×

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!

US Ready to put Weapons in Space

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the deploy-the-space-laser-cannons dept.

United States 1023

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'." If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1023 comments

Ah yes, the Guardian (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757272)

The paper that tried to directly influence the United State Presidential election [cnn.com] and called for the assassination of the President [upn33.com]. I'm sure they're not biased at all.

Regardless, we should be ready to do it when it's necessary. China isn't getting into space to study science.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757358)

Do you fucking understand that being biased doesn't mean you can't also tell the truth at the same time?

Facts can be biased if you're on the "wrong side" of them. That's not the fact's fault.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757405)

By highlighting some facts over others, you can also show bias. If I tell you that substance A is poisonous, but not that it only kills 1 in 5 billion, that is bias.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (-1, Troll)

timster (32400) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757529)

No, that is LYING. I have a dictionary, you know. The thing is, the word "poison" happens to mean something. If you use that word to refer to something that kills one in five billion but otherwise has no ill effects, you are not telling the truth at all.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (5, Insightful)

boringgit (721801) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757426)

The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it. I don't like it, or read it, but I do respect the quality of writing.

In truth though, is attempting to influence the result of an election in another country wrong? If the Washington Post was to print a series of anti Blair articles in the run up to the UK elections, would that be wrong? I can't see how...

Assasination - fair enough - stupid thing to print - shoddy editorial staff for not picking it up before it went to press.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (5, Insightful)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757433)

China isn't getting into space to study science.
Bullshit.

I think the whole "if someone tries to advance it's economy / technology / society it's a danger to us"-thinking pretty dangerious and provoking which you imply relating to the subject. In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757467)

The United States' motivation, and every other country's motivation, should be to protect itself and its citizens. If another country will be able to threaten you, then you have the right to prepare for that. They haven't put anything into space, they're simply readying themselves for the day they may have to.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757488)

In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.

No one needs to assume that, the historical record bears it out well. Maintaining hegemony is the #1 American priority, over all else.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757443)

China isn't getting into space to study science.

I would suggest it is more of an issue of national pride.

China isn't militarizing Antarctica, yet they've been there for a few years with science projects.

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (2, Interesting)

nordicfrost (118437) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757449)

The paper that tried to directly influence the United State Presidential election and called for the assassination of the President. I'm sure they're not biased at all.

Yup, Europeans like me. I wrote to three persons in Clark county, Ohio and explained them who this election affects much, much more than themselves and why Bush is a bad republican. There are good republicans and bad ones, you know. I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.

China isn't getting into space to study science.

Neither was USA or USSR. So?

Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (1)

EasyComputer (797633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757472)

Yea they are biased. Everything is biased, everything is written by people who have their own opinions, that's life. Hehe, I thought you meant regardless, we should be ready to assassinate. No, its not flamebait, please don't attack me your high moderatorship.

No Violations Here (5, Insightful)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757277)

I'd like to point out that space superiority does not necessarily mean the militarization of space. Already, the presence and testing of ICBMs skirts the issue, and so, too would many other technologies.

That's not that I agree that this should be a direction we want to go, I'm just pointing out that the treaty isn't worth much. To me the millitary objective of space is right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas.

Re:No Violations Here (4, Interesting)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757361)

You've got a point.

From the treaty;
Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.


I guess destroying some other nations satellite would not count as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's a crappy idea. I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.

Re:No Violations Here (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757505)

I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.

It won't happen.

It's just people showing off power, nothing more. Think of it as the equivalent of nukes -- sure, a lot of countries have nukes -- but we still do not see us wiping each other out.

True, it's a threat - but there is a BIG difference between something being a threat and the realization of that threat.

It's just a game of power. Not quite unlike the cold war, only more complicated than that.

Re:No Violations Here (1)

DanteBlack (656808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757454)

...right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas

Which has always been a bad idea. "Star Wars" simply doesn't implement well. Consider that if it could prevent 90% of a full-scale attack the payload of current nuclear weaons is so great that it wouldn't matter. Moreover what are the repercusions of nuelear fallout in space? M.A.D. is a reality and the world can no longer bear a full-scale world war. We demonstrated the awesome and terrible power of nuclear weapons in WWII, do we need to see how far they've come since then in a "practical" application?

