Oberg complaint to website over 'space weapons' misstatements

Re
(http://www.cfr.org/publication/12179...ly_ana lysis).



I came across your 'space weapons' story (Dec 5), and compared it to the
space history and news that I've been familiar with through my career -
there are a number of assertions and judgments that in my view are
anti-accuracy, or more bluntly, delusionally untrue. There's also a
disconnect between your advertising your site as "non-partisan" and its
consistent policy of accepting without question assertions from left-wing
lobby groups, as indicated by some factual flaws to be cited. I'd seriously
suggest you try harder to remember from your news days your standards of
balanced (and skeptical) journalism.



You write: ".the Bush administration released an unclassified version of its
new U.S. National Space Policy, which goes far beyond previous policies in
asserting America's right to respond forcefully to such threats."

-- This is an interpretation to use the word 'forcefully', but it's a
judgment call, or a manifestation of pre-existing political grudges.
Editorializing is not a problem.



You write: "Bill Martel, a space policy expert at the Fletcher School of
Diplomacy, tells CFR.org in this podcast that the new space policy "sounds
like a precursor to the weaponization of space."

.. "Supporters readily concede the point. "Space supremacy is now the
official policy of the U.S. government," writes Michael Goldfarb in the
Weekly Standard.

-- You can always find some right-wing rant to fit your spin, but it's not
justified to generalize, especially when counterexamples - even on
msnbc.com - are so easily found. Dolman inter alia (myself included) most
assuredly do NOT "concede the point". The weaponization charge comes from a
chorus of ideological fear-mongers who have played the same tune for
decades.



You write: "Beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1983 proposal for space-based
missile defense, ."

-- As I read it, his proposal makes no mention of 'space based'
architectures. Did you read something into it that wasn't there? Is there
some reference in his own words - not those of his critics - that you can
cite for me?



You write: "Beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1983 proposal for space-based
missile defense, the military's share of U.S. space spending has quadrupled.
"

-- Here's where you jump off the deep end into made-up nonsense. All
published charts of military-civilian space spending show military spending
below civilian spending in the 1970's until the Carter administration, when
the line begins a sharp upturn - an upturn that continues on the course set
in 1979-1980 into the Reagan administration, then flattens out. There is no
data that I can find, or that my friends (when asked) could find, that show
the military share 'quadrupling' beginning after 1983 - it's a phony
factoid.

See for example "U.S. Space Spending - Civilian, Military and Commercial",
Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress - 4/2003; Page 12 has a
chart 1959-2007, http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...e/programs.pdf



You write: "Space shuttle missions more frequently serve national security
interests today than they did in the 1980s (link:MSNBC), "

-- The statement is utterly false. The link provides no such supporting
evidence, in fact quite the contrary - DoD missions by the shuttle
diminished throughout the 1980s and 1990's and have dropped to almost zero.
The secure control room facilities in Houston built in the 1980s for DoD
operations (and I worked there) have been ripped out and remodeled for space
station use. You made this up, and cited 'documentation' that showed the
opposite of what you wrote. Shame on you.



You wrote: "Still, so far, 'No nation has deployed destructive weapons in
space,' notes the Union of Concerned Scientists,

-- The UCS can plead simple ignorance when asked about the rapid-fire
cannon installed on Salyut manned space stations - but if they were
incompetent to be aware of the reality of Soviet orbital weapons, what makes
them experts deserving of credibility? Ditto the orbital weapons systems
such as the USSR's "killer satellites", space-to-space combat systems
developed and tested and kept on stand-by in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980' - for which there was no deployed US equivalent. I give them a 'pass' on the gun the cosmonauts are allowed to have at the International Space Station (none for the NASA side) - just don't pretend it doesn't exist. This is the kind of embarrassment you justifiably suffer when you trust sources because of political preferences and not factual reliability.



You write: "[UCS]: 'This norm may be breached in the near future.' Fearing
precisely this trend, China and Russia jointly offered to open negotiations
to ban space weapons .."

