Right-wingers think Obama seeks ban on Space Shuttle.

[General Zod]

And again, you declare it not to be credible because... you say so. Difference in cost is about a factor of two, although even this is misleading because you need a ship to carry SM-3 to your desired launch point (it's only got a range in the 100-200mi sort of scale), while you can nail folks with your vintage Soviet olive-drab hardware from anywhere in the world.

You're completely ignoring fuel efficiency here. COULD you take out a satellite with a wrench? Sure. But who the fuck would want to spend that kind of money to knock out one or two satellites just because? Quite frankly the idea you'd be able to knock out more than one or two by hand given how spread out they are before the military finds your ass and glasses it is absurd.

Tell you what. You want to keep claiming it's credible? How about you back your shit up and show who would be insane enough to do something like that instead of developing a dedicated anti-satellite weapon? Then you can claim credibility.

[MKSheppard]

Another point that has to be made -- who in their right mind would sign this treaty, other than the usual suspects (United States, the Europeans, and some tiny pointless countries who neve miss an opportunity to sign stuff like this to get publicity)?

America's crushing military superiority is based a lot on our extensive space assets, from military reconnaisance, communications to navigational satellites.

Why would any possible opponent of the US in the future sign such a treaty, crippling their ability to defeat our space assets in a possible war?

"Comrade, the Americans have said that they will attack us, and knowing their ability to attack with huge swarms of GPS guided bombs and missiles; we should take out several satellites in the GPS constellation."

"Comrade, you cannot be serious! That would violate the treaty!."

"Which we never ratified."

"Right, right, right. Ring up the people at (insert your launch facility here)."

[Thirdfain]

You know, Sheppard, when you have such a solid argument for why this treaty is a bad idea, why did you bother with the absurd strawman back at the beginning of the thread? To hell with "shutting down the shuttle." The ban is stupid because a ban on space weapons would castrate the US military.

[erik_t]

And again, you declare it not to be credible because... you say so. Difference in cost is about a factor of two, although even this is misleading because you need a ship to carry SM-3 to your desired launch point (it's only got a range in the 100-200mi sort of scale), while you can nail folks with your vintage Soviet olive-drab hardware from anywhere in the world.

You're completely ignoring fuel efficiency here. COULD you take out a satellite with a wrench? Sure. But who the fuck would want to spend that kind of money to knock out one or two satellites just because? Quite frankly the idea you'd be able to knock out more than one or two by hand given how spread out they are before the military finds your ass and glasses it is absurd.

I dunno, the US Navy spent ten million dollars just to show the world they could. Er, I mean to protect us from a few dozen kg of OOOH HYDRAZINE BOGEYMAN You can't imagine China doing it for twice that? Again, in 1994 dollars, as-launched cost of a Voskhod was $18 million. That's all-up, fuel and everything. And it's a legacy ICBM, not requiring much in the way of support facilities.

Tell you what. You want to keep claiming it's credible? How about you back your shit up and show who would be insane enough to do something like that instead of developing a dedicated anti-satellite weapon? Then you can claim credibility.

You missed the clue train. The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

[MKSheppard]

You know, Sheppard, when you have such a solid argument for why this treaty is a bad idea, why did you bother with the absurd strawman back at the beginning of the thread?

Because the shuttle CAN be classified as a space weapon. In fact, one of these requirements grew out of a direct USAF requirement.

Ridiculous crossrange capability, check. (USAF wanted this for launches from Vandenberg).

Capability of inspecting satellites with remote arm camera, and then using the remote arm to rip the solar panels off sats? Check.

Capability of sending astronauts out on EVA to perform sneaky fuckery on satellites (when you don't want to be as obvious as ripping the solar panels off), like spray painting the solar panels with black paint, check.

Same also applies to any other manned spacecraft, other than really small one-shot mercury jobs.

Inspect satellite from upclose through a window, and then shoot it with a cannon mounted on the spacecraft? Check.

Open hatch and shoot rifle at satellite, check.

Open hatch and perform EVA to perform close up fuckery on satellite? check.

[Darth Wong]

The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

That is the point you're trying to make. However, that is a red-herring because it is not the point of the thread. Shep was trying to argue that Obama's proposal would devastate the entire space industry, and it won't. His interpretation relies upon a quasi-religious fundamentalist interpretation of the proposal's vague initial wording.

