Space Weaponization

[K. A. Pital]

Truly ahead of the curve

The US should not have dumped Dynasoar and we should not have dumped BOR and EPOS/SPIRAL. We'd have functioning space forces by now with multiple space stations, docking objects, weapons platforms... not that ISS crap.

[Turin]

The US should not have dumped Dynasoar and we should not have dumped BOR and EPOS/SPIRAL. We'd have functioning space forces by now with multiple space stations, docking objects, weapons platforms... not that ISS crap.

Weapons platforms? Right, because what the world really needs is a shit-ton more debris in orbit. It's not like we're dependent on satellites for everything from weather to to communications to shipping, right? Why don't people ever think about stuff like this?

[phongn]

Weapons platforms? Right, because what the world really needs is a shit-ton more debris in orbit. It's not like we're dependent on satellites for everything from weather to to communications to shipping, right? Why don't people ever think about stuff like this?

Um, we do. I think Stas was trying to say that we'd have a significantly larger space infrastructure if it had gone along his proposed path. For that matter, space militarization is unstoppable.

[Turin]

Weapons platforms? Right, because what the world really needs is a shit-ton more debris in orbit. It's not like we're dependent on satellites for everything from weather to to communications to shipping, right? Why don't people ever think about stuff like this?

I really think you missed the point with your rant, but hey...

Yeah, alright, phongn already pointed that out for me and there's egg on my face for it.

I'll admit I get a little jumpy whenever I hear someone mention space weaponization. To put it simply: Satellites = nuclear launch detection. Space weaponization = potential threat to satellites. Potential threat to satellites = increased danger of nuclear escalation in case of accident (particularly a large scale space-weather event). Increased danger of nuclear escalation = bad.

[K. A. Pital]

And? Space will be weaponized whether you want it or not; heck, it already is weaponized to some extent and more will follow, with ASAT systems on ground, air and sea and the orbital vehicles to strike from space. Most space ships were designed with dual use in mind.

It's like nuclear weapons, like it or not but the genie is out. Whoever gets space military superiority, gets a priveleged place among nations.

[Medic]

OMG, no, this got serious, and not just 'cool weapony' non-serious. Turin I frown upon you.

Stuart's comments on ABM treaty's and the proliferation of that technology these days backs up his assertion that treaties won't stop the progress of weapons development if there's a viable need for those weapons. There is nothing new about the idea of trying to deny your enemy a view of the battlefield, think about anti-radiation missiles? This is that, only in a broader strategic sense. If we don't build it, someone else will, if we make treaties, well, those can last only so long, history's shown us that much.

Pandora's Box I suppose, just stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

edit: on top of all that, all those wonderful treaties happened when all the nuclear weapons and capability were in the hands of the US, USSR, and nations aligned with them. (PRC is something of an exception when they and the USSR sort of broke up as allies) That luxury is long, long gone.

[Turin]

OMG, no, this got serious, and not just 'cool weapony' non-serious. Turin I frown upon you.

Sorry about that... wasn't really my intention to make it into a "thing." If a mod feels like splitting it out, we can continue there or start a new thread.

Stuart's comments on ABM treaty's and the proliferation of that technology these days backs up his assertion that treaties won't stop the progress of weapons development if there's a viable need for those weapons.

Bully for Stuart. He hasn't posted in this thread and I'm not familiar with the details of his argument.

There is nothing new about the idea of trying to deny your enemy a view of the battlefield, think about anti-radiation missiles? This is that, only in a broader strategic sense. If we don't build it, someone else will, if we make treaties, well, those can last only so long, history's shown us that much.

You mean we don't really live in Happy Fun & Peace Land? No shit. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (not to mention the Outer Space Treaty, as lousy as it is) have contributed to arms reductions, however. Are you seriously arguing that because treaties don't work 100% to eliminate all nuclear weapons forever that we shouldn't bother?

[K. A. Pital]

Are you seriously arguing that because treaties don't work 100% to eliminate all nuclear weapons forever that we shouldn't bother?

What a nice strawman! The argument was that because the realities have changed - no two superpowers who control almost the entire world nuclear arsenal and manufacture most of the world's arms selling it to vassal states - this system is no more.

There are many competing powers now and quite a few of them don't give a flying fuck about 30-year old treaties made for a different political reality.

The idea of space weaponry is to militarize space ahead of your possible competitors, disallowing a situation where they would get this advantage.

