Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

939 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Space Beams (5, Insightful)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768285)

Sure the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) has a low-orbit only kill-vehicle now, but how long before it has an Electron Beam Device [slashdot.org] that can annihilate a person playing golf or taking a shower (possibly with company)?

Re:Space Beams (1, Funny)

1SmartOne (744638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768298)

I for one welcome our new space weapon overlords.

Re:Space Beams (5, Funny)

CleverNickedName (644160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768354)

Sure the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) has a low-orbit only kill-vehicle now, but how long before it has an Electron Beam Device that can annihilate a person playing golf or taking a shower (possibly with company)?

I'm sure there's some sort of reflective headgear you could wear to protect against this.

Mod Parent Up (0, Redundant)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768405)

Clearly a clever tin-foil-hat joke! Good on ya!! :-)

Re:Space Beams (1, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768481)

Have you not watched "Real Genius"?

The bad side of course... (5, Interesting)

Biotech9 (704202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768296)

...is it could be the start of a new cold war, or at least cause some countries to get a little nervous about the U.S.

Specifically, China.

Re:The bad side of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768327)

Acutally this would be the end of any new war (cold or otherwise) - if we had a massive space based weapon system, why would anyone even want to start something? It is the ultimate trump card.

I fully support this endeavor.

Re:The bad side of course... (5, Insightful)

Biotech9 (704202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768431)

Thats insanely short sighted.

If I remember correctly, one of the co-inventors of the first nuke was quoted as saying that it would mean the end of war, as noone would be crazy enough to use it.

Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.

Re:The bad side of course... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768521)

Repeating history, are we?

The sad thing is that if we were the only one with all this, it probably would be true. But the real problem is that as soon as we develop something, we sell it to our enemies. They have no real need to steal all this. They can just get cozy with the right politician and then get money or dollars. Consider that W gave the taliban 10 Millions dollars in april 2001. Where do you think that it went.

Re:The bad side of course... (4, Funny)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768333)

The first thing I thought of when I read your post was: Why would China worry? GWBush couldn't find them on a map.

This is very bad in my opinion but what has this administration done that isn't bad?

Administration hasn't done anything bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768393)

This administration hasn't done anything bad, unless you are Saddam Hussein of course. In just about every respect, their policies are much better than those of the Clinton administration.

Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (3, Troll)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768426)

Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)

Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support

Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression

Clinton: Good
Bush: Bad

It is that simple. Restore Integrity my ass.

Bush in Iraq (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768453)

"Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support"

Ahem. The large coalition has more than 50 countries in it. It is larger than the first Gulf War coalition. It has a lot of international support.

Re:Bush in Iraq (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768532)

50 countries... but many of those countries are actually offering no support and simply put their name on the list as to not offend the USA. I don't have the list offhand, but it includes countries that simply cannot offer support, such as Ethiopia.

Re:Bush in Iraq (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768539)

> Ahem. The large coalition has more than 50 countries in it. It is larger than the first Gulf War coalition. It has a lot of international support.

You. Mus. Be. Kidding.

US/UK have no coalition behind. War in irak have no international support.

The "50" countries is just PR from white house. Only US vessels.

Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768517)

Clinton: Tax dollars from dot-com bubble that later bursts because he failed to reign in corrupt corporations with inflated values.
Bush: See above for deep dive in supposed "surplus". Though I disagree with many spending policies.

Clinton: UN backing? What are you smoking Go read news articles from back then.
Bush: 40 nation coalition just isn't enough? Only if France says go?

Clinton: Did nothing to keep the Reagan era policies that allowed such expansion to take place. Failed to enact policies to prevent overinflated corporate valuation leading to inevitable collapse of the market.
Bush: Present when Clinton-era corruption collapses, then post-9/11. Enacted tax cut policy that stimulated growth. Economy bounces back from terrible scandal and god-awful attack on home soil, a decade shorter than Roosevelt policy ever did for the Depression. Last 7 months, economy sees 765,000 new jobs created.

Clinton: Did nothing
Bush: Does everything.

Re:The bad side of course... (2, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768395)

Not just bad, expensive. We've spent billions of dollars on an unnecessary war, and now we're going to spend billions more on unnecessary weapons to act as a deterrent? What about education, and jobs for Americans?

Re:The bad side of course... (-1, Troll)

mi (197448) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768458)

We've spent billions of dollars on an unnecessary war...

