UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

clark · 2005-05-26 14:13:58

The ability to attack from space would help give America a strike advantage that nobody else in the third world could match or counter, and give us a powerful deterrent and high-value strike capability.

You’re right, of course. Nobody in the third-world could match or counter this kind of capability.

However, there are many actors who can, who are not third world countries, and who would have an incentive to sell the technology to third world countries (for say, access to natural resources) that could counter this capability.

By placing weapons in space, the US would undermine current policies and treaties that prohibit weaponization of space. This will accelerate ASAT technology development, and it will increase the spread of such technology. This is not in our best interest given that 90% of the sats up there are ours.

We will then be forced to spend additional resources on defending our space based assets, which will detract from our resources available for conventional forces and social spending. The increased investment into space defense and weaponization will lead to a precarious situation as most of our capabilities and resources will be tied up into one basket.

Right now, the Air force is facing some serious budgeting problems because of their commitments to space based infrastructure and their traditional air force side- the capital outlays for programs in both areas are coming due, and it is especially problem given the costs of replacing on-orbit sats (and purchasing the next generation of fighter aircraft).

Pursuing this route will only further complicate this situation. I will glady grant you that there are some unique capabilities and advantages inherent in space based weapons, but the cost and risk far outweigh the advantages.

From a risk assessment stand point, we have far too much to lose for the gamble on what we could gain.

Posed another way, do we necessarily need to put rods from god in space to be more effective with our military?

It seems the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan would argue for an increase in the size and capability of our conventional forces- as a rod from god wouldn’t do much to help with the problems we are facing now.

This will probably be approved, but only because little boys have fallen in love with Star Wars. It makes no practical sense given what are actual needs are.

Grypd · 2005-05-26 14:27:10

What has always happened is that an army is designed and prepared to fight the last war when the new one starts. For the USA it means they have to look who they will be fighting and what it will take to do so.

The obvious threat now is not the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq but it is China and the armed bases where these terrorists are trained.

Conventional aircraft are extremely vulnerable to very cheap radar and air defences and so if you wish to take out that very important bunker or base another means must be found. Certain technologies like mass drivers give you long range bombardment from the sea, but cannot reach every where. Rods from god though are perfect bunker and base destroyers. These rely not on explosive force but on their kinetic force which acts like an earthquake on the target plus one large explosion..

So for the USA to be criticised for forward thinking is rather silly, and I would rather have someone who is friendly to my own country with the capacity to take out the badguys painlessly.

clark · 2005-05-26 14:36:23

You're missing my point. Rods from god, weaponizing space will not protect or make our space based assests any safer. Quite the contrary, they will make them more of a target.

The stuff the airforce wants to do is not about making space safer or preventing a space pearl harbor- it is about exploiting space for greater direct action conflict.

We don't need that ability, and we threaten one of our main advantages in doing so.

Grypd · 2005-05-26 15:06:59

If they have the ability to hit objects in space then they have the ability to hit mainland USA. At least its harder to hit a moving target than one sitting on land. And in space you have up,down and sideways to dodge and it is very easy to miss.

reddragon · 2005-05-26 16:05:01

The obvious threat now is not the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq but it is China and the armed bases where these terrorists are trained.

I suspect that the insurgency in Iraq will continue to be a problem for some time. Even when this goes away terrorism such as that of Al Quaida will continue to be an intermittent threat, and in many cases they are not trained in obvious armed bases that could be hit from space. Why do you think China will be a threat? Both countries would be extremely reluctant to go to war because of the economic consequences, and the U.S. and China are currently on relatively friendly terms. I think I agree with clark that space-based weapons are unlikely to be very useful at the present compared to the problems they will create and the fact that they will present a target to enemies.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-26 16:35:31

