logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Weapons in Space, That's no moon. It's a space station.
psyclist
post Aug 9 2005, 12:55 AM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
September 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 352
Member No.: 4,200
Joined: January-5-05

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I was reading over a recent interview with Michael Krepon, a (supposed) expert on weaponizing space. I found some of the questions asked interesting and wanted to see what the AD community thought about this.

QUOTE
Space weapons are weapons specifically designed to attack objects in space or objects on the ground. The Air Force and Pentagon are most interested in weapons that interfere with satellites without blowing them up. That could mean jamming a communications satellite, or dazzling a picture-taking satellite by blinding it. But the new Air Force doctrine is also very proactive. It talks about denying other countries the capabilities to operate from space. The idea is space superiority or space dominance, or to use the Air Force’s euphemism, “offensive counter space operations.”


More here

This isn't new news to most, the Project for the New American Century stated in their Mein Kampf, err I mean, document, REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century:



QUOTE
Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for operating in space, including inexpensive launch vehicles, new satellites and transatmospheric
vehicles, in preparation for a decision as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within earth’s atmosphere so as to require a separate “space service.”



Of course the UN has already said:

QUOTE
The exploration and use of outer space ... shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. ... [The] prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security

--Prevention of an arms race in outer space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/55/32, January 2001



Do you think that the US should pursue building a space-based weapons program? Is such a program ok if it's only for defense? Why or Why not?

Should the US try to ensure that no other country can "strike from space"? Or, defend itself from space?

Are these steps necessary to protect the country? Is space the next frontier of defense?

This post has been edited by psyclist: Aug 9 2005, 12:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 3)
Erasmussimo
post Aug 9 2005, 04:56 AM
Post #2


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Validating
Posts: 886
Member No.: 4,853
Joined: April-12-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Do you think that the US should pursue building a space-based weapons program? Is such a program ok if it's only for defense? Why or Why not?
We do not want weapons in space. Offense is always easier than defense. If we open up space to weapons, then we are simply creating a new avenue by which other nations could strike us. The absolute last thing that we want is to see orbiting nuclear weapons. Such a weapon could strike us with maybe 15 minutes warning time; if you think that Reagan's old Strategic Defense Initiative was technically difficult to pull off, try doing it with orbiting nuclear warheads -- there simply isn't any defense. The best defense against such weapons is to insure that nobody ever puts them in space in the first place.

Should the US try to ensure that no other country can "strike from space"? Or, defend itself from space?
We can't defend ourselves against orbiting nuclear warheads. We must insure that nobody can strike from space. The only way to do that is to insure that none are launched in the first place.

Are these steps necessary to protect the country? Is space the next frontier of defense?
If space becomes the next frontier of defense, then we're all dead. An arms race in space is intrinsically unstable and there is no conceivable means of stabilization.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Aug 9 2005, 01:32 PM
Post #3


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Are these steps necessary to protect the country?
Gravel.

All you need to do is shoot a load of gravel into orbit and have that orbit intersect with that of the weapons platform; and it is Swiss cheese. So certain steps should not be taken; because they lead nowhere.

Use the Earths gravity to help accelerate the gravel via orbital slingshot and you can have it moving fast enough to do serious damage. The cost of deploying such an attack would also be very inexpensive in relation to the cost of the target. There is no way a point defense is going to stop it, and the shielding required to stop such an attack would be too cumbersome to deploy.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VDemosthenes
post Aug 10 2005, 12:24 AM
Post #4


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 800
Member No.: 4,252
Joined: January-11-05

From: St. Augustine, Florida
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(psyclist @ Aug 8 2005, 08:55 PM)
Do you think that the US should pursue building a space-based weapons program?  Is such a program ok if it's only for defense? Why or Why not?

Should the US try to ensure that no other country can "strike from space"? Or, defend itself from space?

Are these steps necessary to protect the country? Is space the next frontier of defense?
*



1.) I do not. Putting weapons in space will turn the final frontier into a new battle field for death and destruction. Weapons in space, okay? Certainly not; I do not like having them on Earth much for that matter. One country's defensive measurements projects itself to another country as being offensive. A giant chess match will be taken place above our heads and I do not feel like being checkmated. Solution: do not put them there. Do not think about putting them there.


2.) I think that a, pardon the expression, down to earth response is called for in this issue. Keeping other nations from striking America from space is better than putting them up there to keep that from happen. Is there not a term for this? I believe it to be "snowballing." hmmm.gif


3.) Not necessary. No.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:13 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.