7 ms·

The main takeaway from this article is that the militarization of space if moving fast. There is this document called the Outer Space Treaty that was written at

The main takeaway from this article is that the militarization of space if moving fast. There is this document called the Outer Space Treaty that was written at the dawn of the Space Age. It has never been updated, and was written for a world divided into two Cold War spheres of influence. The world today looks nothing like the world of the 1960s. It looks a lot more like the world of the early 1910s and 1930s. Multiple countries vie for advantage. > Since 2015, Russia, China, India, Iran, Israel, France, and North Korea have all established military space programs. China’s and Russia’s space commands are close on the heels of the United States, and according to the Secure World Foundation, the United States has idled certain of its offensive-technology programs while China and Russia actively test the same capabilities. ... There's a theory of what causes war among major powers that goes like this. Wars result when one side miscalculates how the other side will respond. You can see elements of this in WWI. Certainly the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor fits the bill. And it almost did us in during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Combine multiple players jockeying for position, a close connection between space and nuclear weapon command and control, and a new domain that blunts the advantages of incumbants, and you get a fertile breeding ground for crisis. Then there's the "use it or lose it" angle to consider and the fact the US has the most to lose in all of this: > All military assets are surrounded by a “use it or lose it” ethos, says Joan Johnson-Freese, the author of Space Warfare in the 21st Century and a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Once conflict begins, all holdings are seen to be at risk: you need to fire that missile before it’s taken out. “The military is taught to assume the worst, and to react to it,” she told me. “Because space assets are so far away, and there is a high potential to not be sure what is happening, high risk and threat must be assumed.” This is commonly referred to as “the tyranny of distance.” When the rules are not plain, whether in peacetime or war, the situation is “exponentially” more dangerous. ...