The ability to attack from space would help give America a strike advantage that nobody else in the third world could match or counter, and give us a powerful deterrent and high-value strike capability.
You’re right, of course. Nobody in the third-world could match or counter this kind of capability.
However, there are many actors who can, who are not third world countries, and who would have an incentive to sell the technology to third world countries (for say, access to natural resources) that could counter this capability.
By placing weapons in space, the US would undermine current policies and treaties that prohibit weaponization of space. This will accelerate ASAT technology development, and it will increase the spread of such technology. This is not in our best interest given that 90% of the sats up there are ours.
We will then be forced to spend additional resources on defending our space based assets, which will detract from our resources available for conventional forces and social spending. The increased investment into space defense and weaponization will lead to a precarious situation as most of our capabilities and resources will be tied up into one basket.
Right now, the Air force is facing some serious budgeting problems because of their commitments to space based infrastructure and their traditional air force side- the capital outlays for programs in both areas are coming due, and it is especially problem given the costs of replacing on-orbit sats (and purchasing the next generation of fighter aircraft).
Pursuing this route will only further complicate this situation. I will glady grant you that there are some unique capabilities and advantages inherent in space based weapons, but the cost and risk far outweigh the advantages.
From a risk assessment stand point, we have far too much to lose for the gamble on what we could gain.
Posed another way, do we necessarily need to put rods from god in space to be more effective with our military?
It seems the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan would argue for an increase in the size and capability of our conventional forces- as a rod from god wouldn’t do much to help with the problems we are facing now.
This will probably be approved, but only because little boys have fallen in love with Star Wars. It makes no practical sense given what are actual needs are.

"It makes no practical sense given what are actual needs are."

I disagree. While fighting a guerilla war against terrorists hiding in among civilians is a major concern, it is naieve (and biased...) of you to overlook the threat of third world nations with the capability and will to use weapons that could kill millions.

Tunneling technology has improved markedly over the last few decades, and it is now not that difficult to create large enough underground volumes to protect things that it is not tollerable for our enemies to have from any concieveable conventional strike... not even B-2 bombers with multiple GBU-28 5,000lbs penitrator bombs would effect destruction with certainty.

I also believe that such notions that space weapons are "taboo" among our enemies are silly, and they will wise up and build ASAT missiles and such when they are able... Its really quite simple, we rely on them, but such enemies do not.

Also, the Russians are now openly selling their advanced R-300 missile systems, and advanced missiles are becomming good, real good... The Russians have admitted to testing advanced systems in Bosnia, which probobly effected the shootdown of that F-117 stealth. Shooting down subsonic cruise missiles like Tomahawk, ALCM, and JSAM may not be difficult forever either. Who knows if a Russian version of the PAC-III or Standard-III could even respond to hit faster moving aircraft...

The trump card against such systems would be, of course, to attack them from orbit with a KEM weapon. There are indeed legitmate military uses in today's and the near future world for space-to-surface weapons.

Even a limited space-strike capability should be an item on the military "to do" list.

Commodore · 2005-05-26 21:47:52

People don't seem to understand how weapons are developed.

If we build penatrator platforms, other countries will develop ASAT missiles.

If they do that, we'll build Point defense lasers.

If we do that, they'll build bigger and better methods to try to get through those...

And so on.

So to say that X weapon will make us less safe is utter bull plop. It will just ignite a new type of arms race. All of which have ultimately been benificial to society as a whole.

srmeaney · 2005-05-26 22:08:17

Give us your Uranium and Oil and we'll protect you from the Commie hordes...Now where have I heard that one before?

Ah Yes: UTAH Mining consortium, Australia, 1970's

Grypd · 2005-05-27 03:05:28

People don't seem to understand how weapons are developed.
If we build penatrator platforms, other countries will develop ASAT missiles.
If they do that, we'll build Point defense lasers.
If we do that, they'll build bigger and better methods to try to get through those...
And so on.
So to say that X weapon will make us less safe is utter bull plop. It will just ignite a new type of arms race. All of which have ultimately been benificial to society as a whole.

Ah but you dont understand how weapons are made either it comes down to one up manship as well. If you dont build that weapon then your enemies will as they want to be top dog.

It is all to give one country the edge over another. The USA has the edge at the moment but like everything there are enough countries snapping at its heels.

clark · 2005-05-27 05:29:00

Well, we all seem to have some grasp of how the military build up game is played.

