A german's point of view...

[creepy]

But when it comes to anti-satellite or space-based weapons, it is an exclusive group. The US is a signatory of the treaty forbidding the militarization of outer space. As of the present, it's only the Russians who've ever deployed an actual anti-ballistic missile defense system (back in the late 60's?).

The U.S. is a signatory? Then why should it be upset that other countries (that are not signatories) are developing such weapons?

Btw, an anti-ballistic missile defense is VERY different from an anti-satellite weapon system. And a missile launched from the earth targeting satellites is NOT a space-based weapon.

That doesn't mean the US will stop research on potential space-based weapon systems because the last thing they want to do is get caught with their pants down. As that successful Chinese test shows, there is reason for the US to at least have a working solution should the need arise.

You're getting it backwards. Because the U.S. has the capability to destroy satellites from other countries, other countries should similarly arm themselves to protect from possible U.S. aggression. Not the other way around.

The logic should be simple and fair: ALL countries should stop developing such weapons. The U.S. should not be "above the law" in this instance or in any other instance. Of all countries, the U.S. has the LEAST right to complain because it has such weapons (mas may karapatan mag-reklamo ang Pinas kaysa sa Tate).

The best thing would be for the U.S. to renounce all such development with the condition that ALL countries stop doing so as well. And not whine because another country is seeking (or has developed) such capabilities. If anti-satellite weapons are really a threat to "world peace", why does the U.S. develop them?!?!

Still, you have to make a distinction between research/experimental versus actual deployment.

The U.S. government is threatened not because of any debris from the test but because it doesn't want anyone else to have the capability. That is indisputable.

[Jun aka Pekto]

The U.S. is a signatory? Then why should it be upset that other countries (that are not signatories) are developing such weapons?

You got me there. I didn't realize China wasn't an actual signatory. They were just witness to the Outer Space Treaty.

Btw, an anti-ballistic missile defense is VERY different from an anti-satellite weapon system. And a missile launched from the earth targeting satellites is NOT a space-based weapon.

Well, since you were combining WMD's and space-based weapons, I thought I might reply in kind. So now we're in the same page as to which one is which.

You're getting it backwards. Because the U.S. has the capability to destroy satellites from other countries, other countries should similarly arm themselves to protect from possible U.S. aggression. Not the other way around.

Last I recall, it was the Soviet Union who first deployed anti-satellite missiles to frontline duty. The US didn't catch up until years later. Since the US spy satellites had much more advanced resolutions than the Soviets, the latter would've been more inclined to develop anti-satellite weapons.

The logic should be simple and fair: ALL countries should stop developing such weapons. The U.S. should not be "above the law" in this instance or in any other instance. Of all countries, the U.S. has the LEAST right to complain because it has such weapons (mas may karapatan mag-reklamo ang Pinas kaysa sa Tate).

The best thing would be for the U.S. to renounce all such development with the condition that ALL countries stop doing so as well. And not whine because another country is seeking (or has developed) such capabilities. If anti-satellite weapons are really a threat to "world peace", why does the U.S. develop them?!?!

I don't see any reason to disagree with you here. Space should be free of all weapons. True, the US has had this capablity for a while. But, it hasn't developed a defense against such weapons. If the US was intent on the militarization of space, it would've used the last 20 years to develop a defense or an "antidote" in the same vein as antidotes for chemical weapons.

The U.S. government is threatened not because of any debris from the test but because it doesn't want anyone else to have the capability. That is indisputable.

That could be. But, the fact is they haven't done any tests since the ban was implemented in what, 1986? They did one test in 1985 which turned out to be successful and then stopped testing, much less deployment of such weapons.

Now, China comes out of nowhere and destroys one of its own satellites at a time when all other countries have stopped. The Chinese may have wanted to play catcn-up. But, it showed it an't be trusted either, certainly no more trusted than the US or Russia.

Googling around indicates it's based on the "kamikaze" approach favored by the Soviets. China may have not signed the Outer Space Treaty. But being witnesses to that treaty, they promised to adhere to the stipulations of that treaty even though they're not formal signatories.

[oldblue]

question lang mga sirs, pano mag-launch ng missile from satellite. dami din ba dala gas yun

[ryan]

*delete***

[Jun aka Pekto]

question lang mga sirs, pano mag-launch ng missile from satellite. dami din ba dala gas yun

Never been done (yet). Hypothethically, it could come into being if there's an arms race that results from the recent events. The US seems to favor missiles as anti-satellite weapons. The one they tested in 1985 was launched from an F-15. So, it's probably the US that will design one although it's most likely going to be very expensive.

