Weaponization Of Space

[Zhukov]

China Calls For Preventing Outer Space Arms Race
Geneva (XNA) Aug 27, 2004

China called Thursday for international consensus and a legally-binding agreement on preventing an arms race in outer space.
China's Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, Hu Xiaodi, told delegates to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament here: "In our view, the priority concern is to further consolidate an international consensus on prevention of weaponization and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal commitment or a legal instrument."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html


Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Annie]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html


Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability. Why am I not surprised?

Unless there is a change on their part or outs, China will be the USSR with the US in less than 15 years. It is a scary scenario with their population.

 

[Zhukov]

The obvious solution to that scenario is a geosynchronus network of space platforms armed with nuclear gravity bombs. Launchers on the platform supply a small nudge and gravity does the rest. Provide an invulnerable control center, like a lunar outpost, and you have the ultimate deterent.

Even given a surprise and large-scale attack on the United States our nuclear response would be unstoppable and complete.

It isn't surprising the Chinese would rather we didn't move in that direction.

The worst thing we could do is allow the Chinese to reach parity.

 

[Annie]

The obvious solution to that scenario is a geosynchronus network of space platforms armed with nuclear gravity bombs. Launchers on the platform supply a small nudge and gravity does the rest. Provide an invulnerable control center, like a lunar outpost, and you have the ultimate deterent.

Even given a surprise and large-scale attack on the United States our nuclear response would be unstoppable and complete.

It isn't surprising the Chinese would rather we didn't move in that direction.

The worst thing we could do is allow the Chinese to reach parity.

I agree with your ending, though I think there will be strong arguments made that it's in 'our' best interests to not be the only 'superpower/hyperpower'. It would be a mistake, but one I can see coming.

 

[wade]

Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms. We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.

This is about stopping defensive systems which use small nukes to ensure destruction of enemy ballistic missiles. They will proably also want to ban nuclear powered laser systems, which use a nuke to generate the energy for the beam (these are 1 shot units).

I think the whole idea however is silly, the USA will want to have nuclear powered space stations and spacecraft in the not to distant future, and we will not agree not to deploy such items. Once the fissionable material and reactors are up there, making nukes up there is too easy.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms. We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.

This is about stopping defensive systems which use small nukes to ensure destruction of enemy ballistic missiles. They will proably also want to ban nuclear powered laser systems, which use a nuke to generate the energy for the beam (these are 1 shot units).

I think the whole idea however is silly, the USA will want to have nuclear powered space stations and spacecraft in the not to distant future, and we will not agree not to deploy such items. Once the fissionable material and reactors are up there, making nukes up there is too easy.

Wade.

Grow up: http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_chinawmd.html

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's see - which other nation has the capability to field space-based weapons? I'm no expert, and perhaps there are secrets we don't know about, but my guess would be that the answer to that question is "none".

So the Chinese are not asking for a treaty per se, they are demanding that we simply roll over and give up our advantage. And we should do that for no other reason than the Chinese want us to do so. Sounds like they really need to get kerry elected.

My first question to them would be - "whatcha got to trade, Bubba?" Excuse me, make that "Bubba-san".

If the Chinese want us to give up a system that would give the USA an overwhelming advantage for about the next 30 to 50 years, then they had better be prepared to pony up something in exchange. And I'm not talking more cultural exchange groups either. More like they should shut the hell up about Taiwan - and that's just for starters.

 

[wade]

I suspect China could put up space based nuke platforms. If they cannot today, they will be able to do so very soon. Several other nations are capable as well. Any country which can put up a satalite can put up such a platform.

Personally, I think we should agree not to place offensive nuclear weapons in space. But we should definitely retain the right to use nukes for defensive purposes, such as putting a tac in the nose of an anti-ballistic missile.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Grow up: http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_chinawmd.html

Nothing new there Kathianne. How does this conflict with what I posted?

