U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground

Remove all ads!

The only real defense which it offers is extremely important itself: e.g. defense against ballistic missiles containing nuclear warheads...

Destroying the missile in its declination phase is obviously more risky that than eliminating it in orbital phase... Why should we wait until the orbital phase if we can destroy it earlier?

And obviously there also is a SA (surface-to-air) defense against missiles, to ensure that if the first attempt to destroy it is unsuccessful, there is still another chance to eliminate it before it reaches the critical height above the surface (nuclear weapons are the most effective if they don't explode on the ground but several kilometres above)

Weapons (and defense systems) in the space have enormous advantages. There can watch and analyze huge areas of the Earth (many satellites are able to "see" through clouds), there are no weather effects in the space which can disturb their functioning, they can send immense amount of information theu have acquired to the surface centers; weapons can attack many more targets from space than from surface...

 

But how is the satelite going to track an orbital missle? Radar will not work. Thermal detection will not work. So how?

Edit: I guess thermal detection may be possible...but I am doubtful.

 

If the moon shrinks enough that it is affecting tides I would be more worried about its ability to attract and absorb rougue astroids that are heading for earth.

 

I do not know how those operations are performed, but I suppose that missiles can be destroyed in that phase too.
The SDI program is a good example, too bad that it was not finished (thanks to Russia mostly). (Although its obvious that - as always - the developments have not been in vain) Here is some information about it:

"From the outset, the SDI program focused on the technologies needed to develop a layered defense that would initially attempt to intercept ballistic missiles during the boost phase, the first few minutes of their flight when the rocket motor is still burning. Additional layers would attempt interception in the post-boost phase when the missile's warheads are released into space, the mid-course phase, the approximately 20 minutes that it takes the warheads traverse intercontinental distances, and the terminal phase as the warheads reenter the Earth's atmosphere." /www.fas.org/

I don't understand you.
My problems are:
1.) Why would the Moon shrink so much?
2.) Theoretically, if it shrinks, why would it attract asteroids?

 

I think I can see the point. So those asteroids might reach the surface of Earth because: the larger ones have large mass (and therefore gravity affects them better) but if the Moon does not attract them, they might reach the Earth. And due to their big volume, they may not burn in the atmosphere, and reach the surface... I will look into this deeper.

 

If they mine the Moon, their is a chance of breaking it. The Moon may be very brittle, and mining could cause the planet to break apart.

 

Gravity would hold the moon together...although shock waves could make it more of a rubble pile rather than a solid body.

 

Safety of the moon. Doom of earth?
If USA is able to harvest from the moon, I think it is likely that they are smart enough to not "break" it or cause the doom of earth... The moon is solid enough to stay solid even when giant asteroids have crashed into it for million of years. If you must look into asteroids changing course to earth, then remember the gravitational pull of the sun too, not that I think it matters. You would need to mine 140 000 000 000 000 000 000 pounds to change the weight of the moon 1% that is the same as bringing 140 trillion titanics away from the moon (140 trillion seconds are around 10 million years)...

Sharing moon
Personally I don't think any country or union would have the integrity or empatic touch, to aid others to the moon so they can compete with harvesting resources. Had it been China or Russia who got to the moon first or ESA (the european space agency), I find it highly irrational and therefore unlikely that they would use billions of dollars to help NASA establish a base on the moon, so that they could get a piece of the cheese too. That it happens to be USA, which has the edge in reality, is just their luck and priority. If anyone wants up there, they better stop whining and start working.

Warfare
If any cooperation is carried out it is because both parts benefit from it. There is no reason for charity in outer space, is there? Though beeing passive (as I think USA will stay. Why would they risk beeing hostile to every other country back on earth?) is far from Enforcing an american space army... What happens on the moon, if more countries arrive there, is something WTO or any other global union will descide. Hopefully

[ January 28, 2004, 14:35: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Quite interesting in this context: The USAF is developing anti-satellite weapons, secretly and under cover but still. That means the weaponisation of space is still underway - and after all that space dominance doctrin it isn't even surprising.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2012&from_page=../index.cfm
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/space-weapons.pdf

 

This is not the 1600 or 1700's. IMO if we want to progress as a people we have to start thinking of the world as our home.

How will the rest of the world react if the US starts exploiting the moon and trys to keep others out? We may be a world power among divided nations but not if they unite against us.

IMO it would be morally wrong for the US to lay claim to the moon.

 

Well the fear has been justified...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4353309/

 

My favorite was the hypervelocity rod bundles.

 

I want a non-kinetic anti-satellit weapon. Or a space-based radio frequency energy weapon.

Surely this is all a joke. Someone has just leaked one of the early Star Trek scripts.

 

The "radio frequency" weapon is theoretically possible in science. The only problem is that we cannot create devices that emit so high-energy waves. Certainly these high-energy pulses aren't in radio frequency, but in other (probably greater) frequency interval of electromagnetic radiation.

The development of anti-satellite weapons can rather be based on superhigh-energy LASERs created by a nuclear explosions, or missiles. Since the satellites are controlled by electronics, they might integrate the e-weapon technology. These are only assumptions, the truth is top secret.

As far as space-based weapons are concerned, an international contract prohibits the launch and usage of any high-power (thus mass-desctruction) weapon located in space. Now, that the colonization of the Moon has become serious, this brings several problems.

 

Who enforces that 'international contract'?
Maybe we'll have to establish a Star Fleet or a Federation in order to enforce this astro-weapons ban. This Star Fleet won't be allowed to carry weapons either (but they will be able to have those machines that can create whatever food you ask for).

 

@ Baronius

It would actually have to be a lower wavelength, regardless of the freqency. There is an inverse relationship between energy and wavelength. Thats why gamma radiation (small wavelength) have more energy than infrared radiation (larger wavelength).

 

Yes exactly. It's the same which I have written. And due to the constancy of the speed of light, the higher the frequency, the lower the wavelength. Thus, the freqency and the energy are in direct relationship (I don't want to mention formulas here).

EDIT:
And of course the usage of such high energies as a weapon is unable because especially these low-wavelength radiations interact with their enviroment in special way, so they don't damage physically the macroscopic objects.

Nuclear LASERs (lasers are also electromagnetic waves) are powerful enough to destroy e.g. the hostile nuclear ballistic missiles. IIRC there was such development in the ABM project. Perhaps the US already has weapons that function this way... (of course it's top secret so we have no evidence and this remains an assumption)

[ February 25, 2004, 20:41: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

@ Baronius

I misread your message - it's right. I'm an idiot.