Treaties have worked, but today we either need new treaties (and with the number of non-alighned nations and various fractured blocs around the world, making everyone sign them is going to be a major pain in the ass), or we really need to look with a honest eye into the challenges of space military of tomorrow.

P.S. Might be indeed a good idea to re-locate this thread from Testing into some other place to discuss the problem of space militarization.

[Medic]

Bully for Stuart. He hasn't posted in this thread and I'm not familiar with the details of his argument.

Stas filled in the gaps of Stuart's comments I alluded to and pointed out your strawman.

I only care to argue as much as this: better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, WRT space weaponry and best of all to enjoy that which others can't. It's hardly fair we have bigger, single carrier airgroups than most nations have air forces, that we have as many heavy bombers and precision strike weapons and nukes as we do, compared to most of the rest of the world. It pains me to state the obvious but that's the point. As some technological boundaries are surpassed by more and more countries, we have to up the ante to maintain a decisive edge and cause frankly, defying historical inertia is suicide.

I don't distinguish between one altitude from the earth's surface and another; likewise, I can't but help characterize an anti-space-weapon stance as just that, an arbitrary line in the sand where we say essentially: no higher! Space is just a few more miles out, it carries with it the potential for weapons of global reach -- a capability we already enjoy -- and narrows response time for defenses but not impossibly so. Even if we all agreed not to put weapons on satellites for a time then there's still the huge gray area of space-capable bombers, I'm not even sure what to call them. Basically, a single or multi-stage rocket plane (or whatever propulsion system) of global reach, carrying, and I love this particular bit of Cold War parlance, "special warheads."

Anyway, the key difference between a rocket plane and satellites seems to me only as significant as the difference between air power and ground troops. Satellites are as ground troops, they can occupy. Rocket planes are as air power has always been fundamentally: an extension of firepower. Both can kill, maim and all that horrible stuff, why the arbitrary 'DO NOT WANT!' for one and not the other?

Though I've rambled enough about nuclear weapons in space, I'm merely satisfying this apparent mindset of yours, that your notion of the weaponisation of space is wrapped firmly around the brick of nuclear brinkmanship. There's nothing preventing us from putting conventional arms up there, it all weighs the same. Affordable air travel for the masses only occurs after the military's of the world can drop thousands of men from the air to kill other people, which only tells you everything you need to know about conquering gravity: doing so weaponizes it by default whatever the altitude.

[Turin]

I've manually split this from Testing where I rudely started an argument about space weaponization and nuclear brinkmanship.

The US should not have dumped Dynasoar and we should not have dumped BOR and EPOS/SPIRAL. We'd have functioning space forces by now with multiple space stations, docking objects, weapons platforms... not that ISS crap.

Weapons platforms? Right, because what the world really needs is a shit-ton more debris in orbit. It's not like we're dependent on satellites for everything from weather to to communications to shipping, right? Why don't people ever think about stuff like this?

Um, we do. I think Stas was trying to say that we'd have a significantly larger space infrastructure if it had gone along his proposed path. For that matter, space militarization is unstoppable.

Weapons platforms? Right, because what the world really needs is a shit-ton more debris in orbit. It's not like we're dependent on satellites for everything from weather to to communications to shipping, right? Why don't people ever think about stuff like this?

I really think you missed the point with your rant, but hey...

Yeah, alright, phongn already pointed that out for me and there's egg on my face for it.

I'll admit I get a little jumpy whenever I hear someone mention space weaponization. To put it simply: Satellites = nuclear launch detection. Space weaponization = potential threat to satellites. Potential threat to satellites = increased danger of nuclear escalation in case of accident (particularly a large scale space-weather event). Increased danger of nuclear escalation = bad.

And? Space will be weaponized whether you want it or not; heck, it already is weaponized to some extent and more will follow, with ASAT systems on ground, air and sea and the orbital vehicles to strike from space. Most space ships were designed with dual use in mind.

It's like nuclear weapons, like it or not but the genie is out. Whoever gets space military superiority, gets a priveleged place among nations.

OMG, no, this got serious, and not just 'cool weapony' non-serious. Turin I frown upon you.

Stuart's comments on ABM treaty's and the proliferation of that technology these days backs up his assertion that treaties won't stop the progress of weapons development if there's a viable need for those weapons. There is nothing new about the idea of trying to deny your enemy a view of the battlefield, think about anti-radiation missiles? This is that, only in a broader strategic sense. If we don't build it, someone else will, if we make treaties, well, those can last only so long, history's shown us that much.