-- Are you claiming telepathic powers here, to know the true motivations
for the Chinese and Russian initiatives, since there are plenty of other
plausible motivations for their diplomatic moves? They're maybe playing to a
chorus for diplomatic advantage, while, maybe, laying the public groundwork
for any space weapons they themselves may 'reluctantly' turn out to have
been 'forced' to deploy is response to these phantom US menaces. And if you
are helping lay that propaganda groundwork, that makes you part of the
problem, not part of the solution.



You write: "But some in the United States viewed the initiative as a threat
to the country's freedom of action (link: Space Review). "

-- This is really outrageous. The link is to my essay on space treaties,
which you completely misunderstood and have misrepresented. I don't fuss
about threats to US 'freedom of action' - I wrote about the push to sign a
treaty that uses words that have no commonly-agreed-on meaning and is not
subject to verification. I'm sorry you chose to dodge those points, but I
think I can understand why - they are difficult to answer, and so in the
world where such advocates control the agenda, they just aren't mentioned.



You write: "Michael Krepon and Michael Katz-Hyman of the Stimson Center
argue that foreclosing on negotiations without testing the possibility of
banning some kinds of activity in space is shortsighted."

-- There are worse forms of myopia, or even deliberate eye-closing. The
Outer Space treaty of 1967 tested such a possibility by banning placement of
nuclear weapons in earth orbit. It didn't stop the USSR from building and
deploying a weapons system for placing nuclear weapons in orbit. How well
did the treaty pass the test? You can judge this question by observing the
utter silence of the UCS, Krepon, Katz-Hyman and other treaty advocates on
this treaty failure.



A nit -- You write: "University of Miami space expert Nader Elhefnawy
notes ."

-- Elhefnawy, a good writer and competent researcher, is a graduate student
in the university's English department, writing a dissertation on 'science
fiction literature'. Your statement deceptively misrepresents his status and
credentials. Did you not really know the accurate status, or were you misled
and were only pretending to know?



I hope you can address these objections and, where you concede they are
valid, make changes to your published material.



Jim Oberg

www.jamesoberg.com





Further reading:



See my recent (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15656337/).



Then there's the NFIRE panic: See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4732874/



These accusations are nothing new. In 2005, when NASA ran its own

robot rendezvous test (that accidentally hit the target vehicle), a new
round of stories circulated about another 'secret US space weapon' -- see
my msnbc.com piece http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/ and a follow-up
where a Russian expert agreed the accusations were phony:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...


Re

(http://www.cfr.org/publication/12179...minance.html?b
readcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype %3Ddaily_analysis).



You write: "Bill Martel, a space policy expert at the Fletcher School of
Diplomacy, tells CFR.org in this podcast that the new space policy "sounds
like a precursor to the weaponization of space."

. "Supporters readily concede the point. "Space supremacy is now the
official policy of the U.S. government," writes Michael Goldfarb in the
Weekly Standard.

-- You can always find some right-wing rant to fit your spin, but it's not
justified to generalize, especially when counterexamples - even on
msnbc.com - are so easily found. Dolman inter alia (myself included) most
assuredly do NOT "concede the point". The weaponization charge comes from
a
chorus of ideological fear-mongers who have played the same tune for
decades.

But space superiority, offensive and defensive....is...the official policy.
This is not a quote from a left wing nut, but from the Commander of
Air Force Space Command.

.....our priorities for space superiority a

1.) space situation awareness;
2.) defensive counterspace; and, as a last resort,
3.) offensive counterspace,....
http://www.military-aerospace-techno...cfm?DocID=1207



How much clearer does it have to be???
When the military commanders directly in charge
readily admit we are attempting to militarily dominate
space in virtually every way.

Just because the weapons we're building now are defensive
doesn't change anything. Once we can shoot down missiles
in every phase, we can use them just as easily for offensive
purposes. What's the difference?

Just because Reagan called the MX the Peacemaker doesn't
make it so. It's called the Big Lie. Which I fear you've
fallen victim to. Don't misunderstand, I'm the biggest fan
of our military and I'm quite glad we're very aggressive
with the high ground.

Owning the high ground is our military custom since WW2.


Jonathan

s







You write: "Beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1983 proposal for space-based
missile defense, ."

-- As I read it, his proposal makes no mention of 'space based'
architectures. Did you read something into it that wasn't there? Is there
some reference in his own words - not those of his critics - that you can
cite for me?



You write: "Beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1983 proposal for space-based
missile defense, the military's share of U.S. space spending has
quadrupled.
"

-- Here's where you jump off the deep end into made-up nonsense. All
published charts of military-civilian space spending show military
spending
below civilian spending in the 1970's until the Carter administration,
when
the line begins a sharp upturn - an upturn that continues on the course
set
in 1979-1980 into the Reagan administration, then flattens out. There is
no
data that I can find, or that my friends (when asked) could find, that
show
the military share 'quadrupling' beginning after 1983 - it's a phony
factoid.

See for example "U.S. Space Spending - Civilian, Military and Commercial",
Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress - 4/2003; Page 12 has
a
chart 1959-2007,
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...e/programs.pdf



You write: "Space shuttle missions more frequently serve national security
interests today than they did in the 1980s (link:MSNBC), "

-- The statement is utterly false. The link provides no such supporting
evidence, in fact quite the contrary - DoD missions by the shuttle
diminished throughout the 1980s and 1990's and have dropped to almost
zero.
The secure control room facilities in Houston built in the 1980s for DoD
operations (and I worked there) have been ripped out and remodeled for
space
station use. You made this up, and cited 'documentation' that showed the
opposite of what you wrote. Shame on you.



You wrote: "Still, so far, 'No nation has deployed destructive weapons in
space,' notes the Union of Concerned Scientists,

-- The UCS can plead simple ignorance when asked about the rapid-fire
cannon installed on Salyut manned space stations - but if they were
incompetent to be aware of the reality of Soviet orbital weapons, what
makes
them experts deserving of credibility? Ditto the orbital weapons systems
such as the USSR's "killer satellites", space-to-space combat systems
developed and tested and kept on stand-by in the 1960's, 1970's, and
1980' - for which there was no deployed US equivalent. I give them a 'pass'
on the gun the cosmonauts are allowed to have at the International Space
Station (none for the NASA side) - just don't pretend it doesn't exist. This
is the kind of embarrassment you justifiably suffer when you trust sources
because of political preferences and not factual reliability.



You write: "[UCS]: 'This norm may be breached in the near future.' Fearing
precisely this trend, China and Russia jointly offered to open
negotiations
to ban space weapons .."

-- Are you claiming telepathic powers here, to know the true motivations
for the Chinese and Russian initiatives, since there are plenty of other
plausible motivations for their diplomatic moves? They're maybe playing to
a
chorus for diplomatic advantage, while, maybe, laying the public
groundwork
for any space weapons they themselves may 'reluctantly' turn out to have
been 'forced' to deploy is response to these phantom US menaces. And if
you
are helping lay that propaganda groundwork, that makes you part of the
problem, not part of the solution.



You write: "But some in the United States viewed the initiative as a
threat
to the country's freedom of action (link: Space Review). "

-- This is really outrageous. The link is to my essay on space treaties,
which you completely misunderstood and have misrepresented. I don't fuss
about threats to US 'freedom of action' - I wrote about the push to sign a
treaty that uses words that have no commonly-agreed-on meaning and is not
subject to verification. I'm sorry you chose to dodge those points, but I
think I can understand why - they are difficult to answer, and so in the
world where such advocates control the agenda, they just aren't mentioned.



You write: "Michael Krepon and Michael Katz-Hyman of the Stimson Center
argue that foreclosing on negotiations without testing the possibility of
banning some kinds of activity in space is shortsighted."

-- There are worse forms of myopia, or even deliberate eye-closing. The
Outer Space treaty of 1967 tested such a possibility by banning placement
of
nuclear weapons in earth orbit. It didn't stop the USSR from building and
deploying a weapons system for placing nuclear weapons in orbit. How well
did the treaty pass the test? You can judge this question by observing the
utter silence of the UCS, Krepon, Katz-Hyman and other treaty advocates on
this treaty failure.



A nit -- You write: "University of Miami space expert Nader Elhefnawy
notes ."

-- Elhefnawy, a good writer and competent researcher, is a graduate
student
in the university's English department, writing a dissertation on 'science
fiction literature'. Your statement deceptively misrepresents his status
and
credentials. Did you not really know the accurate status, or were you
misled
and were only pretending to know?



