Space Wars 442
There have been lots of interesting stories recently about the US's growing reliance on satellites to control gee-whiz weaponry and provide detailed real-time images to battlefield commanders. MSNBC has a story on the military's growing bandwidth crunch. The AP has a story about how many other nations are putting up their own spy and communications satellites, suggesting that the US edge in space imagery might disappear (unless we start shooting other satellites down, of course). And Bruce Sterling has a fun story in Wired (fun in writing style, not in its implications) suggesting that we're entering an age of Pax Americana, where the US military is so dominant that competitors exist only at our sufferance (though that might not stop people from trying).
Space Wars? (Score:2, Funny)
Didn't they used to call Reagan's space-based anti-nuke program "Star Wars"?
Oh, I get it, only one Star Wars story a day.
Not Really A Concern (Score:2, Informative)
The reason that the program won't be done for a long time is that as far as publicly released information goes, we have only had one successful attempt to shoot down a fake ICBM and this was with a missle that was sending out a HOMING SIGNAL. I doubt the enemy will be so courteous. Also, modern ICBMs, unlike the dummy ICBMs, have many countermeasures to prevent missles from shooting them down. We are not currently prepared to deal with these countermeasures including :
Re:Not Really A Concern (Score:3, Insightful)
As a test for the guidance system it was a very large success, they successfully made one missle strike another. Of course as a test of overcoming counter measures it was a complete failure, but well, the linux kernel makes a pretty shitty word processor - read what they are working on/testing before you make a knee-jerk reaction to a success or failure. Now then when they test detection systems then that's another story.
Re:Not Really A Concern (Score:2, Interesting)
You might want to actually read the MSNBC article. There is ALREADY a bandwidth crunch and it has nothing to do with Star Wars. One Global Hawk unmanned plane consumes ~500 megabits/s, "about five times the total bandwidth consumed by the entire U.S. military during the Gulf War."
Re:Not Really A Concern (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all just a massive build up to spend ever more pointless billions on arms that don't solve a problem, except how to line the pockets of the rich, powerful and dangerous.
This is a planet we live on, not the plaything of the maniacally aggressive and greedy. Either we all get on, or we don't. The underground caves aren't big enough to hold you all, and who want's to have to live in caves for the next thousand years anyway?
Re:Not Really A Concern (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. That's why we have to take out any country in the world that attempts to create and maintain weapons of mass destruction that they can unilaterally use in a crippling attack against another country, based on some obscure and unsupported religious argument rather than a morally sound argument and the support of the people of that country.
No, wait. We'd have to start by nuking the US and UK.
Military threats promote innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Without the soviets to compete against, NASA's budget has been shrinking to pathetic levels, leaving little funding for research and exploration these days. Perhaps the threat of military satellites orbiting the Earth, and the need to defend against them could be just the thing the government needs to start funneling some more much deserved money into NASA again. Think of all the benefits that would result from the US getting into another space race with China.
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
But in contrast to most other forms of conflicts, military ones tend to be quite lethal.
Furthermore, for some reason, the military tends to be quite picky about releasing their achievements to the public.
They have developed a microchip-cpu for some fighter several years before the supposed first one by Intel. And now guess what, about a year or two ago the chief architect was finally allowed to lecture about the chip. What an achievement for humanity.
Of course, the money is not lost. Military people tend to spend their money, too. But the scientific and technological achievements are surely hidden away for about 20 to 30 years.
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2)
Remember, the internet was developed with military funding.
(DARPA = Defence Advanced Research Projects Administration)
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2)
Of course there downside is that one of the big-spenders in that race will lose usually... Russia, for example, is now a whimpering and pathetic country left in ruins. Besides, I don't feel like starting a Cold War with China -- and yet nothing else would spark any meaningful competition between us. Certainly China's committance to space will make us slightly more competetive... who knows, we might even keep up NASA's budget with inflation... but let's avoid the 'bigger stuff,' shall we?
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
Economic competition has the same effect, to varying degree's, some area's such as space have at present limited commercial applications, for example with the Moon and Mars, there is no financial return on such ventures. At least not yet. So it takes government spending, mainly for propaganda purposes to reach them, meaning that in todays world, we're a long way from putting a man on Mars.
Throughout history war has benifited many things, such as for one peace itself! Without certian major wars, the relative peace we now how enjoy would not exist. War may be an absolutly terrible thing, but it's benifits are very noticable it has shaped the world we now live in, the question is when war is made obsolete (through the lack of significant threats) what will drive us?
Of course the answer is simple, it is the same thing that WWI and WWII were fought over, that is democracy, or more specifically capitalism. In years past it was the merchants and growing middle (working) class of Europe and America that created the revolution that replaced Monarch's with Democracies, those newly rich democracies then were forced to defend against the old ways of the Empires and Dictatorships! Hence very vaguly WWI / WWII.
The new world we live in, one of capitalism ruleing, will mean a much slower path to certain advances. Space exploration will only take off (excuse the pun) when the econmic need is found, say new resources, living space, etc.
Pure exploration right now unfortunatly is on hold...
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
Would lower taxes result in more innovation, or not? Our economy is based on the idea of constant expansion. Research (in war or peace) is one way to do it.
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, resources, money, destruction of capital and destruction of human life....
So if a war costs 100 million in taxes total to both sides, does 250 million in property damage, kills 200 people on your side and 10,000 people on the other side and produces some cool night vision apparatus for one side...
Did it spur technological innovation or not?
Would the money have produced more innovation in peacetime?
Well, personally I was looking at how the government reacted to Celera's attempt to sequence the genome, and how state funded universities employeed poorer technology that made sequencing less efficient. The public sector won the race by throwing money at the problem (which I'm glad of, but I wish they could have been more streamlined about it). Of course, it may be bad to generalize here. But with the bay (sp) dole acts and technology transfer acts forcing public research to become more privatized and secretive the point starts to become moot.
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
The military budget is so overblown, wasteful and outdated: stoneage dialog: Uh - you hit me, I hit you better with a stone
Fact is all the $$ are going into a destructive porpose which could be avoided altogether with a little bit more smartness
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2)
Uh, what is the "smartness" approach you would suggest?
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2)
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
The important parts to World War I were aerial recon, machine guns, and long-range artillery. Oh, and poison gas. And the end of the grand march across Europe, as was done as late as 1880. It gave us real trench warfare too. Of course, it also gave us the laughed at Zeppelins and bombers that were nothing more than a man throwing a grenade with an impact fuse out of a plane.
I remember a writer claiming that after his experiences in Italy and France in WWI, that all wars after would center over air superiority. He was damn well right, even though his other prediction, that we would build huge honking land-cruiser tanks to rival battleships, was not. Of course, he was extremly pleased that his idea, the tank, had been built, and I think we can excuse him on that basis.
