U.S. National Space Policy

noosfractal · 2006-10-09 21:04:31

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=22286

Lots of discussion points, but I thought the following, in particular, was interesting ...

The United States is committed to encouraging and facilitating a growing and entrepreneurial U.S. commercial space sector. Toward that end, the United States Government will use U. S. commercial space capabilities to the maximum practical extent, consistent with national security.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-23 20:51:08

Pulled quotes from other threads.

The Vision was very ambitious to begin with - perhaps overly ambitious with too many goals. Some space pioneers and scientists were critical of plan-Bush but then their concerns were dismissed being un-American to criticise Bush or dismissed as political attacks.
The Vision had many goals : Get the Shuttle to return, do a Mars Sample Return, build a CEV, set up Lunar base, finish the ISS, do 'visions missions' like JIMO and TPF, retire Shuttle in 2010, develop the SDLV, mine the Moon, put astronauts on Mars.
Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01484.html
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

News of release of the new National space policy document could be seen in another light.

US turns space into its colony

The most crucial feature of this policy is that it "rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone 'hostile to US interests'."
It adds: "The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests."

President George W. Bush has signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

Belligerent Tone Mars U.S. Administration Space Policy

The language in the new policy is very strong demanding to be noticed, both by those working on space in the United States, and by potential international partners.
Some of the criticism is based on misunderstanding or naiveté – not knowing that "space policy" has always had both a national security and a civil side, and has been led in the White House by the National Security Council or by the Space Council, when it existed.
National security has always been a strong component and is mostly concerned with communications and remote observation satellites.

publiusr · 2006-10-27 13:11:52

I like the tone myself. He just needs to cut NAVY and Air Force funds and boot it to LV development for armored space assets.

Austin Stanley · 2006-11-03 19:34:46

While I am normly all for any kind of space funding, I think this is complete bunk. Arm space? How? And why? Eactly what sort of threat are we supposed to be combating in orbit? Right now their are basicaly 4 major space powers.

NASA, ESA, Russia, and China.

Russia and ESA are currently our friends and allies. And China is not exatly a beligernt either. North Korea, Iran, and Liba (the axis of evil) do not have a space program. The Chinese are still far, far, behind us even if things did turn ugly. All of us are nuclear armed anyways, so avoding a conflict is much more in our intrest anyways. If things did turn ugly, the state of our (or their) space assets would be the least of our troubles.

Anyways, practical space combat would be pretty boring, nothing like Star Wars anyways. The only practical space weapon I could see us developing is a anti-satilite satilite. Basicaly put some manuverable vehicles in a Titan or Delta and launch them. Viola, you're done. US Space Command already has (and maintains) a track on most signifigant objects in orbit anyways.

Anything else is stupid waste of resources. After all, space is empty, it's only the devices in it that have any value.

cIclops · 2006-11-04 08:37:43

While I am normly all for any kind of space funding, I think this is complete bunk. Arm space? How? And why? Eactly what sort of threat are we supposed to be combating in orbit? Right now their are basicaly 4 major space powers.
NASA, ESA, Russia, and China.

This requires a curious definition of "space power" In the context of this thread a space power would be a state capable of access to space for military purposes. As such these states would be the current powers: US, Russia, China, Japan, India, Israel and France (if they have full control of Ariane) with North Korea and Iran moving quickly to join the club.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-05 11:54:03

Any power with a ballistic missile capability that travels through space on the way to its target is a space power.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-11-05 22:34:03

US Space Policy

This policy has a darker meaning in the various paragraphs about National Interest and National Security. They could decide who they let into space and not or impede development for space. Secondly to not sign any agreement that restricts the development of technology or industrial base for space related activities from any source.

These could spell the development of infrastructure against the open development of space.

Commodore · 2006-11-05 22:47:13

Once you have the high ground, why would set yourself up to have to share it with a potential enemy.

Should we we give up surface to air and air to air missiles because they deny free access to the air space and there use could limit commercial use?

