Stop Space Based Weapons!

The mad cap Helen Caldicott has written a polemic against space based
weapons which, while it does not mention "missile envy" or "boys
playing with toys", is still pregnant with the fallacies of arms
control cultists that one would have thought were disproven by how
President Reagan won the Cold War. (Hint. It was not by relying on
pieces of paper solely.)

The Bush administration is clearly moving toward putting weapons in
outer space. It has spent about $500 million a year in research on
those potential weapons in the past few years, according to the Center
for Defense Information, although often burying it in categories that
make hard accounting extremely difficult.


Shocking, a government keeping top secret research
programs--well--secret.

In the research phase are antisatellite weapons, space-based
antimissile systems, laser beam weapons and bombardment satellites
using kinetic impact, directed energy and possibly nuclear explosions.
Some of these weapons will be powered by orbiting nuclear reactors.


One wonders where this information came from, since even John Pike has
admitted that the Bush Administration has been adroit at keeping stuff
that's in the black world out of the pages of AV Leak. Still, I hope
this is all true. I want us to have the best high tech weapons
imaginable, the better to make enemies think twice about messing with
us.

In its document "Visions for 2020," the U.S. Space Command
announced the new doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance," saying that
"the nation which dominates outer space will dominate the Earth."
Space, according to the Space Command, is a legitimate and final
frontier from which the United States should project its power.


Again, shocking, that a great nation would want to project its power,
especially to stop some other nation from dominating space.

Space is already militarized because satellites are used to
identify targets on Earth and to accurately direct land-based weapons
- tactics that have been used successfully in the Iraq war and in the
1991 Persian Gulf War. Intercontinental ballistic missiles enter and
exit space in their journey to their land-based targets on other
continents. Antiballistic missiles launched to destroy them also would
operate in space.


Darn it! Those nasty politicians and Generals did all that when we
weren't looking.

If one genie is already out of the bottle for space militarization,
another genie can and must be contained by preventing space
weaponization. Weapons do not now orbit in outer space. There are
powerful reasons why such weapons should be forbidden.


They're not going to pull a fast one on us again, no sir.

First, placing weapons in space inevitably would provoke an arms
race there. Such a race eventually would consume hundreds of billions
of dollars. It is simply inconceivable that the United States could
place weapons in outer space without provoking other nations such as
China, Russia, Japan and countries in the European Union to do the
same.


We heard this sort of nonsense during the 1980s. Fortunately President
Reagan didn't listen and as a result the Soviet Empire is in the
dustbin of history. The problem is that countries like China
(aggressive, tyrannical, etc) are going to build the weapons they think
they need regardless of what others do. Japan is an ally (partly
because of fearing China.) Russia's economy is in the tank and
therefore it probably cannot afford space weapons for the foreseeable
future. The Europeans would have to give up their welfare states to
afford space weapons and this they will never do.

Second, most space-based weapons are inefficient in relation to
those based on the ground or in the atmosphere. If we want to destroy a
missile site or a troop deployment or bomb a nuclear reactor, it is far
more effective to do this with a ground-based missile or pilotless
aircraft. Space-based weapons are also radically more expensive than
land-based weapons or aircraft.


inefficient? Compared to bombers? I'm not sure why this is so. The
authors do not explain. Expensive? Perhaps, though with the revolution
beginning in cheap access to space, I'm not sure that will hold true
for very long. Indeed, a lot of commercial space launch companies would
love contracts for deploying and servicing space based weapons
platforms.

Third, the United States is already the dominant military power in
the world, spending about $500 billion a year on the defense budget,
including money for current wars, with technology that far exceeds any
possible rival, including Russia and China. Adding outer space as a new
dimension of our military presence is simply not necessary. Such a move
adds a new gesture to our military posturing without increasing our
security.


This is, of course, the equivalent of the British in--say--1860 decided
that they don't need to spend money on ironclads because the Royal Navy
is already the mightiest in the world and will always be so. Technology
progresses on and if one doesn't keep pace, one is likely to get into
trouble.