Re:No Violations Here (1)

Allen Zadr (767458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757504)

That's a very good point. Just because it's been reported that ICBM warheads can't be set off through external means, doesn't mean that it's true. Further, it would seem likely that those safeguards (if existing) would be disabled guaranteeing a large-scale nuclear explosion if a missile is attacked in flight.

surprise? (1)

RIP (3540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757284)

Anyone who's actually surprised? :(

Re:surprise? (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757328)

Not in the least.

The only thing I hope for is that it'll somehow trickle down and get us off this planet and colonizing space faster.

Re:surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757392)

Suprised? Yes.
I know space is black, but that doesn't mean it is made of oil, does it?

Military Welfare... (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757289)


... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?

This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.

Re:Military Welfare... (2, Insightful)

The_Hun (693418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757397)

"...then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy."
Isn't it more simple to give that money to consumers/companies etc.? Or still better leave it at the people, they are far better at "trickling it down" - and much fewer humans die in the process.

Re:Military Welfare... (1)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757458)


Of course but that's not the way a military based economy works. You pump billions into the military (which employs a lot of people that would otherwise be unemployed), then when the research is done private companies market the products back to the government. It worked for the internet, right?

The Reason? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757300)

There are terrorists in space, duh!

Re:The Reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757382)

Maybe Saddam hid his weapons in Space.

Re:The Reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757453)

Yes!

Sadam Hussein put his WoMD and his close and personal friend, Osama bin Laden, into space. That's the link!

Even better, if we can claim that Sadam put his WoMD into space, then the treaty has already been violated, and the US are no longer the bad guys!

Does this surprise anyone? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757302)

America has never been shy of ignoring treaties or the wishes of the international community, when it comes to establishing and protecting its interests.

Put this in the pile next to Kyoto and the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, etc...

Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (5, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757303)

Oh, it's in violation of a treaty? I'm sure the Bush Administration will back off immediately once they find that out given their consistant respect for international law and unwavering dedication to peace in our time.

Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).

Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.

Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (2, Insightful)

erikvcl (43470) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757510)

I wish that the Terrorists believed that war wasn't worth fighting. I also wish that they didn't believe that killing innocents was the best way to further their cause.

Treaties (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757305)

Aren't there treaties banning weapons in space? I thought everyone agreed to only use space for peaceful exploration. Simmilar to what many countries are practicing in the Antarctic.

Re:Treaties (0, Redundant)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757371)

you didn't even need to read the article...just read the summary description!!!

"If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."

Summary == incorrect (4, Informative)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757412)

As is so often the case, the summary gets the facts wrong.

The treaty does NOT forbid the militarization of space. It forbids placement of weapons on celestial bodies, and it forbids nuclear and other 'WMD's from being placed in space.

Re:Summary == incorrect (1)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757497)

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers

ummm, actually i believe the 2nd restriction does in fact forbid militarization...

Another Notch... (-1, Redundant)

zx75 (304335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757310)

On the belt of American broken treaties and promises.

Re:Another Notch... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757425)

Due to the somewhat large number of notches in it, the belt has been replaced with a piece of string.

Re:Another Notch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757436)

On the belt of American broken treaties and promises.

Shut up, Tonto!

Re:Another Notch... (1)

zx75 (304335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757527)

Funny... I had forgotten about how you treated Native Americans. But, at least I guess that proves that YOU haven't forgotten about that shame.

Movie reference alert! (2, Funny)

kc0re (739168) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757312)

Um, bad movie where this happens. Under Seige 2 Superman... 3? There are many bad movie references I could make here.. Wasn't this the Star Wars program? Or part of it?

Re:Movie reference alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757462)


Real Genius, guys, Real Genius!

Don't forget... (3, Funny)

Gudlyf (544445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757513)

Don't forget Real Genius [imdb.com] with the huge, frickin' hotter-than-the-sun laser that could disintegrate a single human from space or, even more frighteningly, overcome a two-story home with a giant container of Jiffy Pop popcorn!