Marsman · 2006-11-05 23:57:09

I'm from Australia and I wonder if in the commercial scene also that this policy doesn't mean that other nations commercial efforts will suffer as a result of this. Private companies do not play nice when it comes to business and this policy could see U.S governmental and commericial domination of space and I can't agree with that as much as I like the U.S. No nation has the right to rule space, there is enough room out there for all of us. I understand that there are enemies who might use LEO or the Moon to threaten Earth, but realistically that day is still many, many years off. Seems like more paranoid thinking to me. If space is to be controlled it should be by a NATO type alliance, not one nation.

dicktice · 2006-11-06 10:58:40

Not that far off. To be able to "shoot down" something in low-Earth orbit, you don't need to be able to match its orbital velocity--just blow your rocket up as you pass by. The bits and pieces spreading out will be impacted by the orbiter which will be destroyed as a result.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-06 12:02:12

I'm from Australia and I wonder if in the commercial scene also that this policy doesn't mean that other nations commercial efforts will suffer as a result of this. Private companies do not play nice when it comes to business and this policy could see U.S governmental and commericial domination of space and I can't agree with that as much as I like the U.S. No nation has the right to rule space, there is enough room out there for all of us. I understand that there are enemies who might use LEO or the Moon to threaten Earth, but realistically that day is still many, many years off. Seems like more paranoid thinking to me. If space is to be controlled it should be by a NATO type alliance, not one nation.

The US has a powerful Navy, but it doesn't sink commerical shipping so that its commercial ships can benefit. Most generals would want to control as much as possible so it can deny the enemy their targets, it would be dishonest for them to say otherwise, this is true of other countries as well as out own. If you want a successful outcome in a war, you want to control the battlefield where ever it is. we are far from controlling space, it is more of a goal to shoot for than a reality. The purpose being to deny the enemy the ability to destroy our cities, a rather selfish aim I admit, trying to preserve the lives of millions of people and all, but there it is.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-11-08 00:35:37

Tom,

I have to agree with Marsman, because the scope of the policy suggests that issue in the subtext of the document. The primary doctrine of the policy is to make sure the domainance of the US Space program remains and to make sure that the various security and commerical issues that arise from the space expansion by various countries , nations, commercial organizations throughout the world dosn't effect the US National Interests or they will take measures political, economic or military to remedy the issue/s regarding the US Space Program and the Industrial / Technoloy Base related the space program.

I have been pushing for private enterprise to develop space outside the nations of the world. If a single private organization or several private organizations working together start developing and moving into space without the consent of the US Government under this policy the would need to take measures to protect themselves against issues that could interupt the developments or projects, the same the US in this policy will be doing to them. ( Yes, they would have limited resources not like the US in many aspects but they could use other legal and media resources to develop action planning against this policy)

Remember, world egg could be on the US and could cost billions or even trillions in lost income and jobs to the US Economy with this crazy Policy. The may even breach the World trade Organization rules on Free and Open trade, That could damage the US in other market sectors not related with the US Space Program, also in the next 10 years the Indian and Chinese ecomonies will be half the worlds marketplace and the world could isolate US businesses into the world market for WTO - Issues with the limitation of commerical businesses in the space sector -- restriction of trade. I don't think they thought the issues with this policy, in particular with mega foriegn private corporations.

Work together in equal partners are better then commerical enemies in a space commercial race.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-08 03:00:13

How do you write "Subtext"?

What is the subtext of this sentence?

Mary had a little lamb his fleece was white as snow,
Everywhere that Mary went, her lamb was sure to go.

One could read this sentence and make an interpretation that the lamb was horny ans stalking Mary, but that would be in your imagination. The subtext is in the reader's head and is not written down on the page. You as the author have no control over what the reader may imagine, and so you cannot be responsible for the "subtext" but only the text and the literal meaning of the words on the page.

Austin Stanley · 2006-11-08 15:41:37

I think this all misses the point. What exactly will be the point of a space weapon system? With the possible exception of China all current space powers (however you choose to define them) are friendly with the US. Iran and Pakistan could conceivable be hostile to us, but both are quite some ways away from being a space power. So there realy is no enemy that we would deploy such weapon systems against.

Even if there was such an enemy (say China or France). Such a weapon system would still be pointless. All space-powers are (or are potentialy) nuclear powers. Space based weapon systems would do little to change the outcome of a nuclear exchange bettwen the US and any other country. The wouldn't allow us to 'win' a nuclear war. If anything they make the situation worse by making such a war more likely.

We have reached a point in history where War bettwen major powers (like the US, Russia, China, France, ect.) are no longer 'winable' (if indeed they every were). Even in 'victory' the threat of MAD assures that we would be losers. Nuclear weapons have made most conventional weapons obsolete.