WWII was an expansion on air superiority. Everything revolved aroung getting your long-range artillery and bomber targeted on a real kill, so you could push them back.
What we have here it the ultimate in air superiority. We can see everything they do, and plop a laser-guided bomb down into their tent twenty-five minutes after they get ballsy enough to set it up. What is left to innovate? The speed of the kill vehicle? The number of kill vehicles available for any one target? Reducing the thirty minutes of time between SuperSekretSpySat-7 taking a picture of that BadGuy going to use the outhouse to a delay small enough to hit him before he finishes wiping? Do we need to watch everybody, all the time, and have the capibility to take out people at any place on the globe at any moment in time?
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Military threats promote innovation (Score:2)
Even in peacetime, the US DoD takes a shotgun approach to research, funding lots of work that is pretty unlikely to have even indirect applications to warfare.
Pax Americana (Score:2, Interesting)
What I'm NOT saying is that a Cold War will start between the EU and US. (Although relations have chilled recently between theUS and EU.)
Re:Pax Americana (Score:2)
Re:Pax Americana (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, it would take *alot* longer than 10 years for that to happen. Remember Yugoslav? If the EU can't even take care of a problematic country in their own back yard, how the heck are they going to project their power anywhere?
For example, a great deal of America's power comes from its Aircraft Carriers. It would take them alot longer than 10 years to build anything equivalent to our fleet. And even, they tend to do stupid things like spend billions on a carrier that isn't even long enough and broke its port propeller on its first long-distance trials:
http://www.romanchess.com/DeGaulle.htm [romanchess.com] http://www.pigdog.org/auto/laughable_technology/li nk/2357.html [pigdog.org]
Re:Pax Americana (Score:2, Insightful)
Yugoslavia was a military problem. Good old Milo was killing a whole bunch of Muslims and wasn't listening to "reason". And for all of "Europe's Power" they couldn't do a darn thing about it.
Brian
Re:Pax Americana (Score:4, Informative)
I might be worried, except the EU can barely operate cohesively now. Entropy always increases--they'll be squabbling like a bunch of horny teenage boys over a Playboy in 10 years (or less).
The EU already has traitors in their midst [gilder.com] economically. The end result of that debate will be quite interesting.
If you want to get a look at what an EU military would look like, keep an eye on the UN's military endeavors.
Re:Pax Americana (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope-- Not even close.
Willingness to invest in military?
Nuh uh.
The usual actions that European militaries have been involved in follow a disturbing pattern.
Enter a troubled region to protect someone.
Set up bases.
People they are to protect flock to those bases.
When situation gets hot- leave.
People to be protected are now gathered together for the slaughter.
It has happened over the last 10 years in various countries in Africa and Europe.
Most European nations do not have the will to carry on any kind of extended operations. They would rather pull out and let the defensless die than deal with all the negative side effects of taking action.
.
Re:Pax Americana (Score:2)
Glad you're not generalizing.
Uh... Both? (Score:2)
Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that the US push for 'defensive' weapons in space is a farce; they're going to primarily be offensive weapons, 'defensive' only in their 'deterrence' to nations (particularly Third-World) that do not possess such weapons....
Dr. Bob Bowman http://rmbowman.com/ssn/ [rmbowman.com] has asserted this for years - his website is an excellent resource for alternative analysis of the SDI programs that you won't find in the major media outlets.
PA
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:5, Interesting)
Do a little research on kinetic kill vehicles from the old Reagan-era "Star Wars" program. It's essentially a hunk of dense metal with a few thrusters and an infrared seeker on the front. It has no explosives and doesn't need any; it kills its target by impact at orbital velocities (18,000mph). Using this against a ground target would result in either (a) a burnt-up kill vehicle or (b) a small hole in the ground about the size of a trashcan. Offensive weapon? Unlikely.
What about space-based lasers? Well, let's forget for a moment that no easily-loftable laser is currently available, and if it was it'd be hideously expensive to launch. Let's focus on the physics, namely "blooming". No, we're not talking about flowers here, we're talking about atmospheric attenuation of a laser beam. You could try shooting a ground target with an orbiting laser, but you'd lose a ton of beam power just punching through 50 miles of atmosphere. And again, all you'd get is a very small impact. You'd do much more damage with a cruise missle.
No one is proposing lofting any orbiting nukes, and even if they did, so what? What can an orbiting nuke hit that an ICBM or nuclear-tipped cruise missle can't already hit with impunity?
Or were you referring to space-vs-space offensive weaponry? Well, what would we shoot down with our lasers and KKV's? Comm and surveillance satellites perhaps, but we'd risk war by doing so, and for what gain? The only folks on earth who have a sizable space presence other than the U.S. and the E.U. is the former Soviet Union. Last I checked, the cold war was over, so I don't think they're our target. China is starting to get into the game, but a conflict with them would have to be decades off if China wants any hopes at actually winning anything.
So, in short, take your knee-jerk reaction and apply a little logic and common sense to it. Space-based weaponry right now pretty much HAS to be defensive, because we lack the technology to make an offensive use practical or even economical. If you're so concerned about indiscriminate use of offensive weapons, why not choose weapons that are actually useful at what they do, like cruise missles.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2)
Regarding nukes in space... the Soviet Union, under Khrushchev, did plan to build a space station that would hold and launch nuclear weapons [friends-partners.org]. You are correct in that an ICBM could already hit any target that a space-based platform could target. The space platform, however, could launch with significantly less warning. Defensive systems are designed to detect the launch of ICBMs, they would not detect a space-based launch. There are, of course, significant drawbacks. A space-based platform is easily tracked and would likely be an easy target in case of war (assuming it wasn't used for a nuclear first-strike).
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember our anti-sat missle program using F-15 jets as launchers? Very cheap. Not very reliable, but if you can launch 50 missles at it for 1/10 the cost of the target, who cares?
And I'm going to go out on a limb here that will undoubtedly bring some flak, but I'm going to say it anyway -- the U.S. is not about to start an offensive nuclear war of conquest. If we were, we would've done it in the 50's when we could've wiped the Soviet Union off the map without fear of retribution. We had the nukes, they didn't. We could've taken over the world militarily and nobody could've stopped us. We didn't. I have a very funny feeling that had things been reversed (i.e. the Soviets having the bomb, not us) the outcome would not have been so pleasant. Or if the Nazi's had developed it first...imagine a nuclear payload on a V-2 rocket hitting London. How many of those would Churchill have put up with before capitulating? He would've had little choice except extermination, and the Nazi's already showed they had no compunction in that area.
