New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."

So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

Well - countries can and do protest the presence of the U.S. Navy near or
in their waters - "In March 1996, the United States sent a task fleet
composing of two aircraft carriers towards areas close to the Taiwan
Straits...The Chinese Government made solemn representations and
struggled resolutely against the United States for its above wrong
doings."
(http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg...441/t17320.htm)


Yes, note our show of force was to try to keep the seas OPEN.


Few people protest the U.S. Navy if the ships are sailing out in deep
ocean, but if a U.S. carrier task group sailed uninvited into the
Murmansk seaport or the Bohai Sea, I'm sure that there would be a great
deal of diplomatic screaming - and hopefully not worse.

Generally because that's considered terrotorial waters, not open ocean.


So yes, people do protest the US Navy - depending on where it's sailing.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is
different.

Placing weapons in deep space is one thing, but placing them in near
earth orbit should be another matter.

Yes, one is pointless, one is practical.

Putting conventional weapons in
orbit might be considered analogous to, say, having the Russian fleet
sailing its ships a half mile off the east coast and into the mouth of
the Potomac.

You do realize how close their subs got during the Cold War? You realize we
basically did the equivalent of sailing up the Potomac, dropped a "bug" on a
major communication link and serviced it year or so for a couple of decades?


That's too damn close for anyone's comfort, even neglecting
the issue of territorial waters. The fear of enemy weapons close at hand
(in Turkey and Cuba) yielding insufficient response time was probably
what nearly precipitated WWIII during the Cuban Missile crises. For these
reasons I think it exceedingly unwise to deploy even conventional weapons
in orbit, since the very characteristic that makes them appealing to the
military is the same characteristic the makes them outrageous
provocations to everyone they orbit over.

And for the most part makes them less practical. You've got generally 45
minutes before you're even on the right side of the world for your weapons
platform, let alone in the right eliptic.


I don't consider warships a few hundred miles off a coast to be in the
equivalent strike position of war-satellites orbiting a few hundred miles
up, and I don't expect anyone else will either, if or when such things
are deployed.

A ship a few hundred miles off the cost has a strike time of approximately
15-30 minutes on say Washington DC.

A satellite in orbit may have a strike time of 0-45 minutes or even more.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
A satellite in orbit may have a strike time of 0-45 minutes or even
more.

More like 0 - ~90 minutes for a single satellite, depending on the nature
of the weapon system. It may have just passed over the intended target when
the decision to engage is made, requiring another full orbit. And if the
target isn't near the equator, it may take a full day for a single high-
latitude (or polar) orbit satellite to come into range of a target.

One way to solve the problem is to employ a large number of satellites in
orbit so that one is always coming into range at required intervals. And
since ammo resupply (whatever form it takes) is likely to be difficult,
lots of war-satellites would need to be employed as ammo dumps if fast
repeated firing is a requirement.

And unless the target remains fixed between the time the decision to engage
is made and the weapons can strike it, some way must be found to negate any
obscuring weather or smokescreens that would impair final aim - nevermind
any other active countermeasures.

Overcoming all these issues (and more) for something that would only
deliver modest firepower yields a familiar military result: expensive
boondoggle.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
A satellite in orbit may have a strike time of 0-45 minutes or even
more.

More like 0 - ~90 minutes for a single satellite, depending on the nature
of the weapon system. It may have just passed over the intended target
when
the decision to engage is made, requiring another full orbit. And if the
target isn't near the equator, it may take a full day for a single high-
latitude (or polar) orbit satellite to come into range of a target.

Right, hence my "even more" comment. As I mentioned elsewhere, if you're
not in the right ecliptic plane it could be even worse.



One way to solve the problem is to employ a large number of satellites in
orbit so that one is always coming into range at required intervals. And
since ammo resupply (whatever form it takes) is likely to be difficult,
lots of war-satellites would need to be employed as ammo dumps if fast
repeated firing is a requirement.

So your cost starts to go WAY up.


And unless the target remains fixed between the time the decision to
engage
is made and the weapons can strike it, some way must be found to negate
any
obscuring weather or smokescreens that would impair final aim - nevermind
any other active countermeasures.

Overcoming all these issues (and more) for something that would only
deliver modest firepower yields a familiar military result: expensive
boondoggle.

Agreed.

Scott Lowther wrote:
steve wrote:


will start an arms race in space?


We can only hope.


"The United States is a signatory to nine multilateral treaties that
it has either bla=ACtantly violated or gradually subverted. The Bush
Administration is now rejecting out=AC fight a number of those treaties,
and in doing so places global security in jeopardy as other nations
feel entitled to do the same. The rejected treaties include: The
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel
Mines, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a
protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC), the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the Anti
Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). The U.S. is also not complying with the
Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical
Weapons Commission (CWC), the BWC, and the U.N. framework Con=ACvention
on Climate Change.

The ABM Treaty alone is a crucial factor in national security; its
demise will destroy the balance of power carefully crafted in its
original blueprint. The Bush Ad=ACministration has no legitimate excuse
for nullifying the ABM Treaty because the
events that have threatened the security of the United States have not
involved ballistic missiles, and none of them are in any way related to
the subject matter of the ABM Treaty. Bush's withdrawal violates the
U=2ES. Constitution, international law, and Article XV of the ABM Treaty
itself. The Bush Administration says it needs to get rid of the ABM
Treaty so it can test the SPY radar on the Aegis cruisers against Inter
Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) and so that it can build a new
test facility at Fort Greely, Alaska. In addition, some conservatives
have willingly dismissed the ABM Treaty because it stands as the major
obstacle towards development of a "Star Wars" missile defense
system.

