Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs

Alright, Pat and Jorge - let's play nice this time. :-p

From The NY Times (free soul-sucking registration required, or use
BugMeNot.com intead)
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/18/busine...ex=1116475200&
en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

""We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space,"
Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the
Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. "Nonetheless, we
are thinking about those possibilities.""

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.individual-i.com/

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/18/busine...ex=1116475200&
en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The USA may like to ignore the UN and international law, but can they
ignore the law of orbital mechanics ?

How many "star wars" satellites would then need in orbit in order the be
able to hit anywhere on earth that matters within reasonable time ?
Would something similar to GSP constellation of about 24 satellites do
the trick ? Or would they need SVs that are much closer to earth and
thus need more satellites to cover the earth ?

What happens to a nuclear missile when it goes through re-entry phase
from Orbit?


considering orbital mechanics, how realistic would it be to have
satellite based "defensive" weapons that could attack a North Korea
launched missile before it reaches Japan ? What are the odds that a
satellite would be in the right place at the right time ?

Seems to me that this is more a case of the current regime in Washington
wishing to assert its power in space as opposed to doing something that
would really work. Have they already admitted their missile defense
shield isn't going to work and now want to do something even bigger
that also won't work ?

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:13:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/18/busine...ex=1116475200&
en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The USA may like to ignore the UN and international law,

There is nothing in international law that prevents anything described
in the article.

And in the wake of Oil for Food and ongoing rape of children by
peacekeepers, the UN has shown itself to have no moral force
whatsoever. If you want to take the morally correct position, one
opposite that of the UN would be the best bet, absent any other
analysis--it *should* be ignored.

John Doe wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


http://nytimes.com/2005/05/18/busine...ex=1116475200&
en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage



The USA may like to ignore the UN and international law, but can they
ignore the law of orbital mechanics ?

How many "star wars" satellites would then need in orbit in order the be
able to hit anywhere on earth that matters within reasonable time ?


Thousands. Tens of thousands, with any luck. The more the better.


considering orbital mechanics, how realistic would it be to have
satellite based "defensive" weapons that could attack a North Korea
launched missile before it reaches Japan ?

That's a question for Japan.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


""We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space,"
Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the
Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. "Nonetheless, we
are thinking about those possibilities.""


Other than the fact that Pete Teets sounds like a name of someone in Dr.
Strangelove, this is certainly nothing new- just the Reagan era
weaponization of space zombied back to life.

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Alright, Pat and Jorge - let's play nice this time. :-p

From The NY Times (free soul-sucking registration required, or use
BugMeNot.com intead)
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/18/busine...ex=1116475200&
en=d2e1785def9a54d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

""We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space,"
Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the
Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. "Nonetheless, we
are thinking about those possibilities.""


Here's some more on the plan:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-05w.html
I really like those two quotes:

""Let me make that clear right off the top, because you asked about the
weaponization of space, and the policy that we're talking about is not
looking at weaponizing space," White House spokesman Scott McClellan
told reporters."

and

"The national security directive under consideration, the Times added,
reflects three years of work prompted by a 2001 report from a commission
headed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommending that the
military "ensure that the president will have the option to deploy
weapons in space.""

Okay, now we know they have a consistent policy. :-D

Pat

On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

How many "star wars" satellites would then need in orbit in order the be
able to hit anywhere on earth that matters within reasonable time ?
Thousands. Tens of thousands, with any luck. The more the better.

Dependent, of course, on the type of weapon, its' range and
reaction time, and probably a few other variables.

Scott Lowther wrote:


How many "star wars" satellites would then need in orbit in order the be
able to hit anywhere on earth that matters within reasonable time ?


Thousands. Tens of thousands, with any luck. The more the better.


A hundred armed with high powered lasers would make more sense than a
thousand brilliant pebbles; the response time would be almost
instantaneous, and one satellite could fire at multiple targets. Mind
you these widgets wouldn't be small or light by any means.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

Space was weaponized in the mid-1940s, Pat.


Not orbital space; that only got done when the Soviets started sending
up ASATs.

I don't know why you
think that it should be a sanctuary for missiles that happen to be
passing through. Particularly if it's missiles from North Korea...



Oh, we don't have to worry about those- we have our ABMs up in Alaska to
deal with them; and with those ABM's sterling performance record we can
all sleep a little easier.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:43:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I don't know why you
think that it should be a sanctuary for missiles that happen to be
passing through. Particularly if it's missiles from North Korea...



Oh, we don't have to worry about those- we have our ABMs up in
Alaska to
deal with them; and with those ABM's sterling performance record we
can
all sleep a little easier.

Sarcasm noted. I'd sleep easier if we continued to improve them.
Your mileage obviously varies. I note that you live outside of the
radius of their missiles...

Until they get longer range missiles. But a simple time warp back to
that 3 month period in 1975 will cover that neck of the woods. A
multi-megaton warhead Pk has got to be at least as good as that of them
new-fangled jobs in Alaska.