The U.S. will continue to ply the world's economic and political culture to further our national interest -- as does ANY country on the planet. Again, I will allude to Darwinism and the survival instinct. It is in our best interests to cultivate governments that are friendly to us and to penalize those that are not. Like it or not, that's the way the world operates and the U.S. is far from being the worst example here (we are, however, the LARGEST example, one reason we're a lightning rod for criticism). While other countries kill their own citizens for speaking out against their government and no one utters a whimper, we are castigated daily for failing to shell out billions in economic aid to "the less fortunate", even though "the less fortunate" chant "Death to America" every other breath.
Okay, I'm heading OT here, so I'm going to stop. I still say that a defensive space-based weapons system is absolutely necessary. One crazed madman controlling one silo in Siberia could make the WTC disaster look like a sunburn, and there is nothing at all we could do to stop him once the "launch" button is pressed. A defensive shield would not be to protect us from mass nuclear war for the obvious reasons that are plaguing the system now (tracking, decoys, etc.), but it could make childs play of a small attack mounted by some lunatic with an axe to grind, nothing to lose, and a desire to be a martyr.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2)
Its not what they can hit so much as *how soon*. An ICBM takes 30+ minutes to reach its target. Launching a nuke from an orbiting satellite could cut the time from launch (read: detection) to detonation in half.
As for cruise missles, I think they would be subject to easier detection, since they are launched from ships or submarines which would have to get through sonar nets to be within range (I think).
A couple of these, well placed, could prevent the chain of command from authorizing a response attack. This weapon's advantage would be in a first-strike use only.
Scary.
Ultimate Assasination Weapon (Score:2)
Just how small is small? Spy satelites can read a license plate from orbit. That technology combined with a high powered laser could be a nifty assasination device. I bet Rumsfeld would get a big chubby out of watching Saddam on TV and pushing the special red button.
I know, I know it's far fetched but that certainly hasn't stopped us before.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2)
That, IMHO, is fucked. And other behavior of the US definitely inspires paranoia: They've been backing away from the UN doctrine that the moon can belong to no nation. Of course that means nothing whatsoever right now, but it could mean something in 50 years.
Of course, SDI isn't a very good way to help the US control the Earth. It would make the US control everything else. I'd be a lot more upset if I weren't American...
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2)
Hell, if we wanted to do that, we could ALREADY threaten nations with conventional or nuclear arms. "If you launch that new comsat tomorrow we're going to vaporize your capital". We could do this with any nation on the planet right now without much fear of retribution. Heck, we could corner the global sat market, force everyone to pay ridiculous taxes to use our satellites, charge duties for any nation wanting to send up an astronaught.
Don't you get it? The U.S. is THE superpower on the planet right now. We can militarily do pretty much whatever we want. Tomorrow we could crush Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and there is nothing they could do to stop us. The U.N. can carp and moan, but we can ignore them if we choose to do so.
If we're so fucking bloodthirsty and Imperialistic, why aren't we doing this already???
I'll answer that: it's because we have no interest in it. We are not a conquering nation. Sure, we pressure, we cajole, and politic to get our way, as does any nation, but we do not rule by the sword. History has shown this never works for long, and we are astute studiers of that. I think that we're in a unique position in history being that we're the strongest nation ever, yet we have launched no wars of conquest since achieving that position. I can think of many other nations that would not have been so...restrained. Most of them hate us virulently. Gee, I wonder why.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2)
What do either the Third Reich or the Roman Empire have to do with "defense through deterrence"?
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted they were brutal in some of their rule, but you cannot ignore the benefits they brought to this world in the midst of said brutality. If you're going to use them as an example, you must speak on BOTH sides of the issue, not just the one that happens to support your argument.
Using the Third Reich is a poor example and you know it. You might as well use the Taliban as an example.
Before you start calling other people myopic, it might do you a little good to open your eyes a bit more yourself. The world is not a pretty place, but that does not make it evil. Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible, and you are not in a position to criticize the very system you benefit from without sounding a tad hypocritical.
Re: Pax Americana? Don't bring Rome into this (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing is certain, however. The Roman culture, for all its hedonism and brutality, was the pinnacle of "civilized" society at that time. And I did not say they invented democracy, I said they invented the Republic, which (contrary to popular notion) is the real form of government in the U.S., not democracy. Rome invented the concept of roads to secure an empire, created a system of trade that spanned the known globe, pioneered philosophy, spawned countless objects d'art...they had an immense impact on the future world. Could they have done all this without the crushing heel of a conqueror? Who knows? You and I certainly don't, and we are in no position to judge them since we now live and breath in a world that (for better or worse) they helped to create.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure I can dispute it. The fuckwits who claim that only hard work and their own superior intelligence got them to where they are today are also saying that they're more hardworking and more intelligent than everyone else lower down on the social food chain. This is complete, self-serving bullshit readily apparent to even the casual observer, not to mention incredibly arrogant.
Hard work and intelligence are good starting points, but by far the biggest determinants of where you are going to end up are a) what social circle you were born into, and b) luck - lots and lots of luck. Fact is, your hard work and intelligence might have helped you get where you are, but plain dumb luck put you there ahead of everyone else who works harder than you and is more intelligent than you - and is still not making it. Because no matter what you claim, there are *millions* of people smarter, more determined, and more hard-working than you are and yet aren't making as much as you do, or have the kind of money that you have, or wield the kind of power that you do.
Modern social darwinists - the laughingstock byproducts of a bygone era - assert that luck has nothing to do with it and that everyone who doesn't make it just doesn't have 'what it takes'. Which presumes that they do, and the millions who're fucked are somehow less worthy than they themselves are. This is nothing more than the 'nobility by birth' argument in different clothing that ruled the upper classes prior to the industrial revolution.
End result: your argument is a crock. No one except these freaks takes social darwinism seriously. If you have a burning desire to factor chance out of your success so you can bolster your own ego, kindly spew the megalomania in a different direction.
Max
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI) (Score:2, Interesting)
The power to destroy armies, cities and entire cultures within a day didn't exsist until the mid 1950s when the Soviet Union, United States and United Kingdom developed fleets of long range manned bombers and later, ICBMs that could rain megatons of explosives at the push of a button.
MAD, did bring a period of realative peace in the sense there was not another fullscale war in Europe or the Pacific.
It's been since the World moved out of the bi-polar Super Power model that things have been less stable.
Defense through deterrence served alot more than the "ruling nations/classes".
Yeah for us. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah for us. (Score:2)
The parent deserves to be modded up significantly IMOHO.
Asymetric warfare may be a new buzzword, but its concept certainly isnt. If you dont have the resources of your enemy to line up ranks of musketmen at each other in nice set piece battles, dont rely on mobile units and intelligence. If you dont have sheer might of firepower to fight an enemy with helicopter gunships, close air support, defoliants, rely on being invisible using tunnels and local knowledge. If you cant launch a conventional strike on your enemies assets and symbols, seek to exploit laxes in the security his own transportation system turning them into the weapons you cannot get.
i.e. If you cant fight an enemy on his terms, fight him on your own. High tech toys and vast armies are of little use against an unconventional enemy/terrorist.
