There is a recent article about the use of space based weapons, and how it could fill Near Earth Orbit with so much debris that satellites could not safely function for centuries or longer, according to a report by the U.N.
I don't think there is anybody outside the United States that wants space based weapons, and think that even in the U.S., only a small fraction of the people support it.
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein
Posted 23 April 2002 - 05:08 PM
I think building Space weapons would be a complete waste of time, research and resources. It would be a lot more beneficial to concentrate on the research and development of new propulsion systems, deep space probes and other technologies that will benefit everyone.
Encouraging space-based warfare is really not something that should even be considered. :s3
"The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein
Posted 24 April 2002 - 02:21 PM
SaRuMaN, i actually think it will be a good idea. not only it will make america an even stronger 'super power' but it will also act as defence for earth against asteroids and building 'space weapons' might offspring some sort of new technology that could make us go faster in space.
you have to remember that creating the V2 Rocket made us go into space so maybe creating another weapon might make us venture even furthur
THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)
Dowdy, I can't understand why you would want America to be a stronger 'super power'.
As far as using it as a global defense against asteroids, that is actually being considered. The problem with that, especially politically, is who would control it? If only one nation controlled it, like America for instance, what's to stop America from using it for other purposes? A joint control involving multiple nations sounds good on paper, but historically operations involving multiple nations get caught up in command and control problems, drastically decreasing reaction time.
At the dawn of the 21st century, the preeminent user of near-earth space for military purposes is the United States, and the preeminent American use of space is to support operations by traditional air, sea and land forces within the earth’s atmosphere. For the United States, the military value of orbital systems rests almost exclusively in force enhancement rather than force application, whether the term “force application” is construed in the narrow sense of space-to-earth strikes or broadly enough to include space control. While the American military is currently far ahead of other militaries—friendly ones as well as those of potential foes—in the ability to exploit information from space systems during current operations, even the United States has probably realized no more than a small fraction of space’s potential for force enhancement. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine trigger events, as well as more gradual paths, that could prompt an earlier-than-expected transition of near-earth space from a force-enhancement to a force-application role. Indeed, if force application is construed broadly enough to include terrestrial-based applications of military force aimed at affecting orbital systems and their use, one can argue that space warfare has already arrived even though no space-based weapons are currently deployed.
So we need to look at the Negative Side also, but think about the good uses.