For extra points, can anyone tell me how it ends?

a stick- a sword- a bow- a gun- a cannon- a tank- a plane- a thermonuclear weapon- Mutally Assured Destruction... what comes after that? Besides Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome?

Tunneling technology has improved markedly over the last few decades, and it is now not that difficult to create large enough underground volumes

This from the guy who doubts underground bases on Mars? :laugh: Fair enough. But the problem still comes down to one of economics. In order to maintain the superiority and security of space based assests like the airforce is talking, it will require billions of dollars of investment, all of which can be threatened and undone by counters that cost pennies in comparison.

But hey, you'll get your fancy lasers and sticks of death from space. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Commodore · 2005-05-27 08:35:25

Ah but you dont understand how weapons are made either it comes down to one up manship as well. If you dont build that weapon then your enemies will as they want to be top dog.
It is all to give one country the edge over another. The USA has the edge at the moment but like everything there are enough countries snapping at its heels.

Our enemies want to be top dog anyways, and will build it if we don't because it will give them an advantage.

That is why we must build it, too keep those mutts at bay.

clark · 2005-05-27 08:39:53

History lesson for you boys and girls:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/terra3.htm]http://www.astronautix.com/craft/terra3.htm`]http://www.astronautix.com/craft/terra3.htm

After the American decision was taken into 1983 to initiate the 'Star Wars' strategic defence initiative program, Minister of Defence Ustinov requested that the Americans be challenged. As a 'warning shot' the Terra-3 complex was used to track the space shuttle Challenger with a low power laser. This caused malfunctions to on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest.

This stuff will only make it worse for would be astronauts. [shrug]

Commodore · 2005-05-27 08:48:03

Well, we all seem to have some grasp of how the military build up game is played.
For extra points, can anyone tell me how it ends?
a stick- a sword- a bow- a gun- a cannon- a tank- a plane- a thermonuclear weapon- Mutally Assured Destruction... what comes after that? Besides Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome?

Well, as the saying goes, World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. :;):

But maintaining military superiority is just one factor. Economic and political change follows its own path, and is highly unpredicable. Maintaining a military force that garentees victory removes removes it as a viable path for our enemies to take.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-27 09:02:21

People don't seem to understand how weapons are developed.
If we build penatrator platforms, other countries will develop ASAT missiles.
If they do that, we'll build Point defense lasers.
If we do that, they'll build bigger and better methods to try to get through those...
And so on.
So to say that X weapon will make us less safe is utter bull plop. It will just ignite a new type of arms race. All of which have ultimately been benificial to society as a whole.

I think you are missing out on one important tennant of military doctern: prepare for the worst, so you won't be unprepared (within reason of course).

You are stating that our enemies will not build ASAT weapons, even though our military could not function on a strateigic scale without them, because we are nice enough not to build space-to-surface/air/space weapons? That is simply counter to the "prepare" concept and to some extent common sense.

clark · 2005-05-27 10:11:10

You are stating that our enemies will not build ASAT weapons, even though our military could not function on a strateigic scale without them, because we are nice enough not to build space-to-surface/air/space weapons? That is simply counter to the "prepare" concept and to some extent common sense.

Except that space based weapons will not improve the defense of our space based assests. They merely act to increase the liklihood of attack on space based assests because it becomes a more tempting target.

That's the fundamental problem here- building these weapons dosen't help to make our sats any safer- they endanger them by justifying increased ASAT technology development to counter space weapon platforms.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-27 10:37:29

Again, "space based weapons" encompasses all sorts of things. It can mean satellites equipped with ASAT countermeasures as much as orbiting lasers and the rod of God.

ALAA, Automated Laser Armaments Array, that's what we'll call it, keeping with the whole deity theme.

Anyway, equipping our satellites with ASAT defenses is only prudent, it won't be long before those assets are at substantial risk. But once we've done that, why not put offensive weapons up? It's not as though we're talking about putting up a giant cannon right away and waving it around, ASAT defenses are the first order of business. Once they're in place, the door is open.

