×

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!

U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Jammer

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the no-talking-during-the-war-please dept.

Space 619

kpwoodr writes "An interesting article at the Washington Times makes note of a recent satellite launch by the U.S. It seems we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will. From the article: 'The U.S. military is bracing for future attacks in space, and the Air Force has deployed an electronic-warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites, the general in charge of space defenses says. "You can't go to war and win without space."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

619 comments

With apologies to Sid Meier... (5, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625048)

Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625067)

On that note, I have seen technology defined as "expensive, cool, and/or more painful ways to kill people."

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625202)

expensive, cool, and/or more painful ways to kill people

I think that "expensive, cool, and/or more efficient ways to kill people" would be more correct.

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (2, Interesting)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625258)


The shadowy shape of a bird spread its wings and rose into the air near him. Darkness engulfed the bridge. Dim lights danced briefly in the black eyes of the bird as, deep in its instructional address space, bracket after bracket was finally closing, if clauses were finally ending, repeat loops halting, recursive functions calling themselves for the last few times.

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (4, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625110)

"We're not talking about weaponizing space. We're not talking about massive satellite attacks coming over the horizon or anything like that. This is really a way to understand space situational awareness, who's out there, who's operating. We understand that," Gen. Lord said.

On a more comic-book note, it's kinda fun that the United States Space Force is run by "General Lance Lord!" *cue dramatic music*

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (5, Funny)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625161)

You've saved the world this time, General Lance Lord, but mark my words, I'll be back!

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (5, Insightful)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625223)

I beg to differ about the definition of a weapon, here. Anything that you take to war, from your rifles and tanks to your canteens, first-aid kits, and radios, is a weapon.

Moreso even than the items you're using to actively kill people, the support equipment will help determine how effectively you can fight. Body armor is a case-in-point, here: troops with effective personal body armor suffer less casualties, and are therefore more reliable in combat and less costly to support... meaning you can have a LOT more of them in the field. Also, effective armor allows soldiers to take risks in combat that they would otherwise shirk from: if one side is more willing to stick it's heads up and take shots than the other side is (because of a body armor disparity), the former can be more aggressive and tactically effective.

But communications, both in use and denial-of-use, are the REALLY important thing. You can be in command of Starship Troopers armed with nuclear warheads, and it's not going to win you any battles against horse-riding Indians with flintlocks if they're in communication and aware, and you're not.

Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings about cops: Police aren't effective because of their uniforms, badges, guns, or nightsticks, they're effective because of their radios.

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

trewornan (608722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625315)

You can define "weapon" anyway you like, if you want to define it as "anything you take to war" that's up to you. Most people however do not use the term in that way . . . if they were smoking what you're smoking it might be different.

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625111)

Next up will be the deployment of communications systems which can't be jammed by the satellite, antisatellite satellites and antiantisatellite satelittes, just as we first had observation planes so had to develop planes to shoot them down, then planes to shoot down those planes and so had to develop observation satellites which couldn't be shot down by a plane.

So what else is new?

KFG

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (3, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625117)

The future will be different because we'll learn to live in peaceful harmony

Okay, just kidding

I'm still waiting for Kinetic Energy weapons. Ya know... big spikes of metal being dropped into our gravity well in order to obliterate targets.

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

dragonp12 (798787) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625153)

Good luck aiming them...

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625307)

if they've got enough mass, aiming is a matter of calculating a ballistic entry.

Some of the stuff we're hauling into orbit goes up in 20 ton chunks.

With good aerodynamics and a nice heatshield, you won't need to be very precise.

The Biggest Jammers: +1, Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625184)


are the Criminals--In--Command [whitehouse.org].

The sad part is that they were selected, not elected.

From an undisclosed, secure ( as is used for President-Vice Cheney) location ( or spiderhole when discussing
Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq),

Kilgore Trout, M.D.

Re:The Biggest Jammers: +1, Informative (1)

filekutter (617285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625280)

Let's not just dwell on the obvious uses, let's also realize that this means the possible disruption of "disliked" and/or "immoral" to those in our 'oh so christian' whitehouse. This opens up the blocking of information from countries, organizations, groups, and any other media that they please. Infowar has taken its next step. To those haxxoring the DRM I present the newest challenge, haxxoring that satellite. Keep the information flowing!!!

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625235)

I'm reminded of the openning of 2001:A Space Odyssey. Remember, where the bone turns into a spaceship?

Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (2, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625281)

If you'll forgive a departure from the normal patented Slashdot Cynicism(tm), the future really will be different. Give it, say, 50 or 100 years.

