Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

clark · 2004-11-08 13:51:38

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article … 60,00.html

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.
The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.
Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Hello, Airforce 2025!!! This isn't all of a sudden, and has been in the making for years. Go look at the work Rummy did prior to becoming Defense Secretary in 2000. Go look at the implementation of a new and robust Space Command under airforce, which will lead from Airforce/Spaceforce to Spaceforce/airforce dominance.

Go read about FALCON and the CAV programs and global bombers by the middle of the next decade.

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

Brilliant deduduction. Go read all the quotes from all the head officers in airforce. Start with Teets. They've been clamoring about space control since gulf war 1, and gulf war 2 has only increased their desire.

Go take a look at the missle defense program. It calls for a multi layered defense, part of that layer is space based interceptors. Particle beam research has approached to the point now where a laser can fit onto an F-16.

The space weapons ban treaty is as good as dead within 2 years, just watch. We've already launched and are testing ASW's now.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 14:58:56

LO
Looks like a kind of french "maginot line" fantasm
Would "space interceptors" have stopped 9/11 terrorists ?
Would space superiority stop a letter with bubonic pest germs ?
That's just a way to give their money back to weapon lobbies. ("retour sur investissement")
The countries which can send satellites are the ones that are the less eager to threaten USA...

clark · 2004-11-08 15:09:19

A space interceptor will stop a SCUD type misslec carrying a small nuclear device, launched from a mobile sea platform, with the intended target being an EMP burst in the upper atmosphere, thereby destroying or crippling a large number of military and commercial sats.

The economic consquences would be rather bad, since anything with a transistor would stop working.

Oh, the Iranian's practices launching a SCUD missle from a freighter ship in the mid 90's.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 15:30:42

LO

Oh, the Iranian's practices launching a SCUD missle from a freighter ship in the mid 90's.

Not sure that Iran would be abble in a next future to miniaturize a nuclear warhead. That is quite a USA and french-ally monopoly.
(France and USA work on miniaturization in very close cooperation)
I keep saying that accurate secret services on the ground is the most clever investment, and sinking this ship with a cruise missile or a topedo will erase the threat.
One way to exhaust a power is to make it spend 10000 times more for countermeasures than the price of the threat.
By the way, you have already Super-Patriots interceptor missiles, don't you ?

clark · 2004-11-08 15:43:10

Not sure that Iran would be abble in a next future to miniaturize a nuclear warhead.

The SCUD missle can fit a nuclear device within their capability. It dosen't take much to produce and EMP pulse.

(France and USA work on miniaturization in very close cooperation)

Yet both our nations have the biggest ego! :laugh: Are we over compensating, or what?

I keep saying that accurate secret services on the ground is the most clever investment, and sinking this ship with a cruise missile or a topedo will erase the threat.

James Bond isn't as sexy as big giant phallic missles. Besides, there are thousands upon thousands of these freighters, very hard to keep track of, and it only takes one.

One way to exhaust a power is to make it spend 10000 times more for contermeasures than the price of the threat.

I agree. Just explaining, not supporting. We can talk about whether the table "is", if you prefer.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 15:43:49

Once again we play chess, when the game at hand is Go.

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 15:59:34

Once again we play chess, when the game at hand is Go.

Good chess players tend to be good at go and visa versa. Anyway metaphors aside the only way to maintain dominance now is to move into space. More and more nations are catching up. As far as go goes maybe the satellites could target an individual person instead of a missile. Place some ground cameras and GPS then give the Iraqi police space cover. This would allow the US to spend more time in bases and less time on the streets.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 16:05:15

LO
Ha, Go fits to my brain, as I beated my Go teacher the day after he learned me the game (he had a 2 stones handicap)

Maybe there will be a strong scientists opposition to that new StarWars programm. Some of the rationnals for opposing "Star Wars" might still have the same value, as the difficulty of focusing a laser beam on a target going to more than a mille per second...
I was told that french missiles warheads had an helicoîdal trajectory to minimise vulnerability to laser and antimissiles attacks.
Not so amazing from a people which often opens bottles of wine

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 16:21:14

LO
Ha, Go fits to my brain, as I beated my Go teacher the day after he learned me the game (he had a 2 stones handicap)
Maybe there will be a stong scientists opposition to that new StarWars programm. Some of the rationnals for opposing "Star Wars" might still have the same value, as the difficulty of focusing a laser beam on a target going to more than a mille per second...
I was told that french missiles warheads had an helicoîdal trajectory to minimise vulnerability to laser attacks.