Besides, let our enemies try to keep up. Let them become dependent on their technology. That much easier to beat them if we can defend ours while denying them theirs.

BWhite · 2005-05-27 12:23:25

Well, we all seem to have some grasp of how the military build up game is played.
For extra points, can anyone tell me how it ends?
a stick- a sword- a bow- a gun- a cannon- a tank- a plane- a thermonuclear weapon- Mutally Assured Destruction... what comes after that? Besides Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome?
Well, as the saying goes, World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. :;):
But maintaining military superiority is just one factor. Economic and political change follows its own path, and is highly unpredicable. Maintaining a military force that garentees victory removes removes it as a viable path for our enemies to take.

Going bankrupt on weapons we don't need will allow "them" to win without anyone firing a shot.

I wonder how much the Maginot Line cost the French to build?

clark · 2005-05-27 12:28:13

I wonder how much the Maginot Line cost the French to build?

They're still paying- having to put up with American's continually reminding them of their debt to us. Silly frogs.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-27 12:37:17

Going bankrupt on weapons we don't need will allow "them" to win without anyone firing a shot.

All well and good, save for the fact that we're already dependent on our space assets and those who would oppose us are already looking to methods of kicking that crutch out from under us. Deploying means to defend those assets is a strategic necessity, offensive space-based weapons simply follow as a logical progression.

Surely we shouldn't spend billions on every new big honkin' spacegun that comes along, but looking at our options and deploying those which are cost-effective makes sense. Some of the ideas on the table are a bit loony, others are just sensible given our position in the world and our dependence on fragile metal boxes in orbit for our unrivaled butt-whuppin' capability.

Not the most erudite description I've ever put forth, but good enough.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-27 13:29:46

You are stating that our enemies will not build ASAT weapons, even though our military could not function on a strateigic scale without them, because we are nice enough not to build space-to-surface/air/space weapons? That is simply counter to the "prepare" concept and to some extent common sense.
Except that space based weapons will not improve the defense of our space based assests. They merely act to increase the liklihood of attack on space based assests because it becomes a more tempting target.
That's the fundamental problem here- building these weapons dosen't help to make our sats any safer- they endanger them by justifying increased ASAT technology development to counter space weapon platforms.

Space assets are already a tempting enough target, space weapons or no... just blast all the MilStar comsats and a portion of the GPS constellation and watch the US military grind to a hault for weeks. No more JDAM bombs, no more GPS cruise missiles, no more CentCom in Florida, etc. There is plenty of justification already to employ ASAT weapons against us. If you seriously wanted to defeat the US military, not the continual mosquito bites of Iraq and betting on political collapse, but to really beat us militarily then you would have to do something about our satelites anyway.

"Deploying means to defend those assets is a strategic necessity, offensive space-based weapons simply follow as a logical progression."

Exactly. As a wise man once said, the best defense is an extremely effective offense... use the space-to-surface weapons to knock out a ground based ASAT laser battery or launch pads.

The USAF and CIA/NSA are already beginning to come to grips with this, developing methods of rapid launch of small replacement sats to make bigger constellations of smaller sats, and the development of stealth spy satelites... But if the enemy has a really effective means of shooting down satelites, then we'll need better measures then this... at the least, the ability to shoot down missiles before reaching altitude and the ability to knock out a ground-based energy weapon platform before too many satelites orbit overhead.

BWhite · 2005-05-27 14:41:05

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … DTL]Timely, no?

40,000 more Marine riflemen are a more pressing need, today, than rods from God.

Technology to defend and replace surveillance sats and com sats if we lose ours? Sure I can accept that. Bunker busters? There are many more important needs that should come first.

