UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

Palomar · 2005-05-21 06:34:14

http://www.space.com/news/ap_050520_spa … html]Click

*Seems unarmed satellites could be the excuse or justification for the weaponization of space.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group that opposes weapons in space, said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.

I'm all for that. Of course treaties are often broken. But being "on the books," legal and all -- yes, the treaty should be created.

Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must be protected.

Yeah, I suppose. But what if the threat is deliberately overblown/exaggerated to serve as a pretext for weaponization? :-\

Check out the "Rods from God" reference. Makes me ill.

--Cindy

reddragon · 2005-05-21 08:31:31

I saw that article too. It noted that the Rods from God "would cost 50-100 times as much as a similar attack from the ground." Also I doubt that such a weapon would be any good for something like the current wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing you could aim at a person or even a single building full of terrorists. I don't know if it would be that accurate, and the radius affected might be too great. I'm not really knowledgeable on military tech, but it seems more like something you'd use against a city or maybe an army. To me it seems that the government just wants a cool new superweapon.

As for the general weaponization of space, I agree with the UCS and hope it never happens. Ultimately though I fear it will be hard to avoid. Once we have colonization of other planets and trade between them, nations will want to protect their citizens and their space ships from rival nations or maybe even space pirates. For now, however, I see no even halfway decent excuse for putting weapons in space. Protecting satellites from an attack that at present has little chance of occurring is a lame excuse in my mind.

Commodore · 2005-05-24 14:58:05

Its going to happen.

I for one hope the US gets a head start on it.

Palomar · 2005-05-24 15:18:26

Its going to happen.
I for one hope the US gets a head start on it.

*Can't we leave wars and weapons here on Earth?

I want space to be -free- of both.

Well, there I go...daydreaming again. :bars:

A peaceful outer space, civilizations which put the "civil" back into the word...

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-24 19:49:17

Barring the destruction of Earth or a complete revolution of humanity to do away with the organization of the species & planet by nationality, it IS going to happen.

The ability to strike any place on Earth without signifigant warning at almost any time on demand with devestating firepower, no need for a nearby airbase or missile platform (bomber, ship, submarine), and no way to stop the deadly accurate GPS guided missiles... Launch a missile battery on a Delta-IV HLV+ and camp it in an orbit that passes over Iran, then threaten them with the obliteration of their nuclear infrastructure within 100 minutes of the Presidents' order to fire with no possible way for the Iranians to stop it (other then shoot nukes at it). Tell me the military wouldn't love that?

It gets better. Deeply buried bunkers and facilities are one of the major concerns the military has, which even prompted research into the (bad idea) first-strike use of tactical nuclear weapons to effect destruction of such facilities. The reason why conventional bombs or nukes of sufficently small yeild won't do the job is that they can't penitrate deeply enough before exploding, and since it would be difficult to build the warhead/detonator to survive the impact.

The solution? A space-borne penitrator... the kenetic energy is so high that deep penitration is possible, and since there would be no warhead then there is nothing fragile that must be cusioned. A space-based missile platform may infact be the only acceptable way to deal with such targets. Experiments have already been conducted: old Minuteman-II missiles were fitted with such a penitrator, launched straight up with the first stage, and then flipped over and pushed straight down with the upper stage. The damage inflicted in the test is classified.

A UN treaty? Ha, yeah, that'll help. The only thing that will accomplish is giving other countries another excuse to beat America over the head with while our enemies develop such weapons.

Palomar · 2005-05-26 06:41:15

*General Popovkin's concern:

"Controlling weapons on earth is one thing, but in space it's more difficult -- there are meteor showers, sunbursts - it's very dangerous."

Yeah, those are mighty good points.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/milspace-0 … l]Russians and nukes in space

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-05-26 06:50:45

*General Popovkin's concern:
"Controlling weapons on earth is one thing, but in space it's more difficult -- there are meteor showers, sunbursts - it's very dangerous."
Yeah, those are mighty good points.
http://www.spacewar.com/news/milspace-0 … l]Russians and nukes in space
--Cindy

The report is technically untrue. What Russia was saying was it will not base nuclear weapons in space. It is not allowed to anyway by treaty. But since ICBMs actually enter space in there boost phase if Russia where to launch those it would enter space.

Then again launching one Nuclear weapon into space as its target and letting the EMP of the blast do a lot of damage to electronic systems is another matter too.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 07:14:44

Some good points. Condensing GCNR and Commodore's comments, it's going to happen, I'd rather the US get the foothold than the other likely contenders and it has advantages all its own anyway. The ability to strike anywhere on Earth without warning and without risking a single American serviceman. Betting than invading, better than bombing. No defense.

