the whole point of MAD. If one side did it, both had to do it to ensure no one used it.

Iran has exactly a 0% chance of ever reaching near-parity with the US, needed for MAD.

Also, MAD went out the window with ICBMs (first-strike).

Re:My personal favorite

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you are jumping to wrong conclusions of what my political and military strategy would be...

Re:My personal favorite

[Magada]

Then watch every two-bit dictator wag the dog. Anyone who holds a grudge against any of the countries on that list will have a dead simple way of turning said listed countries into glass parking lots - with American nukes. What you are proposing is idiotic.

Please, for the love of God

[PIPBoy3000]

No jokes about solar powered sharks with frikin' lasers in orbit.

Re:Please, for the love of God

[iago-vL]

Didn't you sort of just make that joke?

In any case, my need for a shark-reference in here has been fulfilled. Happy days!

Re:Please, for the love of God

[Calydor]

Well, it doesn't really sound like a very intelligent design in the first place.

Re:Please, for the love of God

[Anonymous Coward]

But in Soviet Russia, space shark lasers you!

*runs and hides*

not much

[mastershake_phd]

Even if we do have some, we dont have many. They couldn't launch too many of these things without someone leaking it.

Re:not much

[pilgrim23]

If you really want to know about this subject the best place to look is not the splash press releases, the sensational science reporters, the cool art work and "artist's conceptions". The best place to look is the loading dock. Check the procurements of various contractors, check the announced developments, and, check the one greatest security leak in America: The Congressional Record.

Re:not much

[PPH]

I'm employed. I don't have that much free time on my hands. Besides, if we all hung around the loading docks, it would get pretty crowded.

That's what reporters are paid to do for us.

Re:not much

[pilgrim23]

And do a poor job of it; Trade journals though provide information to those who can understand them. An educated read of janes.com for example yields far more info then any paper. Specialized journals in metalurgy, chemistry, building materials, textiles, etc especially when cross refrenced with let contracts that are "By Law" published in the Congressional Record. I also have a job, but, I find such far more entertaining then televison, which is why I have the time.

Overly Ideal is Bad in Any Case

[WED Fan]

Overly ideal treaties, laws, bans, etc. are just bad.

While banning the militarization of space is a nice idea, it would be nearly as difficult to implement as the demilitarization of our oceans.

Existing treaties that are overly idealistic have had the bad side effect of limiting or halting the development of other projects (as mentioned before: Orion).

I say, militarize, it will happen, then defend. If the U.S. and Russia were to be the only ones to abide by a non-militarization of space, eventually, the other players, India, China, and Japan, will gain the supremecy in space and eventually on the ground. Space war will be the new air war.

Re:Overly Ideal is Bad in Any Case

[the_humeister]

Existing treaties that are overly idealistic have had the bad side effect of limiting or halting the development of other projects (as mentioned before: Orion).

While the nuclear test ban treaty ultimately shelved Orion, launching an Orion-type craft from Earth is still a bad idea due to the resulting nuclear fallout.

Re:Overly Ideal is Bad in Any Case

[WED Fan]

Orion would not have ultimately launched from Earth. SF (or Sci-Fi) writers in the 50's and 60's had nukular (sorry, just had to) rockets launching from Earth. Orion missions would have launched, conventionally from Earth to orbit (ferry), crew would have tansferred to the Orion vehicle and then nuke launch from space.

Re:Overly Ideal is Bad in Any Case

[RexRhino]

That is assuming it is using military style nuclear weapons as propulsion. It is reasonable to assume that if Orion was actually politically viable, that some sort of system with negligable contamination could be developed. However, it would illegal to even put together a think-tank to explore the possibility, even for the sake of showing how flawed it would be. That is the trouble with treaties like this.

Re:Overly Ideal is Bad in Any Case

[smithmc]

  Space war will be the new air war.

You mean, as in the old joke: One Soviet tank commander runs into a fellow tanker in a cafe in Paris. As they're waiting for their tea to arrive, the one asks the other, "so by the way, who won the air war?"

Controlling the skies is all well and good, but as the US Army is unfortunately (re-)learning right now, smart bombs and satellites can't hold ground, or win hearts and minds.

Obligagory Overlords post

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new satellite-killing overlords.

Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[Phanatic1a]

FTA:

But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by Congress (see "Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs", The Space Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer technology has been developed

So what? Who cares if no new ASAT technology has been developed if the old ones work just fine? The Soviet orbital ASAT program predated the US's F-15 ASAT program by over a decade, and it worked.

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[Erwos]

Probably because there's no working ordnance left?

If the program got terminated in 1985, that means the weapons left from it are at least 22 years old. It strikes me that there's a fair chance that few to none of them even work any more, and that we don't have any way to produce more on a moment's notice. This exact situation is discussed in Tom Clancy's book "Red Storm Rising", in fact.

However, there's another thing: the current US military wants weapons they can deploy as fast as possible (the TacSat program is something of an example of this). Hunting down a trained F-15+ASAT pilot, hauling them to the right location for an intercept, and then launching is inefficient and slow compared to "select satellite to kill, launch intercontinental ASAT from pad". If, say, the Chinese are using their comm satellites to support an invasion of Taiwan, you want to kill them right the hell now, not in 12 hours.

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This exact situation is discussed in Tom Clancy's book "Red Storm Rising", in fact.

Red Storm Rising is about as factually accurate as the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[LWATCDR]

Actually I would bet that no working ASATs are left. The first stage was a SRAM. The SRAM was removed from service because of ageing problems. The solid fuel was cracking...
Also the ASAT couldn't reach geosync so it wasn't useful for taking out most communications satellites.

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[Phanatic1a]

Probably because there's no working ordnance left?

No ASM-135s? Sure, I'll buy that.

No Soviet killsats sitting around in storage waiting to be strapped to the top of a suitable rocket and launched into the proper orbit? That, I don't believe.

And in any event, activating a production line to build a few missiles isn't the same thing as "developing a new technology."

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[bluemonq]

...however, if the designs, blueprints, and tooling were destroyed/not kept around (a la the SR-71), it can be almost as troublesome.

Re:Who cares how new a technology is if it works?

[coredog64]

The problem is the old ones didn't work just fine. ASAT couldn't have been used to knock out a communications satellite. It was limited to hitting objects in Low Earth Orbit while communications satellites work best when they're in geosynchronous orbit. Christ, it's not rocket... er, nevermind.

