Weaponization of Space

[SSG Paul]

GlobalSecurity Article

What do you think? Is weapons in space the next step? Or should it be a "no weapons zone". I don't think there's anyhting that can be done to stop this.

4 interesting parts of the article:

"Pentagon scenarios for war in space go far beyond shooting down missiles that threaten the U.S. homeland. They call for airborne and orbiting weapons that could attack targets anywhere on Earth at virtually any moment. They call for weapons that could defend U.S. space armaments or satellites while blinding or destroying those of any potential adversary. They call, in short, for the United States to dominate warfare's ultimate high ground, potentially locking in U.S. military superiority for decades to come. "

"America's closest competitor in space is China, which has an ambitious military program and a vigorous commercial launch business. China is developing military satellites and several types of antisatellite weapons, according to China analysts. "

"If America doesn't weaponize space, an enemy will," according to Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which manages the spy satellites. "

"U.S. space power appears to be developing much in the way air power did. Airplanes in World War I were used first for reconnaissance and communications. Machine guns were added for self-defense and to attack enemy airplanes. Later, bombs and missiles were developed so that airplanes could protect troops and attack targets on the ground. "

 

[gael]

Its inevitable, but hopefully it will push into development more space technologies that can be used in a positive way.

It could also be good for blasting that asteroid that scientests say is enevitable to hit earth one day.

 

[shirleyrocks]

International law already prohibits some forms of space weaponry (weapons of mass destruction and nuclear-powered spacecraft are specifically mentioned) but, as gael says, I would think the militarization is, unfortunately, all but inevitable. The U.S. Air Force has already been developing satellite based offensive and defensive lasers for quite some time now.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by SSG Paul
"If America doesn't weaponize space, an enemy will," according to Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which manages the spy satellites. "

Which is always nice to say, but it won't detract from the fact that America was first. Particularly if we can't POINT to the Chinese and say "See, they were gonna do it so we had to do it first"

The satellites in space are a strategic necessity and absolutely need protection; conversely, the enemies satellites are superb targets.


The 'no weapons zone' sounds silly, because even casual knowledge of history will remind us the only way to enforce peace is to deter war. No reason to give the advantage to anyone that would break the rules.

 

[metalhead]

Whoever does it first can maintain pure military superiority. What's to stop, say, the US from deploying all manner of satellites, capable of holding complete SDI systems and integrated attack platforms before anyone else, and then holding the world hostage? If they can defend against missiles, it stands to reason that they can shoot down other satellites that are being launched, and it could be China that gets there first.

The implications of weaponizing space are chilling, to say the least.

 

[Stile]

Once something like this (space weapons) becomes a topic of public concern, you can believe it has already happened or is imminent. I suspect there are already space weapons as I suspect there already was a working missile shield in place when Bush withdrew from the treaty banning it. It is easier to ask for forgiveness (or permission after the fact) than permission.

 

[G-Man]

I don't think there's any way to stop it - as history shows, morality doesn't stand in the way of technology, especially not in the way of military technology. I'm not so worried about it though. Satellites are already vulnerable - nearly every nation with a nuke has the ability to explode it at space or at very high altitudes. And space based weapons are currently within the reach of the US and within a decade or so of europe. Both of them don't frighten me. And space based weapons are infact of little use for other countries - the US and europe are nearly the only ones interested in fighting all around the world, which is the space weapon's greatest advantage.

 

[SSG Paul]

Originally posted by G-Man
I don't think there's any way to stop it - as history shows, morality doesn't stand in the way of technology, especially not in the way of military technology. I'm not so worried about it though. Satellites are already vulnerable - nearly every nation with a nuke has the ability to explode it at space or at very high altitudes. And space based weapons are currently within the reach of the US and within a decade or so of europe. Both of them don't frighten me. And space based weapons are infact of little use for other countries - the US and europe are nearly the only ones interested in fighting all around the world, which is the space weapon's greatest advantage.

China is more evolved in this area than Europe (the article says China is #2). Russia has the technology know-how, but lacks the money.

Metalhead, I guess the same could be said when the US was the only nuclear power, but we did not abuse it.

Graedius. The "no weapons zone" was just a paraphrase of the article. I agree with your post.

Gael, good point, we don't want to face the threat that made the dinos extinct.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by SSG Paul
China is more evolved in this area than Europe (the article says China is #2). Russia has the technology know-how, but lacks the money.

China is more advanced in some fields but europe is more high tech which means they'll actually have something useful to put in space. Also, as I said, europeans have an interest in putting a weapon in space while China don't.

 

[Pongui]

Peter Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office
If America doesn't weaponize space, an enemy will.

