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

HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'


USA TODAY // June 14, 2005 // The Forum
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede14.art.htm

HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'

Mere military exploration of space hardware doesn't mean
the next Star Wars is at hand. In fact, misinformation
in such matters is quite dangerous in this world.

By James Oberg

Is the sanctity of the heavens about to be violated by the United States
making a unilateral introduction of aggressive weapons that could spark a
destabilizing arms race? Is the White House about to unleash an
unprecedented expansion of regions to fight over in the future?
You'd be forgiven for thinking so, based on news reports in recent weeks and
on complaints from foreign countries such as Russia and China. According to
major U.S. newspapers, a wide range of high-tech armaments may soon be
approved and funded, with deployment in space only a matter of time. At that
point, reluctant foreign nations will feel compelled to "respond in kind,"
unleashing an expensive and dangerous new arms race.

But a sober reality check can put the issue into better perspective. If
anything is likely to spark a "new arms race," this time in outer space,
it's unlikely to be the usual suspects. Gung-ho space-superiority mantras
have been coming from U.S. Air Force leaders for decades, but without
funding, it has mostly been just bold talk. Space hardware with weapons-like
applications has also been around, on Earth and in space, for decades - but
using it to break things in orbit never made much military sense, then or
now or in the foreseeable future.

Nothing here has changed. No, the impetus for a future foreign "reaction"
doesn't need a genuine U.S. "action" - it only needs the near-hysterical
ranting from American newspapers, from lobby groups posing as "information
centers" but having long-familiar agendas, and from foreign nations eager to
score cheap propaganda points. By whipping up anxieties with little rational
justification, these self-serving fear mongers may actually lead to the
creation of something well worth fearing: the arming of a new battleground,
out in space.

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'


: USA TODAY // June 14, 2005 // The Forum
: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede14.art.htm

: HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'

: Mere military exploration of space hardware doesn't mean
: the next Star Wars is at hand. In fact, misinformation
: in such matters is quite dangerous in this world.

: By James Oberg

: Is the sanctity of the heavens about to be violated by the United States
: making a unilateral introduction of aggressive weapons that could spark a
: destabilizing arms race? Is the White House about to unleash an
: unprecedented expansion of regions to fight over in the future?
: You'd be forgiven for thinking so, based on news reports in recent weeks and
: on complaints from foreign countries such as Russia and China. According to
: major U.S. newspapers, a wide range of high-tech armaments may soon be
: approved and funded, with deployment in space only a matter of time. At that
: point, reluctant foreign nations will feel compelled to "respond in kind,"
: unleashing an expensive and dangerous new arms race.

: But a sober reality check can put the issue into better perspective. If
: anything is likely to spark a "new arms race," this time in outer space,
: it's unlikely to be the usual suspects. Gung-ho space-superiority mantras
: have been coming from U.S. Air Force leaders for decades, but without
: funding, it has mostly been just bold talk. Space hardware with weapons-like
: applications has also been around, on Earth and in space, for decades - but
: using it to break things in orbit never made much military sense, then or
: now or in the foreseeable future.

What about "from orbit"?

: Nothing here has changed. No, the impetus for a future foreign "reaction"
: doesn't need a genuine U.S. "action" - it only needs the near-hysterical
: ranting from American newspapers, from lobby groups posing as "information
: centers" but having long-familiar agendas, and from foreign nations eager to
: score cheap propaganda points. By whipping up anxieties with little rational
: justification, these self-serving fear mongers may actually lead to the
: creation of something well worth fearing: the arming of a new battleground,
: out in space.

But if we had actual SDI would we then feel invulnerable to the point of going pre-emptive?
I think only if we had SDI.

Eric

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'


USA TODAY // June 14, 2005 // The Forum
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede14.art.htm

HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'

Mere military exploration of space hardware doesn't mean
the next Star Wars is at hand. In fact, misinformation
in such matters is quite dangerous in this world.



If I were 'them' I would be worried. All our opponents
have to do is look at our actions and words to clearly see our
intentions to militarize space. And soon. It's not even a close
question.

