Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 07:05:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Space Pearl Harbour"

Started by jutl, October 13, 2006, 04:20:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jutl

In the months before he was nominated to be US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization or CAUNSSMO, as no-one calls it. The Commission's report, a healthy 27Mb pdf file, warns of the terrible situation the US faces:

Quote from: "Rumsfeld's Elves"
An attack on elements of U.S. space systems during a crisis or conflict should not be considered an improbable act. If the U.S. is to avoid a "Space Pearl Harbor" it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems. The nation's leaders must assure that the vulnerability of the United States is reduced and that the consequences of a surprise attack on U.S. space assets are limited in their effects.

Among the Commission's members was semi-famous name Jay Garner, who briefly served as Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq after the 2003 invasion (before Paul Bremer arrived and disbanded the Iraqi military, thereby placing the top hat on the already severely cunted situation). While Garner's name is the most familiar (aside from Rumsfeld) it would be wrong of me not to mention two other members of the team - Malcolm Wallop and Doug Necessary - whose stupid names crack me up.

Anyway, the report of Necessary, Wallop et al has languished a little, what with the War on Terror breaking out. In many ways the document is a demonstration of the young Bush administration's early attempts to get a bit of conflict going, and as such gives the lie to those who say that 9/11 was planned by Bush. While runaway militarisation seems to always have been part of the plan, it was in the realm of space that W initially planned to justify his enormous payments to the defence industry.

Why space? Well, it's rumoured that much of the still-classified record of the later Cold War shows that America's space supremacy was a major factor in convincing the Russians that the inevitable dominance of Marxism was a lot more evitable than they'd hoped. Certainly Rumsfeld's commission started its investigation with the opinion that the US' global dominance relied heavily on their satellite network, and that it would not be long before opposing world powers started taking pot-shots at them.

Of course, since 9/11 you might have expected this view to have suffered some credibility bleedage. After all, the new enemy, when it emerged, was not numerous, had no real postal address to type into Tomtom and resolutely refused to build military installations out of anything other than  difficult-to-spot muddy canvas (and of course sticks). The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provided further demonstration that the US' space surveillance technology was at best a bit shit.

It's surprising then (to me at least) that Bush and Rumsfeld's desire to militarise space continues undiminished. As though the last six years had not happened, Bush announced on Tuesday that he had a new policy. It's essentially a precis of the Rumsfeld report of 2000, with some added good stuff about how the US really wants to get nuclear reactors into space as soon as possible (section 9) and how the US will from now on never sign any treaty that prohibits the use of military technologies in space ('we have to protect our poor satellites').

Tuesday was also the day that North Korea announced that they had tested a nuke. Bush has been under severe pressure ever since to demonstrate some kind of balanced approach to Axis of Evil countries who might be cooking up WMD. After all, Saddam got invaded for not having any, while North Korea gets a furrowed brow and a moderate ticking off for testing the real thing. Critics are pointing out that this lack of even-handedness makes the US seem weak.

So we have a policy that states that the US wants to protect its satellite network with heavy investment in the militarisation of space and that they may need to use nuclear technologies in this program. Simultaneously we have a US policy to crush anti-democratic nations who threaten the use of WMD, although right now the practicalities of surface deployment make this policy unworkable...

Noam Chomsky, in his new book Failed States accuses Bush of wanting to build an orbiting 'Death Star' space weapon which can deliver nuclear weapons to any point on the earth's surface. While Noam has a history of being uncharitable in his assessment on Bush's motives, his theory is slightly strengthened by this Tuesday's events. The new space policy allows Bush to fund nearly everything he'd need for the dial-a-nuke device. I'll leave the last word to another of this stories unlikelily named sources, former undersecretary of defence and former CEO of Lockheed Martin Pete Teets, an ally of Rumsfeld's:

Quote"Clearly, space is the high ground, and we need to capture that high ground and then exploit it."

pillockandtwat

This from Space.com dated July 2002:

"A military space war-fighting strategy is also being put in place, some China-watchers claim. That line of attack calls for quick access to orbit, lofting anti-satellites, utilizing powerful ground-based lasers to blind spacecraft - all part of a technological tool kit for denying use of the "high ground" of space by an adversary."

So these "China-watchers" are none other than the backroom boys mentioned above, then?

Richard Fisher, a senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, said:
"researchers in China are busy at work on high-energy lasers to dazzle U.S. satellites. Another part of that nation's space arsenal are nanosatellites, tiny craft that can be used as anti-satellite weaponry. Furthermore, the Chinese have a small aircraft-shaped space shuttle, a vehicle easily modified to carry missiles sufficient for satellite interception."