Pandora's Box I suppose, just stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

edit: on top of all that, all those wonderful treaties happened when all the nuclear weapons and capability were in the hands of the US, USSR, and nations aligned with them. (PRC is something of an exception when they and the USSR sort of broke up as allies) That luxury is long, long gone.

OMG, no, this got serious, and not just 'cool weapony' non-serious. Turin I frown upon you.

Sorry about that... wasn't really my intention to make it into a "thing." If a mod feels like splitting it out, we can continue there or start a new thread.

Stuart's comments on ABM treaty's and the proliferation of that technology these days backs up his assertion that treaties won't stop the progress of weapons development if there's a viable need for those weapons.

Bully for Stuart. He hasn't posted in this thread and I'm not familiar with the details of his argument.

There is nothing new about the idea of trying to deny your enemy a view of the battlefield, think about anti-radiation missiles? This is that, only in a broader strategic sense. If we don't build it, someone else will, if we make treaties, well, those can last only so long, history's shown us that much.

You mean we don't really live in Happy Fun & Peace Land? No shit. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (not to mention the Outer Space Treaty, as lousy as it is) have contributed to arms reductions, however. Are you seriously arguing that because treaties don't work 100% to eliminate all nuclear weapons forever that we shouldn't bother?

Are you seriously arguing that because treaties don't work 100% to eliminate all nuclear weapons forever that we shouldn't bother?

What a nice strawman! The argument was that because the realities have changed - no two superpowers who control almost the entire world nuclear arsenal and manufacture most of the world's arms selling it to vassal states - this system is no more.

There are many competing powers now and quite a few of them don't give a flying fuck about 30-year old treaties made for a different political reality.

The idea of space weaponry is to militarize space ahead of your possible competitors, disallowing a situation where they would get this advantage.

Treaties have worked, but today we either need new treaties (and with the number of non-alighned nations and various fractured blocs around the world, making everyone sign them is going to be a major pain in the ass), or we really need to look with a honest eye into the challenges of space military of tomorrow.

P.S. Might be indeed a good idea to re-locate this thread from Testing into some other place to discuss the problem of space militarization.

Bully for Stuart. He hasn't posted in this thread and I'm not familiar with the details of his argument.

Stas filled in the gaps of Stuart's comments I alluded to and pointed out your strawman.

I only care to argue as much as this: better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, WRT space weaponry and best of all to enjoy that which others can't. It's hardly fair we have bigger, single carrier airgroups than most nations have air forces, that we have as many heavy bombers and precision strike weapons and nukes as we do, compared to most of the rest of the world. It pains me to state the obvious but that's the point. As some technological boundaries are surpassed by more and more countries, we have to up the ante to maintain a decisive edge and cause frankly, defying historical inertia is suicide.

I don't distinguish between one altitude from the earth's surface and another; likewise, I can't but help characterize an anti-space-weapon stance as just that, an arbitrary line in the sand where we say essentially: no higher! Space is just a few more miles out, it carries with it the potential for weapons of global reach -- a capability we already enjoy -- and narrows response time for defenses but not impossibly so. Even if we all agreed not to put weapons on satellites for a time then there's still the huge gray area of space-capable bombers, I'm not even sure what to call them. Basically, a single or multi-stage rocket plane (or whatever propulsion system) of global reach, carrying, and I love this particular bit of Cold War parlance, "special warheads."

Anyway, the key difference between a rocket plane and satellites seems to me only as significant as the difference between air power and ground troops. Satellites are as ground troops, they can occupy. Rocket planes are as air power has always been fundamentally: an extension of firepower. Both can kill, maim and all that horrible stuff, why the arbitrary 'DO NOT WANT!' for one and not the other?

Though I've rambled enough about nuclear weapons in space, I'm merely satisfying this apparent mindset of yours, that your notion of the weaponisation of space is wrapped firmly around the brick of nuclear brinkmanship. There's nothing preventing us from putting conventional arms up there, it all weighs the same. Affordable air travel for the masses only occurs after the military's of the world can drop thousands of men from the air to kill other people, which only tells you everything you need to know about conquering gravity: doing so weaponizes it by default whatever the altitude.

I'll post below my first response.

[Turin]

Are you seriously arguing that because treaties don't work 100% to eliminate all nuclear weapons forever that we shouldn't bother?

What a nice strawman! The argument was that because the realities have changed - no two superpowers who control almost the entire world nuclear arsenal and manufacture most of the world's arms selling it to vassal states - this system is no more.

There are many competing powers now and quite a few of them don't give a flying fuck about 30-year old treaties made for a different political reality.