GCNRevenger · 2006-11-08 16:56:15

Or at least, all out war to destroy a fellow nuclear state by military force anyway. Conventional war breaking out between the US and China over, say, Taiwan (either the outgoing communist leadership decides to strike before its power slips entirely, or on the bet the US is bluffing about defending) or maybe over maintaining the supply of Iranian oil to keep their economy going.

And I wouldn't call Russia an ally... just not an enemy

Martin_Tristar · 2006-11-08 17:14:55

Its NOT just weapon system or systems , but the Commercial Base behind the program , making sure that it is not compromised either. That means Space contractors, researchers, suppliers including base components and materials are protected under this policy when selling the organizations or their products are against the national interest.

Trademarks or Patents are also defended under this policy where again in the national interest. Policy outlines a broad scope of what is in the national interest and the use of market power, political power and even military power to make sure that the National Interests of US are protected and secure.

Austin -- That was screaming out in the subtext of the document !!!!!!!!!!! meaning I don't care about international agreements including free trade agreements as long as it doesn't effect our National Interests.

And don't think that enemies are the only meaning in this policy also Friends are targets in this policy, if you create problems for National Interests you could find your nation (including Britain, Australia, Canada or anyone else of the friends list ) being on the end of this policy remedies.

Austin Stanley · 2006-11-08 19:33:44

I disagre Martin, the biggest problem with this sort of weapon system is that it would never be used. The current state of affairs in the word ensures this. The US (or any other nation) cannot attempt to deny space to it's enemies without the risk of retaliation and further escelation. So it's a weapon without a point. The same is true of almost any confrontation bettwen major powers today.

Introducing a new point, even if we did have such a conflict such a system would be of little value. The Chinese (for example) have little in the way of space assets to destroy or deny. A few spy, early warning, and communication satilites maybe. Nothing that is going to change the outcome of any conflict. In fact the US is far more vunerable to this sort of warfare than any other nation, as we are much more dependant on our satilites.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 00:45:34

I think this all misses the point. What exactly will be the point of a space weapon system? With the possible exception of China all current space powers (however you choose to define them) are friendly with the US. Iran and Pakistan could conceivable be hostile to us, but both are quite some ways away from being a space power. So there realy is no enemy that we would deploy such weapon systems against.

Want to bet?
Space based weapons can be used against non-space powers. Al Qaeda for instance. Suppose at some future date a spy satellite images a terrorists such as Osama Bin Lauden, with a space based weapon, you see the terrorist, aim the space-based laser, and the terrorist leader is no more. The enemy doesn't have to have nuclear weapons. There was a movie that had an opening scene much like that, it went on to rididule the idea of zaping a terrorist leader as somehow evil, but on the face of it, that sounds like a good use of a space weapon. I'm sure if we had a space based laser, using it against someone like Ossama would be well justified even if he wasn't a nuclear warhead. A space based laser could also nock down airplanes faster than fighter jets can intercept them, it might have destroyed the two airliners before they got near the World Trade Center. Other types of space based weapons systems can be used to divert asteroids from fatal collisions with Earth. Not pursuing a theater of war leaves us vulnerable to other nations that do. Just because you can't think of any good uses for a space based weapons system doesn't mean their aren't any.

Even if there was such an enemy (say China or France). Such a weapon system would still be pointless. All space-powers are (or are potentialy) nuclear powers. Space based weapon systems would do little to change the outcome of a nuclear exchange bettwen the US and any other country. The wouldn't allow us to 'win' a nuclear war. If anything they make the situation worse by making such a war more likely.

Nuclear warfare isn't the only kind of warfare where space based weapons might be used.

We have reached a point in history where War bettwen major powers (like the US, Russia, China, France, ect.) are no longer 'winable' (if indeed they every were). Even in 'victory' the threat of MAD assures that we would be losers. Nuclear weapons have made most conventional weapons obsolete.

Conventional weapons look to be alive and kicking in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, if nuclear weapons had replaced conventional ones, George Bush would have pressed the button on Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-09 00:48:23

I disagre Martin, the biggest problem with this sort of weapon system is that it would never be used. The current state of affairs in the word ensures this. The US (or any other nation) cannot attempt to deny space to it's enemies without the risk of retaliation and further escelation. So it's a weapon without a point. The same is true of almost any confrontation bettwen major powers today.
Introducing a new point, even if we did have such a conflict such a system would be of little value. The Chinese (for example) have little in the way of space assets to destroy or deny. A few spy, early warning, and communication satilites maybe. Nothing that is going to change the outcome of any conflict. In fact the US is far more vunerable to this sort of warfare than any other nation, as we are much more dependant on our satilites.