Forcing a rogue regime down for violating an earlier peace agreement with us was quite necessary. It makes our future engagements with such regimes easier...

What about education, and jobs for Americans?

Neither of these should be the business of the government in my book. Sadly, both major parties disagree...

Re:The bad side of course... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768440)

pussy

Re:The bad side of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768466)

...is it could be the start of a new cold war, or at least cause some countries (Read: China) to get a little nervous about the U.S.

Just fixing your post for you

not (4, Informative)

AnonymousCowheart (646429) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768297)

not forbidden, but looks like it may be:
" In concluding, I would like to stress that efforts to achieve a ban on the weaponization of outer space must continue so as to protect the space assets of all nations in the interests of international peace and security."

Re:not (1, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768342)

but it's not "outer space", it's "near-Earth space".

anyway, since when does America's word mean anything?

I see nothing wrong with it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768301)

Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets examine this. China is wanting to go into space. Do we REALLY want China to be the first ones with space weapons pointing back at us?

Honestly think about it for a bit.

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (1, Funny)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768312)

You are correct sir. It is the wolf you don't see that you must fear.

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (4, Insightful)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768361)

Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets examine this. China is wanting to go into space. Do we REALLY want China to be the first ones with space weapons pointing back at us?

We'll have a space weapons gap!

Why not negotiate a treaty to keep weapons out of space without a global threat, as determined by the UN? Well, that would just be UnAmerican. We should just put weapons up there. That'll show those commie bastards.

Even to the most hawkish, another cold war can't be that appealing. Why not nip it in the bud?

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768377)

Ahh, yes, like the treaty that North Korea signed promising not to build nuclear weapons if we (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) gave him two nuclear reactors?

You can always trust evil dictators!

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768508)

Maybe because some of us don't want to legislate away technical progress.

If we can divert some of the world's military budgets into space & tech research, then we damn well better do it. It's not like the government is chomping at the bit to pour money into space otherwise these days.

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (-1, Flamebait)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768369)

what makes you think China wants to put weapons in space?

oh yes- racism.

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (4, Informative)

SuperMario666 (588666) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768512)

Newsflash: While the USA is certainly no innocent on the geopolitical scene, China is a communist dictatorship that has a history of invading its neighbors - think Tibet (1949), South Korea (1951) and Vietnam (1979) and Taiwan (200?).

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (4, Insightful)

Richthofen80 (412488) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768515)

weapons in space are used to counter weapons that travel through space to reach intended targets. China has weapons that travel through space, so to say that we are being racist or judgemental is false. there is a real threat by weapons that travel through space, and china has those weapons.

To say that china has an amicable relationship with the US is false. they crashed a jet into a radar plane of ours, and we had to do some real legwork to get the crew back.

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768455)


Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets get on with some good old fasioned typical knee-jerk China-Bashing.
If China is wanting to go to space. Do we REALLY think China would go through the effort of putting them in space when they could just fire them at the USA from the ground.
I mean *IT IS* the US here who could feel theatened by this...or Taiwan. No, no, it must be the US because its an xenophobic yank bringing it up!

Re:I see nothing wrong with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768484)

You must be working for the US public relations department, the memo you didn't get, mentioned that China isn't to be a target of US insecurities and FUD until the war chest can accomodate and put up in orbits, USA's own superweapon first as an excuse to get it up there.

That's Because (4, Interesting)

technomancerX (86975) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768304)

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this

Re:That's Because (-1, Offtopic)

1SmartOne (744638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768352)

why is parent flamebait? don't want to start a political arguement?

I think that it's a perfectly good observation. Someone in US gov has been waiting for the future so that they just might have this opp.

I'll start to get worried when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768365)

I'll start to get worried when those wacky americans decide that the best way to fight terror is to put deadly lasers in sharks... Let's not forget the lessons from tv people!

Re:That's Because (3, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768462)

From what I heard, there is only one actual weapon in space right now: it's a pistol aboard the Soyuz escape capsule on the ISS. You never know - might land _way_ off-course.

Personally, I think it would be nice to keep it that way.

Re:That's Because (4, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768492)

EXACTLY!

People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.

The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.

Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.

Not forbidden? (4, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768305)

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.

I think (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768308)

taht asd

Yea! (-1, Troll)

evil-osm (203438) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768310)

Lets blow each other up. When will we realize that we don't need to do this crap and stop feeding our public fud regarding other cultures. Oh and the argument that we need this for protection is bullshit. God I hate this shit, just makes my stomach turn.

