So much for non-militarization of space....

[unixronin]

The USAF has filed a plan for militarization of near-earth space over the next ten years ranging from RF satellite-to-satellite weapons, to orbiting mirrors for directing over-the-horizon attacks with groundbased lasers, to a Thor weapon system and other orbital surface-bombardment weapons.  One has to wonder who the US is planning on fighting the next world war against.  There's an explicitly stated intention to deny space to anyone the US considers an "adversary".  (Oh, I'm sure the US will allow those pesky Europeans to play a little, so long as they don't do anything evil and destabilizing like, say, trying to put weapons in space.)  And of course, once all this shit is up there, you can just bet we'll have to justify the expense by finding someone to attack with it.

I don't know about you, but personally, I don't trust the US Government with a Damoclean sword hung over the heads of the entire planet.  They're stupid enough to use it.  At least with the strategic nuclear arsenals, anyone with three brain cells to rub together has the wit to realize that you can't actually use the damned things without wrecking civilization and possibly rendering the planet uninhabitable.

Didn't we talk everyone into signing a bunch of treaties promising not to do exactly this?  But then, the US Government has a long history of violating its treaties, so why change now?

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo, Walt Kelly

Comments

[juuro.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'd be surprised if there wasn't something weapons-grade up there already. Not necessarily U.S. operated only. There are several satellites orbiting the globe whose canisters are too big for the declared or obvious purpose of the object.

There is not necessarily on overwhelming incentive to use a weapons system just because it is there. The ICBM:s, for instance, were never used. I think.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, there's been ASAT stuff put up there periodically. The SU and Russia have both taken pot-shots of varying sophistication at each other's spy satellites. This is the first plan I'm aware of for a large-scale militarization of space, though, particularly with weapons designed for attacking ground-based targets. Ths US is signatory to several treaties prohibiting deployment of weapons in space; I guess that's just another case of "do what we say, not what we do."

True, fortunately for us all the ICBMs never flew, mainly because rhetoric aside, everyone was clearly aware that a full-scale nuclear exchange would be a Really Bad Thing. Nevertheless, the Pentagon had a first-strike nuclear strategy for decades in the event of a Soviet land invasion of Western Europe that overran NATO ground forces (which all of the Western military strategists were unanimous in predicting that it would). And it's frightening to learn how close the Cuban missile crisis actually came to nuclear launches against the mainland US, which would almost certainly have precipitated a global nuclear exchange.

[caged-admin.livejournal.com]

Point: You're reading too much into "space superiority combines the following three capabilities: protect space assets, deny adversaries’ access to space..." I don't see anyone getting hot and bothered when the Air Force says things like "gain air superiority in the theater." And that's what the statement is saying: in wartime conditions, the Air Force would like to be able to prevent space vehicle launches conducted by whatever opponent they're facing at the time. Because it would be...you know...smart. Or are you suggesting there should be some kind of "fair play" ethic at work?

Point: I'm sure the Europeans would love to be invited along for the ride. Provided that they don't have to do anything icky, like increase military spending, and maybe we give them a bunch of free stuff. Then they can go on creating a "counterweight"[1] to us without investing any effort in it.

Point: "justify the expense by finding someone to attack with it"? Oh, please. You mean like all those nukes we've launched at sovereign nations because we wanted to "use some up"? Or the time President Clinton ordered B2 strikes on random Asian targets "because we had some, and we're not allowed to blow up the Russkies any more"? Pull the other one.

Point: I strongly suspect that if I look hard enough, I can find studies showing non-Apocalyptic outcomes for using nuclear weapons, depending on the theater in which they're used, kilo/megatonnage, and various other suppositions.

Point: Are you really saying that if we were to fire off a space-based laser (for example), it would set off a cataclysm destroying most human life on the planet and sending the rest of us back to the Stone Age? It seems strongly implied.

Bonus point: Have you noticed that the Chinese are taking a big interest in space? Or that they're...uh...evil? Or that they have vested interests in militarizing space before us? Do we even have any space treaties with them? If we do, do you seriously expect the Chinese to honor them?


---
[1] Translation: "We've figured out that sometimes we don't have common interests. We've also figured out that diplomacy only works when backed by threat of force. We'd like some threat of force, please."

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Confounded 4300-character limit. Response to be posted separately.

Obligatory Cyberpunk2020 Reference..

[databeast.livejournal.com]

dont worry, when the euro's get their Alpine mass-driver online, everyone will sure find out quick that rocks are a lot cheaper than nukes or orbitals - goodbye delaware... (hrm, must check my CP2020 sourcebooks, cant remember which city got stoned to death in the talsorian timeline).

Re: Obligatory Cyberpunk2020 Reference..

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, big mass-drivers will change a heck of a lot of equations. They're not really that useful from within a deep atmosphere, though, especially when it's combined with a deep gravity well.
(Not that we really have either, when compared to, say, Jupiter.)

[dang ... haven't gotten to play any CP2020 in years.]

Re: Obligatory Cyberpunk2020 Reference..

[databeast.livejournal.com]

When I'm mobile again, I'll be puting money into 'sights and sounds' for a travelling CP2020 game again. (looking to get two groups going in two diff cities, play them against each other in the same campaign world; I've got all the CP2020 stuff, and I'm a hideous neuropolitic cyberpunk purist .. so its going to be very 'now with the volume turned up'.

This is at least a couple of months off, but its something I've been working on for a while now. As it stands today I'm only missing four CP2020 sourcebooks, and with the exception of Brainware Blowout, they're all pretty rare ones.