I hope you can address these objections and, where you concede they are
valid, make changes to your published material.



Jim Oberg

www.jamesoberg.com





Further reading:



See my recent (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15656337/).



Then there's the NFIRE panic: See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4732874/



These accusations are nothing new. In 2005, when NASA ran its own

robot rendezvous test (that accidentally hit the target vehicle), a new
round of stories circulated about another 'secret US space weapon' -- see
my msnbc.com piece http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/ and a follow-up
where a Russian expert agreed the accusations were phony:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/

"Jonathan" wrote
Just because the weapons we're building now are defensive
doesn't change anything. Once we can shoot down missiles
in every phase, we can use them just as easily for offensive
purposes. What's the difference?
..
Uh, how about -- anti-missile systems with forward basing
(as, in orbit) use IR homing on thrusting missiles or their
friction-heated skins. Orbiting satellites have neither useful
'here-I-am' signals to home in on. Orders of magnitude
harder to track for a kill.

Jim Oberg wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote
Just because the weapons we're building now are defensive
doesn't change anything. Once we can shoot down missiles
in every phase, we can use them just as easily for offensive
purposes. What's the difference?
.
Uh, how about -- anti-missile systems with forward basing
(as, in orbit) use IR homing on thrusting missiles or their
friction-heated skins. Orbiting satellites have neither useful
'here-I-am' signals to home in on. Orders of magnitude
harder to track for a kill.

Thrusting missiles on their friction heated skins?

I know you love Dick, Jim, but this is too much.

Can't we all just make war instead of love?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"kT" wrote in message
...
Jim Oberg wrote:
Uh, how about -- anti-missile systems with forward basing
(as, in orbit) use IR homing on thrusting missiles or their
friction-heated skins.

Thrusting missiles on their friction heated skins?
I know you love Dick, Jim, but this is too much.
Can't we all just make war instead of love?

You got troubles reading plain English?

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan" wrote
Just because the weapons we're building now are defensive
doesn't change anything. Once we can shoot down missiles
in every phase, we can use them just as easily for offensive
purposes. What's the difference?
.
Uh, how about -- anti-missile systems with forward basing
(as, in orbit) use IR homing on thrusting missiles or their
friction-heated skins. Orbiting satellites have neither useful
'here-I-am' signals to home in on. Orders of magnitude
harder to track for a kill.


What do you think this program is for?
It's for tracking and illuminating satellites.

http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/SOR/

I'm not saying we are currently building offensive
weapons. Only that is seems obvious we are
heading quickly in that direction. And our adversaries
must be certain we are given our recent military
posture.

I'm not so sure a satellite is harder to hit than a
missile. I would think a satellite is rather easy
to track. It seems though only satellites in lower orbits
would be vulnerable to our defensive weapons.


The airborne laser could be used as an asat.

The budget includes a plan to spend $5.7 million during 2007 to
"demonstrate fully compensated laser propagation to low earth orbit
satellites;
[and] measure beam profile and intensity on target". These early tests
would involve low-power lasers rather than high-energy ones that could
serve as weapons.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...te-lasers.html


So could our ground based and mid course
missile defense systems according to the
sources in this debate.

"Several of the missile defense systems that the U.S. is developing could
be used as anti-satellite space weapons given that the task of hitting
a satellite is far easier than that of hitting a missile."

http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1690#1637

"Several of the missile defense systems that the U.S. is developing could
be used as anti-satellite space weapons given that the task of hitting
a satellite is far easier than that of hitting a missile."
http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1690#1637

Which states: "It can be argued that, before these two missile defense
weapons are orbited, the weaponization of space will begin with the
deployment of the first ground-based interceptor missile in Alaska in 2004."

Anything "can be argued", including the statement that the authors of this
passage are morons and enemy apologists. The toughest technical issue of
intercept is not the wide-area 'prediction' of where/when a potential target
moves into range, but in the end-game tracking and guidance leading to
physical intercept. Satellites look and fly very differently from missile
warheads, at least to people familiar with operating with both classes of
vehicles. And by the way, if/when you wanna make ground-based ABMs into
anti-satellite systems as some sort of 'space weaponization Rubicon', what
about Sary Shagan and the Moscow ring?

