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

[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.