book - Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance

Has anybody read this book: Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space
Dominance ?

What did you think? I saw the author on TV doing a talk about his book
and a Q&A session afterward and was impressed by him.

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-War-F.../dp/1598130188

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Has anybody read this book: Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space
Dominance ?

What did you think? I saw the author on TV doing a talk about his book
and a Q&A session afterward and was impressed by him.

Based on the title of his book, and the fact that you're impressed by
him, he's probably an idiot, too.

On 14 Mar, 18:35, Eric Chomko wrote:
Has anybody read this book: Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space
Dominance ?

What did you think? I saw the author on TV doing a talk about his book
and a Q&A session afterward and was impressed by him.

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-War-F.../dp/1598130188

I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
Chindia (China + India) 2 billion. Eventually Asia is going to
dominate the politics of the world. Up to now the West has enjoyed a
technological lead. Common sense dictates that this cannot last for
ever.

Thus either space is demilitarized OR Asia will acquire hegenomy. The
US (300m) would be well advised to use its present technological lead
to demiltarize space and ensure that national space programs
(including ESA) is combined together. It might be an idea if ESA +
Russia were expanded to include the US and Chindia, making it a world
effort.

US security will certainly be diminished. As I explained it is dubious
whether long term hegenomy is possible. US security will (probably) be
facing the hegenomy of Chindia.

In more general terms we need to ensure that we have an orderly world
where problems are solved rationally. This, of course, includes space
but goes well beyond.

As I said Venus is 470C 90A. That is not the main problem though. With
atittudes like the one below Chindia is certain to make life extremely
unpleasant. Hope it isn't 470C here!


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
:fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
:Chindia (China + India) 2 billion. Eventually Asia is going to
:dominate the politics of the world. Up to now the West has enjoyed a
:technological lead. Common sense dictates that this cannot last for
:ever.
:

Why not? They've always outnumbered us, after all.

:
:Thus either space is demilitarized OR Asia will acquire hegenomy. The
:US (300m) would be well advised to use its present technological lead
:to demiltarize space and ensure that national space programs
including ESA) is combined together. It might be an idea if ESA +
:Russia were expanded to include the US and Chindia, making it a world
:effort.
:
:US security will certainly be diminished.
:

It certainly will if we follow your advice, since it guarantees that
we lose any technological lead we may have.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On 15 Mar, 16:13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:
:I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
:fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
:Chindia (China + India) 2 billion. Eventually Asia is going to
:dominate the politics of the world. Up to now the West has enjoyed a
:technological lead. Common sense dictates that this cannot last for
:ever.
:

Why not? *They've always outnumbered us, after all.

:
:Thus either space is demilitarized OR Asia will acquire hegenomy. The
:US (300m) would be well advised to use its present technological lead
:to demiltarize space and ensure that national space programs
including ESA) is combined together. It might be an idea if ESA +
:Russia were expanded to include the US and Chindia, making it a world
:effort.
:
:US security will certainly be diminished.
:

It certainly will if we follow your advice, since it guarantees that
we lose any technological lead we may have.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

The US has always achieved greater technological efficiency. This will
not always be the case. It should be remembered thast we have the
Internet and knowledge gets round the world very fast. The basic fact
is that the factors allowing for technological innovation are well
known.

Chindia is achieving just under 10% in raw growth as against something
like 2% for developed economies. As you become a developed economy,
Japan is developed at this moment of time and Chindia is not,
innovaton has to be real innovation and growth rates tend to fall.
Unless you are a racist you must I think believe that the Word will
eventually become flat, or at any rate a lot flatter than it is now.


- Ian Parker

On Mar 14, 4:31*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Has anybody read this book: Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space
Dominance ?

What did you think? I saw the author on TV doing a talk about his book
and a Q&A session afterward and was impressed by him.

Based on the title of his book, and the fact that you're impressed by
him, he's probably an idiot, too.

No unlike you he makes sense. Why don't you actually read the book
before passing judgement? That's right you don't read you simply
post...

On Mar 15, 10:16*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 14 Mar, 18:35, Eric Chomko wrote:

Has anybody read this book: Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space
Dominance ?

What did you think? I saw the author on TV doing a talk about his book
and a Q&A session afterward and was impressed by him.

http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-War-F.../dp/1598130188

I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
Chindia (China + India) 2 billion. Eventually Asia is going to
dominate the politics of the world. Up to now the West has enjoyed a
technological lead. Common sense dictates that this cannot last for
ever.

No not forever but there is nothing to indicate that it won't continue
for awhile.


Thus either space is demilitarized OR Asia will acquire hegenomy. The
US (300m) would be well advised to use its present technological lead
to demiltarize space and ensure that national space programs
(including ESA) is combined together. It might be an idea if ESA +
Russia were expanded to include the US and Chindia, making it a world
effort.

I doubt that a world effort would work mostly because the Chinese
still lead the world in paranoia.

US security will certainly be diminished. As I explained it is dubious
whether long term hegenomy is possible. US security will (probably) be
facing the hegenomy of Chindia.

Not when both have a shrinking middle class. Both countries need to
lift up their respective quality-of-life for their citizens. A friend
of mine just came back from India. He stated that the haves and the
have nots are more prominent there than ever before. India has lots of
work to do. And with a 1.3 billion people the Chinese have much to do
with reversing their pollution (another problem in India) and taking
measures to prevent their resources from being depleted.

