10 ms·
Between the Air Force X-37B and the new Space Force, I find it a little hard to take pearl clutching about the "militarization of space" seriously. Don't get m
by Someone1234 6y ago
Between the Air Force X-37B and the new Space Force, I find it a little hard to take pearl clutching about the "militarization of space" seriously.
Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain.
- barkingcat 6y agothe press releases mean that US and UK are both jealous of the capabilities being tested, and its a precursor to getting funding to expand X37B program.
- vsareto 6y agoAny time a nation complains about another nation doing something that it itself does, you shouldn't ever take it seriously at face value. Nations are regularly two-faced as a form of politics. They're not going to stop being that way just because of a moral hypocrisy.
- disabled 6y agoThis is exactly how Russian propaganda works: “Other countries do bad stuff too, therefore we (Russian Federation) are not so bad after all” Have a read about Sputnik News, for example, which is considered to be “slick” propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency) Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. I get that we are in some really dark times, but this is appalling to tolerate as Americans.
- int_19h 6y agoThe classic Soviet agitprop trope is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes But it's a bit different, because it's about bringing up some completely unrelated point to distract. In this case, though, the subject matter is the same. This isn't to say that Russia ought to be excused, or that countries that are not currently involved in militarizing space shouldn't criticize it. But if they do, shouldn't they be criticizing US, as well? And as for Americans, well, the hypocrisy there is rather obvious.
- mlindner 6y agoA lot of mainland Chinese people use a new version of exactly this. If Uyghurs are ever mentioned the first thing I hear from mainland people is "Yes but the US and Iraq" and similar statements.
- jessaustin 6y agoFor the Uighurs' sake I wish that we hadn't invaded Iraq. Also, for all the other obvious reasons.
- Someone1234 6y agoFalling for what? Nobody quoted any Russian source nor position (except you, I suppose). If pointing out stuff that the US military readily admits it does is "Russian propaganda" I really don't know how to respond to that. The Space Force and X-37B aren't some conspiracy theory or hot take, they're official and somewhat public programs even with their own websites[0][1]. Nobody denies they're military programs either. I've seen people throw around unfounded accusations of repeating propaganda before, but this has to be one of the more farcical ones. [0] https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ [1] http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index.page http://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b/index....
- heartbreak 6y agoThe “Space Force” has nothing to do with militarization of space, for starters. Its conception was a rearranging and centralization of command, not an expansion in capability.
- simlevesque 6y agoTheir website is literally https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/
- chillwaves 6y agoThe domain name begs to differ.
- Someone1234 6y agoTheir "About Us" page literally starts with: > The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is a new branch of the Armed Forces. And goes on to say: > USSF responsibilities include developing military space professionals, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to present to our Combatant Commands. Their core mission is to develop "space power" to "present to our Combatant Commands." And we're meant to believe that Armed Forces that are developing space "Combatants" for "space power" aren't the "militarization of space?"
- vkou 6y agoThis is how all geo-political moralization works, by any country. There's always an excuse, there's always an enemy to blame, and there's always someone else you can point a finger at, and justify your behaviour. > Perhaps Americans and others should stop falling for it. That is your takeaway from observing this phenomena? That we should stop giving other people a pass for behaviour we routinely engage in? How does that make any sense? If you want to denounce the militarization of space, this is a great place to start. But you need to approach it with a 'Yes, and', instead of a 'No, but'. One is intellectually consistent, the other is an argument of tribalism. If your goal is demilitarization, the solution to aim towards is a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. If your goal is to engage in tribalism, then the solution to that is to denounce Russia, with no followup.
- DFHippie 6y agoWhataboutism is bad even if we engage in it ourselves. See? That's pretty easy.
- vkou 6y agoGreat - we can move to practical questions, then. There are currently four countries that have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India. If the existence of anti-satellite weapons is an existential threat to free space access, which of these four countries should dismantle their anti-satellite weapons programs? And how should that be brought about? Edit: It should be noted that putting weapons in space is not a violation of the Outer Space Treaty[1]. Putting nuclear weapons in space would be. But, as far as I can tell, this is not a nuclear weapon. The BBC is lying through its teeth, when it claims that this is an illegal weapon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty > The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. > Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space. > It specifically limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV). > However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable.
- btilly 6y agoMore precisely their technique is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism. That is you respond to any criticism in the form, "What about X". And now the tables are turned on your attacker.
- knolax 6y ago"You are using up all the oxygen!" 'but you also use oxygen, and at a higher per capita rate?" "whataboutism"
- jessaustin 6y agoI read this interesting thing about whataboutism: https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whataboutism-cold-war-trump https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
- ketzu 6y agoThank you for sharing this, it put a lot of things I don't like about some discussions into interesting words!
- jessaustin 6y agoI've been really digging Vincent Bevins's work recently, but I didn't realize until I looked at the link above again in order to include it here that he had written that as well. See his page for more great stuff: https://vincentbevins.com/ https://vincentbevins.com/
- vetinari 6y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
- justicezyx 6y agoThis is exactly how ANY propaganda works. It's always producing information to aid the narrative.
- YarickR2 6y agoWell, Russians are playing by the US book, it seems; read about Voice of America and Radio Liberty
- kiba 6y agoExcept when a satellite explodes because of a weapon test, it endangers commercial space activities for all of us.
- sdinsn 6y agoYou're missing the fact that Russia has been militarizing space longer than the US has... Russia is not responding to the US, the US is responding to Russia.
- northwest65 6y agoThe ASM-135 was built in the early 80s and shot down a satellite, Bold Orion shot down a satellite in the 50s, what are you on about?