Terminating other sattelites

[voice_of_all_reason]

You don't need anything near this sophisticated. Just send up a few barrelfuls of used pinball machine parts and let orbit take care of the rest. Of course, that's assuming you don't need to use space for the 50 years or so it will take them to disintegrate either.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[Kineticabstract]

Why would your "few barrelfuls of used pinball machine parts" EVER disintegrate? What's magical about the 50 year mark that would cause metal parts to spontaneously fall apart? Just curious.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[Rycross]

He probably meant that its how long it would take their orbit to degrade to the point of re-entry.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[Martin Blank]

The problem with that is that it's unrealistic. Debris from the Chinese test is expected to remain in orbit for thousands of years. Pop enough satellites in a major war, and space may truly become unusable for decades or centuries. I suspect that if it came down to it, we'd soft-kill enemy satellites. The ABL is going to be ready for use in a couple of years, and it might be suitable for taking out an enemy satellite without shattering it.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[twiddlingbits]

For the uninformed, "soft-kill" means to disable the electronics via a huge burst of radidation or heat, or to disable the solar arrays so they have no power source, or to disable communications antenna's or all of the above. Without power, electronics or comms they are just a hunk of space junk. It's a much better way than leaving lots of debris in orbit from using a kinetic kill but a kinetic kill is a lot easier and pretty much 100% successful.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't be surprised if the Libyans did just that, supposing the USA made a bunch of Plutonium-powered satellite weapons

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[stratjakt]

Space could be "cleaned". Think of lobbing large objects up, not putting them in orbit, to "take the hits", knocking other debris out of orbit and back to earth, or something not unlike a huge net.

Theres a fair amount of research going on on the subject. It's pretty much a given we're going to need a way to deal with space-debris, both man-made and natural.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[FleaPlus]

Debris from the Chinese test is expected to remain in orbit for thousands of years.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[Martin Blank]

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11239-rock et-explosion-creates-dangerous-space-junk.html

"And because the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes, the debris is likely to stay in space a long time because it will not be slowed down by friction with the atmosphere, which causes it to lose energy and burn up more quickly. Debris created during the Chinese test is thought to have reached lower altitudes - about 4000 km - but is expected to stay in space for hundreds of thousands of years."

The line is unsourced, but IME, New Scientist is good enough with the facts to be usable.

Re:Terminating other sattelites

[FleaPlus]

"And because the atmosphere is less dense at higher altitudes, the debris is likely to stay in space a long time because it will not be slowed down by friction with the atmosphere, which causes it to lose energy and burn up more quickly. Debris created during the Chinese test is thought to have reached lower altitudes - about 4000 km - but is expected to stay in space for hundreds of thousands of years."

The line is unsourced, but IME, New Scientist is good enough with the facts to be usable.

Eek... New Scientist isn't exactly a reliable source of information. It's possible the estimate may be accurate, but it would be good to have a different source: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/09/a_plea _to_save_new_scientist.html

Well crap...

[physicsboy500]

There go my plans to make a life-sized replica of the Death Star!

Re:Well crap...

[Billosaur]

Psssssssstttttttt... what do you think the Moon is? Huh? Huh? That's why there all these "conspiracy theorists" claiming the Moon landings were faked... wink, wink... nudge, nudge...

Re:Well crap...

[sconeu]

Come on, we all know The "Moon" Does Not Exist!!!!

Re:Well crap...

['nother poster]

Dahak would prefer that you not spread his little secret around.

Time travel is possible, and NASA has it

[will_die]

Forget all those press stories from scientists currently around that say time travel is impossible.
We now have proof that NASA and the US Military have it.
As clearly started in this article, from a guy in NASA, the US Military is talking about going back in time by 7+ years and put a missle defense system in Czechoslovakia.

Re:Time travel is possible, and NASA has it

[Danathar]

Yes. I hear that the contracting company who will build it also built the tsunami wave generator now operating in the Indian Ocean.

Re:Time travel is possible, and NASA has it

[forgotten_my_nick]

So Fox news are reporting time travel is impossible? They also reported Scooter Libby as not guilty.

So does that mean that time travel is possible?

Re:Time travel is possible, and NASA has it

[TallestRocketScienti]

The author hangs his head in chagrin and salutes the finders of his flub. So he tells me.

Interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the

2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile, which translates to pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground infrastructure. line in the story.

Doesn't this also translate to Teleommunications satellites??? (North Korea I believe has like 1 satellite in orbit right now for telecommunications)

Cause god damnit we are the only ones that should have access to the Playboy channel!

Item 5 is not a correct statement.

[foxxlf25]

Item 5 is just wrong. The current weapon technology (NMD) to shoot down incoming MIRV's are designed to target the warhead after it has already past the stage of burn and been released. The key issue is determining the fake warheads from the real. In space (the target point of impact) is also the hardest to determine fake from real. The sensor packages and analysis of that data is the critical piece to making them work correctly. And heat trails is not part of that. Heat trails for targeting are only used in anti-missile tech designed to hit the rocket shortly after launch. Yes, we are developing some of those but again, those are not the ones people are concerned could be converted for satellite targeting.

Re:Item 5 is not a correct statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they waste time modifying a sensor system to hit a target that is in a known orbit? It's not like the satelite is going to be flying an evasive/eratic course. Killing satelites is as easy as having some fast-moving object intercept its orbit. If you can 1)locate the satelite and 2)put objects in orbit, making said object collide with a desired target is just a matter of time.

Re:Item 5 is not a correct statement.

[twiddlingbits]

Trying to hit the warhead AFTER it has re-entered and is using decoys is exactly the WRONG time to hit it. You want to hit it BEFORE it is released from the booster if at all possible. It's a bigger target to hit, you hit it and you got all the warheads. Technology does exist to distinquish decoys from real warheads but it's not 100%. Killing the wrong target can ruin your day. Currently ASATs use several different technologies to find the target, not just the heat (IR) signature. What is used, when it us used and how it is used classified.

Re:Item 5 is not a correct statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire piece is disinformation. It "argues" from a Naive Perspective, using variations of the Argument from Incredulity fallacy in each case. This is exactly the sort of piece Winston produced for Minitrue in Orwell's _1984_ in order to shape the public reality. It's difficult to accept that so many people are taking seriously the idea that any unauthorised data on a classified-restricted subject is to be not only dismissed entirely, but ignored completely.

http://cryptome.org/

Space based defense system may not be necessary

[nontrad]

Watch ABC Nightline, ABC news, and Good Morning America about the US Ground-Based Missile Defense program. The news pieces are supposed to air the week of the 19th.

I'm all for poking fun at tinfoil hatters...

[Anonymous Coward]

But half these myths contradict the other half.

First, it says putting missiles in space is expensive and slow "Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position."

But wait! The Soviets "demonstrated the high reliability of the operational Soviet 'killer satellite'". Not only that, but there is an "enormous advantage" to orbital systems.

