NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050406-space-beachhead.htm
It's speculation right now. But there is talk of it flying all over Washington. It's just talk for the moment, but if Congress gives the green light, it will definatly happen.

Personally, I think that it is good only to some extent. Our military and economy are so dependent on satellites. There should be weapons designed to protect sattelites from anti-sattelite missiles, and possible saboteurs. If they can repair sattelites, they can also destroy them.
In the next twenty years, however, I want a small space station with a few troops in it. It won't serve any practical purpose, but it will just show the world that we can do it. However, a space defense system will be even more urgent when civilians stay in space for long periods of time. When the US returns to the moon, it will be moreso.
Thoughts?

Hey mods, I didn't mean for this thread to be posted twice. Could you just lock one of them for me? Thanks.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050406-space-beachhead.htm
It's speculation right now. But there is talk of it flying all over Washington. It's just talk for the moment, but if Congress gives the green light, it will definatly happen.

Personally, I think that it is good only to some extent. Our military and economy are so dependent on satellites. There should be weapons designed to protect sattelites from anti-sattelite missiles, and possible saboteurs. If they can repair sattelites, they can also destroy them.
In the next twenty years, however, I want a small space station with a few troops in it. It won't serve any practical purpose, but it will just show the world that we can do it. However, a space defense system will be even more urgent when civilians stay in space for long periods of time. When the US returns to the moon, it will be moreso.
Thoughts?

As long as there is conflict here on Earth, there will be need for space-based defense systems. Besides, who knows what sort of threats lurk just beyond Pluto's orbit, including, but not limited to rogue asteroids and comets.

If they push weapons into space, they breach some international treaty which specifically disallows military use of space. Doing it anyway will simply result in a space arms race.

This isn't anything new. The US has been "preparing space weapons" for 30-40 years. Concepts such as orbital particle beams and giant rail guns have been presented, but for the most part they are still not practical.

There is a treaty against space BASED weapons...ie. satelite weapons, but it has loopholes (such as putting a laser on a shuttle...another thing that is still not economical).

For the near future, the best option remains within the treaty. There is simply no reason to waste money to boost a huge expensive laser into space.

Hense the anti-ICBM missiles (land based), and potentially land-based laser systems. Anything else is probably right out. I wouldn't worry about it.

Weapons in space, sure, what the heck. We got weapons down here, we'll have weapons up there, weapons are as much a part of being human as sex. Weapons do not frighten me, do not bother me, don't impress me or excite me. They just are.

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 manoeuvres 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.

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 manoeuvres 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.

Yeah, right. You will notice that space is already full of military satellites used to support war on the ground, sea, and in the air. And the US is not the only country that has satellites like that. Too late!

Yeah, right. You will notice that space is already full of military satellites used to support war on the ground, sea, and in the air. And the US is not the only country that has satellites like that. Too late!
O.o


Are you just ignorant of what a celestial body is?

That treaty is unrealistic, and everyone knows it. Not only will space-based weapons happen, no one is going to do anything if the US puts stuff up there, for better or for worse.

Of course the US is. But shhhh, they don't want you to know...

The only reason countries agreed to use places like Antarctica and Mars for exclusively peaceful purposes was because they had serious doubts that they'd get any use out of any such places whatsoever.

Find a fuel source there or a way to make the places populable and the signatories will have about as much respect for those treaties as the US does the UN.

That treaty is unrealistic, and everyone knows it. Not only will space-based weapons happen, no one is going to do anything if the US puts stuff up there, for better or for worse.

Someone will develop anti-space weapons. And then someone will invent anti-anti-space weapons, and then someone will....

Someone will develop anti-space weapons. And then someone will invent anti-anti-space weapons, and then someone will....
Anti sattelite weapons already exist. They aren't hard to make. They're probably not much more complicated than the V-2s of Nazi Germany, which technically reached space. All it takes is a few million dollars and a couple of mediocre grade physicists, and any nation can have them.

O.o


Are you just ignorant of what a celestial body is?

Go ahead. Keep thinking that the civilian missions you've heard about are the only items on the moon.

Go ahead. Keep thinking that the civilian missions you've heard about are the only items on the moon.
Your tinfoil is showing.

The only reason countries agreed to use places like Antarctica and Mars for exclusively peaceful purposes was because they had serious doubts that they'd get any use out of any such places whatsoever.

Find a fuel source there or a way to make the places populable and the signatories will have about as much respect for those treaties as the US does the UN.

Like the Helium-3 on the moon's surface, waiting to be mined.