Truth or bullshit? China flatly denies any military intent, but maybe to paraphrase Christine Keeler, that's what they would say, isn't it?

jutl

Quote from: "pillockandtwat"This from Space.com dated July 2002:

"A military space war-fighting strategy is also being put in place, some China-watchers claim. That line of attack calls for quick access to orbit, lofting anti-satellites, utilizing powerful ground-based lasers to blind spacecraft - all part of a technological tool kit for denying use of the "high ground" of space by an adversary."

So these "China-watchers" are none other than the backroom boys mentioned above, then?

Richard Fisher, a senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, said:
"researchers in China are busy at work on high-energy lasers to dazzle U.S. satellites. Another part of that nation's space arsenal are nanosatellites, tiny craft that can be used as anti-satellite weaponry. Furthermore, the Chinese have a small aircraft-shaped space shuttle, a vehicle easily modified to carry missiles sufficient for satellite interception."

Truth or bullshit? China flatly denies any military intent, but maybe to paraphrase Christine Keeler, that's what they would say, isn't it?

That Jamestown Foundation looks like a fairly Right-leaning group. Cheney's been on their board and they were set up to pump Soviet defectors for info that could be used to put iron in the bellies of the already rather war-like Reagan Whitehouse.

My concern is that satellite protection is a trojan horse for downward-pointing space weapons. Partisan think tanks like these Jamestown dudes are great places to watch justifications distill before they are spat into the public face (see MEMRI).

Purple Tentacle

While obviously the Bush Administration's urge to turn the peaceful vaccum of space into a field of war in a grotesque demonstration of 'strength' is morally repellent, I can't help but get the horn over the thought of real-life starship troopers guarding the earth's orbit in smart uniforms, Battlestar Galactica style.

pillockandtwat

But they'd have stars n' stripes flags on them. It wouldn't work, would it? At least it doesn't for me. I bet the space marines (or were they colonial marines) in Aliens didn't have stars n' stripes flags. We need some sort of vaguely fascist empire down on earth to provide the uniforms for space marines first. [cue anti-American gag]. This is all putting the cart before the horse.

I didn't know about Cheny being part of the Jamestown foundation, or I forgot. It doesn't surprise me.

untitled_london

Quote from: "jutl"

Quote"Clearly, space is the high ground, and we need to capture that high ground and then exploit it."

not really ground tho is it?

sorry, i'd chime in wityh something better, but as far as i can see the yanks have no idea what they're doing.

jutl

Quote from: "Purple Tentacle"While obviously the Bush Administration's urge to turn the peaceful vaccum of space into a field of war in a grotesque demonstration of 'strength' is morally repellent, I can't help but get the horn over the thought of real-life starship troopers guarding the earth's orbit in smart uniforms, Battlestar Galactica style.

Yes, that's mainly why I read all this stuff. Did you know the US military has had a Space Command since 1985. They don't seem to have sorted out a web site yet though.

Harfyyn Teuport

Well, presuming that America has the will and way to do this - which is looking more and more likely - won't China be mad enough to shortly thereafter attempt to match them step for step? So, rather than a situation whereby America assume full control of Space with some form of American Death Star, isn't it more likely we'll just replace the currently fairly dull America-1st/China-a-distant-2nd world-power balance with a ludicrously terrifying version of exactly the same situation?

The Joni Mitchell in me can't comprehend from the above documents any sort of strategic windfall which is worth the expense and risk of such a bizarre undertaking.

Is this, then, just savage economics? A war of escalation to bankrupt the Chinese/the Koreans/Evil through ever-more pointlessly unattainable advances in death-from-above?

"They took all the clouds, and they put 'em in a cloud museum..."

Edit: Ah, in my suspicions of the sly Chinee, I was beaten to the punch.

sproggy

I'm not certain, but don't quite a lot of satellites suffer damage from space dust & debris?

What's to stop this orbiting atomic ED 209 from getting damaged and wreaking havoc?

Fucking stupid idea, almost as bad as Reagan's Star Wars project.  Nothing beats boots on the ground when it comes to winning wars (not that I advocate wars)  When will they stop living in Nintendo land?

Marv Orange

Quote from: "sproglette"I
Fucking stupid idea, almost as bad as Reagan's Star Wars project.  Nothing beats boots on the ground when it comes to winning wars.

DEATH STAR HELLO?


Lets see how your boots do when the planet they are walking on has been vaporised.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

What a ridiculous paranoid government.

Remind them that they'll need to develop technology to counter 'cloaking devices' that are used by alien vessels to conceal their whereabouts.

sproggy

Quote from: "Marv Orange"
Quote from: "sproglette"I
Fucking stupid idea, almost as bad as Reagan's Star Wars project.  Nothing beats boots on the ground when it comes to winning wars.