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

"Several of the missile defense systems that the U.S. is developing
could
be used as anti-satellite space weapons given that the task of hitting
a satellite is far easier than that of hitting a missile."
http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1690#1637

Which states: "It can be argued that, before these two missile defense
weapons are orbited, the weaponization of space will begin with the
deployment of the first ground-based interceptor missile in Alaska in
2004."

The debate is obviously using different definitions for
space weapons. I would argue that even gps is a space
military system. And that ground based asats would
be space weapons. You seem to limit the definition
to weapons permanently based in space. Which would
make them highly vulnerable and expensive.
The last and least likely system we would problably deploy.
You're taking the most limited definition, while the
other side is taking the most expansive one.

Since our military is building their space capabilities
from the ground up, not beggining with space based, I think
the more liberal definition is the better one. As it reflects
the facts on the ground.



Anything "can be argued", including the statement that the authors of this
passage are morons and enemy apologists.


But the stated space policy is pretty clear that our military
has unfettered rights to the use and domination of space.
Our President and key commanders statements make
it pretty tough to argue the US space activities are benign.
Air superiority and space superiority should have similar meanings.
Our potential enemies would be ignorant to think otherwise
as playing safe rather than sorry is the proper position
to take in defending a country.

Even if we aren't planning on building offensive capabilities.
It's pretty hard to argue we're not sending a worrisome
message to our enemies. If your position is correct the
US is starting a space weapon race with rhetoric only.
But without any intention to compete in or win the race.

That would be the most irresponsible action the US could take.
To scare our enemies into furiously building offensive space
weapons while we do nothing? Is that what your defending?




The toughest technical issue of
intercept is not the wide-area 'prediction' of where/when a potential
target
moves into range, but in the end-game tracking and guidance leading to
physical intercept. Satellites look and fly very differently from missile
warheads, at least to people familiar with operating with both classes of
vehicles.



Which is why I provided a link to the Starfire program
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/SOR/

This is a program of the "Directed Energy Directorate"

....a trekkian "death ray" sounding name like no other...

that is designing a way to track and hit satellites.
And given the reported Chinese illumination of one of
our satellites, it seems the asat race is going down this path.


And by the way, if/when you wanna make ground-based ABMs into
anti-satellite systems as some sort of 'space weaponization Rubicon', what
about Sary Shagan and the Moscow ring?



Now who is truly trying to muddle this debate. The debate
should be about whether we ...should...militarize space.
You are in denial we are moving in that direction so you
won't even consider anything else.

And is this quote also from an enemy apoligist?

Philip Coyle, who served as the Pentagon's top weapons tester from 1994 to
2001, said in an interview that he sees ''new emphasis on space weapons"
even though ''there is no threat in space to justify a new arms race in
space."

''US missile defense is the first wave in which the United States could
introduce attack weapons in space, that is, weapons with strike capability,"
he said. ''Once you've got space-based interceptors up there, they can just
as well be used for offense as defense."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0314-01.htm

Jim Oberg wrote:

And by the way, if/when you wanna make ground-based ABMs into
anti-satellite systems as some sort of 'space weaponization Rubicon', what
about Sary Shagan and the Moscow ring?



Don't forget Program 437 and Program 505 out on Johnston Island and
Kwajalein Atoll respectively.
We had a operational ASAT from 1963 to 1974.

Pat

Jim Oberg wrote:

Uh, how about -- anti-missile systems with forward basing
(as, in orbit) use IR homing on thrusting missiles or their
friction-heated skins. Orbiting satellites have neither useful
'here-I-am' signals to home in on. Orders of magnitude
harder to track for a kill.



You can do it with radar. In fact, a satellite sitting in space with
nothing around it is about the best radar target you can get, as it
doesn't have any clutter around it that the radar needs to discriminate
it from.
The Soviet "Spiral" space fighter was going to use radar-guided missiles
to destroy it's targets:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/str126.htm
http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/rocinte2.gif
As did the Soviet ASATs: http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/ASAT/ASAT.htm

Pat