Do We Really Need Space Weapons? 938
tcd004 writes "The U.S. military is developing technology to disable, jam, and even destroy enemy satellites. But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race.
When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we need the snooping powers provided by the USA-PATRIOT act. All we need do to foil the plots of satellite-stealing villains is track the purchases of large numbers of silver jumpsuits and miniskirts. An ounce of prevention...
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:2, Insightful)
Irrelevant. Whether or not developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapons race does not answer the question as to whether or not space weapons are necessary.
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, he's an EXPERT!
It sounds like he might even be an expert on SCIENCE and stuff!
What more is there to discuss!?
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps Iraq hid them in space - once we have such a ship that can steal the satellite we'll have proof that the war had some justification.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:4, Informative)
1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.
2) The inspections teams were on the same track; the IAEA was reportedly close to declaring Iraq nuclear-free, while UNMOVIC was working on verifying chemical weapon destruction quantities based on the amount of residual chemicals in the destruction zones. The residuals were evident, but the quantity of source material was unknown. Both have now stated that they believe, just like Kay, that there were not WMDs in Iraq. In short, every inspection team sent to Iraq has reached that same conclusion.
3) The highest profile Iraqi defector in history, Hussein Kamel [wikipedia.org] (Saddam's son-in-law), in addition to giving a bunch of humiliating information on Iraq that he later got assassinated for (exposing Iraq's biological warfare program and leading them to the information, pointing out that UNSCOM's head's personal translator was a double agent, etc), informed the teams that Iraq *had* destroyed its chemical and biological agents in order to try and get the embargo lifted and limit inspection team knowlege of how much their scientists knew.
Saddam's refusal to cooperate with inspections
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government. Blix - the more harsh of the two organization heads - stated that "Iraq wwas guilty of only small infractions" [guardian.co.uk]. Most of the Iraqi complaints were of the US spying to gather information for war, which turned out to be true [washingtonpost.com]. And lets not forget the peace initiatives [wikipedia.org].
active promotion of terrorism
The closest thing Iraq did to active promotion of terrorism was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to compensate for Israel's policy of destroying the families' homes. Of course, Saudi Arabia did the exact same thing. Beyond that, there was very, very little that could be construed as supporting terrorism (a lot of misinformation went around on this subject: read up on Ansar al-Islam [bbc.co.uk] (more) [baltimoresun.com], Ramzi Yousef [prisonplanet.com] (mirror), Abu Nidal [wikipedia.org], and Salman Pak [wikipedia.org]).
Now, if you want countries with clear, major ties to funding terrorists, you need to look at Iran and the United States.
Illegal attacks on peacekeepers
Oh, this is just rich. The No-Fly Zones were not UN-accepted; the French, Russians, and Chinese considered the joint US-British "No Fly" enforcement to be both illegal and counterproductive violation of Iraq's airspace. Then, before war began, we began bombing essentially at will [timesonline.co.uk] to try and goad Iraq into attacking the US. The reason we were able to start the war with a ground assault was that our air assault began long before the war started.
You confuse what was known then with now ... (Score:4, Informative)
You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist. In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe.
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Excuse me, at one point the U.N. teams left because they were not permitted to do their job. You are referring to an exceptionally narrow timeframe and missing the big picture that Iraq sometimes cooperated and sometimes did not. The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end. You mentioned that Sadaam destroyed stockpiles. Why did he not do so under UN supervision? Clearly he wanted people to believe he still had WMD. He assumed it would enhance his ability to "negotiate" and provide a deterrent. Given the UN's spotty record, being suprised by his nuclear program and later his bio program, it was prudent to believe be a bit cautious with preliminary and politicised UN reports.
In general you confuse to separate issues: "Does Sadaam still have WMD?" and "Is an attack on the west imminent?". The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while, it had become a political wedge issue wield for political gain. Sometimes wielded by those who agreed Sadaam had WMD at the time, just like Bush, and some who even voted for force at the time. If you fail to consider the politics you will never truly understand events and will be easily manipulated. The left is as guilty as the right.
Assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider this: You are Sadaam, and you wish to deter a hostile superpower from removing you from power. Given that building WMD could be costly in terms of money, resources, and international goodwill, wouldn't it be better to make people wonder if you have them? If you build them, it might give the west a reason to invade, since you are then a threat to them. If you don'
Re:You confuse what was known then with now ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do no such thing - please cite where I do that (your quote, about David Kay, has nothing to do with what was known beforehand. David Kay was, and still is, a pro-war hawk; he was, but is anything but now, a believer in present-day Iraqi WMDs)
In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying
The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies? Obviously - in fact, many of them got their intellig
Re:You confuse what was known then with now ... (Score:3, Informative)
The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies?
What a creative job of editing you have there. I actually wrote: "In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example." I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have simply had a shallow understanding of events but now I am beginning to suspect that you simply have a political age
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.
Quoth Scott Ritter:
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.
one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.
Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.
Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.
Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.
Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.
I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.
A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. Uh huh. The administration who sold the world on WMD doesn't have enough shovels to look for them. Why don't you do yourself a favor and read Kay's testimony yourself? He had all the resources he wanted. He conclusion? We made a big, big mistake on the WMD issue (he still supports the war, though).
The fact was that these WMD's existed.
Yes, they did. In 1991.
They were used
Yes, they were, in 1982-1987. When we were supporting Iraq against Iran.
and this is documented.
Not only is it documented, but the Reagan adminstration blocked a call for ceasing weapons sales to their ally Iraq at the time.
There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.
Quite true, but there is ample *evidence* in every line of investigation. There was no documentation that Oswald shot Kennedy, but there's plenty of evidence.
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
The heck it did! [fas.org] Quit making stuff up. One thing it did call for, I may note, is a nuclear-free zone in the middle east (*cough* Israel *cough*)
Iraq had no right to ignore it based on silly "spy!" claims.
A) The majority of the Security Council was in agreement with them in that the US and British had no right to be there.
B) The US *was* spying on them, not only through the No-Fly Zones, but through the inspection teams (to the disdain of many of the inspectors, who saw it as sabotaging their work). I already gave a ref - need more?
Attacks on these peacekeepers were entirely illegal and unprovoked aggression.
1) Read the bloody resolution
2) Read France, Russia, and China's comments on the subject (the majority of the SC)
3) I already gave refs documenting the extreme examples of provocation, including direct, deliberate, admitted attempts to goad Iraq into war.
To stop these attacks alone, the allies had the right to whomp Saddam's terrorist infrascture as hard as possible.
The "terrorist" issue was well referenced in the last post (same response to your next snippet, cut out)
The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.
I *seriously* hope you're not one of those delusional "Iraq did Sept. 11th" nuts.
Blix's own reports detailed large infractions.
I bloody quoted Blix for you! What more do you need, him to tell you in person? The US media only reported the infractions and played them up. Blix himself stated that they were minor, and all of them were resolved. Now, if you want to talk about major, unresolved infractions in the middle east [middleeastnews.com]...
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this.
Nothing true about it? He was bloody killed over it. He was the very reason that the Iraqi biological program was exposed. Look, deny reality all you want, but that's your own little fantasy world you'll be living in.
If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections.
In case you forgot history, they *did* welcome inspections.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying.
The heck there isn't! One has a goal of finding WMDs; the other had the goal of assassinating Saddam and uncovering his conventional forces and how best to defeat them.
Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain.
To complain about *spying*? Point to me the "US gets to spy on anything they want in Iraq to pursue the
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Prior to the invasion, when did "Saddam's terrorists" attack the US? If you're going to say 9/11, your so dellusional, but it wouldn't be your fault. You would have just been taken by a orchestrated, and immediately discredited, lie.
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about thi
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:4, Informative)
1) Richard Butler was in charge of UNSCOM in 1998 (before Desert Fox, which you mentioned), not Hans Blix. Blix was later instated as the head of UNMOVIC for the recent inspection regime.
2) Butler did *not* remove the inspection teams because of "supposed obstinance" - Butler removed his teams (without SC approval) because he was informed by Washington that they would be bombing in twenty-four hours. His cited reason for the withdrawl was the protection of his inspectors.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:3, Informative)
Don't want to take the word of the organizations tasked to enforce the resolutions? Take the word of the Security Council: 3 of the 5 perm
A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
Space is essentially worthless until it is militarized.
