U.S. Takes First Step To Weaponize Space?

I wanted to know if the proposed US ABM project to shoot down ICBM's will include space based lasers and small kill vehicles that will hit ICBM's in space. I wanted to know cuz there as been a lot of controversy if the ABM project violates the Non Proliferation Treaty. Now some people are saying cuz this kill vehicle its offensive weapon and it violates.
So whatat Do you think is it defensive or does it violate the treaty?

Washington's Missile Defense Agency has earmarked $68 million for what some believe is the first step for putting weapons in space, ABC News reported Tuesday.

Known as the Near Field Infrared Experiment or NFIRE satellite, it is primarily designed to gather data on exhaust plumes from rockets launched from earth.

As a result, military officials say the $68 million item in the 2005 budget is a defensive, rather than offensive project.

But, critics point out, the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite.

Defensive or offensive?

I bet they alreayd have weapons up their since the 60s. Like in the movie space cow boy the russians had nukes aboard a satelite.

This is reality, space will almost certainly become weaponized. My problem with SDI is NOT putting weapons in space (not sure about any treaties we have), but that it is, at this point, a bogus system. IT DOES NOT WORK. It is a rotten pork barrel that stinks of putrifaction. They need to do the research to create an effective technology, then deploy THAT technology. Right now we have plans to implement a system that is a total sham and a waste of money.

this is 'THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE'
.

Not that I agree with it but I think its only a matter of time that the ultimate high ground is weaponized, If it isnt already. Some country is going to do it be it the US, Russia or China

this has nothing to do with this at all but.
How do I put a picture on the left hand side of the screen?
(Example: Shadow has a futuristic soldier on his)

click on the tutorial tab on the top of the page it explains how to create a avatar

What about a black background?

I believe it is in the store section as an option to change, but it costs you points.

As far as the actual thread topic goes, I know people who are associated with US missile defense and they have all kinds of goodies in operation currently. But I only know some basic ones, the rest I am told are very classified.

nasa has started to make a fleet of nuclar powered lunar modles they would have many attack a astroriod and on the top of them have rockets that woul blow the astriod up like amergedden

I did a story on Rods From God for ATSNN if you are interested.

Originally posted by Murcielago
What about a black background?

you have to click on MemberCenter The click on ATS store then you have to purchase it from the store I think its 250 points for a backround color

Yes king lizard the rods form go one of my personal favorites like shadow said someone is going to weaponize it sooner or later might as well be the US if you can "own" space that give you a very big advantage in war all you have to do is knock the enemy satellite out and they are basically crippled unless its a third world country.

I believe that no one will really be able to own space, mainly because I believe when we get to the point of major space projects and exploration, that the world will unify under one global government.

It can definitely be considered offensive because it could prevent another country from defending itself. It would give the US the capability to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against other countries, secure in the knowledge that those countries would be unable to strike back, thus invalidating the concept of nuclear deterrence.

At the height of the Cold War, the US instigated the first space weapons treaty.

According to the US Bureau of Arms Control

www.state.gov...

Between 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, 1960, President Eisenhower proposed that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies.

On the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967.

The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.


Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967
Entered into force October 10, 1967


zero lift

[edit on 30-7-2004 by zero lift]

In space all you have to do is nudge a large enough rock into an Earth collision course. Space is intrinsically weaponized. I DON'T like it, but it is a fact. People living at the bottom of a gravity well [Earth, Moons, Planets] are very vulnerable to who ever lives on the higher ground [asteroids, raw space].

[Harping on a theme] In space mostly only energy wave weapons will make much sense. Newton's law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Firing projectile weapons will knock you out of position. It is possible to use a rocket powered projectile, but you would have to hold it out to the side of your position and fire it, but even then you couldn't be behind the trail of it's path, because the exhaust would also shift your position away from your target.
.

believe that no one will really be able to own space, mainly because I believe when we get to the point of major space projects and exploration, that the world will unify under one global government.

Wow you are really hopeful all these conflicts we have now everyone hates everybody its not going to happen. The US Russia and China wont like having one government and all of the communist states wont agree, it will never happen.


[edit on 31-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

I dont think they will ever weaponize space. I believe in a couple 100 years or so we will all be peace loving mofos and their will be no such thing as war and we will invest tons of money in the pursuit of knoledge.

Originally posted by slank

[Harping on a theme] In space mostly only energy wave weapons will make much sense. Newton's law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Firing projectile weapons will knock you out of position. It is possible to use a rocket powered projectile, but you would have to hold it out to the side of your position and fire it, but even then you couldn't be behind the trail of it's path, because the exhaust would also shift your position away from your target.
.

Couldn't the concept of a recoilless rifle work in space? Somewhat like a rocket launcher in that its projectile is propelled with a rocket charge that vents at the rear of the weapon. I dont think a weapon like this would effect a weapons position.

Actually the whole point of 9/11 is to have a reason to get "Full Spectrum Dominance"... in other words, they want weapons in space. A plan was layed out a few years ago called Vision 2020 where a US Space Command will be formed. Take a look at this stuff for more information:

www.dtic.mil... (The Joint Vision for 2020 published by sources in the military)

www.peaceactionme.org... (more on the vision for 2020 along with scanned pages from the original report)

Finally, www.newamericancentury.org...
has the controversial PNAC document (Project for the New American Century) published in 2000 that called for sweeping changes in the US system that included intervention in Iraq to help lay the ground work for Vision 2020 and would not be possible without a "New Pearl Harbor", of course one year later they got their pearl harbor....


[edit on 8/2/2004 by lockheed]

If you are firing a rocket on a straight line from you to your target the molecules are going to be coming back at you and pushing you back. It is possible that you could have it take a sideways (perpindicular to target) vector first and then turn towards target, but this does slow it down and uses more fuel. Gives more time for your advesary to take defensive/evasive actions. Beam weapons have the virtue of travelling at the speed of light. They can't possibly detect them before they hit (not without some extra universal physics)

Being in space is a bit like being in the ocean except that you don't have the friction of water to use. If you go off in a direction in space w/o fuel you could go on virtually forever. Space is a place for elegant, intricate, precise moves and actions. cumulative errors = certain death. Economy of movement + intensity of attack = best hope of overcoming an enemy in space.

New thoughts: 1. (at present fantasy) A ship that could re-conform itself (form a hole through which a beam or projectile would go). 2. The ability to absorb/re-direct energy focused at you and use against enemy. Reflective surfaces might be an effective defense against certain frequencies or beam weapons.
.