Also "They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites." Only if the government continues to cut the junk-tracking budget, otherwise any "junk" moving strangely would be noticed pretty quickly. Also, based on the orbit of the junk that's been around since the dawn of the space program, the Moon's gravity does not cause sudden major orbital changes, and I would suspect that with no other propulsion, the Moon's gravity is not enough to prevent the orbit of a "stealth" satellite with no boosters from decaying.

Re:I'm all for poking fun at tinfoil hatters...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also "They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites." Only if the government continues to cut the junk-tracking budget, otherwise any "junk" moving strangely would be noticed pretty quickly.

Not if it was stealthed. Piggyback a small stealthed ASAT payload on a legitimate launch, do your burn when the US radars aren't looking, and you're off to the moon.

Also, based on the orbit of the junk that's been around since the dawn of the space program, the Moon's gravity does not cause sudden major orbital changes, and I would suspect that with no other propulsion, the Moon's gravity is not enough to prevent the orbit of a "stealth" satellite with no boosters from decaying.

No, the moon's gravity doesn't cause major orbital changes in low to mid-Earth orbit objects. However, if you have lots of time to do the transfer, you can save a lot of fuel by going into highly elliptical orbits and "tacking" on lunar gravity. Orbital mechanics is counter-intuitive in many respects, difficult to explain and visualize, and we're still figuring out some of this stuff. I've been in the industry for over 20 years and still defer to the 133t gurus on this. The point is to slip a stealthed ASAT into high orbit (geosync or the orbits used by GPS) and park it by the target. Then, when the war starts, it takes out the sat.

Oh, and there are concepts for how to take out a satellite without making lots of debris:
- inflate a big metallic balloon in front of it, cutting off communications
- EMP the sucker, frying the electronics
- spray foam all over the sensors to blind it
- mangle/cover the antennas, making it deaf and dumb
- spray opaque materials on the solar panels, reducing the power input
None appear to have been attempted. Yet.

Re:I'm all for poking fun at tinfoil hatters...

[dswartz]

"Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position."
I believe the author meant to say space-to-ground attack, otherwise the sentence does not make sense in the context of the paragraph.

"[The Soviets] demonstrated the high reliability of the operational Soviet 'killer satellite'"
See first quote response. Additionally, Reliability and timeliness are not the same thing.

"The enormous advantage of an orbital system"
See first quote response. Additionally, Effectiveness and timeliness are not the same thing.

"They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites."
This is something you disagree with, not a contradiction.

Prediction

[sycodon]

The article seems to fly in the face of the left's beliefs. I predict many anti U.S./Bush screeds.

No, I'm not trolling or baiting. Just a prediction.

Re:Prediction

[nuzak]

> The article seems to fly in the face of the left's beliefs.

Yes, slanted articles are often like that. I wonder if the Space Review is an extension of the National Review.

> I predict many anti U.S./Bush screeds.

Congratulations on being the first to bring up Bush.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on being the first to bring up Bush.

Is Bush part of the new Godwin's law?

Noy sure about this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

References to the "latent antisatellite capability" of the embryonic US anti-missile system in Alaska are somewhat disingenuous since Russia has a deployed anti-missile system with launchers around Moscow and in Kazakhstan, with much the same capability and nobody seems to complain. Most discussions leave the impression the Russian system simply doesn't exist.

Yes, it exists and has existed for decades, however, it was explicitely allowed under the ABM-Treaty. The US was allowed to build such a system for North Dakota but I'm not sure if we ever followed through with that. However, a national system was what the treaty intended to prevent, which it did until we decided to withdraw from the treaty in 2002.

Myth #13: The Rebels' attack plan is overestimated

[Anonymous Coward]

Commander #1: We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?
Governor Tarkin: Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

still living the cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA

One final example is from Russian complaints in recent weeks about US plans to deploy anti-missile systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia back in 1993. He meant the Czech Republic.

Talk about fact checking.

Re:still living the cold war

[Notquitecajun]

Or fact Czeching.

Carl Sagan

[Himring]

I remember Sagan's comments on Reagan's "star wars" program. "They want scientists to make something in space that can shoot down nuclear warheads using lasers. As scientists, we believe we can make it, and it will sound something like this: 'vzerrremmm! zzzzzzzoooommmmaahhh! phhhhhhhewwwwwwbanggggg!' Should be easy...."

Or something to that affect. Someone google it....

Re:Carl Sagan

[faloi]

That can't be right. The quote didn't even have the word "billions" in it once, it can't be Sagan.

The Cold War wrote

[theolein]

They want their Soviet Union back.

The article is part fact and part of the same kind of tit for tat idiocy that brought and perpetuated the Cold War for over 40 years. "The Americans did this", "The Russians so totally did too" kind of crap that is this article is just painful to those of us who lived through the red scare bullshit of the Cold war. Not only that but the article tries to paint Russia as still being the Soviet Union. They talk about anti ballistic missiles being based in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is and has been independent since 1991. It leases the old Soviet manned rocket launching site at Baikonur to Russia, but it, along with the Ukraine and Byelorus destroyed all of its Soviet era nukes in the 90's, and no longer hosts any strategic Russian military equipment.

Re:The Cold War wrote

[Hoi Polloi]

"The Russian statements are so preposterous...The technological flaw is simple: missiles launched from Czechoslovakia, say, cannot ever hope to intercept missiles launched from Russia against America"

The author jumps to the intercontinental missle scenario. If he bothered to look at a map he'd see that much of Russia (i.e. St Petersburg) is within range of intermediate range missles fired from European sites. With the Baltic states itching to join NATO and Poland already in the club I don't blame Russia for feeling uneasy.

Re:The Cold War wrote

[Anonymous Coward]

UN Ambassador from the US: The Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up?
UN Ambassador from Russia: Yes, that is what we WANTED you to think! (evil laugh as he pushes the button to reinstate communism and revive Lenin)

Re:The Cold War wrote

[Domini Canes]

Errr, Baltic states are already in NATO. Have been there for some time now.....

Re:The Cold War wrote

[Hoi Polloi]

You're right (since 2004). Makes my point even more valid though.

Re:The Cold War wrote

[TallestRocketScienti]

Theolein: "They talk about anti ballistic missiles being based in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is and has been independent since 1991. It leases the old Soviet manned rocket launching site at Baikonur to Russia, but it, along with the Ukraine and Byelorus destroyed all of its Soviet era nukes in the 90's, and no longer hosts any strategic Russian military equipment." As they say, it ain't what you don't know that makes you look like a fool, it's what you do know what ain't so. Re Kazakhstan: Russia also leases the Sary Shagan ABM rangehead, and several other facilities besides Baykonur (which is far more than a 'manned launch center' -- includes all geosync Protons, plus Dnepr and Zenit commercial carriers, etc etc), and has resumed ABM test and training launches from that site. Do you need a citation, or can you just say, 'Oops, I didn't KNOW that, the author is correct..." ??

