Attitudes on Spaced Based Weapons Systems

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

john mccarthy

Guest
I hope this is the best thread to post this information that I just received. Pretty fascinating stuff you have here!<br />John McCarthy<br />+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br /><br />----- Original Message ----- <br />From: Victoria Samson <br />To: space_sanctuary@yahoogroups.com <br />Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:49 AM<br />Subject: [space_sanctuary] Russia's position on space weapons<br /><br /><br />Defense Daily<br /><br />February 9, 2005<br /><br />10] Russian Federation Seeks Ban On Space-Based Weapons<br /><br />By Geoff Fein<br /><br /> Russia has no designs on placing weapons in space, and therefore <br /><br />sees no justification, by any country, of placing weapons in outer <br /><br />space, said a Russian Federation official at the Conference on <br /><br />Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland.<br /><br /> "Creation of outer space weapons is certainly not our choice," <br /><br />Ambassador Leonid Skotnikov of the Russian Federation said in a <br /><br />statement to the conference held last week. "If we manage to prevent <br /><br />placement of weapons in outer space, we shall be ale to direct progress <br /><br />in space science and technology into a constructive course for the <br /><br />benefits of all."<br /><br /> The conference must do more, however, to reach an agreement on the <br /><br />scope of its work, Skotnikov said. "We cannot sit idle," he said. For <br /><br />its part, the Russian Federation has launched a number of initiatives <br /><br />to scale down the threat. For example, Russia has proposed a moratorium <br /><br />on placing combat devices in space and is willing to undertake the <br /><br />obligation immediately, provided other space powers join, he added.<br /><br /> Russia has also begun providing advance information on scheduled <br /><br />launches, their predestination and the parameters of their orbits, <br /><br />Skotnikov said.<br /><br /> "Last year we stated that at th
 
M

mott

Guest
i hate to say it but war in space would advance the tech alot. not the best way to do it but the quickest... sad
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
I agree. The militarization of space is inevitable and it will drive technology development.
 
G

grooble

Guest
If space flight is ever routine you'd need protection from pirates, they might steal your ship or your cargo, or just waltz over to a moon base and conquer it or somethin.
 
M

mott

Guest
like pirate aliens?? <br />but if they only have one eye where will they put the eyepatch????
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
I am utterly opposed to the weaponisation of space. It is also utterly pointless at the present time.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
B

blairf

Guest
Space already is weaponised. ICBM's, Spy Satellites, GPS.<br /><br />Being opposed to putting offensive weapons permanently stationed in space seems fairly arbritraty to me. It implies that it is OK to <br />* Select a target (what Spy sats do)<br />* orbit a massive nuclear weapon (what an ICBM does)<br />* guide said weapon to its target city (what GPS does) <br />but somehow it is morally repugnant to take counter measures against any of the above.<br /><br />
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>* Select a target (what Spy sats do)</i><br /><br />Spy sats are nothing more than telescopes pointed down instead of up. They aren't offensive weapons, they cannot be used to attack anybody (though, you <i>could</i> point a laser through one....).<br /><p>><i>* orbit a massive nuclear weapon (what an ICBM does)</i><br /><br />ICBM's don't put anything into orbit, their paths are suborbital - the reason being that in the event of a guidance failure a one-orbit nuke would be bad! They merely pass through space and don't present an ongoing threat. That's the big difference with orbital weapons platforms.<br /><p>><i>* guide said weapon to its target city (what GPS does) </i><br /><br />GPS is, in essence, a one-way communications system. Again it does not present an ongoing menace, plus it has <b>way</b> more civilian applications than it does military.<br /></p></p>
 
T

toymaker

Guest
That's a typical diplomatic trick. They will conduct weapons research in secret while at the same time stoping othes development. <br />Besides-there are already weapons in space.
 
M

mott

Guest
there may be wepons in space. dont know but may be. but in a way what we need to worry about in space is alot worse than any nuke i know of... inpact. and for that reason we should look at the possiblility of wepons in space... even if only on a defencive stance.
 
B

blairf

Guest
"Spy sats ... aren't offensive weapons, they cannot be used to attack anybody"<br />Thats like saying the sight used on a gun is not part of the gun.<br /><br />"ICBM's don't put anything into orbit, their paths are suborbital...and don't present an ongoing threat."<br /><br />That distinction is based on the mission not the capability - Dnepr *is* the ss-18. Also the ss-9 was a full blown orbital nuclear warhead armed ICBM. And why are silo based nukes *worse* than space-based? It's like saying delploying land mines from a helicopter is fine but from a aircraft is bad.<br /><br />"GPS is... a one-way communications system...it does not present an ongoing menace..."<br />It sure as heck presented an ongoing menace to the targets of cruise missiles in Iraq! If you don't think GPS is a core military asset you might want to ask why the military spend billions on it, and think through the response you would get if you suggested that the GPS be placed within NASA rather than the DOD.<br /><br />I think the basic difference between our approach is that you are looking at components whilst I am thinking systems.<br /><br />
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Thats like saying the sight used on a gun is not part of the gun.</i><p>Spy sats are rarely (if ever) used to actively guide weapons. They provide the intelligence information to decide what targets need to be taken out, but the operational guidance is provided by other means. In your gun/sight analogy, spy sats are like the spotter who goes through the day before to check if there's any game.<p>><i>It's like saying delploying land mines from a helicopter is fine but from a aircraft is bad.</i><p>Actually, the point I was making is that ICBMs travel <i>through</i> space, they don't reside there. It's like the difference in the threat presented by a submarine's torpedoes compared to anti-ship mines. The sub is a threat while it is there and then it is gone. The mine remains a threat for weeks, months or years.<p>><i>It [GPS] sure as heck presented an ongoing menace to the targets of cruise missiles in Iraq!</i><p>No. The missiles were the menace. GPS is no more menacing than a map. Basically that's all it is - a very precise means of navigation.<p>><i> If you don't think GPS is a core military asset...</i><p>GPS <b>is</b> a crucial military asset. NATO forces depend on GPS for many of their advanced weapons systems. But GPS isn't a weapon. How do you kill someone with GPS (other than beating them to death with the reciever)?<p>If I look up someone's address on Google, then use Yahoo maps to find the route to their house and a Glock to shoot them through the head, what weapon did I use to kill them?</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>
 
