Results 41 to 50 of 53
-
Nagtatanim ng kamote
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 787
January 22nd, 2007 05:35 PM #41The 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.
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?!?!
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.
-
January 22nd, 2007 08:52 PM #42
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.
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?!?!
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.
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.Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; January 22nd, 2007 at 09:01 PM.
-
January 23rd, 2007 12:19 AM #43
question lang mga sirs, pano mag-launch ng missile from satellite. dami din ba dala gas yun
-
Tsikot Member Rank 3
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 863
-
January 23rd, 2007 04:11 AM #45
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.Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; January 23rd, 2007 at 04:21 AM.
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 148
January 23rd, 2007 12:35 PM #46sir 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.
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 148
January 23rd, 2007 12:45 PM #47
-
January 23rd, 2007 02:28 PM #48
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.
-
Nagtatanim ng kamote
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Posts
- 787
January 23rd, 2007 03:44 PM #49Yes. 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.
-
January 23rd, 2007 11:18 PM #50
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.
Last edited by Jun aka Pekto; January 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 PM.
Daming issue ng SU7:grin:
Xiaomi E-Car