I guess the question I have is which path leads to greater national security for the U.S.- 1. Focusing our energy on trying to limit/reduce weapons proliferation, securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, promoting multi-lateral nuclear weapons [edit] reduction. or 2. Robust weapons development programs, quitting the ABM treaty to pursue deployment of missile shield technology, weaponizing space. Shooting Stars U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space By Marc Lallanilla ABCNEWS.com Mar. 30— For all of human history, people have looked at the stars with a sense of wonder. More recently, some U.S. military planners have looked skyward and seen something very different — the next battlefield. While the military's presence in space stretches back decades, now there appears to be a new emphasis. Officials in the Bush administration and the Department of Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space. The first real step in that direction appears to be coming in the form of a little-noticed weapons program at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The agency has now earmarked $68 million in 2005 for something called the Near Field Infrared Experiment. The NFIRE satellite is primarily designed to gather data on exhaust plumes from rockets launched from earth, and defense officials claim it is therefore designed as a defensive, rather than offensive weapons. But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite. As one senior government official and defense expert described the program, which has seen cost-related delays and increased congressional scrutiny: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization." Blueprint for Lasers Weapons, Rod Bundles "A lot of folks in the Air Force are leery of lobbing weapons into space, so they want to creep up on this issue," added the official, who asked to remain unnamed. "It's very hard to kill anything in the Missile Defense Agency budget — it's politically protected." The missile agency was reborn from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, with a mission to develop integrated missile defense systems, including the use of space-based platforms. But the agency's program is far from the only effort to bring weapons to space. A wide-ranging outline of possible weaponization came from the U.S. Air Force last November. That Transformation Flight Plan outlines planned weapons programs including air-launched anti-satellite missiles, laser strike weapons and metal projectiles called "hypervelocity rod bundles" to hit ground targets from space. The USAF weapons programs are, however, still in the conceptual phase and not yet budgeted for development. "There are two paths and we're at a crossroads now," warns one critic of such efforts. Says Laura Grego, space weapons expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, "Space is a beautiful research laboratory above the atmosphere. Putting that in danger to fulfill a Star Wars fantasy doesn't make sense." 'A Space Pearl Harbor' The militarization of space is nothing new. After the former Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, the U.S. military began to develop and deploy satellites for communications and reconnaissance. By 1978, the military deployed the first global positioning system satellite, a technology now widely used for both military and commercial purposes. GPS — which has provided for the military what Lt. Col. Peter Hays, USAF, and executive editor of Joint Force Quarterly, describes as a "radical improvement and a kind of quantum leap in the use of space" — is but one example of how satellites are part of the daily lives of Americans, going far beyond satellite TV and weather forecasts. With that ubiquity in mind, the current administration has been building its emphasis on space-based weapons since even before President Bush took office. Shortly before his appointment as secretary of defense, for instance, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a blue-ribbon commission investigating the role of space in national security. It concluded in January 2001 the likelihood of an attack on U.S. space systems needed to be taken seriously to prevent another "space Pearl Harbor." Land, sea and air have seen conflict, the report noted, asserting space will be no different. "Given this virtual certainty, the U.S. must develop the means to both deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space." The report remains consistent with the Defense Department's current position on weapons in space, a Defense spokesperson confirmed. Space as 'Public Good'? But the idea of weapons in space is greeted coldly by some. "Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued the senior defense expert, adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons] agreements with other countries." Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United States is a signatory to the treaty. Summarizing the differences between the United States and European views on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who said in a recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination — information domination and leadership. Europe should be proposing a different model — space as a public good." Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded by retired senior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both military and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is space weaponization." Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space."
This is another example of fighting the last war. No country is anywhere near to us technologically or likely to be near to us anytime soon. Developing space weapons IMO is a waste of money when the real threat is from low tech smuggling operations like 9/11. Even in regards to missile defense no realistic (where the defense system wasn't told ahead of time the launch time trajectory and velocity of the missile) tests have worked except for ones that were highly jury rigged and even those most of the time didn't work either. As a fan of Sci-Fi space based weapons sound cool but IMO are very impractical and to the extent that they antagonize even our allies are a bad idea.
Of course! MacGuyver and the blond brainy chic can rig up space based weapons out of tin foil, diet coke cans and alien dookie. Brilliant!
personally, i am quite satisfied with my current penis size. invading other countries, although wrong without their consent, has a certain exoticism and fetish that im sure americans like, which is why so many soldiers came back with wived during vietnam. However, going to space....im not into aliens or anything, and im satisfied having a penis big enough to see from space, but i dont want my penis to be looking down at me FROM space. on the other hand, if the admin has credible information that we will actually need to fight off the borg or zerg or decepticons (and by good information, i mean more than just a nightmare after taco night, george) then sure, i'd hate to find out that someone else in space has a bigger penis than me.
Most people don't realize that in it's final spasm of space activity, the Soviet Union attempted to develop a space combat satelite called Polyus. They went as far as to try to launch a test version, but the launch failed, and the Soviet Union was soon no more. It was armed with both an optically sighted laser cannon, and nuclear space mines. Also, the US technically has a "space weapon" already. The ASAT is an anti-satelite missle designed to be launched from a F-16 at high altitude and procede into space to destroy "enemy" satelites.
though i very much admire the constructive approach to nuclear arms reduction as proposed by gifford, i'd just like to point out that our chief ballistic-missile capable enemies simply won't be reasoned with. 1) China - our fight with them is over taiwan. they will not stop improving their nukes until they are our equals and until we can no longer stop them from invading taiwan. 2) N Korea - our fight with them is over Kim Jong-Il. they will not stop improving their nukes until KJI is out of power. for us to unilaterally cripple our defenses, when our enemies have no intentions to match our efforts, is simply not wise.
