Slashdot Mirror
The United States Space Arsenal
ntmokey writes "When China tested a missile on its own satellite in January, the nation's aggressive statement immediately raised eyebrows among the world's other space-faring nations. Popular Mechanics looks at the implications of a conflict in space — including debris that could render space unusable for decades — and examines the United States' own space arsenal."
Judging by how humanity acts on Earth it was a logical step to bring war to space as sad as that is. what happened was China took out one of their clunky near-dead weather satellite with a missile [kinetic warhead I believe] which basically tore the hell out of it with sheer speed and mass. They failed a few times before but by the rate their military spending is going it wont be long before they actually out pace us [if not already] this combined with their long standing rivalry with us on economic, political and cyberspace issues we very much need to watch this a lot closer than Iraq/war on terror because of the real implications of possible future conflict.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
What happened ? It worked. It broke the economy of the Soviet Union. Of course, the technology largely didn't work. Like the x-ray space weapon proposed by Edward Teller.
What -could- be considered shocking is that they'd litter their own skies with junk debris, thus making it harder for them (and everyone else) to use space in the future.
so if china does it it's shocking, i wonder what it'd be called if you yanks did it
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
That was a ploy used by Reagan to worry and bankrupt the Soviets. (It worked.)
Of course it was — just as Reagan was taking the office (in 1981). USSR's attempts to keep up the arms-race, including SDI — duly decried by the Soviet newspapers daily — helped kill it, instead of allowing it to survive (again) on higher oil prices and slave labor.
Millions of people of the former USSR, myself included, have a lot to thank Ronald Reagan for. The fact, that various Commies (and Commie-sympathizers) still hate him, only adds to the guy's credits.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> Of course, it helped that the enemy that we faced was morally bankrupt
> and couldn't have possibly won the cold war.
Yup, but the genuis of RWR was in realizing that the way to defeat the Soviets was by breaking the taboo on SAYING that. Before Reagan 'all right thinking people' believed: (or were too afraid to disagree with in public)
1. That socialism was the future.
2. That the Cold War was either just a dick size contest between two 'great powers; equally bent on world domination' or just the death rattle of the West as we finally accepted the socialist future. Basically either a moral equivelence or the West as villian.
Reagan was having none of that crap, he pronounced the Soviets as "The focus of evil in the modern world", "destined for the dustbin of history" and summed up the Cold Was simply as "We win, they lose."
By actually saying these things it forced people to either accept it or argue against it. Because when the Cold War was just a dick size contest most of Europe could straddle the fence or even dangle their feet over the wall onto the Soviet side. But once Reagan called em 'Evil" those people had few choices. Argue that they weren't evil (a very hard argument to make) or admit it and say "yay evil!" Morally bankrupt people (the French come to mind) don't mind making a deal with the devil, so long as people don't KNOW they are making a deal with the devil, appearances matter.
So yes, SDI, the defense buildup, the 600 ship navy, etc. helped financially bankrupt the Soviets. Arming the Afgans and causing the 'invincibility' of the Soviet military machine to come into question helped defeat the Soviets. But the biggest weapon was the Will & the Word. Ronald reagan's having the courage and clarity of moral vision to speak truth to power forced Evil to retreat.
The current problem's solution is equally obvious.
Democrat delenda est
is, not was. Remember the ABM interceptor tests where the target was only hit when they fitted a beacon on it? Forget about sifting through decoys, they had a hard time hitting even a single target.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Popular Mechanics looks at the implications of a conflict in space -- including debris that could render space unusable for decades
If there is a conflict big enough to F-up space, I am sure that there will be far worse problems back home such that space junk would be the least of our worries.
Table-ized A.I.
Your theory is fine, and your friends are entitled to their own views; however USSR never "tried" to make its own Star Wars hardware. USSR's ABM efforts were identical to USA's work and resulted in the ABM-limiting treaty that stood for decades, until Bush tore it up. The reason is that USSR's scientists did some calculations on a napkin and concluded, correctly, that it's impossible to build such a system at this time that would actually work (1000's US's missiles flying in and 100% intercept.) It's still impossible, decades later. Given the number of missiles that both camps had, the system indeed had to have very impressive reliability, or else it would be complete waste of money. So USSR never built one. After Reagan announced his SDI USSR just sent more money to shipyards and built a bunch more of nuclear submarines, that's it. After Bush's démarche Putin also did the same - ordered a bunch of warheads that make zigs and zags at reentry speed.