Would you allow the enemy to use space to launch ICBMs at your country and so destroy a city? If you destroy your enemy's ICBMs and warheads enroute, you are denying him the use of space for that purpose, as for retaliation, when nuclear missiles are already flying, making the enemy mad or causing him to retaliate is a moot point.

Austin Stanley · 2006-11-09 14:37:34

Space based weapons can be used against non-space powers. Al Qaeda for instance. Suppose at some future date a spy satellite images a terrorists such as Osama Bin Lauden, with a space based weapon, you see the terrorist, aim the space-based laser, and the terrorist leader is no more. The enemy doesn't have to have nuclear weapons. There was a movie that had an opening scene much like that, it went on to rididule the idea of zaping a terrorist leader as somehow evil, but on the face of it, that sounds like a good use of a space weapon. I'm sure if we had a space based laser, using it against someone like Ossama would be well justified even if he wasn't a nuclear warhead. A space based laser could also nock down airplanes faster than fighter jets can intercept them, it might have destroyed the two airliners before they got near the World Trade Center. Other types of space based weapons systems can be used to divert asteroids from fatal collisions with Earth. Not pursuing a theater of war leaves us vulnerable to other nations that do. Just because you can't think of any good uses for a space based weapons system doesn't mean their aren't any.

This assumes that some sort of giant space based laser cannon is practical. It is not. Its hard enough makeing an effective and practical laser based weapon her on Earths with virtualy unlimted mass and power requirments. It hasn't been done yet, for sure. Putting one in space is MUCH harder. And you have to deal with a focal length a couple hundread kilometers long. I don't think we should be wasting our money on these sorts of boondogles.

The case is the same for virtualy every space-based force projection weaponry you want to look at. Kinetic Energy penetrators, partical beams, ect. Space is not a good place to project force to the Earth from.

Nuclear warfare isn't the only kind of warfare where space based weapons might be used.

As I point out, all space powers are nuclear powers. The consiquences of a conflict bettwen us are inevitable. Space based weaponry does us little good against non-space powers. Certianly it isn't going to achive anything that conventional terrestial weaponry couldn't do cheaper and more effectivly.

Conventional weapons look to be alive and kicking in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, if nuclear weapons had replaced conventional ones, George Bush would have pressed the button on Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago.

You miss my point. I'm talking about wars betten nuclear powers here. Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan don't (or didn't) have any targets we could use a space weapon on anyways. They don't use space anyways.

But even so, I still think the general point is wrong. Nuclear weapons HAVE made conventional weapons obsolete, the US just hasn't realised this. If we drasticly cut our conventional forces so that nuclear retaliation was our option of choice, the odds of a non-nuclear power striking against us would go down. They would know that conflict wouldn't just mean a conventional war, it would mean nuclear obliteration. Shaking the nuclear stick at the likes of Iran would be both more effective forign policy, and cheaper.

Would you allow the enemy to use space to launch ICBMs at your country and so destroy a city? If you destroy your enemy's ICBMs and warheads enroute, you are denying him the use of space for that purpose, as for retaliation, when nuclear missiles are already flying, making the enemy mad or causing him to retaliate is a moot point.

This assumes that an effictve ABM defense system is possible and practicle. The US has spent BILLIONS of dollars on this, and has had little result. Worse, a ABM system weakens the threat of MAD making a nuclear war MORE likely, not less. Ironicly, by threatining to 'win' a nuclear war (via ABM defense for example) we encourage other nations to strike at us before such a system becomes operational or find ways to counter it. Another arms race would be better than a nuclear war, but we dont' HAVE to provoke either option. Status Quo is doing just fine.

GCNRevenger · 2006-11-09 18:30:57

Space-to-surface weapons are not totally impractical... the way the "non ground" conventional forces are heading, the ideal would be to either be able to launch precision strikes on a small number of targets with zero warning and zero delay or strike a large number of targets within a short time frame with minimal firepower to get the job done. Consider the value of it, the ability to inflict Bosnia or Gulf War-I style conventional destruction in the space of two hours on valuable targets with minutes of warning and no practical means of defense, even deeply buried bunkers. Or, the ability to find and kill terrorists entirely from space, when short-range subsonic drones aren't available or special forces handy. We find Bin Laden's cell phone number, he calls out, we find his signal by SIGINT, and drop a KEM on his head within 10 minutes before he finishes his call.