Finally, a response to any possible arms race in outer space is
already available: a draft international treaty forbidding space
weaponization that was proposed by Russia and China in 2002. The United
States has been alone among the great powers in refusing to endorse
U.N. General Assembly resolutions on outer space and the draft treaty.


Of course. A piece of paper. The problem is that those two countries,
especially Russia, have a history of ignoring treaties when it suits
their purpose. Treaties for them are tools to constrain democracies,
not themselves. I can see lots of "peaceful" space projects (like the
Shenzhou) turning out to have a military component.

Other countries are eager for an agreement, just as they are for a
nuclear test ban that includes underground testing, an international
criminal court, an agreement on global warming as well as treaties on
land mines, small arms and chemical and biological weapons.


Of course they are. These would restrain the United States.

In refusing to sign a treaty on space weaponization and these other
significant international accords, the United States is virtually alone
in thwarting the world in its efforts to achieve disarmament and
environmental sanity through multilateral agreements.


Good for us, I say. I'm rather a "peace through superior fire power"
type of guy. It tends to work better than scraps of paper.

In 1967, the United States led the world in pursuing the Outer
Space Treaty, which forbids the orbiting of weapons of mass destruction
- but not non-WMD. Today, we are the ones obstructing the world in
its desire to seal off space as a potential area of weaponization.


Aside for the arrogance of presuming to speak "for the world", I think
that if the world has the desire to "seal off" space from (American)
weapons, it needs to be obstructed.

U.S. policy is driven not by a need to ensure our security but by
lobbyists who need to secure contracts for their defense industry
corporate employers.

It is beyond time for the United States to agree to sign an
international treaty to prevent weapons from being deployed in outer
space, a policy that would serve the country and not a select group of
corporations.


Oh, those evil merchants of death. It's all a plot. Like the black
helicopters.

The issue of space weaponization is a test case for this
administration to reach out to other nations and to set the safest and
most sensible direction for the nation and, indeed, the world.

Yes, by starting the United States Aerospace Force.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/3192180

I think we could use a few charged particle beam laser turrets in orbit.
Point and click will have a new meaning.

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
oups.com...
The mad cap Helen Caldicott has written a polemic against space based
weapons which, while it does not mention "missile envy" or "boys
playing with toys", is still pregnant with the fallacies of arms
control cultists that one would have thought were disproven by how
President Reagan won the Cold War. (Hint. It was not by relying on
pieces of paper solely.)

The Bush administration is clearly moving toward putting weapons in
outer space. It has spent about $500 million a year in research on
those potential weapons in the past few years, according to the Center
for Defense Information, although often burying it in categories that
make hard accounting extremely difficult.


Shocking, a government keeping top secret research
programs--well--secret.

In the research phase are antisatellite weapons, space-based
antimissile systems, laser beam weapons and bombardment satellites
using kinetic impact, directed energy and possibly nuclear explosions.
Some of these weapons will be powered by orbiting nuclear reactors.


One wonders where this information came from, since even John Pike has
admitted that the Bush Administration has been adroit at keeping stuff
that's in the black world out of the pages of AV Leak. Still, I hope
this is all true. I want us to have the best high tech weapons
imaginable, the better to make enemies think twice about messing with
us.

In its document "Visions for 2020," the U.S. Space Command
announced the new doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance," saying that
"the nation which dominates outer space will dominate the Earth."
Space, according to the Space Command, is a legitimate and final
frontier from which the United States should project its power.


Again, shocking, that a great nation would want to project its power,
especially to stop some other nation from dominating space.

Space is already militarized because satellites are used to
identify targets on Earth and to accurately direct land-based weapons
- tactics that have been used successfully in the Iraq war and in the
1991 Persian Gulf War. Intercontinental ballistic missiles enter and
exit space in their journey to their land-based targets on other
continents. Antiballistic missiles launched to destroy them also would
operate in space.


Darn it! Those nasty politicians and Generals did all that when we
weren't looking.

If one genie is already out of the bottle for space militarization,
another genie can and must be contained by preventing space
weaponization. Weapons do not now orbit in outer space. There are
powerful reasons why such weapons should be forbidden.


