This is a very, scary step......
 

Another Treaty tossed out? Weapons in Space...What a great Idea to promote peace in the world. Guess I know what Chinas focus will be soon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/arti...345460,00.html

US ready to put weapons in space

Defence expert says America is likely to ignore treaty ban

Mark Townsend
Sunday November 7, 2004
The Observer

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.

The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.

Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

This week's meeting, held by the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), will also discuss whether Britain can restrain a US administration intent on strategic control of space.

Next year's budget for the US Missile Defence Agency includes funding for research into the development of 'space-based interceptors'. Although the funding allocated to develop lightweight ballistic missile parts is only £7.5m, further details have emerged of a more ambitious programme to site weapons in space.

Plans for a 'thin constellation of three to six spacecraft' in orbit, which would target enemy missiles as they took off or landed, are planned, according to Hitchens. The document, said Hitchens, signals that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which outlaws the use of weapons in orbit, will be ignored.

Of equal concern to some UK defence experts is Britain's agreement in principle to station US interceptor missiles at RAF Fylingdales, North Yorkshire. Participation in the missile defence programme means that Britain is already 'locked into' a programme that could ultimately include space warfare, say those who are monitoring developments.

'If the UK government tries to argue that it is participating in missile defence, but not in the weaponisation of space, either officials have been duped or they are being disingenuous,' said Hitchens.

Suggestions of a deepening relationship between Britain and America over missile defence surfaced again last week. A parliamentary statement from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to Labour MP Llew Smith conceded that the MoD has sent two experts to work at the US Missile Defence Agency. Another two will be sent next year.

In a separate debate last week, defence minister Lord Bach admitted that the US was encouraging Britain to become involved in its missile programme. 'The US has offered to extend coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK and other allies, should we require them,' he said.

We at war with the Soviets again? So much for the pretense of being civilized.

The U.S. government make unilateral decisions that affect the population of the entire planet?! Nah - that'd never happen... :rolleyes:

I was speechless when I read this earlier today.

I always figured we were probably doing this anyway, I guess now they're making it public. Well, I guess it makes sense, as the Outer Space Treaty was only US and Soviets, so China isn't part of it and can do what it wants and that's who we're worried about. And North Korea.

Most of the idea behind the US sending weapons into space has to do with the destruction of enemy satellites. There is very little technology out there that would allow anyone to accurately fire air to surface missles from space for any number of reasons. When it comes to the destruction of multi million (if not billion) dollar satellites i guess that would be something to worry about, but when you're at war you're going to be spending far more then that... this just seems like a very far-fetched idea and more along the lines of the US trying to get a foot in the door way before its even open

Well which super power wouldn't want a weapon that could fire onto and location on the planet, stop any missle that would be a threat, knock out enemy satelites and is free from attack to boot? Even if there is little technology out there for accurate attacks where there is a will there is a way right? I'm pretty sure the weapons companies aren't gonna make public how far they have progressed so who knows maybe it's already is possible.

A big problem with destroying enemy satellites is in the way it would be carried out. Would it be fried? Would it be jammed? Would it be bombed? If the later is the case, alot of space debris would be the result... I heard the US is offering protection to the UK and it's allys... I guess that in the next 30-50 years we will have four or five superpowers, the US, the EU, China, Russia and possibly India.

The big problem satellites is that most of them are commercial. During the last war even the US bought commercial time on them... Which means commercial interests will most likely be fried or shot...

I don't condone the idea, but I do understand the motive for gaining space superiority.

it was bound to happen, honestly. what concerns me is our continued irresponsibility with weapons of any sort, not just the arming of space.

Mostly the talk the talk this far is of knocking competition of the air, be that commercial or sovereign. Speaking of what's possible, the treaty's from '67, and there's been some progress :). An example is that the US monitors alot of camera satellites, looking at where their pointed. If the Chinese are looking at something the US have no clue to why, it's probably worth investigating... Or so goes the talk...

I guess there are three types of ways to render a satellite harmless. Shooting it out of the sky. Frying it. Jamming it.

The worst thing is Australia can no longer sit and carry on in it's own little world. Or Prime Minister has his head so far up Bush's arse they could be classed as one person.

Australia - Just another state of the USA...

Hahahahahahaha i'm from Australia and I totally agree. Still sucking up to the USA would have advantages but i don't think our Prime Minister is capable of using that relationship to our advantage.

That's exactly what they're going to do. This info has been out for a few weeks. I'm not too worried. We had a colossal clusterfuck when we tried this stuff before, and nothing ever wroks right on a second try 20 years later.

I refuse to be shocked anymore when Bush declares some other international effort of peace or conservancy does not apply to the mighty, mighty United States. I find it helpful to think of Bush's decisions and actions as those of a spoiled fraternity brat at university. Used to daddy getting him a job, lying without consequences, covering up indiscretions, screwing other people over to help his friends, and, as applies here, pretty much doing whatever he wants whenever he wants. When you think of it that way, doesn't it all fall together more neatly? It is just a shame that this brat happens to be at the head of the powerful US military and economy.

I guess I am giving away which way I voted in the past election. :)

Well, at least you got a vote. Now that the majority of Americans have elected him to lead their country, they should not be shocked that the rest of the world takes it as an endorsement of his foreign policy and reacts appropriately (or perhaps from an American perspective, inappropriately).

Where's Ian Flemming when you need him

Whoa! Damn!.

Good thing no one was standing in front of that knee-jerk reaction, there, buddy!

This is old news that's been hashed over since the early 60's.

yet another treaty, signed in good faith, that can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient. I wonder what the cherokee would have done had they known then what they know now?

anybody ever wonder how guerilla warfare got started? :sarcasm:

Try War in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History

I've read it a few times. It's very enlightening.

Treaty breaking is a wonderfully old governmental tradition handed down throught he ages. It isn't limited to the united states. get over it.

Look at it this way.

Who is the latest threat to the US?
And what is that threat?

N. Korea and China. They are the ones currently devising and testing long range Ballistic missiles that can carry bio or nuke heads.

With all the war on terror, don't forget that the US still has to wave it's no-no finger at some parts of the world. And it's up to the US alone, like it or leave it even with Bush in charge, to be the cop on the block.
The terrorist threat will not be much of a space based threat, nor does it really have the capacity to use satellites for threatening reasons. They may however. use commercial satellites to plan attacks and organise, communicate.

So what you do is strongarm satellite service providers with the 'Ooops' threat of the possibility of accidentally taking their system out of the sky unless they either allow US/UK/NATO access to monitor it or deny access to terrorists.

Back to China & N.Korea.
It worked for USSR and bankrupted them when Reagan announced Starwars. This is just the next step althought the Chinese and Koreans are probably wise to the old game. This time the US has to actually make something that works and not bluff it.

Because of the US's nuclear arms race, they have the technology to put satellites up and control what goes on up there. In proxy, they also control most of the information that goes on up there.
China's next big step is to provide competition. It's against US interests to allow that to happen. Funding for space exploration and future colonisation is dependent on money received for putting satellites in orbit and testing new uses for devices up there.
I think that although any person landing and living on the moon would be exciting, the US govt would prefer it if that person was American.

i wonder why we are looking at and calling a "source" from england credible...

i mean comn the only ones over there that like us are dead..lol

or blair.. and i dont think he writes a paper..

anyway seriously eruos in general yeah i could see them stretching truth and possibly even making stuff up to make us look bad expecially with in our own ranks ( citizens)

anyone agree???

I'd say they don't need help to make all of us look bad. Some of us do that all on our own...

rfra3645: Is your brown shirt on order?

This Just In:
"It's a brutally competitive, aggressive, violent and unpredictable world outside the cosy environs of the good ole US of A and most of the Western world."

Better the US do it first, than, say Iran or Syria.

That's good to know. It has been handed down through past governments all over the world, so we must accept it as good and just. I'm glad we got past the knee-jerking to the valuable stuff.

I think some people give Bush a little too much credit (or blame). Did you not read the article? "internal USAF documents": probably a proposal written by a colonel or a general and passed along from burro-crat to burro-crat and seen as a good idea to keep on file. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Doesn't even mean that it's necessary.
Armed satellites in orbit?
You'd be suprised what we can do from the ground.
The same devices being devised for dealing with "space debris" can be used on "unfriendly" satellites. The same mirror that reflects starlight to an eyepiece can reflect a more intense light upward.

As far as tossing out the treaty: the treaty was irrelevant anyway. Russia (the only other signer) is in no position to violate it which makes honoring it a moot point.

some time a go i have read that they wanted to put up weapons in space in the 60ties,and they thougt that the wars of the future would be in space.
just courious that it happens now.it could even be possible that the us will fight again against russia,but i don't think it will happen.
but maybe it will really happen that in the future every nation will have it's weapons in space,like a second cold war.

We're not talking orbital weapons platforms here, the article is more about anti satellite missile systems and the UK reference is due to UK interests in the placing of such systems here.

Previously, satellites have been hallowed turf regarding war due to all sorts of nations using another's resource up there. Now that there's a lot more of them and there's a lot more private concerns sending them up, the target area is widening.

It was bound to happen.

Newsflash, folks. We already have weapons in space. When a bomb is guided with precision to its target, and a satelite does the guiding, that satelite is part of the weapon.

Another newsflash. During the Clinton administration, the USA was working on weapons to wipe out enemies in space. Some of my best friends are "rocket scientists."

Sorry, but I mentioned nothing about acceptance, but until you hold your whirled peas revolution, that is exactly what you're going to have to live with whether you like it or not.

I'm not too surprised that the military/government is doing this - I'm sure many presidents have made preparations for actions that would have ignored international peace treaties. That's part of the job. National security is always #1. What surprises me (or I guess just intrigues me) is that it is being made public. I wonder what exactly the motive was behind that idea.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm not surprised that they're thinking of doing it. I'm just concerned with how it could one day be abused. :rolleyes:

The story came about due to the probability of some being based in the UK.
If that's the case then wherever it is, will have local authorities, security and local Parliamentarians involved. None of those will have any requirement to comply with US secrets acts as they are not US citizens.
If it affects their local constituents, then you can sure as hell bet the MP's will blab it to the press.

I'd be real pissed off if anyone I knew was killed from some terrorist group attacking a US installation in the UK.