And this in a manner that cannot be countered by cheap advanced Russian SAMs - nor relies on any more "shootable" assets than possible. Russian missiles are pretty good, and they have substantial experience with missiles designed to counter high-altitude bombers or supersonic aircraft/cruise missiles. Russian SAMs are a hot seller these days, and their development has not sat still.

A constellation of small kinetic energy weapon dispensers would fill this role, plus offer another key benefit, which is more penetration capability than any weapon to date. Once the USAF has their hybrid launch vehicle or a shiny Falcon-V every few weeks, building such a constellation would not be all that hard nor ruinously expensive. A space-based ABM weapon platform is not that exotic either, since its targets would be outside Earth's atmosphere. Have it shoot EMP missiles, which are not that hard to make, or a cloud of suborbital ball-bearings. Look up the (now retired) US F-15 launched anti-satellite missile. It wouldn't be practical to take out a large number of ICBMs, but thats not what our ABM systems are for.

Anyway, to the meat of my post, is that nukes and the threat thereof work just fine against states that actually believe we would use them... or care if we did. That is, nukes are only good to the point that they scare people into doing what you say. Iran for instance is a nation that is about 80% friendly by many estimates, and being widely oppressed by the other 20% who happen to have all the guns, same deal with North Korea probably. The reason "bottled sunshine" care of Uncle Sam doesn't scare them is because they know that we aren't willing to vaporize the 80% to get the 20% who are destabilizing the world by conventional or "asymmetric" (read: terrorism) means.

And consider, that the people that run these states don't think very highly of their populations, and in fact in the case of martyr-worshiping Iran or a "Dear Leader" who finally snaps the idea of MAD simply isn't applicable. They don't give a rip if we reduce their whole country to a lake of glass. Or consider, the mess in Lebanon as a case study, where foreign powers use their soil as a base. Then there is the old small-but-not-zero chance an enemy will give WMDs to terrorists or carefully concealed special forces into a western state. If we can't absolutely trace it back to an enemy state, assuming they even have one, are we willing to turn thousands or even millions of people into dust over it?

In the case of missiles, the ABM systems we currently have are still not a very sure thing even against a small number of Iranian or North Korean missiles, which is something that is probably worth fixing if for no other reason than the deterrent value if they believe their weapons might be useless (maybe even don't have the skill or money to improve them). Even a psycho Mullah or Kim the 2nd/3rd/etc won't go out in a blaze of glory if he believes his nukes will never reach their target.

Also, in the case of defending our allies from missiles far away from the US, we only have the short-loitering airborne ABL, the Navy's Standard-III missiles, and THAAD/PAC-III SAMs. None of these will obviously work unless they are actually on station, and their effectiveness falls dramatically the further they are from the launch site. This is a real issue, since we don't want Iran/NK/etc to gain power from their weapons to scare friendly states.

Further, who is to say that more advanced missile technology (esp maneuverable RVs) won't enter the Iranian/Korean arsenals some day? Then none of our "zero/zero start" missile-based weapons would be as effective.

Relatively privative space-based ABM systems would make a real difference in these cases, and are especially good if as it seems we won't have the will to stop rouge states from getting the bomb (or other WMD... a few ICBMs full of smallpox, cyclosarin, or high-level radioactives aren't good either). And if we are going to do that, then a constellation of kinetic energy weapons are not that much harder.

Plus consider the need to protect our own space assets, the ability to intercept "killer satellites" or surface-to-space missiles ought not to be any harder than space-based ABM missiles. Like it or not, our military is moving from being "really dependent" to "it don't work without it" as far as space assets go. Non-naval military doctern is being reoriented around precision attack with small weapons, which without targeting or guidance assets just won't work. If all you want to do is, say, put an anti-GPS missile on a suborbital track that isn't super-hard to do, and if not now it will be. The GPS satellites are even nice enough to loudly broadcast their positions for you.

And yes, in the case of enemy states using space assets, we probably need some anti-satellite weapons of our own: consider if an enemy state was using Galileo-guided conventional weapons against one of our allies? Or perhaps even data from spy satellites from a space power? If said space power isn't... nice enough to stop helping them, then a way put a stop to it short of threatening said space power with nuclear obliteration would be a good thing. Even if just for the deterrent value.