As long as there is conflict here on Earth, there will be need for space-based defense systems. Besides, who knows what sort of threats lurk just beyond Pluto's orbit, including, but not limited to rogue asteroids and comets.
Still, advanced defense systems in space are useless currently. Modern day threats are non state actors and rogue states with a taste for terrorism, and not gigantic armies.
Yet I believe that it is inevitable that civilian activity will happen in space. Virgin Galactic is using Space Ship One technology to bring thousands of civilians into space in a couple of years. By 2010, a Las Vegas multibillionaire says he can put a small space hotel into orbit. And by 2050, I expect a mining operation on the moon. All of these will need space systems for defense, especially for any moon settlements. I believe it to be in the US's best interest to maintain its claims to the moon. After all, Old Glory is in it.

Someone will develop anti-space weapons. And then someone will invent anti-anti-space weapons, and then someone will....
Well, the US already has the Pegasus missile, which was designed to shoot down Soviet spy satellites...in fact, we've had them for ages.

And anyways, what really is all that wrong with an arms race? Espescially if it doesn't lead to war.

This isn't anything new. The US has been "preparing space weapons" for 30-40 years. Concepts such as orbital particle beams and giant rail guns have been presented, but for the most part they are still not practical.

There is a treaty against space BASED weapons...ie. satelite weapons, but it has loopholes (such as putting a laser on a shuttle...another thing that is still not economical).

For the near future, the best option remains within the treaty. There is simply no reason to waste money to boost a huge expensive laser into space.

Hense the anti-ICBM missiles (land based), and potentially land-based laser systems. Anything else is probably right out. I wouldn't worry about it.
It does, however, have some new urgency. China has launched a man into space. The EU has the technology, if not the will, to follow suit, as does Japan. None of this is threatening within itself, but if space acsess keeps proliferating, those satellites may be in danger.

Still, advanced defense systems in space are useless currently. Modern day threats are non state actors and rogue states with a taste for terrorism, and not gigantic armies.
Yet I believe that it is inevitable that civilian activity will happen in space. Virgin Galactic is using Space Ship One technology to bring thousands of civilians into space in a couple of years. By 2010, a Las Vegas multibillionaire says he can put a small space hotel into orbit. And by 2050, I expect a mining operation on the moon. All of these will need space systems for defense, especially for any moon settlements. I believe it to be in the US's best interest to maintain its claims to the moon. After all, Old Glory is in it.

Wrong about space systems being useless.

GPS is quite useful, as you may note, in guiding weapons and troops.

SBIRS-Low and SBIRS-High and other Defense satellites are useful in:
a) tracking troops and vehicles on the ground
b) tracking aircraft, including stealth aircraft
c) discriminating successfully between real and decoy ICBM warheads
d) detecting ballistic missile launches in real time

Today, our aircraft are coordinated not just using data from AWACS and JSTARS, but this is all integrated with satellites in real time. We have a near 100 percent visibility in the air and at sea - something that most countries do not have.

I just love how everyone thinks because there is some half-assed treaty being proposed and a few countries discuss it. It somehow equates to a world wide ban. The only ban on space weapons by the way are for Nuclear weapons and testing of such weapons on the moon. It doesn't say anything about putting non-nuclear weapons into space. It was signed in 1967 and one of the nations party to it no longer exsists, therefore making it sort of useless eh?

I just love how everyone thinks because there is some half-assed treaty being proposed and a few countries discuss it. It somehow equates to a world wide ban. The only ban on space weapons by the way are for Nuclear weapons and testing of such weapons on the moon. It doesn't say anything about putting non-nuclear weapons into space. It was signed in 1967 and one of the nations party to it no longer exsists, therefore making it sort of useless eh?

It doesn't matter. It's a matter of US Air Force policy since 1995 to make space the high ground, and the ultimate home of the Air Force. They've been moving in that direction ever since, and there's no stopping it now.

Wrong about space systems being useless.

GPS is quite useful, as you may note, in guiding weapons and troops.

SBIRS-Low and SBIRS-High and other Defense satellites are useful in:
a) tracking troops and vehicles on the ground
b) tracking aircraft, including stealth aircraft
c) discriminating successfully between real and decoy ICBM warheads
d) detecting ballistic missile launches in real time

Today, our aircraft are coordinated not just using data from AWACS and JSTARS, but this is all integrated with satellites in real time. We have a near 100 percent visibility in the air and at sea - something that most countries do not have.
Sorry, I should clarify. Space weapons systems are useless. GPS, comm satelites, spy satelites, etc. are great for the military. But we no longer have use for weapons platforms in space that can bomb a target anywhere on earth. Besides, it'd be impractical, with at least thirty sattelites being placed around the globe.