The idea of space weaponry is to militarize space ahead of your possible competitors, disallowing a situation where they would get this advantage.

Treaties have worked, but today we either need new treaties (and with the number of non-alighned nations and various fractured blocs around the world, making everyone sign them is going to be a major pain in the ass), or we really need to look with a honest eye into the challenges of space military of tomorrow.

It's not intended as a strawman, but an extension of the argument (and admittedly I should have been more explicit). Continuing to develop anti-satellite and ABM weapons undermines your ability to honestly negotiate arms reduction treaties. Obviously we need new treaties because today there are more people with nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

As the US has insisted on deploying it's useless ABM defense system, the Chinese have been forced to step up to defend its space-based assets. This is the same spiraling cycle of escalation we saw during the Cold War.

Though I've rambled enough about nuclear weapons in space, I'm merely satisfying this apparent mindset of yours, that your notion of the weaponisation of space is wrapped firmly around the brick of nuclear brinkmanship. There's nothing preventing us from putting conventional arms up there, it all weighs the same.

I've cut out your supporting arguments because this is the crux I want to get at... I'll mostly concede the conventional weapons argument except as it relates to the ASAT problem. There's a reason why I'm associated weaponization of space with nuclear brinkmanship.

Satellites are the primary means of launch detection and disarmament verification. If ASAT weapons become widespread, then an attack on the satellite constellations will necessarily precede a nuclear attack. If, today, the US suddenly loses a bunch of satellites that are keeping an eye on Russian or Chinese missile silos, then we get worried and move birds as required to pick up the slack. We don't presume it's a potential preamble to a full-scale launch. Once space-based ASAT weapons are deployed, we no longer have this luxury and the threat of nuclear escalation increases.

[K. A. Pital]

We don't presume it's a potential preamble to a full-scale launch

Um... why is that? In what way space-based ASAT would be different from a ground-based one? Please...

If there's a need for a weapon, nothing will stop it's arrival. Not even a treaty. Especially if there's so many countries - making them all subject to this treaty would be painstakingly hard. Most likely it would simply not work. It's enough for several countries would reject it straightaway... after that, what will be left?

[Turin]

We don't presume it's a potential preamble to a full-scale launch

Um... why is that? In what way space-based ASAT would be different from a ground-based one? Please...

If you keep rolling your eyes like that, they'll fall out. A space-based ASAT can attack without being easily detected (unless of course you have more satellites watching everyone else's satellites). A ground-based ASAT is going to have a detectable launch plume.

If there's a need for a weapon, nothing will stop it's arrival. Not even a treaty. Especially if there's so many countries - making them all subject to this treaty would be painstakingly hard. Most likely it would simply not work. It's enough for several countries would reject it straightaway... after that, what will be left?

How many more countries are we talking about versus existing anti-proliferation treaties? It can't be that many. And yes, it would be hard. No one is saying that disarmament is a cake-walk. It requires serious multi-lateral leadership by the major world powers, verification schemes with teeth, and maybe even the willingness to use economic or military force against states which break their obligations.

But pursuing increasing weaponization guarantees that you will provoke other nations to do the same. Presumably you don't think your own nation is sitting idly by watching the US build up its ABM systems? There are two paths here: a) for leading nations to recognize the dangers of proliferation and make a commitment to pushing for disarmament, with a possibility of failure for peace, or b) for leading nations to push for weaponization and nearly guarantee a failure of peace.

[Patrick Degan]

We don't presume it's a potential preamble to a full-scale launch

Um... why is that? In what way space-based ASAT would be different from a ground-based one? Please...

If you keep rolling your eyes like that, they'll fall out. A space-based ASAT can attack without being easily detected (unless of course you have more satellites watching everyone else's satellites). A ground-based ASAT is going to have a detectable launch plume.

An ASAT would hardly be undetectable, given that it will already be on ground-based tracking monitors and following its rather predictable, fixed orbital course. If it launches missiles of any appreciable size to be picked up on a radar screen, those too would be detectable on launch. And as there would already be monitoring satellites in orbit in such an environment in which ASAT platforms exist, a launch from such a platform would be spotted almost immediately.

[Stuart]

[As the US has insisted on deploying it's useless ABM defense system, the Chinese have been forced to step up to defend its space-based assets. This is the same spiraling cycle of escalation we saw during the Cold War.

Respectfully, I'm afraid these statements do not hold water. The US anti-missile system (which is multi-layered and has several components) is very far from useless. It gives us a reasonable level of defense against "lunatic attacks" and can be thickened up, almost at will, to provide a level of defense against almost any ballistic missile threat. That's why the Russians are so upset about it - they know it works and will negate their own ballistic missile force.

The Chinese development of an ABM/ASAT system has absolutely nothing to do with any US initiative. They have not been "forced to step up" their programs. Your assertions here are based on an outmoded and now mostly-discarded theory of how these things work (called action-reaction). The Chinese are developing their systems for strategic reasons of their own and US actions have nothing to do with that effort. Your statements are a reflection of a line of thought that is now written off as the "action-reaction fallacy". Put at its simplest the action reaction fallacy states that "if we do A then the opposition will respond by doing B. Since we don't want them to do B, we can stop them by not doing A". The fallacy, of course, lies in the fact that the opposition's decision to do B is not related to our decision to do A and their interest in B is a result of their own strategic perceptions and policies. Whether or not we do A is of no relevence.

So, why are the Chinese developing ASAT and ABM systems? The ABM requirement is obvious, its dawned on them that they can be wiped out by nuclear attack and don't want to be. The ASAT effort is more complex. China as a military power depends on the sheer size of its armed forces; their standard Army units are still masses of light infantry with only a modicum of supporting arms. They have sophisticated armored and mechanized infantry forces but those forces only represent a tiny proportion of their main force. In fact, over the last few years, the light infantry component of their force has actually increased. Until 2000, the Chinese had A and B category divisions that differed in their levels of manpower and equipment standards. The inferior B standard divisions have mostly gone now, some have been upgraded to A standard divisions, others have been reformed as independent infantry brigades that are basically small divisions equipped to A standard.

The problem that they face is that the way modern weaponry has developed, the old-style mass divisions represented by the Chinese Army are little more than targets for the sort of weaponry the US has at its disposal. The brutal fact is that quality has triumphed over quantity and that we can kill their infantry faster than they can funnel it into the battlefield (put in the brutal language of The Business "our pretty toys trump their warm bodies"). All their mass of infantry means is that tehre'll be more targets in the kill-zone, upping teh numbers means their casualty rate climbs proportionally without any military advantage.

The Chinese analysed how the US military works and they have come to the conclusion that its achilles heel is its reliance on space-based sensors and communications facilities. If they can be eliminated, the US ability to use its generations of mass-killingw eapons will be severely impeded. Put simply, no GPS, no guided bombs. No space-based recon, the US doesn't know where to shoot. So, the Chinese see their ASAT technology as a response to the devastating US superiority in precision-guided munitions that essentially negates their mass infantry army.

So, the Chinese are developing their ABM and ASAT weapons for their own reasons and their own stratgeic and operational rationales. Those have nothing to do with US efforts in the same area. If we stopped developing ASAT and ABM tomorrow, the Chinese would still develop both because that's their response to their strategic and operational requirements, our opinions have nothing to do with it. This is the critical point, weaponry is developed because the developers have a need for it, what other countries do in similar areas has remarkably little impact on those decisions.

Satellites are the primary means of launch detection and disarmament verification. If ASAT weapons become widespread, then an attack on the satellite constellations will necessarily precede a nuclear attack.

And such an attack on the satellite constellations is a sound indicator that a nuclear attack is inbound. The satellites have done their job, just a different way from that expected.

If, today, the US suddenly loses a bunch of satellites that are keeping an eye on Russian or Chinese missile silos, then we get worried and move birds as required to pick up the slack. We don't presume it's a potential preamble to a full-scale launch.

I'm sorry, no offense intended, but your statement is nonsense. If we lost a bunch of birds that were eying Russian or Chinese missile fields (we never have by the way so your "we get worried" is a presumption without cause), you can be absolutely SURE we would presume a full-scale attack is underway. How do we know? Because we have lost signals from one - repeat one - bird before (for a variety or reasons none of which can be discussed here) Even a temporary loss-of-signal from that one bird means the readiness state shoots up. Been there, done that (and I really do have the T-shirt).

Once space-based ASAT weapons are deployed, we no longer have this luxury and the threat of nuclear escalation increases.

The problem here is the basic assumptions are wrong. The luxury you describe simply doesn't exist to start with. Without going into a long discussion of logic trees, time constraints and strategic options, I'll make a flat statement, ABM reduces, quite drastically, the danger of nuclear escalation. If you want, we can go into why but its a long, complex argument.

Also, bear this in mind. The ABM and ASAT genies are out of the bottle - if they were ever in it in the first place (which, personally I doubt). Twelve countries are either developing ABM/ASAT weapons or are partnering those that are by buying into the program (hey guys, we'll pay some of your development costs if we can be the first customer). As an example, India is developing its own multi-layered missile defense system, one that was successfully tested for the first time earlier this year and another test is scheduled for June. The question that is is really being asked is not whether ABM/ASAT systems are being developed, they are and nobody can stop them. The debate is really about whether the US should or should not be one of the countries protected by such systems.

Again, with respect, but arguing against "the militarization of space" is an exemplar of futility. Space is militarized and has been for 40 years. In fact, ever since mankind took its first steps up there, its been militarized. The process is inevitable and unstoppable and arguing against it is rather like spitting into a Category Five hurricane.

A bit of background because you're not familiar with me. I'm a defense analyst whose been involved in strategic issues for more than 30 years. I've worked on ABM and ASAT issues (also the strategic use of nuclear weapons including target analysis for same) and have worked extensively in the design and construction of both air-defense and missile-defense systems. I'm still working in fields related to those areas today.

[Stuart]

An ASAT would hardly be undetectable, given that it will already be on ground-based tracking monitors and following its rather predictable, fixed orbital course. If it launches missiles of any appreciable size to be picked up on a radar screen, those too would be detectable on launch. And as there would already be monitoring satellites in orbit in such an environment in which ASAT platforms exist, a launch from such a platform would be spotted almost immediately.

Absolutely correct. The type of ASAT being developed by the Chinese is very easily observable. It involves launching a satellite, matching orbits , bringing the target and interceptor together and then detonating (conventional explosion) or initiating (nuclear event) the warhead. We track all objects in orbit all the time (including debris). We KNOW what's going on up there - we had the Chinese ASAT test pegged a long time before the final bang. (The tracking data is pretty much public domain by the way).

Another generation of ASAT system that's being developed relies on ground-fired lasers. These have been reported for years but there's no real evidence that they're a practical possibility yet. However, once the AL-1A gets into service, that could change. The AL-1A is an entirely different kettle of fish from a killer satellite system; its use would be pretty much undetectable.

Another system that's being played with (with theoretically great success) uses Jello. I'm not joking, it really does. The ASAT interceptor sprays liquid jello out through four nozzles to form a cloud. As the target satellite flies through the cloud, the jello coats its optics and solar power cells. What happens next is that the vacuum of space results in the water evaporating leaving the jelly deposited in a thin film over said optics and solar cells. That film very quickly turns an opaque white and knocks out both the satellites optics and power supply, rendering it inert. No debris, nothing (the unused jello quickly becomes inert also by the same mechanisms.

How seriously is Jello-ASAT taken? Seriously enough for future satellites to have integral power supplies not reliant on solar cells

[K. A. Pital]

Another generation of ASAT system that's being developed relies on ground-fired lasers. These have been reported for years but there's no real evidence that they're a practical possibility yet. However, once the AL-1A gets into service, that could change. The AL-1A is an entirely different kettle of fish from a killer satellite system; its use would be pretty much undetectable.

I thought they were air-fired, not ground-fired? We mounted 1+MWt ASAT lasers on Il-76 IIRC and this Il is still functioning. It's only a prototype but good enough as a demonstrator of things to come.

[Stuart]

A space-based ASAT can attack without being easily detected (unless of course you have more satellites watching everyone else's satellites).

Not so, they're pretty detectable.

How many more countries are we talking about versus existing anti-proliferation treaties? It can't be that many.

At the moment, the US, Russia, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea, India and Israel all have active ABM/ASAT programs. Singapore, Taiwan, Pakistan, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy are actively buying into said programs. That's a total of 16 countries, of whom 12 are very serious contenders.

And yes, it would be hard. No one is saying that disarmament is a cake-walk. It requires serious multi-lateral leadership by the major world powers, verification schemes with teeth, and maybe even the willingness to use economic or military force against states which break their obligations.

Which is politically impossible. You're demanding a level of international co-operation which, even if it were possible, is undersirable.

But pursuing increasing weaponization guarantees that you will provoke other nations to do the same. Presumably you don't think your own nation is sitting idly by watching the US build up its ABM systems?

Again, what countries do, they do for strategic and operational reasons of their own. What the US do has only a very marginal impact on those decisions. The reason why 16 countries are involved in a variety of ABM/ASAT programs is because they see they have an operational requirement for them that overrides other considerations. That kills your proposed international effort right there.

There are two paths here: a) for leading nations to recognize the dangers of proliferation and make a commitment to pushing for disarmament, with a possibility of failure for peace, or b) for leading nations to push for weaponization and nearly guarantee a failure of peace.

False dilemma fallacy. Those aren't the only options.

The important thing here is realpolitik. ABM/ASATs are being developed by multiple countries because they are needed by those countries. Space is militarized and always has been. Those are facts that any policy decision has to recognize. Crying out that something else should be done is very satisfying but it doesn't recognize reality. Put simply, the world is the way it is and we have to live with it and make our decisions based on that reality.

As a point of fact, there has never, in the whole of human history, been an example of a weapon being eliminated by a treaty ban. The only way weapons have been eliminated is by removing the operational requirement for them - the muzzle-loading musket was never banned by treaty, the breech-loading rifle drove it from the battlefield.

[Stuart]

I thought they were air-fired, not ground-fired? We mounted 1+MWt ASAT lasers on Il-76 IIRC and this Il is still functioning. It's only a prototype but good enough as a demonstrator of things to come.

The ones that worry us are Chinese and they're ground-fired. Your airborne one isn't powerful enough to worry us - yet. By the way, your IL-76 proves the point I've been trying to make; it was developed because your people saw the same operational requirement as our people, it wasn't a response to the AL-1A any more than ours was a response to yours.

Both nice systems though.........

[K. A. Pital]

You're demanding a level of international co-operation which, even if it were possible, is undersirable.

Exactly the point against the ability to make a new ban. Well, I'm from the "one world government would be cool" camp, but I still understand that today such cooperation is an outright impossibility. And for many years in the future it will remain that way.

I mean, there's already a treaty on "peaceful space exploration". All countries who are developing space weapons are IIRC signatories That's ridiculous, but so it is. Russia has officially instituted Cosmic Forces (Voenno-Kosmicheskie Sily) as a branch of the military. China will make that too just as soon as they can launch enough hardware up there.

[Stuart]

I mean, there's already a treaty on "peaceful space exploration". All countries who are developing space weapons are IIRC signatories That's ridiculous, but so it is. Russia has officially instituted Cosmic Forces (Voenno-Kosmicheskie Sily) as a branch of the military. China will make that too just as soon as they can launch enough hardware up there.

There are also treaties against chemical and biological warfare, the use of exploding shells under 37mm (or under 400 grams depending on which treaty we take) and against triangular bayonets (Stu looks at the SKS in his gun safe and grins). None of them are of any weight any more; the passage of time has made them irrelevent. Back in the (IIRC) 12th century the Pope (whose authority then was much greater than it is now) banned crossbows as being "a weapon hateful to God" and declared all crossbowmen excommunicated. Didn't work. Later, another Pope banned any bullets other than round ones (except for use against "Turks") which lead to the development of the Puckle Gun that fired round bullets for use against Christians and square bullets for use against "Turks" (for "Turks" read Moslems).

Arms control is a chimera I fear. It's nice and cozy in the abstract but in the real world, its a nonsense.

[Beowulf]

If you don't understand why the action-reaction theory is false, A implies B is not equivalent to not A implies not B, in formal logic. B can happen regardless of whether A happens.

[Turin]

I'm understandably going to concede to the considerable technical expertise present here with respect to detection of ASAT weapons, etc. (Although I was under the impression based on every article I've read on the subject that US ABM was a pie-in-the-sky project, the wanking of people like Shep not withstanding.) So if it appears that I'm "ignoring" a good chunk of the response it's because I'm simply conceding it.

But I think that the technical arguments actually cloud the discussion. Whether the weapons are ground-based, space-based, etc, is largely irrelevant to the policy decisions driving their deployment. I want to get at the larger strategic question, the core of which Stuart is outlining as such:

The Chinese development of an ABM/ASAT system has absolutely nothing to do with any US initiative. They have not been "forced to step up" their programs. Your assertions here are based on an outmoded and now mostly-discarded theory of how these things work (called action-reaction). The Chinese are developing their systems for strategic reasons of their own and US actions have nothing to do with that effort. Your statements are a reflection of a line of thought that is now written off as the "action-reaction fallacy". Put at its simplest the action reaction fallacy states that "if we do A then the opposition will respond by doing B. Since we don't want them to do B, we can stop them by not doing A". The fallacy, of course, lies in the fact that the opposition's decision to do B is not related to our decision to do A and their interest in B is a result of their own strategic perceptions and policies. Whether or not we do A is of no relevence.