The weaponization of space is a good thing for the free states of the world, and will become practical when "a bit less" expensive launch is available in more significant capacity.

dicktice · 2006-11-10 10:36:48

I wish Tom would read what we were up to, during the 1950's, regarding multi-warhead hydrogen bomb tipped ICBM's, and the mutually aided destruction policy of deterrence--which "prevented the end of civilization as we know it." He's much too much of a "sabre rattler" to reason with, I'm afraid, at his stage of development. Your dissertation is 100% right-on, regarding weapons in Earth-orbital space. When we are comfortable in cis-Lunar space, I suppose things will be a bit more complicated. Another reason for settling off-planet asap, eh?

Austin Stanley · 2006-11-15 21:24:04

Space-to-surface weapons are not totally impractical... the way the "non ground" conventional forces are heading, the ideal would be to either be able to launch precision strikes on a small number of targets with zero warning and zero delay or strike a large number of targets within a short time frame with minimal firepower to get the job done. Consider the value of it, the ability to inflict Bosnia or Gulf War-I style conventional destruction in the space of two hours on valuable targets with minutes of warning and no practical means of defense, even deeply buried bunkers. Or, the ability to find and kill terrorists entirely from space, when short-range subsonic drones aren't available or special forces handy. We find Bin Laden's cell phone number, he calls out, we find his signal by SIGINT, and drop a KEM on his head within 10 minutes before he finishes his call.
And this in a manner that cannot be countered by cheap advanced Russian SAMs - nor relies on any more "shootable" assets than possible. Russian missiles are pretty good, and they have substantial experience with missiles designed to counter high-altitude bombers or supersonic aircraft/cruise missiles. Russian SAMs are a hot seller these days, and their development has not sat still.
A constellation of small kinetic energy weapon dispensers would fill this role, plus offer another key benefit, which is more penetration capability than any weapon to date. Once the USAF has their hybrid launch vehicle or a shiny Falcon-V every few weeks, building such a constellation would not be all that hard nor ruinously expensive. A space-based ABM weapon platform is not that exotic either, since its targets would be outside Earth's atmosphere. Have it shoot EMP missiles, which are not that hard to make, or a cloud of suborbital ball-bearings. Look up the (now retired) US F-15 launched anti-satellite missile. It wouldn't be practical to take out a large number of ICBMs, but thats not what our ABM systems are for.

I disagree with the praticality of kinetic energy weapons. Firstly as you state to achive continuious coverage you can't have just one or two of these weapons in orbits, but whole constellations of them. Otherwise they won't be instantly avaliable and their practical value is lost.

Secoundly, the destructive power of KEM is often vastly overstated, it is very hard for reasonbly sized renetry vehicles to retain all of their velocity in the lower atmosphere. In the end most studies I have read result in KEM with explosive values on marginaly greater then TNT. It is true that their penetration characteristics would be remarkable, but our targets could alway dig deeper. 2m of steel or 10m or so of granite would stop just about any weapon. Also similar effects could be achived by rocket boosting conventional weapons.

Lastly, pin-point accuracy with KEM is going to be VERY hard to achive. Your talking about a hypersonic vehicle which had only a couple of secounds (at best) to narrow in on its target. Meanwhile it skin is ablaiting away from the intense heat of re-entery. Controling such a munition during it's terminal phase will be very difficult, and I don't see how any sort of detection mechanisim could last exposed to renetry. It's like trying to mount a camera on the underskin of the shuttle during re-entery, only harder.

Anyway, to the meat of my post, is that nukes and the threat thereof work just fine against states that actually believe we would use them... or care if we did. That is, nukes are only good to the point that they scare people into doing what you say. Iran for instance is a nation that is about 80% friendly by many estimates, and being widely oppressed by the other 20% who happen to have all the guns, same deal with North Korea probably. The reason "bottled sunshine" care of Uncle Sam doesn't scare them is because they know that we aren't willing to vaporize the 80% to get the 20% who are destabilizing the world by conventional or "asymmetric" (read: terrorism) means.
And consider, that the people that run these states don't think very highly of their populations, and in fact in the case of martyr-worshiping Iran or a "Dear Leader" who finally snaps the idea of MAD simply isn't applicable. They don't give a rip if we reduce their whole country to a lake of glass. Or consider, the mess in Lebanon as a case study, where foreign powers use their soil as a base. Then there is the old small-but-not-zero chance an enemy will give WMDs to terrorists or carefully concealed special forces into a western state. If we can't absolutely trace it back to an enemy state, assuming they even have one, are we willing to turn thousands or even millions of people into dust over it?