BWhite · 2005-05-27 14:49:13

Again, "space based weapons" encompasses all sorts of things. It can mean satellites equipped with ASAT countermeasures as much as orbiting lasers and the rod of God.
ALAA, Automated Laser Armaments Array, that's what we'll call it, keeping with the whole deity theme.
Anyway, equipping our satellites with ASAT defenses is only prudent, it won't be long before those assets are at substantial risk. But once we've done that, why not put offensive weapons up? It's not as though we're talking about putting up a giant cannon right away and waving it around, ASAT defenses are the first order of business. Once they're in place, the door is open.
Besides, let our enemies try to keep up. Let them become dependent on their technology. That much easier to beat them if we can defend ours while denying them theirs.

Wow, I pretty much agree with this.

Like I said before, I have few moral or ethical qualms with space based weapons. I just see a whole lot of people advocating trillion dollar systems that might not actually accomplish anything useful.

If we are unable or unwilling to get our boots muddy "rods from God" won't help. If we are good at getting our boots muddy, rods from God are not really necessary.

Selling rods from God as an alternative to "muddy (& bloody) boots" merely sets the US up for a military disaster, IMHO, as always.

There was nothing wrong with the Maginot Line EXCEPT that the French relied upon it to feel secure. If we come to believe space weapons can save us from the pain of infantry deaths we WILL suffer a France 1940-like defeat.

Therefore more armor for our Humvees will be a better value than ground strike orbital weapons.

Edited By BWhite on 1117227124

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-27 15:03:58

No no no, space-to-Earth weapons are not a replacement of any sort for what ground forces are for! They would be an entirely new means of attack, something of a "very high value" airstrike against heavily defended (from the air, like an R-400 SAM battery), deeply buried (where no current weapon can reach), or time-sensitive targets (assasinating terrorist leaders, destroying enemy missile silos when launch preparations detected, etc).

The only way that these weapons would supplant conventional ground forces is that they wouldn't have to invade the country to get to these targets which would otherwise be difficult to hit with conventional airstrikes.

Palomar · 2005-05-27 15:06:37

merely sets the US up for a military disaster, IMHO, as always.

*The U.S. always faces military disasters? How did we become the most powerful nation on Earth then?

Bill, I thought you were willing to take a "wait and see" approach. ?

But it seems futile all the way around (comment directed towards these situations, not directed at you).

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-27 15:32:38

merely sets the US up for a military disaster, IMHO, as always.
*The U.S. always faces military disasters? How did we become the most powerful nation on Earth then?
Bill, I thought you were willing to take a "wait and see" approach. ?
But it seems futile all the way around (comment directed towards these situations, not directed at you).
--Cindy

Cindy, some people (not necessarily here) "sell" weapons in space as a substitute for sending our soldiers into harms' way.

=THAT= attitude is very, very dangerous.

Such platforms may indeed be useful. No argument from me.

More useful than another division of Marines? More useful than better armor for our troops and better benefits for our soldiers and their families? Today, retaining mid level officers (captains & majors) is becoming a huge problem. Money spent on "rods from God" is money that cannot be spent keeping the families of our essential officer corps happy. If our infantry is hollow, space weapons won't be a successful substitute.

Tax the top 1% a little bit more and maybe we can buy both. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1117229684

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-26 14:13:58

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#27 2005-05-26 14:27:10

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#28 2005-05-26 14:36:23

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#29 2005-05-26 15:06:59

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#30 2005-05-26 16:05:01

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#31 2005-05-26 16:35:31

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#32 2005-05-26 21:47:52

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#33 2005-05-26 22:08:17

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#34 2005-05-27 03:05:28

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#35 2005-05-27 05:29:00

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#36 2005-05-27 08:35:25

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#37 2005-05-27 08:39:53

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#38 2005-05-27 08:48:03

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#39 2005-05-27 09:02:21

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#40 2005-05-27 10:11:10

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#41 2005-05-27 10:37:29

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#42 2005-05-27 12:23:25

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#43 2005-05-27 12:28:13

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#44 2005-05-27 12:37:17

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#45 2005-05-27 13:29:46

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#46 2005-05-27 14:41:05

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#47 2005-05-27 14:49:13

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#48 2005-05-27 15:03:58

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#49 2005-05-27 15:06:37

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

#50 2005-05-27 15:32:38

Re: UCS Warning on Weaponization of Space

Board footer