- ktrl 6y agoThe US has only tested ground-based ASAT weapons on satellites in already decaying low orbits.
- vkou 6y ago1. This weapons test was also against a low orbit satellite. 2. There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform. 3. Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? The risk factor (Kessler effect) to peaceful space exploitation is exactly the same in both scenarios, because it comes from a satellite being blown up, not from a missile being launched. You're making distinctions without a difference. The problem is ASWs existing, not splitting hairs over where ASWs are launched from.
- DFHippie 6y ago> There is no reason to believe that X-37 cannot be a space-based weapons platform. There is a difference between "I suspect you committed a crime" and "I have video of you committing a crime". > Why does it matter if the weapon was fired at a satellite from the ground, or at a satellite from space? Well, it matters because everyone said they wouldn't do this. The weaponization of space is something we said we wouldn't do.
- 6y ago
- cdnpal 6y ago"Rods from God" https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-rods-from-god-kinetic-weapon-hit-with-nuclear-weapon-force-2017-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-rods-from-god-kine...
- sgift 6y agoYou're comparing a theoretical idea (though it is a popular trope in near future science fiction) with an actual test of an existing system. I can also dream up many space weapons, that doesn't make it equivalent to building and using one.
- ktrl 6y ago>Air Force X-37B The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon. >Don't get me wrong, Russia aren't some good guy, but when you actively do a thing for tens of years and then the other guy does that thing, you have no moral high ground left to complain. Russia tested a satellite-to-satellite weapon which is completely unprecedented militarization of space. The US has tested ground-based anti-satellite weapons on satellites in decaying Low-Eart Orbits. The debris quickly burned up in the atmosphere. China is the only country to have blown up a satellite beyond LEO. The debris from that will be in orbit for decades. That was an unprecedented militarization of space and not comparable with anything the US has done in the space. You are pushing a narrative that the US is the warmonger in space and that Russia is only responding in kind. The truth is that Russia and China are far ahead of the US in weaponizing space. The US is playing catch-up.
- knodi123 6y ago> The Air Force X-37B is not a missile or weapon. No, but that seems a little bit disingenuous. Aircraft carriers are neither missiles nor weapons either. We can recognize things as military assets that are neither missiles nor weapons. The X-37B is a DOD asset, operated by the military, capable of deploying weapons systems. In that way, it is part of the military capability of the US.
- cryptonector 6y agoIt would be silly to use the X-37 as an anti-sat weapon: it's too expensive. Think of how cheaply SpaceX is putting up Starlink! A single Falcon 9 could probably put up a bunch (20? 30?) of antisat weapons that only ever raise or lower their orbits and fire .22s at their targets. The idea is to disable targets with as little debris as possible. With larger anti-sat sats you could actually latch on to the target and de-orbit it for zero orbital debris destruction. This requires many more, much larger such devices because while it takes relatively little delta-v to raise or lower an orbit, it takes a lot more to match an arbitrary target's orbit (to which more fuel has to be added for de-orbiting).
- 6y ago
- ProAm 6y ago> Russia aren't some good guy Who are the good guys?
- LatteLazy 6y agoOnce there is a clear winner, they will tell us.
- ProAm 6y agoThis is a perfect answer. Made me laugh and is accurate.
- LatteLazy 6y agoThanks!
- MaximumYComb 6y agoThe historically correct answer
- jessaustin 6y agoUSA have clearly lost every war we've fought, in my parents' lifetimes. You won't hear that on the news, however. In fact I fairly doubt this comment will be warmly received.
- nickff 6y agoThe Russians are the only ones who have previously launched 2 satellite to satellite weapons systems (Almaz and Polyus). They have militarized space. They are in a moral trough, and this whataboutism doesn't change anything. Non space-based weapons are perfectly in keeping with international norms, but launching and/or testing ASATs and space-based weapons is not.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoThe Space Force looks to be mostly communications and intelligence gathering, not weapons. Seems mostly designed to market what they're doing to get more people interested in working for them.
- bsder 6y ago"He does it too!" is an argument made by toddlers when they have done something wrong. And, quite often, the toddler is lying. Your argument is specious.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI don't disagree. I think the DOD argument for the X-37B would be to argue "its just a transportation system." That said, given what has been reported in the press about the capabilities of the X-37B, it would seem they might have it transport a payload to sit around nearby and actively video/watch what such things are doing. My favorite unconventional idea for an anti-satellite device is a small maneuverable can of spray paint that paints the surface of any solar panels of the satellite it "attacks" with an opaque paint. Don't create shrapnel, just take away its source of power.
- dingaling 6y agoProject SAINT in the 1960s looked at some non-destructive ASAT techniques such as spraying paint over camera ports. The idea being that it would be a deniable, non-escalating type of attack. However the technology required to manoeuvre that closely to the target was more sophisticated than a stand-off kinetic attack, which was also less detectable in execution.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoInteresting, now that we have the maneuver operations covered in cube sats with ion drives, I wonder if someone will re-open that investigation.
- renewiltord 6y agoInternational geopolitics isn't the Bible. He who hath lots of sin can most definitely cast a stone. And if I'm on this side, I'm damned well going to back them in pressuring those guys to not fuck up space. I don't need to be fair to the other guy. I don't plan on it.
- hammock 6y agoDo we really believe a single X-37B is the only weapons-capable thing the US has in space?
- perl4ever 6y agoTens of years, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1 "the Ministry of the Defence Industry and its primary design bureau, OKB-1, were assigned the task of building the satellite" "The R-7 rocket was initially designed as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by OKB-1"