What's your problem Kathianne? I think you do not understand what you read more than half the time. You go off on a wild hare.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Personally, I think we should agree not to place offensive nuclear weapons in space.

Why? Please give one good reason.

 

[Zhukov]

Come on people, China is not concerned about offensive nuclear weapons platforms. We really have little need for such anyway, when our ground and submarine based missiles can reach anywhere in 15 minutes or less.

The locations of our land based ICBM installations are known.

Submarines can be tracked and destroyed.

There are Chinese spies in our country.

Besides, the platforms would be defensive, not offensive.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html


Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability. Why am I not surprised?

they might approve AFTER they establish thier own !

 

[wade]

The locations of our land based ICBM installations are known.

Submarines can be tracked and destroyed.

There are Chinese spies in our country.

Besides, the platforms would be defensive, not offensive.

So what if they know where our land based ICBM's are? No one in the modern world has the ability to do anything about them - I assume you understand how our ICBM system works - it is designed to be functional even after a Soviet first strike at the peak of their power. And who in the modern world can track and destroy our subs? (answer: no one can).

I agree, they would be defensive, and thus we should not agree to anything that limits our ability to place such a system in orbit.

However, I must also point out the significant danger of such a program. Launching plutonium into space is inherantly dangerous. If the launch system fails that material is going to contaminate a significant area. It takes at least a kilo of weapons grade plutonium to make a bomb (theoretically about 1/3rd of this could be used, but practically speaking 1 kilo is the minimum), and typically about 3-5 kilos are involved. A reasonable anti-ballistic satalite would have a half a dozen or so such warheads on board. Six warheads at 3 kilos each equals 18 kilos per launch. If such a launch should go bad, this would mean something on the order of a 100% lukemia rate within moderately large region (lets say 10 square miles) of the landing point, dropping to about 1% within 50-80 miles down wind in a triangular pattern, depending on the altitude of dispersal and wind conditions. Risks for an early lauch failure could be minimized, as the landing area could be confined to the ocean, but a late launch failure would mean it could come down just about anywhere. If it sould come down on a major metropolitan area, there could be hundreds of thousands or even millions (NYC, London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc..) of deaths.

I'm not sure how reasonable such a risk is, it would require a great deal of information to decide. But in general, I think we should put up a few such defensive satalites - enough to stop perhaps a dozen inbound missiles, perhaps 36 tacs on 6 satalites. Other than that, we should confine space lauched plutonium to that needed to power spacestations and spacecraft, which not being weapons grade is not as dangerous.

Another point is that if we start putting up space based nukes, it is only a matter of time before the Chineese and possibly other nations do too. While our successful launch rate is pretty good, the chances of them having a failure are unacceptably high. And they would probably be using larger critical masses since their nuke tech is inferior - further increasing the danger.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

The Chinese are simultaneously aggressively pursuing space and nuclear programs. No wonder they want to stop us. They know that if they play to the left in this country, the left will insist we stop and that will then give China time to catch up using a lot of the info they obtained during the Clinton administration.

This is just an attempt at a stall tactic by the Chinese.

The Chinese and Koreans are very tough negotiators. If you give an inch, they will try to take a mile. The more you give, the more they want, so we better not fall into their trap.

 

[Zhukov]

So what if they know where our land based ICBM's are? No one in the modern world has the ability to do anything about them - I assume you understand how our ICBM system works - it is designed to be functional even after a Soviet first strike at the peak of their power.

Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit. Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit. At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.

And who in the modern world can track and destroy our subs? (answer: no one can).

Obviously you missed that article about how U.S. Naval personel were concerned about North Korean subs.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9419

If such a launch should go bad, this would mean something on the order of a 100% lukemia rate within moderately large region (lets say 10 square miles) of the landing point,

Poor fish.

Other than that, we should confine space lauched plutonium to that needed to power spacestations and spacecraft, which not being weapons grade is not as dangerous.

This provides a good solution. Uranium is sent to the moon to be used in base reactors and in turn is converted to weapons grade fissile material.