tudorw 5y ago
Do hypersonic weapons give a new first strike capability and is this the end of the M.A.D. policy, do we actually need a new race, post-globalisation it looks like authoritarianism, closed borders and increased surveillance might be the focus, in which case the military industrial complex still has a good fit, just a new enemy, a constant war against people as it were.
- tudorw 5y ago
  As an aside, anyone know if Raytheon takes bitcoin?
- nabla9 5y ago
  No. Normal ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Talking about "hypersonic weapons" is talking about gliding or maneuvering hypersonic warheads or cruise missiles. (btw. Space Shuttle was hypersonic glider) China and Russia are developing hypersonic gliders to maintain their capability and create more variance. The US ballistic missile defense can't protect the US from Russia or China (nor it is intended to do), but it requires some adjustments. More ICBM's, warheads throw weight, and counter-countermeasures and different trajectories. For example, the fractional orbital bombardment that China tested is an old concept. Together with a gliding warhead, it means that China can maintain deterrence with fewer missiles.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    Is that another Arms Control Wonk listener I spy?
    - nabla9 5y ago
      Naturally.
- baybal2 5y ago
  The reliable suprise first strike option been there for 30 years: slow, low flying cruise missile taking count command infrastructure.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Until the dilemma presented by ballistic missile submarines can be solved, there can be no reliable first strike. Further, even if it were solved, one might imagine proliferating smaller nuclear delivery systems all over the place (as in anything that floats). Getting them all in a coordinated, near-simultaneous way to preclude a large number of launches would be difficult.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Well, if we've been more or less operating under a peace treaty for 50 odd years but technology and military technology "planning" programs have been pursued that entire time, well... Yeah, if the gloves come off and all the "planning" projects are "actualized", things are going to change very quickly. Orbit isn't like the ground though. You can see that offense is relatively straightforward (kinetic weapons and lasers), defense is practically impossible (hard to stop lasers and kinetic weapons), and the collateral damage is akin to nuclear fallout: space junk will persist for long after the seconds-long battle lasts. I think what would be necessary is some sort of perverse royal kidnapping: you'd need high-level leaders of space factions have family and friends in all the habitats to dissuade military action. The challenge to settle space is that civilian habitats are extremely vulnerable to extremely basic attacks, and we're simply too warlike. But if we don't even get to the point of space habitats, and a long orbital war poisons near-space with junk, we may have imprisoned ourselves. It almost makes the need to get to mars and the moon even more paramount in the relatively brief armistice in space.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  LEO junk can't really imprison us. First, LEO junk decays - especially if it's in non-circular orbits such as caused by collisions/explosions; Second, space is large - if LEO is "full" of junk then that means that long-term orbits have a high chance of some collision, preventing us from launching Starlink-like constellations, but launching a rocket through LEO (to e.g. Moon or Mars) would still be reasonable even if it's "full" of junk (i.e. a hundred thousand fragments flying around in undetected orbits) as such amounts of fragments still don't cover that much space, they don't make it impassable, launches would merely become not as safe - if a launch has a 1% chance of exploding because it hits something, that sucks but it does not really imprison us.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Hmm, according to [whee!] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford Fifty years later, in 2013, some of the dipoles that had not deployed correctly still remained in clumps, contributing a small amount of the orbital debris tracked by NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office. Their numbers have been diminishing over time as they occasionally re-enter. As of March 2020, 36 clumps of needles were still known to be in orbit. I wouldn't want to be hit by that, while being in not much more than an inflated tin can ;)
vagrantJin 5y ago
> China and Russia actively test the same capabilities. > When the rules are not plain, whether in peacetime or war, the situation is “exponentially” more dangerous That's a good thing. No doubt the US would win most wars but I'd be happier if countries with no bone in the fight could protect themselves from accidental annihilation. Development of Anti-weapons to disarm and disable potential space advantages up to an including complete destruction of GPS, Research sats (yes, including Telescopes) and even the ISS- wholesale.
- User23 5y ago
  It's quite likely that the US would lose to a regional power like Russia or China[1] inside that power's sphere of influence. My personal hunch is that a Dune like destroy the spice gambit is Taiwan's best bet to hold off military annexation. They could rig their semiconductor fabs and the other things the CCP wants with thermite or something similar and make it known that if the mainland invades it all goes up in smoke. [1] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-miserably-after-wargaming-loss-joint-chiefs-are-overhauling-how-us-military-will-fight/184050/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-miserabl...
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    i would be very surprised if its not already done so in some way. I would also expect all major powers having very detailed intel of where to strike to cripple it all with some staff working there. It was super important long before covid highlighted its importance for whole global economy, now even average Joe heard about 'em chips shortage.
  - khuey 5y ago
    You don't need to rig it to blow. Just fire a couple cruise missiles and a ten billion dollar foundry will be unsalvageable rubble.
    - NotSammyHagar 5y ago
      I think it should be pretty easy to destroy a foundry or damage it enough so that it's not functional, even when the power goes off or they run out of water they are significantly impacted, based on us foundry impacts in the past. Another interesting question is who would be hurt more by the TSMC Taiwan operations being destroyed. Would it be the West? China? Who depends on leading technology more? It would hurt both sides. I think in any shooting war it's inevitable that it would get destroyed. I think this is the reason why there's suddenly all these new foundry groundbreaking in Arizona and other places by multiple companies but also tsmc.

tudorw 5y ago

Do hypersonic weapons give a new first strike capability and is this the end of the M.A.D. policy, do we actually need a new race, post-globalisation it looks like authoritarianism, closed borders and increased surveillance might be the focus, in which case the military industrial complex still has a good fit, just a new enemy, a constant war against people as it were.