And if you are interested in why the USSR fell, it's not even because of economy. It was bad, but there was no hunger yet. It might have been, though, if the USSR was allowed to rot some more. But it never happened, and "the people" in the street were as surprised with these developments as anyone in the West. The real reason is that when Gorbachev wanted to liberalize economy he accidentally liberalized the political life, and there were plenty of opportunists waiting and ready to insert themselves into the corridors of power. That's what they did, and that's where all the independent republics got their leaders from. Russia got Yeltsin, and that was not even the worst outcome. Gorbachev saw it happening but wasn't ready to defend the old way. For that he was briefly detained, and the conspirators tried to involve the army to put the toothpaste back; it did not work. So that's how it happened, and I did not even need to talk to anyone to offer you this overview.
You're a fool. Reagan's paranoid weaponization of space had nothing to do with the bankrupting of the Soviet Union, the price of oil did that. Thank the Islamofascists in Saudi Arabia for that. Republicans desperate to cover up the crimes of the Reagan Administration like to harp on the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed when he was slouching in the President's chair. The nominal effect "Star Wars" had on the Soviet Union really makes up for the death squads in Nicaragua, supporting Islamofascists in Afghanistan, and selling arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran, doesn't it?
Is it a good thing that the Soviet Union collapsed? Of course, but now both sides have become authoritarian. The US sure loves freedom, don't they? Illegal invasions, wiretapping of everyone on the planet, kidnapping of anyone deemed an "enemy combatant," torture camps in Eastern Europe. I'm so glad the world is safely in the hands of the fascists that mouth platitudes about "Freedom and Democracy" instead of the fascists that mouth platitudes about "Equality."
Enjoy the police state, it's coming to a country near you in the coming decade, if it isn't there already. The United States is already there.
"Who's going to win? Whoever can stop playing pussyfoot and acknowledge the goal first, of course. My money is on the Chinese or Europeans."
I think the Americans have already acknowledged this point and are moving to do something about it...unlike Europe. It will be China or USA. I don't see any European country being a factor. That ship sailed 100 years ago.
Like what?
Spy planes?
Do you really want to give the Chinese another opportunity to dissect a surveillance aircraft? Or maybe we could fly 'em over Russian airspace... I'm sure Putin would love that.
Perhaps I'm being overly snarky, but I don't really see any other good alternative to the existing network of spy satellites.
If we ever get to the point where China is actually shooting down US spy satellites, I wouldn't worry about it much anyway, because we'd probably be in WW3.
The problem is, A) it's wasteful, and B) it's risky; brinksmanship can lead to actual conflict.
Yeah that might be true, but it sure seems convenient to me that there's this SDI to blame the fall of the soviet union on and make Reagan a hero. I mean come on, the Soviets were failing to keep up for a long time and if it was so obvious that it was bogus then they could have done a bogus copy that didn't work. So how would it bankrupt them again? Because they were too stupid to put on a dog and pony show instead of actually trying to build it? I mean do you really think the Soviets are so stupid.
Maybe if somebody could post some actual evidence that this was the goal of it and that it was actually the reason the ussr fell, say quotes from the national archives and some reports with numbers.
Time and isolation caught up with them. Reagan killing communism is just a wet dream some people have.
Since I already modded a different section of the topic, I'm forced to reply anonymously. I was thinking of just modding you as troll, but that would be incorrect - you're just flat out wrong.
The economy isn't tanking, but the overall population isn't benefiting. Median salary has increased by less than inflation in the last 5-6 years, while average salary has gone up. Employees are taking on more risks by having to pay larger health insurance premiums with larger deductibles. What does this mean? The wealthy are getting wealthier, the middle class is getting squeezed. Not the epitome of a tanking economy, but it ain't pretty either.