I'm shocked you would take such a narrow view.

For example.

What should our adversaries think when stated Air Force doctrine
is the "Control and Exploitation of the Aerospace Continuum"?
To quote an Air Force executive summary on the subject.

What should they think when we build things with names such as the
Space Warfare Center and the Weapons School Space Division?
We built them ten years ago!

When the Air Force launches something called the 30th Space Wing, perhaps
our adversaries think it's a typo. When we bring back the old 'flying tigers'
14th Air Force, base them at Vandenberg with the mission to be
"responsible for the organization, training, equipping, command
and control, and employment of AF space forces", what should they think?
And what should they think when the motto of the 381st Training Group is....

Space Power.......Starts Here!

Not to mention the Aerospace Integration Center at Nellis.
And according to the Air Force, by next year they will
be spending over half of their science and technology budget
on space systems.

We're not only in space already, but moving full steam ahead.
Apparently you limit your idea of militarizing space to
science fiction visions of laser cannons and
photon blasters!

Sheez~

I think it's time for a rant on the current state of science journalism.





Jonathan

s








By James Oberg

Is the sanctity of the heavens about to be violated by the United States
making a unilateral introduction of aggressive weapons that could spark a
destabilizing arms race? Is the White House about to unleash an
unprecedented expansion of regions to fight over in the future?
You'd be forgiven for thinking so, based on news reports in recent weeks and
on complaints from foreign countries such as Russia and China. According to
major U.S. newspapers, a wide range of high-tech armaments may soon be
approved and funded, with deployment in space only a matter of time. At that
point, reluctant foreign nations will feel compelled to "respond in kind,"
unleashing an expensive and dangerous new arms race.

But a sober reality check can put the issue into better perspective. If
anything is likely to spark a "new arms race," this time in outer space,
it's unlikely to be the usual suspects. Gung-ho space-superiority mantras
have been coming from U.S. Air Force leaders for decades, but without
funding, it has mostly been just bold talk. Space hardware with weapons-like
applications has also been around, on Earth and in space, for decades - but
using it to break things in orbit never made much military sense, then or
now or in the foreseeable future.

Nothing here has changed. No, the impetus for a future foreign "reaction"
doesn't need a genuine U.S. "action" - it only needs the near-hysterical
ranting from American newspapers, from lobby groups posing as "information
centers" but having long-familiar agendas, and from foreign nations eager to
score cheap propaganda points. By whipping up anxieties with little rational
justification, these self-serving fear mongers may actually lead to the
creation of something well worth fearing: the arming of a new battleground,
out in space.

"Eric Chomko" wrote i
Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: HYPERVENTILATING OVER 'SPACE WEAPONS'

: Space hardware with weapons-like
: applications has also been around, on Earth and in space, for decades -
but
: using it to break things in orbit never made much military sense, then
or
: now or in the foreseeable future.

What about "from orbit"?

Didn't you read the rest of the essay? 'From orbit' makes even LESS sense
than 'in orbit'. You do get the point I was making, don't you?


: Nothing here has changed. No, the impetus for a future foreign
"reaction"
: doesn't need a genuine U.S. "action" - it only needs the near-hysterical
: ranting from American newspapers, from lobby groups posing as
"information
: centers" but having long-familiar agendas, and from foreign nations
eager to
: score cheap propaganda points. By whipping up anxieties with little
rational
: justification, these self-serving fear mongers may actually lead to the
: creation of something well worth fearing: the arming of a new
battleground,
: out in space.

But if we had actual SDI would we then feel invulnerable to the point of
going pre-emptive?
I think only if we had SDI.

I take it then that you are dismayed by the regional ABM system currently
operational around Moscow, right?

The idea that only the threat of mass counter-murder dissuades American
leaders from a nuclear sneak attack is, frankly, pretty looney, IMHO.

"jonathon" wrote
that he's scared by all the rough talk and boastful slogans
and provocative names...

So tell me, what sort of space-to-space weapons
are being funded for deployment? For what
possible missions? Under what circumstances
would it ever make any sense to use them?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:16:17 -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...

Brian

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

"jonathon" wrote
that he's scared by all the rough talk and boastful slogans
and provocative names...


Eh hum, the very first line I wrote was "if I were them".
The entire point of your article was that the media is
frightening countries like Russia and China. I say
the words and actions of the US military justify
their concern when looking at this issue from their
perspective.




So tell me, what sort of space-to-space weapons
are being funded for deployment?


Now you limit the discussion, quite arbitrarily, to space to
space weapons. You didn't in the article. The issue of the
military use of space is not limited only to things that
photograph well in front of a blue screen.



For what
possible missions?


Incoming missiles from rogue states, terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, just to name a few. It doesn't take much of a leap
for these countries to look at something like the airborne laser and
conclude we're already half way there. There's no longer some
magical line between space and conventional weapons.
As I tried to point out with the quote about the
'aerospace continuum', space is becoming just another
part of the Big Red, White and Blue Machine.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...abl/flash.html

You fail to see the trends in warfare. We are not moving into space
to blast away from afar. We're using the high ground so that we can
instead get in very close and personal. Dominating in space means
dominance in conventional, even house to house, warfare.

The world must have been astonished to see us walk into
Afghanistan and Baghdad. I was. And now they see us
taking our military to the next level. The world has
rarely seen this kind of one superpower dominance.
And a crusading superpower at that.


Under what circumstances
would it ever make any sense to use them?


Perhaps these countries are thinking that such dramatic
systems will naturally follow after the needed infrastructure
is in place. They'd be correct.

Everyone knows that America doesn't throw empty words
at problems as is the European custom. And everyone
knows they cannot compete with us.

Contrary to the point of your article, our adversaries
would be foolish not to be concerned.



Jonathan

s

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:16:17 -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.


"The future Air Force role to counter these threats will follow
the guidelines established by the current National Security
Strategy."
http://www.af.mil/library/posture/taf.pdf

"We [The United States] are committed
to maintaining our leadership in space.
Unimpeded access to and use of space is
essential for protecting U.S. national security..
Our policy is to promote the development
of the full range of space-based capabilities in
a manner that protects our vital security interests."


Jonathan


s





Brian

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:16:17 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathon" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Mere military exploration of space hardware doesn't mean
the next Star Wars is at hand. In fact, misinformation
in such matters is quite dangerous in this world.



If I were 'them' I would be worried. All our opponents
have to do is look at our actions and words to clearly see our
intentions to militarize space. And soon. It's not even a close
question.

I'm shocked you would take such a narrow view.

For example.

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

You mean the way the Navy doctrine is (and has been for, like almost
forever) "control and exploitation of the oceans"?

jonathon wrote:
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
. ..
"jonathon" wrote
that he's scared by all the rough talk and boastful slogans
and provocative names...


Eh hum, the very first line I wrote was "if I were them".
The entire point of your article was that the media is
frightening countries like Russia and China. I say
the words and actions of the US military justify
their concern when looking at this issue from their
perspective.

So tell me, what sort of space-to-space weapons
are being funded for deployment?

Now you limit the discussion, quite arbitrarily, to space to
space weapons. You didn't in the article. The issue of the
military use of space is not limited only to things that
photograph well in front of a blue screen.

So let's un-limit it. What sort of space-to-ground or space-to-air
weapons, or even space-to-icbm weapons, are being funded for
deployment (or R&D, or even concept study)?

For what
possible missions?

Incoming missiles from rogue states, terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, just to name a few. It doesn't take much of a leap
for these countries to look at something like the airborne laser and
conclude we're already half way there. There's no longer some
magical line between space and conventional weapons.

However, there is a magical line between a fantasy
weapon and a potentially real one, and another one
between a potentially real concept weapon and one which
the military actually would like to build, and another
one between one which the military would like to
build and one which they're starting to at least do
R&D on, much less build.

All the stuff you seem to be afraid of is either so vague
as to be in the fantasy weapon category or is in
the potentially real concept weapon (with no funding)
category, as far as I am aware, and I follow this stuff
pretty closely in the trade press and DOD contracting.

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?


-george william herbert