I was wondering about the dellay times. Perhaps an elliptical orbit could be used so that the satalite could be extra low over the area of attack. What is the dellay time anyway.

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 16:23:57

If the delay time was significant relative to the velocity of the vehicle the targeting problem would be really interesting mathematically.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:33:42

Once again we play chess, when the game at hand is Go.
Good chess players tend to be good at go and visa versa. Anyway metaphors aside the only way to maintain dominance now is to move into space. More and more nations are catching up. As far as go goes maybe the satellites could target an individual person instead of a missile. Place some ground cameras and GPS then give the Iraqi police space cover. This would allow the US to spend more time in bases and less time on the streets.

This new system will be a target as well as a weapon.

Suppose nuclear weapons were used in an anti-sat role. Simultaneously, the attacker goes on global television and says:

"24 H-bombs have just been exploded in LEO. The US orbital shield has been seriously damaged. NO ONE has been hurt. Repeat, NO ONE has been injured.

We propose an Armistice and a new treaty to ban these weapons. We will not attack American cities except in retaliation.

America, your move."

President Creighton, your response please.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 16:37:35

LO

If the delay time was significant relative to the velocity of the vehicle the targeting problem would be really interesting mathematically.

And more again if targets have a random trajectory

clark · 2004-11-08 16:38:16

LOL!

No one would hear it.

24 H bombs would wipe out the communication sats, as well as every computer, radio, TV, and telephone transistor.

We would be blind, and we would find out in about 3 months.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:42:12

LOL!
No one would hear it.
24 H bombs would wipe out the communication sats, as well as every computer, radio, TV, and telephone transistor.
We would be blind, and we would find out in about 3 months.

One interesting point from that new Jeremy Rifkin book concerns the reality that an insatiable need for secuity will trample all else before it.

= = =

Because of these scenarios, "we" cannot be secure unless we can assure no one else can launch. Ever. Anywhere in the world.

That is why alt-space tourism is contrary to the secret wishes of NORAD commanders.

= = =

Original point. A space based weapons system is an asset AND a target.

How do we secure the security of our multi-trillion dollar space based weapons system when a sub-orbital launch vehicle and 25kg of gravel can kill a low flying sat if the launching party has accurate enough data?

clark · 2004-11-08 16:45:41

I'm inclined to agree, but the troll in me has to disagree.

It's not a major issue if we can shoot down everything. And unless we know who you are, and you have our permission, we will shoot you down.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:46:29

I'm inclined to agree, but the troll in me has to disagree.
It's not a major issue if we can shoot down everything. And unless we know who you are, and you have our permission, we will shoot you down.

Yup. So its the US -vs- everyone else.

clark · 2004-11-08 16:52:35

Hey, i don't make the talking points...

Look, I told you all this was coming. "Moon Base? Clark is crazy."

BWhite · 2004-11-08 16:54:40

Hey, i don't make the talking points...
Look, I told you all this was coming. "Moon Base? Clark is crazy."

And Taylor Dinerman says the Moon is the next Gibraltar. Like France will let that happen.

clark · 2004-11-08 16:56:56

Eh, Soyuz can't get to the Moon. They'll have to hitch a ride with the Chinese, and something tells me that they won't want to share a piece of the rock.