China and Russian designs simply launch an ICBM booster rocket with a hunter-killer satellite that seeks out the target satellite. Once the HK is near the target satellite, poof! It's more crude but cheap and effective.

I'm not sure if missiles in a satellite will come into being. I figured satellites armed with lasers is more probable. Bah. I don't know. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek. But, the unmanned enemy orbital platforms in the last season of Deep Space 9 seems eerily attainable.

Add: One thing to note about Star Trek is that they reflect a lot of real-world socio-political issues at the time. I don't think it's a coincidence the orbital platforms was shown right about the same time Bush Jr wanted to resume research on space-based plaforms or some kind of anti-ballistic missile defense.

[maverickjazzy]

Just to add to what's already been said......

The Star Wars project wasn't all a figment of the imagination. The US actually made some (airborne) prototype laser weapons which succeeded in shooting down an aerial drone. They also had a missile carried by an F-15 that had enough range to reach space and destroy an enemy satellite. I've read about those two in aerospace industry publications before Reagan came up with the Star Wars moniker.

When Reagan started to build up the US military. It was mainly to reach parity with the Soviets in several areas, like the "600-ship navy". The US had been outnumbered beforehand. He also gave the green light for military weapon systems that had been languishing under Carter such as the M1 Abrams which was regarded as an expensive "supertank" at the time. The B-1 bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk (stealth fighter). Most of all, he improved the pay and benefits for all members of the US Armed Forces.

He was regarded as a good president. But, even he had his sinister moments. Take Iran-Contra....... I can't for one moment believe that he did not know anything about the Iran-Contra affairs.

I remember wondering why Ayatollah Khomeini decided to release the American hostages in Iran at the verge of Reagan assuming office. Reagan was considered a hardliner. But I doubt that would have been enough to scare the ayatollah. One reason may have been the ayatollah's stated goal of bringing the Carter presidency down after the failed rescue attempt of the American hostages. Once Carter lost, the ayatollah was satisfied. But, something that trivial....... It just didn't add up. Something else "under the table" had to be going on.

The usual antagonistic rhetoric went on between the US and Iran. But behind the scenes, Iran, the US, and Israel were collaborating on something which turned out to be the Iran-Contra affair. When that came out, I thought Reagan's presidency will soon be over. But, he had powerful and capable allies representing him.....

sir Jun, the star wars project was still on the planning stage as confirmed by reagan on his autobiography. an aerial drone is very much different from an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile. an aerial drone does not leave earth's atmosphere and its trajectory is mostly straight line while an ICBM during its flight reaches and surpasses the atmosphere and at the same time its trajectory is parabolic. a stationary drone is very much easier to hit than an in-flight ICBM. An example of how difficult to hit an incoming missile is the Patriot System used during the Gulf War (circa 1991/Desert Storm). The success rate of Patriot Missile System against incoming Scud missiles is about less than 60%. An ICBM is definitely faster and more difficult to intercept than a Scud missile. Also the US military has a problem on energizing the laser to knockout/disable a very large ICBM.

[maverickjazzy]

question lang mga sirs, pano mag-launch ng missile from satellite. dami din ba dala gas yun

oldblue the ASAT (anti-satellite) missile can be launched from a fighter like F15,F16 or the new F22. This fighter will fly at approximately 120,000 feet above earth, reaching the stratosphere then it will launch the ASAT missile to destroy the satellite.

[Jun aka Pekto]

sir Jun, the star wars project was still on the planning stage as confirmed by reagan on his autobiography. an aerial drone is very much different from an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile. an aerial drone does not leave earth's atmosphere and its trajectory is mostly straight line while an ICBM during its flight reaches and surpasses the atmosphere and at the same time its trajectory is parabolic. a stationary drone is very much easier to hit than an in-flight ICBM. An example of how difficult to hit an incoming missile is the Patriot System used during the Gulf War (circa 1991/Desert Storm). The success rate of Patriot Missile System against incoming Scud missiles is about less than 60%. An ICBM is definitely faster and more difficult to intercept than a Scud missile. Also the US military has a problem on energizing the laser to knockout/disable a very large ICBM.

I think what SDI would've encompassed to take on ICBMs are space-based particle weapons like lasers. The US did conduct successful tests with an airborne laser which shot down an aerial drone. The purpose of that test was to see if a laser can indeed be used to shoot something down. I don't think that weapons platform was intended for use against ICBMs. Not yet, anyway.