Sorry, I should clarify. Space weapons systems are useless. GPS, comm satelites, spy satelites, etc. are great for the military. But we no longer have use for weapons platforms in space that can bomb a target anywhere on earth. Besides, it'd be impractical, with at least thirty sattelites being placed around the globe.

Take a look at what they plan for the future.
1. Ballistic missile deployment of conventional smart weapons.
2. Ballistic missile deployment of Special Forces soldiers.
3. Space Based Laser - for use against surface and air targets, including individual people.

The Air Force knows it needs weapons to keep the other unarmed systems safe. It is central to Air Force policy that everything support this.

The only reason countries agreed to use places like Antarctica and Mars for exclusively peaceful purposes was because they had serious doubts that they'd get any use out of any such places whatsoever.

Find a fuel source there or a way to make the places populable and the signatories will have about as much respect for those treaties as the US does the UN.
They already know that there are coal, oil, and gas deposits on Antarctica, along with many, many mineral deposits. I personally think that all the nations should decide on claims, and colonize the continent. Today, the largest town on Antarctica is McMurdo Air Station with 1,000 people, and they are strictly research. We need far more people.

Take a look at what they plan for the future.
1. Ballistic missile deployment of conventional smart weapons.
2. Ballistic missile deployment of Special Forces soldiers.
3. Space Based Laser - for use against surface and air targets, including individual people.

The Air Force knows it needs weapons to keep the other unarmed systems safe. It is central to Air Force policy that everything support this.
Yet it'll require a huge investment. I'd say it'd be at least $100 bn. Do we need to spend that kinda money on this? Perhaps there is a far cheaper solution to these problems, and one that will work as effectively. So far, I only see the need for sattelite protection.

bump

It doesn't matter. It's a matter of US Air Force policy since 1995 to make space the high ground, and the ultimate home of the Air Force. They've been moving in that direction ever since, and there's no stopping it now.


I do know that eventually we will have more than one type of weapon in space. As I said this treaty people are refering to doesn't exsist for a general ban. There is a few countries trying to ban it but the US isn't party to it and will never be. So I find it funny that people keep trying to bring up treaties that do not exsist, or the US hasn't signed on to.

Wish in one hand and shit in another and see which gets filled fastest.

:confused: I'm all for space weapons/colonizing stuff.

Frankly, though, the US should flip the bird and burn any treaty dealing with the moon.

THe moon is US territory. We put our flag on it, it's ours. As is all of it's cheese. :D

Anyways....

Mystic Mindinao... *slaps you upside the head*

China has the large potential to become a major threat to the United States. Is it now? No. But better to stop problems before they start then let them get out of hand. Niccolo Machiavelli had a good quote on that, but I don't remember it. :confused:

And actually, you are correct to whoever said that Space dominance is the Air Force's primary goal. With the B3 and the Hypersoar coming out (meant to go in near-earth-orbit)......

And those kenetic missiles...

I remember reading about the missiles in Popular Science. It talked about giant rods of metal shaped like a missile in a revolver-like platform in space. The kenetic energy collected will be so powerful it will be just like a normal warhead of something...can't remember which. :headbang:

But I agree with whoever said it, space weapons won't do jack shit against terrorists.

Terrorist states, on the other hand.....

And anyways, what really is all that wrong with an arms race? Espescially if it doesn't lead to war.

It leads to militarism; overbloating military budgets that strangles the Education and Social Welfare parts of the budget.

And how is the world safer with enough nuclear warheads to annilate humankind seven times over anyways?

China is already pissed about the missile defense system; if Washington is any smart; they won't pursue space weapons, isolate yourself further from the rest of the world USA! Continue boosting the image of being a war mongering, bloodthirsty militarist nation that you hate so much as a self image! :rolleyes:

YES! Space weapons! Mwa! Ha! And the next President of the USA shall be Darth Vader! Who will construct a Death Star to crush the rebel scum...

It leads to militarism; overbloating military budgets that strangles the Education and Social Welfare parts of the budget.

And how is the world safer with enough nuclear warheads to annilate humankind seven times over anyways?

China is already pissed about the missile defense system; if Washington is any smart; they won't pursue space weapons, isolate yourself further from the rest of the world USA! Continue boosting the image of being a war mongering, bloodthirsty militarist nation that you hate so much as a self image! :rolleyes:

China has a very large potential to be an enemy -- after all, why would a nation be angry about a missile DEFENSE system? It gets me wondering.