The NPT is crucial to global security because it bars the spread of
nuclear weapons. The U.S. is currently in noncompliance with the NPT
requirements, as demonstrated in the January 2002 U.S. Nuclear Posture
Review. Moreover, critics charge that the National Ignition Facility
(NIF) under construction at Livermore lab violates the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the U.S. signed in 1996, but has not
ratified. The CTBT bans nuclear explosions, and its language does not
contain any "exceptions allowing laboratory thermonuclear
explosions."

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history, with a total
of 174 mil=AClion people killed in genocide and war. As the world
becomes increasingly global=ACized, it increasingly needs an
international legal framework through which the people of the world can
be protected from heinous criminal acts, such as genocide, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity. It is an understanding of this reality
that may explain the votes of the 139 countries that signed the Rome
Treaty and the 67 rati=ACfications that have resulted in the
establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Former U.S. president, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Treaty supporting
the ICC when he held office. However, in an unprecedented action,
George W. Bush actu=ACally erased Clinton's signature (a United States
president has never before "unsigned" a treaty). And his administration
has declared it has no intention whatsoever of co=ACoperating with the
ICC.

Furthermore, in what is being called the Hague Invasion Act, the GOP
controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to authorize the use of
military force to "res=ACcue" any American brought before the ICC. Erica
Terpstra, a parliamentary repre=ACsentative in the Netherlands, where
The Hague and ICC are located, states that this "is not only a gesture
against the Netherlands ...but against the entire international
community."

While proponents of ICC consider it the most important development in
interna=ACtional law since the Nazi war crimes Nuremberg Tribunal after
World War II, the Bush Administration insists it would limit U.S.
sovereignty and interfere with actions of the U.S. military.

This unprecedented rejection of and rapid retreat from global treaties
that have in effect kept the peace through the decades will not only
continue to isolate U.S. policy, but will also render these treaties
and conventions invalid without the sup=ACport and participation of the
world's foremost superpower.

From "Project Censored":


Sources:
Connections, June 2002
Title: "Rule of Power or Rule of Law?"
Authors: Marylia Kelly and Nicole Deller
The Nation, April 2002
Title: "Unsigning the ICC"
Author: John B. Anderson
Asheville Global Report (AGR), June 20 26, 2002
Title: "U.S. Invasion Proposal Shocks the Netherlands"
Compiled by: Eamon Martin
Global Outlook, Summer 2002
Title: "Nuclear Nightmare"
Author: John Valleau
Faculty Evaluators: Lynn Cominsky, Rick Luttmann,
!Nary Gomes, Robert MacNamara, and Diana Grant
Student Researchers: Pat Spiva and Tara Spreng
Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), "The ABM Treaty: Dead or
Alive?" Space
and Security News, February 2002.

Jan wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


steve wrote:



will start an arms race in space?



We can only hope.




"The United States is a signatory to nine multilateral treaties...

Blah, blah, blah. Call the UN. Have them send their Blue-Helmet Child
Rape Brigade.

The rejected treaties include: The
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),

Good. Now we can build Orion.


the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel
Mines,

Mines have kept the peace in Korea for 50 years.

the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Which woudl be used to arrest Americans whenever a dictator got ****y.

the Kyoto Protocol on global warming,

Biggest scam in a decade.

and the Anti
Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).

An anachronism.


The ABM Treaty alone is a crucial factor in national security; its
demise will destroy the balance of power carefully crafted in its
original blueprint.

Uh.... WRONG. That balance of power was destroyed when the Soviets went
away.


The Bush Ad¬ministration has no legitimate excuse
for nullifying the ABM Treaty because the
events that have threatened the security of the United States have not
involved ballistic missiles,

And on December 6, 1941, the United States had not been bothered by
aircraft carriers.


Bush's withdrawal violates the
U.S. Constitution, international law, and Article XV of the ABM Treaty
itself.


Wrong, wrong and wrong. The ABM treaty had a built-in exit clause. It
was never meant to last forever.


The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history, with a total
of 174 mil¬lion people killed in genocide and war.

Thank you Communism. Bigger kilelr by far than even Fascism.

As the world
becomes increasingly global¬ized, it increasingly needs an
international legal framework through which the people of the world can
be protected from heinous criminal acts, such as genocide, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity.

And yet, when the US acted to actually do something about heinous
criminal acts, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity, the UN and the LEft's useful idiots in the US and abroad went
promptly ape****.


It is an understanding of this reality
that may explain the votes of the 139 countries that signed the Rome
Treaty and the 67 rati¬fications that have resulted in the
establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).


It's an opportunity to join a gang, nothing more.


Three cheers for space weapons! The sooner we can start settign off
nuclear test explosions on the moon, the better.

[sci.astro trimmed from newsgroups list]

On 18 May 2005 01:07:31 -0700, "MrPepper11" posted:

An 18 May 2005 _New York Times_ story slugged "Air Force Seeks Bush's
Approval for Space Arms".

[snipped]

The quotations from General Lord are unfortunate; they tend to portray
him as the real-world version of Buck Turgidson, and invite the sort of _Star
Wars_ parody many s.s.p veterans can readily produce.

That aspect aside, the promised directive may well embody a sensible
policy. But we will have to wait until it's actually released to judge that,
won't we?

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: [sci.astro removed from newsgroups]

: In article . com,
: MrPepper11 wrote:
: They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
: space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
: Information ... "Space is a global commons under
: international treaty and international law."

: So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

I dunno, I think the destruction of the USS Cole was a form of protest.

: Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.

So LEO is akin to being on the surface and deep space is like going down
into a trench? I hate like hell to see the tsunami equivalent from space.

Eric

: --
: "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
: -- George Herbert |