It would then be a matter of developing a proper laser weapon mated with the proper tracking system. Tracking systems are advanced enough to be used realistically in anti-ballistic missile defense systems whether ground-based or space-based.

The SDI anti-ICBM concept wasn't designed to provide 100% coverage or kill rate. It's intended purpose is to kill enough missiles and sow enough doubt as to whether those missiles will hit all their targets in a first strike, first kill scenario. The US will be launching its own barrage as soon as the enemy missiles leave their silos. Will that enemy risk launching at all when sucess is not completely guaranteed and they're faced with a counterstrike? Probably not. In short, it's really just a continuation of detente that worked well during the 60's and 70's. Just the thought's enough to deter an attack.

As for the Patriot....... I'll take its 50-60% odds against no defense at all. I think it's sucess rate has improved beyond 60% after Desert Storm. I lost track, though (I wasn't interested after the war). But a missile intercepting another missile..... Back then, I didn't think it was possible. And yes, the US was actively developing a missile that can intercept an ICBM as of the late 90's. Results were mixed with some successes and some misses. But, the bugs will eventually be ironed out.

The Soviets were the only ones to actually deploy an anti-ICBM weapon system which guarded Moscow. I was intrigued when I first read about it. Now, I can only wonder how effective it really was since it was no easy task to intercept an ICBM.... and that was using 60's tech.

[creepy]

But, it showed it an't be trusted either, certainly no more trusted than the US or Russia.

Yes. No more and no less.

That's why anyone who has such capabilities (and continues to develop them) should not whine about it. If the U.S. wants to complain, it should pledge to stop all development as well.

In the end, pantay-pantay lang dapat tayong lahat -- whether it's the U.S., China, Japan or the Philippines.

[Jun aka Pekto]

Yes. No more and no less.

That's why anyone who has such capabilities (and continues to develop them) should not whine about it. If the U.S. wants to complain, it should pledge to stop all development as well.

In the end, pantay-pantay lang dapat tayong lahat -- whether it's the U.S., China, Japan or the Philippines.

I'd like it to be that way as well. If China's satisfied that they have the capability and do not deploy such a weapon system, then all these will die down quietly. But, the one thing worrisome about China is that it doesn't have the checks and balances that exist in the US. There's enough concerned citizens in the US such that the government will have to pay attention to them or even comply with their demands. The Vietnam War was proof of that and an immediate withdrawal out of Iraq without regard for the possible outcome, isn't out if the question either. So far, Vietnam War era protests hasn't happened that much yet. Actually, I haven't seen one since 2003. But once that occurs, the US government will have no choice but to comply.

China.... It may have a vibrant economy. But, it's still a totalitarian country at heart. If concerned citizens voiced their protests, the Chinese government simply rounded them up and made them disappear. That's what scary about China. There's no checks and balances whatsoever. A totalitarian government with lots of money plus ambitions....... A dangerous combination.

Add: The SDI would have had a "crude" version of this for a space-based anti-ICBM defense. Amazing this episode came out right when the Dems were protesting Bush Jr's wish to resume research on such systems. At least, there were a lot of re-runs of this episode.

[mazdamazda]

Ah yes... China...

Over 900 missiles are currently aimed at Taiwan which will overwhelm its missile defense system. A missile killing satellite will add another ace up its sleeves as it might be able to destroy GPS or spy satellites that might help the Patriot batteries of Taiwan to intercept those missiles.

I'd rather trust the USA rather than some other totalitarian or religious governments out there.

[maverickjazzy]

Ah yes... China...

Over 900 missiles are currently aimed at Taiwan which will overwhelm its missile defense system. A missile killing satellite will add another ace up its sleeves as it might be able to destroy GPS or spy satellites that might help the Patriot batteries of Taiwan to intercept those missiles.

[SIZE=3]I'd rather trust the USA rather than some other totalitarian or religious governments out there[/SIZE].

same here. i'd still prefer an imperialistic US government than some pseudo-communist or religious fundamentalist governments to dominate global affairs. republicans or democrats, i dont care, those 2 parties' ideology doesnt differ much these days. at least if an elected US government performs badly, it can still be removed from office come election time just like what will happen to the republicans this coming 2008 US presidential election.

[GasJunkie]

*snicker*


As long as my phone works I could care less who launch what first.




:fly: