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

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...

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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...

[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: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: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? :)

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!

[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.