The Dozen Space Weapons Myths

[MrBS]

I have not researched anything really beyond Earth's atmosphere. A regular 9/11 debunker on mainstream forums has posted this article specifically aimed at "conspiracy nuts".

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/826/1

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a...57/m/6470039457

Anyone who's in the know about space-stuff or fancy attacking it themselves or via proxy (me) then please go ahead.

[pizzaman777]

Quote:1. The United States already has satellite killers, why shouldn’t anyone else?

It’s not just the hard-line Russian commentators or the North Korean press that alleges that US military forces are already armed to the teeth for space warfare: the same explicit assumption often appears in the mainstream Western press as well. Sometimes the argument even goes, “Well, there’s no official acknowledgement of them—that proves they exist in secret” (as if the absence of evidence were transformed into evidence of presence).

But since the 1985 air-launch satellite intercept, a project cancelled by Congress (see “Blunt arrows: the limited utility of ASATs”, The Space Review, June 6, 2005), there is no evidence that a new satellite-killer technology has been developed. Laser tests seem focused on interfering with satellite observation equipment, as well as to determine how to develop US countermeasures against other countries using lasers to interfere with US observation satellites. Non-destructive radio spoofing seems to be the limit of the amount of force—short of setting off a nuclear weapon in space, which would be suicidal—the US is currently prepared to use against space objects.

What about the Starfire Optical Range ? This New York Times article shows a project made public through Air Force budget documents submitted to Congress. If you're not a fan of the times, there is also a DefenseTech article. . There is also a handout about Space Weapons Spending In The Defense Budget which shows a big interest in directed energy technology. Another reference is the Air Force's Budget Item Justification for advanced weapon technology. In there is a direct reference to "atmospheric compensation/beam control experiments for application including antisatellite weapons" on page 3.

[pizzaman777]

Quote:2. The latest United States “space policy” declares that it will “deny access to space” to those players it deems hostile, which translates to pre-emptive attack on non-US space objects and their supporting ground infrastructure.

Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right “to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes,” and that it claimed the right (some say “tacitly”) for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: “They [the US] want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there.”

But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to “deny” access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most alarmingly stark terms.

[sarcasm]The U.S.? Make a pre-emptive attack? Did they find those WMD's yet? [/sarcasm]

I assume this is the line Mr. Oberg is talking about in the new space policy:

Quote:The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

All we need is another "slam dunk" report and it's off to the space races. While this newer space policy is not much different, in regards to Department of Defense policies, from the 1996 space policy, I do find it quite amusing that NASA isn't even mentioned once in the newer one.


Old U.S. Space Policy
New U.S. Space Policy