It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SPACE WARS The Pentagon is spending $2 billion on mysterious space weapons

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook
"
" 22 Billion a year on Space programs by the Pentagon? Really? And we still haven't even gotten to Mars yet? Really? Well, we haven't done these things in the public sector but this article concerns the Pentagon so this spending probably involves Black budget spending. Anyway, this article discusses an apparent urgency by the Pentagon to increase its Space program spending by 5 billion this year over its yearly 22 billion spending budget. According to the article, the Pentagon is working to develop a national security infrastructure in Space. "


Maybe the recent announcement of Russia Developing a Stealth Super Nuclear Missile capable of Destroying an Area the size of the State of Texas has something to do with the Pentagon's urgency in increasing it's Space Based Defensive Capabilities . Are we Still in a Cold War after all , but now it's with the New Russian State .




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
They spend a lot more than 22 billion.

NASA was just for show. PR, nationalism.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TinfoilTP

First off, Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Secondly, the treaty on weapons in space only bans weapons of mass destruction being placed into orbit. China is also a signatory of that treaty too. It doesn't ban conventional weapons in orbit, or ASAT weapons in space.


ASAT weapons is a very dangerous proposition. We depend on them for so much from the internet, tv, to any wireless technology(ies). China could render the USA silent by taking out the communication(s) infrastructure, correct?

I do see where you're coming from, I just don't get why we're falling behind when we (USA) spend more on defense than the other large, powerful countries combined.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Because you have to actually look at the budget. Yes it's larger than everyone else, but when you break it down, a lot goes to things besides R&D and development.

The FY15 (end of 2014-2015 budget) was $495.6B, without the OCO funds, which were only supposed to be used for warfighting operations, and the unfunded priorities list, which was only to buy aircraft and other procurement items. Of that, $135.2B went to personnel, $198.7B went to operations, $90.4B went to procurement, $63.5B went to R&D, and $1.2B to program management.

That's a pretty good amount of money that is for R&D, but when you're talking about a program that could take a billion dollars here, or several hundred million there, it goes away fast.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: lostbook

Because you have to actually look at the budget. Yes it's larger than everyone else, but when you break it down, a lot goes to things besides R&D and development.

The FY15 (end of 2014-2015 budget) was $495.6B, without the OCO funds, which were only supposed to be used for warfighting operations, and the unfunded priorities list, which was only to buy aircraft and other procurement items. Of that, $135.2B went to personnel, $198.7B went to operations, $90.4B went to procurement, $63.5B went to R&D, and $1.2B to program management.

That's a pretty good amount of money that is for R&D, but when you're talking about a program that could take a billion dollars here, or several hundred million there, it goes away fast.


Hmmm...Well, thank you for the very informative run-down. You brought an angle to my thread like no one else could have.

My main concern is: why didn't anyone have the foresight to prepare for this before things got this bad? Too bad this massive budget can't buy more brains for some of the people in charge...!



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

In many areas we're still several years ahead. Russia has always been slightly ahead in missile fields, as well as lasers, since the days of the Soviet Union. We're still ahead in areas of Electronic Warfare, and years ahead in stealth and undersea warfare as well as other areas. The gap is closing, but it hasn't closed yet.

A number of people have been saying for the last few years that the gap is closing faster than people think and we need to be careful about it, but many people have ignored them and it's about to bite us.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TinfoilTP

First off, Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Secondly, the treaty on weapons in space only bans weapons of mass destruction being placed into orbit. China is also a signatory of that treaty too. It doesn't ban conventional weapons in orbit, or ASAT weapons in space.


Confusing, why did we scrap the successful F15 satellite killer system then? Why are you posting we are playing catch up when we were ahead with ASAT? Was there fine print banning ASAT weapons from air to space or ground to space while allowing orbital ASAT? What boneheads agreed to that? A dead satellite is just as dead no matter where the attack came from.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

We weren't ahead. We were actually behind somewhat. The early US ASAT weapons would have required a nuclear warhead, as they passed near their target instead of hitting it. The Soviet Union tested a co-orbital ASAT system in the 1970s, and the US started development of what became the ASM -135 which used a kinetic kill vehicle.

Congress made the decision to pursue diplomatic approaches and blocked further tests and funding for the missile program. The Soviets ended their program, until the Russians began testing a new direct attack kill vehicle.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What bothers me with nukes in space is what if they go wrong and fire at the wrong time and on the wrong country. Also what if another country targets them and they explode, will the fall-out hit earth and affect our atmosphere? What if a satellite carrying weapons gets damaged and then starts to fall to earth do we have safeguards in place?

Shouldn't we have some treaty ensuring that no weapons in space ever happen? We do enough damage with the weapons we have on the ground.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

There is a treaty that blocks nuclear warheads from being deployed in space. Conventional weapons can be launched, but not weapons of mass destruction.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: intrptr

What bothers me with nukes in space is what if they go wrong and fire at the wrong time and on the wrong country. Also what if another country targets them and they explode, will the fall-out hit earth and affect our atmosphere? What if a satellite carrying weapons gets damaged and then starts to fall to earth do we have safeguards in place?

Shouldn't we have some treaty ensuring that no weapons in space ever happen? We do enough damage with the weapons we have on the ground.

Well of course they officially deny it. Read the post below yours from Zaphod.

They have to (deny it), its illegal. So is waging aggressive war for no just reason. Connect those dots…



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod even though you might not know, your posts are extremely helpful.. Thank you



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Considering Iran doesn't have nukes, that's a poor analogy.


Didn't you hear? THEY ARE ONLY SIX MONTHS AWAY!

(Circa 1995)





posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I do hope the OP is not thinking this 22 b is including the black sites and projects already in space.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I do hope the OP is not thinking this 22 b is including the black sites and projects already in space.


No, that budget is somewhere in the hundred-billions. I heard it is around 600 billion or something like that.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: yuppa
I do hope the OP is not thinking this 22 b is including the black sites and projects already in space.


No, that budget is somewhere in the hundred-billions. I heard it is around 600 billion or something like that.


Like..darklight 421 >>.

to which this might have a peice in as well.... darklight security
edit on 16000000pppm by yuppa because: added conspiracy fuel



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
the F-35 tab is up to $400 billion



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Instead of finding ways to shoot each others toys down why don't they all work together and spend that time and money finding a way to stop catastrophic meteorite and asteroid collisions etc?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
Instead of finding ways to shoot each others toys down why don't they all work together and spend that time and money finding a way to stop catastrophic meteorite and asteroid collisions etc?


we have some,but..... they are confused for ICBMs when launched.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


As far as space weapons, show of hands who doesn't think the military has nukes in space ready to drop on targets?

Obviously a tactical advantage, Incoming warheads have no ground launch detection signature to detect, and lots less flight time to target.


Not nukes.
Rods from God (kinetic weapons)
en.wikipedia.org...

There is a couple treaties that ban nuke weapons in orbit.
But these treaties do not ban Rods from God kinetic weapons



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join