Nothing worthwhile is left unguarded.
A space race would be a good thing, in my opinion, because it focuses the much-maligned military-industrial complex on a worthy goal: human occupancy in space.
It may be more efficient to send up the sleek craft of the X-Prize and other private ventures, but heavy lift will probably only come with military ventures.
Getting to space en mass via the military will doubtless cause distress to many who feel that space should be kept pure, untouched by the dirty and unwholesome aspects of human existence.
Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.
Re:A dissent (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.
Not just that, but it would certainly help breath new life into the NASA. Let's face it, NASA is currently being crushed by its own beauracracy.
It may not be long range space missions to Mars and such, but it will certainly help move space flight from where it currently is at the edge of the envelope. The same thing happened with aviation in WWI and WWII. The US and other military powers invested hevily in making aircraft more common place and exploring the variety of roles in which they could be employed. This made aviation safer, more commonplace and in general made the public more aware of it. If the same happens to space flight, only good can come of it.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about short sighted! (Score:5, Interesting)
Today, you have to do research or your grand children will be poor farmers. Sure, NASA is FUBAR. Start another agency and give the money to them. If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Cut something less important. Say, only start serious wars. Sure, a democratic arab country would make the world a better place -- but there has to be a cheaper way!
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, you have to do research or your grand children will be poor farmers.
Personally, I'm not counting on NASA to feed my eventual grand-children. Call me crazy, but I don't expect much more out of them than the occasional pretty picture of Jupiter or something.
Oh, and here's a news flash kids: Space is already militarized. Those GPS toys you like playing with? Yeah, those satelites are there to guid
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't have to be done by NASA or any new agency. IMO the idea behind NASA was that it was (theoretically) a non-military driven space exploration agency. Give it a military agenda, and the Air Force is ready and willing to take over.
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
How will cutting NASA funding pay down the debt?
Re:A dissent (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll grant you NASA is pretty inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, but the manned space program has just become so damn good at spending money and having nothing to show for it, that they are like shooting fish in a barrel.
Reality is when the Republicans are in charge they squander lots of the money on military/intelligence spending and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them. When the Democrats are in charge they squander it on social programs and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them.
Neither party can seem to resist the temptation to dish out large helpings of pork that accomplish very little of real value which would be the first obvious place to start reining in spending. Until there is a third party that is fiscally responsible, and has a chance of winning politicians know they can waste money and get away with it as long as they both do it. They can get away with it that is, until the U.S. debt burden leads to an economic calamity, but at that point its to late.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, the article was wrong too. According to the artic
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
The interstate highway system?
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Interesting)
TW
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.
Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).
However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY:
* War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods;
* War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good);
* War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.
The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.
This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Insightful)
Space Race != Promote human occupancy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Funny)
So the US/Canadian border is worthless?
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, the peacenik in me hates to agree with this kind of thinking, but I must agree.
Don't forget that many military ventures on earth resulted in significant scientific advances. For example, World War II gave us Penecillin (spelling?); the jet engine; and without the funding for the Manhattan project, it may have taken many
Re:Pollution in space? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is poluting low-Earth orbit, a narrow sphere around our planet. Putting even the most malicious space-based weapons somewhere in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri is no big deal. Ading a bunch of items to an already crowded area including the ISS, most shuttle flight paths, communications satellites, etc. would probably not be the best idea.
To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bit of a stretch, isn't it? The US may be the most powerful country on the planet, and it may be to most arrogant country on the planet, and it may even be the most bullyish country on the planet, but it is hardly the most violent.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting straw man, but it doesn't answer the original question, namely, "is the US the most violent nation in the world?" There needn't be an either/or choice among the US/USSR. It is very possible that a world system could have many strong powers, but none overpowering any of the others.
Depending on how you define violence, it very well may be. Some of the countries in central Africa are giving us a run
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Interesting)
So I take it that the commies in the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. starving tens of millions of thier own citizens to death doesn't count as 'violence'?
In addition to 'powerfulness', I think you really need to consider the type of government a country actually has. I personally wou
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2)
This statement shoots your entire argument to hell. Read some history. The Cuban missile crisis was probably the single closest point that humanity has come to self-annihilation. No theoretical threat could ever approach it.
>> Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disabling a satellite or
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2)
Of course it will always be far cheaper just to send a hired thug to shoot you. I love people who think anyone cares enough about them to point some multibillion dollar array of superscience recon and weaponry in their dirrection.
P.s. I am NOT a crackpot.
No, but well on the way. :-) Keep up the hard work. Try wiritng a small manifesto or keeping a close eye on your mailman.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2)
How are space based weapons any worse than nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles off your country? Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons we have, and they're capable of hitting anywhere on Earth already. How would weapons being stationed in space be any worse?
Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disa
Cold Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
"In space, all wars are cold."
-Michael Scovetta, Slashdot, 8/8/2005.
Re:The PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Score:5, Informative)
The above document spells out the blueprint for world dominance, starting with seizing the oil in Iraq. It goes on and pushes for space warfare. Ugly document written by ugly people.
Re:Who benefits from $63/barrel oil? (Score:4, Insightful)
To question any part of this belief system induces a state of acute anxiety in these people. They have based their whole ego structure around a belief that they are good people who are part of a good country. To call that into question is to call their very concept of self into question. This explains the ferocity with which they defend their beliefs, and the difficulty in comprehending something even so simple as the idea that our leaders may be acting selfishly in regard to oil.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta be honest, as a U.S. tax payer I this. The ability to take out other satellites helps us in the event of a major military conflicts with other technologically advanced nations. Since I personally feel that a hostile take over of Taiwan by China is inevitable, I look at this as something that could help us to protect Taiwan. No one ever thinks a strong military is worth keeping around until they're on the receiving end of an invasion. Then everyone stands around wondering why their military didn't do anything to prevent it. There's a lot to be said for having a military powerful enough to deter attack.
Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.
Maybe someone else on here can contribute more but the last I checked missile range is not a big issue anymore, atleast not for Russia or the United States. What this adds is another area of launching attacks from. Hell, it might even add another dimension to efficiency. wouldn't take much for something falling from that height to reach a pretty extreme speed I'd imagine. Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space?
Beg your pardon but who said we were? Creating defenses for investments in space and our nation is entirely different from us stating "We own space, piss off." I mean, last I checked we didn't declare ownership of the moon even though we planted our flag on it.
Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?
How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to, I'm hoping someone else does. And at what point do you think it's fair to say airspace ends?
And I think "Most violent nation in the world" might be bit of an extreme statement. We might be the only nation currently involved in conflicts in two separate countries but it's not exactly like we showed up to fill a bloodlust. Hell, how many conflicts has Europe started by in other country's affairs that it refuses to fix *cough*Africa*cough*.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Go watch Fahrenheit 911.
Funny how no one ever asks why the terrorists knocked down the WTC. I read somewhere it was because of our meddling in their affairs. (sorry I can't cite, don't recall) Of course I don't think blowing up the towers was the answer, but did it ever cross your mind that if we just stayed out of their business they'd stop blowing our shit up? They can't kill more of our troops if our troops aren't on that side of the globe either! The events on 911 were in reaction to US foreign policy. You'll never see CNN/Fox say WHY the attack took place, just how horrible it was and how bad the terrorists are.
Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
"that's no moon..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that space is weapons free is a myth. If you do not think that spy satellites are not weapons you are just nuts.
Re:Too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't. Spy satellites are intelligence-gathering devices that allow you to know where to point your weapons. They're no more a weapon themselves than your lungs are a weapon - hey, without lungs you'd have no oxygen to power your muscles to move your finger to press the button that fires the nuke that actually is a weapon...
Ok, I'm being slightly facetious, but you get the point. You can gather all the information you like
Re:Too late. (Score:3, Informative)
The weapon isn't in the artifact, but in the use. If I suffocate you with a Care Bear, I suspect the prosecution at my murder trial would hold out the bear (Friend Bear, in this case) as a weapon. And my defense team would make absolutely no headway against such an accusation by saying "That's not a weapon!"
A telescope becomes a sniper's scope. A steak knife becomes a bayonet. Binoculars, used b
Re:"that's no moon..." (Score:5, Interesting)
So the first guy to hit another guy with a stick is to blame for all the
bludgeoning deaths in the last 10,000 years? That's one of the most ridiculous
arguments I've ever heard.