Wrong. (5, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768318)

From a quick Google search: The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, outlawing "the appropriation of space" by any nation, bans orbiting vehicles bearing nuclear weapons. Earliest negotiations between the superpowers on arms limitations, SALT I, resulted in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The ABM Treaty forbids missile defense shields such as Ronald Reagan's 1983 Star Wars initiative. Likewise, it outlaws the Ballistic Missile Defense boondoggle currently under development. The two space technology programs have cost taxpayers over $100 billion dollars and if pursued, could cost $250 billion more. But Russia says Nyet"to abrogating or amending the ABM Treaty to permit "space defenses."

Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).

Re:Wrong. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768349)

Did the submitter even read the link he posted? From the link: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979. Both Treaties are not yet universally accepted. While the Outer Space Treaty has 96 parties, only 9 States have ratified the Moon Treaty. Further accessions to both Treaties are essential to ensure the validity of the regime and I urge those States that have not yet done so to adhere to both Treaties as soon as possible.

Re:Wrong. (2, Informative)

bcolflesh (710514) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768357)

Full text of Treaty [state.gov]

The States (1, Funny)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768376)

... is going to end up like Nazi Germany and The Roman Empire, if they keep going against the UN. This weaponizing of space is clearly in violation of this UN treaty; and Slashdot missed this? I for one recommend Mr Rumsfeld step down from his administrative duties at Slashdot! And this could be the start of the next cold war. *sigh*

Re:The States (4, Informative)

BReflection (736785) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768425)

You can't violate a treaty you haven't signed.

Ahh... (1)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768437)

You might be right! :-)

Re:The States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768482)

You can still be held to account for your actions tho. Take the japanese treatment of POWs during WW2 as an example - they'd never signed the geneva convention. Doesn't make it right.

Re:The States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768506)

"You can still be held to account for your actions tho"

This discussion is about the ABM treaty (which Bush withdrew from in accordance with the actual rules of the ABM treaty), and Kyoto.

Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries. There is nothing wrong with ignoring (not signing) this one.

Re:The States (1, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768516)

As it seems only the US takes pride in enforcing unilateral agreements on people.

Sickening.

Re:The States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768533)

Yeah, US takes pride in screwing other people simply because we are mean, mean motherfuckers.
If only US was to disapear , the world would suddenly enter a new era in cooperation and peace.

Does not follow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768428)

"is going to end up like Nazi Germany and The Roman Empire, if they keep going against the UN"

This does not follow. If Nazi Germany existed today, they would be a good member of the UN (probably head of the UN human rights commission) which would deem the Holocaust to be an "internal affair". The UN would then send inspectors to Auschwitz. They'd investigate for 3 years, and come back and say that they saw nothing wrong there.

Re:Does not follow (1)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768474)

> They'd investigate for 3 years, and come back and say that they saw nothing wrong there.

if(WMDs == 0) $US = 'fullashit';

Re:Wrong. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768530)

Where ever you got that from is false. The ABM treaty does NOT forbid a missle shield. Only a nationwide shield.

You can read the entire treaty here [fas.org] . Article 3 is quite clear when it says

Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components except that:

(a) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and centered on the Partys national capital, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, and (2) ABM radars within no more than six ABM radar complexes, the area of each complex being circular and having a diameter of no more than three kilometers; and
(b) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and containing ICBM silo launchers, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, (2) two large phased-array ABM radars comparable in potential to corresponding ABM radars operational or under construction on the date of signature of the Treaty in an ABM system deployment area containing ICBM silo launchers, and (3) no more than eighteen ABM radars each having a potential less than the potential of the smaller of the above-mentioned two large phased-array ABM radars.

We're doomed... (4, Funny)

PrintError (708568) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768319)

NASA and the USAF have joined forces to place two hundred Spud guns in orbit! GotSpud [gotspud.com]

If it keeps America safe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768321)

If putin wepons in spac kees Amerika safe frm raghead towl bunnies its good

bless bush

Where are the inspectors now? (0, Troll)

CleverNickedName (644160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768323)

Someone really should search the U.S. fro WMDs.

I keep thinking... (2, Funny)

gkuz (706134) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768324)

whenever I see "[whatever] in Space" of the old Muppets "Pigs in Spaaaaace!" .

so? if there are (1, Funny)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768485)

Pigs in Spaaaaace!