If Peter Teets doesn't brandish a revolver on the subway, and enemy will.

 

[SSG Paul]

Originally posted by G-Man


China is more advanced in some fields but europe is more high tech which means they'll actually have something useful to put in space. Also, as I said, europeans have an interest in putting a weapon in space while China don't.

I think China would like to counter the US, and that is their reason. The article said China probably has anti-satellite weapons. The reason I'm guessing is to counter US/Russia. If we can stop the threat of their anti-satellite weapons from space, then I would think China would want to counter that.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Who needs allies when you can rain fire on any part of the world at any time?? It's the ideal solution to this "diplomacy" problem that Bush seems to have so much trouble with.

Hell, why doesn't he bomb the USA too? That would get rid of the "economy" problem, the "poor people who want my help" problem, and the "managing to get re-elected when I turned the nation into a cesspit and two other nations into smoking rubble" problem too.

 

[phoenix_night]

I really believe there has to be some sort of diplomatic agreement concerning this topic. I don't think it's a good idea and it has to be severely limited.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by SSG Paul
I think China would like to counter the US, and that is their reason. The article said China probably has anti-satellite weapons. The reason I'm guessing is to counter US/Russia. If we can stop the threat of their anti-satellite weapons from space, then I would think China would want to counter that.

China would like to engage the US, but is capable of two kinds of engagement:
Local war in China and it's serrounding countries
Nuclear exchanges with ICBMs

In both cases there's no need for the space weapon's main importance of being able to create small scale attacks around the world. In a local conflict they can put every weapons system in a plane instead of in space, and thus have it cheaper and available for longer periods of time. In a nuclear exchange the nukes will create destruction that'll make the satellite weapons look like a joke.
As to I said before, an anti satellite weapon is usually just a nuke mounted on top of a missile and exploding in space. The US's anti missile systems are far from being capable of stopping such missiles, and when they will be able to they'll probably do it with energy weapons which I don't think the Chinese have a clue how to stop.

 

[onejayhawk]

This is one area where you can get almost uiversal agreement: NO SPACE WEAPONS. The basic points were detailed in the 1960's by RAHeinlein in his bookThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Other science fiction writers, notably the ones with physics and engineering backgrounds have had a fascination with exploring the possibilities of space based weapons.

For example in Niven's Footfall the alien invaders made antitank weapons out of crowbar sized hunks of asteroid iron and a radio controlled explosive charge. With a computer calculated precision blast, the metal would fall from orbit, heat up on reentry and land with devestating results on whatever was underneath, ie tanks. Later in the book they put their figurative foot down, by dropping a smallasteroid into the Indian ocean, which sent a wave all the way to the Himalias, and killed a quarter billion people.

This is one of the reasons we are still using rockets to put packages into space. The electromagnetic slingshot, railgun if you prefer, method of putting things into orbit is probably quite feasible now. Gerard On'Neil was doing lab sized prototypes at Princeton in the 1970's. If we built one, and the dedicated nuclear plant to power it, we could be sending material into space at a few dollars per kilo rather than many thousand. Building one that could put manned capules into space is probably not out of reach. They have not been built, and will not be. What can be put in orbit, can also be put just short of orbit, and the computercould probably drop it in any city on earth. A two ton rock would land like a Hiroshima grade nuke, without the hard radiation and fallout.

Yikes. The terrorist possibilities are mindblowing.

J

PS Col is probably more up on the literature than I am. This was a coffee klatsch subject in my school days.

PPS I believe that putting weapon platforms in space would be treated as an act of war by both US and EU. That is how serious this is taken.

 

[G-Man]

Today's computers still don't allow for anything nearly as precise. How they'll fal apart, etc, is not something we can predict. Just look at any time they send a satellite out of orbit - it should land "somewhere in the pacific ocean".

 

[Pongui]

Satellites aren't built for controlled descent. Missiles are.

 

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by G-Man

As to I said before, an anti satellite weapon is usually just a nuke mounted on top of a missile and exploding in space. The US's anti missile systems are far from being capable of stopping such missiles, and when they will be able to they'll probably do it with energy weapons which I don't think the Chinese have a clue how to stop.

Actually, an anti-satellite weapon can be a bunch of space junk released on the right (or wrong if it's your satellite) vector.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus
Actually, an anti-satellite weapon can be a bunch of space junk released on the right (or wrong if it's your satellite) vector.

It would be easier to just shoot a missile from earth than to try to control spcace junk.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Satellites aren't built for controlled descent. Missiles are.

So why not just use a regular ICBM with nukes on it and get the same results?