Yeah... (Score:2)
I share the opinion that they're a bad thing, but I think it's inevitable.
Nuke the moon!
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
selective quoting leads to inaccurate moderation (Score:3, Informative)
"MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."
this is
Weapons race loved by big business (Score:2, Insightful)
shoot own feet (Score:3, Insightful)
Having more capability than your enemy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever advantage you can give yourself could possibly turn the tide of a battle.
Imagine being able to blind an enemy in a war by knocking out its surveillance and communications capabilities. How is this a bad thing?
People make it sound like it's a bad thing by starting a space arms race, but there could be worse things- such as your enemy being able to knock out your satellites and you have no ability to do the same. If you're able to develop such technology, do it.
Promoting space technology (Score:4, Funny)
1) The military
2) Sex
The sooner we get both of those going into space, the sooner we'll get some decent progress in spaceflight technology.
Re:Promoting space technology (Score:3, Insightful)
In the middle ages, the Christians built cathedrals that are works of art and Muslims preserved and expanded mathematical knowledge.
Science and religion are not incompatible - unless one's religion is science.
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Game theory on space weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
A little bit of game theory shows why developing space weapons makes sense from the point of view of any one country.
Certainly, a "conspiracy" of ALL countries agreeing NOT to develop space weapons would be in our collective best interests. But no one works in terms of collective best interests unless it also maximizes their own best interests.
Suppose for a moment that a "conspiracy" (or to make the terminology better for this case, a treaty) existed between all nations that "prevented" the development
Space weapons? We've got better things to do (Score:5, Insightful)
1) North Korea and Iran don't have space programs. Space weapons would be useful against only Russia and China.
2) The US is the world's most important rule maker or rule breaker. We should set an example and develop a code of conduct.
My response to (1) is that militarily, it sucks to get leapfrogged. You don't want to get passed because of complacency. As for (2), bad actors tend not to follow rules anyway, so will the conduct of the US really shape the behavior of the rest of the world? (I would guess that many outside the US would hope not.)
That said, the opportunity cost for space weapons is *huge*. It feeds into the whole asymmetrical warfare concept -- the US can disable satellites but can't stop an insurgency that everybody saw coming except the secretary of defense.
Furthermore, even within military spending there are better places to spend the money than space weapon deployment. More unmanned systems, better infantry-level support, or faster mobilization (so that the US doesn't build up a force and then claim it's so expensive to keep them there that we have to start the war *right now* -- there were people who said we couldn't wait through a summer
But the best place to spend money, in my opinion, is accelerated research that supports reduced reliance on oil. (Yes, I'm a Thomas Friedman fan.) I wouldn't mind a grant or two to a brilliant poli sci researcher who could figure out how to sell the public on a large gas tax. (and mitigate the effects on the poor?) I think most economists would say a gas tax (or more generally, a carbon tax) is the most efficient way to spur adoption of renewable energy sources. Otherwise, you're hoping the government can pick technological winners and losers. (While reps are getting nice contributions from the farm lobby.)
Re:Space weapons? We've got better things to do (Score:3, Insightful)
Reality (Score:2)
I am from Canada, and loathe the concept of space warfare. Why would anyone want this capability? Another arms race? Great....
The part of this article that really stumped me, is that the interviewee was stating how wrong it is to have Weapons in Space, but conludes with 'if we did, we would win anyway'... doesn't this statement essentially challenge an opponent?
This kind
Deny access (Score:2)
Weapons in space do make sense, but only for protection of the Earth from outside dangers, such as wayward asteroids and comets, or as-yet undiscovered hostile alien race
We don't, but the brass do (Score:5, Insightful)
The arms industry wants it, so it will happen (Score:2)
Obviously no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are the most plausible opponents in a war in space?
Note that these countries are almost uniformly our close allies, our essential trading partners, and fellow democracies.
Do we really want to militarise against our friends, diverting funding from protecting against clear and present and active offensive enemies?
Re:Obviously no. (Score:3, Informative)
China and Russia may be an essential trading partner (though I suspect we could live without their crap), but they are hardly either of the other two.
