U.S. Air Force Plans for War In Space

arhca writes "Wired has an article about the U.S. Air Force's plans to put military weapons in outer space. Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground, space-based lasers and large mirrors to reflect the beams at targets on the ground, and a space-based radio frequency energy weapon to destroy or disable foreign satellites. The Air Force's PDF can be found here."

Re:Weapons in space?

The United States withdrew from the ABM treaty, as permitted in the provisions of the treaty. The treaty was not "broken". Get your facts straight before you start jerking your knees.

Re:Weapons in space?

According to the article...

Despite such technical hurdles, space-based arms are legal. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from orbit.

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:Weapons in space?

It might be legal, but I don't see the point nor the ethics. Aren't there enough weapons already? The US has already won the arms race, yet they still want to enlarge that gap. Not everyone is pro-american, but with this behavour the US is feeding those people's fears.. Why do they need so much weapons if it isn't for world domination? Furthermore, an orbital weapon isn't useful against a terrorist, it's meant for war.

Re:Weapons in space?

Isn't there some treaty banning that? But then, the Bush administration doesn't seem to mind breaking arms-control treaties. (ABM treaty, anyone?)

Didn't you RTFA or were you too interested in getting a +5 FP and scoring a political shot against the Bush administration? Let me quote:

Despite such technical hurdles, space-based arms are legal. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from orbit.

Mind you that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or that I'm endorsing it. But it's certainly not illegal or in violation of any treaty.

Re:Weapons in space?

And in other news, the United States Air force came under attack today from a group of hackers known as Slashdot. For over five hours, a "denial of service" attack was conducted against an Air Force webserver. Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, said he is looking into the matter, and that he is expects arrests will be made shortly.

Re:Weapons in space?

Saddam didn't have the weapons but wasn't 'open' to letting us look.

Iraq certainly resisted the UNSCOM/IAEA inspection regime. And they threatened to expell them after it became obvious that the CIA had infiltrated the organization and used it to gather intelligence for a failed coup attempt. But in the end it was the Clinton administration which pushed UNSCOM/IAEA into withdrawing. And by then (1998) they had dismantled the country's entire nuclear program. The only remaining questions concerned chemical and biological weapons. Then in 2002, Iraq allowed both UNMOVIC and the IAEA in country for on the ground invasive inspections, and received a clean bill of health on the nuclear side. So it is pretty difficult to argue that they didn't "let us look."

Read the final UNMOVIC/IAEA report. [acronym.org.uk]

The Bush administration, notably Rumsfeld, actively lies about the specifics of UNSCOM's departure from Iraq, claiming Sadaam expelled them. The state department web site is slightly more circumspect, using the passive voice "were expelled" without subject. That is arguably accurate, so long as you claim it was Clinton who expelled them. Officially, they withdrew on their own.

Re:Weapons in space?

(I know I'm gonna regret this...) You know, it's not like the Soviet Union, with whom the treaty was signed, ever adhered to the ABM.

You are right, you are going to regret this.
The ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) limited the number and type (non nationwide) of ABM systems a country could have.
The ABM treat was resigned, in 1992. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) signed the treaty with us, the US. Of course, the US pulled out of the ABM in 2002. But the ABM never had to do with the weapon systems that "evil do-er" ever were after...
You can read all about it Here [fas.org]

Re:Correction...

1. Kyoto protocol was voted against 95 to 0 in the senate, and therefore had no chance of being legally binding in the US. We don't live in a dictatorship a president signing a treaty is mostly symbolic.

2. The provisions of the ICC would have been unconstitutional in the US. Therefore any such treaty would be null and void, and a crime against the american people.

3. The EU has been breaking a judgement by the WTO about bananas that went through the full appeals system for quite sometime now. Don't here a lot about that now do we? Besides.. those tarriffs were lifted.

4. Awww... the rest of world honestly didn't understand what "serious consequences" was going to mean... get real!

5. The ABM treaty was ALLOWED to be broken, with notice. Russia said the same thing although they called it "regrettable"

Re:Correction...

Wow you've really being drinking the cool-aid.

Can you list the other countries that refused to ratify Kyoto or are you only interested in bashing the U.S.

Comments and attitudes like yours explain exactly why the U.S. didn't sign the treaty on the international criminal court. They are held to a different standard. Does anyone give a shit about numerous nrth vietnamese war crimes during vietnam both against the U.S. and the vietnamese people? I've never heard anyone complain.

When was the last time anyone like you posted a rant here about China's numerous civil rights violations or occupation of countries?

It's completely one sided even in the US media.

When you explain why Clinton never did the scores of sins by omission that Bush is bashed for you might have a case.

Re:Correction...

There is a treaty but the Bush administration doesn't give a shit.

Sorry, as I pointed out here [slashdot.org] that treaty only says you can't put nukes into space. It say nothing about non-nuclear weapons.

1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;

Would you have preferred that the US Senate refused to ratify it? Because that's exactly what would have happened if Bush hadn't pulled out of it.

2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;

See previous point about US Senate.

3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements

Most Americans don't think free-trade and NAFTA/WTO are all they are cracked up to be. We are tired of seeing our high-paying jobs outsourced overseas and watching your Government subsidized businesses (*cough* Airbus *cough*) compete with ours. Bush was carrying out the will of a large portion of his people on that one. I only wish he had the guts to stay with it.

Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate

No point in disputing that one.

The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office

Yeah but those treaties allowed us to withdraw after giving them six months notice. Very technically speaking if the Russians had wanted to scrap them they could have. We didn't "break" those treaties.

Face facts, when it comes to international relations, there's a lot that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about. Pretend all you want, but the current US government has set back US-World relationships more than any other in history. It took all the goodwill and support the World had to offer after September 11 and either pissed it away or threw it back into people's faces.

I'm not going to argue that one. Please try that remember that at least 50% of the people over here hate Bush at least as much as you do (it's not your personal freedoms he's taking away -- his domestic policies are as big of a disaster as his foreign policies) -- he stands a very good chance of not being re-elected.

My problem with Bush isn't that he puts America's interests first when it comes to international relations. All of our leaders have done that. All of your leaders have done that. My problem with Bush is that he wouldn't know the meaning of diplomacy if he tripped over it. There's usually a way to get most of what you want without offending people or making them think you are trying to conquer the planet.

I'd also agree with your 9/11 statements. That was a huge chance to right a lot of old wrongs -- the example that first pops into my head is Cuba -- Castro condemned the attacks -- what better chance to end our foolish embargo against him without losing face then that? Unfortunately the neo-cons are running things and they don't give a damn about what you or I think. And I happen to be an American citizen. They seem to think that losing the popular vote by 500,000 gives them some sort of mandate to impose their right-wing agenda on us and the rest of the World.

God I hope Bush loses come November.

Re:Correction...

We are tired of seeing our high-paying jobs outsourced overseas and watching your Government subsidized businesses (*cough* Airbus *cough*) compete with ours.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Boeing has never being subsidized by the US government. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Re:Correction...

Umm... you clearly have no idea what you are talking about:

1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US

The president of the United States can not ratify ANY treaty. Treaties are ratified by the US Senate. The Kyoto treaty has never even come to a vote in the Senate yet, largely because in 1997 the US Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution (with 65 co-sponsors) to send a message to then President Clinton basically warning him that it would be rejected if he continued to push for it.

3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements

I am assuming you are referring to the recent impass between the EU and the US. The NA in NAFTA stands for North American. Last I checked neither Canada nor Mexico were members of the EU.

4. Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate, hence the UN-bashing when the US didn't get close to getting what it wanted (no, the previous decade old resolutions were not sufficient, if they were the US wouldn't have been looking for a new resolution green-lighting the war in late 2002 and it wouldn't have got so shitty with France and the other countries in the Security Council that promised to veto any such resolution)

Actually, the US did have a mandate from the UN. UN resolution 686 authorized use of force against Iraq in the first Gulf War. That war ended in a cease fire the terms of which were broken nearly daily by Iraq as they engaged coalition aircraft. The second gulf war can easily be viewed as a continuation of the first.

5. The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office.

You have me baffled by this one. Which treaties are you talking about? I spent the last 30 minutes searching google thinking that I had missed something about the US pulling out on SALT or START and found NOTHING. I assume you are referring to the ABM treaty, which was not broken. The treay was exitted using the exact procedures as outlined within the document.

As for all your anti-american sentiment crap: How does sentiment abroad relate to Bush? Did this sentiment exist before 9/11? If Bush is the root of all this sourness abroad, and Clinton is the antithesis of Bush, then why was Al Quaeda attacking the US and planning 9/11 during his presidency?

Re:Correction...

Uh no, any "aid" that our government hands out is at a price. Sometimes it means letting us put troops anywhere we want in their country, sometimes it means high interest rates on the "aid," and sometimes it means buying certain goods only from the US, or selling certain goods at a steep discount only to the US. For example, the Bush administration recently gave "aid" to South Africa in the form of millions of dollars to help fight the rapid spread of HIV. This money was not just given away, it was loaned at higher than market interest rates and the stipulation of the arrangement was that South Africa could only use this money to by AIDS drugs from US pharmaceutical companies at above market costs (rather than from South American companies selling the same drugs at a fraction of the cost). Now you tell me, is that a free handout? The free handout concept is a myth used by non-political (i.e. uniformed) republicans to place blame for our deficit. Much like how they whine about welfare as draining our pockets. In actuality foreign "aid" and welfare combined are less than 10% of our national spending, and defense (a misnomer, as it should be labeled "offense") is over 50%. So I ask, where are our priorities? And does the allocation of our national monies reflect the will of the people or just a few warmongering, wealthy, assholes who can never seem to accrue enough money to satisfy themsleves.

Re:Correction...

So, please cut US foreign aid to zero. Even if nothing changes in the Middle East, it would be interesting to see how many oppressive right-wing puppet regimes fall as a result.

Would you please name the oppressive right-wing puppet regimes we are currently supporting? Please don't go back into history for examples because I could just as easily retrot with evil regimes your country has supported. As we've previously established all nation-states act in their own (perceived) best-interest. I'm just wondering what oppressive right-wing regimes we are currently supporting. You need not reply if the only example you can come up with is "Israel".

I know saying this will get me labelled anti-semitic* but as long as Israel feels that the US is 100 percent in its camp then the situation in the Middle East will never improve. It will take a serious commitment by Israel, and by the US, as well as by the other parties to achieve lasting peace in the region. That commitment will never be made as long as Israel and hardliners like Ariel Sharon are allowed to dominate the politics of the region with bombs, rockets and tank shells.**

I don't think cutting off our aid to Israel is going to solve anything. If anything that'll just make them feel like their backs are against the wall. Do you really want a nuclear-armed nation to feel like it has it's back against the wall with no allies?

We could take a step in the right direction by selectively refusing to send them certain military equipment, pressuring the Government to come back to the bargaining table and giving them a promise of American security in the advent of another war with the Arab states. Pulling the rug out from under them overnight isn't going to accomplish anything -- it would ultimately be self-defeating.

But this discussion is about the influence that US aid has on the region, and that influence is solely on Israel. The one thing I will say about the subject is I don't see how escalating levels of violence can bring about the peace that both Israelis and Palestineans deserve. Sometimes, you have to be the one willing to break the circle of bloodshed: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as Ghandi so eloquently put it.)

Actually until Bush pissed it away by invading Iraq we had a considerable amount of influence with the Arabs too. We still have some influence with the Saudis but not too much left with the Palestinians these days I suspect.

Lastly to avoid looking like a hypocrite if you are going to criticize the US for supplying Israel with bombs and tank shells you should also citizen the Arab states for supplying the families of the suicide bombers with cash. What's the difference?

P.S.: Long time no see. Good to know your still around!

Re:Correction...

Would you please name the oppressive right-wing puppet regimes we are currently supporting?

It's off course difficult to find out what makes a country "a oppressive right-wing puppet regime" but there are some candidates that USA supports:
-Pakistan
-Saudi Arabia
-Turkmenistan (?)
-Egypt (?)

An why can't Israel be on the list?
It's "such a special country"? They are our friends"?

Re:Weapons in space?

Wow, President Carter, I didn't you read Slashdot!

Re:Weapons in space?

I think you're confusing the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and maybe what exactly they ban.

The ABM treaty restricts anti-ballistic missile systems to limited areas that can't protect the entire country. At the moment nobody has a functional anti-ballistic missile system, and only the US has so much as a plain old anti-missile system. None of these are availible on the black market. The US withdrew from this, which the treaty allowed. Whether that was a good idea is another story.

The NPT bans nuclear powers giving non-nuclear powers weapons, and non-nuclear powers from trying to find or build their own. It does allow helping developing nations with nuclear power. You could make the argument that this is meaningless, since somebody probably gave Israel nukes, and maybe North Korea has a model from somewhere to work from, but the State Department still prefers to respect it.

The Outer Space Treaty bans putting nuclear weapons platfroms in space, and using celestial bodies for any military use at all. This doesn't violate that treaty, since the moon and nukes aren't involved.

Maybe you could rephrase, specifying what treaties you're actually talking about.

Re:Weapons in space?

I don't know that there's any solid evidence of anyone who signed it violating the NPT; actually building a nuclear weapon isn't that difficult to do, if one can obtain the materials. Mining and enriching enough uranium or obtaining enough plutonium to build a bomb is the tricky part; once you've done that you just need a few halfway competent physicists to design the thing; the science behind it is more than 60 years old and not all that secret. This is why it's silly to start saying the problem was that Iraq having the technical knowledge necessary to build a bomb without having the materials was a imminent threat. You can walk into any university physics department and find a handful of graduate students with the "technical knowledge" necessary to build a crude bomb.

Correct me if I am wrong

But wasn't that the plan of SDI back under Reagan?

Re:Correct me if I am wrong

Well, yes and no.

The stated goal of the Reagan SDI was along those lines, but the real plan of the SDI was to create a technological race that the USSR had no chance of matching, which launched the US into prominence and bankrupted the USSR.

It worked well, apparently.

Actually....

Actually it was just the standard practice of using government funds to prop up the economy. The Russians, as every knew, have been fucked since the 1960s. Besides, it was the mercenaries we sent into Afghanistan that bankrupted the USSR (before the Soviets got there, btw), not SDI.

Actually that's only partially right. According to a recent book that I read about the Cold War Khrushchev mitiousally planned the Soviet economy back in the 60s to overtake the West in about 20 years. Had the economy stayed where it was in the 60s (manufacturing, steel, raw resources -- basically the paradigm that had ruled since the industrial revolution) the West would have been screwed in an economic sense. Probably not a military one, because there's always the nuclear deterrent (the whole point of which was originally to stop the Russians from taking over Western Europe -- we had our doubts as to our ability to defeat their massed tank armies), but it's something to consider.

Fortunately the global economy went hi-tech and the West (with our non-centrally planned system) proved able to adapt faster. Reagan might get some of the credit for tying the Russians down in a massive arms race (hard to focus on improving your technology and economy if you need to devote 40% of your GDP to the military to keep up with the capitalist pigs) but the Cold War was going to end one way or another. All Reagan did was force it to happen sooner which arguably destabilized the World -- and oh by the way, we'll all be paying for his military buildup for the next couple of decades...