[General Zod]

I dunno, the US Navy spent ten million dollars just to show the world they could. Er, I mean to protect us from a few dozen kg of OOOH HYDRAZINE BOGEYMAN You can't imagine China doing it for twice that? Again, in 1994 dollars, as-launched cost of a Voskhod was $18 million. That's all-up, fuel and everything. And it's a legacy ICBM, not requiring much in the way of support facilities.

You missed the point. The craft only have enough fuel to maneuver for so long. How many satellites do you think an individual one can hit before they run out?

You missed the clue train. The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

No it wouldn't. There is no threat if nobody is willing to go through with it. You seem incapable of realizing that in order to be credible, there has to be someone actually willing to do the deed. Not just the remote possibility that someone could do the deed. Otherwise everything the TSA lists as a possible threat would be credible despite many of them not ever happening.

[MKSheppard]

No it wouldn't. There is no threat if nobody is willing to go through with it. You seem incapable of realizing that in order to be credible, there has to be someone actually willing to do the deed. Not just the remote possibility that someone could do the deed.

Sir, we have a winner for most stupid post in this thread. Give me one good reason why a possible future opponent of the US would NOT attack our satellites in any future conflict, given how much of our crushing superiority depends on them?

Good example, those UAVs that the US loves so much? Guess what they need? Lots and lots and lots of bandwidth for data/video links to control them. Where does this come from? Yup. Satellites.

Why do you think teh military is moving away from 5 ton, billion dollar satellites to smaller, cheaper ones that can be lifted into orbit by something smaller than a heavy lift vehicle?

[erik_t]

The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

That is the point you're trying to make. However, that is a red-herring because it is not the point of the thread. Shep was trying to argue that Obama's proposal would devastate the entire space industry, and it won't. His interpretation relies upon a quasi-religious fundamentalist interpretation of the proposal's vague initial wording.

Right. However, the aspect of the argument about which I am interested is Degan's dismissal as hyperbole of the antisatellite threat posed by petty vandalism from general-purpose manned spaceflight.

I dunno, the US Navy spent ten million dollars just to show the world they could. Er, I mean to protect us from a few dozen kg of OOOH HYDRAZINE BOGEYMAN You can't imagine China doing it for twice that? Again, in 1994 dollars, as-launched cost of a Voskhod was $18 million. That's all-up, fuel and everything. And it's a legacy ICBM, not requiring much in the way of support facilities.

You missed the point. The craft only have enough fuel to maneuver for so long. How many satellites do you think an individual one can hit before they run out?

I was planning on one. Again, the US Navy felt that ten million dollars to destroy one satellite was fine.

You missed the clue train. The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

No it wouldn't. There is no threat if nobody is willing to go through with it. You seem incapable of realizing that in order to be credible, there has to be someone actually willing to do the deed. Not just the remote possibility that someone could do the deed. Otherwise everything the TSA lists as a possible threat would be credible despite many of them not ever happening.

That's a curious definition of credible. Do you feel there was credible threat of nuclear exchanges during the Cold War?

Short of analyzing costs, which I've done, and looking at other factual occurrences of such acts, which I've done, it's difficult to tell what people might be willing to do a priori. How would you identify the line between credible and non-credible in this instance? Obviously a SM-3 satellite interception is credible, since it actually happened.

[Darth Wong]

The whole accursed point is that even if development of dedicated weapons is banned, the threat would persist.

That is the point you're trying to make. However, that is a red-herring because it is not the point of the thread. Shep was trying to argue that Obama's proposal would devastate the entire space industry, and it won't. His interpretation relies upon a quasi-religious fundamentalist interpretation of the proposal's vague initial wording.

Right. However, the aspect of the argument about which I am interested is Degan's dismissal as hyperbole of the antisatellite threat posed by petty vandalism from general-purpose manned spaceflight.

Are you evaluating this threat from a purely mechanical standpoint, ie- can it be technologically done, or are you considering this threat from a more realistic strategic standpoint, ie- what nation would seriously attempt such a thing and would it be worth it?

[General Zod]

I was planning on one. Again, the US Navy felt that ten million dollars to destroy one satellite was fine.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't a massive waste of money and anyone genuinely bent on crippling our infrastructure wouldn't invest it in more efficient ways.

That's a curious definition of credible. Do you feel there was credible threat of nuclear exchanges during the Cold War?

cred·i·ble Listen to the pronunciation of credible
Pronunciation:
\ˈkre-də-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin credibilis, from credere
Date:
14th century

1 : offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses> 2 : of sufficient capability to be militarily effective <a credible deterrent> <credible forces>

Going by the first definition, if nobody's willing to use the tactic, then what possible reason is there to believe there's grounds for it? Even going by the second definition it's hardly an effective tactic whatsoever if you're out to cripple more than one satellite.

Short of analyzing costs, which I've done, and looking at other factual occurrences of such acts, which I've done, it's difficult to tell what people might be willing to do a priori. How would you identify the line between credible and non-credible in this instance? Obviously a SM-3 satellite interception is credible, since it actually happened.

You don't honestly think militaries judge whether something is a credible threat based on cost and ability alone, do you? If that were the case any number of modern nations would be a credible threat.

[erik_t]

Well, I'd argue that only the mechanical side need be considered. I think the big decision-side issue is political, ie do we want to start this war? That question is one worth much discussion, but it has very little bearing on what weapons are or are not available or treaty-banned.

If the threat of satellite destruction is credible, by any weapon, then that means someone is willing to go WAY out on a limb politically. In that case, the difference between ten, twenty or a hundred million dollars is pretty minimal (look at what Iraq, or even A-stan, is costing the US). Therefore, such a treaty won't be worthwhile. People will find a way to do what they want.

If the threat isn't credible, by any weapon you choose, then there's not much point in a ban.

[General Zod]

Well, I'd argue that only the mechanical side need be considered. I think the big decision-side issue is political, ie do we want to start this war? That question is one worth much discussion, but it has very little bearing on what weapons are or are not available or treaty-banned.

By your idiotic reasoning, I could run into a guy built like a rock in a bar who's several feet taller than me and he'd be a credible threat because he's physically capable of pounding my face in. Even though he's making no threatening moves whatsoever.

[erik_t]

Well, I'd argue that only the mechanical side need be considered. I think the big decision-side issue is political, ie do we want to start this war? That question is one worth much discussion, but it has very little bearing on what weapons are or are not available or treaty-banned.

By your idiotic reasoning, I could run into a guy built like a rock in a bar who's several feet taller than me and he'd be a credible threat because he's physically capable of pounding my face in. Even though he's making no threatening moves whatsoever.

Thanks, that's actually a perfect example. Let's say we want to ban knives in bars, which seems like a noble goal. Everyone will be safer if there are no big knives in the bar, right?

This thinking works until you realize that the bar is full of three meter tall 500kg thugs with -4% body fat. They will fuck you up regardless of whether or not they have knives available. Whether or not you should be afraid of them (ie, the credibility of the threat posed) does not have any relation to the presence of weapons.

[Thirdfain]

This thinking works until you realize that the bar is full of three meter tall 500kg thugs with -4% body fat. They will fuck you up regardless of whether or not they have knives available. Whether or not you should be afraid of them (ie, the credibility of the threat posed) does not have any relation to the presence of weapons.

... Especially when they'll be carrying knives ban or not.

[Kanastrous]

Except that the 500kg thugs' bodies are potential weapons, in this context.

Does -4% body fat mean that your body actually sucks fat out of passersby's bodies...?

[Darth Wong]

Well, I'd argue that only the mechanical side need be considered. I think the big decision-side issue is political, ie do we want to start this war? That question is one worth much discussion, but it has very little bearing on what weapons are or are not available or treaty-banned.

If the threat of satellite destruction is credible, by any weapon, then that means someone is willing to go WAY out on a limb. In that case, the difference between ten, twenty or a hundred million dollars is pretty minimal (look at what Iraq, or even A-stan, is costing the US). Therefore, such a treaty won't be worthwhile. People will find a way.

If the threat isn't credible, by any weapon you choose, then there's not much point in a ban.

Credibility of military threats depends on a lot of factors, such as deployment speed. If your only anti-satellite weapon is manned space flights, you can take out a satellite but it won't be easy and you'll need plenty of lead time. If, on the other hand, you have a network of satellites in space which are purpose-built to destroy other satellites, you could trigger the destruction of dozens of satellites with a push of a button. Now that is a threat.

[erik_t]

This is true. Of course, you can have an all-solid launch vehicle like Scout which, by virtue of propellant, would be storable at flight readiness for long periods. And costs less than ten million dollars. And first flew in 1960. And of course a few hours either way on your all-at-once satellite kill doesn't matter that much, since it's not like the satellites can be protected with any amount of warning.