Gentlemen... (Score:4, Funny)
Future history... (Score:2)
Only if our alien overlords... (Score:2)
IronChefMorimoto
Define "need" (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we need war at all? Certainly, we don't.
Is war inevitable, space weapons or not? 3,000 years of history says it is.
Which is more practical, pretending that war won't happen or accepting that it will? With the latter being more realistic, we may then follow through with the most effective defense and proceed with developing space weapons.
We've always been in some weapons race, though not necessarily at the pace of the Cold War. Space weapons won't initiate any Cold War-esque weapons race as much as any of our other weapons have. They're not holocaust devices like nukes or any NBC weaponry. Without anti-satellite weapons, we're back at traditional warfare. With those weapons, we only take it outside of earth.
Space weaponry if anything will reduce war to a battle of communications and intelligence, where space coverage matters more than occupying ground. With troops and conventional weapons reduced in importance, satellites will be the main casualties, as long as they directly affect the ground war below.
What about the Cylons (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about the Cylons (Score:3, Funny)
We use the sharks with lasers on their heads, silly. Space weapons are just an expensive substitute for stuff we already have.
Against treaties (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Against treaties (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Against treaties (Score:4, Informative)
Haven't you heard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you heard? There is no USSR.
'He has stated that the treaties are too limimting and therefore aren't in the best interest of our country, a fact I wholeheartedly disagree with'
At least you admit it is a fact. Too bad you do not like it. Treaties which ban entirely-defensive efforts are certainly not in our interest.
Re:Haven't you heard? (Score:5, Informative)
So, to begin with, the notion that the treaty was broken is false. There was an exit clause placed in the treaty and that clause was properly executed.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we decided to pull out of the treaty. However, in regards to your question of "So why did the US sign them in the first place?" and whether or not such treaties are in our self interest... it appears obvious that the leaders that first signed them thought that it would be likely that either side might in the future decide that the treaty should no longer apply. They put that clause in there after all.
I'm not trying to debate the point of whether or not it is a good treaty with respect to our self interest. Frankly, I really don't know. Personally I feel that ABMs are only likely to increase the desire of potential enemies to build up the number of weapons they have capable of reaching us. And it is a particularly bad solution when the cost of an ABM weapon is greater than the cost of the BM it is designed to counter. However, this all comes from my rather limited viewpoint.
But as to the notion of the U.S. breaking the treaty, or whether or not the leaders who signed it thought it was in our best interest to be permanently constrained by such a treaty... it is pretty clear that it was not broken, and the leaders who signed it provided an exit clause.
Re:Against treaties (Score:5, Informative)
The ABM treaty is no longer in effect and is irrelevant to this discussion. There are no legal obligations preventing the US from deploying space weapons. It is solely a technical and policy and/or moral decision.
- Necron69
Re:Against treaties (Score:3, Funny)
Other countries gain more by disabling satellites (Score:5, Insightful)
MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants.
So in short, you can reduce the efficiency of the US army by taking out their satellites. Since other countries are denied access to space, this would be a good tactic for such a country. They will be more dependent and more trained in a war without satellite information, and will be enabled by such a move to get the upperhand in a conflict.
I think the US better invest in protecting their own satellites since they are the softpoint.
PS Disabling satellites by large lasers might work since you could fry just a few components like a photo optic chip, the rest of the satellite is packed in a heat blanket to reflect sunlight and thus a laser will just reflect of that too (at least most of it, rendering it pretty useless, if the atmosphere didn't do that yet)
Yes, let's turn our backs on space weapons. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first attempt I can remember was when the Pope tried to prohibit crossbows. The most recent is the Japanese ban on firearms - which worked quite well until Admiral Perry showed up.
This guy may just have a point.... (Score:3, Funny)
Without Space Weapons, there would be no Star Trek
Without Star Trek, there would be no Captain Kirk
Without Captain Kirk, there would be no Geeks
Without Geeks, there would be no Slashdot
Without Slashdot, I would stop wasting time at work
So: No Space Weapons = No Geeks = No Slashdot = A Raise in our National GDP
Therefore: Profit!
I'm gonna subscribe to this guy's newsletter (Score:3, Insightful)
Natural progression (Score:4, Insightful)
100 years ago wars were fought as ground wars.
