NEWS: Russia to Use Force if US Starts Space Arms Race

Originally posted by Realist05
The Russian mega-booster Energia attempted to orbit a Polyus laser battle station during the Gorbechev era

In fact, the Polyus was a de-militarized vehicle based on the "Skif" design (which did feature combat lasers). They made a decision to not pursue the weaponized version. Poluys crashed in the Pacific due to a computational error, which resulted in a wrong orientation of the vehicle when the main engine fired.

I do not think the U.S. plans on orbiting 'WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION"
but does have an interest in defending it's fleet of communication, survailance, and navigational assets in orbit.

To not have a deterrant to such attacks is to invite them.

It's nice to have our space assets protected. I'm concerned, though, that this will be viewed by China, Russia etc as an attempt to get an advantage in a hypothetical conflict, especially as the US plans do include some kind of projectiles to be fired at the opponents' satellites. Therefore, it will indeed lead to an arms race. So I would argue that the plans have the potential to backfire.



[edit on 23-5-2005 by Aelita]

The U.S satellites are protected, by the Outer Space Treaty.

If any one dares tamper with them or try to knock them out there would be consequences. This treaty protects U.S satellites and the free access to space more than any weapons the United States could get up there.

I assume that protection extended to all satellites owned by legitimite governments. But just wondering, what about all the privately owned satellites? Are they protected too?

Yes. The treaty applies to all entities within a state thats a signatory to the treaty. That includes all corporations and businesses registered in that country.

[edit on 24/5/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
The U.S satellites are protected, by the Outer Space Treaty.

If any one dares tamper with them or try to knock them out there would be consequences. This treaty protects U.S satellites and the free access to space more than any weapons the United States could get up there.

Just like the NPFT protected against the threat of North Korea getting nuclear weapons? They just pulled out of the treaty so that they could break it. A treaty is only a defense when it can be used as justifaction for employing superior military capabilities. Space-based weapons, especially those designed to target other technology as opposed to military forces or population centers, can provide an avenue of proportional response which makes enforcing the Outer Space Treaty feasible.

So youre arguing that North Korea had every right to pull out of the NPT? How about if Iran wants to do the same? That should be OK as well right?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A treaty is only a defense when it can be used as justifaction for employing superior military capabilities.

Huh? Maybe if you have utter contempt for every other country on the planet and no respect for the rule of law.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Space-based weapons, especially those designed to target other technology as opposed to military forces or population centers, can provide an avenue of proportional response which makes enforcing the Outer Space Treaty feasible.

Space based weapons cant enforce the Outer Space Treaty at all, they completely destroy the entire purpose of the treaty. The treaty is designed to prevent any non-peaceful technology from being sent into space. The United States claiming its going to be the policeman of space complete with 6-shooter and sheriff boots does more to hinder free access to space than any other development to date.