Europe was by far the bloodiest continent for hundreds and hundreds of years. What changed? Simple -- Democracy. It's extremely rare that stable democracies war on each other. Eventually, the rest of the world will join civilization and the entire world will be stable constitutional democracies. China, Korea, the Middle East -- Yeah, it seems far away from where we're standing right now, but it'll happen eventually.

Once the entire world has been "de-dictator-ized", war will be pretty much over. There will still be the old hatreds (*ahem*India and Pakistan), but that only takes a few generations of children who don't know and don't care the border used to be different. They'd rather have peace than move a few lines on the map. Britain and Northern Ireland are already well on this course. Israel and Palestine probably won't happen until Palestine has actual real estate to call their own and has had a stable democracy for a few generations.

But it'll happen. It's only a matter of time. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

aa recent satellite launch by the U.S. ?? (-1, Troll)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625059)

Slashdot already jammed.

Re: aa recent satellite launch by the U.S. ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625086)

cmon he waaas tryiiing to jaaam..

Also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625157)

It's a good thing Canada still has a coast-to-coast defence fiber network and mobile radio communications trucks. It's easy to knock out a satellite, deeply burried fiber is only slightly more difficult (if you know where it is, and I assume the US does). Hundreds of mobile trucks are harder to take out, especially if the transmitter's not actually on the truck and each truck has several spare transmiters (as I'm told they do by acquaintences in the Royal Communications Reserve).

Re: aa recent satellite launch by the U.S. ?? (1)

AllahsAvatar (887555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625240)

Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!

hmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625060)

i like to smoke pole.. not first post pole mind you.. but taco pole!

Taking the initiative! (1, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625062)

It's good to see that we're taking the initiative at ticking other spacefaring nations off right before we're about to suffer another financial blow, combined with a major hit to the Category-3 limited Johnson Space Center.

Re:Taking the initiative! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625128)

It's good to see that we're taking the initiative at ticking other spacefaring nations off right before we're about to suffer another financial blow, combined with a major hit to the Category-3 limited Johnson Space Center.

Do you supposed that the other spacefaring nations that we might be able to help with such a tool would feel the same way? Meaning, if, say, China were to start using one of their birds to interfere with communications satellites used by Taiwan or India or Japan... wouldn't our ability to jam the Chinese craft's communications be useful to our allies?

Not all weapons are offensive. The deterrence is the value.

Re:Taking the initiative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625170)

Not all weapons are offensive. The deterrence is the value.

That's just M.A.D.!

Re:Taking the initiative! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625193)

> Not all weapons are offensive. The deterrence is the value.

Methinks you need a dictionary; apparently you are misled about the meanings of one these two words ("offensive" and "deterrence").

Re:Taking the initiative! (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625276)

No. Why do I say that? Because even countries [washingtontimes.com] like [brookings.edu] China [iht.com], as bad as its rights record is, is seen as more popular and less of a threat to world peace than America. (especially check out that second poll - it really drives home what the world thinks of uss)

We all like to think of ourselves as the good guys. Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

Re:Taking the initiative! (0, Offtopic)

willie3204 (444890) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625139)

Figure out a way to blame the hurricane and the financial blows it on Bush and you can call your self a true slashdotter!!

Re:Taking the initiative! (0, Troll)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625189)

I can't blame the hurricanes on Bush.

But I can rightfully blame the fact that there are huge numbers of people out there cheering for them on Bush. :)

This will seem odd.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625100)

But assume for one second that the United States were to go the way of the USSR, or at the very least, begin to decline in (financial) power. What happens when they decide that unless they are kept as "king of the world" no one else should be allowed to be either?

Re:This will seem odd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625112)

Then you better say your prayers, stupid Euro.

Re:This will seem odd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625201)

Jeeze, if you couldn't tell by my accent, I'm educated, err... Canadian.

Re:This will seem odd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625295)

My guess is that Bush will probably go on national television and deliver an address (probably one that would be overtly religious; look for plenty of references to "Christ" and "Judea." Be very afraid of people who believe that it is their duty to bring about Armageddon.) The US attack would focus primarily on EU power centers. London and Moscow would be the first to go, followed by Berlin, Paris, Madrid, and Rome/Vatican City. Once the major nuclear powers had been neutralized, we would then take out the rest of the major population centers in the Western Hemisphere, followed by Southeast Asia and India.

Five years ago I would have dismissed myself as a paranoid tin-foil hatter, but not today.

What will they call it? (1)

HugePedlar (900427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625103)

A FUDellite?

Seriously, though - Does it discriminate in what it jams? What about emergency services? What about leakage into non-war zones?