Re:Actually....

I had the opportunity to hear Gorbachev speak back in 2000 in Florida. One of the quotes I took away was, "America tried very hard to lose the Cold War. The Solviet Union tried harder."

Fairly succinct summary one would think.

Re:Actually....

What a bunch of crap!

The West didn't "pull the rug" out from under the Soviet Union. Gorbachev tried to take the Soviet Union slowly towards the world you are describing but couldn't resist the will of his own people to see more radical change.

The Chinese are doing exactly what you are describing - a slow transition to a free economy - but the big difference is the Chinese were willing to shoot down the protestors in Tiananmen Square while the Russian soldiers just stood down to Boris Yeltsin when he mounted that tank. I'll take a former Soviet Union in its current state over one in the state in which China is any day, thank you.

Russia is a third world nation because communism reduced its economy to rubble. Communism is full of internal contradictions and completely disregards human nature. A totalitarian society is able to mask those problems like the Soviet Union did but it is not sustainable.

Here's a clue stick: Radical Islam has nothing to do with the Soviet Unions collapse. Radical Islam has much more to do with the US's policy over the last 50 years of not getting directly involved in conflicts it cares about but using proxy agents of dubious morality (Osama, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, the Saudi princes, etc.) to try and achieve what it wanted to. In every one of those cases those proxy agents committed horrible crimes which the US ended up getting blamed for since they were our proxy agents after all.

The Old Air Force Bake Sale Quote

It will be a great day
when our schools get all the money they need
and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber

Do we really need this stuff? I could see arguments for more communications hardware up there, but hypervelocity weapons and lasers? How many decades will pass before something even remotely workable is off the drawing boards? Ike must be rolling in his grave.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong

seems like a troll, but you raised some interesting points, so I'll bit.

have 0 tariffs while other countries subsidize their own exports

Have you forgotten the US is also one of the worlds leading exporters? The idea is balanced fair play and mutual cooperation, not atrophying our economic power.

Pull all of our troops out of anywhere that someone doesn't want them - anywhere in the mideast, etc. We'll pull out of protecting south korea and Taiwan too. I am sure the enlightened governments of China and North Korea will act responsibly.

That's no a bad idea. If you've been following international events, you'd know that China doesn't want *Any* shooting on the Korean Peninsula, no matter who starts it. With enormous economic and cultural ties to South Korea, there is too much at stake. (did you know that Korean soap operas enjoy significant air time in mainland China?) As far as Taiwan is concerned, the same kind of economic stability issue is also applicable. Plus, diplomatic relationships, even if only superficial (if you're a cynic), is hard to terminate. China is a big country with a lot to loose in the event of geo-political nastiness. They can be counted on to play fair if not play nice. You also seem to overlook the fact that the far-east isn't really our tramping grounds. There is no shame in letting others take care of themselves. Though some are nervous about it, the Japanese have made non-trivial efforts to flex its defense force. The latest evidence of this being their recent deployment to the gulf of non-combat units. Less obvious is the fact that they are a nuclear capable nation with an established space industry. How much effort do you think they would need to slap together a nuclear tipped rocket? I don't think they've made any explicit declerations along those lines, but the message is quite clear to everyone who matters.

Give free uranium to Iran and North Korea

Why? What purpose is served by helping others self-destruct? Idiotic suggestion with no rational merit.

Kill all the jews in Israel and reform the palestinian state...can you point me to the map that shows where the original palestinian state was?

completely off the wall.....Should not be dignified with a response.

Allow genocide in the baltics - after all, we did act without a UN sanction there

My impression has been that the baltics situation have been run mostly by the Europeans as of late. They certainly have the most at stake, so that is as it *should* be. They should certainly be able to handle it if they get their act together. As a part of NATO, we are obliged to help if called up. But by the book, *only if called upon*! If the mutual defense clause is involked by any European NATO member, our military presence would be completely justified.

Put leaders in power in 3rd world countries like Clinton did in Haiti - that has worked out well

Do *you* know what happened in Haiti? Please explain what went wrong for us.

Give all of our billions of dollars in drug research away for free to everyone

indeed. We paid for much of it already with our tax dollars. The international angle is very different, but that has been well hashed and I will not continue that arguement here.

Pull out of Afghan and Iraq so their benevolent former leaders can return to power

Those former leaders may not have been nenevolent, but they're not coming back. leaving the job half done is what gets the US into so much trouble in the first place. The irony is, we know how to do it right, we're just too lazy to bother in recent years. I will leave *you* the task of finding out why the nation-building success stories of Japan, Germany, and South Korea are different from disasters like Vietnam, latin America, and the Mid-East. (hint: I've already told you.)

Let France, Germany and China resume blackmarket trading with Iraq - I'm sure eventu

Re:Correct me if I am wrong

...bankrupted the USSR.

The only "satellite" that "bankrupted" the USSR was satellite TV. With all the bootleg dishes in the country, people were getting a taste of American/European news/entertainment, and then they started thinking WTF are we doing to ourselves, and we see the result today.

Of course...

Of course all this high powered weaponry will NOT MAKE A SOUND IN SPACE (not even cool 'zap' sounds). Perhaps they should put that into the article scifi movie writers will take note.


Note: This is a joke. Everytime I attempt humor on slashdot, the mods get it, but I get about 50 replies explaining why what I wrote is wrong. If you have no sense of humor, get off the net and go find some :-P

Re:Of course...

To be perfectly technical, Slashdot is no place for your humor attempts, you insensitive clod!

Re:Of course...

You're wrong! What you wrote isn't actually a joke. But don't worry, the mods "got it" and you're modded funny.
-N

GOOD sci fi writers know this.

Firefly.

No sound in space. Fairly accurate physical model. Check out the DVDs, it's a great series that was cut down before its prime.

-lw

Hypervelocity?

hypervelocity n : excessive velocity; "the meteorites struck the earth with hypervelocity impacts"

Are these rods the size of VWs or something? That's pretty ambitious, if you ask me.

Re:Hypervelocity?

These large hypervelocity cannons will float in space, but once they make a shot there'll be quite a kickback. Watch for space-cannons landing on the moon.

Re:Hypervelocity?

Sigh, slashdot physics... :)

Actually, the force on both objects is necessarily equal and opposite in direction. You are correct that F=ma plays a role though.

If m(cannon) = 100 and m(projectile) = 1, and the forces are equal, let's say F=1, then the acceleration a(cannon) will be 1/100 = .01, but the acceleration of the projectile will be 1/1 = 1.

I say we transfer the program to the deparement of education on the grounds that it'll make for some good physics textbook examples.

Re:Hypervelocity?

excessive velocity

Kind of makes you wonder, what would be considered an excessive velocity? Is there an acceptable velocity for a metal rod being flung from space at the earth?

And we will call it...

The Alan Parsons Project!

The Crossbow Project

"There's no defense like a good offense."

Now what about the popcorn...

wow

Ah the sheer scope of our commitement to killing each other is staggering.

Technology? Progress? Dude, nothing has changed since my ancestral parent kicked your acestral parent's ass with a bone club.

Web pages, blogs, palm pilots....big fucking deal.

Re:wow

I think you're mistaken. My ancestral parent was the one that kicked your weak-ass ancestral parent.

loser.

Re:wow

Actually it is technology and progress that has given us the ability to selectively kill so effectively, that the last 60 years have been among the most peaceful (statistically) in history. Granted, the proliferation of nuclear weapons terrifies me... but I would say that their deterrent value has been proven.