Sure, I'd like to leave it all behind and have a wonderful peaceful spread out into the cosmos, hand in hand for the good of all mankind. I'd also like the Moon to be habitable and populated solely by attractive, scantily clad women and vast fields of hamburger trees. Doesn't look like either is in the cards. Bugger.

There is an upside though, increased militarization of space means increased space infrastructure. Several here have on occasion proposed cutting the military budget and using the money to fund space missions. Well, this is as close as it's gonna get. Make space a military theater of operations and the means for reaching it will get cheaper and more reliable, eventually they'll be utilized for other things as well. 60 years ago the jet was a military project for a faster, better fighter. Now any scmhoe can ride one to Chicago because they don't feel like driving. And they sleep through the trip.

Build it and they will come.

Palomar · 2005-05-26 07:21:27

*Okay, but what about THIS quote:

"Controlling weapons on earth is one thing, but in space it's more difficult -- there are meteor showers, sunbursts - it's very dangerous."

???

All it'd take is a meteor to hit one and detonate it, no? The nukes would be -outside- Earth's atmosphere; no burning up of the meteor in entry.

There are lots of meteors zipping around out there. And yes, solar flares/coronal mass ejections. :-\

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-05-26 07:39:12

*Okay, but what about THIS quote:
"Controlling weapons on earth is one thing, but in space it's more difficult -- there are meteor showers, sunbursts - it's very dangerous."
???
All it'd take is a meteor to hit one and detonate it, no? The nukes would be -outside- Earth's atmosphere; no burning up of the meteor in entry.
There are lots of meteors zipping around out there. And yes, solar flares/coronal mass ejections. :-\
--Cindy

It actually takes a lot to detonate a Nuclear weapon and a meteorite or solar storm is very unlikely to be able to do this. The problem though is if the weapon itself is pushed back into an earth reentry it will litter a very large area with the most extremely hazardous material which will enter the food table.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 07:43:54

All it'd take is a meteor to hit one and detonate it, no? The nukes would be -outside- Earth's atmosphere; no burning up of the meteor in entry.

Depending on what the weapons in question are. Orbital nuke platforms don't make that much sense. Kinetic energy weapons (the "Rods of God" approach) on the other hand not only offer new capabilites but are of minimal risk. They can't be detonated and the electronic systems that govern firing control can be shielded, as electronics in all satellites are. For added safety, point them away from Earth until ready to use them.

Provided it becomes economical, of course. Determined by launch costs, material, hardware and weighed against the risk to American servicemen performing an attack with similar results.

Of course there's always the possibility that it could be disabled but such is the case with any weapons system. The more options, the better.

Still, nothing like a manned platform for reliability.

Palomar · 2005-05-26 08:13:44

Kinetic energy weapons (the "Rods of God" approach) on the other hand not only offer new capabilites but are of minimal risk. They can't be detonated and the electronic systems that govern firing control can be shielded, as electronics in all satellites are. For added safety, point them away from Earth until ready to use them.
Provided it becomes economical, of course. Determined by launch costs, material, hardware and weighed against the risk to American servicemen performing an attack with similar results.
Of course there's always the possibility that it could be disabled but such is the case with any weapons system. The more options, the better.
Still, nothing like a manned platform for reliability.

*That clears it up quite a bit. Thanks Cobra; you certainly are a brilliant fellow.

Of course I still don't want weapons in space. But probably it is inevitable and you've lessened my basic worries.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-05-26 08:55:12

a nuclear detonated EMP pulse in the upper atmosphere will destroy or degrade most sats in LEO.

It will fry almost all transitors on the ground.

Launch some sand into space and you effectively disable the sats in the orbital path.

No one can win this game.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 09:12:38

Launch some sand into space and you effectively disable the sats in the orbital path.
No one can win this game.

That's essentially the rule in warfare in general. You have a gun, I can get a tank. You can disable my tank with an RPG. I can get a jet with napalm canisters and drop 'em on you, but you can fire a SAM and blow up my jet, unless I pop a flare and some chaff, on and on. But if you come after me with a gun the game is on whether or not I choose to play.

I'd rather have all that stuff around just in case.

Plus you figure out all sorts of cool things in the process of building it.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1117120391

clark · 2005-05-26 09:22:58

all true.

But the economics are against you.

10 billion dollars in investments undone by a couple millions dollars for launch.

It's the case of EMP- we can build resistence into tranistors, at an exobranant cost, and the additional resistence can be overcome by extra EMP pulses, which cost less than the defense against.

Space favors asymmetrical warfare, and the only legitimate counter is to develop the capability to quickly recover from attack (thus the moon base) and responsive launch and nano-sats.

But the rods from god are a bad idea. Hair trigger response times have the effect of making people nervous, and they would have limited value for their planned capabilites, and cost too much given their vulnerability. [shrug] Just my perspective.