Re:Yeah for us. (Score:2)
The nature of the international game really has changed. Nobody (nobody) can compete with the US of A anymore.
Solution: for nation-states, don't even try. China has a billion cheap laborers and endless patience. All your base may well really belong to them one day. The EU will never be a military giant (in the near term, anyway) but has the potential to be an economic collossus. Live well, buy shiny toys, and let the USA spend hard-earned dollars building another fifty carriers, another constellation of military sats, and another round of missiles. Who cares? Classical war is a sucker's game now - only loser states run by maniacs even think about it. Countries that matter can protect their interests by a million subtle monetary and legal means. The real winners for the next century will be the states that can exploit those parameters.
Does this mean I like being under Uncle Sam's oft-times simpleminded thumb? Not particularly, but that's the world we live in.
wired article update (Score:2)
unfortunately, there was an article in wired news [wired.com] this week (also covered in the la times [latimes.com] -- can't find wired's) talking about america's losing ground to other nations such as china and india in the satellite advantage rate.
well, that pax americana sure was fun, eh?
What will happen ... (Score:2)
What time is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
For what its worth...
Re:What time is it? (Score:2)
It's pathetic, the things people will do just for a couple more cents per share this quarter.
ph34r th3 U5 (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Customer,
Upon ordering your DVD make sure to order using the correct Region Designation. Should you plan to move from the caves of Afganistan to some other hidyhole you will need to re-order your DVD. Also, you may not sell, lease, transfer, display, view, listen to, or otherwise make use of any products purchased.
Thank you,
US Gov. ^H^H^H^H^H MPAA/RIAA Consortium
Just don't shoot down mine! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just don't shoot down mine! (Score:2)
Very little communications bandwidth goes through satellite anymore... The speed of light matters when you have to go 46000 miles, I prefer terestrial fiber thank you very much
Re:Just don't shoot down mine! (Score:2)
Like thousands it would be VERY hard if not impossible to do this.
It's funny how vulnerable people think the US is. When the WTC went down it didn't effect my job or my finances at all.
Re:Just don't shoot down mine! (Score:2)
Of course, Jeff Goldblum uploaded that virus and fixed their little green wagons...
Satellites are one of many redundant networks. (Score:3, Informative)
...And through ground-based fiber, and through microwave relays (all those metal towers in the middle of nowhere that you drive past).
Satellites are very useful for sending _small_ amounts of information over long distances to destinations that are relatively isolated. High-bandwidth communications to/from densely populated and well-connected areas don't go through satellites.
Knocking out microwave relay communications would require either a host of *insanely* powerful jammers orbiting overhead, or far more sticks of dynamite than is likely to be practical.
Knocking out fiber communications would involve taking out all of the fiber routing nodes on the continent, or cutting an insanely large number of backbone cables.
Taking out satellites isn't a cakewalk either (it only takes a box of nails, but the box has to be very high up and positioned to within a few metres).
In summary, I think the lower levels of the US's communications network are robust enough to survive virtually all practical attacks (if an enemy can wipe out the communications infrastructure, we have bigger problems than just losing communications).
First Reactions - Space Wars (Score:2)
Ha, you know you're a fan when after reading the articles title the first thing you think is "YES! TLC is at it again! Uhhhm IN SPACE???"
Too much? (Score:2, Insightful)
The real question is, will we ever get to the point where we overcome this? Everybody has enemies, and the closer to the top you get, the more enemies you have. That leaves us with two options... we either keep building, keep progressing, and keep defending ourselves against this, or we stop. While some would argue that stopping is the moral high ground, how can we stop knowing that in doing so, we might bring about our destruction?
Theory and Reality - Space War 21 (Score:4, Interesting)
However, nothing's to keep us from just happening to lose control of a short-term satellite that we decommissioned which just happens to take out a rogue satellite that we don't want up there.
Do we have such technology? Of course.
Will we use it? You bet.
Will we ever admit it? No way.
So, yes, we will "keep the skies clear". But we won't be so stupid as to do it in a way that we can be blamed for.
Given that, don't you just love seeing all those old satellites spinning around up there?
-
Re:Theory and Reality - Space War 21 (Score:2, Funny)
"Yeah, sorry, we really need to get on the ball with that unoperational satellite thing, and we take responsiblity for the accidents. But you have to admit, what a coincidence! Ten collisions in ten days? You guys have the worst luck!"
Lots of Fun 'til It's Used on You (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the moment you and/or your children will find out first-hand what it feels like to be attacked by space-based weaponry.
All of this stuff is ultimately meant to exert power over
Night
Did Jon Katz Write This Crap? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to write a report on modern military technology deployment, you might want to do a better job of explaining the variated threat we face today from both traditional military-industrial threats like China, to fluidic asymetric threats like rogue states which have the conventional ability to cause great damage, but not defeat, and support terrorist insurgents which can cause defeat without great damage.
Bandwidth crunch (Score:5, Interesting)
The TDRS network was originally put in place to support the Space Shuttle and provide 24x7 communications access to ground control. Before TDRS, there had to be tracking stations around the world and in expensive ships crewed by hundreds. Before TDRS, re-entering spacecraft would experience a communications blackout because the ionized gases of the reentry blocked line of sight transmissions from the ground.
With TDRS, there is almost always a relay satellite around to link a spacecraft (or military satellite) to ground. Re-entering space shuttles now have contact with ground control through the entire entry sequence because the antennas can 'see' the TDRS network above them, unblocked by the plasma around the nose.
The problem? The TDRS network (which is continuosly refreshed with new satellites as older ones go out of service) is based on protocols from the 1970s that were supposed to provide voice and telemetry. Now, they're being tasked to channel still images and even video in some circumstances, and not just by the shuttle fleet and NASA. The military uses TDRS on occasion to get spy satellite data too, further sapping the infrastructure.
It's time to start upping a new network of satellites with K band or better transmitters and receivers (which use more power) and so on.
Re:Bandwidth crunch (Score:2, Informative)
Lecture in Seattle (Score:2, Informative)
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Regime. (Part of the lecture series "Open Classroom on International Law and Arms Control). 5:30-6:20pm in Kane Hall 220. Speaker: Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., Executive Director of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security. Sponsor: Institute for Global and Regional Security Studies.
I went to the first in the series last week, it was a brief history of nonproliferation treaties in the world. It was extremely interesting, and extremely pertinent to this article.