Re:wow

The most peaceful? What the hell are you talking about? War has been ravaging the world for the last sixty years. Not in the US or (most of) Europe, but elsewhere in the world -- nearly all of Africa, most of South and Central America, South and Southeast Asia have all seen significant conflicts in the past 60 years. Is it more than in the past? It's hard to say -- there's more people and more activity. There's less "war", but that's largely meaningless, it only reflects on modern diplomacy and current definitions of war.

War has a tremendous effect on our world. Every famine you hear about in Africa is caused by war -- not by drought. I think history will identify both halves of the 20th century as times of war, not peace.

Re:wow

I disagree.

Mainly, people have this impression because they aren't given a good grounding in history. On many important metrics, the environment is far better off than it was a century ago-- but increased scrutiny means we are only in the last couple decades paying attention to the problem at all. Similarly, conflicts that we never would have heard about (in Rwanda, for example) are now front-page material, with pictures.

In previous centuries, we just didn't track all this violence as carefully or with the same outrage. A hundred years ago, war in Africa, Asia or South America was ignored. To this day, history books kind of gloss over it.

Most of the ethnic conflicts of the latter half of the 20th century are longstanding affairs dating back hundreds and thousands of years-- eg the Balkans, central Asia, the expansion of Islam, Rwanda. Is any of this new?

As bad as war is, the second half of this century has seen less of it than most of the rest of history. The first half saw unprecedented conflict in both scope and severity, so you are right for the century as a whole.

$1 Trillion debt and counting..

So these weapons will float up there without an enemy (at the moment) but once a foreign nation is considered "evildoers" the U.S. can rain down destruction as their war-machine infrastructure is already in place.

Naturally the American taxpayers will be told that this will make the world a safer place.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

"All it does it remove the mask of civility and democracy from what is ***IMHO*** an increasingly tyrannical power."

I hate to pick on a specific foreign power, but I'm going to here. My appologies to those it offends.

China is going to space. What scenario would you prefer: that China have a sole lock on military power in Earth orbit or that we share that (potential) battlefield?

I'd much rather that there be a stand-off. Heck, I'd prefer that over having the US there alone.

And as for the US being a tyrannical power... heh, you clearly have never seen tyranny. Yeah, the US isn't exectly the good guy. What we've done to Central and South America are pretty awful, for example, but compare that to the rest of the world, and I would say we're better neighbors than about 1/3 of the world, and better to our own citizens than about 2/3 of the world.

Should we be better? Hell yeah, but that's not the definition of a tyranny.

The 70's called. They want their world view back.

Being able to drop MORE weapons on other nations does not do ANYTHING to "protect" the US citizens.

We already spend more money on our military than anyone else in the world.

What possible threat will this "protect" us from?

Back in the "Cold War" era, this might have been useful. Now it is just a waste.

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac

What possible threat will this "protect" us from?

i think the move is primarily strategic. as noted in the article, you're able to deliver far less energy using weapons from space than from terrestrial sources. the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day. space weapons allow the US to deliver military force *immediately* without having to worry about the next french/russian/german mutual masturbation festival, or what turkey's islamic parliament thinks about positioning infidel forces on its soil, or getting overfly rights from countries neighboring an enemy's territory.

also noted in the article: regardless of where the weapons are, there's a lot of communications stuff that *all* US forces depend on flying around up there. if it's possible, i imagine they want to protect that.

the US is in the unenviable position of being top-dog and being resented for it. china is playing it REAL smart, staying out of sight and biding its time as these global resentments and the resulting increased US military spending take their toll on the US economy.

oh well. i have no kids. if we can hold out another 30 years or so, i'm ok with that. i learned long ago that, even if you want to save the world, the world doesn't really give a fuck.

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac

the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day.

Yes, but it's the US that has changed, not the allies. When all your friends suddenly stop liking and trusting you, the chances are that it's you that's the problem, not your friends!

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac

Blockquoth the poster:

the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day

I guess I should be happy that the word was "adversary" and not "enemy" -- but it shocks me how many of my compatriots seem ready to abandon the Western alliance just because the Europeans had a difference of opinon with us. My God, look at what history usually produces and how closely aligned the nations of Western Europe and North America are, and you'll be more careful before flinging around accusations of adversarial intent.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

"fear leads to hate! hate leads to anger! anger leads to...suffering. that is the path of the dark side."

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

How can this be seen as anything *but* an act of aggression (NOT self-defense) by the rest of the world?

And how does making the rest of the world even *more* afraid and distrustful of the world's most heavily-armed and interventionist country make the world "a safer place"? Why does the US need to protect itself from space? No one else has huge frickin' laser beams up there. Not to mention that this totally violates the international treaties on the militarization of space.

One of the biggest reasons the US and its citizens are targets of terrorism is because the US government has, for the last 50 years at least, blatantly disregarded the sovereignty of other nations, killed innocent civilians, toppled democratically-elected governments because they didn't do whatever the current administration wanted, etc..

I'm not excusing or condoning what terrorists do, but a lot less people would choose to resort to terrorism if their wives, daughters, cousins, and children hadn't been killed by selfish "foreign policy" actions by the US. Same goes for *any* country that resorts to force for its own selfish reasons.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

The reason why everyone hates America is because you have the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in your way. Not anyone who does something wrong. Not anyone who wrongs a non-friendly country. Just anyone who happens to have something that you want that paticular week.

The problem is not the underlying forign policy of "make the world a better place" but that you only execute it when there are also self serving reasons to do so. I can not think of a single wholy selfless use of US militray might, ever. Sure youve done some good along the way while getting what you want. But the US has NEVER done good just to do good.

It wouldnt even be so bad if diddnt try to claim differently. I dont think the US (or any country) is obligated to do good just to do good. Just stop trying to con the rest of us into thinking thats what you're up to.

If you diddnt have the ability to rain down death and destruction on whomever you wanted then you wouldnt NEED the ability to rain down death and destruction.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

- North Korea would march right past the 38th parallel and into Seoul and hundreds of thousands of people would die in the process

That may be, but I missed the part where that is a problem where you should be involved. You lack standing to interfere in that affair. And you are welcome to say that you're picking fights with NK to "protect" South Korea citizens, but you should consider that you may be doing just the opposite, by taunting the sick fuck that rules NK to actually use his nukes. And anyway, my very personal belief is that you're doing this only because that particular sick fuck interferes with your control of Asia. Which is not the situation with other sick fucks that you seem to have no problem with, say, the ones you just gave two billion in military financing, and another half a billion in cash each year, to help them kick palestinian butt.

Hell, you'd probably love to get China, too, except for the little annoying fact that the Chinese can actually defend themselves against you (maybe even kick your ass, at that). But hey, at least you are quite good at badmouthing them.

- Pakistan and India would lob their brand new nukes at each other over Kashmir killing millions of people

As for Pakistan and India, may I remind you of your little show at East Pakistan, in early 1971? You know, the one the "Bangladesh concert" was about, the one that inspired catchy headlines such as "Bloodbath Inferno," by the Washington Post; "Pakistan, Dacca, City of the Dead," by the Times Magazine; and "Vast Destruction but No Fighting," by the New York Times. The one where the Pakistan Army, with American armament and led by U.S. trained officers, engaged in one of the bloodiest slaughters of the past century to reassert Islamabad's authority over the Bengalis. Damn ungrateful Bengalis, they should be thanking you dearly for all the "good" you've done with your "military power."

- The Muslims and Christians in south eastern europe would begin to kill each other again because there would be nobody to stop them
- Every country in the world that currently relies on the US for defense (and there are A LOT of countries that do rely on us through treaties and non-proliferation agreements) would collectivly crap a load of bricks and scramble to buy their own weapons
- Much of the world would degrade into dog-eat-dog anarchy, but this time everybody would have better technology.

