USA TODAY (Oberg): HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'

"jonathon" wrote
A point of the article is that our opponents have little to fear
from all this silly talk of space weapons. Our official policy is
that the military use of space is our solemn duty. To claim
such a policy is meaningless only because of its long standing
is truly an Orwellian response.


We're trying to get you to provide factual backup,
and you dodge, and call our attitude 'Orwellian'?

I'll tell you what's Orwellian: history-rewriting to
erase all memory of Soviet space-based weapons
tests and deployments.

How many such projects DO you remember, J?

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: "jonathon" wrote
: A point of the article is that our opponents have little to fear
: from all this silly talk of space weapons. Our official policy is
: that the military use of space is our solemn duty. To claim
: such a policy is meaningless only because of its long standing
: is truly an Orwellian response.


: We're trying to get you to provide factual backup,
: and you dodge, and call our attitude 'Orwellian'?

: I'll tell you what's Orwellian: history-rewriting to
: erase all memory of Soviet space-based weapons
: tests and deployments.

: How many such projects DO you remember, J?

Aren't you sort of "hyperventilating" over space weapons, the Russians'
weapons I mean?

Besides, didn't we win the cold war, so we needn't worry about anything
the Russians have? Well short of trying to steal Venzuelan oil instead of
us stealing it that is.

Eric

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:14:59 -0400, "jonathon"
wrote:

What should our adversaries think when stated Air Force doctrine
is the "Control and Exploitation of the Aerospace Continuum"?

Um, that's been the Air Force's doctrine for about 58 years now...


A point of the article is that our opponents have little to fear
from all this silly talk of space weapons. Our official policy is
that the military use of space is our solemn duty. To claim
such a policy is meaningless only because of its long standing
is truly an Orwellian response.

Of course, you sidestep the issue of "why get all worked up about it
now, when the United States has made no secret of desiring to control
the high frontier since World War II?" You might notice that the only
space "battlestations" ever actually built and launched all bore the
hammer-and-sickle flag. The US didn't panic. Why do you expect the
rest of the world to do so when some mid-level Air Force spokesperson
mentions that space-based weapons are being looked into (again)?

Brian

George William Herbert wrote:

China, India, the EU, and the Russians are equally near
to the US capability of being able to deploy fantasy or
potentially real concept space weapons. They have the
required technologies as well. The ONLY thing that they
have to fear is that we have more of those technologies
and more money, and might potentially move forwards into
developing something sooner than they could.

Should be be afraid that they will do it first if we
don't do it? What exactly do you propose to do about
the dire danger of India developing and launching a
polar orbit anti-satellite battle station? Or are we
the only nation that you see as a potential risk?

Well since the US is spending more on armament than
China, India, the EU, and the Russians combined, I hardly
see how the US could see anyone of those as a threat.

Alain Fournier

"Alain Fournier" wrote
Well since the US is spending more on armament than
China, India, the EU, and the Russians combined, I hardly
see how the US could see anyone of those as a threat.


Alain, the issue is assymetry -- that nobody is going to try
to outspend the US, but may look for 'chinks in the armor'
where relatively SMALL investments in capabilities
can rebound to massive disturbances of the status quo.

Jim Oberg wrote:

Alain, the issue is assymetry -- that nobody is going to try
to outspend the US, but may look for 'chinks in the armor'
where relatively SMALL investments in capabilities
can rebound to massive disturbances of the status quo.

Yes:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog.../at_960610.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/civilsat.htm

Dated in terms of some examples (I thought the LEO comsats
might actually make it), but the overall concerns remain.

Jim Oberg wrote:
"Alain Fournier" wrote
Well since the US is spending more on armament than
China, India, the EU, and the Russians combined, I hardly
see how the US could see anyone of those as a threat.

Alain, the issue is assymetry -- that nobody is going to try
to outspend the US, but may look for 'chinks in the armor'
where relatively SMALL investments in capabilities
can rebound to massive disturbances of the status quo.

Kind of like the Goths defeating the Romans in
the Battle of Adrianople. Rome's army was built
around powerful infantry divisions equipped
with costly armour, shields, swords, etc., supplied
by a massive network of armories, protected by a
huge system of forts and roads. The Romans were
slightly surprised, to say the least, when they
found themselves suddenly surrounded, outnumbered,
and outmanuevered on the field of battle by mobile
Gothic calvary, who had a few light horse archer
Huns along to teach them some tricks they had
learned on the steppes. 2/3rds of the Romans died.
It was the beginning of the end of the Empire.

In Iraq, they've started using shaped charges
in the roadside bombs. That is why armor doesn't
matter anymore - and why a half-dozen Americans
are dying per day now instead of one. If the
bad guys get lucky one day, we might see such
weapons combined with ambush tactics to trap and
annihilate a sizable U.S. force. The next step
will be to make the stealthy anti-armor weapons
mobile.

If we stay there long enough, it could be Goths
and Huns all over again.

We here in the states won't have to worry too
much - until we start seeing daily car bombs in
our cities.

- Ed Kyle

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: "Alain Fournier" wrote
: Well since the US is spending more on armament than
: China, India, the EU, and the Russians combined, I hardly
: see how the US could see anyone of those as a threat.


: Alain, the issue is assymetry -- that nobody is going to try
: to outspend the US, but may look for 'chinks in the armor'
: where relatively SMALL investments in capabilities
: can rebound to massive disturbances of the status quo.


The fascinating part of assymmetry now is the symmetry in the past with US
and the USSR during the cold war. Did the cold war make that assymmetry
you mention today a moot point, or did it simply not exist or was it
simply overshadowed by the specter of the Big Bear?

The point is that we MUST have en enemy to justify that budget be it
symmetrical or otherwise.

Eric

Brian Thorn wrote:

Why do you expect the
rest of the world to do so when some mid-level Air Force spokesperson
mentions that space-based weapons are being looked into (again)?

That should be properly stated "space-based weapons are being looked
into (still)?". While they've gone in and out of public visibility,
and the size of the program has varied over time, it's never been
completely in abeyance since the mid 1950's. Space is high ground,
and anyone who thinks that the militaries of the world (I.E. not just
the US) aren't thinking about it is simply living in a dream world.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Jim Oberg wrote:



Alain, the issue is assymetry -- that nobody is going to try
to outspend the US, but may look for 'chinks in the armor'



China, right? :-)

Pat