Well in Canada... (Score:4, Informative)
Ha! When I read that I couldn't help but chuckle... here in Canada it is a FACT that the US basically tells us whether we are allowed to launch a new satelitte or not.
For example, when Canada wanted to launch the RADARSAT 3, which would give the Canadian military a resolution about 5 times LESS than the current estimated US imagery resolution, they had to bargain with the US gvt before launching.
By the way, I am pretty confident that the US WOULD start "shooting other satellites down" if the need be.
So in other words, Americans need not fear, as long as their mighty guns are near!
Re:Well in Canada... (Score:2)
What does Canada get out of the deal?
Apropriate .sig (Score:2)
"Your superior intelect is no match for our puny weapons."
It's a shame really.
Wired (Score:2, Funny)
500Mbits/s for a spyplane... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article says that each Global Hawk requires 500Mbits/s. That is a huge amount of data. Yo think that it must be relaying a lot of recon information (probably at least three cameras, and I should imagine they have radio scanner as well), on top of the data required to fly it in both directions.
They must have some major processing power on board - I should imagine that trying to fly something over a relatively high latency satellite link would be hard otherwise/ But they still have a lot of human intervention - it's probably more guidance than actual flying. I remember seeing an experiment where they introduce a random delay between 0 and 0.5 seconds to what the pilot sees (not feels, as this was in the back of a large jet used for remote flying experiments) and it made control of the aircraft very hard - the pilot overcompensating, and almost unable to land the thing.
There could also be a level of redundancy in the 500Mbits/s - possibly two or more links, because clouds and other conditions can stop them working, and I should imagine that would be a bad thing to happen.
Anyway, I'm off to do some research on these planes... but if anyone else finds anything interesting, why not post it.
PS. Yes, I am glossing over the real issues behind these articles. But hey, it's better than the "What about the treaties" or the serious "US kick ass, no one can touch us posts". Wake up. The world isn't like that anymore. Flying planes into building, killing lots of civilians goes against a lot of international laws and treaties.
Face it - these treaties are to stop developed, civilised, large military forces from wiping out small countries and commiting war crimes. The smaller countries do not give a shit.
Like the US listen anyway:http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/r ec.bush.abm/ [cnn.com]
Shoot them down? (Score:4, Funny)
Pax Americana Can't Be Done With Weapons Only (Score:5, Interesting)
It is true that the satellites provide massive reconaissance and communications force multipliers to the military. It is also true that we are very dependent on them not just for military functions but also for tele-economic industries (making them juicy targets). And it is true that America's constant investment in various technologies mean a uni-polar world re: conventional military power.
What Bruce fails to realize is that these tools are just that- tools that can be broken, circumvented or worse copied and used better by others.
For instance, if we follow through with heavy DEWAD use (Directed Energy Weapon Air Defense), yes we can knock down missiles and rule the skies- for a while. Then our enemies will eventually duplicate the technology, and knock down our cruise missiles, UAVs and bombers. Then all the satellites in the world won't help our inability to affect events on the ground with airpower.
Even if we have a Rumsfeldian dream US Space Force, that doesn't stop the VW driving in from Mexico City with the nuke in the trunk.
Our enemies will move around our military power. Take a looksee at this translation [die.net] of two Chinese colonels writing about our Desert War dominance, and how to circumvent and defeat the US in spite of military superiority. Somehow in his rush to sell his article, he did not deal with assymetric warfare.
Pax Americana needs these toys to happen, but the toys by themselves can be beaten. What we really need is plenty of mutual interest (read money and self-determination) for most of the world to participate in Pax Americana, the will to crush in Cold or Hot War those who will take away self-determination and money from others in the name of an ism (even if they are American), and the spread of fair legal and financial system to the average world citizen.
We will win with satellite TV moreso then satellite lasers.
I don't know what happened to Bruce- way too many blue hawaiians on Austin's Sixth Street I imagine.
Well, I would agree with most of that there... (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that you think that some of these weapons are useless or easily circumvented, and most of the rest of the world sees our army as full of "toys."
Toys indeed, if you definition includes things that burrow in ground and blow you up inside rock, track you with your cell phone, passive radar that just listens and never transmits, and all sorts of other nefarious things like that. They are not toys. IF OTHER NATIONS THINK THAT A SMARTBOMB IS A TOY, THEN THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS. They are up for a rude awakening.
Why is it a small, voluntary service US force always seems to run over a full blown, military controlled, conscripted nation in days? Its got to be the toys! Yeah right.
That is a childish justification for the fact that there are people that have put in billions (yes, freaking billions!) into not only developing these weapons, but coming up with the concepts and designing systems for their best implementation.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE RESEARCH EDGE. Go ahead, thwart it, Version 2.0 just shipped last week. See if you can crack it now.
Good example-
the trusty M-16 and its variants. Reliable. Cheap. Useful. All other modern nations have gone to guns with bullpup designs (clip is behind the trigger for more streamlined, futuristic look), because they say they are better balanced, shorter designs for guns. Sounds like a great idea. I thought so. They look cool in movies.
Until you learn that you have to not only take the 'dangerous end' of the weapon away from the enemy, but you have to take your trigger hand off of the grip and trigger to reload it. It takes two hands and more time. Also its nearly impossible to reload easily while laying down to fire, and soldiers do that A LOT. Also a bullpup exposes more head and shoulders around a corner when firing.
That idea has brought you such guns as the British SA 80. It looked and fired like it was made by Kenner. It had plastic parts. IT WAS EASILY OUTMATCHED BY A GOOD OL KALASHNIKOV.
Every arms manufacturer wants the M-16 contract, for obvious financial reasons. They hold competitions constantly and try every possible idea. The US military has tight, important standards FOR EVERYTHING. To think that there is a nation that can just up and exploit the weakness of the US tools in five minutes, is well, ridiculous and full of speculation. The difference? The US has not been speculating, they have been testing these things for decades even after they implement them. They know their holes.
If they research the M-16 so deeply and periodically, then what do they do with bleeding edge stuff?
I just don't see those Chinese Colonels reaching any new conclusions that we probably haven't a generation ago, and are actively trying to fix.
We'd Be Stupid Too Depend On Space in War (Score:2, Interesting)
The Chinese have already announced the development of very small mini-satellites that attach themselves to our satellites and can be blown up on demand. The idea is that they would launch these long before any war and have them in place just in case they needed them. They were small enough that many could be launched at once.
The concept is so simple and cheap and seemingly effective as to make it mind boggling that we would ever depend on satellites in a real war. If China wanted to retake Taiwan, all they'd have to do is put one of these on every military and civilian satellite and then push the button a few hours before their attack. We'd be so lost when all of the beepers, cell phones, TV networks, GPS units and other satellite based technologies stopped working all at once that it would probably take a couple of weeks before the majority of US citizens even knew what happened.