You know, that kind of patronising bullshit gets really annoying after a while. Look, I'm not saying that what you say is an absolute lie, or that what I say must be held as absolute truth. But when it comes to our dear US of A as the white knight, defender of justice and democracy, well... Looking at your field record, I can't help but think that you have even less credibility than McBride ranting about his heroic defense on the "new frontier" of intellectual property.

I suppose morality is out of the question

Unless you consider "might makes right" the only thing you'll ever need to know about morality.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.

Well, that's the problem - everyone will. China can do it, India can do it, Russia can do it, Europe can do it. Maybe others will in the future too. Consider that if the USA puts weapons up there then all these other powers will feel compelled to develop their own. And even those countries that don't have the launch capability might find a friend in the above groups who'll launch / sell the tech for or to them.

Now if the USA had honoured previous commitments to keep space non-militarised, then perhaps these other space-capable powers would decide not to put weapons up there for fear of provoking the USA into competition (which they would have trouble competing with). A wonderful opportunity is being missed here.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

"Go get your own military for once"

I love the smell of NeoCon bullshit in the morning. You know what? Other nations DO have militaries. You know what else? They are often quite sufficient for self-defense against any plausible attacker (except the US of course).

Let's take France, since NeoCons LOVE France. France has a decent military. It can defend against any plausible threat except a US invasion. You know why they don't commit troops to our campaigns? Because the countries we're invading aren't threats to France (or anyone else)!

So now that we've established that other countries CAN, generally speaking, defend themselves with their existing armies, I guess the only unanswered question is whether the US, being the only country capable of successfully invading any country they like, will actually do it. Frankly, the money of those outside the US is better spent trying to prevent the US from attacking them than it is trying to match the US in military capabilities.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

Call me crazy, but I think the US having the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in our way does make the world a safer place. For Americans. And those are the only people our tax dollars should be protecting in the first place. Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.

You see, I think you are fairly representative of the current US administration in the first part : raining destruction on anyone they like with impunity. The second part : "get your own military" they object strongly too.

You see, you are scaring allies and potenial enemies alike. I, and many with me, are very concerned with the direction US has taken during the Bush admministration. (And for the record, I did military service in a NATO country, just in case you call me a peace-loving treehugging liberal).

The Bush administration has made the world a much less safer one.

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting..

on anyone who gets in our way

That's kinda the point. To rain destruction on anyone who threatens us is one thing. To be a fucking swaggering cowboy barking orders and giving "because I said so" excuses, one who would be laughed at if he weren't so dangerous, is another thing altogether; and that is the position we're in right now.

does make the world a safer place. For Americans.

Yeah, until you guerilla activities. Then your nukes and space lasers are useless. Try compromising and getting along. Sure, it's harder than threatening people, but get better results. Anyone who does what you say through coersion will stab you in the back the first chance they get. But then, we're right and God is on our side and the heathens will see the light once we show them the way.

Now, get me my bucket of molten lead and my red-hot poker. I'm ready to save some souls!

Re:Arms Race

Yup. Just like nukes did. Just like smart bombs did. Just like cruise missiles did.

Re:Arms Race

Interestingly the Gatling Gun was first made to be a weapon so terrible that people would see the futility of war and not fight any more.. (credits to the History Channel) The opposite happened. Increasing destructive power has always only served throughout history to up the ante when it comes to the price of fighting a war...and ultimately has made the world a more dangerous place to live.

From the desk of Dr. Evil

I invented this business plan:

1. Place giant LASER on moon/giant dridgible.
2. Hold citizens of earth hostage for 1 BILLION dollars.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

- Dr. Evil

Simpson's quote

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.

The reasonable, pacifist nerd in me Is horrified,

But the adolescent male heterosexual in me is giddily excited at the prospects. Same with you, don't deny it.

God, I read too much Sci-Fi.

Re:The reasonable, pacifist nerd in me Is horrifie

But the adolescent male heterosexual in me is giddily excited at the prospects. Same with you, don't deny it.

true, definitely true. but the weary middle-aged male in me isn't looking forward to eating catfood out of a can with my fingers in my retirement, what with all the output of our economy whizzing around in space over our heads.

Dubya Loves Star Trek

Final proof, if proof were needed, that George W really does believe Star Trek is real. He's no doubt drafted the orders for this from behind his sofa, trembling in his ST pyjamas at the thought of Klingons coming for him and stealing his oil.

You didn't

just make fun of people who wear star trek pajamas, did you?

Kiss your karma goodbye.

The Pentagon must have been...

watching this... [ubergeek.tv].

That sounds bad ass.

Let's just hope that our own satellites don't get hacked and the weapon is used against us. I'm curious to know if this is just an extension of Ronald Reagan's plans of the space missile defense systems (which at the time people scoffed at).

The ability to take out enemy satellites is also interesting. As an American, I cant' help but notice that the rules of engagement have been as follows: "Foreign countries are allowed to have weapons, as LONG as they're not as powerful as our own." which is obviously okay with me, as an American, however, so much for a fair playing field.

I had a room mate who was in the military, as he worked for the New York City counter terrorist unit, and he used to bring home videos from work that showed how we were able to target individual people from miles above the air. I'll never figure out why we'll use a bomb which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to snipe someone... when a 10 cent bullet would do the trick just fine. Now we can do it from space?

Flame me if you like, my karma sucks anyway.

Re:That sounds bad ass.

Alright, imagine you're a radical terrorist. You and your terrorist friend are walking down the street, both with dynamite strapped to your chests, or a can of nerve gas, whatever.

Scenario 1: Someone snipes your friend from a nearby window. He bleeds to death in your arms. Your reaction? Anger. Damn them! Revenge! Death to the imperialists. After all, you have bullets too. They're fighting on your terms.

Scenarion 2: A big motherfucking bomb drops out of the sky, blows your friend into tiny kibbles-n-bits sized chunks, and sends you ass over elbows into a crumpled heap some 20 yards away. Your reaction? "HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!" What ya gonna do about it? You'd instantly realize you're way the hell out of your league.

Shock and awe.

No matter what your politics are, you cant deny that the iraqi republican guard must have shit their pants when within a half hour, the whole friggin cities infrastructure, and most of their heavy weapons, were cinders.

Re:That sounds bad ass.

Scenarion 2: A big motherfucking bomb drops out of the sky, blows your friend into tiny kibbles-n-bits sized chunks, and sends you ass over elbows into a crumpled heap some 20 yards away. Your reaction? "HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!" What ya gonna do about it? You'd instantly realize you're way the hell out of your league.

that just forces them not to fight against those with the big bombs directly.

they end up hiding among civilians, sending out suicide bombers and crashing passenger jets into skyscrapers. they are resorting to these tactics because they know they are out of their league and this is the only way they have to fight back.

also blowing up a city block to kill someone on their way to blow up a bus seems to fullfill their goals anyways. except any surviving victims of a bomb are going to hate us instead of the suicide bomber. of course the only way they will have to get back at us is to become terrorists themselves, since their army couldn't possibly fight us.

but whatever... just means that the inivisible army that we need to be protected from will just get bigger and we'll need bigger bombs to protect ourselves from them.

Re:That sounds bad ass.

We're talking here about people who are willing to let themselves be blown up by setting off a bomb strapped to their own bodies, just to make a point to the US.

Do you really honestly believe shock and awe will make them go "oh, sorry about wanting to destroy democracy, we'll just not bother you anymore"? If so, I have some land to sell you, at a very good price.

