Belligerence in Space

[Sayonara]

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,65151,00.html

 

What do you all think of this?

[bloodhound]

"the document declares that the U.S. Air Force is duty-bound to slap down other countries' space efforts, should the need arise"

 

Thats the phrase that worries me most.

[Pangloss]

"Begun"? They've been working on space battle scenarios since the 1950s. They already have one deployed anti-satellite weapon (such as it is). Why did he write it like this was something new?

 

Oh I see. For the same reason you posted about it on the Politics board.

 

Well, given the number of countries with space programs and satellite capability, it's just a matter of time before a need arises for enforcement in orbit. Sooner or later a nation with satellite capability will invade another nation and someone will have to enforce the UN mandate to put a stop to it. I believe North Korea already has LEO satellite capability.

 

I trust I don't need to explain why a rogue nation with nukes and satellites in orbit is a bad thing.

 

Of course, what this article is really about, and the reason I imagine it's been posted here, is whether the rest of the world is okay with the US putting weapons in orbit. I imagine there will be a serious international effort to stop the US from doing so, which the US will ignore (but be demonized for doing so), and then when it becomes necessary to deal with a rogue nation, rather than beg and plead for US assistance, the international community will chastise the US for not doing something about said rogue nation earlier.

 

In other words, business as usual.

[Skye]

The major thrust of the article is that the US would have to attack peaceful countries in order to carry out these objectives.

[Sayonara]

"Begun"? They've been working on space battle scenarios since the 1950s. They already have one deployed anti-satellite weapon (such as it is). Why did he write it like this was something new?

Maybe you should read the article.

 

Also read the attached report.

[john5746]

It is the Air Force's job to pursue new weapons and technology. That doesn't mean the government needs to allocate funds for it though.

 

It bothers me that we seem to think we deserve to have superiority in space over anyone else. I can see how this would really alarm someone not from the U.S. I hope we don't start putting serious weapons in space, these things fall back into earth eventually.

 

I guess some see the need to be able to take out satellites. I think jamming and spying on the transmissions would be better.

[blike]

I don't really see a problem with it, if the need arises.

 

Edit: On second read, it's a bit overboard maybe, especially interfering with private companies satellites. At first I thought it was just mentioning other nation's satellites or space programs that were designed or could be (are being, in a time of war) used to disrupt our own. I think the government would approach it more carefully than the document laid it out.

 

The Air Force readily acknowledged the potential bear traps hidden in attacks against neutral satellites. That's why the service would rather temporarily jam an enemy's access to space than destroy it.

[Pangloss]

Maybe you should read the article.

 

I did, and I don't see your point. If you want to take issue with what I said, let's hear it.

[Pangloss]

The major thrust of the article is that the US would have to attack peaceful countries in order to carry out these objectives.

 

No, it is not.

[Pangloss]

Here's some information about existing anti-satellite programs, which Wired chose to ignore, if anyone is interested. By the way, it also ignored the fact that it was the Russians who built the first anti-satellite system.

 

American System:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

 

Earlier Russian System:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html

[Skye]

A large hunk of the article is devoted purely to it:

 

Then, Counterspace Operations declares that a satellite or ground-control station doesn't have to belong to one of America's enemies in order to get hit.

 

"You could be inflicting large costs on a company or country that has no role in a war. And that introduces great possibilities for backlash and political fallout," warned Theresea Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information. "You could wind up damaging the capabilities of our allies -- or even ourselves."

 

But the Air Force may not have much of a choice, really. Nearly all the world's militaries -- including America's -- rely on private companies' satellites for relaying messages, taking pictures or guiding bombs. During the Iraq invasion, for example, commercial orbiters carried 80 percent of U.S. forces' satellite communications.

 

....

 

What the report makes clear is that the Air Force intends to put a halt to all sorts of commercial or neutral satellite operations, if they're seen as aiding an adversary. Counterspace Operation's potential targets include satellites that may "service the communications requirements of many users, including some who may be adversarial, others who may be friendly or neutral." Launching pads "supporting adversarial interests (that) may be in third-party countries" are also fair game. Even the takedown of weather satellites is allowed; the report discusses "planning operations against an adversary's space-based weather capabilities."