Fucking assholes. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625105)

You really think pointing weapons at others makes you safer, don't you?

Re:Fucking assholes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625119)

Well said! This shit has to stop...

Don't look at me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625191)

I'm an American, but I didn't design the thing, build it, or launch it. Nor did I vote for any of the people that did. The breadth of that brush you're trying to tar all Americans with might come back and hit you in the ass. Not all of us are militaristic mouthbreathers.

Re:Don't look at me (1)

Fastball (91927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625304)

You know if we had pointed this satellite at the parent's wifi hotspot, none of this responding would have been necessary. I think the military is on to something here. Hoohah!

Re:Don't look at me (2, Insightful)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625314)

I'm an American, but I didn't design the thing, build it, or launch it. Nor did I vote for any of the people that did. The breadth of that brush you're trying to tar all Americans with might come back and hit you in the ass. Not all of us are militaristic mouthbreathers.

Well, to a first approximation, you are. After spending years trying to reconcile the fact that I've met many perfectly nice Americans versus the heavy boot that you collectively place on the neck of many other nations (and on your own downtrodden), I've given up. It's a democracy and yo're free to work hard to change it or, if you can't live with it, to leave. If you stay and don't work hard enough to change it, or are simply outnumbered by the mouthbreathers, don't bother crying me a river about how you're stereotyped.

Re:Fucking assholes. (2, Insightful)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625236)

Well, we haven't been attacked lately so I'd say the tiger-repelling fallacy-of-correllation-implies-causality rock is working quite nicely.

But as weapons go, this thing isn't much...

Wow (1)

o-hayo (700478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625109)

Am I the only one that read that as "U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Janitor"?

And I just got back from vacation...

*sigh*

Can't win without space? (3, Insightful)

spicyjeff (6305) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625113)

This isn't meant as a troll, but definitions vary...
"You can't go to war and win without space."
Guess they haven't been paying much attention to Iraq.

Why is that mod'ed "troll"? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625229)

It's correct. We can go to war and kill people and break things ... and if that's how you define "winning" then we will win (even without this satellite).

If your criteria are other than killing people and breaking things, then this won't be necessary.

We've gone through how many wars in the past 50 years without this tech and the people we'll be fighting in future wars will STILL be fighting with tech and tactics recognizable 50 years ago.

Re:Can't win without space? (5, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625273)

Guess they haven't been paying much attention to Iraq.

No kidding. I think it is worth rereading Sun Tsu and noting that he had more timeless advoce-- that at least one reading of The Art of War indicates that victory is primarily political and secondarily military. This is the problem in Iraq (though it may turn out to be an unsoluable problem).

Note that in Iraq in Vietnam (against the US), in Afghanistan (against the USSR), and in many other places, you can see plenty of examples where individuals who felt that they were defending their homeland were able to take on technologically superior forces and eventually wear them down to the point where it was politically problematic to continue. The same may be happening in Iraq today.

This general's statement only works when everything else is equal. It might work in a situation like Kosovo where we were *helping* those who were defending their homeland. But had we gotten sucked into a land war in, say, Serbia, it would have been far different.

I don't think the parent was a troll. I think he should be modded up insightful.

reconquista ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625115)

The attack won't come from space.

Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (1)

timeToy (643583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625122)

Space jamming, EMP, Echelon and other unknown stuff, US definitely put the accent on the information war. Are all theses hi-tech gadgets really effective in today's world, where terrorists are the biggest treat ? A good old steganography algorithm, a Hotmail address and all theses fancy gadget are defeated...

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625142)

Hold, now! We only spend half of the world's total military spending. If the rest of the world bands together, and they took out our nuclear weapons first, they could defeat us militarily. We must be prepared.

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (1)

timeToy (643583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625200)

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys ? Why the rest of the world would want to band together against us ?

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625187)

Are all theses hi-tech gadgets really effective in today's world, where terrorists are the biggest treat ?

Hold it, citizen. We suspect that what looks on the surface like an innocent typo is in fact a Freudian slip revealing your secret terrorist sympathies. Please report to your local CIA office for debriefing immediately. Don't bother to bring a passport, there's no immigration control at Gitmo.

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (1)

timeToy (643583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625222)

Damnit, monsieur ! Je ne suis pas celui que vous croyez...

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625205)

Are all theses hi-tech gadgets really effective in today's world, where terrorists are the biggest treat?

Assuming you mean "threat" (not "treat", since they're definitely not).