Shock and awe have zero longterm effect. The people you'd use it against are so motivated that once they get over their immediate shock they will start looking for weak spots, and there are always weak spots. In the end we're all human, and we all die just as easily. The soldiers in iraq are noticing this now.

I do think the only way to stop terrorists is to convince them they don't want to kill you, however I don't believe dropping bombs on them from outer space will do that.

Re:That sounds bad ass.

I'll never figure out why we'll use a bomb which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to snipe someone... when a 10 cent bullet would do the trick just fine.

The bullet is cheaper (not 10 cents, but I'd think it'd be $5 or less)...but getting a sniper into position to fire it can be nearly as expensive as dropping a bomb. It's definitely more dangerous (for the sniper, anyway) if he's caught before he can complete his mission.

Space Debris

Any significant conflict involving orbital space will leave so much debris that satellites and spacecraft will run much higher risks of collisions. The consequences of a war in space may be devastating to our communication and weather networks.

Finally we can take care of Major League Baseball

I have been wondering when the military was going to take care of that surveillance satellite operated by Major League Baseball.

[obscure]

China

If you are wondering what country this might come in handy against in the future...

China

Proposal for /. poll

Which of the following should space-based weapons be used against?

1. China
2. Iraq
3. California
4. CowboyNeal

5. PROFIT!

Another application for space-based lasers

Heating a giant Jiffy-Pop bag [imdb.com] of course. (Joke lost on anyone who hasn't seen the movie)

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons.

The ABM Treaty had a clause in it that said that any party can withdraw from the agreement with six month's notice. Bush gave the six month's notice, and withdrew from the treaty.

Of course, the ABM treaty was also signed with a nation that no longer exists, the USSR. So...what's the problem?

The Space Treaty does not ban weapons in space, it only bans nuclear weapons in space. None of the weapons specified in this report are nuclear.

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons.

Maybe if the Europeans didn't [dw-world.de] keep [nytimes.com] selling [fas.org] nuclear technology to nutjobs the US wouldn't feel the need to develop counter measures.

1 Bad Idea

Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground.

I'm not up to date on my space program figures. But it is expensive as hell to put a kilogram of material into orbit. I'd much rather pay for a plain old bomb, or even a reusable space laser. Carrying a rod into space to shoot it back down to earth is not cost effective.

And people are worried about banana republics?

Im much more worried if the US have those kinds of weapons than if some broke desert shithole gets their hands on some mustard gas. What exactly is the US doing this arms race against? Aliens?

The US no doubt has the power to keep space off limits for anyone for military arms race. Why in gods name then do they push the envelope so that other countries has to follow?

Warmongers, thats what i see.

Lets hope the administration gets changed to something less warhappy and perhaps a it more interested in all US citizens than of enriching a few select people.

There are plans for *everything*

Chance favors the prepared mind....our military has contingency plans for EVERYTHING. There are departments in every branch whose only job is to constantly think up the most outlandish scenarios, idea, plans, etc. With every possible variant of enemies, allies, strength of forces, technology. I once saw a detailed plan of battle in the event that Canada and Mexico ally and attack the US. This same philosophy applies to funding projects. If congress suddenly gets a bug under it's ass about space defense, the Air Force can whip out this portfolio and say "Well, with only $60 million, we can put these forces in place." What's funny is to watch the public react when some of these plans leak. All sorts of people freak out, like a few years ago when a contingency plan for invading China leaked out at the same time that there was tension regarding Taiwan. Now maybe this proposal for space has advanced beyond that wild ass idea phase, and if that's the case then it's because the Air Force thinks Congress might go for it.

Re:There are plans for *everything*

Except, apparently, how to handle Iraq after it is conquered.

This is insane

Brief overview [nuclearfiles.org] of a proposal in front of the UN to ban all space-based weaponry which the US is actively part of.

This, the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the landmine treaty. Doesn't the US have ANY respect left for other countries let alone their own integrity? This is just getting disgusting.

how would this look to a passing alien race?

"Hey, Zorgblat. These guys _do_ have a satellite-based planetary defense system. I told you it looked that way through the telescope."

"Hold on... Wait a second, they have laser weapons and mass drivers sure enough, but they're pointed _toward_ the planet."

"No way! That doesn't make a lot of sense. They're vulnerable to meteor strikes, comets, ... attack from unfriendly aliens."

"Hmm. Maybe it's a prison planet, and the satellites prevent escape."

"That could be. We saw that moon base, and those could be the jailers."

"Yeah, and have you seen their entertainment? Only hardcore prisoners would like that stuff."

Nothing new

This really isn't anything new. Space-based weapons have been thought of for at least as long as man has been in space.

Starting in the late 1950s the Soviets began working on an nuclear orbital bombardment system [fas.org] that would bypass US early warning systems. There was also Salyut 3 [astronautix.com] in 1975 which carried a 23mm cannon that was used to fire at a target satellite

Slashdot - Forum for Nerds (who play at politics)

To the "I'm sorry I'm American" crowd

I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?

The US was once a nice place

I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?

Speaking as one American who has, in the past, lived for several years in Germany (pre and post reunification), the UK, Hong Kong (pre-reunification), and Japan, there is no "one" answer that applies to everywhere outside of this stupid country.

However, in Europe there is a great deal more personal freedom than in the United States in most areas (try drinking a beer in a public park in the US vs. England or Germany, for example). There is a great deal of protection against the distribution of personal information in Germany (read: virtaully no junk mail or junk phone calls). I have never had better health care than I had in Germany (and I have an excellent ... by American standards ... PPO now that is a pale and distant last place to the plans I had in Europe).

Crime is lower in all of the places I've lived outside of the United states. It is lower in Europe and so much lower in Japan that the mind boggles (for example, you can leave your wallet on the bar in most parts of Tokyo ... American sailor hangouts excepted! ... go use the toilet, come back, and no one will have touched it).

The list goes on. Every place has its pluses and minuses, but the United States, in its inability to be self critical and its profound policy of self-isolation and absolute denial of things that are obviously and painfully going wrong (such as the healthcare fiasco here; the massive debt; rising violent crime; the wholesale corporate export of well paying jobs; spiralling unemployment ... remember, they stop counting people no longer eligable for unemployment benefits even though many are not reemployed in order to keep the numbers artificially, and dishonestly, low; etc.) has been accumulating a great deal of minuses, and losing many of its pluses.

Contrast this to the rest of the world, which remains a reasonable mix of pluses and minuses, and the outlook for quality of life in the United States gets grimmer by the day. Seing Bush on the Television touting his latest lies, and the passivity with which so many Americans are willing to accept them (rather than confront unpleasant truths about what we as a country have become) and the prognosis gets even worse.

It is a pity. The United States once stood for some very beautiful ideals, and was once a very nice place to live.

Crime in Europe vs. the US

Rates of crimes other than murder are significantly higher in much of Europe than in the US. In addition, crime rates in the US have been dropping dramatically while those in Europe have been increasing.

Prepared to refute you with data from the United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network's [uncjin.org] statistics page, I found that a lot of what you said to be true -- except maybe the "significantly much higher" bit. The USA has hovered at about 5-6K crimes per 100K people with a slight decreasing trend, while all EU member nations have seen between 10%-50% increase in crime from 1980 to 1997.

However, in terms of violent crime, the USA is still king. Our murder, rape, and robbery rates are from 4-10 times larger than in EU states, and our incarceration rates are 7 times that of European nations outside of the former Warsaw Pact states. Apparently, while crime is more prolific in Europe (in spite of our much harsher drug laws), they are overwhelmingly not serious crimes.

