The US Military is Now Talking Openly About Going On the Attack in Space 54
The U.S. military has begun openly discussing offensive capabilities in space, reports ArsTechnica, a significant shift from previous policies that avoided mentioning space-based weapons to prevent an arms race. U.S. Space Command recently listed "integrated space fires" -- military terminology for offensive or defensive actions against adversaries -- among its priorities.
The move follows increasing concerns about China and Russia's space warfare capabilities, including satellite-disabling weapons and potential nuclear anti-satellite systems. "Space is a war-fighting domain," Space Force Chief Gen. Chance Saltzman said at a conference in Orlando. "Ten years ago, I couldn't say that." Gen. Stephen Whiting, head of U.S. Space Command, identified "integrated space fires" as his organization's most urgent requirement. The capabilities under consideration range from cyberattacks and directed energy weapons to satellite-capture systems, though specific details remain classified.
The move follows increasing concerns about China and Russia's space warfare capabilities, including satellite-disabling weapons and potential nuclear anti-satellite systems. "Space is a war-fighting domain," Space Force Chief Gen. Chance Saltzman said at a conference in Orlando. "Ten years ago, I couldn't say that." Gen. Stephen Whiting, head of U.S. Space Command, identified "integrated space fires" as his organization's most urgent requirement. The capabilities under consideration range from cyberattacks and directed energy weapons to satellite-capture systems, though specific details remain classified.
Race to the bottom of stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
just stop!
Re:Race to the bottom of stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
These people cannot. "Stupid" is all they have.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's already orbiting nukes. If they start whacking our satellites we need a way to fight back.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's already orbiting nukes.
No, they're not.
It's possible that they may be developing an orbital nuclear weapon, but no, they don't have one now.
https://www.airandspaceforces.... [airandspaceforces.com]
https://www.vox.com/world-poli... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, by all the gods, they developed orbital nuclear weapons in the 1970s, several were built at Oak Ridge. I'm sure the Soviets did the same, and Japan and India had almost certainly figured out how to do it. Construction-wise it's not that different than the nuclear howitzer shells that were built in the thousands, with a maneuvering unit attached and a reentry shell. My understanding is that their radioactivity signature was indiscernible from a big RTG. No idea if any were ever launched, but since th
Re:Race to the bottom of stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
And, it’s not like an orbital nuke would be any sort of game changer. As it stands the major nuclear powers can wipe any city off the map in 30 minutes using old-timey ICBMs from the 1970s.
Re: Race to the bottom of stupidity (Score:3)
Both Russia and China have demonstrated the ability to use direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. China tested an ASAT weapon in January 2007, destroying a defunct Chinese weather satellite and creating a debris field of more than 3,000 pieces of space debris.
Sometimes when I think we're all doomed, I fantasize about how the only real long-term solution is get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Need proof? The US just reelected a felon to the highest office in the land, and many of them still reject climate change. It remains to be seen if this is enough to phase them, but if not, the inability to access space because of debris won't phase them at all. (And the climate stuff isn't looking too good, given all of the unusual hurricanes and droughts plaguing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but that tells me quite a bit about what the voters thought of his opponent.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'Lesser Evil' (whichever candidate you believe that to be) was finally just too damn evil to vote for, millions sat the process out in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
I read that efforts to develop anti satellite lasers are progressing. No debris, the thing just stops working and maybe loses attitude control.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1970s the CIA claimed that Russia had blinded one of its satellites with a ground-based laser. Turned out that they had accidentally aimed the thing at a particularly intense Siberian forest fire, but the event apparently prompted both sides to build such a thing. Today blinding any satellite from the ground is almost trivially easy (if you have deep pockets). It amazes me that the Ukrainians haven't done it yet.
Just a deterrence measure (Score:3)
This is just deterrence which prevents the stupidity that is war. If countries start to think we dont have any teeth in space they might try something. China and Russia have been flexing quite a lot in space recently, they need to be aware that we have our own toys in this potential sphere of conflict.
Remember, not a single person will die because of these statements made by our military.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what they're doing they're incredibly incompetent at it. So far both sides combined have killed fewer civilians in Ukraine than the US killed just in Fallujah.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
OHCHR has estimated the number of deaths of civilians, or non-armed individuals, in Ukraine at 12,162 since the start of the war on February 24, 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
China and Russia are both openly expansionist powers. China claims not only large portions of international waters but also ocean territory belonging to most surrounding countries and Russia is currently occupying territory belonging to both Ukraine and Georgia. If you think that would go away without the US you're a fool.
Just a reminder: (Score:5, Interesting)
The last time we openly talked about space weapons, the USSR went bankrupt trying to compete with what we were rumored to have in development.
There is a value to such talk.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The last time we openly talked about space weapons, the USSR went bankrupt trying to compete with what we were rumored to have in development.
The USSR went bankrupt fighting a war in Afghanistan. The people who were around at the time pretty much all agree that, after some initial panic, the Soviets concluded that Reagan's SDI would not be able to shoot down a massive attack, and considered it an idle threat.
