US continues to oppose space weapons ban

Well, not surprisingly.




While I understand their concerns, what does terrorism on the ground have to do with potential weapons deployment in space? Is he simply throwing in that word to make it seem, urgent? Scaremongering?

Mr Joseph also rejected arguments about setting of a potential arms race in space, citing that "there were no signs of one emerging."

Maybe not yet. But I sincerely hope there isn't. Can you imagine a world where one faction or the other has the ability to conduct orbital bombardments? Oh dear

We cant ban space weapons!! Think of how cool the concept of space weapons is!! We havent even begun to realize the ridiculous level of "cool" achievable by SPACE WEAPONS!!

Its like:

-"What happened to Steves car?"
-"Space weapons."
-"Oh."

C'mon. Would you really pass up the chance to have a conversation like that?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
We cant ban space weapons!! Think of how cool the concept of space weapons is!! We havent even begun to realize the ridiculous level of "cool" achievable by SPACE WEAPONS!!

Its like:

-"What happened to Steves car?"
-"Space weapons."
-"Oh."

C'mon. Would you really pass up the chance to have a conversation like that?

Lol mate you crack me up!

That would be a cool conversation of topic for a while then we'd get all blaze' about it and then start to get annoyed when we discover our dog got zapped by a space weapon. LOL

Take care and peace,
- Naz

I wouldn't get too worked up over a hypothetical problem. There are plenty of real problems out there to worry about.

en.wikipedia.org...

Space weaponry is inevitable, it would be foolish for america to not capitlize on our advantage by throwing some weapons up into space. Besides we already have a lot of assets up there that have to be defended. Those satellites cost a lot of money.

It would kind of make a moon base unnecessary if we accepted a ban on weapons there. What about all the aliens that pose a threat, wouldn't space weapons be needed? I seem to recall that originally our space weapons were to face out anyways.

It would be foolish for the US to not pursue them because their military Rivals certainly are as they too would be foolish not to. Any Country with a Space Program also have plans to weaponize space eventually. It's just common sense.

Frankly, if they can get DEWs to the point where ICBMs become obsolete, I'll be happy.

I may be wrong here, but Im pretty sure we have had weapons in space since the "cold war". If im not mistaken there are satellites orbiting the earth, with nuclear weapons at the ready.

Wouldn't nukes be detectable though? If they can spot Radiation on the ground from orbit then they can do it the other way as well.

I would have to agree that the greatest reason we don't support this is because we have already weaponized space to some extent. For all we know, there could be space-based tactical-lasers the technology exists as shown by the ABL and its counterparts, so why would the US not have a system deployed in space either for ground attacks, missile defense, or to take out communications systems of advanced nations we could possibly have to fight at some future point. With the military's emphasis on taking out command and control quickly in engagements, this is certainly not out of the question.

some of the greatest inventions that we use today were org made for deffence putposes or from parts of deffence.
if the US/russia/china and so forth do this crap
there will always be the bright side that something new will be discovred that can be used to broaden for suvilian use.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Wouldn't nukes be detectable though? If they can spot Radiation on the ground from orbit then they can do it the other way as well.

Im not sure, Plutonium and Uranium are radioactive elements, but I wouldnt think radiation would be detectable if it is concentrated inside the bomb. The nukes could be surrounded by lead, if the radiation is detectable with out an explosion.

Would be a distinctive looking satellite wouldn't it? I guess it could be stealth as well, but just how much better is this then the B2?

Originally posted by AHCivilE
I would have to agree that the greatest reason we don't support this is because we have already weaponized space to some extent. For all we know, there could be space-based tactical-lasers the technology exists as shown by the ABL and its counterparts, so why would the US not have a system deployed in space either for ground attacks, missile defense, or to take out communications systems of advanced nations we could possibly have to fight at some future point. With the military's emphasis on taking out command and control quickly in engagements, this is certainly not out of the question.

You know I always thought the ABL would give us an excuse to use our spaced based assets of similiar design without getting caught weaponizing space. We could just say we had an ABL system in the area.

It would be terribly easy to disguise a nuclear, laser, or kinetic weapon as a communications satellite or surveillance. Don't quote me on it, but I believe that most satellites are about 1.7 m in diameter and the diameter is of most thermonuclear warheads is about 1 m so that leaves plenty of room for control and guidance. All they would have to do is hide a weapon behind a false dish or optical lens and they would have an almost undetectable nuclear attack ability as most nuclear weapons are detected and most destroyable in the boost phase. Even if it were detected, a 8-10 minute head start on nuclear annihilation can make a make a difference in the amount of damage done to your nation.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Would be a distinctive looking satellite wouldn't it? I guess it could be stealth as well, but just how much better is this then the B2?

I guess it would be very distinctive, but who knows maybe it says Direct Tv on the side. A satellite does not require refueling, it could deploy nukes for a surface detonation, or an EMP detonation. The satellite has got to be orbiting thousands mph faster than a B2 can fly, and the payload capability of a satellite probably far exceeds a B2.

That's because there is no way to refuel them without being detected methinks. Lot's of eyes on the ground looking up these days ya know, and I read an article a while back of some amature Satellite hunters who managed to ferret out a number of stealth satellites. It was in Wired Magazine a while back. Satellites do carry some fuel on board to make minor adjustments. This fuel is finite and will eventually be used for a final de-orbit when it comes to the end of it's lifespan. So in order for the US to have Space Based Nukes, they'd have to have a Stealth Spaceplane that can insert these types of satellites without detection and intercept and refuel older ones, and perhaps even disarming them before deorbiting an older model and such. I dunno. ICBM's seem a lot less hassle to me since during the Cold War there was no defence against them and they too can be considered a Space Weapon due to it trajectory.

The payload of a Delta II rocket is approximately 28,900lbs. the B2 has a payload of up to 40,000lbs. Flying a satellite over enemy territory is much less of a risk than a B2, but given the cost and probable power of space based weapons systems, we probably won't see one used unless there is a serious national threat. No reason to show your hand when a measured response will do the job, especially if we only have the nuclear option from space at this point, the US would have to be on its knees to use it given the current global climate. I wouldnt be surprised at all if the US were trying to quickly field some space based kinetic weapons given threats like Iran's nuclear program which we would be hard-pressed to destroy their protective underground bunkers; rods from god as a previous poster brought up could be a solution.

I don't see why a weapons satellite has to be stealth or anything of the kind, it could just be a fake part of the US's vast surveillance network or GPS network and
I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference unless it were taken apart. No reason to employ stealth or secrecy when you can hide it in plain site, launched in the name of the government or any communication company.