 

Such attacks may be legal under the rules of war. The Hague Convention of 1907 says that combatants "are forbidden to use neutral ports ... to erect wireless telegraphy stations or any apparatus for the purpose of communicating with the belligerent forces." These rules would likely extend to space.

 

However, the consequences of these assaults -- potentially leaving millions without access to weather forecasts, satellite-assisted navigation and emergency communications -- could be politically catastrophic, Hitchens observed.

 

The Air Force readily acknowledged the potential bear traps hidden in attacks against neutral satellites. That's why the service would rather temporarily jam an enemy's access to space than destroy it.

 

"We're concentrating on effects that are reversible," said Lt. Col. Andy Roake, with Air Force Space Command. "You blow up an aircraft or an airfield, these are things that can be repaired or replaced." That's not as true for a space system, Roake noted.

 

"Plus," he added, "if you blow something up in space, you create lots and lots of bitty pieces that threaten your own assets."

 

Nevertheless, the Air Force would like to pursue weapons that could be used to destroy a satellite -- if Congress will let it. Next year's proposed budget for Counterspace Systems was slashed by nearly two-thirds, to $28.4 million, according to a report from University of Maryland researcher Jeffrey Lewis.

[Sayonara]

I did, and I don't see your point. If you want to take issue with what I said, let's hear it.

Very well.

 

Your comment of "Oh I see. For the same reason you posted about it on the Politics board", combined with the fact that you seemed to miss the point, made me think you perhaps skimmed the article, got the jist of it, and made assumptions about motive rather than simply - as directed - telling me what you think.

 

What "same reason" would this be? Perhaps you assumed I put it here because you see the Politics forum as being some kind of country-bashing arena, rather than for the more obvious reason that the relationships between countries and developments pertaining to or affecting them are the stuff of topics which best belong in this forum.

 

I'm getting pretty tired of having people approach any thread in the politics forum in a manner that suggests if they can pigeon-hole as many people's opinions as possible, they'll win a prize. This is infinitely worse when you're trying to do it to someone before they even express an opinion on the topic.

I am not a subject of your political system and randomly shouting or intimating "lefty, righty!" at me depending on what I say is not going to make objective analysis go away.

 

Back to the issue at hand:

 

Of course, what this article is really about, and the reason I imagine it's been posted here, is whether the rest of the world is okay with the US putting weapons in orbit.

No, you missed the point entirely. The Air Force is asserting that it has the ability, will and desire to fire on assets owned by neutral countries and commercial third parties in order to ensure that the USA maintains "space superiority", an undefined phrase that could mean anything from global coverage of counterstrike defenses (which would be reasonable, although slightly illegal), to forcible sequesterment of viable inner space resources (which would flatly contravene international law and no doubt see the USA pulling out of another treaty).

 

The issue is not "are we happy with the USA putting weapons in space?" - remember that I am a citizen of one of America's few close allies. I live very close to your missile shield early warning system, so I am already potentially at risk due to your military technology. I can live with that - I have my doubts about whether or not such technology will work, but I'm relatively happy that there are few who will want to test the theory so the benefit of this alliance outweighs the potential for cost as far as I'm concerned. The same would apply for orbital weapons.

 

Rather the issue is that given the USA's history of chosing the wrong battles, and given your frightful foreign policy, can the USA be trusted to use such weapons responsibly once they are up there? And if not, who will be able to do anything about it?

 

(Bearing in mind that responsible use doesn't mean that if you can justify an attack ex post facto, then it suddenly becomes the "right thing to do".)

 

 

No, it is not.

It was not the thrust of the artile, but it is a definite theme. It is certainly the entire reason I created this thread.

 

The following comments summarise some of the concerns this plan has raised:

 

It bothers me that we seem to think we deserve to have superiority in space over anyone else. I can see how this would really alarm someone not from the U.S.

On second read, it's a bit overboard maybe, especially interfering with private companies satellites.