You mean, there gonna send all the politicians and lawyers into space?

BTW, IAAL

Weapons in Space... (3, Insightful)

hookedup (630460) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768325)


Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..

We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.

Re:Weapons in Space... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768475)

>We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.

Darwinism at its best?

moD up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768332)

CR4ymond in his

weapons in space (1)

xyr0 (678756) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768336)

It is forbidden to put nuclear weapons into space but in the end we still dont know if the US is going to respect international treaties.

Space Arms (1)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768339)

No International Law YET governs the deployment of arms in space. In the even that space tourism & travel catches on, I'm sure we'll see more regluation on where such devices may fly, much like warships on the seas now.

My question is, should such travel become common, do my State & Federal (SD, US) rights to carry arms permit me to carry my OWN arms into space on my own craft?

Re:Space Arms (3, Interesting)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768434)

Your state and federal rights apply inside your state and federation, not in space. If international law decides that a craft is governed by it's owners nations laws, then you might have a point, but as far as i know, there are no such laws.

It's going to happen anyway... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768340)

... so it might as well be us that gets there first. And by "us" I mean the USA, because quite frankly, compared to Communist China, we're the good guys. Same goes for Putin and the Russians.

-1, typical anti-American Slashdot tripe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768344)

So fucking what, if it wasn't the USA first it would be China, or Russia. The fact is, the Americans are the innovators and the rest follow. This is no different. I look forward to the day when an American can be looking down at the Middle East and say "I say we nuke the site from low orbit. It's the only way to be sure"

Privacy? (2, Insightful)

Hekatchu (684465) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768348)

I guess therell be for instance space-to-space and space-to-air and space-to-ground weapons. We should be mostly worried about those aimed space-to-ground since their development are directly targetted to humans and their privacy, even at the peaceful time. Wether we can prevent the militarization of space is more like "Kioto" kind of question ... so Ill say not possible at the moment.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768464)

And the obvious follow on: ground-to-space and air-to-space weapons. If space is shooting at us, we are going to shoot back, no?

Didn't Salyut 3 do this first? (4, Interesting)

jeff.paulsen (6195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768358)

There have been persistent rumors that Salyut-3 had a 23mm autocannon mounted, and occasional denials.

On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.

Ronnie Ray-gun. Beam weapons = a waste of money (3, Interesting)

shoppa (464619) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768367)

Most of the money goes to beam weapons of one kind of another. Still (and probably forever) Flash Gordon technology.

Kinetic energy weapons are probably useful, but testing and re-use are extremely difficult things in the harsh space environment.

If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.

Re:Ronnie Ray-gun. Beam weapons = a waste of money (1)

CoolGopher (142933) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768412)

If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.

Only if you're prepared to fly backwards rather uncontrollably for a while...

Weapons ARE banned from orbit (some of them anyho) (2, Interesting)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768375)

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.

So, pretty much any military activity in space is banned by THAT treaty. Okay so not everyone accepts it, but then the US not accepting the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean no-one else is going to uphold it.

America... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768391)

What they are doing, is getting ready to take over the world. I mean how the hell can you-- :: half of Michigan blows up ::

Our sources say... (5, Funny)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768392)

"Mars has recently sought significant quantities of urainum, from Africa."

blech

CB

If we didn't have weapons in space (2, Funny)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768398)

How would we defend against the Gouald? The Asguard weren't arround last time they attacked, and the only help we got from the rebel Jaffa was Bra'tac. The Tok'ra were naturally ignoring us, if it wasnt for the F302 and X303 (And a little help from O'Neill) we'd have been deadified. The no weapons in space or Antarctica agreements work against the whole world.

MOD PARENT DOWN DOWN DOWN !!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768478)

The braindeadness of the TV series quoted matches the lameness of your post.
Unfortunately, you cannot mod people down to -2147483648 "Fucking Stoopid".

Soviet Weapons (4, Interesting)

Detritus (11846) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768399)

The Soviets have already deployed offensive weapons in space. A large calibre cannon was included on the Salyut-3 space station. In tests, it is reported to have destroyed a target satellite during testing.

Not exactly. (3, Interesting)

Shoten (260439) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768403)

From the link in the post itself, for the article, which claims to demonstrate that weapons aren't prohibited in any way in space...

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.