We don't have the capability of dealing with another war. According to the generals of the Army Reserve, we are at a breaking point with the troops - essentially, we can't stretch the troops any thinner than we are doing now without significantly lowering the quality of the overall force. Another war can only be fought by withdrawing troops from Iraq, which would mean we're essentially giving up on Iraq. Furthermore, just nuking a place is not a proper response either. You've apparently forgotten the saying "War is just diplomacy with other means." Nuking another country would mean we'd essentially be pariahs for the foreseeable future. Is that the price you want to pay? I suspect you'll be like every other warhawk who is now clamoring for a troop return because the war isn't working: too stupid to see the consequences of your actions, but not afraid of blaming others for when the chickens come home to roost.
We're not defenseless. But we're also incapable of dealing with a significant challenge in another country - not unless we just pull up shop and move the troops elsewhere. And don't forget that those troops have been redeployed at least once, and are probably on an 18 months tour right now. Life is indeed not bad. But if you think that we can do anything to Iran outside of diplomatic pressure, you're just as ignorant as Bush was when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. And the consequences would be similarly disastrous.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
It wasn't shocking to me personally...but it was shocking to a lot of folks in the West who fancy themselves "experts" in the capabilities and motivations of the Chinese...including the authors of the article cited. The same pundits who think China is still a land of rice farmers and bicycles when it is in actuality becoming quite the economic and military powerhouse paid for in large part by the generosity (or stupidity?) of the completely insane trade policies between China and the U.S. Personally, I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner...technologically it's not that difficult for a nation that has already figured out ICBMs and, as I stated previously, such an accomplishment really only takes money and will since the rocket technology is well-known and suitable guidance systems are practically commodities these days. I think the timing was chosen to coincide with a time of American weakness around the world...to usher in an era of "Here we are, take notice" by the Chinese.
In the end, it's more shocking that it is shocking to anyone...shows the level of ignorance that permeates the folks whose job it is to actually know about this kind of stuff. But that seems to be a re-occurring theme as of late here the States...*sigh*
"however USSR never "tried" to make its own Star Wars hardware."
Well, at the time it was widely believed that they did.
See "Soviet Star Wars", Time Magazine, Monday October 14, 1985:
"While few people doubt that the Soviets have an aggressive program comparable to SDI and have scored impressive advances in basic technology, some critics -- even within the Pentagon -- point out that translating those achievements into battle-ready equipment is a very long step."
and
"Soviet efforts to develop laser beams as warhead-killing weapons 'would cost roughly $1 billion per year (to duplicate) in the U.S.'"
This doesn't mean that the Soviet Union was actually doing all these things; it does mean that the CIA believed they were. Of course, with the CIA's track record on predictions... (and sure, some of that could well have been to boost US willingness to spend. Absolutely).
It might well be that some people pushed SDI/Star Wars to bankrupt the Soviet Union, but I tend to doubt that's why Reagan backed it. (It also sounds a bit like post-hoc justification, to be honest).
Reagan was a 'big idea' guy. It seemed pretty clear at the time that he really thought nuclear weapons were evil, and wanted to eliminate them if he could. I remember conservatives quietly fuming at what they regarded as strategic naivete on his part.
-Holmwood
"You see, we could afford to build all that stuff . . ."
Considering the fact that we haven't paid off any of the national debt we accumulated in those days, I think the question of whether or not we could afford it remains to be seen. It will be rather ironic if, after congratulating ourselves for 20 years about "winning" the cold war, we end up bankrupting ourselves due to debt financed military spending.
And now, a few guys living in caves have figured out how to trick us into an increase in spending on homeland security (and other nonsense) which will have a similar effect on our economy.
Have gnu, will travel.
In some cases, the good are the strong, and the strong are the good. If that frightens you, maybe you're not a part of either group.
If you aren't frightened by people that confuse strength with righteousness, then you almost certainly can't be counted amongst be the righteous. Might doesn't not make right, nor does it prove it.
The winner is not always the just, but history will do its best to remember them that way.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I don't know... me working for lazy people's gain seems fairly evil to me. Maybe it's just Ayn Rand talking though.
I don't know... me letting people starve in the street 'cause I consider them lazy seems fairly evil to me. Maybe it's just Jesus talking though.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").