Oh, yeah, and since China is angry at us defending ourselves, we should capitulate right away so as to avoid giving any resistance should China fight us. :rolleyes:

Are you French, perchance?

US May Be Preparing Space Weapons

Isn't the Cold War over?

What's so bad about putting weapons into space? It seems like a logical next step to me.

That treaty is unrealistic.
Then why the fuck did we sign it.

I just love how everyone thinks because there is some half-assed treaty being proposed and a few countries discuss it.....who is (the moron) wasting time talking about "proposed" treaties?

we are talking about SIGNED treaties here...at least I know I am (im not stupid and I dont like wasting my time)

let me ask the question in a different way...

Who would be so stupid as to think that...we would be wasting our time talking about "proposed" treaties????

Then why the fuck did we sign it.

Hey, we do stupid shit all the time. That's always the case with treaties with really no enforcement--they don't get followed.

Hey, we do stupid shit all the time.you mean our Gov...sign Treaties without the intention to follow them...or enforce them...

and you say we do that all the time?

Hey, we do stupid shit all the time. That's always the case with treaties with really no enforcement--they don't get followed.

UN charter come to mind? :D

I believe it to be in the US's best interest to maintain its claims to the moon. After all, Old Glory is in it.
The US has no current claim on the Moon, nor can any state lay claim on it or other celestial body. This was by international treaty proposed and backed by the US *after* reaching the Moon.

Countries can establish bases and all that, but not claim the whole thing.

Anything that flies through space - weapons or satellites - can be destroyed by sending a few truckloads of pebbles into different orbits.

And anyways, what really is all that wrong with an arms race? Espescially if it doesn't lead to war.


Account deficit. China buying US treasury bonds and threaten to dump them on the market.

When Japan was thinking loudly "Do we really need so much in US treasury bonds?" the market tumbled rapidly and everybody was running for cover.

What's the problem? Why buy them from the Fed, if you can get them from China for half the price? And then, where does the US get credit for buying new weapons, streets, schools, etc.?

Anything that flies through space - weapons or satellites - can be destroyed by sending a few truckloads of pebbles into different orbits.

That's ok if you never plan to go into space yourself, ever again.

Weapons in space, sure, what the heck. We got weapons down here, we'll have weapons up there, weapons are as much a part of being human as sex. Weapons do not frighten me, do not bother me, don't impress me or excite me. They just are.

then why doesn't the government set up a space sex program as well?

then why doesn't the government set up a space sex program as well?

You wanna try having sex in Zero G?...that could be interesting...esp with inertia and banging (no pun intended) into things, plus not to mention you will be spewing everywhere for the first few days and lets not even think about the other places stuff could come out from...it ain't gonna be pretty and its not gonna happen until we can get artificial gravity.

Artificial gravity is currently possible, but it has not been implemented in most space-based facilities or vehicles because of the incredibly difficult logistics and inherent danger of having an object spinning extremely fast in a vacum and the need for larger bodies in order for it to be effective. However, I would imagine sooner or later that it will become the norm.

The moon is not claimed under any law to belong to any one country, I personally belive it should stay that way. It would be best to divide Luna into sections, assessed by a world independent body, in order to ensure fair dispersal of resources amongst space-faring nations. A free-for-all is just going to cause problems.

As for space-based weapon systems, frankly I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. It will be interesting though, as space does not operate like the ocean and you'd have a hard time dividing it into certain juristictions.

I just hope that humanity doesn't kill itself before we launch our first manned flight to Mars, and that I'm alive to see it :D .

You wanna try having sex in Zero G?...

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

You might want to read Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton.

You won't want to after that...

Artificial gravity is currently possible, but it has not been implemented in most space-based facilities or vehicles because of the incredibly difficult logistics and inherent danger of having an object spinning extremely fast in a vacum. However, I would imagine sooner or later that it will become the norm.

Actually it hasn't been implemented because the stuff we've sent out is too small. Imagine having your feet at 0.3g while your head is at 0g, or worse -0.2g. When space stations and ships get bigger.

The moon is not claimed under any law to belong to any one country, I personally belive it should stay that way. It would be best to divide Luna into sections in a manner simlilar to Antartica (that's right, give us Aussies a huge chunk of it ;))

Anctartica hasn't been divided. A few countries have claims over it (many overlapping) but can't enforce them because of the Anctartic Treaty (which was extended a couple of years ago, I think). I think they should keep it that way.