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 17:03:07

Hmmm…space is what 100 Km so the low point of the satellite will be at 100 Km. Ion Engines could boost the orbit when it is the furthest away from earth I don’t know say 5000 km. Anyway my point is the orbit shouldn’t decay too fast and from 100 Km the delay time shouldn’t be that bad. Light moves at 3x8 m/s if I recall correctly that is 300 km/sec. The delay time at 100 Km for a Laser would be 0.33 s. And of course if it is particle beam the delay time will be longer. Anyway that is enough time for someone to get out of the way but they will be running around a lot. Kind of like a chicken with their head cut off. Psychologically I think it would be bad news for guerrillas.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 17:09:01

Hmmm…space is what 100 Km so the low point of the satellite will be at 100 Km. Ion Engines could boost the orbit when it is the furthest away from earth I don’t know say 5000 km. Anyway my point is the orbit shouldn’t decay too fast and from 100 Km the delay time shouldn’t be that bad. Light moves at 3x8 m/s if I recall correctly that is 300 km/sec. The delay time at 100 Km for a Laser would be 0.33 s. And of course if it is particle beam the delay time will be longer. Anyway that is enough time for someone to get out of the way but they will be running around a lot. Kind of like a chicken with their head cut off. Psychologically I think it would be bad news for guerrillas.

Lo
Problem isn't the speed of light (300000 km/s), but the speed of the aiming system, atmospheric dispersion and deviation of laser beams, plus the laser beam power supply ???
In "Star Wars" 1 project, power supply was supposed to be a nuclear blast that would be turned to light energy that would fire laser beams before the "killer satellite" was destroyed.
Very irreallistic.

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 17:16:20

Lo
Problem isn't the speed of light, but the speed of the aiming system and atmospheric dispersion and deviation of laser beams , plus the laser beam power supply

While I guess the satellite will have to way a fair amount more then the laser so that it can target just by turning the laser quickly. For a power supply maybe a nuclear reactor charging up a giant capacitor. Maybe. I guess that could mean a low firing rate for the first few models.

DonPanic · 2004-11-08 17:30:02

LO
Here is an help : in France, engineers and scientists have worked on "time compression" to get a very very powerful laser beam that would last less than 1 nanosecond...some kind of laserbeam high power concentration amplifier.
An application for laserbeam fusion researchs (in cooperation with USA) http://www-lmj.cea.fr/html/cea.htm]LaserMegaJoule
Sorry site in french Click on "Le Laser Méga Joule en 3 minutes")
Don't forget the laserbeam countermeasures like highly reflective surfaces, high temperature shield...
Capacity of destroying manoeuvering missiles by laserbeams isn't for tomorrow ???

Commodore · 2004-11-08 17:59:13

If it wasn't us, sooner or later someone was going to do it.

So lets make them play catch up.

BWhite · 2004-11-08 18:12:08

I'm inclined to agree, but the troll in me has to disagree.
It's not a major issue if we can shoot down everything. And unless we know who you are, and you have our permission, we will shoot you down.
Yup. So its the US -vs- everyone else.

India wants in http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdet … t=World]on Galileo. Now, in time of war, we US-ians blow up Galileo and make everyone angry.

???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-08 13:51:38

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#2 2004-11-08 14:58:56

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#3 2004-11-08 15:09:19

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#4 2004-11-08 15:30:42

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#5 2004-11-08 15:43:10

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#6 2004-11-08 15:43:49

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#7 2004-11-08 15:59:34

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#8 2004-11-08 16:05:15

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#9 2004-11-08 16:21:14

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#10 2004-11-08 16:23:57

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#11 2004-11-08 16:33:42

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#12 2004-11-08 16:37:35

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#13 2004-11-08 16:38:16

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#14 2004-11-08 16:42:12

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#15 2004-11-08 16:45:41

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#16 2004-11-08 16:46:29

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#17 2004-11-08 16:52:35

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#18 2004-11-08 16:54:40

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#19 2004-11-08 16:56:56

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#20 2004-11-08 17:03:07

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#21 2004-11-08 17:09:01

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#22 2004-11-08 17:16:20

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#23 2004-11-08 17:30:02

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#24 2004-11-08 17:59:13

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

#25 2004-11-08 18:12:08

Re: Saw this coming... - Weaponization of space proceeds...

Board footer