Re:The Cold War wrote

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a citation might be in order. You could just be making shit up, you see.

Re:The Cold War wrote

[TallestRocketScienti]

HoiPolloi: "The author jumps to the intercontinental missle scenario. If he bothered to look at a map he'd see that much of Russia (i.e. St Petersburg) is within range of intermediate range missles fired from European sites. With the Baltic states itching to join NATO and Poland already in the club I don't blame Russia for feeling uneasy."

                  By no means -- this is exactly the scenario, ICBMs, that the Russians are complaining about. As for rapid surface-to-surface strikes, don't SLBMs already cover that scenario?

                  Nope, if you back off your confrontational misrepresentations you would see that it's exactly the 'attack on our ICBMs' complaint that has the Russians so ridiculously riled. I do blame them for pretending to feel uneasy, for diplomatic advantage.

Yeah, sure

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no smoke without 3...2...1...FIRE!

Space and War

[Paulrothrock]

Most wars are fought over resources. Hitler needed Leibensraum. The Japanese needed oil and raw materials, so they took China and Indonesia. Very very rarely are they fought for other reasons.

So rather than deploy weapons into space to defend terrestrial resources, why not get our resources from space? The cost to do either are pretty much the same, even using horribly inefficient defense contractors, and would benefit the same industries. One will result in a less secure world, and the other will result in a more secure world.

Re:Space and War

[aadvancedGIR]

And, as a bonus, there can always be an accident where 5000 tons of iron are accidentally dropped on Teheran at mach 30 after a failure in the atmospheric reentry system.

I Disagree With Your Assessment

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the author of the article reads Slashdot. Anyone remember back when the "official U.S. position on space weapons" story broke? As I recall, there was a torrent of comments (especially from those who failed to read the document) suggesting that the space policy was that only the U.S. was going to have access to space.

You mean this story? Well, as I recall, the bulk of the conversation was about your Nuclear Space Drive conversation and also your trite arguments about who hates Bush and whatnot.

I think you have this misconceived notion that Slashdot has one liberal mentality. But you're wrong, we're not a homogeneous mixture like an alloy that ends up at a mean of ideas. Instead, you read a story and you see posts that are well written and make good points. Those are moderated highly and deserve rebuttals. Things that don't deserve rebuttals are troll statements or people accusing you of stupid things (like you often receive and debate for some reason).

While you may have seen one single attitude (which you provided no posts), I saw people questioning the logic, people pointing out that he phrased it in an evil sounding manner anda few people defending it.

If you don't like Slashdot, don't read it. And if you're going to accuse a mentality, present evidence for it and maybe limit it to discussions that are relevant for it. It's weird but people on Slashdot love to hate each other and accuse them of being idiots who don't read articles. I just think you don't agree with a lot of people, AKAImBatman--to which I respond: deal with it.

Re:I Disagree With Your Assessment

[AKAImBatman]

Why don't you drop the charade and log in? I think we all know who you are, doc.

Well, as I recall, the bulk of the conversation was about your Nuclear Space Drive conversation

Funny thing. I posted a "yay, nuclear space drive!" post, and yet practically none of that thread is about nuclear space drives. In fact, it would seem that nearly the entire thread attempts to prove how "Bush [is] throwing away the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty like he did the Geneva Conventions". Heavy on anti-Bush comments, low on actual attempts to talk about nuclear space drives. Wonder why?

I think you have this misconceived notion that Slashdot has one liberal mentality.

Oh no. In fact, I know there are a great many people who agree with me. However, when a large portion of Slashdot comes down on a particular side, people take notice. And it's what gives Slashdot a poor reputation as being reactionary. Especially when wild and accusatory comments like this or this are made at +2 by respected members of the community. Members who seem to have forgotten that people have differing opinions, rather than all being secret spies and collborators for Evil Entity X(TM). And they stir up quite a ruckus in their efforts, leading others to believe that the pro-Evil Entity Cabal really exists.

Or just as bad, threads that suppose that the actual policy of the President and the government is different from what the official document said.

Mr. "AC", you wish to accuse me of not accepting that others have opinions. (Which is particularly amusing when you link to a post where I state, "You have your opinion and I have mine.") Yet you fail to recognize that there was a LOT of posters who fell on the side of opposition to the space policy. A LOT of posters who now have a chance to reevaluate that position. Should we just ignore the progress made on the topic, or should we leave the topic closed? After all, this very article is a continuation of that topic.

What do you think? Should we just all stick our heads in the sand, or should we face these issues head on? See if we were correct? See if things change? See if our own opinions change?

I don't know about you, but I know that my own opinions have changed quite a bit over time. Not on this particular issue, mind you, but on many other hot topics. For example, I may have never liked the Patriot Act, but I did once argue that our government had (amazingly) not abused it to date. Well, a recent Slashdot story proved me wrong. (Yes, bolded so that you may gloat in silence.) While there was no intent to abuse it, it was abused because it was a form of power. And as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now, shall we all reevaluate our positions on this particular situation? :)

Rail guns

[Anonymous Coward]

When I hear about rail guns accelerating objects so fast they would not remain solid when fired in the lower atmosphere and such reseach not being deemed useless but instead being continued I reconned that nuclear bombs are now a thing of the past. If the US would face a real worthy enemy in war it would send up jets which would dive from the upper atmosphere and fire mass so fast that on impact the effect would be like being vaporized by a small but sizable meteorite without any radiation from an old fashioned nuclear bomb. I think any investments being done in nuclear military tech are just about rewarding money to money contributing friends, and strategically unimportant from now on.

Space Defense?

[ks*nut]

Not since the Reagan administration has this country (U.S.) been so up to its eyeballs in the militarization of space. Mr. Oberg may be very adept at tiptoing around the real issues, but I don't think anyone can deny that the U.S. is hell-bent on denying access to the free use of space by anyone designated as "hostile."

Are we supposed to be surprised that clandestine programs are not splashed across the headlines of publications and web-resources that, through the Patriot Act and other anti-Constititional devices, are mere shells of what they used to be? Yes, the U.S. is working on laser anti-satellite weapons and they will put "killer satellites" in orbit, if they are not there already. Can I produce a web site or newspaper article that names programs or gives details on how these programs will be enabled? Of course not - read the definition of "clandestine."

I guess that if there isn't a well established trail of evidence, then these programs simply don't exist and are therefor "myths."

We have met the enemy...

Re:Space Defense?

[dmcooper]

Isn't that the same argument that the Bush administration offered for failing to find WMD's in Iraq? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I think Rummy said that IIRC. In any event - I would hope that we beat everyone else to space with those weapons.

Re:Space Defense?

[Oligonicella]

"I guess that if there isn't a well established trail of evidence,..."