Now, Japan is another story entirely. Crime rates in Japan went from about 11 in 1000 to 15 in 1000 over the same period of time. Violent crimes are nearly nonexistant (though on the rise). Having been to Japan, I can say that you really could leave a wallet on the bar without much worry in most places in Tokyo (and Sendai too). This is becoming less and less true now as a younger, less traditional generation is supplanting the values of the old, but Japan is much, much safer than America.

Illegal

I had the distinct impression that the original space charters drawn up made weapons and war in space against international law. Then again the US often ignores these things (and who's gonna' do anything about it, eh?). Hrmmm.

The really big problem

Put aside the arms race issue, and the financial issues, ability to develop the technology, etc.

The big problem is what happens once we start blowing up satellites in orbit. The debris will all enter new orbits, and there's a good chance that some of this debris will strike other satellites, which will strike others, which will destroy low-earth orbit for 50 years. That's probably why the US would not focus on kinetic weapons, which could hve chaotic consequences. OTOH, other countries with less dependence on space (and fearful of having their satellites blown up while the US satellites continue to function), would be more apt to use kinetic weapons and risk destroying loads of stuff in low-earth orbit. Don't worry, this won't affect GPS or DirecTV.

Aye, the Iraqis

had already planned defenses against this.

Didn't George Bush say they had attempted to buy significant amounts of mirrors from African Nations, with which they were planning to coat important buildings ;)

Isn't this ridiculously old information?

Anyone who has read sci fi knows that this stuff has been around for about 40 years. The principles haven't changed, and they're just being re-tread by the military.

The article seems woefully unknowledgeable about the physics of the situation. I'm only quoting the sci-fi authors who brought up these topics originally: (Larry Niven, A.C. Clarke, etc...)

"Even more outlandish is the Hypervelocity Rod Bundles research project. That effort calls for creating a system of metal poles, fired from space, that could strike anywhere on the planet. It's a long-held -- and long-ridiculed -- idea. Keeping the rods from liquefying as they enter the atmosphere is a daunting task,"

From what I know of the system (did not read the whole AF brief) the proposal is to have a satellite orbit geosynchronously relatively above the target, and just fire the projectile downwards. The heat generated by re-entry is because of the horizontal motion of the craft, but a projectile of this type would only have vertical motion with respect to the atmosphere, and therefore relatively little heat generated. Please correct me if I'm wrong, physicists!

"and could only deliver one-ninth the destructive energy per gram as a conventional bomb."

Given that the military already uses kinetic kill technology (horizontally fired from vehicles, no explosives) that are able to penetrate main battle tank armor, why would dropping a similarly size projectile from orbit (wouldn't the terminal velocity be tremendous) be less than traditional explosives? I'm confused by their assertion.

"In theory, lasers -- fired from the ground, from space, or from the air -- would bounce off these blimp-borne mirrors, to track or even destroy enemy missiles. "
Why would you loft a laser platform into orbit and fire it through all that atmosphere down to a blimp, when you could just mount it on a large aircraft? The cost of getting it into orbit and having a blimp hovering around has to be less than strapping it into a 747, plus, you have less diffusion from a lower-altitude. Again, it sounds like the military is getting a little outlandish when simplicity might work better. (imagine that)

"But the Air Force report goes far beyond these defensive capabilities, calling for weapons that can cripple other countries' orbiters. "

Again, from what I've been told, it's not hard to destroy satellites. They are orbiting at ridiculously high speeds. Wouldn't just releasing a cloud of marbles (or even sand!) in their trajectory, orbiting in the opposite direction, easily shred the enemy satellite? The energy released by that impact would have a factor of twice the actual rotational velocity of the satellite -- a very large number, I would think. I don't think that there's any way to protect an orbiter from something like that. Again, if my physics is wrong, please correct me.

All of this seems to me like they're just ignoring physics (in arguments for and against the systems) just like those who said Goddard couldn't fly a craft in space because you'd have no air to push off of.

Sorry for the long post. This is just a very fascinating topic, and I suppose its good to see the media/military pick up on something that's only been fiction 'til now.

That's it...

Please stop the planet so I can get off...

Gonna be really funny when some nutjub

uses an amatuer rocket setup and lauches say 5000 lbs of NON-METALLIC ball bearings into HEAVILY used geo-synch orbits patterns at decent relative velocity and tears holes in Trillions of $$$'s worth of satelites, making the area unuseable for orbiters or requiring a HUGE expenditure to clean....Seems like a relatively under the radar way to really HURT a huge number of companies, and government services.
Obviously the NSA, CIA etc has 'other' resources but physics determines the LIMITED location and availability of stable accessible orbit slots...

points to ponder

from the article:

"I don't think other countries will be taking this lying down," said Theresa Hitchens, the vice president of the Center for Defense Information. .... "This will certainly prompt China into actually moving forward" on space weapon plans of its own, she added. "The Russians are likely to respond with something as well."

The Chinese, in particular are willing to spend a lot more on their space program. Despite being latecomer to the space game, they're playing catch up extremely well.

This year, the Air Force will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to find ways to track enemy satellites -- and, if necessary, blind those eyes in the sky.

What is to stop them from doing the same to us? I'd say we have a lot more to loose since we are so much more heavily invested in using space as a military resource.

But it's unclear whether putting weapons into space would provide much protection. The arms themselves could become sitting ducks in orbit -- giving the United States a new weakness, not a new strength. Satellites are already a weak "center of gravity" in American militarty planning, argues Bruce DeBlois, the editor of Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought. They're vulnerbale to electronic jamming, orbiting projectiles and nuclear detonations in near-Earth space. The space-based weapons would have all of the same vulnerabilities -- and would make that center of gravity a more inviting target.

My point exactly...

"America is the country with the most satellites, he explained. By developing anti-satellite weapons, "it legitimizes systems that the U.S. has the most to lose from." Other countries could start pursuing long-taboo space weapons efforts. And while countries like China don't have the technical sophistication of the United States, they already have the capabilities to hurt us in space -- medium range missiles, and nuclear warheads.
Wright added, "This could trigger a backlash that actually leaves the U.S. worse off."

...further driving the point home. Is it really worth it?

Some of this already exists...

Incredible as it sounds, the EAGLE effort is underway at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy division, sources there confirm. Also under research at the lab is the Ground-Based Laser, which, according to the Air Force report, would shoot "laser beams through the atmosphere" to knock out enemy spacecraft in low-earth orbit.

If you remember, shortly after one of those commercial reconnaisance satelites went into orbit and photographed a military base (Area 51?), the military basically informed the company that it has the capability of dropping the satelite from orbit. Now, whether they mean via the space shuttle or now, I don't know. I have a hunch that the US military already has missles that can take out a satelite, especially since ICBM's have been around for decades.

There is no Air in space....

Shouldn't they be renamed "Space Force"? Maybe "Air and Space Force"?

So much spare change

I guess the US, being the only super-power (and colonizer), has so much money left over after ensuring it's people have the best healthcare, lowest crime and best education that protecting it's citizens via these weapons makes sense.

( ok they aren't colonies they are client-states)

Russia had (has) anti-satellite weapons

Let's not kid ourselves. Russian Space Web [russianspaceweb.com] has a nice piece [russianspaceweb.com] on the thoroughly demonstrated anti-satellite weapon systems of the former USSR. I don't know much about our (USA's) own anit-satellite system, but I do know that Russia has done much of this testing, and I would guess a lot more than the USA. I say that because Russia would know if we had tested the weapons, just as we knew that they did. And that information that they knew would be leaked, of course. So I think that Russia had a lot more antisatellite weaponry than the U.S., at least when it comes to kinetic energy weapons (i.e. a shrapnel bomb) in space.