Go, USA! (-1, Flamebait)

Theovon (109752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757313)

It looks like the US government is finally getting sick of all these emasculation attempts by the UN.

Not to say that the US is a LOT more trustworthy than most other countries when it comes to weaponry, but I live there, so I feel safer.

Of course, I'd be much more comfortable with the UK or Germany or Canada or even Japan having space weapons than, say, middle-east fundamentalists or North Korea.

Re:Go, USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757349)

Them damn peacenik UN commies! If they'd had their way, we'd never have found all those WMD's in Iraq! We'd still be having inspections, Saddam Hussein would still be contained for $2 billion a year and a thousand US soldiers and countless Iraqis would still be alive!

Re:Go, USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757374)

it's a given that USA will give away any technology to it's masters.. the middle eastern fundamentalists in Israel.

Re:Go, USA! (1)

karniv0re (746499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757470)

Of course, I'd be much more comfortable with the UK or Germany or Canada or even Japan having space weapons than, say, middle-east fundamentalists or North Korea.

Hey, let me know when the middle-east fundamentalists get a space program so I can start worrying and taking you seriously.

This does not violate the treaty (4, Informative)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757317)

Article IV of the treaty follows:

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.


Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.

Re:This does not violate the treaty (1, Insightful)

Mr. Underhill (119443) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757435)

I read this the same way. The treaty is talking about WMDs. Sat. Jammers, Sat. Killers and missile interceptors don't quailfy.

bush (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757318)

its not like our current government worries about breaking any other treaties, why should this be any different? god bless america!

2nd Amendment: (1, Funny)

thoolie (442789) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757320)

But doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that we have a right to militerize space, or something like that?

Hell, you never know where those terrorsits may strike from next...California, Ney York, THE MOON!

-------
Idiots.
Join the USC (United States of Canada)

Re:2nd Amendment: (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757466)

Interestingly enough, whilst the 2nd amendment permits arms, it says nothing about legs.

So? (-1, Troll)

dasdrewid (653176) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757321)

Since when has the Bush administration cared about violating international treaties? For that matter, since when has the Bush administration cared about violating the U.S. Constitution...

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757418)

You have got to be kidding. Since when is a treaty valid when one of the two participants who signed the treaty is no longer around. That is like saying you are married to someone after they died.

He's *not* Darth Bush... (3, Insightful)

kngthdn (820601) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757326)

A more descriptive article about this can be found here [state.gov]. I found this portion to be most interesting...

The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.

A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?

"weapons of mass destruction" (1, Informative)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757394)

I don't know about you, but if the giant "conventional" bombs that the US uses on a regular basis don't cause "mass destruction", then we need to re-define the term.

Re:"weapons of mass destruction" (2, Interesting)

kngthdn (820601) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757431)

Possibly. But knocking an enemy's satellite out can hardly be considered "mass" destruction.

No violation? (1)

helix400 (558178) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757327)

The article only mentions disarming satellites in space, which I presume would happen from the ground.

Does this violate the treaty? I was under the impression that the treaty only discusses putting weapons in space.

In line with Bush administrations rhetoric (-1, Flamebait)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757338)

I believe there was a recent quote to the effect that George Bush was against any treaty that would cost the U.S. one single job. Not being able to militarize space could easily fit this description.

meteor defense (5, Interesting)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757340)

I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......

I'll repeat what I posted at Fark (4, Insightful)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757342)

What a load of crap. This is siting the Airforce saying they want to disable enemy satelites and a bit of MDA funding as proof we're going to put weapons into space?

First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.

And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.

And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.

And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.

Too tired to login (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757355)

Militarize space

Attack other countries before they attack you

Elect a moron for leader

Dude, where's my country?

forbid what? (0, Troll)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757357)

Forbidding weapons in space is sorta like forbidding criminals from owning/using guns. Without an overwhelming force (*) to dissuade rogue nations from contravening the treaty, it's useless.

(*) The US as a rogue nation for doing this - and no one is likely to have overwhelming physical force to prevent it. But, "force" can just as easily be peer pressure as physical force. I doubt Bush will listen to that, either.