A geek's dilemma (Score:2)
Symptomatic of The problem with the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you write me of as another mis-informed mad terrorist let me make a few things plain:
I am a citizen of a country that is an ally of the USA, yet the USA was instrumental in bringing down our democratically (Westminster System) elected Government.
I've lived in the USA and seen the general paranoia of its' citizens - I know of no other country in the world that is so convinced that all other countries are out to get them, so they must be crushed.
I'm not so naive as to believe the world is a nice friendly place, but I am sure that as long as the USA remains dedicated to massive military force and the continual de-stabilisation of other nations the world will remain much more dangerous than it need be. As long as American Ideology is far removed from reality this will continue.
The fact is that most countries and people do not want to be like America, we don't want to own America, we don't want to destroy America. The USA is a great example of how not to run a democracy - your last Presidential Election demonstrated that you don't have a democratic system as is generally understood in civilised countries.
As long as the USA continues to believe that it is the de-facto "leader of the Free World" (tm) and engages in aggressive "Police Actions" to further the agendas of the real powers in the military-industrial complex there will continue to be terror attacks against it. I myself know that as a foreign national in the USA I could buy dynamite with no problems, I could buy firearms with no problems.
And for my final piece of hyperbole, many Christians outside the USA consider GW Bush to be the Anti-Christ. God help us all.
US power is overrated (Score:2, Interesting)
Economically, the US doesn't have that much power either. Sure, the US government moves a lot of money around. But there are very view US corporations left--corporations and capital have become global, and they are associated with the US only to the degree that it furthers their economic interests.
While globalization has its problems, globalization and economic interdependencies have delivered on one big promise: they have eliminated all superpowers and forced all wealthy nations to cooperate, and that's a good thing. Whether Americans realize it or not pretty much doesn't matter. The only nations that are not subject to the imperatives and constraints of globalization are those nations that feel they don't have anything to lose; and the best way to fix that is to make them wealthy enough that they, too, feel that it is to their advantage to play by the rules. In different words, if you turn Iraqis and Palestinians into well-off, happy consumers, they'll kick out any leader that endangers a steady supply of PlayStations or BigMacs. Depressing perhaps, but it beats the alternatives.
Europe's Galileo system is a great example (Score:2)
Anyway, the US is all in a sweat about this, and has put quite a bit if pressure on the Europeans to get them to forego this system. The US says that it's not needed, [techinformer.com] that it would interfere with our system, that it would destabilize the planet -- basically the entire bag of boogeymen. To it's credit, Europe has recently reversed course [insightmag.com] and decided that they would create this system on their own. Germany had been leaning toward the US position, but just changed their mind.
Galileo is not very well defined yet (even basic things like how many satellites, and which orbit configuration), but most people expect that it will be somewhat better than the current GPS system -- although the US insists that it's super-duper GPSII system will be better than Galileo, whatever Galileo ends up being.
thad
Pax Americana, my ass (Score:2)
Death To America (Score:2, Insightful)
It ain't gonna be easy, says Bruce Sterling, but that won't stop enemies from trying. Thirteen strategies they might use to knock the eagle out of the sky.
1. BUILD YOUR OWN
Method: Duplicate American space assets: surveillance, navigation, telecom, the works.
Upside: Legal. Can be accomplished largely using commercial products and services. American contractors might even build a lot of it for you.
Downside: Cripplingly costly; Russians tried it and went broke. Looks suspicious. Takes years. Yankees in good position to blow your assets to smithereens.
Already pursued by many other nations, India, China, Russia, Japan and the EU to name but a few.
All of these countries have far cheaper launch costs. They can replace a satellite for far less than it costs the US (currently) to replace its own satellites. A huge military advantage. Also, due to the location of US lauch sites, not that hard to shoot down sats launched from the US.
It's also possible to combine launching your own satellites with leasing/buying satellites from
other nations.
2. DECAPITATION
Method: Never mind fancy space assets. Obliterate Washington with a truck nuke.
Upside: Massively destructive, highly destabilizing. Heavy casualties among governing elite. Deadly shock to US national morale. Can be repeated in other cities.
Downside: Nukes hard to build. Sets dangerous precedent that puts your own cities at risk. US space assets still up there, available to US allies even if US no longer exists. Loss of Congress and Washington bureaucrats might be dangerous tonic to US military.
Not a likely strategy. Any nation that does this is asking for nuclear war. The safest way to implement this strategy is to give nukes to a terrorist group (NNAQ - short for NNAQ Not's AL Qaida ). Let them take the heat.
Bruce omitted chemical/biological warfare. Especially with biological, great built in denial.
Your heroes die carrying the disease to the US. No trail to lead back to you. Chemical also has great potential. Imagine the release of sarin in a football stadium.
3. ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE
Method: Detonate nuclear warhead in upper atmosphere, disabling spacecraft circuitry.
Upside: Inexpensive, quick, ruthless. Disables civilian assets, including pagers and TV, by stripping circuits on ground. To evade detection, bomb can be disguised as something benign, like a commercial satellite.
Downside: Some military sats hardened against radiation. Might destroy your own space hardware, if you have any. Unlikely to destroy distant sats; might destroy very little, in which case you've gone nuclear against a superpower.
This would be a very valuable tactic. Combined with the other tactics 4-11, it makes it possible to annihilate US forces.
4. SPACE PARASITES
Method: Infest space with armed mobile nanosatellites. Sneak them up to expensive American space machines. Attach like limpets. Detonate on signal.
Upside: Sneaky, insidious, inscrutable.
Downside: Hard to test. Americans likely to build fleet of nanosats teensier and sneakier than yours.
Very easy to test. Take out an American satellite or one of your own. The countermeasure is very
weak. Considering the Americans will build nanosats anyway, this is no deterrent.
5. SANDBAGGING
Method: Spew sand into paths of orbiting Yankee assets, turning them into Swiss cheese.
Upside: Ultracheap. Slowly suffocates space power. Might be done persistently in tiny quantities by some unorthodox launch method, say electromagnetic rail-gun launch or Jules Verne space cannon.
Downside: Space too big to pollute. Armor countermeasures possible. Retaliation by all space users likely. Sand sifts down into atmosphere after a while.
If you're careful about targetting, potentially useful. A nuisance tactic at best. High risk
of making every space faring nation come after you.
6. SPOOFING
Method: Mimic American datastream. Hack satellites, own them.
Upside: Bloodless, sexy, wired. Gains huge military advantage.
Downside: Requires vulnerable ground stations plus better hacking, crypto, and dongle skills than NSA and Air Force. Still can't launch, repair, or replace space assets.
That's not hard. Many of the US potential adversaries posess all three. And the US ground
stations are very vulnerable. There are many unmanned and poorly guarded ground stations
for US satellites here in Australia and NZ begging for just such a tactic. One man who was a demo/sniper could easily take them out.