With this in mind, I believe that the USA military has a legitimate interest in developing at least a similar system for weapons parity. I mean, the US military depends heavily on space for communications, and if that were knocked down by China (say, if China wants to invade Taiwan) or maybe a future threat, we would need to be able to knock down either their weapons before they reached our satellites or to knock down their own satellites to make it a level playing field.

And who knows. Russia seems of late to have forgotten what it means to be a democracy, so if some dictator arose in the future, it would have been nice to have at least thought of what to do beforehand. The future can't be predicted too accurately. 250 years ago, the most powerful nation on the earth today was a disjointed band of colonies under the rule of the British Empire. You never know. Hopefully the next great empire won't be like Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung and murder millions. Being a citizen of the USA, I believe that the USA should try to prevent such a murderous empire from taking control of the high ground and rain down their own fire from the skies.

P.S. I realize that this is a huge piece of flamebait, but as this is a democracy, there needs to be contrasting opinions (diversity of opinion) for us to really function fairly here at slashdot, so please respect my opinion, as I respect yours.

What? No Death Star yet?

That stupid Powell, keeping Bush and Rummsfeld from developing the greatest Pentagon program ever: The Death Star. And the renaming of the Marines is also encountering some annoying gridlock... Gah! We want our Stormtroopers now!

Enlist me now!

I was able to defeat the Disable the Transport mission in X-Wing. Clearly, I am one of the few ready for the rigors of space combat.

consistent wtih US policy

This is not surprising. The US government has indicated pretty openly that they are going to militarize space. Their future Star Wars program, which will start rolling once the Missile Shield is "successful", will necessarily involve militarization of space.

Recent attempts by Bush administration to reshape NASA is also consistent with this space goal.

I have always claimed that the UN will collapse* if USA militarizes space. We'll see if I'm right.

(* If you wonder why I think this, it is because of human behaviour. When USA militarizes space, it will most likely start claiming territory on the moon, mars, etc as its own. This is pretty consistent with human behaviour over time (just think of colonization, circa 1500's/1600's/etc). Whoever that has power in space will have power over territory in space. This is true if human behaviour is the same as in the past (i.e. warmongering territorial animals)--I don't see why it be any different since humans stopped evolving tens of thousands of years ago. This will mean that the UN has no say in territory disputes in space, and the UN will have no power to promote peace. Once that happens, there is no point of having the UN. People always mistakenly assume that the most important elements of the UN are things like WHO, WTO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and so forth, but the truth of the matter is, UN is primarily a body that is responsible for territories (ie. borders of countries).... On a different note, I also have a hypothesis that the UN will collapse right before WWIII--just like how the League of Nations collapses just before WWII. This has nothing to do with militarization of space. )

Sivaram Velauthapillai

The Military Plans for EVERYTHING.

Look, the military has plans for EVERYTHING. Part of being in the military means drawing up plans: "What would we do if XYZ happened?" So that in the odd chance that XYZ happens -- say, we get invaded by aliens -- then the military has a plan that they can execute.

And it's not just about plans for war in space. It's about plans for how chocolate-chip cookies should be made in the mess hall. Or for how clothes must be made, right down to the stitching, type of thread, precise colors and sizes.

It's part of the military's duty: Create a plan that any idiot can follow and execute given existing equipment, along with several acceptable alternatives, for any given scenario -- be it making a bunk bed for a training facility or the threat of Earth being mowed down by Vogons to build a hyperspace bypass.

Just because the military has plans to do something, doesn't mean they're going to do them. Because having plans they're not necessarily going to execute today is just part of what they do, so that if something DOES happen, they are prepared for it.

If the Air Force ran the Space Program...

... we would have had a continuously manned space station (Manned Orbiting Laboratory or MOL) as well as a fleet of rapid turnover missile-or-aircraft launched, horizontal landing lifting body spacecraft (where do you think I got this nifty nick?) by 1975. Instead, we got von Braun's moon project. OK, so MOL and DynaSoar we to double as weapons platforms. We might have gotten to the moon later (and considering what's happened since, so what?), but we probably would have hda semi-permanent bases there now, and I'd give even money we'd have people who'd been to Mars and back.

Why these weapons are a GOOD idea.

Hmmm... This sounds a lot like what we feared the Russians were gonna do back in the cold war or space race or whatever.

You know, I think that instead of having a space race with the Russians, we should have talked to them and tried to understand their feelings, and then they would have gone away and everyone would live happily ever after. We should do the same thing with terrorism in the middle east--talk to them and understand their feelings. That will make the whole world peaceful. Of course, that's what Sarah Conner should have done with the cyberborg from the future in The Terminator. Remember how Reese was saying that it has no feelings and no remorse, and that it won't stop, ever, until she's dead? Well, I don't believe that. I'm sure that they could have gone to a diner together, talked to each other, and understood each others' feelings... Because violence is NEVER the answer, even if it's against an enemy that WILL kill you and will NOT back down, no matter what.

Stupid liberals.

Weapons in space

This is neither news nor a surprise.

As a general rule, in combat, he who holds the high ground wins. Space is the new high ground.

Military organizations do endless contingency plans covering any possible threat they can see and how it might best be countered. The U.S. military is no exception. If they _didn't_ do this, they wouldn't be doing thier jobs.

An absolute essential in any combat situation is communications, command, and control (known as "C cubed"). Troops on the battlefield need effective intelligence on what they face, communications with thier fellows to coordinate responses, and communications from thier superiors about what those responses should be.

Satellites provide all of those things. If you can take out the other guy's satellites, you effectively blind him, and leave him at a severe disadvantage.

This doesn't even count the possibility of actual _weapons_ platforms in space, which are a whole other set of problems.

I'm not upset that the US military is looking at this area. It's part of thier job. I'm concerned with thier ability to get it right.
______
Dennis

Re:Just what we need

" More space junk. It's getting pretty crowded up there already."

Yeah really man! Me an a couple friends were up in space last weekend and I was all like, "dude, space has become soooooo crowded" and he was like "dude totally".

-m

Die Another Day

Wrong film. Tomorrow Never Dies was the one about the media maniac, the sunken Royal Navy ship and the stolen GPS controller.

Are YOU terminally stupid?

Is that why the US managed to hit a clearly located Red Cross compound in Afghanistan not once but twice? Or why it managed to hit a Chinese embassy building in the Balkans?

It's not just about your bombs landing where they are aimed. It's about making sure that they are aimed in the right place as well. Without the latter, the former is pointless.

Re:Are YOU terminally stupid?

Man, I seriously hope it wasn't intentional.

I'd like to think that the people in charge of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal weren't deliberately targetting a potential adversary that had its own massive nuclear arsenal, as well as the world's largest army and air force.

Because, if that were true, then "dumb" is a gross understatement: I'd rather that the fate of the world isn't left in the hand's of people that shortsighted. If it is true then I don't think it's me that should be being labelled "stupid" or "naive" here.

Re:Just what we need

If you think the US has never missed a target with guided-missiles, you are mistaken.

And whether or not it was human error, the end result is still the same. See: here [defenselink.mil] and here [discerningtoday.org] among others.

Re:Just what we need

You sir, are extremely misinformed. The fact that you pushed some of the buttons means nothing to me.

What about:

The restaruant and the three houses that were destroyed because we thought Saddam "might" have been there. He wasn't, we killed dozens of civilians. The stories about "smart" bombs missing their target are plentiful, but the targets themselves being wrong are even more worrisome.

Check out this [iraqbodycount.net] link. So, I assume you had nothing to do with cluster bombing? Well, that's good. You at least left that to other US servicemen... Iraqi children are still picking up the bomblets (5-20% do not go off, leaving little toy like objects around to make kids armless. Nice.)

And as far as FoxNews [socokid.com], don't get me started...