When planes first appeared in warfare, they were used simply for data gathering -- They would fly over the enemy position and the pilot would report his observations.
The military soon realized that if they could knock out their enemy's use of aerial surveylance they would realize a huge tactical advantage and Air combat was born.
The same thing holds true with satellites. The launch of the first communcations / spy satellite ensured that one day someone would develop the ability to neutralize enemy satellites.
We don't have to like it, but it is inevitable.
Laws of Gravity need not apply (Score:4, Insightful)
So we develop space weapons. They develop space weapons. We all develop space weapons. We decide to blow the 1,800 satellites out of the sky in some sort of stellar turf war.
What nobody has considered, is the gravity of the situation (literally, or lack thereof). Now you have billions of little pieces of satellite material flying around in all directions without any gravity to stop them.
You think some foam sticking out of the bottom of the shuttle has problems now, try plucking it out of there with billions of pieces of metal, plastic, glass, wire and other satellite debris flying around you in all directions at 16,000 miles per-hour.
Sure, some of it will orbitally degrade into the atmosphere, but much of it will not, and it will continue to fly in all directions at full-speed, until it either collides with something to slow it down, or it deflects off of something (such as the other billion pieces of debris) to change its path.
Forget going to the moon, other shuttle launches, Mars missions, all of it. Not without some major retrofit to the hull and other materials used in the manufacturing of them (i.e. adding weight, potentially).
Yes, lets all just blow ourselves out of the sky too, and keep our upper orbital atmosphere a nice fence of shrapnel traveling at thousands of miles per-hour.
Re:Laws of Gravity need not apply (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has the most to lose. (Score:3, Interesting)
You think north korea would care as much? China? India?
It costs a lot more to defend a satellite against this than to destroy a satellite. It's also not too hard to disguise a killer satellite as a civilian satellite (but this would have to be in a "normal" orbit travelling in the same direction as other satellites- makes it a bit harder to be very damaging).
I don't see why one should spend so much money on space weapons. A few dozen _cheap_ satellites with explosives and hard to deflect shrapnel (glass?) can make tons of orbits useless. How it could work - someone just has to stop broadcasting the relevant keepalive signals, or broadcast a "trigger" signal and the shrapnel satellites will blow up and wipe various orbits within a day.
So your mucho expensive space weapons better be parked in different orbits or be capable of moving significantly. And you better be able to decide and use them quickly.
If stuff happens we'd probably lose use of the prime orbit regions, for quite a long time.
It's like MAD but in space.
Well, we already know ... (Score:3, Informative)
... that international law and treaties is of no concern for the United States...
Outer Space Treaty of 1963 [unvienna.org]
Yes, I know those "space weapons" will (officially) not be nuclear. Have a look at article 8, however. I doubt the US wants to pay for foreign satellites, development and launch costs.
Overall, I think if the US would finally stop bullying the rest of this planet around, they would be a lot more liked.
Denying other countries the use of space (Score:2)
Re:Another idiotarian (Score:5, Insightful)
"People like you (Liberal Democrats) have made defense contracting a hard place to break even, much less make a profit! I suggest you go learn a little something about a field you obviously do not know a single thing about, other than the name."
And how is that a bad thing?
You seem to be implying that it's something they've done wrong, but I can't see a much more progressive step for the world than making it economically unviable to get rich by enabling the deaths or maiming of millions...
Let's be honest - the US is never (at least, not before the Big Post-Bush Economic Collapse) going to be unable to afford weapons to defend itself.
Given your country's always going to be safe and well-supplied, what's wrong with making it damn hard for people to acquire wealth and influence by profiting from human misery and suffering?
Frankly, it'd be a better world if weapons were totally unnecessary, but I'll settle for now for them being merely prohibitively expensive.
Re:North Korean or Chinese .. (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, the Chinese have space ambitions, but they suffer from the same economic and technological hurdles... they want to put a man on the moon to stir national pride. Why the hell would they want to spend billions in Star Wars when they already have numerical superiority? In a conventional ground war, hi-tech technology is not decided advantage.
I like your McCarthyism [wikipedia.org] though - keeps Boeing going.