Military/Weapons in Space

[August1991]

I have decided to create a new thread about this issue.

How far does Canada want to go down this road of the military use of space?

First, space is already militarized. There are any number of spy or geo-positional targetting satellites in orbit used by the military of different countries.

Second, when do we say a weapon is in space? If a space-based laser directs an earth-launched weapon to a target, is that different from a space-based laser that destroys another satellite?

-----

I will declare my colours. I think Canada should assist the US in developing a space-based protection for North America. I think our participation should be primarily limited to making our territory accessible. If the US government wants to hire our technical specialists, so be it.

We need a new NORAD.

[Stoker]

I have decided to create a new thread about this issue.

I'll post a few of the relevant links wrt the current proposal for anybody new to the debate:

National Missile Defense

Backgrounder, Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence

‘First Light’ for airborne laser weapon, Test marks antimissile milestone, but only a start

And a well thought out editorial:

Better to be inside shield than left out

How far does Canada want to go down this road of the military use of space?

First, space is already militarized. There are any number of spy or geo-positional satellites in orbit used by the military of different countries.

This is were is it's being blown out of proportion......nobody is asking us to put weapons in space, nor is the current US plan to do such a thing......I'd question if the technology is even there.

Also, why would you want to? Wouldn't it make sense to destroy the ICBM before it went into space, and in doing so, preventing the need to defeat decoys in the reentry stage?

What about the cost benifits? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have a converted 747 (armed with a laser) orbating outside of a potentail foes Airspace, 24/7? As opposed to developing space based weapons, then building them?

And if the Americans were to develop offensive space based weapons in the future.......who says we have to take part? We don't have a hand in their nuclear deterent.....

And to be clear, I'm in favor of Space based weapons for defence development and any potentail spin-offs that could be developed for any scientific space usage.......sadly, I just don't think it's in the cards any time soon........

[Bakunin]

i think we shouldn't put a $ in it, until it can work and only if its neccesary.

[Choke]

I think the long-term humanitarian benefits of developing this technology will be enormous. It'll motivate the US to move into space in a big way making possible future exploration and colonization.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The militarization, or weaponization, of space, is a precedent I do not wish to see set.

It reminds me of the movie "Independence Day", where a greedy, self important race of beings sets forth 'like locusts' to conquer by force, and exploit every natural resource for their own benefit.

I can't imagine how this metaphor could possibly apply to the USA , but I found it interesting that, in the movie, this type of self-serving greed was used as justification for exterminating the invaders, even at their 'home base', if possible.

[Guest eureka]

I have no idea what is involved in the WOS and I don't think there is a rush course available for astrophysics.

However, there is an international consensus that it would be a very dangerous thing and, as in so many things under the Bush administration, only the US is out of step.

Therefore, since those who do know, overwhelmingly are against it, so am I.

[Stoker]

I have no idea what is involved in the WOS and I don't think there is a rush course available for astrophysics.

However, there is an international consensus that it would be a very dangerous thing and, as in so many things under the Bush administration, only the US is out of step.

Therefore, since those who do know, overwhelmingly are against it, so am I.

And who makes up the international consensus? Potentail rivals of the United States, be they China, Russia or continental Europe........the argument that it will start a new arms race is also foolish, for it to start "something" new, the old "something" had to of finshed.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, none of the five permanent members of the UN secuirty council have stoped developing nuclear weapons (Didn't France test one in the Pacific a few years ago?). Also, three other nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, Israel) continue to develop their arsenal, added to the fact that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen the birth of another nuclear nation (North Korea) and will possably see another in a short time (Iran).

As for the case made about the recent nuclear development within Russia, that point is also moot. The United States doesn't intend for their BMD program to be able to defend against a large nuclear attack, hence the Russians have nothing to fear about.........why would Putin have renegotiated the anti-ballsitic misslie treaty if the prospects of another "Star Wars" frightend him so?

[kimmy]

It reminds me of the movie "Independence Day", where a greedy, self important race of beings sets forth 'like locusts' to conquer by force, and exploit every natural resource for their own benefit.

Whaaaa? I don't get the connection.

Syrup's plan to use Moon-rocks to solve our energy problems is the one where we're exploiting natural resources for our own greed.