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

It goes without saying that any material we did launch should be placed in a position where it could be ejected from the rocket in case of malfunction and also sealed in lead.

Another point is that if we start putting up space based nukes, it is only a matter of time before the Chineese and possibly other nations do too.

In my opinion it's only a matter of time before they do regardless of what we do or what treaties they sign.

 

[dilloduck]

Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit. Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit. At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.



Obviously you missed that article about how U.S. Naval personel were concerned about North Korean subs.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9419



Poor fish.



This provides a good solution. Uranium is sent to the moon to be used in base reactors and in turn is converted to weapons grade fissile material.

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

It goes without saying that any material we did launch should be placed in a position where it could be ejected from the rocket in case of malfunction and also sealed in lead.



In my opinion it's only a matter of time before they do regardless of what we do or what treaties they sign.

Agreed--lets put one up there and call it Damocles

 

[wade]

Our ICBM installations can not withstand a direct hit. Nothing we've built, not NORAD, not Greenbriar, nothing can withstand a direct hit. At least nothing that's been made public knowledge.

The idea that anyone but the former, now non-existant, Soviet Union could even attempt to take out our minuteman III and MX missiles is perposterous. At best they might take out a few, but it requires a near direct hit, and that still leaves lots of other silos to fire. Our defenses are planed arround a hypothetical Soviet first strike where they turn thousands of square miles into an inferno with an average temperature of 1100 degrees C through sucessive repeated thermonuclear strikes by hundreds of missiles. No country in the world today, other than the USA, posesses such a capacity - even the Soviet systems are deemed no longer capable of delivering such a strike.

Obviously you missed that article about how U.S. Naval personel were concerned about North Korean subs.

The concern is over their potential to deliver nukes to US cities, not thier capability to defeat our offensive weapons, and especially not their ability to track or destroy our subs.

This provides a good solution. Uranium is sent to the moon to be used in base reactors and in turn is converted to weapons grade fissile material.

I'm living in the year 2004. You must be living in the year 2050 or beyond if you think such a solution is practical within your lifetime.

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

Everything I said was based upon relatively minimal critical masses. To detonate a fusion bomb still requires a critical mass, so you cannot really reduce the amount of weapons grade material that has to be launched into space. Hydrogen bombs actually require two fissionable critical masses, so that means at least 2-6 KG per warhead. There is no reduction in deadly material to be had via this approach, and for defensive purposes it makes no sense to go thermo-nuclear anyway, a .1 or .2 kt warhead is more than sufficient.

It goes without saying that any material we did launch should be placed in a position where it could be ejected from the rocket in case of malfunction and also sealed in lead.

Ejecting it? Sealing it in lead? If their is a failure, the delivery vehicle is going to explode and it is unlikely the material is going to be ejected, and the ejection system is yet another failure point, and is costly in terms of payload. Lead is almost useless, as it would likely melt either from the launche vehicle explosion or re-entry, and again it is very heavy and makes for a very costly launch. Only enough sheilding to make the material safe to handle if things go well makes sense. The idea of placing the material in a containment vessle capable of withstanding a launch vehicle explosion and re-entry is simply not practical.

In my opinion it's only a matter of time before they do regardless of what we do or what treaties they sign.

Well, the easy way to stop that is to develop the capacity to put them up rather quickly, and then if a threat nation starts to try to do so, we have an ace in that we can threaten to, or actually deploy, a fully operational ABM system in short order. It would take years for any other nation to do so, at least through the next decade.

Wade.

 

[drac]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-04zzb.html


Looks like China would like to prevent us from assembling a space-based ballisitic missile defense capability. Why am I not surprised?

i believe russians have a space based missile technology as an answer to our missile shield.

 

[wade]

i believe russians have a space based missile technology as an answer to our missile shield.

Deployed? Based upon what info?

Wade.

 

[drac]

Agreed--lets put one up there and call it Damocles

ahh the greeks, they thought about it long before. does anyone has a special scissors?