U.S. Considers Anti-Satellite Laser

SpaceAdmiral writes "The U.S. government wants to develop a ground-based weapon to shoot down enemy satellites in orbit. The laser will be much more powerful and sophisticated than a similar endeavor a decade ago. From the article: '... some Congressional Democrats and other experts fault the research as potential fuel for an antisatellite arms race that could ultimately hurt this nation more than others because the United States relies so heavily on military satellites, which aid navigation, reconnaissance and attack warning.'"

it's dual-use technology and an acounting shift

[DoofusOfDeath]

Check out the story "Death Ray -- or Accounting Shift?" here: http://www.defensetech.org/ [defensetech.org]

Makes more sense than the opposite I guess

[CFD339]

It makes more sense to shoot down sats from the ground where you have plenty of power and guys who can fix things than trying to shoot down on the ground from space where you can only hit things if they're not covered up.

sure, what the hell. At worst it will start a high tech arms race and that's good for business.

The USA needs to be careful here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Militarizing the space in near-earth orbit and creating a military highly dependant on satellites is just stupid. A few missles that blast millions of ball-bearings into to orbit, and the entire planet will be locked out of space for hundreds, or even thousands of years. High-altitude, high-endurance vehicles that can hover over a single area for long periods of time leave us far less vulnerable (we just need air-superiority), and don't make near-earth orbit a target. Unfortunately the current administration is crazy-arrogant and shortsighted.

Doesn't make sense

[Brix Braxton]

It's kind of like in a real world fight - sure, you would love to bring a baseball bat into the fight but you don't because you don't want the other guy to bring one in either. Seems to me like it would make more sense not to have the technology at all. I have to admit though - the other day when I read that Isreal had launched a satellite - seemingly in response to the actions of Iran it all seemed too easy to do - made me wonder what regulates who gets to send one up in the first place.

Military Bozos

[Khammurabi]

So, instead of thinking of a better way to defend OUR satellites, they are thinking of ways to obliterate THEIRS? WTF?! If any country stands to lose more from having their satellites blown our of orbit, it's the United States!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are thinking of the most likely attack that will befall satellites, but the logical step after this is to design something that can divert this type of attack. If the US were to suddenly lose all satellite communications, we'd be in some serious doo-doo. It seems, at least to me, that the prudent course of action would be to make a DARPA type of contest for this technology, or at least focus more grant money in this area. (Granted, the result would probably be to wrap more tin-foil around the things.)

Re:That way thinking is the problem with the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that the USA spent US$5.99 billion on the shuttle which was never value for money!

remember the USA spends $6 billion A MONTH in Iraq (a new Shuttle every 4 weeks) and so far has got 15,000 wounded troops and 2800+ dead troops for its money, now thats value for money

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[nacho_dh]

"The US has always used its military to protect its economy - there is no reason this project should be any different." I don't agree. From my point of view, the US has always used its military to CREATE its economy instead of protecting it. But I do agree that "there is no reason this project should be any different". Though I work with ppl from the US all the time, I'm really not sure about how you see the your goverment's and their non-stopin bully attitude against the rest of the world. We are not talking about just defending what "it's yours" in here, we are talking about (just to set an example) invade other countries to get it's oil (cof-cof-irak-cof) and make up some cowboy story about chemical or nuke bombs. I would really like someone to tell me what ppl in the US think about their goverment's international relations policies. I'm sorry if this first post (my first one on slashdot) offended someone around here, i did't mean to, but that's a question that has been going around my head for a while.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[Comboman]

...nothing but a satellite combined with proper munitions can blow up a tank underneath a bridge without hitting the bridge.

Since when has the US military worried about blowing up a bridge? Even when there is a train full of civilians on it? http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9904/13/nato.attac k.03/ [cnn.com] http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=80 [indypeer.org]

Re:And the ultimate defense for a satellite?

[op12]

The could make it out of zero-relection glass [mobilemag.com].

Re:We win the fight ?

[AGMW]

And therein lies your problem. If your enemy can't pin-point the military target, then their next best option is to target a large city. Way to go, that was smart. Instead of losing a missile silo, you lose 250,000 citizens.

Not sure why this is modded at zero ... I think the AC is onto something here! Take this to its logical conclusion, ie otherwise totally powerless citizens against a superpower, and you end up with terrorists, as that is the only apparent way to strike back!

Of course, the US has historically had the benefit of being physically remote from the people they wage war on - no V1 or V2 flying bombs flying over the channel in US history (discounting the Japanese balloons of WWII I guess). The threat of ICBMs brings this a little closer to home, but we know who has these, and "we" tend not to wage war on them so much! But now we have the age of the bomb in a backpack and all bets are off!

Re:impossible to generate a powerfull enough beam

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up and visit the real world!

What was announced was not that such a laser would be made. What was announced was that money would be given to large companies to spend on the development of such a laser.

This is not a story about developing new weapons which break physical laws. This is a story about a corrupt administration playing the fear, patriotism and secrecy cards to justify the spend of more taxpayers money.

Noone ever asked what happened to the last allocation of funds to build a pretty light in the front of a big Boeing, so they are going to spend some more. If you keep asking difficult questions something unpleasant will happen to you, though you will have to try a lot harder than just comment 150 on slashdot.

Interestingly the British were hitting targets 260ft deep in WW2 with their earthquake bombs. http://www.atlantikwall.net/related_v3.htm [atlantikwall.net] refers. But they had Barnes Wallis to help them, and proper 1940s technology, which we probably cannot duplicate now! In any case, I don't suppose anyone will make any money by going to the RAF and asking for some of their old museum pieces!

 

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[qeveren]

I always figured the oil was just a side benefit compared to the huge, huge, fat cash injection that was going to the military-industrial complex. THAT is what the 'war' in Iraq was about.

Re:Purpose for defense or offense?

[saltydogdesign]

They can state whatever they like -- it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. is building a 104 acre embassy in Iraq. That's the size of 80 football fields. Awful lot of room for the ambassador and a few security troops. Given that the U.S. has admitted it is already running military operations out of embassies around the world, their claim of not having a permanent base sounds like malarky.

Now add in the fact that the U.S. is actually building 14 large bases at the same time they tell us they plan no permanent presence. I suppose that's technically true -- if by permanent they mean "the next 14 billion years," but really, their words may be counter to my theory, but their actions aren't.

I don't know your reasons for supporting this mess, but that right there ought to give you plenty of reason to question it. The U.S. government isn't being straight with anyone, least of all their own people. Not that that's anything new: the "stabilization" of Germany and Japan went on decades longer than necessary.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion