It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


When do you think we will start taking wars/weapons into space?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:46 PM
Title is self explanatory.

Also i heard that bush plans to take us back to the moon, could this be the start of a new weapon program that could be created if we actually go back there again.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:08 PM
My question to you is.
What makes you think that we haven't already done so?

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:11 PM
Better question, what if we have never even been to the moon?

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:19 PM
We'll see it happening as soon as we have the capability to strike the enemy from space in the next big war, and if both sides have this kind of technology. More than likely the weapons in space will be either lasers or missiles to attack enemy planes a safe distance away in space, or giant uranium spears (already been invented) to destroy bunkers/tanks/anything reinforced with their kinetic energy alone. I could see dogfights happening in space as fighters try to thake out these kinds of weapons, and attack the enemy from an advantage point.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:27 PM
Theres no treaty stopping the US or Russia from putting non WMD weapons in space. The depleted uranium/ tungstun spears aka "Rods From God" mentioned by zhangmaster would be perfectly legal.

The Moon is different and its was made very clear all weapons WMD or other wise are banned.

Chances are there are already some weapons up there most likely anti-satellite weapons IMHO.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:42 PM
Well ever since the beginning of warfare generals have always sought to capture the high ground, and you can’t et much higher than space. Whoever controls space and denies its use to others will control earth.
Having a weapon in space that is ready to strike 24/7 any point on earth in minutes virtually unchallenged is very desirable to the military ie “Rods from God,” or in the future lasers.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some weapons up in space already.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:19 PM
as soon as the UN is dead, that way other countries won't whine when their not the country to put weapon in space first... but the best guess is... there is probility already weapons in space... it's just really secret...

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:29 PM
I think there have been weapons in space for a long time, since the UFO waves in the 1950's I imagine they invisioned weapons in space to defend them selfs from invaders from outterspace, Reagan came with his SDI system or Star-Wars as it's often referred as.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:34 PM
i thought "star Wars" was sopposed to be a big laser that actually just vaporized the target. And also did it ever work?

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 03:39 PM
Not much thinking going on here.

The F 15 Eagle series of jet fighters have been tested with a missle launched at very high altitude so as to knock down lower orbiting satellites. Do you people think this has not been perfected to go after higher orbiting satellites??? This was like 15 years ago.
Also If memory serves me correctly there is a hunter killer satellite designed to knock out other satellites by coming close to them and releasing a burst of shot ..or such to penetrate the satellite..fragments or such. I am sure this is very olde technology today and has been significantly upgraded especially by better navigation and acquisition systems.
And yes..the upgraded systems would be very secret.
Also agree with West Points position about capturing the high ground. What most peoples are not aware of concering outerspace projects is that other than communications phone service and satellite TV,GPS, ...most of the satellites have either exclusive government or military purposes. Almost all of them are for the purposes of looking or functioning down here on earth. Even the ones which they tell you are for looking into deep space are used for looking down here. Most of that is just a cover story. They cost way to much to spend their time looking into deep space...they must have a more immediate usage for which they will not tell you..or in otherwords a more immediate pay off for the moneys they have spent...and they have spent bundles..and bundles. Only Star Trekkies can be so dumb as to buy into that rubbish. Thats why they feed you Star Trek or what ever other stuff is popular today. One more thing..most of the commercial satellites can be overidden in case of national emergencys GPS and satellites.


posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 04:02 PM
Nice way to end your post without a shred of evidance and a insulting remark at the end.

If it weren't for Astronomy we would still be in the Dark Ages as it opens up fundamental questions of our place in the Universe and maybe even on this planet.

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 01:00 AM
lol lol must live quite provincially secure in your "Science and technology" Carl Sagan Isaac Asimov and ..Gene Roddenberry et al. Once again..almost every satellite put into orbit has been for the purposes of serving a function down here on earth. Primarily intelligence and information gathering. Not into deep space. This has been admitted on the discovery channel..not new news. Only the satellites that have been thrust into deep space orbits..way out in the solar system are useful for anything otherwise. These satellites are a very small number ...yet get the most PR. Amazing. You dont hear much about the majority of satellites put into orbit.
You learn this line of thinking if you have ever worked extensively on military or intelligence type equipment and begin to get a feel for the costs of some of this gear. Satellites are practically in a category by themselves in the arena of costs. Very very expensive. You have to find a way to make them pay off..if you put them into orbit around this planet.
Anyone in the buisness knows that commercial satellites can be overidden for purposes of national emergencys..same with the phone company...transportation departments and highways, including all the airlines. You dont hear them shouting this from the roof tops either.
Ive spent over twenty years building submarines and Aircraft carriers...including nuclear refueling. I also live right next to NASA Langley Research center. It doesnt take much thinking after so many years of this type of work to connect certain dots that are not advertised to the general public.
If you find this insulting it is your ego doing this. I merely state what is obvious unless you have taken a big bite out of the standard company line.
One more thing...I did not say or claim that astronomy was not important. I merely point out that much of what we think and take for granted is not necessarily what is advertised or what we think it is. I cant imagine what you could possibly be thinking when it is well known that the number one purchaser of advanced science and technology ..long before the civilian market is the military.
Think it through again..carefully before you get insulted.


posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 11:52 AM

The following is the principle operating clause of the Space Weapons Treaty which was signed into law (such as it is) in January 1967.

Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

With the SWT in place, the principle problem with putting any weapons into orbit is literally that of having nuclear systems fail on either launch or reentry, spraying down large areas and/or possibly leaving recoverable fragments.

While any weapon on an orbital track is potentially useful as a function of being rapidly in place to service a threat (an hour or two later) there are severe limitations of mechanic in terms of inclination and retrograde relative to both the target and the rest of the /hundreds/ of satellites now in orbit. Space Command's principle activity in fact is that of coordinating and managing orbital useage among the international community.

And we can usually image both the inside and the outside of target vehicles within minutes to determine mass (radio-isotopes are heavy as well as radioactive) and associated propellant fraction for orbital maneuver.

If something looks like it could chase a meteor, it probably can and the only uses for such systems are either avoidance/retasking (recce) and hardkill.

Which would instantly add to the native suspicions based on orbital geometry and size of booster involved (ELV's are so expensive that to launch purely for national means is rare UNLESS the payload needs the whole bay and that raises eyebrows from the start).

About the best you can hope for is some kind of white-cloud equivalent system phenomena wherein you immediately bus out high energy separation sub platforms during or shortly after principle boost and hope that you can get it done before somebody in a spacewatch ship around your coasts or in one of the various southern hemisphere locations images it. Assuming you are not already under covert observation from one of the HEO or GEO black constellations that are kept hush hush.

If you painted it black, made it out of 'Russian Oak' (or like stealth absorbers) and got it high enough, fast enough, theoretically you could station SMALL payloads (the Russians never really master OT staging techniques like we did) beyond immediate observation.

But it would be a /huge/ risk.

For all these reasons (Cost, Orbital Maneuver Lag, Covertness) I would not waste the money on orbiting conventional weapons either. If you want Pizza Hut delivery times, simply fill the casing on a Trident or Minuteman with conventionals and lob away while retaining the ability to have redeployment at a fraction of the total costs of maintaining an effective constellation.

The Russians have illuminated our satellites with laser out of Sary Shagan and a couple other places on the Iranian border several times. Once they even sent the thing offline for a few days. They don't need to put HK weapons in orbit to destroy at least our photo-gatherers. Given that WE are the ones with the majority of global-connectivity/global-watch risked overhead assets in play, it hardly makes sense to press our luck with secret weapons when it is cheaper (on a yearly ops account basis) to simply forward deploy an existing carrier group than it is to push a whole bunch of 4-8 shot RFG wonder weapons into space.

THE BEST insurance against anyone being /stupid/ is still the certainty that any attack on our soil or that of our Allies (with WMD) will bring the full weight of U.S. nuclear response in kind. If they are willing to risk that, then they are more likely to do it with a SADM or equivalent 'suitcase' weapon and for that, the sneak-fast decapitation option of weapons in orbit becomes effectively worthless anyway.

In terms of returning to the moon, I presume that is where we would get the necessary propellant for any major militarization of space with present day technology. But frankly, I expect the global economy to collapse long before any of NASA's wet dream fantasies eventuate and once we are back at the horse and buggy level, we will be lucky to keep basic telecomms functional, let alone squabble over whose overhead get's whacked from the ground and 'Why we need more-more-more!'.

Going /anywhere/ off planet is more a function of a cultural commitment to doing something with our collective destiny as a sapient species than a military need, despite what you hear about space being the 'highest frontier'. And that kind of change in mindset would likely require us to abandon the utter waste that is (nationalist-independent, large-scale, not police-force UN) military expenditures altogether to achieve.

At which point, it may well be just as simple to build in orbit here and go straight to _Mars_ (with nuclear electric propulsion) as to make any pitstop activities on a 1/4 gravity world, 240,000 miles out.

In any case, until we master particle physics to get to fusion. Fusion to get to quantum field mechanics for agrav. And field theory to understand the nature of space-time and FTL, our ability to do much with the Great Wide Nothin' is going to be a case of elitist tourism at best.


posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:30 PM
Imo space is allready rather weaponized but at this stage i do not have facts enough to try attempt making it a statement of fact.

During a 1992 speech to the United Nations Security Council, Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposed to:

deploy and operate jointly a global system of protection of the world community,
based on revised American SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative] and advanced
technologies developed by the Russian military-industrial complex.


[edit on 13-12-2005 by StellarX]

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:06 PM
War already happen in Space. Sateilltes armed with nuclear ICBMs, the governments are just not saying because they are violating the U.N agreement

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:31 PM
whatever happened to people having common sence when they talk.

top topics


log in