J

john mccarthy

Guest
we'uns....bunches, all kinds. Laser guided, nuke driven one time shots. Push a button for doomsday, boyz and girlz. Our KH series has become so sophisticated that they are vulnerable targets, now protected by "stealth" guardians who track and destroy those who would kill the KH Sats. That has been going on for more than just a few years. And. of course, the back up systems have back up redundancy. It is mighty crowded up their now. But like our hunter/killer subs, you will never see them before during or after action.<br /><br />John<br /><br />Note::: KH stands for Key Hole, as in 'looking through'.
 
T

toymaker

Guest
"Who has these "weapons"?"<br /><br />USA, Russia, China-all of them posses weapons systems that are present in space. which would fall into the category of :<br /> "systems or devices, based on<br />physical principle, launched into orbit around the Earth or placed in<br />the outer space by any other way, which are produced or converted to<br />destroy, damage or disrupt normal functioning of objects in outer space, as well as targets on the surface of the Earth or in the air."<br /> <br />Notice the term "converted" and "disrupt"<br /><br />Of course the trick is also that forbidding space weapons systems won't change that much because they will be ground based systems capable of disrupting space based assets.
 
J

jman5

Guest
(I know this is my first post, but please dont disregard what I write on that premise)<br /><br />The best way to save lives in a military situation (besides surrendering) is to have the biggest advantage over your enemy. Now there are many type of advantages you can have over an opponent such as the number of troops, training, education, infrastructure, and technology (there are probably more but I cant think of them). In the case of space based weapons, the US is trying to gain a higher technological advantage over any future enemy, which everyone would agree would most likely save American lives (and any allies).<br /><br />In all aspects of life it is best to create plans and means to deal with scenarios that may happen in the future. In the medical world, governmental health organizations are developing plans to deal with the a possible Avian flu pandemic. The virus has not efficiently tranfered between humans and may never, but there is a chance it will happen and so they prepare to deal with it by creating vaccines for a potential virus.<br /><br />So, the US military is creating systems in space that could knock out sattilites of other countries, or possibly be used to attack ground based objects. To me, this sounds no different than any other technological advancement militaries have made throughout time to minimize their casulties and increase their chances of success. <br /><br />My point is that you dont want to be "fair" in war by being on equal footing of your enemy. You want to have the greatest advantage and in turn reduce your enemies advantages as much as possible.<br /><br />I think that many of these countries that support a ban on space based weapons are doing so for two reasons. First, they dont want to have to spend the high price of research and development that goes into producing these systems. And secondly, they dont want to pay for the high cost of launching these satilites into space and setting up the infrastructure to oversee them.<br /><br />r
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I kinda see it like this,<br /><br />The first time weapons in space came up the USSR has a lead in space technology and the US sought to ban space based weapons. Now Russia can't afford them any more it seeks to stop the US developing them.<br />
 
M

mott

Guest
i agree. when the US in ww2 had the nuke and japan didnt the US used it. and it ended the war with far less deaths than an invasion would have created... but go forward in time and i think the bomb actually stopped a war between the US and the USSR. athough it could have ended up differently.<br /> what scares me more is HAARP<br />http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/background.html<br />this could be worse than space based nukes
 
T

toymaker

Guest
Indeed it is certain that nuclear weapons and MAD doctrine made another World War much less likely then it would have been without them.
 
T

toymaker

Guest
"That is pure speculation and you should so so when posting it."<br />Nope, read the definition again. It doesn't mention just satelittes capable of physical damage as weapons , but also those capable of disrupting communications etc.<br /><br />If you are interested in details :<br />http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2012&from_page=../index.cfm<br />"Ask anyone with experience in the arms control arena, and he or she will tell you that a first-order hurdle for any successful negotiation is agreeing on definitions. Indeed, over the past several decades, efforts to craft restrictions on anti-satellite (ASAT) and other on-orbit weapons have foundered on just that rocky shoal: what is an ASAT or a space weapon?<br /><br />For example, during the 1978-79 U.S.-Soviet negotiations on a space arms control regime, Moscow was adamant that NASA's then-developmental space shuttle should be defined as an ASAT weapon. Despite the fact that neither side was yet heavily invested in building space weapons - usually an auspicious situation for reaching arms control agreements - the talks went nowhere.<br /><br />Indeed, when reviewing the literature on the issue of space weapons, one is tempted to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his 1964 opinion on the definition of obscenity: "I know 'em when I see 'em."<br /><br />Today, however, with the Bush administration inching closer and closer to overthrowing the long-standing U.S. policy against deployment of ASATs and other types of on-orbit weapons, the need for clarity has never been more urgent. Otherwise, it will be impossible for the American body-politic to have a coherent debate about what is undeniably a major strategic decision - one that will have widespread ramifications not only for U.S. national security, but also for all space stakeholders (civilian, commercial and military) around the w
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts