New Space Race

[Stravo]

Here's a hypothetical. Say that in the current atmosphere of growing American militarism and a more offensive posture in terms of use of militray might, say that Bush decides to implement a program that would begin placing space based weapons like satellites that can fire particle beams onto the surface of the Earth with pinpoint accuracy by the start of teh next decade. Say you get a lead that a member of a terrorist cell is in a car driving to a meet in Sudan, you fire up the particle beam weapon, aim and fire, the car explodes into a fireball and all of it lasted a total of fifteen minutes. This would take pressure off our militray and allow the US to respond to threats or potential targets of oppurtunity without having to deploy troops or ask permission to cross sovereign territory to get to where we're going.

Got an Al-Qaeda cell building vest bombs for suicide bombers in a ghetto in Pakistan....BLAM, the building is gone with little or no collateral damage.

The question becomes rather obvious, would the rest of the world stand for this weapons platform in US hands or would some powers decide to either get their own platforms in place or more likely try to develop counter measures? WOuld such an platform kick off a space race like the one for the moon with every major power trying to get a platform up in space OR would they rely on diplomatic means to try and pressure the US to NOT deploy the system and what sort of arguments would you make to convince the US to NOT deploy it that sound rational. ( I want to avoid any virulent anti-Americanism here, think of yourself as a head of state of another nation and how you might approach the problem.)

[Beowulf]

It's probably result in ASAT weapons being launched by nations such as China and France to prevent the weaponization of space. ASAT aren't extremely difficult to make these days, so it's quite plausible that sometime after it's first used, somebody's going to try to get rid of it. I believe that the US is already developing an ASAT so as to remove satelite threats before a military action...

[Stravo]

Beowulf, its too cool that you should be the first to reply since it was your sig picture that inspired this question.

[Beowulf]

Beowulf, its too cool that you should be the first to reply since it was your sig picture that inspired this question.

[irishmick79]

The UN would have a shitfit. They have in the past passed several resolutions denouncing the militirization of space, and such a move by the the US would provoke harsh responses. Alot of countries would not tolerate it, because it would be a technological advantage they could not hope to counter.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Here's a hypothetical. Say that in the current atmosphere of growing American militarism and a more offensive posture in terms of use of militray might, say that Bush decides to implement a program that would begin placing space based weapons like satellites that can fire particle beams onto the surface of the Earth with pinpoint accuracy by the start of teh next decade. Say you get a lead that a member of a terrorist cell is in a car driving to a meet in Sudan, you fire up the particle beam weapon, aim and fire, the car explodes into a fireball and all of it lasted a total of fifteen minutes. This would take pressure off our militray and allow the US to respond to threats or potential targets of oppurtunity without having to deploy troops or ask permission to cross sovereign territory to get to where we're going.

Got an Al-Qaeda cell building vest bombs for suicide bombers in a ghetto in Pakistan....BLAM, the building is gone with little or no collateral damage.

The question becomes rather obvious, would the rest of the world stand for this weapons platform in US hands or would some powers decide to either get their own platforms in place or more likely try to develop counter measures? WOuld such an platform kick off a space race like the one for the moon with every major power trying to get a platform up in space OR would they rely on diplomatic means to try and pressure the US to NOT deploy the system and what sort of arguments would you make to convince the US to NOT deploy it that sound rational. ( I want to avoid any virulent anti-Americanism here, think of yourself as a head of state of another nation and how you might approach the problem.)

Every country on the planet that's not the United States, or a protectorate/puppet/yes-man thereof is going to have kittens on the issue. And, militarily, there's nothing that they could really do about it, except develop anti-sat technologies of their own. (Satellites are really easy to kill. You can't really armor something that costs $20000 per kilogram to get up into space.)

What could happen is that nations belonging to the UN could impose economic sanctions of some sort on the United States (not that this would really be feasible since the U.S. has unilateral veto power.) But, needless to say, the international reaction to a move like that would be so negative that even the most jingoistic retards in the U.S. government would think twice before trying to deploy such a system.

[Companion Cube]

Yep, the UN would slap resolutions on it faster than you can say "Comical Ali".

[HemlockGrey]

If this happens we might as well declare the Imperium Americana and do the whole thing properly.