I mostly agree with these points, but this is exactly why degrading our conventional forces makes the threat more credible. I don't think Iran or N. Korea have any doubt that the US would respond to an attack. The question to them is how. If we reduce our forces to the point where nuclear retaliation is our most attractive option, then they will be more detered by it.

For example if N. Korea or Iran was some how to launch a nuke at the US or a US friendly target (Isreal or S. Korea) the US very well might not respond with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have grown to be a weapon of last resort, and since we could defeat these nations without using them, we would be pressured into doing so.

Also if the leader of the nation in question is insane, then really the US's weapon arsenell has little effect on their behavior either way. More or less conventional or nuclear weapons aren't going to change things. So I feel we can only make rational plans for dealing with rational leaders. Irational leaders are going to do their own thing regardless.

In the case of missiles, the ABM systems we currently have are still not a very sure thing even against a small number of Iranian or North Korean missiles, which is something that is probably worth fixing if for no other reason than the deterrent value if they believe their weapons might be useless (maybe even don't have the skill or money to improve them). Even a psycho Mullah or Kim the 2nd/3rd/etc won't go out in a blaze of glory if he believes his nukes will never reach their target.

I think the ABM system we have/are developing is a waste of money for this very reason. Iran or N. Korea are only going to have an extreamly limited number of weapons and some unreliable (at best) ICBM delivery systems. That they many not even be able to load their weapons onto (they may be to heavy). In this case delivering them via some-other means (freighter, sub, whatever) makes a lot more sense, and our ABM system is a waste of money. This is why a credible doctrine of MAD is much more valuable. A ABM only protects against ballistic missles (and has not done a very good job at that), but a credible MAD policy protects against virtualy all potential strikes.

Also, in the case of defending our allies from missiles far away from the US, we only have the short-loitering airborne ABL, the Navy's Standard-III missiles, and THAAD/PAC-III SAMs. None of these will obviously work unless they are actually on station, and their effectiveness falls dramatically the further they are from the launch site. This is a real issue, since we don't want Iran/NK/etc to gain power from their weapons to scare friendly states.
Further, who is to say that more advanced missile technology (esp maneuverable RVs) won't enter the Iranian/Korean arsenals some day? Then none of our "zero/zero start" missile-based weapons would be as effective.

Outside of Canada, Mexico, Australia, and South America all of our allies are reachable by Plane or IRBM (or even shorter range missles) so tactical ABM systems like the Patriot and Ageis are our only defense against these sorts of attacks. It is very difficult for space based systems to intercept these sorts of attacks, which don't get and stay high enough for them to be effective.

Relatively privative space-based ABM systems would make a real difference in these cases, and are especially good if as it seems we won't have the will to stop rouge states from getting the bomb (or other WMD... a few ICBMs full of smallpox, cyclosarin, or high-level radioactives aren't good either). And if we are going to do that, then a constellation of kinetic energy weapons are not that much harder.
Plus consider the need to protect our own space assets, the ability to intercept "killer satellites" or surface-to-space missiles ought not to be any harder than space-based ABM missiles. Like it or not, our military is moving from being "really dependent" to "it don't work without it" as far as space assets go. Non-naval military doctern is being reoriented around precision attack with small weapons, which without targeting or guidance assets just won't work. If all you want to do is, say, put an anti-GPS missile on a suborbital track that isn't super-hard to do, and if not now it will be. The GPS satellites are even nice enough to loudly broadcast their positions for you.

I think you are very wrong here. We've focused on mid-course/terminal phase interception of ICBMs because it is the simplest way to defeate these weapons. Hitting them in any-other phase is VERY difficult. Their realy is no simple and cheap solution to this. Large constilations of KE interceptors or constilations of laser or other weapon platforms would be both difficult and expensive to design. And they still don't ensure the safey of our space assets, which are still vunerable to the likes of ground based lasers. I still belive the best way to combat this threat is with a credible MAD policy to deter them. Face it, if an enemy is going to launch some sort of WMD at the US in the end all the defensive systems in the world are probably not going to prevent them from getting one in someway.