Space Bomber, sure, go for it- moving target, terrestrial base, makes space less of a legitimate target.

Rods in space makes all sats in orbit legitimate targets (more so).

BWhite · 2005-05-26 09:55:03

I have few moral or ethical qualms about weapons in space.

Prudence, however, suggests that the US has more to lose and less to gain from a rapid militarization of space since our economy is more space dependent than any other.

Killing a geo-sync sat is easier than defending it or replacing it and bin Laden has already stopped using his sat phones because someone leaked that we could track his calls that way.

Like Saddam regime change - - its not a bad objective however drawing for the inside straight is just a sucker bet motivated by wishful thinking about our technology.

Yeah, we can achieve space supremacy, no problem. Just give my client $500 billion dollars. Yeah, Mr. Wolfowitz, the Iraqis will greet us with flowers and start buying Ayn Rand books within days of Saddam being gone.

You got an 8 - 10 - J - Q - A?

Raise the bet. Pitch the 8 and I promise you will draw the King!

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 09:59:37

But the rods from god are a bad idea. Hair trigger response times have the effect of making people nervous, and they would have limited value for their planned capabilites, and cost too much given their vulnerability. [shrug] Just my perspective.

And a valid perspective it is. There's a distinction here between offensive and defensive weapons and whether they are meant for use in space of from space. A satellite to launch tungsten rods at the ground is very different from one meant to launch metal spheres at another satellite. In the latter case it makes a difference whether it's to destroy another satellite and as a defense for one. None of those systems are ready to build, it remains to be seen what's practical and economical.

It'll get worked out.

clark · 2005-05-26 10:01:31

They are a lot farther along than you might think.

Which is why they want the green light now, to start operational testing.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-26 10:10:43

Oh I think it might be a little harder to take down a good sized orbital missile platform then to throw some sand at it if you were smart, certainly there ways... you would have to detect the thing first too. Sounds like one of those things that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (*snort*) would say to try and disuade the Pentagon from investigating the concept.

Instant response is a much more valuble thing I believe, especially in today's world. Not two hours for a hypersonic bomber to launch from the US, but fifteen minutes for the next "big bird" to get in firing position. That is a real, substantial difference.

There may be no other way to attack deeply buried targets either, then kenetic energy of an orbital missile is much higher then a hypersonic bomber could achieve, and would be aproaching at a much more favorable angle.

BWhite · 2005-05-26 10:13:18

But the rods from god are a bad idea. Hair trigger response times have the effect of making people nervous, and they would have limited value for their planned capabilites, and cost too much given their vulnerability. [shrug] Just my perspective.
And a valid perspective it is. There's a distinction here between offensive and defensive weapons and whether they are meant for use in space of from space. A satellite to launch tungsten rods at the ground is very different from one meant to launch metal spheres at another satellite. In the latter case it makes a difference whether it's to destroy another satellite and as a defense for one. None of those systems are ready to build, it remains to be seen what's practical and economical.
It'll get worked out.

We have far more to lose from the actual deployment of such systems than anyone else. Collective security will be enhanced when the rest of the world comes to rely upon space based assets in their economy as much as we do.

Then, no one will tolerate messing with space based commercial assets and their defense becomes a police function.

Military space with the objective of national dominace will fail because our adversaries will choose other modes of attack, such as selling us mega-tons of commercial crap via Wal-Mart produced by low wage workers.

I wonder how much money was made building the Maginot Line?

BWhite · 2005-05-26 10:17:05

There may be no other way to attack deeply buried targets either, then kenetic energy of an orbital missile is much higher then a hypersonic bomber could achieve, and would be aproaching at a much more favorable angle.

Warfare between civilizations - - which is what we are facing depends more upon long term economic strength.

Standing armies, be they troops or multi-hundred billion dollar space systems are a drag on our economy. Adam Smith knew that perfectly well.

Achieve global space dominance and we will be attacked in assymetrical ways that will render that dominance irrelevant.

clark · 2005-05-26 10:28:02

There may be no other way to attack deeply buried targets either, then kenetic energy of an orbital missile is much higher then a hypersonic bomber could achieve, and would be aproaching at a much more favorable angle.

A decentralized command center renders the advantage useless.

An orbital missle battery is a large singular target, and for firing will have to enter a known orbital path. This is why airforce is moving towards nano-sats that work as a network, instead of giant birds, to better deal with the destruction or disabling of parts of the system (more targets means a few survive and you retain some level of operational capability).

Speed of strike increases the chances of a mistake in communication in causing advesaries to strike before they lose command capabilities. We learned this lesson in the cold war.

Space based weapons are easy to disable because you can either target control facilities on the ground, or disrupt the sats themselves (finding the birds isn't too tough, evidenced by other countries ability to avoid detection from our sats- they know the orbital paths).

