| Author |
Message |
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Fri May 20, 2005 4:48 pm Scientists Warn Against Weaponizing Space |
|
| Quote: | By Nick Wadhams
Associated Press
posted: 20 May 2005
09:04 am ET
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A scientists' group on Thursday warned the United States against weaponizing space, saying the move would be prohibitively expensive and could set off a new arms race.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group that opposes weapons in space, said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.
"The United States has a huge lead in the space field -- it can afford to try out the multilateral approach,'' said Jonathan Dean, a former U.S. ambassador and an adviser on global security issues.
The Union's demand comes as the administration of President Bush is reviewing the U.S. space policy doctrine. Some scientists worry that the review will set out a more aggressive policy that could lead to the greater militarization of space.
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must be protected.
"There are changes that have occurred over the last eight or nine years, and there are countries that have taken an interest in space, McClellan said. "And they have looked at things that could -- or technologies that could -- threaten our space systems. And so you obviously need to take that into account when you're updating the policy.''
The Bush administration has also included some money in the budget for space-based weapons programs to defend satellites, strike ground targets and defend against missile attacks, said Laura Grego, a scientist with the union.
Any complete weapons system in space would be very expensive, running into the many billions of dollars. Developing a shield to defend against a single missile attack would require deploying 1,000 space-based interceptors and cost anywhere between $20 billion and $100 billion, said David Wright, a union scientists and co-author of a recent report on the feasibility of space weapons.
And such a system would require a huge expansion of U.S. launching capability. The United States currently launches between 10-12 large rockets a year, while with space interceptors, it would need to launch many times more that each year.
Wright argued that space-based ground attack systems were not yet practical either. One, dubbed "Rods from God'' -- which would fire rods of tungsten from space -- would cost 50-100 times as much as a similar attack from the ground.
"The fact that it's still being considered I think suggests that there's some sort of emotional attachment to it for putting weapons in space rather than a hard-nosed analysis,'' Wright said.
Any such move would also likely draw swift international condemnation. In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space.
But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.
http://www.space.com/news/ap_050520_space_weapons.html |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:30 pm |
|
I support arming space stuff.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
I am totaly against the arming of space. Thats all we need, another arms race. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
| charmed88 wrote: | | I am totaly against the arming of space. Thats all we need, another arms race. |
I would like
a. More security
b. A more sci-fi like life  
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:39 pm |
|
But if no one ever militarises space we have nothing to worry about for security because there wont be anything there to protect us from
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 6:08 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | a. More security |
Weaponizing space only encourages others to weaponize space. By not weaponizing space at all (meaning actively forcing others not to weaponize it) space remains a safe place for family vacations and organized crime.
To that end, although this might be a "radical" solution, I'd support the launch of intercept missiles with the intent to prevent anyone from weaponizing space.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | b. A more sci-fi like life |
Unlike science fiction, however, there is one small problem with having the "future" come through in real life. In real life, the bad guys seldom lose so convincingly often, and problems often last more than seven years.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 9:33 pm |
|
Too late. Both the US and USSR have used space-based weapons.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat May 21, 2005 1:54 am |
|
The more powerful the weapons the greater the consequence, the greater the concequences the greater the deterrant.
I support weaponizing space, alike the nuclear bomb, they will ultimately save more lives than they will ever take.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Sat May 21, 2005 6:48 am |
|
Why can't goverments just focus on the good use of something. Like going to other planets and that stuff. You might say it's good for security but some other country is gonna put their stuff in space too that one thing in favour will be goooooooooone and we'll be back where we started. As hitler said, technology don't win no wars for anybody
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun May 22, 2005 11:58 am |
|
Superpower to Superpower war is a thing of the past, thanks to the nuclear bomb. It's terrorist groups and rogue regimes which we have to worry about, and every step that the Superpowers can have up on them, is a good step.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Mon May 23, 2005 9:31 am |
|
So how exactly do you see the use of these super space weapons fit in this picture?
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