And yes, in the case of enemy states using space assets, we probably need some anti-satellite weapons of our own: consider if an enemy state was using Galileo-guided conventional weapons against one of our allies? Or perhaps even data from spy satellites from a space power? If said space power isn't... nice enough to stop helping them, then a way put a stop to it short of threatening said space power with nuclear obliteration would be a good thing. Even if just for the deterrent value.

Tough situation. But I don't imagine the Europe or even Russia is going to be that hard nosed with the US over such matters. OTOH like I said before a ASAT weapon is dead simple. Just launch a "satilite" to intersect with the other satilites orbital path. With a good ground track (which we have on most satilites) this is easy. I still think the situation in which you have to use on is rather implausable.

SpaceNut · 2006-11-15 21:32:31

U.S., China, Russia Play Power Politics in Space

Although it acknowledges the value of international cooperation in space and the right of "free passage" for all countries' satellites and other space-based objects, the policy reaffirms the intent to protect U.S. space capabilities by all available means.

GCNRevenger · 2006-11-16 10:21:28

About KEMs:

A "whole constellation" need not be that large, in LEO you make one orbit every 90min or so. Ten dispensers could thus give you <10min coverage over a decent rage of longetudes. For instance, a slightly inclined orbit would pass near Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The damage inflicted by KEMs need not be that large if they are accurate: modern ICBM RVs have accuracies within a few hundred feet and thats launched from thousands of miles away. Putting GPS receivers and a little careful maneuvering before hitting the atmosphere, and the accuracy would be comparable to JDAM bombs probably. A KEM designed to transfer all its energy to the ground instead of penetrating (make two kinds) should deliver plenty of punch to disable most any sort of target (missile launcher, power relay station, etc).
The penetration capability gives us a new tool that we haven't had previously, and would at least make it harder to protect buried targets. I have doubts that a rocket-boosted missile could achieve the same entry velocities as a KEM too.

About nukes:

I don't think that you are getting me here, I am stating that it makes sense to develop and deploy anti-missile weapons to deter "suicide states," that if it convinces or at least sows doubt, then it reduces the chance they would use them. Even if they did, then at least we would have a chance to stop them. I also think that you overestimate the chances an enemy submarine or fighter jet/cruise missile making it all the way across the ocean to North America, which leaves the enemy with ballistic missiles as the only available method. Our attack submarines, sonar nets, and early warning radar are quite good.

About missile interceptors and satellite defenses:

I think you greatly overstate how hard it is to intercept small numbers of missiles: the Regan Star Wars system would have been super expensive because they had to be efficient enough to stop many many missiles, which is why lasers/particle beams or 'bullet to bullet" KE weapons were considered. If there were only a small number of missiles, then this becomes much easier, so you could employ a much bigger "ball bearing cloud" warhead or an EMP/ER bomb to take out the missile with much less accuracy required. We had an air-launch missile 30 years ago that could hit a satellite dead on, how much better could we do today from space if you only had to be close? An EMP bomb could have ground attack or aircraft interception ability too.
Protecting satellites isn't as hard as it sounds I don't think, a laser could be deflected to some point by a mirror, and it would only have to withstand the beam for the short period the satellite is on a line of sight. Anti-satellite missiles are a much bigger problem.

And Russia/France stabbing us in the back... implausible? Oh perish the though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-10-09 21:04:31

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#2 2006-10-23 20:51:08

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#3 2006-10-27 13:11:52

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#4 2006-11-03 19:34:46

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#5 2006-11-04 08:37:43

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#6 2006-11-05 11:54:03

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#7 2006-11-05 22:34:03

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#8 2006-11-05 22:47:13

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#9 2006-11-05 23:57:09

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#10 2006-11-06 10:58:40

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#11 2006-11-06 12:02:12

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#12 2006-11-08 00:35:37

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#13 2006-11-08 03:00:13

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#14 2006-11-08 15:41:37

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#15 2006-11-08 16:56:15

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#16 2006-11-08 17:14:55

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#17 2006-11-08 19:33:44

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#18 2006-11-09 00:45:34

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#19 2006-11-09 00:48:23

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#20 2006-11-09 14:37:34

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#21 2006-11-09 18:30:57

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#22 2006-11-10 10:36:48

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#23 2006-11-15 21:24:04

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#24 2006-11-15 21:32:31

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

#25 2006-11-16 10:21:28

Re: U.S. National Space Policy

Board footer