All it needs is one weak link. If the encryption is weak, all the other skills do not matter.
If the admins securing machines lack the necessary skills, it is also easy to compromise hardware.
It's also not necessary to have vulnerable ground stations. If you can crack encryption, you
can spoof a ground station easily, without ever having been near it.
7. JAMMING
Method: Deploy huge electromagnetic noisemakers that thwart US communications.
Upside: Disables guided missiles, turns smart bombs into dumb bombs. Good for locals who communicate via fiber optics.
Downside: Ineffective beyond theater. Noisemakers make obvious targets.
A tactic that will be used by almost all opponents. Not enough by itself, but in combination very deadly. Only terrorist groups will possibly lack the ability to use this.
8. ATTACK GROUND STATIONS
Method: Use mortars, bombs, or missiles against satellite ground stations.
Upside: Kills highly trained analysts, destroys specialized equipment. Bases generally easy to find, not well fortified.
Downside: Secret mobile backup facilities likely to exist. US has large techie population, can train more space geeks.
Can they train them instantly? The crucial element is time. If you can open a window of vulnerability
where the US has no space assets, you can decimate the US forces by the time they recover.
9. DENIAL AND DECEPTION
Method: Hide facilities underground. Scatter armadas of fakes on surface. Broadcast phony transmissions to fool spy sats. Camouflage everything.
Upside: Effective during wartime. Forces US to waste expensive munitions.
Downside: Windowless cave quarters bad for soldier morale. Constant, consistent deception hard to maintain. Avoiding surveillance increases cost of all operations.
This tactic will be used by everyone, including the US.
10. ESPIONAGE
Method: Bribe or coopt Yankee sat personnel, obtain manuals, secrets.
Upside: Cheap, traditional. Proven success with Pollard, Walker, Falcon and Snowman.
Downside: Satellites return to US control once mole is discovered.
If used to create a window of weakness, where the US has no functioning sats for a short
period of time, means mega death for US soldiers.
By the time the US recovers, there might be no
army/air force/carrier group left in the region.
11. DEATH RAY
Method: Build laser or particle beam. Blind or cook satellites from ground.
Upside: Unexpected, shocking, repeatable. Appealing to Aum Shinrikyo-style tech-literate madmen.
Downside: Ambitious, expensive, hard to conceal. Requires huge power source. Works only in clear weather. Invites swift conventional retaliation.
Much easier/cheaper to use ballistic missile for the same job. The laser beam tactic will only be used by advanced nations, US allies and India, China, Russia.
12. WAR BY OTHER MEANS
Method: Abandon conventional warfare. Go nuclear, descend into terrorism, or both.
Upside: Everybody's doing it.
Downside: Going nuclear is expensive, destabilizing, dangerous. Terrorists lack secure bases, logistics, traditions, esprit de corps; "masterminds" hard to distinguish from deranged amateurs. American social, economic, cultural pressures irresistible. Your war may devolve into reading Noam Chomsky while sipping Coke.
By far the best tactic for every opponent of the US. Is already used, and has proved very successful. So far, no terrorist has yet started to read Chomsky. Has already beaten the US in Somalia. Will be used extensively by China when the war over Taiwan begins.
13. WAIT IT OUT
Method: Wait for US to get careless, go broke, forget, sell out, and/or collapse from inherent contradictions of postindustrial capitalism.
Upside: Easy. Basically indistinguishable from giving up.
Downside: Capitalist democracy has buried many competing systems. Top challenger blatantly suicidal and feared by all. Huge American sums spent on space strengthen US economy by creating Tang instant orange drink and heat-trapping pizza delivery bags. US will commodify your discontent, sell it back to you on DVD.
This is hardly a tactic. US culture helps to create enemies as well as allies.
And what is particulary funny... (Score:2)
Americans feel the need to morally support their morally bankrupt army and government (well known to be cowards in uniform and crooks in suits)? They need to sell themselves the idea that they are the smartest people in the world? Or they expect to scare everyone else with this? They believe that China, Russia or a bunch of other countries can't turn their precious government into a hole in the ground if it will piss them off sufficiently?
I am not a diplomat, so my answer to this would be "They can kiss my ass".
I thought the title was intended ironically... (Score:5, Insightful)
- "On the other hand, Washington's war wonks don't seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let's face it, the world might do much worse."
Leave that mod button alone for a sec--I'm trying to present an honest viewpoint, not troll. I don't hate the US. But this smug, presumtuous attitude is a problem. I agree that there must be measures in place to stop factions like the Taleban from damaging our own society. But I believe this should be something that is done through international cooperation. A single country cannot assign itself as judge, jury and executioner simply because its the most powerful. When people do that, they're called bullies.The article seems to take the attitude that the "Usian way" is the "right way"; that it's just fine for the US to target whomever they please in order to ensure their own safety. You can't build a "New World Order" by simply crushing anyone who disagrees with you. And if you're on the side that would benefit from such a New World Order, you should probably be concerned about how your way of life is built, and who will be the next target after all the opposition is gone (hint: the population of this New World Order).
Once again, please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to bash the US; I would like to question the article itself for assuming that the world must go along with the US or be beaten into submission, because to me that's what it seems to say. The problem is primarily with the leaders, who are people apparently intoxicated with their own power and completely without the wisdom or responsibility to use it with restraint; and also with the population, who are apathetic to the attitude their leaders hold as long as their easy way of life continues.
Now, I'm not saying that the US is without cause for its actions. I don't want to make any judgements on who is in the right in specific instances. But the reckless attitude of "Global Cop" put forward in the article, as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, is something that is heavily, heavily resented, and not just by radical Middle-Eastern parties. I don't feel I speak for myself alone. As a New Zealander and former South African I know that what I'm saying is a fairly prevalent viewpoint in both those countries. One only need watch TV to hear Bush commenting on the Israeli activities of the last few days: words to the effect of "I am not going to put up with this." Perhaps to people in the US these sound like strong words, but to people in other countries they sound like the words of a spoiled man with no real understanding of what he's talking about, assuming that the power he has gives him some right to dictate the actions of other countries. Of course I'm not saying that Sharon is right or that Bush is wrong--I agree with Bush's intent, but not his conviction that whatever he wants another country to do must happen, however true that is.
This attitude is what I see in the article. I imagine I'll be heavily downmodded for this post, since this is a Usiacentric forum, but I'm hoping open minds entertain differing ideas, on the supposition that most Slashdot readers are fairly open-minded and will realise that I'm trying to state an honest viewpoint as inoffensively as I can.