You will presume it exists anyway.

Re:Space Defense?

[orielbean]

I think you hit the nail on the head with your final sentences. Anything is supposition unless backed up by testimony from a relevant expert or actual factual evidence. If these programs were already in place, most people would have a good understanding of what was up there. Have you read about the hobby group that tracks satellites in their spare time. They have even found the "stealth" or black sats that the US has put up there.

Why in God's name would Defense bother with the tremendous expense of lasers in space just to shoot other sats?? Don't you understand that the China test of an anti-sat missile into space was a simple feat accomplished decades ago?

Satellites have a very predictable trajectory, and so blowing them up from the ground is easy. Nuke ICBMs are totally different in every respect, and a laser blasting one up when it pops through the atmosphere would be a high tech miracle that's not been achieved yet. The ICBMs travel very fast and don't have predictable patterns for flight, so you need something to acquire and launch and detonate within a few minutes' time. Anti-sat from the ground is EASY.

Re:Space Defense?

[cbacba]

The Bald Eagle has seen its day as the national bird. It's time for the Ostrich to take over the mantle.

Shorter Space Review...

[sean.peters]

This article is highly amateurish and just about content-free. Shorter "Space Review":

1. Myth: The US already has satellite killers.
   The Space Review: No they don't! (no citation given)
2. Myth: The US wants to deny space to those it considers hostile.
   TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)
3. Myth: The US is planning to place weapons in space for the purpose of ground attack.
   TSR: No they aren't! (no citation given)
4. Myth: The US ballistic missile defense systems have the capability to shoot down satellites.
   TSR: So what, the Russians have the same capability!
5. Myth: Tests of space based BMD systems also are preparations for an ASAT capability.
   TSR: Let's confuse the issue by only talking about boost-phase BMD intercept!
6. Myth: The Russians have declared a moratorium on ASAT weapons testing.
   TSR: No they haven't! (no citation given)
7. Myth: The Russian's "killer satellite" never worked very well.
   TSR: Yes it did! (no citation given)

I stopped reading at this point. This whole article is nothing more than a fact-free propaganda screed. I can't believe Slashdot even bothered to post it... on second thought, yes I can.

Sean

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[Ogive17]

But what you didn't post was how some of the Myths also have no evidence.

Basically the article is telling me there's no proof for either side of these claims. But it's just enough information to bring the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[sean.peters]

You make a good point - where do the "myths" themselves come from? Is anyone really saying this stuff, or are these just convenient strawmen for the author to knock down? Some citations on the "myths" would have come in handy too.

Without any supporting evidence, this whole article is just some guy's opinion.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[Fujisawa Sensei]

How are you supposed to show that there is no evidence for a myth? Its a myth because there is not evidence.

Besides conspiracy theorists don't need evidence, they make stuff up, claim is fits their distorted view of reality and call it evidence; just check out the Electric Universe or Moon Landing Hoax.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[stubear]

And yet you site no evidence to prove him wrong. How is this insightful? At least attack his logical theories but to claim there was no citation given as proof he's wrong is just as silly.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it is traditional to give EVIDENCE when making a claim, hence the burden of proof lies with the article writer and not those questioning his claims.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[evangellydonut]

that's why it's called "myth"

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[sean.peters]

Geez, I never SAID he was wrong! I just said that he hadn't proven any claim! I wasn't the one writing a big article in an online journal, so I don't feel like I'm obligated to prove or disprove his claims... that's HIS job!

Sean

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[sean.peters]

He made a number of very specific claims: e.g. "Russian ASAT weapons were effective", yet he never provided any evidence this was true. His counterclaims were just as mythical as the "myths" he was trying to refute.

Re:Shorter Space Review...

[evilviper]

This article is highly amateurish and just about content-free.

I'm not sure if you're really that stupid, or if this is a troll.

1. Myth: The US already has satellite killers.
The Space Review: No they don't! (no citation given)

Bullshit.

Citation: "1985 air-launch satellite intercept [project]"

But more than that, he wasn't ever claiming the US doesn't have them, just that claims are vastly exaggerated, and unsupported (in other words he's saying "no citation given").

2. Myth: The US wants to deny space to those it considers hostile.
TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)

Pure bullshit, and you know it.

The actual headline was: 2. The latest United States "space policy" declares that it will "deny access to space" to those players it deems hostile,

He makes no claims what the US does or doesn't want to do. He points out that the often-cited "space policy" document contains no such claims. If you can't find the "space policy" he cited, you're not even trying: http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20P olicy.pdf

3. Myth: The US is planning to place weapons in space for the purpose of ground attack.
TSR: No they aren't! (no citation given)

Overwhelming bullshit.

He absolutely never said "No they aren't!". He said it's expensive, much, much slower (DAYS), and submarines can do the job far faster/better.

Myth: The US ballistic missile defense systems have the capability to shoot down satellites.
TSR: So what, the Russians have the same capability!

Bullshit. He was countering the claim that it: will give the US an unfairly asymmetric and destabilizing military advantage

Obviously, it's not asymmetrical if your only (remotely symmetrical) opponent already has exactly the same capabilities.

TSR: Let's confuse the issue by only talking about boost-phase BMD intercept!

No, actually it was "let's explain why BMD is vastly different than ASAT, and one doesn't apply to the other".

Equating a boost-phase anti-missile weapon (based at sea, on an aircraft, or even in space) to an anti-satellite weapon overlooks a fundamental design difference

That's as clear (and un-confused) as it gets.

Myth: The Russians have declared a moratorium on ASAT weapons testing.
TSR: No they haven't! (no citation given)

He pointed out other important issues in the same statement (that they stopped testing) were lies. What citations do you need?

Now lets get back to you:

I stopped reading at this point.

No citation given...

This whole article is nothing more than a fact-free propaganda screed.

No citation given...

I can't believe Slashdot even bothered to post it...

No citation given...

Item 5 IS a correct statement.

[wiredog]

It's talking about a boost-phase anti-missile weapon.

Safeguard

[sean.peters]

We did, in fact, build such a system. It consisted of a bunch of nuclear-tipped SAMs, plus cueing radars, etc - 60's era technology was not sufficiently accurate to do anything but get the interceptor in the general vicinity of the incoming - hence the need for nuclear warheads. My impression is that the system wasn't considered very cost-effective.

Re:Safeguard

[Thundersnatch]

My impression is that the system wasn't considered very cost-effective.

I think the larger issue with the Sprint missile system and its bretheren were the fact that they essentially required the U.S. to cripple itself with EMP in order to stop incoming warheads. The economic damage of a single EMP event above densley populated U.S. soil would have been devastating in the 1970s, but far worse today (we have far more unshielded electronics on which everyday life depends).