I can't imagine how this metaphor could possibly apply to the USA , but I found it interesting that, in the movie, this type of self-serving greed was used as justification for exterminating the invaders, even at their 'home base', if possible.

Seems to me that the 'home base' in question was a big military vessel, somewhat like an aircraft carrier. I think its destruction fit squarely into the category of self defense, much like when Layton Skywalker blew up the Death Star while Darth Bush was trying to atomize the lefty base.

Searching for political wisdom in an Emerich/Devlin film seems to me somewhat analogous to searching for gold nuggets in kitty's litter-box. I think my little feline buddy is about as likely to leave a gold nugget in there as Emerich and Devlin are to put an intelligent thought into one of their movies.

In all seriousness, though, what do you think "Mars Attacks!" has to say on the issue of missile defense? "ACK! ACK! ACK-ACK! ACK-DACK! DACK ACK ACK!"

Another movie I think we should probably discuss is that James Bond movie where there's this big Russian spaceship that flies around in orbit and literally swallow other spaceships and satellites. Do you think that future space-shuttle missions should be equipped with some type of weapon to protect themselves from spaceship-eating spaceships? They could perhaps put a boxing-glove on the CanadArm.

-kimmy

[Choke]

I have no idea what is involved in the WOS and I don't think there is a rush course available for astrophysics.

This statement when followed with this one:

However, there is an international consensus that it would be a very dangerous thing

Is very telling...people have no idea what the system will actually do, but they're being provoked into hysteria about it by a few people who's purposes it serves to do so. There's a legitimate arguement to be made that the system wastes money, but as for the danger? We've had nuclear stockpiles sitting around for almost 60 years without a problem.

why would Putin have renegotiated the anti-ballsitic misslie treaty if the prospects of another "Star Wars" frightend him so?

Exactly.

[caesar]

We've had nuclear stockpiles sitting around for almost 60 years without a problem.

Without a problem. Come on now. Chernobyl; remember Chernobyl and probably many more that have been quietly covered up

[caesar]

the flollowing site has a large list for 1983 (one year only)

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/80/1983.html

[Choke]

I'm talking about nuclear war, not industrial accidents.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Excellent post, a jolly good wheeze.

Searching for political wisdom in an Emerich/Devlin film seems to me somewhat analogous to searching for gold nuggets in kitty's litter-box.

Normally I shun popular culture, but I saw this movie to see the special effects. I certainly wasn't hoping for enlightenment, and the allegory I noticed couldn't have been intentional.

Seriously, SDI was developed to use laser weaponry to destroy ICBMs, and was on track to be completed in the late80's/early 90's. Does this kind of 'laser weapon' exist? There is evidence that it does, and that the US has tested such weaponry in combat. (See the movie The Panama Deception, a documentary about the 'illegal' invason of Panama by the US) The US also has tanks that carry such weapons.

My point was, do we carry our ...pardon this expression...."our fucked up notions of right and wrong, our greed and our 'human superiority complex", to areas unknown in the universe or do we get our shit together first before we try to exploit 'space'?

[Argus]

My point was, do we carry our ...pardon this expression...."our fucked up notions of right and wrong, our greed and our 'human superiority complex", to areas unknown in the universe or do we get our shit together first before we try to exploit 'space'?

What's wrong with "exploiting" space? Are you afraid we'll take unfair advantage of the moon rocks? We are a very long way away from getting out of this solar system, so I rather doubt we need to worry about violating the prime directive any time soon.

[Big Blue Machine]

The missle system doesn't cost us anything anyway.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Another movie I think we should probably discuss is that James Bond movie where there's this big Russian spaceship that flies around in orbit and literally swallow other spaceships and satellites. Do you think that future space-shuttle missions should be equipped with some type of weapon to protect themselves from spaceship-eating spaceships?

I believe that the US and possibly others have 'space- weapons' already in the form of killer-satelites. Small orbital bombs, basically that can manouever alongside ... say a geosyncronous enemy command/control commsat, and detonate itself.

I remember this idea was reported in the media years ago and it disappeared so quickly I just assumed it had become true.

Anyway, it's such an easy thing to do and so obviously useful I'd be amazed if no-one has done it.

[shackwacky]

The missle system doesn't cost us anything anyway.

Not yet, but if we climb aboard we will be expected to pay our share. I thik this would be a bad idea, as apparently there are still a few kinks to work out.