In more general terms we need to ensure that we have an orderly world
where problems are solved rationally. This, of course, includes space
but goes well beyond.

One World Socialism is a myth. Man is too greedy. We are not ants.


As I said Venus is 470C 90A. That is not the main problem though. With
atittudes like the one below Chindia is certain to make life extremely
unpleasant. Hope it isn't 470C here!

* - Ian Parker

On Mar 15, 9:24*am, Ian Parker wrote:

:I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
:fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
:Chindia (China + India) 2 billion.

Chindia is achieving just under 10% in raw growth as against something
like 2% for developed economies.

Ian, bear in mind that China and India are two separate countries,
with tense relations that often descend into outright rivalry.
(Including at least one border war.) AFAIK, there haven't even been
any proposals for a close economic union such as the EU has, much less
their fusion into a single political entity.

I'm not championing or contesting your claims that, at some indefinite
time, some Asian country may establish a hegemony of some kind over
the United States. But if that's going to be the case at any time in
the _forseeable_ future, it will be a hegemony of either one country
or the other, not some chimerical conglomeration.

On 17 Mar, 18:31, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:24*am, Ian Parker wrote:

:I have only read the review on your link. To me there is one overiding
:fact and that is that the population of the US is 300m, that of
:Chindia (China + India) 2 billion.
Chindia is achieving just under 10% in raw growth as against something
like 2% for developed economies.

Ian, bear in mind that China and India are two separate countries,
with tense relations that often descend into outright rivalry.
(Including at least one border war.) * AFAIK, there haven't even been
any proposals for a close economic union such as the EU has, much less
their fusion into a single political entity.

I'm not championing or contesting your claims that, at some indefinite
time, some Asian country may establish a hegemony of some kind over
the United States. *But if that's going to be the case at any time in
the _forseeable_ future, it will be a hegemony of either one country
or the other, not some chimerical conglomeration.

Good point. In fact what you are saying reenforcs the point. Lets us
look at the problem in a games theory context. Suppose we have 3
countries A, B, C To achieve hegenomy A B + C, since B allied with C
will defeat A. In fact to be secure a country needs |B - C| If A |B
- C| a country can always defeat the stronger by allying itself with
the weaker. Hence China will not have hegenomy if the US in alliance
with India can defeat it. As we can see a tripolar world will tend to
ratchet its armaments downwards as there willl be a big gap between
security and hegenomy.

Of course this is very oversimplified. Great general can sometimes win
victories against the odds.Modern generals though tend to be cautious.
There is also the question of cost. A war fought in space is likely to
produce a lot of space debis which will damage all the contestants.


- Ian Parker

On 18 Mar, 21:42, Pat Flannery wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
Good point. In fact what you are saying reenforcs the point. Lets us
look at the problem in a games theory context. Suppose we have 3
countries A, B, C To achieve hegenomy A B + C, since B allied with C
will defeat A. In fact to be secure a country needs |B - C| If A |B
- C| a country can always defeat the stronger by allying itself with
the weaker. Hence China will not have hegenomy if the US in alliance
with India can defeat it. As we can see a tripolar world will tend to
ratchet its armaments downwards as there willl be a big gap between
security and hegenomy.

Unfortunately this only works if the countries fight a conventional
conflict.
All three countries are nuclear armed, and Russia is still in the
equation, with considerable military might of its own.
In a situation where actual conflict can lead to destruction of any of
the opposing powers, economic force replaces military force as the means
of fighting that conflict.
Things in India are fairly predictable as far as future economic
development goes (more of the same) but China is a wild card depending
on how its government interacts with its economy.
Right now it's undergoing a boom similar to the Robber Baron period in
American industry, but the government could pull the leash in if it
wants to, and sees its own power slipping away, to a unacceptable degree.
The scary thing for the US is the potential impact of a export embargo
by China of its low cost products to the US, which is one of the only
things that is keeping the cost of living down.
That gives China a huge amount of political clout in the world, and the
US little choice but to let China do pretty much what it wants in
regards to its foreign policy.
The Chinese ASAT test worked brilliantly in reminding the West that
China could wreak havoc in space if it wanted to at fairly low cost, and
that any ASAT combat would hurt the US far more than China, as we have
far more space-based assets than they do.
It also means that the US allies (few that they are these days) will put
pressure on the US to not start a ASAT race, as then their space assets
would also be endangered by the orbiting debris.

Indeed yes, a war between nuclear armed adveraries will inevitably be
Pyrric. However what you say only adds force to the basic arguments.
No there can be no question of hegenomy, or even war of any sort
against major adversaries. The sensible thing to do is get a treaty of
some sort.

Major powers have an interest in [preserving the space environment.
For this reason there has to be agreement on what is permissible in
space and what is not.

On the general question of asymmetry, what worries me is this. Let us
tot up the budgets for homeland security, military budgets, not to
mention the hidden costs of security restictions. You get a figure
running into trillions. Now how much do you think Al Qaeda is
spendiing? The figures just don't bear comparison. In the same way the
cost of dealing with space debirs, just one thing, is very much
greater than the cost of creating it.

As I say all you have done is tell me I was understating my case.


- Ian Parker