[Sayonara]

Here's some information about existing anti-satellite programs, which Wired chose to ignore, if anyone is interested. By the way, it also ignored the fact that it was the Russians who built the first anti-satellite system.

No, you don't get it.

 

It's not the technology that is the problem - it's the plans for the policy change.

[Pangloss]

Oh I got it. I just think the article fails to make its case, is wrong, and is agendized.

 

Please don't mistake my ire for flaming. I'm not trying to suggest you guys are idiots or that it's wrong for you to post this, and if I gave that impression let me apologize. I think you guys have interesting opinions and far be it from me to try and stiffle anything. I do have a very strong negative reaction to the implication of this article, and I want to try and express that as viscerally as possible without offending anyone or suggesting that other opinions are not valid.

 

My opinion is:

1) This is not really a change in policy (perhaps literally, but not analytically). (We've hit terrorist bases in allied countries without their permission with cruise missiles before. What difference if these come from space?)

2) There's nothing new about anti-satellite technology.

3) The Russians, not the Americans, started space weapon proliferation.

4) The point of this article is to bash America (and scare people).

[Douglas]

No' date=' you missed the point entirely. The issue is not "are we happy with the USA putting weapons in space?" -

 

Rather the issue is that given the USA's history of chosing the wrong battles, and given your frightful foreign policy, can the USA [u']be trusted[/u] to use such weapons responsibly once they are up there? And if not, who will be able to do anything about it?

Originally Posted by john5746

It bothers me that we seem to think we deserve to have superiority in space over anyone else. I can see how this would really alarm someone not from the U.S.

Originally Posted by blike

On second read, it's a bit overboard maybe, especially interfering with private companies satellites

It seems to me, that both issues are the same and that Blikes and John's comments addressed both issues.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Personally I think we really need to not pursue this 'goal', because, all of the satellite TV subscribers in the world will revolt if we try to take one out.

 

Just kidding.

 

 

But seriously, we already have jamming aircraft and carbon bombs that can knock out power stations, so why bother with satellites? US companies own a lot of them, so we'd be hurting ourselves. Our own military uses them. Why knock them out then?

 

 

Oh yes, it's "belligerence," not "belligerance."

[Sayonara]

1) This is not really a change in policy (perhaps literally, but not analytically). (We've hit terrorist bases in allied countries without their permission with cruise missiles before. What difference if these come from space?)

You are still missing the point. This policy does not aim to "put new weapons in space". It is to do with the USAF giving itself permission to use existing and future space arms to disable or destroy the space-based efforts of other nations and enterprises whether they are enemies of the USA or not.

 

 

2) There's nothing new about anti-satellite technology.

That's irrelevant to this thread.

 

 

3) The Russians, not the Americans, started space weapon proliferation.

That's irrelevant to this thread.

 

 

4) The point of this article is to bash America (and scare people).

That may well be your opinion, but it doesn't answer the very simple question I asked in a particularly useful or relevant way.

 

My interest here is in how this will impact other nations individually, and international politics and space exploitation as a whole, not in how it will be a good thing for America. Try not to be so insular.

 

 

It seems to me, that both issues are the same and that Blikes and John's comments addressed both issues.

Thank-you for that world-class contribution to the discussion, Douglas.

 

 

This thread is about territoriality, resource partitioning and space superiority. Anyone who isn't interested in discussing those topics should reconsider before they post comments.

[Pangloss]

No, that's *your* interpretation. Mine differs, as stated above. That article is *very much* about assaulting Americans by way of misinformation, fear, and hate-mongering.

 

This thread is about territoriality, resource partitioning and space superiority. Anyone who isn't interested in discussing those topics should reconsider before they post comments.

 

In other words, if we don't interpret the article in the way in which you proscribe, we should keep our mouths shut?

 

Nice.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, that's *your* interpretation. Mine differs, as stated above. That article is *very much* about assaulting Americans by way of misinformation, fear, and hate-mongering.

That may well be your opinion' date=' but it doesn't answer the very simple question I asked in a particularly useful or relevant way.