Smaller investments are required to disable large space sat investments like the airforce is considering. It will compound the problem by creating problems that require solutions to achiev the operational goal.

The entire EMP issue is very real, and generally why the US is nervous about medium range missles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. That is all a country needs to seriously cripple almost all of our commercial sats and many of our military ones.

We should proceed slowly down this path considering that our conventional force is able to achieve superiority only through the use of our current space systems. Putting weapons that strike from space into the mix will unneccessarily endanger that advantage for little real benefit. Sure, develop the means to deny access to space or cripple other nations sats- but weaponizing space as now conceived will end up biting us in the ass.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-26 10:38:16

Collective security will be enhanced when the rest of the world comes to rely upon space based assets in their economy as much as we do.

Still, we're better served having a head start. It doesn't mean we need to build Freedom Moon,

But we should keep working on anything that makes our assets more secure and gives us more options to attack those of others. Ideally in a future conflict we want to be able to face an enemy just as dependent on their technology as we are, then take it away from them while keeping ours intact.

Then, no one will tolerate messing with space based commercial assets and their defense becomes a police function.

Which itself requires some sort of "militarization". Again, better us holding the trigger than someone else.

Achieve global space dominance and we will be attacked in assymetrical ways that will render that dominance irrelevant.

No one chooses to fight from the low end of an asymetric war, they do it because they can't match their foe evenly. I for one would prefer that we fight enemies that can't achieve parity, it gives us more control and more options. The greater the asymetry, the greater that applies.

The fact that the current US leadership doesn't see how that can be applied to Iraq is a fault of themselves, not the concept. Blame the damn chimp.

But again, the ideal situation is an enemy that thinks they can match us evenly or better trying to do so when in fact we have the upper hand. Gulf War I for example, don't try armored warfare against the US Army.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1117132399

Palomar · 2005-05-26 10:54:11

*This probably will seem like a "split personality" response, but here goes anyway:

GCN: Sounds like one of those things that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (*snort*)

I'm all for the UCS. :up: At least they're speaking up, making their voices known. I don't like quiet "go-along-with" types; and as these are serious matters, it behooves them to speak up.

As for Cobra's comments: Getting down to the brass tacks of issues, he's right. As much as I'd like for things (as the world goes) to be otherwise, he does have a secure grasp of these matters. Yep, I admit I need the occasional "shaken out of daydream world" jolt.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-26 13:52:05

There may be no other way to attack deeply buried targets either, then kenetic energy of an orbital missile is much higher then a hypersonic bomber could achieve, and would be aproaching at a much more favorable angle.
A decentralized command center renders the advantage useless.
An orbital missle battery is a large singular target, and for firing will have to enter a known orbital path.

I think that you underestimate the power of orbital velocity kenetic penitrator weapons, and they won't be used to attack command bunkers, they'll be aimed more at subterranian Uranium refineries, CW factories, and missile magazines. (See Iran, Libya, North Korea) A few hits from such a weapon would make a big, big mess of them. "Regular" non-penitrator weapons would be ideal for attacking time-sensitive high value targets (like terrorists...) when air or cruise missile attack isn't practical.

Who says there would be only one missile battery? You would need several of them to provide short reaction times globally. Making a stealth satelite is not all that difficult either I imagine, and stealth spy satelites are already under development I am certain (loud-mouthed senators allude to them). Build them like the F-117 and power them with RTGs, problem solved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I despise the UCS for their liberal agenda, basically, which they not-so-subtly let influence their positions.

The ability to attack from space would help give America a strike advantage that nobody else in the third world could match or counter (Iran, NK... destroy the launch site of counter-missiles), and give us a powerful deterrent and high-value strike capability.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-21 06:34:14

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#2 2005-05-21 08:31:31

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#3 2005-05-24 14:58:05

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#4 2005-05-24 15:18:26

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#5 2005-05-24 19:49:17

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#6 2005-05-26 06:41:15

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#7 2005-05-26 06:50:45

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#8 2005-05-26 07:14:44

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#9 2005-05-26 07:21:27

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#10 2005-05-26 07:39:12

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#11 2005-05-26 07:43:54

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#12 2005-05-26 08:13:44

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#13 2005-05-26 08:55:12

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#14 2005-05-26 09:12:38

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#15 2005-05-26 09:22:58

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#16 2005-05-26 09:55:03

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#17 2005-05-26 09:59:37

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#18 2005-05-26 10:01:31

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#19 2005-05-26 10:10:43

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#20 2005-05-26 10:13:18

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#21 2005-05-26 10:17:05

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#22 2005-05-26 10:28:02

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#23 2005-05-26 10:38:16

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#24 2005-05-26 10:54:11

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#25 2005-05-26 13:52:05

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

Board footer