A satellite launch capability is intrinsically an anti-satellite capability. You can launch a satellite (of course, that satellite can be a lump of jello if you'd like) into an already-occupied slot in orbit, and wham, no more satellite. That's the problem, and no amount of regulation can really solve it.

[General Zod]

Sir, we have a winner for most stupid post in this thread. Give me one good reason why a possible future opponent of the US would NOT attack our satellites in any future conflict, given how much of our crushing superiority depends on them?

Had you bothered reading what I was responding to, you'd realize I was talking about attacking satellites with wrenches or other jury-rigged tools. I never said that they wouldn't attack our satellites, and in fact argued that they would attack them with much more efficient methods several posts back. Reading comprehension. Not just for 6th graders.

[General Zod]

Thanks, that's actually a perfect example. Let's say we want to ban knives in bars, which seems like a noble goal. Everyone will be safer if there are no big knives in the bar, right?

This thinking works until you realize that the bar is full of three meter tall 500kg thugs with -4% body fat. They will fuck you up regardless of whether or not they have knives available. Whether or not you should be afraid of them (ie, the credibility of the threat posed) does not have any relation to the presence of weapons.

LOLOLOL not one page ago you were arguing that credibility only depended on physical capability, and now you're agreeing with me that it depends on the willingness to do so and pretending like it's been your position all along? Way to stay backpedal there.

[Teleros]

Credibility of military threats depends on a lot of factors, such as deployment speed. If your only anti-satellite weapon is manned space flights, you can take out a satellite but it won't be easy and you'll need plenty of lead time. If, on the other hand, you have a network of satellites in space which are purpose-built to destroy other satellites, you could trigger the destruction of dozens of satellites with a push of a button. Now that is a threat.

No, both are threats, the second example is just a much bigger threat. I'd also be surprised if there are any countries capable of destroying satellites only by launching manned space flights - generally if you can launch humans into space you can launch unmanned rockets and such as well.

Also, just how many satellites would one need to disable to screw with, say, GPS signals or UAV flights for a particular country or region? The fewer the number, the more of a threat even a small anti-satellite system will be.

[erik_t]

Thanks, that's actually a perfect example. Let's say we want to ban knives in bars, which seems like a noble goal. Everyone will be safer if there are no big knives in the bar, right?

This thinking works until you realize that the bar is full of three meter tall 500kg thugs with -4% body fat. They will fuck you up regardless of whether or not they have knives available. Whether or not you should be afraid of them (ie, the credibility of the threat posed) does not have any relation to the presence of weapons.

LOLOLOL not one page ago you were arguing that credibility only depended on physical capability, and now you're agreeing with me that it depends on the willingness to do so and pretending like it's been your position all along? Way to stay backpedal there.

No, I'm saying that the only part of credibility worth discussing in this thread is the physical capability, since we're talking about banning physical capability. We're not talking about banning angry thoughts among world leaders, although I suppose that'd be a neat trick.

Please, leave the intelligent discourse to the adults. You're embarrassing yourself.

[MKSheppard]

I don't see why I should be expected to respond to your ridiculous right wingnut strawmen.

Concession accepted.

So what? All treaties require signatories to act in good faith to some extent.

And in just about every treaty signed, cheating occurs.

Washington/London Naval Treaties: "Lets understate the displacement of our ships massively." Both Germany and Japan did this very egregriously.

Biological Weapons Treaty/Ban: While we complied and destroyed our stockpile of BW, and halted offensive BW research, the Soviets continued to produce offensive BW, and developed more lethal strains.

So give me one good reason why our future opponents will comply with a treaty that cripples their ability to reduce American space assets, and thus reduce american combat capabilities such as satellite guided munitions, high speed bandwidth for armed UAVs, etc.

Oh that's right, you can't. Concession Accepted.

[General Zod]

No, I'm saying that the only part of credibility worth discussing in this thread is the physical capability, since we're talking about banning physical capability. We're not talking about banning angry thoughts among world leaders, although I suppose that'd be a neat trick.

Please, leave the intelligent discourse to the adults. You're embarrassing yourself.

The only one embarrassing himself is the idiot that thinks physical capability is the only thing worth discussing, as if people don't take intent into account in real life at all or anything.

[Thirdfain]

... Is there anyone who disagrees that this bill is a bad idea?