But big a threat as terrorists are, countries like Iran that actively funnel money and resources to them are starting (slowly) to depend on information infrastructures just like we do. Sure as hell any Chinese movement on Taiwan, for example, would be a lot harder for them to pull off if they suddenly lost their command and control pathways. This is about having the ability to act in such situations, not about whether it contributes to stopping some loon with a backpack bomb from blowing up a train. Those situations are not mutually exclusive, and require their own preparation/action as best we can manage them.

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625241)

I dont know, in 100 years the terrorist threat may seem like a treat! Given the WMD's these wackos are deploying today.

Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (2, Funny)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625221)

A good old EMP and all your data is steganographed and you can't get to hotmail.

Once the world gets tired of the BS... (1)

Danuvius (704536) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625123)

... and the radiation settles to acceptable levels; I will do a happy little dance. ;-)

USA calling China and Inida (1)

ChickenFan (887311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625124)

Good luck getting to the moon without comms, losers.

Does this mean the ISS won't be able to pick up those russian porn stations any more?

Yes we NEED space weapons. (5, Informative)

tcd004 (134130) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625125)

Here's a great interview with an airforce dude [foreignpolicy.com] on why space weapons are the must-have accessory for all modern militaries. Oh, and here's the article [foreignpolicy.com] that he was responeding to, arguing that they're unnecessary...

tcd004

Wasted Resources (2, Insightful)

Ledgem (801924) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625126)

This just feels like a waste, economically. I can see some benefits for the military, but won't other world powers want to have this ability, too? I don't mean to sound like a peace monger, but the US has to realize that even though we don't see ourselves as a threat (rather, we see ourselves as the ultimate force of good, it seems), once we develop some technology, other nations will want to match or better it. Overall... wasted resources, wasted time, wasted effort that could have been put toward something productive.

Re:Wasted Resources (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625199)

And if we don't, the other nations get this technology FIRST. Then we're in trouble. That's probably some of the reasoning behind it.

Different Flavours of Jammer (1)

ABCC (861543) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625129)

Seeing as Bushy is from the Lone Star state, I bet it's a rasberry jammer.

Whos the potential enemy (1)

crkpot (915189) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625131)

Who is the enemy they speak of defending us against at the expense of of billions spent and if it is Russia (which I can pretty much assume at this point) then how can we assume they dont have the same. So the real question is who gets to jam who first.. Real quagmire.

Re:Whos the potential enemy (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625284)

FTA:

"We watch China," one official said. "They've had 45 successful launches since 1996. They will be a very robust and potent competitor in the future, and we want to make sure we understand who they are and how they're emerging in this business. They look at us; we look at them."

And we're gonna use it... (3, Funny)

ObjetDart (700355) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625149)

every time some European brags about how much better their cell phones are than American cell phones.

Militarization of Space (2, Interesting)

bsandersen (835481) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625156)

I thought there was some notion that we would not attempt to militarize
space. Given the problems we already have with "space junk", orbiting
materials left over from previous launches ranging in size from rivets and
nuts to whole satellites, encouraging a "space race" of orbiting weapon
systems (including weapons against communication) seems crazy and
deeply disappointing.

I can only hope that such a space-race doesn't clog the low-Earth-orbit
regions so legitimate, peaceful endeavors can continue without being
pelted by the space-borne mine-field of junk left over from this disaster.

Re:Militarization of Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625316)

Yes, but who cares about laws and agreements when there is the ultimate argument for breaking all laws and ideals: "terrorists".

Military Intelligence (3, Funny)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625159)

"You can't go to war and win without space."

General "Buck" Turgidson:" Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"

General "Buck" Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."

Memorable Quotes from Dr. Strangelove [imdb.com] or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Space Command Website (1)

jatemack (870255) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625162)

If their communication jamming technology is as up to date as the code on their website, we have nothing to fear.

Air Force Space Command [af.mil]

Re:Space Command Website (1)

Fareq (688769) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625248)

They seriously need to go through there and remove all the commented-out sections... that's just gross with all the huge chunks of HTML just commented out...

The current war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625166)

The Iraqui resistance seems to be doing just fine without space...

Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625177)

At least this isnt as useless as some things the military decides to need, like a war. This way we can at least jam bad radio stations.

Money well spent (2, Insightful)

Viper233 (132365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625178)

I'm sure everyone in New Orleans (...Houston) feels alot better knowing that they'll have enemy communication blocked in space... not to mention all those unemployed people who are too lazy to get a job.... Heard the unemployment rate is the highest it's been in 10 years in the US.
More importantly will it lower or raise the price of oil???

Man I'm crumpy this morning...

Communications Disruption (1, Insightful)

illumina+us (615188) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625186)

No one has said it yet: "A communication disruption can only mean one thing: invasion."