Now imagine thousands of EMP events, one each for the thousands of warheads which would require interception in the event of an all-out Soviet attack. No cars running, no civilian radio or television, no Internet access, no electricity, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Re:Safeguard

[Magada]

Mass hysteria would not produce megadeaths. Those incoming warheads would. However, it is interesting to note that the Sprint was only deployed in N Dakota. WTH is there to protect in N Dakota?

Re:Safeguard

[Thundersnatch]

Safeguard was positioned in N. Dakota to intercept missiles coming in over the pole to targets in the continental USA. Targets like the city of Chicago, Dallas, or the Strategic Air Command near Omaha, Nebraska. The missile interception would presumably happen hundreds of miles away from the Sprint launch site.

And I do think the near-complete loss of electricity and transporation for months due to EMP wouldresult in tens of thousands, if not millions of deaths. I think you're overlooking the fact that the majority of people in Wetern nations live nowhere near their food sources, and rely entirely upon municipal water pumped from reserviors. There's probably only a few weeks worth of canned or dry food in any particular city.

Methinks you're smoking something

[sean.peters]

So rather than deploy weapons into space to defend terrestrial resources, why not get our resources from space? The cost to do either are pretty much the same

The costs are pretty much the same? I'd really like to see the cost analysis on that one. I strongly suspect that you pulled that "estimate" out of your nether regions.

Alan Parsons Project

[garlicbready]

bah forget your namby pamby satalite based lasers
what you want is a big MOON Laser
it doesn't say anything about those now does it?

How about bouncing a Death Ray of the mirror they left up there on the moon's surface during the 60's? (I wonder how many power stations you'd need for that to stay coherent)

Re:Alan Parsons Project

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty funny. The mirrors left on the moon are phase conjugate mirrors. Unlike normal mirrors, they send light back along the same path from which it came. This is to allow a laser pulse from earth to be bounced back to its originating location in order to measure the distance to the moon. Ignoring the fact that it already takes a very high-powered laser just to receive back a very weak pulse, any laser that could return a pulse strong enough to do damage would destroy its own source.

David

Get rid of NATO

[Anonymous Coward]

NATO should've gone out with the USSR. It has served it's purpose and is done. Now it is just a form of military welfare for Europe, an antagonist for Russia kept up by decrepit ex-Cold War drones, and a source of leverage for the US in a part of the world that isn't that important to us anymore. It is a huge waste of money that the military has become dependant on.

Fun with reality

[drinkypoo]

But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by Congress (see "Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs", The Space Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer technology has been developed.

Oh no? HAARP can, according to people who work for the project, and according to the person who first showed that this project was feasible, push portions of the atmosphere into space to a sufficient degree to interrupt satellites. I found out about this from a highly paranoid documentary called HAARP: Holes in Heaven? which had a lot of unproven schlocky nonsense but also had some VERY interesting commentary from people actually currently working for the HAARP project. I won't go into it too much but the biggest cheese they had on video was cross-signaling more strongly than I've ever seen. He would be asked a question about whether the project was dangerous and he would say no, but his whole BODY would actually rock his head into a "yes" and he would be nodding. When he talked about technical issues, you could see him almost become a different person as he talked about something he believed in.

Anyway, put that aside for a moment...

The US is planning to deploy space-based weapons (including nuclear weapons) to attack other objects in space and on the ground.

The article says this is infeasible. What? That's a bunch of crap. There are two arguments given for this. One is "Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position." That's only true if you have a small number of weapons, and if they don't use a laser or maser weapon. We have both laser and masers up to significant levels of power output.

The other is that it is expensive. So? Since when has the US government displayed an unwillingness to unnecessarily spend taxpayer money?

We all know that space-based weapons are possible (the soviets are well-known to have actually built killer satellites which work, and the article references this fact several times) and desirable (even if they are not effective against ground-based targets, which has never been proven, they are useful against space-based ones) so why do we think that more of them will not be built? That is patently ridiculous.

Re:Fun with reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious about the HAARP crap? Dangerous? I suppose so if you stand too close to it. Dangerous is a relative term and it's a 3.5 million Watt transmitter. That's a lot of microwaves. Bring down ICBM's? Absolutely not. The radio waves cause temporary warming in the upper atmosphere that causes it to expand a little (gas laws: see 9th grade physics). Over the course of months the extra drag can take hours off the orbital life of a satellite. It's going to do pretty much nothing to an extremely dense nuclear warhead with a flight time of 15 minutes.

Also, we don't have any lasers capable of presenting a significant threat from space. Even the airborne laser (which barely fits in a 747 with a capacity about 10 times what we can reasonably get into orbit) is still being built, only carries enough fuel for a handful of shots, and is only effective against missiles in boost phase (possibly satellites, too. The ABL has actually been discussed in the context of those treaties).

Yes, some weapons are possible and desirable, but the nutjobs dream up a lot of stuff that at best fits one of those categories and almost none of which also fit the description of reasonably cost-effective and easy to conceal.

People like to talk about all these amazing black projects that no one ever knows about except the person doing the talking, but none of them ever turn out to exist. Don't even bother mentioning the F-117. The Wall Street Journal was writing articles about it years before it was officially unveiled. It was officially a secret, but a lot of aerospace and defense people not involved in the project knew about it, as opposed to Aurora, which only drunks in Roswell have ever claimed to see flying.

Re:Fun with reality

[geekoid]

Please be aware that those shows are heavily edited , and have been known to change the questions in the editing room.

I don't know about the show you mention, but most of them are complete crap.

I, for one...

[PPH]

....welcome our orbital overlords.

Deadliest Space Weapon

[TheCybernator]

Deadliest 'Space' Weapon - MySpace.com :)

Two Too Many

[airship]

Doesn't the author of this list know these basic Internet rules?

"Each Internet list must have only 10 elements."

"The title of each list of 10 elements must begin with "Top Ten...""

Re:Two Too Many

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

yeah, the author is obviously doomed to failure.

Cartoons eh...

[SohCahToa]

> This goes double for nuclear weapons: putting them into space on a permanent basis was last taken seriously in the Sunday comics in the late 1950's.

i vaguely remember snoopy and woodstock launching a nuclear weapons platform into space to help stop lucy from pulling the football out from charlie brown

Hubble is filled with nukes!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it weighs 24,000 lbs!

Conspiracy !

[yacTheFourth]

That's a lie! Czechoslovakia parted in 1993, thus they can go back in time by at least 14 years!

Or perhaps they didn't noticed that great event... like the rest of the world... no, that's not it.

Rods from God

[mkw87]

This is really funny this is posted, just last week me and some friends were discussing something the one saw on TV a few years ago, read about it once or twice, then couldn't find mention of it anywhere. He said he read about a proposal to use what basically amounted to metal rods as weapons from the ISS.