As for space-based weapon systems, frankly I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. It will be interesting though, as space does not operate like the ocean and you'd have a hard time dividing it into certain juristictions.

They tried to do that, in the fifties or sixties. At some point the idea of a country having jurisdiction everywhere from the center of the Earth to infinity was tossed around and quickly abandoned. I believe jurisdiction just goes as high as 100km or something like that.

Of course, as space planes and such become more common this jurisdiction can be extended and authority for traffic control assigned.

A curious case is that of the geosynchronic orbit, you know, where all communication satellites are. This is very important because any satellite that is put there will seem to remain static from Earth, and it's a very narrow band with limited space. There is an international organization that assigns these spaces and tells each country how many satellites they can put up where.

Of course, countries like the US with more capacity and need to launch satellites have more space assigned, and some small countries are grouped together so that they can have a space of their own (if they can buy or lease one from another country, it's unlikely they can launch one of their own).

If they push weapons into space, they breach some international treaty which specifically disallows military use of space. Doing it anyway will simply result in a space arms race.

Your thinking of Antartica I think. To my knowlege there is no treaty specifiying space out of millitary control bounds

Frankly, though, the US should flip the bird and burn any treaty dealing with the moon.

THe moon is US territory. We put our flag on it, it's ours. As is all of it's cheese. :D



I do believe "they came in peace for all mankind". Nobody owns Luna.

Hmmm, when humanity finally escapes from the clutches of our Solar System and begins a truly Galactic civilsation, will we still refer to Sol as "the sun" and Terra as "the earth", or will we finally get off our high horse?

Hmmm, when humanity finally escapes from the clutches of our Solar System and begins a truly Galactic civilsation, will we still refer to Sol as "the sun" and Terra as "the earth", or will we finally get off our high horse?
Dunno. Maybe by then the Muslims will have taken over and the names will be in Neo-Arabic. Or perhaps there's a Greek Renaissance and it's Gea and Helios.

Or Chinese.

One thing's for sure, though, horses will still be high.

It does, however, have some new urgency. China has launched a man into space. The EU has the technology, if not the will, to follow suit, as does Japan. None of this is threatening within itself, but if space acsess keeps proliferating, those satellites may be in danger.

You've mentioned some valid points here...
1: China's emerging space (and military) capibility are a pressure, and not just on the US.
2: The military portion of the pressure is primarially linked to the idea of danger to satelites (both to one's own, and to others).

Hoever, I believe you've linked these incorrectly to come to the wrong conclusion. You are also missing some information.

Space-BASED weapons, that is, those placed in orbit to stay, are simply too expensive. There are a number of ground-based systems that are far less expensive, require less technical expertise, and are much easier to maintain. Lets cover some of these.

1: The easiest? Hacking. Most satelites are basically just computers connected to sensor and communications equipment. They are certainly often very high-tech and very well made, but like any computer they pick up signals from input, process them, and respond. Anyone with enough resources to communicate with satelites has the basic requirement to attempt to hack them...not that it would be easy or quick. There are better options available.

2: Jamming. Jamming takes a lot of energy, it can get expensive, and it only works as long as your machine is running. But you can "jam" specific targets. I believe it was Indionesia that was recognized as jamming a Chinese satelite from the ground...made China furous. Expensive satelite, comparitively cheap jammer.

3: Missiles. The most well known are the continually evolving Patriot missile system (which can hit satelites in Low Earth Orbit) and the US's currently developing anti-balistic missile balistic missiles (I love saying that), which would probably be of more value (and more reliability) taking out enemy satelites then taking out enemy balistic missiles.

4: Lasers. A number of nations are working on a variety of types of high-powered lasers. The best known example is the ABL, Air-Borne Laser, being developed by the USAF for balistic missile defense (but again, probably better for hitting satelites). White Sands missile range has some lasers (though I believe the big one(s) are not in service just now) and have hit at least one satelite in space...confirming it can actually HIT the target, the hardest part by far. There are many other examples as well, though most are lower-power lasers for targeting small missiles in earth's atmosphere.

I really haven't studied any other anti-satelite or anti-missile systems, so I can't say much about them. However, for all of the systems above, it is cheaper, more reliable, and easier to base them on the ground.

Also, note that for the examples above, control of space is likely a larger concern then balistic missile defense...and that all are ground based.