[Stravo]

But what would the opposition's rationale be? The US can simply say, we have the technology to deploy these wepoans in defense of our nation and you are essentially telling us how to defend our country. That is unacceptable to the US. Is there a school of thought out there that can counter the US argument that hey, don't get mad at us because we have the tech. Its the same with the US having the Bomb back in the late 40's. No one seriously told the US to disarm or not produce those weapons. We all know that there would indeed be a worldwide movement against these weapons but what would the smooth diplomatic argument be or would we just face rampant intrangidence as we did with France in teh current crisis?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But what would the opposition's rationale be? The US can simply say, we have the technology to deploy these wepoans in defense of our nation and you are essentially telling us how to defend our country. That is unacceptable to the US. Is there a school of thought out there that can counter the US argument that hey, don't get mad at us because we have the tech. Its the same with the US having the Bomb back in the late 40's. No one seriously told the US to disarm or not produce those weapons. We all know that there would indeed be a worldwide movement against these weapons but what would the smooth diplomatic argument be or would we just face rampant intrangidence as we did with France in teh current crisis?

Opposition line: Your technology allows you to strike anywhere you damned please, which we see as a gross breach of international law and a clear sign that the United States has absolutely no regard for the borders of other nations.

It's a much different scenario then when the United States had atomic bombs in the forties. Back then, atomic bombs were obscenely expensive, limited in number, and very hard to deploy. Whereas if the U.S. developed a constellation of satellites capable of putting holes in the ground anywhere the U.S. pleases, the story would be different. Sure the system would be expensive. But once it was in place, the U.S. could strike at any nation that pissed it off with relative impunity.

And if we did try that, the fur would fly, like it did with France, Russia, and the others. Except this time, they would actually consider serious action to force the U.S. to think twice about deploying such a system.

[irishmick79]

But what would the opposition's rationale be? The US can simply say, we have the technology to deploy these wepoans in defense of our nation and you are essentially telling us how to defend our country. That is unacceptable to the US. Is there a school of thought out there that can counter the US argument that hey, don't get mad at us because we have the tech. Its the same with the US having the Bomb back in the late 40's. No one seriously told the US to disarm or not produce those weapons. We all know that there would indeed be a worldwide movement against these weapons but what would the smooth diplomatic argument be or would we just face rampant intrangidence as we did with France in teh current crisis?

Here's another rationale....

"Space trancends national borders, and space should be free and open to all nations. Because space cannot be declared apart of any respective state, space should not be utilized as a platform for national defence. States cannot be allowed to weaponize space, because space should be open to all of humankind.

[irishmick79]

I forgot to add "states that wish to weaponize space would be identified as having hostile intentions to the peaceful states throughout the rest of the world."

[RedImperator]

Realistically, these weapons would be of little threat to the major powers. It would touch off a race to develop better ASAT weaponry, but anyone who can launch a satellite into orbit can throw bomblets into the path of one of these hypothetical killer sats. The argument that space belongs to no one doesn't hold here--the US wouldn't be claiming a part of space, only putting up a satellite. The understanding would be that if the US used these weapons against a space power, it would be an act of war and they'd respond by destroying our satellites, and likewise if another country attempted to destroy them, it would be an act of war against us. And there's nothing to stop the other space powers from doing the same once they develop the technology. Hell, I don't see much difference between something like this and an unmanned drone with a missile strapped on. And there's nothing saying the U.S. would just fire these weapons whenever it suited their fancy--why would these be unacceptable to use if the country within whose borders the target lay granted permission to fire, first?

This isn't saying the entire world wouldn't bitch and moan about it. But the entire world bitched and moaned about Iraq too. Hyperpowers, by definition, don't worry themselves about international bitching and moaning.

[irishmick79]

The argument that space belongs to no one doesn't hold here--the US wouldn't be claiming a part of space, only putting up a satellite

The argument would still hold. If the satellite was administered by the US Department of Defense, then the US would be claiming a part of space, because naturally, wherever US troops and military equipment go, that spot is temporarily property of the United States Government.

[RedImperator]

The argument that space belongs to no one doesn't hold here--the US wouldn't be claiming a part of space, only putting up a satellite

The argument would still hold. If the satellite was administered by the US Department of Defense, then the US would be claiming a part of space, because naturally, wherever US troops and military equipment go, that spot is temporarily property of the United States Government.

What? Who in the world do you think operates spy and early warning launch detection satellites? The Department of Commerce? The Rainbow Coalition? The Illuminati? Nobody's claiming we've claimed a part of space because we've put those up. The American government would control the satellite itself, but would have no claim to the vacuum around it, because the volume physically occupied by the satellite isn't space.

[irishmick79]

You're right. Satellites still are administered by the US government, but the spy satellites are technically still used within "peaceful means", and generally only for information gathering.

But the use of space as a weapons platform would certainly be regarded as an act of war, and would also cross a firmly planted legal line regarding the international use of space.

Without strict assurances that the United States would not agressively utilize such weapons like Stravo desrcribed, the world community would simply not accept the depoloyment of such a weapon system. The United States would be in violation of well established norms regarding the use of space. Granted, if nations did allow the US to utilize such a weapon on their soil, then by all means US action would be perfectly legal. But the rest of the world that did not allow such action would require legal assurances that they would not be subject to such assaults, and you know damn well the US would never give such assurances.

And the fact that the US wouldn't give such assurances is the primary reason why such a weapons system deployed would be strenuously objected to.

[Gandalf]

If they had the technology to do this, would they really make an announcement?

[HemlockGrey]

"It was light reflecting off of Venus..."

[theski]

Hey is this not the same weapon from "Real Genius"

[Lonestar]

The other nations are welcome to stop us, but I don't think they have a legal way to do so. The "Space is for all" theory holds up just was well as the "Oceans(outside of 13mi) are for all). Hasn't stopped us from deploying warships in "International Waters", in fact, that's a key ingrediant for American Power Projection.

[phongn]

The whole issue on weapons in space may very well go the way of nuclear test moratoriums: used when it's useful, dropped when it's not. The US typically dropped nuclear test bans when they came up with new designs and needed to validate them (IIRC) to get some meaningful advance and at other times supported the ban to try and retard other countries' research (esp. the USSR).

IMHO, weaponization of space is inevitable - especially if the Pentagon will complete the SBL project. I don't think we'll simply use some sort of orbital-bombardment satellite so callously, though - certainly not to blast some terrorist in a country without their permission.

Other countries may hue and cry, but it certainly won't be a "declaration of war" or be cause for some sort of economic embargo.

[phongn]

It's a much different scenario then when the United States had atomic bombs in the forties. Back then, atomic bombs were obscenely expensive, limited in number, and very hard to deploy.

Once the initial investment work was done, series production of nuclear warheads in the 1940s was not particularly expensive. They were indeed limited in number and means to deploy them ("silverplated" B-29 and B-50) during a few years but afterwards the introduction of craft such as the B-36 made this deployment not too difficult.

With the air-defenses at the time, SAC had the ability to hit anywhere, anytime with their long-ranged bombers with virtual impunity.

[Patrick Degan]

The UN would have a shitfit. They have in the past passed several resolutions denouncing the militirization of space, and such a move by the the US would provoke harsh responses. A lot of countries would not tolerate it, because it would be a technological advantage they could not hope to counter.

Parking bombs in the same orbit with the big, fancy deathbeam platform would be a cheap and effective countermeasure, easily available to any nation even capable of putting satellites in orbit in the first place. One reason why such projects have no basis in reality, no matter what the Church of the High Frontier say. The expense would not be worth the effort to put up what essentially would be an indefensible high-tech target.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Parking bombs in the same orbit with the big, fancy deathbeam platform would be a cheap and effective countermeasure, easily available to any nation even capable of putting satellites in orbit in the first place. One reason why such projects have no basis in reality, no matter what the Church of the High Frontier say. The expense would not be worth the effort to put up what essentially would be an indefensible high-tech target.

An orbitally-deployed device is hardly invulnerable, and a platform can be shielded against EMP, forcing such a device to be used at a distance to where the radiation sleet has the primary effect. Obviously in a conflict it would be targeted and destroyed before it reached that range.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's a hypothetical. Say that in the current atmosphere of growing American militarism and a more offensive posture in terms of use of militray might, say that Bush decides to implement a program that would begin placing space based weapons like satellites that can fire particle beams onto the surface of the Earth with pinpoint accuracy by the start of teh next decade. Say you get a lead that a member of a terrorist cell is in a car driving to a meet in Sudan, you fire up the particle beam weapon, aim and fire, the car explodes into a fireball and all of it lasted a total of fifteen minutes. This would take pressure off our militray and allow the US to respond to threats or potential targets of oppurtunity without having to deploy troops or ask permission to cross sovereign territory to get to where we're going.

Got an Al-Qaeda cell building vest bombs for suicide bombers in a ghetto in Pakistan....BLAM, the building is gone with little or no collateral damage.

The question becomes rather obvious, would the rest of the world stand for this weapons platform in US hands or would some powers decide to either get their own platforms in place or more likely try to develop counter measures? WOuld such an platform kick off a space race like the one for the moon with every major power trying to get a platform up in space OR would they rely on diplomatic means to try and pressure the US to NOT deploy the system and what sort of arguments would you make to convince the US to NOT deploy it that sound rational. ( I want to avoid any virulent anti-Americanism here, think of yourself as a head of state of another nation and how you might approach the problem.)

To be honest, this is totally pointless. Space-based anti-missile platforms are useful; this is just a waste of money. Dropping a brick-bomb from a stealth bomber is vastly cheaper and can be done over any country where you could get away with this.