Treaties? (0, Flamebait)

perly-king-69 (580000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768404)

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

...and the US give shit about international treaties?

Re:Treaties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768507)

When you are an American, all foreigners are terrorists.

suborbital - the root of all evil (1)

S3D (745318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768408)

I don't think the militraization of the space could be prevented until ballistic missiles outlawed. If ballistic missiles, including medium-range forbidden there wouldn't be exuse for space based weapon. While a lot of ballistic missiles are around space based antimissile system coud be considered a legitimate defence.

Re:suborbital - the root of all evil (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768503)

Never forget:



IF BALLISTIC MISSILES ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE BALLISTIC MISSILES !



Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Global Defense Initative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768409)

That should sort out the Brotherhood of NOD. How cool was Kane by the way.

Cool! (0, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768410)

Frankly, I say why not? To say that putting weapons in space is "disrespectful of other cultures" is just stupid. Why is it that every culture has a right of respect but the U.S.? If this will deter some maniac from shooting an ICBM over my way I'm all for it. Further, if it means we can pluck Bin Laden off the shitter, I'm all for it.

Weren't these there already? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768413)

Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?

sea bass? (1)

bwy (726112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768423)

Well, our enemies already have ill-tempered sea bass with frickin' laser beams. Seems the next logical step is for us to put weapons in orbit capable of neutralizing this horrible threat.

Momentum (1)

secondsun (195377) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768424)

The problem I see with weapons in space (and was wondering if someone here could help me) is that when you shoot a bullet in orbit the gun goes backwards relationally to the bullet it sends foward. So how can any reasonable weapons system maintain accuracy if it moves several miles between shots?

Re:Momentum (3, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768510)

Aside from my doubts that the force imparted by a bullet on a multi-ton object would cause it to move a few miles between shots at the same target...

Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.

When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed.... (2, Insightful)

Steve B (42864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768427)

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?

WiS (Weapons in Space) (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768435)

Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space.

This guy must not have been alive during the cold way. I don't care what the nuclear space ban treay says, I am positive both the USA AND USSR put nukes in space during the cold war. That also includes ani-satelite satelites.

"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already"

I get the feeling I have heard this before. Mainly from people who believe something to be impossible right before someone else goes and does it. Besides, at some point someone will put some form of weapon in space, I just don't know what kind. The question I have is, who is going to be the police?

Movie? Reality? (1)

VBJonC (576871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768436)

Vaporizing a human target from space? and all this time I thought 'Real Genius' was just a movie

Is it really not forbidden? (2, Funny)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768443)

Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.

I thought it was forbidden by the Brannigan's law and the Democratic Order of Planets.

This is necessary (4, Interesting)

kjdames (588423) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768445)

It's a vicious circle - [insert country name here] needs to have this because if we don't, [insert country name here] will.

Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...

Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.

Star Wars (2, Funny)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768450)

I suspect we've had weapons in space for some time. Reagan cut the Star Wars project budget at a time of its exponential growth ... why? Probably so that we didn't have to keep public all the vast improvements we were making in the field of lasers.

Why go back to the moon? Because in military conflict higher ground gives you an advantage. Why build a space station when we're already got a natural space station that orbits us already?

rant,rant,rant..

Here's the problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768476)

We know that other nations are getting to be space-capable. Are we just to trust that they won't put weapons up there? Has China really got that great a record with respecting human rights? And do we really think that Pakistan/India wouldn't put a weapon system up if the other was suspected of having one?

The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.

Wait for it... (3, Funny)

colonelteddy (556564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768490)

What about if i put a giant "Laser" on the moon??
I plan to turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star"

Anti-Weapon Weapons anyone? (2, Insightful)

shepd (155729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8768491)

Seems to me this would be pointless if any other country launched a weapon-destroying weapon, which, of course, will be the next progression in the arms race. I say stop this now before there's so much exploded space junk up there that we can't launch any more spaceships.

Not Forbidden by any treaty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768511)

How about common sense?

Anyone else remember that episode of cowboy bebop:-)

Oblig. quote from Dr. Evil (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768514)

"Fire the laser!"

hilarious... LOL (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8768527)

> Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden
> by any treaty or law.

Even if there was a law, the US would not abide
it. Just have a look at the invasion in Iraq.
Its just one stack of lies.
In my opinion the US needs yet another Vietnam
humiliation. The last humiliation is more or less
30 years old, so we might need a new one.

Cheers!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>