Wednesday's trial had been put off four times because of bad weather at launch sites and, on Sunday, because a radio transmitter failed

BBC - Defense Shield Fails

[Stoker]

Not yet, but if we climb aboard we will be expected to pay our share.

Whats that based on? The United States has said other wise, but if you have proof that contradicts this, I'd be very intrested in seeing it........hell, it could change my (and perhaps many others) opinions that are in favor of it.

As for the failed test, how many attempts were made at manned (powered) flight before the Wright Brothers?

[kimmy]

I believe that the US and possibly others have 'space- weapons' already in the form of killer-satelites. Small orbital bombs, basically that can manouever alongside ... say a geosyncronous enemy command/control commsat, and detonate itself.

I remember this idea was reported in the media years ago and it disappeared so quickly I just assumed it had become true.

Anyway, it's such an easy thing to do and so obviously useful I'd be amazed if no-one has done it.

I could be out to lunch, but I don't believe most military satellites would be geosynchrous. They stay in one place (ie, over the equator in parallel with a fixed spot on the ground) which is very useful for broadcasting, but not so great for spying... I think spy satellites have low, fast orbits that go over the earth at an angle to the equator. I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD? )

For communications, I think that the military would probably use a network of fast, low-orbit, satellites (technology like the deceased Iridium network) rather than geosynchrous satellites.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

I could be out to lunch, but I don't believe most military satellites would be geosynchrous. They stay in one place (ie, over the equator in parallel with a fixed spot on the ground) which is very useful for broadcasting, but not so great for spying... I think spy satellites have low, fast orbits that go over the earth at an angle to the equator. I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD?  )

The Russians/Soviets had (they may still have them) anti-satellite satellites.......I don't think the Americans had them, but I do know they tested an anti-satellite missile that was launched from a modified F-15.........

[shackwacky]

Whats that based on? The United States has said other wise, but if you have proof that contradicts this, I'd be very intrested in seeing it........hell, it could change my (and perhaps many others) opinions that are in favor of it.

Oh, the United States said otherwise. Oh, well that settles it then.

No I don't have proof, and no I can't provide a link quoting source after source or give you dazzling 8x10's to look at. I can give you pages of links where Canadians say that they are afraid this is going to cost millions, and others where they assert that the cost is definitely going to be higher than that. That would be a waste of time and space.

It's a gut feeling these days not to take what the US says in this matter...in any matter, be it Iraq, or trade, or BSE, or lumber, or elections...at face value.

The Wright Brothers weren't wasting taxpayer money.

[shackwacky]

Instead, Martin said he wants to first find out what it will cost and what influence Canada will have on its development.

Not even PM PM is sure of the cost. How can you be so certain it's a freebie?

Martin YE Interview

[shackwacky]

Rather than dither, Martin should make the case for joining. He should also impose a few sensible conditions.

Canada should not pay too much of the cost. The U.S. will spend $10 billion next year, from its $400 billion military budget. To match that we would have to put up $300 million from our $13 billion budget. That's too much. Given that this is a U.S. priority, we should contribute less

.

and this one from the Toronto Star

[Stoker]

Oh, the United States said otherwise. Oh, well that settles it then.

No I don't have proof, and no I can't provide a link quoting source after source or give you dazzling 8x10's to look at. I can give you pages of links where Canadians say that they are afraid this is going to cost millions, and others where they assert that the cost is definitely going to be higher than that. That would be a waste of time and space.

It's a gut feeling these days not to take what the US says in this matter...in any matter, be it Iraq, or trade, or BSE, or lumber, or elections...at face value.

I see, we should base our foregin policy and defence relationships on "gut feelings" with no adherent evidence, just speculation.

And shackwacky, in both those follow on links you provided, neither have proven the United States wants us to pay a share of BMD......The first on there is no mention of a finacial cost, merely the "cost", which very much could be a reference to the "political cost".

As for the second link, it's a bloody editorial.

Now ask yourself, if we say no to BMD, will the United States shut-down the program?

[Big Blue Machine]

Remember the most inportant thing is that WEAPONIZATION ISN'T A WORD!! IT'S MILITARIZATION. I think space should be only used for civilian and exploration purposes. Wars should be fought on the ground, if they need to be fought at all.