Charlie Don't Surf (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625190)

Ghetto terrorists don't have satellites. That's why they win asymmetric battles against musclebound national armies. Because all the Qaeda have to do to get the US to spend $10,000 dealing with an "incident" in Afhanistan is send a guy to a rocky outcropping and plant a yellow flag with a Koran verse.

1 Qadea asshole: $1.75:day
1 Prayer flag: $0.13
1 US counteraction: $10,000
Victory: priceless

When the US invests money to increase peace with satellite deploying rivals, we get increased wealth in our global economy (of which the US has the leading share). Or we can invest the money preparing for war with them. Of course we have to invest some in warfare preparedness. And equally certain is the necessity of investing in peace. Or we won't get it. Who wants to be kinda safe in perpetual war?

Re:Charlie Don't Surf (1)

Fastball (91927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625259)

Ghetto terrorists don't have satellites.

So what makes you think this will be used to target "ghetto terrorists?"

Re:Charlie Don't Surf (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625287)

Truely great post. Al Queda has stretched our resources far beyond capacity with almost no invesment. Too bad what it has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about here :-P

Lil' Zonky Again (0, Troll)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625194)

Zonk, again you've blown it. If you read your summary, you've written " Washington Times makes note of aa recent satellite launch by the U.S..."

I don't get this -- what does "Alchoholics Anonymous" have to do with satellites?

Oh, I get it -- it is a spelling mistake. This is why the Jihad [anti-slash.org] hates you, Zonk. You have stupid editing mistakes in your articles. Please try it again, this time with a spellchecker.

Isn't their a preview button for stories? (1)

niXcamiC (835033) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625195)

aa recent satellite launch by the U.S.

Re:Isn't their a preview button for stories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625286)

Isn't their a preview button for stories?

Isn't THERE a preview button for comments?

The above quote was edited (2, Funny)

popo (107611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625204)

The Central Communications office of the US Air Force was forced to recall and edit the General's original comment, which they felt was "too forward thinking". Originally the General was quoted as saying "You can't go to war and win without spice."

The General later apologized and blamed it on too much time in the desert, but not before raising his fist and screaming "Long live the Fighters!"

The Air Force has refused to comment further.

Offensive or Defensive? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625228)

How many satellite communication networks does Osama Bin Laden have? I mean come on. I thought we had one enemy and I don't think they communicate by satellite. It is funny how neo-cons have taken a simple war and elevated it into the us vs them mentality in which them are just about everybody including the citizens of the United States of America.

IMO, this is a blatent offensive posturing move of a facsist regime. All it can do is futher de-stabilize the world. The Bush admin seems quite bent on driving the whole world into the ground and ignores any lessons learned in the last century. The US is doomed with this mentality.

I've been waiting for it... (2, Funny)

arootbeer (808234) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625231)

Ob. Simpsons reference

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

Just Great (1)

paradizelost (689394) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625242)

Now we can block China, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq's communications, possibly their ability to use nukes, and then we can nuke them. YAY!!! :P

It's true... (2, Funny)

NthDegree256 (219656) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625245)

Read up on your history if you don't believe it. No major war has ever been won without a significant space presence.

Re:It's true... (1)

dragonp12 (798787) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625268)

I'd say that people involved in the Napoleonic wars and suchlike would probably disagree with you.

In Soviet Russia.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625267)

In Soviet America, satellites jam YOU!

Heh, couldn't resist!

-Acercanto

Uhh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625274)

Am I wrong or could you not just wrap a big piece of aluminum foil over an enemy satelite to jam it? If so, would that not be cheaper than the technology to "send a jamming signal".

Not a new idea, just a new public announcement (2, Interesting)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625283)

This kind of thing has been possible/discussed for a long time. In the early 80s there were rumors the Soviets had wood-encased satellites which were harder to detect. They were to move close to comm satellites then blow themselves up, suicide satellites, if you will. There's no reason to think such things haven't been deployed for at least a generation. What's interesting here is the open public announcement of directed energy satellites for jamming. Most miltary systems have been deployed for quite a while before the public hears anything about them. There have probably been dual-use birds from a number of countries for quite a while. Nothing new here...

It is more likely that this will be used (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625300)

against "unauthorized" civilian communications. Especially wireless networking that can bypass the gatekeepers(corporate ISPs).

And why are we telling the world? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625305)

What's the point of having this neato device, if we're just going to tell the world that we have one?!

Your enemies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625321)

But does it jam tornados? It seems that nature doesn't like you anymore too. :)
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...