As for war in space, we have a lot more to lose than we have to gain-- the US is heavily dependent on space systems. Given that it's much easier to destroy things than to launch things, with war in space everyone loses.
Re:Just a reminder: (Score:4, Interesting)
> The USSR went bankrupt fighting a war in Afghanistan.
If so, Putin's not learning from history. The Russian economy can't be propped up via financial fudging forever. Putin's probably gambling Ukraine will run out of soldiers before Russia's economy collapses. It's a big game of chicken.
Re: (Score:3)
But, here’s the kicker - it’s not like their financial situation will be much different if they win or lose. Ukraine isn’t any sort of financial prize. Putin h
Re:Just a reminder: (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukraine isn't any sort of financial prize.
Food. Ukraine produces lots of food. They export most of the grains that Europe eats. If Putin controls Ukraine, he controls Europe's food supply -and ensures Russia's food supply.
Re: (Score:1)
> Ukraine...export most of the grains that Europe eats. If Putin controls Ukraine, he controls Europe's food supply
It'll be mine-flavored if he "wins".
Re: (Score:3)
So now the conspiracy theory is that the USA mind-controlled Russian soldiers into invading Ukraine?
Re: (Score:3)
That's the standard line they've been feeding everyone:
"They Made Me Do It". A familiar refrane from wife-beaters everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as you like living under the boot of the Muscovite Midget.
Seems any country given the choice chooses not to...I wonder why...
But I'm sue it's Obama's fault Russia likes invading and murdering everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine isn't any sort of financial prize.
Food. Ukraine produces lots of food. They export most of the grains that Europe eats. If Putin controls Ukraine, he controls Europe's food supply -and ensures Russia's food supply.
I would imagine farming is quite the (impossible?) challenge in an active war zone. Doubly so when all the farmers were turned into fighters years ago. With expected losses at this point.
If Ukraine were such a food powerhouse, don’t you think the human populated area known as Europe would have felt that by now? We’re coming up on a three-year old conflict here. Forget the land. How many farmers are still alive producing?
Either there’s been significant measurable impact to food product
Re: (Score:2)
The value would be the USA going bankrupt, right comrade?
And the Soviet Union did not go bankrupt trying to complete with Reagan's moronic project.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union did not go bankrupt trying to complete with Reagan's moronic project.
A couple of posts have said this.
Can you cite an analysis paper we could read that explains this? Something from the cIA or from a military think tank? I am sure such must exist, whatever the conclusions.
Besides Russian nuclear investments, such an analysis must include competing motivations for alternate pursuits such as strategic ground campaigns.
It seems unlikely to me that SDI had no effect on the Russian economy.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems unlikely to me that SDI had no effect on the Russian economy.
Why does that "seem unlikely"? It was pretty clear that responding to the SDI by simply building more missiles and overwhelming the defenses. Do keep in mind the one missile of that era carried ten warheads, but could easily carry carry twenty or more dummy warheads indistinguishable from real ones, each of which needs to be shot down, and that each defending missile is as expensive, and plausibly more expensive, than the ICBMs that the Soviet Union was capable of churning out on a mass-production factory
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he USSR went bankrupt trying to compete
That is the mythology but it is doubtful. There were a lot of things that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. One alternative explanation is that it was the arms race which held the soviet block together. When Gorbachev and Reagan agreed in 1985 that the arms race wasn't winnable by either side, the central purpose of the Warsaw pact and then the Soviet Union disappeared. Without the threat of the West the internal divisions exploded each in turn.
I think people forget that one side's "deterren
Re: (Score:2)
Trump visits Uranus daily.
The United States of SPACE! (Score:1)
M - A - R - S. Red rocks! Yay yayyyy!
the star gate is not in space oops said to much! (Score:2)
the star gate is not in space oops said to much!
Star Wars (Score:2)
Yes I get it, Star Wars is obvious. And they aren't wrong that war will be fought in space at some point. But seems like a pretty damning indictment of human culture in general that warfare tops the list of what we want to do in every new endeavor, be it on land, in the ocean, or in space. Pretty immature and petty of us all really. Recently the head of NATO talked about moving NATO to be more focused on war, which does seem inevitable but how tragic and wasteful.
Re: Star Wars (Score:2)
Space junk (Score:2)
Let's hope the Space Force is preparing to deal with orbital debris clouds that may threaten the structural integrity of anything in orbit or that we hope to put in orbit in the future.
Footfall (Score:3)
I think I'll go and read "Footfall" (Niven/Pournelle) again, to refresh my space battle tactics.
Project Orion, shuttles armed with missiles, fission-pumped x-ray lasers, it's a helluva ride.
Dr Evil Says (Score:3)
I want a frickin SpaceX StarShip with lasers!!!!
woof, woof woof woof woof (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity's M.O. since 3 million years. Good luck removing that glitch.
Yeah, whatever (Score:3)
They're talking about it PUBLICLY now.
In all liklihood, space has been weaponized for quite a long time by now.