What's the implication here?, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 22-6-2007 @ 01:39 PM by behindthescenes

THis could just well be amazing with it's impllcations. I may be a skeptic, but this one even raised my eyebrows.

I found this paper online from the Air Force describing how the government should militarize space and orbital weaponry. In this paper, Called "Spacecast 2020," much of what is written isn't too groundbreaking, although pretty foresightful for 1994.

But when I got to the glossary, I was a little stunned.

Look at this definition:

Counterforce operations. Those space or trans-atmospheric activities aimed at opposing or defending against threatening force anywhere on the planet or in the region of space. Although counterforce activities are defensive in intent, they do not preclude defense by offensive action. Counterforce activities include the use of information and weather as weapons. They also include defense against non-human threats to the vitality and security of the United States and the people on the planet.

"Weather as weapons?!??!?!?" "Defense against non-human threats?!:!?!?!"

What's the implication here? That the Air Force is simply keeping all possibilities on the table, or that they know something more....

[edit on 6/22/2007 by behindthescenes]

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:19 PM by bonaire

One of the worst killers has always been biological. Viral attacks would be non-human. Human-led viral attacks would be "caused" but not perpetrated by humans.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:21 PM by NGC2736

That's one of those things that could be taken either way. If you ask the Air Force, they would most likely say it's just a "what if" thing. But most reasonable people don't remember the Air Force ever planning ways to combat Bigfoot or fairies.

Yep, pretty good thing outside the box, and maybe not, if you've already seen the box and just aren't sure what's in it.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:24 PM by NGC2736

bonaire, and why would this be a threat you would address outside the Earth's airspace?

And if it was a threat of that nature from "beyond", then would you not use scientist and NASA, which already have space capability?

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:24 PM by schuyler

Originally posted by behindthescenes
"Weather as weapons?!??!?!?" "Defense against non-human threats?!:!?!?!"

Weather is an interesting idea. I have often thought controlling the weather was theoretically possible, beyond just cloud seeding to cause rain to cause mud to stop artillery, I mean. As far as non-human threats, they might have been thinking of asteroids. But in any theoretical document, I don't think it's strange to see it cover all possibilities. This may mean more than it says, but they're pretty safe letting this one out.

I don't understand the viral/biologic post. Is there a connection with OP I'm not seeing? Oh, well.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:33 PM by Karilla

thirteen years in the future doesn't sound long enough for them to be to be that far outside the box in which they profess to reside. I could imagine them writing that in the fifties maybe, but it seems odd to say that in the next decade they expect off-planet actions and non-human threats. Notice how they don't say extra-terrestrial. Unintentional inference or are they expecting the Guinea Pigs to rise up against us?

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:35 PM by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by behindthescenes
"Weather as weapons?!??!?!?" "Defense against non-human threats?!:!?!?!"

They also track incoming space debris, such as asteroids, cometary junk and meteors. While they can't do a lot about it, that's a non-human threat.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:36 PM by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by behindthescenes

"Weather as weapons?!??!?!?" "Defense against non-human threats?!:!?!?!"

What's the implication here? That the Air Force is simply keeping all possibilities on the table, or that they know something more....

I tend to think that they're just covering all the bases. After all, hypothetically, if aliens actually exist, then they could be a potential threat to mankind and a good defense would make sense. Although if they have the technology to get to Earth, then "Independence Day" aside, there probably wouldn't be much we could throw at them to stop them. So that's a little wishful thinking on their part, I suppose.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:46 PM by behindthescenes

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by behindthescenes
"Weather as weapons?!??!?!?" "Defense against non-human threats?!:!?!?!"

They also track incoming space debris, such as asteroids, cometary junk and meteors. While they can't do a lot about it, that's a non-human threat.

Good point...although, the term is unspecific enough to cover a lot of basis, as others have pointed out.

reply posted on 22-6-2007 @ 02:53 PM by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by Karilla
thirteen years in the future doesn't sound long enough for them to be to be that far outside the box in which they profess to reside. I could imagine them writing that in the fifties maybe, but it seems odd to say that in the next decade they expect off-planet actions and non-human threats. Notice how they don't say extra-terrestrial. Unintentional inference or are they expecting the Guinea Pigs to rise up against us?

It was written in 1994. This is one of several "what if" future scenario papers which the AF spawned in that time frame. It's more interesting and way less alarming if you read the thing starting with the executive overview.

www.maxwell.af.mil...

And here's the table of contents. A lot of folks post snippets of this and AF2020 out of context. These guys at Air University were pulling in everyone including George Lucas IIRC for their views of the mid 21'st century.

www.maxwell.af.mil...

For example, if you look at the summary, what ARE the non-human threats to defense?

Space operations are in constant jeopardy of mission degradation or failure because of space weather. Capability to provide space weather forecasts and hazard alert warnings will become increasingly important as space use increases. Space-Based Solar Monitoring and Alert Satellite System proposes a satellite monitoring and alert system in deep space that will continuously observe the solar atmosphere and monitor solar plasma emissions, or solar wind. The system consists of multispectral sensors with on-board analysis capability to provide near real-time space radiation hazard warnings and forecasts of radiation impact to an operations center on earth or in space for protection of satellite resources and space operations. Commercial users need this service, and this paper argues that it is a government's obligation to help provide it.

Communication and interconnectivity of other monitoring and reporting assets will be critical to sustaining the infosphere of the national security forces of 2020. Ionospheric variability, an attribute of space weather caused by solar radiation, significantly impacts ground and spacebased communications. Space Weather Support for Communications reviews enhanced ionospheric sensing capabilities to predict and provide warning of potential communications, radar, and navigation disruption or blackout. The concept envisions deploying ionospheric sensing devices on present and future GPS and follow-on commercial satellite constellations to obtain daily,
worldwide mapping of the ionosphere.

...and further on in, I see that I'm right (that phrase 'non-human threat' is also used a lot by Army's SMDC):

Recent years have witnessed an expansion of research and discovery of objects from space that potentially may strike the Earth. New and more refined observation techniques shed additional data on the size, nature, and orbit of these objects. These objects vary in size from 10 feet to 6 to 12 miles. It is postulated that 65 million years ago the age of dinosaurs was brought to an end by the impact of an asteroid that measured upwards of 12 miles in diameter. Collisions with objects larger than a few hundred meters in diameter could threaten global civilization and as such the means to mitigate them are worth considering. To have the vision and ability to prepare to defend the planet from natural danger and not do so may be viewed as irresponsible by our own citizens.

That's not as sexy as thinking that they're talking about defending the US against Eeep-ork the gray, I'll admit.

Pages: ^^TOP^^