My interest here is in how this will impact other nations individually, and international politics and space exploitation as a whole, not in how it will be a good thing for America.[/quote']

In other words, if we don't interpret the article in the way in which you proscribe, we should keep our mouths shut?

No, you just haven't been paying attention and apparently you are also taking things out of context.

 

 

Now please let this end before this thread turns into too much spam.

 

 

edit: Just noticed you fixed the spelling in the title...

[Sayonara]

No, that's *your* interpretation. Mine differs, as stated above. That article is *very much* about assaulting Americans by way of misinformation, fear, and hate-mongering.

Notice how I said "policy", and not "article"? Apparently not.

 

 

In other words, if we don't interpret the article in the way in which you proscribe, we should keep our mouths shut?

No?

[YT2095]

don`t we already have enough crap happening on good old Terra Firma without taking it into other realms?

 

when will mankind ever GROW UP! and get over himself and petty differences ? (and most of them ARE petty).

 

you asked "What do you all think of this?"

 

Sickening is my answer

[Douglas]

Sayonara.........The issue is not "are we happy with the USA putting weapons in space?"

The issue is exactly that. I assume you posted the article/issue to get opinions on it.

 

Tell me, are you happy about it? Are you pissed about it? If you're pissed, you're unhappy.

[Sayonara]

The issue is exactly that. I assume you posted the article/issue to get opinions on it.

You're stumbling over old ground here.

 

 

Tell me, are you happy about it? Are you pissed about it? If you're pissed, you're unhappy.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The issue is exactly that. I assume you posted the article/issue to get opinions on it.

It's not putting weapons in space, it's disabling satellites. And their ground stations.

[Pangloss]

The Air Force is asserting that it has the ability, will and desire to fire on assets owned by neutral countries and commercial third parties in order to ensure that the USA maintains "space superiority", an undefined phrase that could mean anything from global coverage of counterstrike defenses (which would be reasonable, although slightly illegal), to forcible sequesterment of viable inner space resources (which would flatly contravene international law and no doubt see the USA pulling out of another treaty).

 

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

The US military does not dictate government policy -- civilians run the American government. So what the military does or does not want in terms of capabilities is irrelevant -- that's just planning and preparation for all eventualities. It doesn't indicate anything about future American policy.

 

 

Fact: America is preparing for an aspect of war that everyone knows is coming, and is in fact already possible at this time (North Korea). America was not the first nation to explore this technology, America would not be the first nation to attack an "innocent bystander nation" in order to protect themselves, and America protecting itself when a rogue state with nuclear weapons and satellite technology eventually decides to get aggressive actually helps *everyone*.

 

Spin: America is causing proliferation of new weapon technologies, and planning to invade peaceful nations to prevent them from going into space.

 

 

What this is about is promoting the idea that America will now begin to randomly attack peaceful nations just because it feels like it. The underlying justification for this mentality is, of course, Iraq. This position ignores all the reasons why Iraq was the moral, legal and ethical thing to do. (Previous line edited for clarity.) Many Europeans seem to feel (perhaps understandably -- but this is still ignorance of the worst sort, because it's incredibly dangerous) that they have no control over events, therefore America is a threat to them.

 

I think Americans are not the only ones who need to wake up. Fast.

 

 

All of this, by the way, is why the supposition that John Kerry will somehow miraculously get the European nations on board with the US is considered by most American voters to be ridiculous. It's one of the reasons why Kerry hasn't been more successful in his campaign. Europeans seem to be genuinely amazed that he doesn't have 90% of the vote all wrapped up. Well, this is one reason why.

 

Ask Joe Six-Pack what he thinks Europeans think about America, and you'll get a WHOPPING earful about misplaced blame, bad reasoning, and being told to do things that are detrimental to America. A lot of Americans probably feel that if Europeans want Kerry elected, then Bush must be the right way to go. The kind of rhetoric Joe hears from Europe these days is so completely and ridiculously one-sided it's no wonder he thinks that.

 

Nice work.

 

Fortunately a lot of us know better, and are willing to vote for Kerry in spite of all this time-wasting rhetorical garbage.