He claims the military used to as weapons, they could just fire the rod at said target and it would gain such speed it would destroy the target (with limitations). His argument was that he couldn't find any mention of it, so they obviously covered up history of it and put it into action.

So he set out to see if he could find any more information on it, and he said he did and they are actually using it. Anyone care to weight in?

Re:Rods from God

[vonhammer]

I seem to recall some science fiction authors had a convention in order to come up with proposals for space-based weapons. This was one of them: satellites with radar absorbing foam would launch spikes of metal to rain down on unsuspecting Soviet armor formations. (No, I'm not making this up). Jerry Pournelle wrote about it in one of his columns.

Re:Rods from God

[Frumious Wombat]

It's a more refined version of RAH's suggestion in Moon is a Harsh Mistress and other 50's SciFi; things coming in from orbit move quickly. Heavy things moving quickly have lots of kinetic energy, without requiring fallout-producing enhancements. Rods from God is tungsten rods (high heat resistance, heavy), which in theory should be good ground penetrators, effectively LawnDarts of Zeus. I'd be curious to know if once they've punched through a bunker whether they dissapate enough energy to matter, or if they just make a neat little hole and keep going. Just as efficient for most purposes would be to get a bunch of sofa-sized rocks, attach some minimal guidance system to them, and just nudge them in when necessary. OTOH, somehow throwing rocks from orbit just doesn't get the military mind as excited as exotic materials machined to high tolerances with cost-overruns aplenty.

I don't think they're actually using it, or that it's gotten beyond the projector-ware stage. Conspiracy theories abound, but multiple sources say it's not deployed or likely to be deployed any time soon. Sounds great in theory, but for most purposes there is no reason to use space-based lasers/rods/rocks/transluminal battlestations when an A10 Warthog with a couple of laser-guided JDAMs will do the job just as efficiently with a shorter reload time, more accurate targeting, and more flexibility in timing when targeting can be applied. The system is no good if you need to whack someone at 12:43 and the satellite won't be back in the appropriate orbit until 2-5 hours later. In short, someone at the Pentagon has a supply of good alcohol, a plasma HDTV, and a first-rate Sci-Fi movie collection.

Re:Rods from God

[Anonymous Coward]

An immediate relative who works on military satellites has mentioned as much using that same name. Scary shit.

Does this mean my

[Master of Transhuman]

orbiting brain lasers don't actually work?

Despite their being based on open source?

Heh, let's test them out on...what's under their orbit now?

Kansas?

Well, if we fry Kansas, the world may not hear of it for years.

Armchair Military Analysis

[zennsunni]

While the poster does bring up a few decent points regarding misinformation and what is likely happening in the field of space weaponization, he/she provides a number of facts and or arguments that I find either false, or confusing. Some of these items may be confusing to me merely because the writer is not launching into a full explanation for the sake of internet brevity, but some are simply incorrect, incomplete, or half true. "Many of these stories deal with weapons that travel through space on their way to surface targets--as military missiles have done since about 1944" 1944? Are you kidding me? The most advanced rocket technology at this time was the as yet unveiled V-3 being designed by the Germans. "Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position." Again, this statement displays a seeming lack of understanding of the potential for orbital weapons. No space weapons platform would be reliant on a single satellite. Furthermore, for all I know geosynch orbit would still allow for fast delivery despite its very high orbital distance (around 22,000 miles). Furthermore the prospect of kinetic energy weapons, or dense rods "falling" from an orbiting satellite, is not all that farfetched and would be essentially impossible to intercept. As I suggested above, this individual did not do their homework. "It can't be a target if it's invisible to the weapon system under development." Evidently the writer is under the impression that thermal imaging is the only viable targetting system in existence, and furthermore that a weapon designed to use it could never have its principles applied to a weapon utilizing a more varied and complex targetting system.

Re:Armchair Military Analysis

[TallestRocketScienti]

zennsunni: "Many of these stories deal with weapons that travel through space on their way to surface targets--as military missiles have done since about 1944" 1944? Are you kidding me? The most advanced rocket technology at this time was the as yet unveiled V-3 being designed by the Germans." Don't you think the author was referring to V-2 missiles which did travel through space on their way to their targets? Or do you want to quibble over the definition of 'space'? The V-2 needed a heat shield to get back down safely, heck, that's good enough for me to call it 'space'. I think you're right that a geosync base could deliver a weapon to Earth's surface but that still takes about six hours -- and unlike platforms in low earth orbit, it takes a substantial delta-V to move a payload onto an earth-intersecting orbit -- substantial to the amount of ten or twenty times that which is sufficient to de-orbit an object from a LEO platform. Not counting the 50% more energy you have to invest to get the payload up into that orbit to begin with. Even with a thick net of LEO platforms, you're still talking about hours and hours before any ONE of them has a ground track close to desired target. Why not just use a ground-based ICBM? It's cheaper, you can keep it in a garage where you can service it, it's faster in response and in travel time.... What is better about orbital basing?

All they need are nudgers, not explosives

[jayslambast]

I'm amazed at how everyone wants blow up sats. Its not in anyones interest to leave all that space debris around for other satellites and spacecraft to be hit with. It seems like it would be better to launch multiple satellites that latched onto the target and pushed it into the atmosphere. The victim satellite burns up on reentry and there isn't all that crap floating around to poke holes with.

Re:Not sure about this one...

[coredog64]

The Soviet system was a fig-leaf for the real system they had that was a national system and did violate the ABM treaty.

Jim Oberg: Closet Cold Warrior or Skywalker geek?

[Sad Adam]

Judging by his site, http://www.jamesoberg.com/, it seems like J. Oberg is a 22 year old Cold Warrior.

His obsession with "beating the Soviets" seems to underpin both the space weapon story and the agglomeration of stories on his site.

Or is it that he never grow out of playing with his Star Wars toys?

C'mon Jimmy, admit it, they look really neat hangin' over your bed like that, especially when you turn on the batteries at night...