Also, I doubt other rogue nations which probably have not signed this treaty, would not be eyeing militarisation of space given that the class bully is already watching it closely.

Finally, and IANAL, one of the signatories to the treaty doesn't exist anymore. Does the treaty also therefore not exist, and thus bringing it up is merely blowing smoke by the anti-use-of-military-for-pretty-much-any-reason crowd?

Uh... guys... (5, Interesting)

boomgopher (627124) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757360)

There has been this thing called "Space Command" in the Air Force for a long time now. There has even been talk of branching the space forces from the Air Force for a long while - like over ten years or so?

I call alarmist BS, nothing new here.

If we didn't do it China would (1, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757364)

Don't tell me China wouldn't try if they didn't have the opportunity.

Re:If we didn't do it China would (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757391)

or maybe its all the COMMIES!!

oh wheres a good foe when you need one..

bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757365)

Why would Bush ever let a measily treay stand in his way. Those can be cancelled easily, lord knows why america signed them in the first place. Oh that's right they weren't the lone super-power in the 1960's.


Now the USA can do whatever it wants and Bush has a mandate (when ~25% of people vote for you).

Re:bush (1)

bje2 (533276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757407)

approximately 25%?...which election are you wathing?...the one i saw had 51% voting for Bush...

This is dangerous (5, Insightful)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757368)

Space-based assets are simultaneously very valuable and very vulnerable. In a tense international standoff (Cuban Missile Crisis style) they inject a strong "use it or lose it" incentive to go for a first strike. On balance, this is probably not a plus.

End of the world (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757370)

That's it:
1) Put weapons in space.
2) Send Snake Pliskin to LA to pick up the black box.
3) Snake Pliskin rolls everything back to Stone Age ...
4) Profit ???

Dear USA and/or the Administration, (2, Funny)

Mars Ultor (322458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757386)

Please stop being mega-jerks and maybe start keeping SOME of the promises you make. I believe you did just re-elect someone who campaigned on 'values' or some such business - abiding by international treaties probably falls somewhere under that category.

Thanks,

the rest of the world

Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorists? (2, Insightful)

3770 (560838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757389)


Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?

Final Frontier? (1)

Saturn SL1-WNY (807134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757390)

Since space is a common ground, like, it's above EVERYONE... militarizing it would be a bad idea... In fact, it's kind of hard for one section of the planet to control a 3 dimensional area without causing some sort of political issues, which we have enough one right now, and the last thing we need on top of that is someone 'finding' weapons of mass destruction floating over our heads.

Relax people (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757398)

I will use my secret orbiting battle station to shoot down anything they launch, to protect the world from American imperialism. Well at least until I am ready to achieve global domination anyway.

Ohh Goodie (5, Funny)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757402)

Who needs good public schools or child healthcare... we're go'na have mother f***'n space lasers!

Now, if anyone tries to have a gay marriage, they'll be fired upon from the United Defense death star orbiting above.

the sky... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757404)

they sky is falling! the sky is falling!

Soooo.... (2, Insightful)

ad0le (684017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757408)

Since when has the US government given a shit about treaties and guidelines? And although my foil hat is rather loose today, who doesn't believe that this hasn't already happened to some extent by either the US or other top countries around the nation?

Weapons? How about the World Trade Center? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757411)

The New York Times is reporting [nytimes.com] that Honeybee Robotics [honeybeerobotics.com], manufacturer of the drill on the NASA Mars Rovers, built parts of the drill out of World Trade Center debris. The article claims NASA was not told about this design decision, but there are rumors that NASA found out and explicitely forbid it and Honeybee used the material anyway.

Kinetic Weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757414)

It's only a matter of time now before someone starts putting up kinetic weapons designed for use against ground based targets. The US is already looking at low yield nuclear weapons for tactical use, kinetic weapons are one better since they don't have any fallout.

Not exactly (2, Interesting)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757415)

It appears the treaty only excludes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from being put into space or on any celestial bodies. According to the Guardian article (why do people take this rag seriously?) the US Air Force is looking to deploy a few small spacecraft, likely highly maneuverable satellites, that can destroy surface to surface missiles, enemy aircraft, and enemy satellites which may be used for surevillance or other tasks which offer an advantage on the battlefield. I'd wager these are laser based weapons and do not violate the treaty as they are neither nuclear nor weapons of mass destruction.