Civilian Casualties of the Pax Americana (Score:3, Insightful)
"Driven by al Qaeda's atrocities", they decided to go create a few atrocities of their own. Seen any estimates of civilian casualties on your TV news lately? A few dozen? Hundreds even? No, thousands. Professor Marc Herold has put together the only methodical public attempt to date on casualty estimates, and his figure is between 3,000 and 3,400 [wired.com].
"Terrible precision targeting"? Yes, the precision was pretty terrible alright. But the carnage isn't over yet, and won't be for decades: the UN estimates that around 14,000 unexploded cluster bomblets [guardian.co.uk] are still on the ground in Afghanistan. They're bright yellow, the same color as the food parcels the US very kindly dropped, while all the aid agencies pleaded with them to stop. So thousands more will die, long after you've had all your parades and pinned on all your medals.
Slow, careful police work was far too unglamourous. Much more sexually satisfying to bomb the shit out of the country harboring the prime suspect. Do you really think that the strikes against the US will stop, simply because the Taliban have been chased into retreat? How many more young suicide bombers are being created daily, thanks to these atrocities and all the others supported and funded around the world by the US? Will they all just give up and go home, awed by superior US satellite technology? Use your brain, for God's sake. You will reap what you sow.
Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
_
WINDOWS USERS CLICK HERE! [paware.com]
Re:Ooh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just how much was the US paying to buy back stinger missiles it gave to Muslim fundamentalists in Afganistan?
Israel has massively more arms than Palestine but it doesn't look to secure for me.
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2)
Dose this also count against using them to guide bombs?
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2)
Thanks for the answer though.
The moron who moderated me down obviously couldn't see this subtle question in my original post. I earned my +2, damnit, whether or not some jerk thinks my post is overrated. Grrr.
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2)
Remember, all the really great stuff we know about was developed during the seventies and eighties (GPS, stealth, various surveillance platforms). Certainly you don't think that the military would have developed nothing new in that time? The countries that are in so-called competition with us are trying to build capabilities that we've had for decades now. It's probably only because the military has way better stuff now that they even declassified most of the stuff we know about today. If other countries try to field satellites that could operate against us, you can be sure the military has some sort of stealthy hunter-killer or ground based system that can knock out their stuff super quick.
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2)
We just wouldn't do it publicly.
I was in the military for a time, and I can attest that we have "better stuff" though I can't tell you exactly what kind of better stuff we have now.
But, I saw the AC-130U (and directed some fire missions with it) long before any civilians did
That's just a small piece.
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:2)
It really seems silly that we'd entered a treaty where we are not allowed to defend ourselves in a particular way.
"No sir, you aren't allowed to wear a bullet-proof vest."
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty.. (Score:3)
But who gets an earful, USA.
ya tardlet... (Score:2)
Re:I Like (Score:5, Funny)
The bad thing about going to war with China is that an hour later, you want to go to war again.
Re:War is a thing of the past.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just damn glad that it wasn't any of our competitors. New Zealander hegemony wouldn't be that offensive to me, but they were relatively inactive.
it is undoubtedly a good thing that the current situation came about through political change and revolution, not war.
Sure about that? Let's add up the body counts from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (the Soviet invasion specifically) and the various regional wars that ended up being almost all surrogates (Latin America and Africa were thick with these)
But a paradox exists, why then are so many countries dramatically _increasing_ defence budgets? America is by a _significant_ amount, down here in Australia we are again by a big amount again, at least by our standards.
You have neighbors. Some of them may or may not be very nice. China and India both have combinations of nuclear weapons and population pressure, for instance. And while India may be civilized about such things, the PRC makes me nervous.
All of this in such an age of optimism?
Who said optimism? Last year there was a mass fatality incident in New York, on a scale previously only caused by natural disasters or nation-states. I'm supposed to be on the "Front Lines" (if you believe the Fraternal Order of Police junkmail, even though I'm mostly on the front lines of vandalism, underage drinking, and spousal abuse enforcement lately). And I'm not sleeping a whole hell of a lot better. Neither are our fire/EMS department.
Australia hasn't really done much to piss anyone off lately, and especially not the deranged folks who think themselves divinely ordained to kill people. Here on the other side of the Pacific, we're considered by some to be stooges of the International Zionist Conspiracy because we haven't actually nuked Israel off of the map yet. And that "some" has had a disturbing habit of killing Americans (and people who look vaguely like Americans). And that's very much on our map here.
To empahasis my previous post now (the subject), think about it all you westerners (like me), could you even stomach a world war? What _possible_ reason could that be tolerated by the people of the world? Lets assume for a moment democracy works. (which i think it does)
I'm having a hard time visualizing one in the next decade. If there's a major nation-state threat, it's mainland China, but they know what'll happen if they step too far over the edge, and it'll be worse than our not selling them Boeing aircraft anymore.
It really makes you wonder.. Perhaps we are un-learning some things, important things, like how to contain regional conflicts, (think middle east), perhaps some things we never learnt..
Can it be done? In the Middle East, you have several problems. One problem won't be settled until either every Jew or most of the Muslims are dead, unless there's some breakthrough that I'm not seeing. (Well, I do have the answer. Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon need to quit being shitheads, but I'm not holding my breath). One problem would require that certain heads of state give up on expansionism. (Or cease breathing, which might be more helpful altogether). And then there's the issue of very-traditional societies having conflicts with the modern world. That's not limited to the ME, and we don't really have an answer to the conflict it causes here in the US either.
ps. Yes i know money is needed to fight new forms of terrorism, and as this topic is about space war, etc, but with 10 gazzilion dollars worth of space weapons, does the US really need a 400,000 (or whatever) man army??
Ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? (Yes, the book. Not the movie. The movie sucked ass and Paul Verhoeven should be deported and penetrated to death by feral donkeys for making that crap). Anyway, one character made an interesting point: Anybody can nuke a target. But all you've done is kill a lot of people and made a mess. You don't control it until you can stand a 19-year-old kid with a rifle on it. If you can't control it, you can't pacify it. And if you can't pacify it, then you'll have another one of those conflicts that stretches out for decades and kills a lot of people (like Yugoslavia) and that even an absolute dictator with a powerful secret police (like Tito) can only control for a few years. Those peacemaking missions need a lot of manpower.
Also, consider: There are more deer hunters in the state of Pennsylvania than there are infantrymen in the US Army. Most of those hundreds of thousands are support personnel rather than line soldiers.
Re:War is a thing of the past.. (Score:2)
It's an interesting system that produces an educated, wealthy terrorist leader that was so extreme that he could proclaim that Afghanistan under the Taliban was the only true Islamic state.
Re:Has the Military heard of video compression? (Score:2)
Re:Has the Military heard of video compression? (Score:2)
but the biggest gain comes from taking hires
only in areas of interest. think of a geoserv
running on an LEO.