Re:Not a contradiction

[Omnifarious]

One sentence is talking about orbital weapons for ground targets. The other is talking about orbital weapons vs. other orbital targets. Those are very different scenarios and it makes perfect sense that orbital weapons would be a poor choice for some and a good choice for others.

lack of imagination not proof of impossibility

[TallestRocketScienti]

"Only if the government continues to cut the junk-tracking budget, otherwise any "junk" moving strangely would be noticed pretty quickly. Also, based on the orbit of the junk that's been around since the dawn of the space program, the Moon's gravity does not cause sudden major orbital changes, and I would suspect that with no other propulsion, the Moon's gravity is not enough to prevent the orbit of a "stealth" satellite with no boosters from decaying." By no means. Killer satellites small enough not to be seen by ground-based radar could easily lurk in HIGH orbits out where navsats and comsats and brethren circle. Also, small objects NEAR their target objects would not be resolvable as separate objects. You are extrapolating ground-based capabilities for LEO out through cislunar space -- a dangerous delusion. As for using lunar gravity to slip back down into an orbit of interest -- say, the GEO arc -- it's already been done. True, a brief rocket burn is required for the final delta-V, but then, who is scanning the sky for such a signature -- especially if it were a very low thrust burn over an hour or two? The U.S. just doesn't have sensors to notice it -- and folks who might want to emplace 'space mines' (or who might want the u.S. to WORRY that they HAVE emplaced a few) know this, and we know they know it.... ad infinitum. Such a weapon is all the more effective because most folks are like you -- they just cannot believe it's possible. Does-- that -- sound -- familiar??

citations

[TallestRocketScienti]

Sean:
Myth: The US wants to deny space to those it considers hostile.
TSR: No they don't! (no citation given)

Sean, the citation is self-evident -- the original US 'white paper', and the press coverage of it. If you confess you are incapable of finding the original policy text on the Internet, I will be happy to provide the link for you in response, out of pity for your puerile ineptitude.

Re:citations

[sean.peters]

Oooh, "puerile ineptitude". Obviously I've tangled with the wrong anonymous internet guy! I was going to continue arguing, but my resistance has crumbled in the face of your determined (if ad hominem) attack!

Let me toss you a clue: if you're going to make an argument, particularly in a relatively formal setting like a magazine article, it's customary to provide some actual evidence for your argument. It's not the reader's job to go looking for it. You yourself might have made some more headway if you had taken this advice rather than wasting my time with pointless insults.

Re:citations

[TallestRocketScienti]

"if you're going to make an argument, particularly in a relatively formal setting like a magazine article, it's customary to provide some actual evidence for your argument." Uh, the author didn't make the argument in "a relatively formal setting like a magazine article", he did it on a commentary website. Are you going to use MY lack of good manners as an excuse for YOU not doing the required research to refute the claim? Who's being ad hominem now?

Not that I'm arguing with the rest, but...

[mbessey]

Satellites have a very predictable trajectory, and so blowing them up from the ground is easy.

This is true for certain kinds of satellites, but many (all?) spy satellites have some amount of manueverability, to allow them to image different parts of the globe, as needed. Even satellites with normally "stable" orbits will have thrusters for station-keeping that could be used to move them out of their "usual" orbit if they're threatened.

If you fire an interceptor missile at a spy satellite, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't in the predicted location by the time your interceptor achieved orbit. The obvious advantage of space-based anti-satellite weapons is the ability to strike essentially without warning. Ground-based laser and beam weapons have the same advantage in theory, but the atmosphere really drags down their efficiency - and they're prime targets for a cruise missile or ICBM.

Re:Not a contradiction

[eli pabst]

Look at the sentence before it:
"a killer satellite with a lifetime in years could be quickly built for deployment in orbits close to potential targets. These days, much smaller vehicles could be launched and then maneuvered, undetected, into such ambush orbits. They could even use the Moon's gravity to surreptitiously slip into the high-altitude orbits of key US observation, communications, and navigation satellites."

and the one quoted: "Even planning a space-to-space attack can take hours or days or longer for the moving attacker and target to line up in a proper position."

They both look to be referring to space-to-space attacks, as OP was pointing out.

Some of his myths are either true or inaccurate

[raahul_da_man]

[quote]Myth 2.
But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to "deny" access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most alarmingly stark terms.[/quote]

The actual document clearly states, direct from the Presidents office that the USA will:

he United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space
segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this
policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in
space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing
capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space
capabilities; respond to interference; and , if necessary, adversaries the use of space
capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.p df

Sounds awfully like those "overwrought" page one comments are correct.

Re:Not a contradiction

[Omnifarious]

Ahh, you're correct, and that is a contradiction.

War were declared!

[Meph_the_Balrog]

If Israel were attacked with a WMD? The US wouldn't have to do a thing, the entire arabian peninsula would be irradiated glass by the time the rest of the world caught up.

One thing you can be sure of, the Israelies won't be pulling punches at that point.

Re:War were declared!

[Anonymous Coward]

True that. Current estimates are Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons. They could completely destroy Cairo, Lebanon, Beirut, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, and a few others and still have enough left over to make anyone think twice about re-retaliating.

Israel doesn't have a lot of margin for taking crap. If they were nuked, even by an independent faction, odds are a lot better than 50:50 they will make sure their neighbors come out of the deal worse than they do.

MAD doesn't work if the other guy figures out you're bluffing.

But the US would have an awful lot to do figuring out how to respond to Israel in front of the rest of the world.

The 13th myth

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Don't believe bullshit "myth-busting".

If the USA has the capability (which I'm sure they do) and the funding (debatable) then they have this stuff sitting up there. The USA has never believed in "playing fair" and will grab and hold military dominance in all spheres that it can - with or without treaties.

Re:The 13th myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Why believe facts. What's important to note is that if EmbeddedJanitor imagines it may be so, it is.

Re:The 13th myth

[Mishra2002]

What a worthless post, let me tell you A. we don't have the money, and B. even if we did we're not going to waste it on something as pointless as nuclear weapons in space. Your response to a well reasoned logical argument amounts to "I don't belive you". Either explain why or don't even bother posting. If I wanted tin foil hat conspiracy theories I'll go watch how NASA faked the moon landing.

citations re ABM tests out of Sary Shagan

[TallestRocketScienti]

Let's see, Moscow RenTV 0630 UT on Dec 8, 2006, had a news item entitled "ABM Missile Launch at Sary-Shagan Test Range". The Dec 26 issue of 'Krasnaya Zvezda' had an article by Space Troops Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Aleksandr Kvasnikov entitled "The Missions Are Being Accomplished in a Worthy Manner", that included the statement: "On Dec 5, a combat crew conducted a combat training launch of a Russian missile defense system interceptor missile from Sary-Shagan Range (Kazakhstan)." The launch was also reported in the December 6, 2006 issue of "Izvestiya", on page 5, also on the online edition. It was in the report by Aleksandr Sadchikov: "An Anti-Missile Umbrella for the Entire Europe", and included the words: "Yesterday [Dec 5], a joint combat team of Space Troops and the Strategic Missile Troops [SMT] conducted at the testing site in Sary-Shagan, Kazakhstan, a successful training-combat launching of an antimissile of the Russian ABM Defense system designed to destroy hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the words of Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, Space Troops commander, this launching has convincingly demonstrated the viability of the Russian ABM Defense and its readiness to accomplish goals entrusted to it." Will that do? Was this effort worth it? [from a friend of JimO]