My argument is not that "we can stop them by not doing A", but that "there is at least a possibility that by not doing A we can convince them to do so as well." Or rather "if we do A, they will definitely do B." Your assertion that nations operate solely on their own strategic interests and nothing to do with the actions of others is belied by the argument that "well the Chinese are deploying this system, so we have to do so as well." It's belied by the statement that the Chinese see the American reliance on GPS to be an Achilles heel. What is that if not making decisions based on the actions of others?

I'm not sure if you've read War in Heaven (Caldicott/Eisendrath), but there was a discussion of just this factor with respect to Chinese missile deployment. I'll try to dig up the relevant section, but the gist of it was that the Chinese were saying "well, there's 20 missiles pointed at the West Coast now, so if ABM is deployed we'll just have to point 100 that way."

If we lost a bunch of birds that were eying Russian or Chinese missile fields (we never have by the way so your "we get worried" is a presumption without cause), you can be absolutely SURE we would presume a full-scale attack is underway.

And if some massive space weather event occurs, knocking out multiple satellites simultaneously? I realize you're saying this could happen today, but today we don't have widespread ASAT capability (as far as I understand everyone is still "in development"). If something unlucky happens today, we would be jumping the gun to assume a launch, wouldn't we?

The problem here is the basic assumptions are wrong. The luxury you describe simply doesn't exist to start with. Without going into a long discussion of logic trees, time constraints and strategic options, I'll make a flat statement, ABM reduces, quite drastically, the danger of nuclear escalation. If you want, we can go into why but its a long, complex argument.

As long as we're making fiat statements, I'll say ABM increases the danger of nuclear escalation because it gives some jackass the idea that he might avoid retaliation. (So there. ) If you can argue otherwise, please explain.

And yes, it would be hard. No one is saying that disarmament is a cake-walk. It requires serious multi-lateral leadership by the major world powers, verification schemes with teeth, and maybe even the willingness to use economic or military force against states which break their obligations.

Which is politically impossible. You're demanding a level of international co-operation which, even if it were possible, is undersirable.

It's impossible because you say so? Am I vastly overestimating the effect of the various disarmament treaties that have reduced the number of nuclear weapons. Disarmament vs "armed to the teeth" isn't a black-and-white situation. You can reduce arms gradually as long as verification schemes are in place. I'm conceding it's difficult as all hell (and certainly not possible under the current US maladministration), you seem to be saying it's not possible in principle. And large-scale international cooperation is undesirable why?

There are two paths here: a) for leading nations to recognize the dangers of proliferation and make a commitment to pushing for disarmament, with a possibility of failure for peace, or b) for leading nations to push for weaponization and nearly guarantee a failure of peace.

False dilemma fallacy. Those aren't the only options.

The important thing here is realpolitik. <snip> Crying out that something else should be done is very satisfying but it doesn't recognize reality. Put simply, the world is the way it is and we have to live with it and make our decisions based on that reality.

As a point of fact, there has never, in the whole of human history, been an example of a weapon being eliminated by a treaty ban.

I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) then that the final conclusion of your argument would be that the "third way" is for everyone to arm up and somehow this can allow for some sort of stable peace. I suppose there's technically another "fourth way" which is to develop defenses first and then nuke the fuck out of everyone before they can develop the same, but I'm going to assume that you're not a completely worthless human being.

At the core of all these arguments, regardless of whether it's space-based ASAT, ground-based ABM, or whatever, are the opposing ideas that the policies driving deployment of these systems are either stabilizing or destabilizing, which is why I'm asking for your explanation of how ABM improves stability.

[Turin]

If you don't understand why the action-reaction theory is false, A implies B is not equivalent to not A implies not B, in formal logic. B can happen regardless of whether A happens.

I think I've addressed this above, but just so I'm clear. I understand why it is logically the case that B can happen without A, but it is also logically the case that If A Then B. The goal of the logic is to reduce the number of options that lead to B.

[MKSheppard]

Another generation of ASAT system that's being developed relies on ground-fired lasers.

What about the good old fashioned ASM-135 ASAT missile tested on the F-15 in the 80s?

Another system that's being played with (with theoretically great success) uses Jello. I'm not joking, it really does. The ASAT interceptor sprays liquid jello out through four nozzles to form a cloud.

Derivative of the anti-balloon decoy jello sprayer you've mentioned in the past; where the jello is squirted out, and it crystallizes in space; and then goes forth and shreds any inflatible RV decoys?

Does it still use grape