Sander Vesik wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Kaido Kert wrote:
I agree with everything you say, but i have this one important nitpick:
rocket technology equals missile technology NOT.
While its true that most modern missiles of all kinds are propelled by
various rocket engines, a rocket is not a missile.

There are other things that missiles need, other than what a
space launch type rocket can bring to the table.
And military applications tend to optimize on solution
spaces differently than space launch (storability,
etc being larger concerns).

However, the dual use nature and convertability
^^^^^^^^
ah, see there is a big problem here. As things stand
you end up with a big mondo list, that just about
includes "soap" (armies have to wash themselves every
now and then) and shoclate (aka high energy food you
might pack for your troopps). Not only is teh notion and
lits of dual-use goods ill-thought out concept, it is
also in its present incarnation wrong, irrelevant and
there is no meaningful oversight what appers in it.

I'm sorry, but that is just idiotic. We are not
discussing food or bathing products. We are discussing
vehicles that travel at supersonic, hypersonic, or
orbital velocities with small to large payloads,
with precision guidance systems.

You could turn the Armadillo vehicle into a SRBM with
a 3-person-weight HE bomb and a software update.
That is one of the very good reasons that governments
want to monitor and provide oversight on launch
type activities.

Declaring that space launchers, even reusable ones,
are not capable of being used for military purposes
or being developed into militarily useful weapons
systems is wrong. This point is not debatable.
Some of them make remarkably bad weapons.
The current lines drawn regarding the risks
of various technologies are arguably wrong.
But space launch *is* a major missile technology
proliferation risk area. Period.



you should take a look at the 'how to build a cruise
missle with $5000' page from New Zealand... IIRC no dual
use goods at all were involved.

The question is not 'can one proliferate missiles
without using dual use or space launch tech'.

The question is, 'does space launch tech constitute
a missile technology proliferation risk' and the
answer is Yes.

Over the long term (20 years) proliferation of low
cost rocket technology is a lost cause IMHO.

It is lost *now*. For that matter, I cant'tthink of
any reasson why one would claim this was not always
the case in the first place.

How many foreign missile programs have you studied?

I have studied enough to have contributed some of the
early analysies of looking at Japan's space launchers
as a candidate ballistic missile project, and looked
at other nations varied ballistic missile projects
in a fair depth. What we're doing here now in the
US is a lot different and potentially a lot cheaper.

It is going to get out eventually, and possibly sooner
rather than later, but it getting out to some people
is clearly a bad thing.

Sticking your head in the sand about the problem and
risks is not a technically, politically, or morally
reasonable attitude. There is no clear right answer,
and I am certainly not happy with where the laws are
now and some of the restrictions. But the core issues
are real and serious.


-george william herbert