I absolutely do not want to unilaterally disarm. I want a robust and sustained effort to reduce the number of nuclear arms globally.
Not wasting my tax money on putting lasers/nukes in space does not cripple our defenses. (when our defence technology is like 50 years ahead of the Chinese and to a lesser degree NK) Any Laser shooting out of the sky sure is not gonna help to kill Osama.
I think we should declare space off-limits to weapons and use our power to enforce it. And that would include our possible weapons as well. Now, when the near-Earth weapon race is still in it's infancy, is the chance to keep them out... and while we're still at the top of the heap. A nice side benefit, from my perspective, would be the necessary development of spacecraft to inspect and enforce such a ban. Idealistic? Sure. But I wish we would give it a try.
Lil, 1) incorrect but common misperception, read up on their policy, it is quite different 2) too premature to say, there is a lot of hatred for the US in North Korea, not just our president but our way of life. you realize that their only bargaining chip for regime survival is through nuclear force?
All of you "don't weaponize space" p*****s are gonna look real stupid when the aliens come and make us their b****es.
http://www.gyre.org/news/Space Warfare Everything you've ever wanted to know about space warfare can be found at Gyre.org - good stuff.
Currently working in Chinese foreign affairs, these are texts I have that discuss Chinese strategic policy. Foreign Affairs: International Security of East Asia Fall 2003 Professor Victor D. Cha The International Relations of Northeast Asia 2004 Edited by Samuel S. Kim Same Bed Different Dreams: Managing U.S. China RElations 1989-2000 David M. Lampton The United States and East Asia: Dynamics and Implications Robert Sutter Strategic Asia: Asian Aftershocks 2002-2003, 2003-2004 Edited by Richard J Ellings and Aaron Friedberg From Asian Aftershocks, Thomas J Christensen, who is one of the leading experts in China in the country, writes that the PLA is building up arms, but only for a fight against Taiwan, not the US. It is not in China's interest to fight a war with the US. They have not been improving their nuclear arsenal, but improving their guidance systems. In no way do they plan to equal the US in nuclear might. While it may be true that they were trying to do this between 1990-2000, they changed their policies when Bush came to power, and ever since, have been using diplomacy (6 party talks with Korea) and economic policy to coerce the US to stop protecting Taiwan (Sutter). China's focus is on Taiwan, but they do not want to pull the US into this. Their 1990ish mentality of eventually fighting the US has been changed. Just look at their policies in the last four years, and one will notice that China has kept very quiet on things that would upset the US, they are trying to change that image of a future threat (spyplane, war on terrorism, iraq, Taiwan, North Korean talks) In all those scenarios, if they took place in the 1990's, China would have had a much more extreme reaction. yet after Bush, they were cooperative, silent or extremely lenient, even if their population was strongly against it. the Chinese are vehemently against the occupation of Iraq, but the government has been for the most part, silent as they do not want to anger the US. They know they cannot fight, so they are using other means to prevent the US from defending Taiwan, namely diplomacy and economics, but NOT nuclear weapons.
In the event of a nuclear space war, our enemies could detonate a nuke in space, knocking out all communications and defense platforms, or bum rush us with several ballistic missles scattered between decoy warheads. Quantity over quality.... Spending on a costly space war program will only worsen political tensions and give our military leaders the appearance of the upper hand.
That makes zero sense. We shouldn't have weapons in space because.....others might be provocated? I don't think so. If I have a bazooka, does that mean you're more likely to come over to my house and try to rob it? If anything, it will give us more deterrent power, especially if it is able to defend our other allies (like South Korea) as well. MAD is dead, folks, as are all of the Cold War era treaties.
I think the idea of having a defense system in space like the one proposed is a very cool idea. However, the thing that worries me is the terrorists smuggling in bombs or attacking us in other ways. Countries lauching rockets at us isn't too much of a concern for me right now.
This is a dead ringer for those WMD in Iraq arguments. At least you're consistent. I think this stuff is great. Now if only we could figure out how to kill the Bogey Man and the Tooth Fairy. You know, before they kill us first.
isn't that exactly what i said? i don't think anyone ever builds nukes with the intention of using them. i also tend to think that being "equal" in nuclear arms, is being able to bypass all potential ballistic missile defense your enemy has to offer (because with nukes, numbers don't matter, it is being able to deal catastrophic damage at a national level). china will keep improving their ballistic missile guidance (as you mentioned) and numbers, until they can overwhelm any missile defence we come up with. In other words, until they have a nuclear deterrent equally effective as ours. you might not think this has anything to do with weapons in space. but it does. they perceive our current bevy of missile defence schemes as primarily targeted against them. the shield which bush is planning, is effective against up to 300 warheads, which coincidently is precisely the ballpark of the Chinese arsenal. on the surface, we're preparing against rogue states like N Korea (who have at most 10 nukes), but in reality it is against China. Weaponising space can double or triple the effectiveness of our missile shield, which would cripple the chinese nuclear deterrent for the next ten years. as for china not focusing on military means to keep america out of any potential future taiwan strait conflict. are you kidding? a HUGE proportion of their military procurement is tailored to specifically achieve local superiority in the taiwan strait against US carrier task forces and against US forces based in Japan/Korea. they are without a doubt the fastest growing military power in the world. and has been for the past ten years and will be for the indefinite foreseeable future. maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent is integral to this military approach. i think in working with chinese-america foreign relations, many experts often mistake the trees for the woods. you might have made the same mistake here. they may be focusing a lot more on diplomacy and economics. they may be adopting a gentler approach. but never ever believe for a moment that they're not crafting a BIG stick while they speak softly. and in the end it's the stick that walks the walk. (and china knows this as well, that on the taiwan issue, they can militarily intimidate America far more quickly than any other means, whether it be diplomacy or economics).