They're not going to pull a fast one on us again, no sir.

First, placing weapons in space inevitably would provoke an arms
race there. Such a race eventually would consume hundreds of billions
of dollars. It is simply inconceivable that the United States could
place weapons in outer space without provoking other nations such as
China, Russia, Japan and countries in the European Union to do the
same.


We heard this sort of nonsense during the 1980s. Fortunately President
Reagan didn't listen and as a result the Soviet Empire is in the
dustbin of history. The problem is that countries like China
(aggressive, tyrannical, etc) are going to build the weapons they think
they need regardless of what others do. Japan is an ally (partly
because of fearing China.) Russia's economy is in the tank and
therefore it probably cannot afford space weapons for the foreseeable
future. The Europeans would have to give up their welfare states to
afford space weapons and this they will never do.

Second, most space-based weapons are inefficient in relation to
those based on the ground or in the atmosphere. If we want to destroy a
missile site or a troop deployment or bomb a nuclear reactor, it is far
more effective to do this with a ground-based missile or pilotless
aircraft. Space-based weapons are also radically more expensive than
land-based weapons or aircraft.


inefficient? Compared to bombers? I'm not sure why this is so. The
authors do not explain. Expensive? Perhaps, though with the revolution
beginning in cheap access to space, I'm not sure that will hold true
for very long. Indeed, a lot of commercial space launch companies would
love contracts for deploying and servicing space based weapons
platforms.

Third, the United States is already the dominant military power in
the world, spending about $500 billion a year on the defense budget,
including money for current wars, with technology that far exceeds any
possible rival, including Russia and China. Adding outer space as a new
dimension of our military presence is simply not necessary. Such a move
adds a new gesture to our military posturing without increasing our
security.


This is, of course, the equivalent of the British in--say--1860 decided
that they don't need to spend money on ironclads because the Royal Navy
is already the mightiest in the world and will always be so. Technology
progresses on and if one doesn't keep pace, one is likely to get into
trouble.

Finally, a response to any possible arms race in outer space is
already available: a draft international treaty forbidding space
weaponization that was proposed by Russia and China in 2002. The United
States has been alone among the great powers in refusing to endorse
U.N. General Assembly resolutions on outer space and the draft treaty.


Of course. A piece of paper. The problem is that those two countries,
especially Russia, have a history of ignoring treaties when it suits
their purpose. Treaties for them are tools to constrain democracies,
not themselves. I can see lots of "peaceful" space projects (like the
Shenzhou) turning out to have a military component.

Other countries are eager for an agreement, just as they are for a
nuclear test ban that includes underground testing, an international
criminal court, an agreement on global warming as well as treaties on
land mines, small arms and chemical and biological weapons.


Of course they are. These would restrain the United States.

In refusing to sign a treaty on space weaponization and these other
significant international accords, the United States is virtually alone
in thwarting the world in its efforts to achieve disarmament and
environmental sanity through multilateral agreements.


Good for us, I say. I'm rather a "peace through superior fire power"
type of guy. It tends to work better than scraps of paper.

In 1967, the United States led the world in pursuing the Outer
Space Treaty, which forbids the orbiting of weapons of mass destruction
- but not non-WMD. Today, we are the ones obstructing the world in
its desire to seal off space as a potential area of weaponization.


Aside for the arrogance of presuming to speak "for the world", I think
that if the world has the desire to "seal off" space from (American)
weapons, it needs to be obstructed.

U.S. policy is driven not by a need to ensure our security but by
lobbyists who need to secure contracts for their defense industry
corporate employers.

It is beyond time for the United States to agree to sign an
international treaty to prevent weapons from being deployed in outer
space, a policy that would serve the country and not a select group of
corporations.


Oh, those evil merchants of death. It's all a plot. Like the black
helicopters.

The issue of space weaponization is a test case for this
administration to reach out to other nations and to set the safest and
most sensible direction for the nation and, indeed, the world.

Yes, by starting the United States Aerospace Force.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/3192180