No nation with a large nuclear capible balistic missile stockpile is really afraid of attack by any other (except maype from North Korea)...even the loss of one city in retaliation would be too large a loss. Control of space however provides "C4I" for the winner, and denies it to the loser.

As it stands, the US is the only nation with truely global presence. Many European nations (and probably, reluctantly, Japan) have global reach. China is a dustbowl. A populated dustbowl with some mostly modern port cities, but still a dustbowl. It is currently struggling to acheive regional reach...which is why it opposes US "missile-defense" programs that could be used to disrupt that merely regional reach by downing satelites.

In other words, China opposes a US defense program that could keep it from having half a chance of taking over Taiwan militarially 20-30 years from now (though the Chinese are far more optimistic).




Personally, I think ground (mountain top) based lasers with perhaps a few mirrored satelites in space provide a better option for use against both balistic missiles and foreign satelites (they certainly would provide reach to higher orbits). However, balistic missile based systems currently have the budget and I'll support that.

Besides, as the US continues to destroy it's nuclear weapons, what else are we going to do with their delivery systems?

Is space based weapon economical? Maybe, unless you can actually find a cheaper way of reloading the missiles, bullets, whatever without spending millions sending a group of men up there, i doubt the orbital defence will be around for some time.

Also you need to consider the initial costs, millions have to be spent to reach a result, millions which could be used for more effective land based defence systems which are more accessable by the military for re-arming them.

Most of these things you hear are deterrants at best, a few rumours fly around, countries latch onto it and before you know it things get quiet from other nations.

Nations no matter how advanced won't ever truly have tactical advantage, sure they'll have the technology, but as the weapons get newer i believe the faults do as well, if i were in charge of a nation, having a space program would be a waste of time considering the mass amouts which could go into land weapons, tanks, anti missile systems..fighter jets etc which are just as effective as any satellite based system which could become vulnerable to faults which if happen in space would take alot to correct, something tax payers would definatly object to.

Anything that flies through space - weapons or satellites - can be destroyed by sending a few truckloads of pebbles into different orbits.

You are actually not too far away from a simple solution to eliminate all civilian and military satellite and weapons platforms in space. All you need to do is detonate a nuclear missile above the stratosphere, (or what orbit the satellites are at), and irradiate the whole atmosphere, (due to the lack of gravitational resistance in space). There is currently NO defence against this. :eek:

The advantages are that such a launch wouldn't be instantly lead to a counter launch retaliation from the nation(s) it was aimed to cripple, (most likely the US). unlike any other normal nuclear strike against a civilian and/or military target, (but you never know with some governments). Secondly, you level the playing field if you face an enemy that absolutely dominates the technological field and relies heavily on such satellites, (again, most likely, the US). If you're still a manpower heavy army, e.g. China, (maybe) Russia, this might work to your advantage. :sniper:

However, as someone has mentioned no one, including yourself, couldn't use space for a while for any form of satellite, military or civilian. It all depends what kind of nuclear yield you use I suppose to extrapolate how long this would be. Theoretically some nations have the means to send us into a mini-Dark age at a push of a big red button....and I don't see the current US "Defence" nuclear capabilities as able to stop this due to the continued failings of their son of Star Wars program to shoot down anything unless they have perfect conditions and even then their results have been dubious....maybe after a few hundred billions more.... :headbang:

I hope so.
viva Reagan.

I hope so
viva Bush.

China has the large potential to become a major threat to the United States. Is it now? No. But better to stop problems before they start then let them get out of hand. Niccolo Machiavelli had a good quote on that, but I don't remember it.

Let me guess, your saying you believe that China is becoming a threat to the U.S, and that with the use of orbital weapons of some sort, we should present a bold threat, and a display of bravado.

To what end, may I ask?

Do you have any idea of the size of Chinas armed forces?

orbital or not it, any military conflict between China and the United States would mean financial disaster for both countries.
China is the fourth largest trading partner we have.
We are so deep into each other pockets, that neither country can AFFORD a war.

Not to mention the lesson Viet Nam taught us about carrying on a land war in Asia.
Keeping that in mind, and getting back to the thread topic, with the amount of nuclear weapons that both nations possess, it simply doesnt matter where you launch them from.

Curtains.

There are enough nuclear weapons on this planet to set off one 100 megaton bomb a day, for the next 50 years.

Dont have any illusions about a war with China.

As long as there is conflict here on Earth, there will be need for space-based defense systems.

"Empires expand until someone is strong enough to stop them. So it was with Rome, and now with us, and so it will be for as long as Man walks the Earth."
-Attila the Hun

No truer words were spoken.