Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Tech |
Times' Shaky Spacewar Story |
2005-05-19 |
Noah Shachtman writing for Defence Tech.org For most of the planet, it will seem like a shocker. But, really, the fact that the Air Force is looking for President Bush's approval to put weapons in space is no revelation. The service has been shouting for orbiting arms for years. The New York Times is reporting today that the Air Force wants a new national-security directive to "replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space, including spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts." Well, of course that's what the Air Force wants. Last year, an Air Force paper on "Counterspace Operations," signed by chief of staff Gen. John Jumper, declared that the "freedom to attack
denying space capability to the adversary" has become a "crucial first step in any military operation." In 2003, the service released a "Transformation Flight Plan," complete with a space weapons wish list -- from anti-satellite lasers to arms that could "strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space." It's from this collection that the Times' Tim Weiner draws at least some of its examples of weapons in orbit. And I'm afraid Weiner may have confused the Air Force's equivalent of day dreams with full-blown, big-money Pentagon development efforts. [An] Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon. Yes, "Rods from God" is mentioned in the 2003 "Flight Plan." But the idea was debunked so long ago that's it's hard to believe the service is actually pursuing the Rods in any serious way. As Columbia University physics professor Richard Garwin noted, the Rods could only work if they orbited at low altitudes. And that means they "could only deliver one-ninth the destructive energy per gram as a conventional bomb." What's more, the paper of record actually ignores some of the Air Force's actual, working space weapons while spilling ink over the service's least-likely schemes. In October, the Air Force deployed a radio-frequency jammer, meant to disrupt opponents' satellite communications. And, according to Air Force documents, commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads even weather satellites are all on the potential target list. To me, that's truly shocking. |
Posted by:Steve |
#2 Seize the high ground and blind the enemy to what you are doing. Tried and true military goals that haven't changed since we were throwing rocks at each other. We just use really expensive rocks now days. Hey Kim, catch! |
Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-19 10:13 |
#1 Shocking? No, prudent to plan ahead. If the video signals from a weather satellite can be intercepted by the potential enemy and that satellite's orbit covers areas that we have an interest in keeping unobserved, then removing that satellite or its ability to communicate sensitive information is a valid military necessity. The targeting of neutral launch facilities is somewhat more problematic depending on the activities at the neutral site and the likelihood that they would promptly replace a disabled satellite. |
Posted by: DanNY 2005-05-19 09:21 |