• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should any nation become militarily omnipotent with satellite weaponry?

Should such weaponry be allowed or outlawed, by force if needed?

  • Yes, for any country with the means (the Libertarian answer)

  • Yes, but only for the US (and any allies it allows)

  • No for any nation

  • Other

Results are only viewable after voting.
C

Craig234

Lifer
Assume for a minute that the technology is developed for satellite-based weaponry that can destroy targets precisely from space.

(And the accompanying defensive weaponry that can take our any missiles or satellites that could attack the weapons).

Question: Should such weaponry be allowed or outlawed, by force if needed?

If no, how do you suggest, practically, to prevent it?
 
Last edited:
Why the qualifier that it can't be compromised by anti satellite weaponry? That is not realistic or consistent with the history of weaponry. Don't mean to crap on your poll, just curious since having such a weapon that could not be defeated at all doesn't leave much choice.

Why would any country allow such a weapon in geosynchronous orbit 200 miles above them?
 
Frankly I'm embarrassed that the United States hasn't already set up an orbital kinetic strike offensive............. oops defensive only of course, weaponry system. I guess I can always hope that one is already established, but concealed by the current administration.
 
We already have treaties that prevent placing nuclear weapons in space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

However, both China and the USA showed off thier Satellite killing capabilities a couple years ago. One can only imagine that as this technology advances into smaller and more powerful lasers, one could be used from space down to Earth targets.

NRO Confirms Chinese Laser Test Illuminated U.S. Spacecraft


http://www.spacenews.com/archive/archive06/chinalaser_1002.html



And we went from planning....


US plans anti-satellite lasers
18:39 03 May 2006 by Jeff Hecht

A controversial effort by the US Pentagon to develop ground-based anti-satellite lasers has been highlighted by Congressional hearings held this week

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9104-us-plans-antisatellite-lasers.html


To testing, after China did, to prove a point (although it was a SM3 missile):

Operation Burnt Frost was the code name given to the military operation to intercept and destroy a non-functioning U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite named USA-193.[1] The launch occurred on 20 February, 2008 at approximately 10:26 p.m. EST from the USS Lake Erie, which used a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) to shoot down the satellite. Only a few minutes after launch, the SM-3 intercepted its target and successfully completed its mission, by neutralizing the potential dangers the rogue satellite originally imposed.[2] While the threat was mitigated, Operation Burnt Frost has received much scrutiny from other countries, mainly China and Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

We do have a monster laser in New Mexico that is probably ready for the task.
 
Last edited:
We already have unstoppable (by current means) nuclear missiles that do very much the same thing. I'd think any satellite-based weapons system capable of inflicting similar destruction would follow a similar model.

As it is the preeminence of nuclear weapons makes building such a system an incredible waste of money.

Also, since when would no one develope a viable countermeasure? Many nations have rockets that can reach orbit. If there was a verified threat in orbit any nation with such capability would quickly mount warheads to said rockets and then all you have to do is find the thing's position, which until we develop star trek cloaking technology could be made difficult, but certainly not impossible.

So your post is a pointless thought exercise with no basis in or application to reality? Or are you trying to get some isnight into AT P&N psychology?
 
Craig234 said:
Question: Should such weaponry be allowed or outlawed, by force if needed?
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing the thinking for me Craig234, I chose the libertarian answer.

Sovereign states should be allowed to do whatever they want. "Laws" like the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty are terrible misuses of power by the "big boys".
 
Last edited:
irishScott said:
We already have unstoppable (by current means) nuclear missiles that do very much the same thing. I'd think any satellite-based weapons system capable of inflicting similar destruction would follow a similar model.

As it is the preeminence of nuclear weapons makes building such a system an incredible waste of money.

Also, since when would no one develope a viable countermeasure? Many nations have rockets that can reach orbit. If there was a verified threat in orbit any nation with such capability would quickly mount warheads to said rockets and then all you have to do is find the thing's position, which until we develop star trek cloaking technology could be made difficult, but certainly not impossible.

So your post is a pointless thought exercise with no basis in or application to reality? Or are you trying to get some isnight into AT P&N psychology?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the equivalent of nuclear weapons from space. The same taboos and massive harm would apply to those.

I'm talking about the ability for pinpoint attacks that don't have those political obstacles - politically similar to our drone strikes now, but anytime, anywhere.

Two issues with countermeasures - first they defeat the purpose of the topic. 'What's your opinion on whether this is a good idea, but they can be destroyed so they won't be there?'

Second, it's debatable whether there could be countermeasures - remember, with our 'read a license plate' cameras, they could take out any countermeasure before it was a threat.

So, back to the topic.
 
schneiderguy said:
Thanks for doing the thinking for me Craig234, I chose the libertarian answer.

Sovereign states should be allowed to do whatever they want. "Laws" like the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty are terrible misuses of power by the "big boys".
Click to expand...

So, say the Soviets or Saudis developed and deployed this. What do you think the consequences might look like of your policy to allow it?
 
schneiderguy said:
They would be safe because no one would attack them.
Click to expand...

False. The tech to kill anything orbiting in space is already in existence. The US and China have it, and others will follow suit.

Of course my post which is actually backed by fact, sources, and logic, is completely ignored. Thank you for reminding me why I don't post here as much anymore.
 
OCGuy said:
False. The tech to kill anything orbiting in space is already in existence. The US and China have it, and others will follow suit.

Of course my post which is actually backed by fact, sources, and logic, is completely ignored. Thank you for reminding me why I don't post here as much anymore.
Click to expand...

Your post was ignored because you ignored the OP's assumptions:

Assume for a minute that the technology is developed for satellite-based weaponry that can destroy targets precisely from space.

(And the accompanying defensive weaponry that can take our any missiles or satellites that could attack the weapons).
Click to expand...

It's called a hypothetical question.

themoreyouknow.jpg
 
Craig234 said:
I'm not talking about the equivalent of nuclear weapons from space. The same taboos and massive harm would apply to those.

I'm talking about the ability for pinpoint attacks that don't have those political obstacles - politically similar to our drone strikes now, but anytime, anywhere.

Two issues with countermeasures - first they defeat the purpose of the topic. 'What's your opinion on whether this is a good idea, but they can be destroyed so they won't be there?'

Second, it's debatable whether there could be countermeasures - remember, with our 'read a license plate' cameras, they could take out any countermeasure before it was a threat.

So, back to the topic.
Click to expand...

Well even if we're limiting the scope of the damage, I'd say I'd have no problem with the US or any other non-belligerent nation having them in orbit. Say we could do drone strike equivalents anytime, anywhere. The affected nation would be all "ZOMG America attacked us! WAR!" which is no different than what it would be today if we, say, launched an unprovoked cruise missile into another nation's territory. Hell we launched hundreds of cruise missiles into Libya. What difference would it be if those were hundreds of tungsten spikes dropped from orbit?

In fact, the system you're proposing could be approximated with existing arsenals of ICBMs fitted with non-nuclear warheads.

Basically I don't see how it would change the status quo. America already has serious military dominance over any other single nation across the spectrum. If we were willing to commit to total war we could dominate or wipe out any isolated nation on the planet. A fancy satellite weapons system wouldn't really change that.
 
Last edited:
irishScott said:
Basically I don't see how it would change the status quo. America already has serious military dominance over any other single nation across the spectrum. If we were willing to commit to total war we could dominate or wipe out any isolated nation on the planet. A fancy satellite weapons system wouldn't really change that.
Click to expand...

Actually a full-scale launch against a nation that has the ability or the allies to retaliate is MAD. Meaning mutual. Meaning Nuclear Winter kills us all.

There is even debate if a full-scale exchange between India and Pakistan will cause Nuclear Winter.
 
OCGuy said:
Actually a full-scale launch against a nation that has the ability or the allies to retaliate is MAD. Meaning mutual. Meaning Nuclear Winter kills us all.

There is even debate if a full-scale exchange between India and Pakistan will cause Nuclear Winter.
Click to expand...

Assuming we didn't disable/hinder their launch systems first. Total war means total intelligence war as well.
 
More facts that this is already happening:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/23/secret-spaceship-launch-masks-secret-new-weapon-launch/


"Somewhere above earth is America’s latest spaceship, a 30-foot craft called the X-37B so classified that the Pentagon will not divulge its mission nor how much it cost to build.

But the real classified project is even more secret....

The X-37B can stay in orbit for up to 270 days, whereas the Shuttle can last only 16 days. This will provide the U.S. with the ability to carry out experiments for long periods, including the testing of new laser weapon systems. This would bring accusations that the launch of X-37B, and a second vehicle planned for later this year, could lead to the militarization of space."
 
irishScott said:
Assuming we didn't disable/hinder their launch systems first. Total war means total intelligence war as well.
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing about the redundancy strike capabilities that all major nuclear players have.

Even if we could take out 30% of the incoming ICBMs over the North Pole from Russia (that is the quickest route), we would still all be dead. The ruskie are nuts because the have innaccurate warheads.

Tsar Bomba is enough to make any mortal shit their pants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H9AMtUeyDP0
 
Last edited:
OCGuy said:
You obviously know nuthing about the redundancy strike capabilities that all major nuclear players have.

Even if we could take out 30% of the incoming ICBMs over the North Pole from Russia (that is the quickest route), we would still all be dead. The ruskie are nuts because the have innaccurate warheads.

Tsar Bomba is enough to make any mortal shit their pants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H9AMtUeyDP0
Click to expand...

Fine, so in total war we couldn't take out Russia and live to tell about it. Great. Anyone else?
 
OCGuy said:
More facts that this is already happening:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/23/secret-spaceship-launch-masks-secret-new-weapon-launch/


"Somewhere above earth is America’s latest spaceship, a 30-foot craft called the X-37B so classified that the Pentagon will not divulge its mission nor how much it cost to build.

But the real classified project is even more secret....

The X-37B can stay in orbit for up to 270 days, whereas the Shuttle can last only 16 days. This will provide the U.S. with the ability to carry out experiments for long periods, including the testing of new laser weapon systems. This would bring accusations that the launch of X-37B, and a second vehicle planned for later this year, could lead to the militarization of space."
Click to expand...

Given that they're acknowledging it's existence at all, it's big but it isn't that big. There's all the implications that the Pentagon is testing a hypersonic bomber out west, they still won't admit it exists. If they're that tight lipped about something as relatively routine as a super-fast bomber, I doubt the X-37B is any more earth shattering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top