tudorw 5y ago
As an aside, anyone know if Raytheon takes bitcoin?
nabla9 5y ago
No. Normal ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons. Talking about "hypersonic weapons" is talking about gliding or maneuvering hypersonic warheads or cruise missiles. (btw. Space Shuttle was hypersonic glider) China and Russia are developing hypersonic gliders to maintain their capability and create more variance. The US ballistic missile defense can't protect the US from Russia or China (nor it is intended to do), but it requires some adjustments. More ICBM's, warheads throw weight, and counter-countermeasures and different trajectories. For example, the fractional orbital bombardment that China tested is an old concept. Together with a gliding warhead, it means that China can maintain deterrence with fewer missiles.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Is that another Arms Control Wonk listener I spy?
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Naturally.
baybal2 5y ago
The reliable suprise first strike option been there for 30 years: slow, low flying cruise missile taking count command infrastructure.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  Until the dilemma presented by ballistic missile submarines can be solved, there can be no reliable first strike. Further, even if it were solved, one might imagine proliferating smaller nuclear delivery systems all over the place (as in anything that floats). Getting them all in a coordinated, near-simultaneous way to preclude a large number of launches would be difficult.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Well, if we've been more or less operating under a peace treaty for 50 odd years but technology and military technology "planning" programs have been pursued that entire time, well... Yeah, if the gloves come off and all the "planning" projects are "actualized", things are going to change very quickly. Orbit isn't like the ground though. You can see that offense is relatively straightforward (kinetic weapons and lasers), defense is practically impossible (hard to stop lasers and kinetic weapons), and the collateral damage is akin to nuclear fallout: space junk will persist for long after the seconds-long battle lasts. I think what would be necessary is some sort of perverse royal kidnapping: you'd need high-level leaders of space factions have family and friends in all the habitats to dissuade military action. The challenge to settle space is that civilian habitats are extremely vulnerable to extremely basic attacks, and we're simply too warlike. But if we don't even get to the point of space habitats, and a long orbital war poisons near-space with junk, we may have imprisoned ourselves. It almost makes the need to get to mars and the moon even more paramount in the relatively brief armistice in space.

PeterisP 5y ago
LEO junk can't really imprison us. First, LEO junk decays - especially if it's in non-circular orbits such as caused by collisions/explosions; Second, space is large - if LEO is "full" of junk then that means that long-term orbits have a high chance of some collision, preventing us from launching Starlink-like constellations, but launching a rocket through LEO (to e.g. Moon or Mars) would still be reasonable even if it's "full" of junk (i.e. a hundred thousand fragments flying around in undetected orbits) as such amounts of fragments still don't cover that much space, they don't make it impassable, launches would merely become not as safe - if a launch has a 1% chance of exploding because it hits something, that sucks but it does not really imprison us.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Hmm, according to [whee!] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford Fifty years later, in 2013, some of the dipoles that had not deployed correctly still remained in clumps, contributing a small amount of the orbital debris tracked by NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office. Their numbers have been diminishing over time as they occasionally re-enter. As of March 2020, 36 clumps of needles were still known to be in orbit. I wouldn't want to be hit by that, while being in not much more than an inflated tin can ;)

vagrantJin 5y ago

> China and Russia actively test the same capabilities. > When the rules are not plain, whether in peacetime or war, the situation is “exponentially” more dangerous That's a good thing. No doubt the US would win most wars but I'd be happier if countries with no bone in the fight could protect themselves from accidental annihilation. Development of Anti-weapons to disarm and disable potential space advantages up to an including complete destruction of GPS, Research sats (yes, including Telescopes) and even the ISS- wholesale.

User23 5y ago
It's quite likely that the US would lose to a regional power like Russia or China[1] inside that power's sphere of influence. My personal hunch is that a Dune like destroy the spice gambit is Taiwan's best bet to hold off military annexation. They could rig their semiconductor fabs and the other things the CCP wants with thermite or something similar and make it known that if the mainland invades it all goes up in smoke. [1] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-miserably-after-wargaming-loss-joint-chiefs-are-overhauling-how-us-military-will-fight/184050/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-miserabl...
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  i would be very surprised if its not already done so in some way. I would also expect all major powers having very detailed intel of where to strike to cripple it all with some staff working there. It was super important long before covid highlighted its importance for whole global economy, now even average Joe heard about 'em chips shortage.
- khuey 5y ago
  You don't need to rig it to blow. Just fire a couple cruise missiles and a ten billion dollar foundry will be unsalvageable rubble.
  - NotSammyHagar 5y ago
    I think it should be pretty easy to destroy a foundry or damage it enough so that it's not functional, even when the power goes off or they run out of water they are significantly impacted, based on us foundry impacts in the past. Another interesting question is who would be hurt more by the TSMC Taiwan operations being destroyed. Would it be the West? China? Who depends on leading technology more? It would hurt both sides. I think in any shooting war it's inevitable that it would get destroyed. I think this is the reason why there's suddenly all these new foundry groundbreaking in Arizona and other places by multiple companies but also tsmc.