The Guardian? (2, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757420)

Good thing they're not a bunch of socialist, America-hating, yellow journalists or anything!

"treaties?" (1)

nusratt (751548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757421)

"If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."

I'm not sure this is accurate, but regardless:

"Treaties? We don't need no stinkin' treaties!"

*Sigh*, yet another BIG BAD AMERICA story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757446)

All the other countries are racing to establish control over space. America is doing the logical thing and simply establishing control that will deny enemies the use of space militarily against the US. You guys are trying to make it sound like the pentagon is trying to rain nukes from space. Me thinks that the rapid upswing in negative nonnews posts about the US is due to Slashdot editors depression about the election and need to feel better about themselves after the egg on their face that was the Google Scandel

The Gaurdian? The paper in the UK? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10757450)

Isn't that the equivalent for the National Enquirer here in the US?

A better read [guardian.co.uk]

It does not ban ALL weapons. (2, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757457)

The treaty only bans nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The Air Force want anti-satellite weapons, which are not in either category.

This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.

No treaty violation (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757464)

From the Treaty itself:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

As long as no weapons orbiting the earth are Nuclear or another type of WMD then there is no treaty violation. Seeing as how the article makes no mention of these types and that the weapons it does talk about are designed to take out ICBMs there is still no treaty violation.

Current Policies are Outdated (2, Interesting)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757474)

I hate to say it, but this is probably a very neccessary step in assuring the survival and prosperity of the U.S. empire.

There probably will be no more conventional world wars, we (the U.S.) have enough nukes to dissuade any global conflict. So, since we don't have to worry about a ground assault, we need to concentrate on air/space defense that can shoot down any ICBMs from unstable dictatorial states, or trigger all holy hell on enemy before they have the time to prepare their defenses in case we start feeling threatened by them.

I'd like to believe that Kerry administration would have taken a different approach to preserving the empire, something that would benefit both us and the world, but Bush, being a cowboy that he is, clearly has no regard for global opinion. (Note that I'm not saying that we should let the French shit on us if we do need to defend ourselves, but that we don't really have a right to "liberate" whomever we want through a half-baked war.)

We'll see where the world will be 20-30 years from now in terms of military alleigances...

Above treaties... (1)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757476)

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be an anti-American or anti-Bush post.

But people seriously... Do you think that the US government ( especially the current go-it-alone administration ) puts much stock in treaties? I mean I am honestly asking here.

Remember Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [guardian.co.uk]? Also http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/newnuclearwe aponsissuebrief.asp [armscontrol.org]

Why is this even news?

Sneaking In (2, Insightful)

Databass (254179) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757483)

I'm pretty sure putting missiles on the unmanned Predator drones over Afghanistan was a violation of a similar treaty, one that said you can't weaponize drones (and thus make a hideous, inhuman robot army).

But that one kind of slipped by in the name of the War on Terror.

I have to say, what appears as a near-total disregard for the other countries in the world on the part of the US regarding sensitive and dangerous military issues bothers me, and I live here. Doctrine of Pre-Emptive war was a dangerous road to start walking down. The people who wrote the Weaponization of Space treaties knew that it was a also a treacherous path, and yet it seems we're about to start down that road too? What kind of future are we heading towards?

Screw world peace (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757500)

Screw world peace. Yeah, I said it.

I don't care WHO has to die for me to get my damn X-Wing. X-WING I SAY!!!!

No WMDs in Space (1)

b0lt (729408) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757522)

The treaty bans WMDs in space. Therefore, using Bush logic, Saddam must have some there! Everyone, we know where Saddam is hiding them! :D

(moderators, this was meant as a joke. please don't hurt my karma :| )

Going to fight a war in space. (1)

Eziril (657544) | more than 9 years ago | (#10757530)

If given the chance to fight a war in space,or a very high mountain, I'd jump at the chance! Bring on the sub-orbital death machines, I'll take 'em on.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...