Why the U.S. Must Dominate Outer Space

38630032_1750657714989067_3883975819541872640_nDoes anyone, especially someone with the intelligence of Scott Kelly, think that the proposition that the U.S. should use space as the next battlefield find this “hard to understand?”  No. That’s a politically correct way of saying, “Our president is criminally insane.”

Tagged with: ,
4 comments on “Why the U.S. Must Dominate Outer Space
  1. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    Unhappily, the President is perfectly sane ! Space is already “militarized” as satellites have been important weapons of war for decades.

    Human conflict extends wherever there’s more than one human! (I know people who could start a fight in an empty bar!).

    It’s a just sad reality. As usual,the President is just reflecting reality, not a romantic, utopian vision so beloved of idealists.

  2. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    It goes deeper than that, as most things do.

    There are two scenarios that one could imagine using space in a militaristic way – both scenarios are total nightmares.

    The first is to plausibly blind the opponent by attempting to eliminate their satellites. But that would create high velocity space junk. The Chinese government tested a single anti-satellite rocket against one of their own satellites over a decade ago, and there are now still 3000 pieces of high-speed space debris that every single operating satellite has to contend with and be maneuvered around as the pieces come zooming around in their faster orbits.

    We actually track all of those pieces, and notify other countries and private companies of a potential collision with their satellites so they can move their stuff out of the way, because the spectre of even more space debris could completely close off low-Earth orbits for everyone for several decades as the junk gradually falls back to Earth.

    So the thought of eliminating other countries satellites is abominable. That just cannot be done. There’s far too great a risk entailed. Nothing can be allowed to explode at LEO altitudes.

    That leaves the other alternative: using space as a launch platform for a terrestrial attack. That has been the fear from the start of the space race, with good reason. It also simply cannot be done, because it turns MAD on its head.

    MAD has kept us safe these past 69 years because there’s no way to win a nuclear war. Everyone knows that if they start a nuclear war, that their country will lose a significant portion of their population and forever blight a portion of their country’s land… and it isn’t worth it.

    Even with narcissist fools like Trump and Kim Jun Un, we still manage to avoid coming to nuclear weapons launch because of MAD. It’s just relying on the expectation of the desire for self preservation to prevent the other country from launching.

    But with a space-launch platform, then the country that launches can do so without warning. A well coordinated attack could destroy the launch capability of the other side, because there’s absolutely no warning even for a completely catastrophic strike. At that point, instead of “If I launch, my country will be completely destroyed”, you have the mentality “if THEY launch first, I will be completely destroyed without any means of retaliation”… In the second option, MAD will not hold, and that is unacceptable.

    So the only two possible motivations for weaponizing space are wholly unacceptable: one would bring us back to pre-space communications, the other would bring us back to the stone age and kill 99+% of life on the planet.

    THAT is the entire potential of “space force”.

  3. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    Space is, and will continue to be “militarized”. The main deterrent is cost, effectiveness and necessity. Part of the funding for the Space Shuttle program was to test the feasibility of physically disabling or occupying ‘enemy’ satellites, defending satellite and supplying weapon delivery platforms.

    Failsafe technology, (which is how MAD is assured) ceased to be effective with the advent of low delivery American neutron bomb technology, or the USSR response, nuclear “back pack” bombs, both designed to fight “winnable” nuclear wars.

    The break-up of the USSR and bankruptcy of the Russian economy, greatly reduced the risk of a “weaponized” space program since the USA became overwhelmingly powerful in space due to the large expenditure required for “military” space technology.

    “The thought of eliminating other countries satellites is abominable”. Well not really, eliminating other countries satellites has been a preoccupation of military planners around the world for 60 years !.

    The US already has “weaponized” satellites in space. US military planners also must also prepare for a situation where a future USA may be forcedto contest ownership of space resources with other nations.

    This scenario may seem far-fetched at the present time, but alliances and circumstances change. You can bet somewhere in the growing resources of the PLA strategic planning command, there’s a group contemplating and preparing for just such a future scenario.(they would be derelict in the duty to the nation and the party if they weren’t).

    The PLA and CCP Secret military ‘general staff’ plan at least 50-100 years in the future, America must become more long term in planning also.

    Sadly, betting on human behaviour becoming more benign is not just naive, but irresponsible.