DEATH STAR HELLO?


Lets see how your boots do when the planet they are walking on has been vaporised.

Exactly, Nintendo cloud cuckoo land.

Pinball

America will be bankrupt long before it makes a 'Death Star'. It doesn't need to anyway; it's well on the way to making a Death Planet.

Shoulders?-Stomach!



Whilst we lie in our clammy beds eating crisps, these bastards are plotting. Go Bush!

sproggy

Can we discount this as posturing?

Showing the Norks (theoretically) what the US is capable of in terms of nukler missile technology and at the same time exposing the patheticness of their little underground explosions compared to the awesome might of the imperial fleet.

Labian Quest

Fook, I'm glad they're on the same side as us!...probably

Quote from: "jutl"The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provided further demonstration that the US' space surveillance technology was at best a bit shit.


It's kind of hard to assess news like this unless you actually have inside information about it, most black project technology is supposed to be at least 5 years ahead of anything the publc knows about, so you can only guess at what they're really planning to put up there, it may not just be surveillance technology that they have in mind, beam weapons? who knows, though with the current situation with North Korea, I would be much less bothered by the thought of Kim Jong il being zapped from space than that of someone just dropping a nuke on the general area they think he's in, with all the 'collateral damage' that that would entail.

Al Tha Funkee Homosapien

But you presuming that you can just win wars by using superior air or space power. That just isn't the case. Better off investing in better equipment and training for infantry soldiers.

Pinball

Even the best surveillance technology wouldn't have found WMD in Iraq, because there weren't any...

Labian Quest

Quote from: "Al Tha Funkee Homosapien"But you presuming that you can just win wars by using superior air or space power. That just isn't the case. Better off investing in better equipment and training for infantry soldiers.

Assuming it's possible, If you had that kind of capability, you wouldn't even necessarily have to go to war with someone that was causing you problems, you just take them out and give covert assistance to whoever steps in to fill in the power vacuum. Before they lauched the first Gulf War, the US put a lot of effort into trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Knowing that you could be taken out like that at any time would be a very big incentive for any enemies of the US to toe the line .

sproggy

Quote from: "Labian Quest"Knowing that you could be taken out like that at any time would be a very big incentive for any enemies of the US to toe the line .

Or simply appear to tow the line.  This kind of 'Terminator' warfare doesn't work, it merely creates more insurgents, forces them further undercover and harbours deeper resentment, Iraq II and Vietnam are perfect examples.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

This isn't directly connected, but last night it was reported that Bush said in response to calls to withdraw troops from Iraq "The United States of America have never retreated from anything."

I wondered at the time exactly how many billion people instantly shouted "Vietnam" at the telly.

zozman

The BBC have just caught up

QuoteThe US has adopted a tough new policy aimed at protecting its interests in space and deny "adversaries" access there for hostile purposes.

The document - signed by President Bush - also says "freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power".

The document rejects any proposals to ban space weapons.

But the White House has said the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space.

However, some military experts warn that by refusing to enter into negotiations on space weaponry, the US is likely to fuel international suspicions that it will develop such weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6063926.stm

MojoJojo

Quote from: "jutl"
It's surprising then (to me at least) that Bush and Rumsfeld's desire to militarise space continues undiminished. As though the last six years had not happened, [

Do they really care about militarising space though, or is it just an excuse to pump government money into some swing states? One of the main aims of Star Wars was to tie up lots of rocket scientists left over from ICBM development who the US feared might defect to unfriendly nations if they didn't get work doing something. One of the reasons the Shuttle is stilll around is because it generates a huge number of jobs in some Senators' states.

It doesn't seem to offer much real benefit to the US. It's not as if space launches are quiet - no one is going to sneak an attack force up there. And if space does become militarised, the huge cost of launches would make space unworthwhile -  satellites already cost a fortune and are a huge risk. If you have to launch a military satellites to protect them, and accept inflated risk that some one will blow them up once in orbit, it seems unlikely that they remain economic.

And what would Chomsky's death star add over the US's ICBMs? They can already place a nuke anywhere on the planet.

jutl

Quote from: "MojoJojo"
Quote from: "jutl"
It's surprising then (to me at least) that Bush and Rumsfeld's desire to militarise space continues undiminished. As though the last six years had not happened, [

Do they really care about militarising space though, or is it just an excuse to pump government money into some swing states? One of the main aims of Star Wars was to tie up lots of rocket scientists left over from ICBM development who the US feared might defect to unfriendly nations if they didn't get work doing something. One of the reasons the Shuttle is stilll around is because it generates a huge number of jobs in some Senators' states.

It doesn't seem to offer much real benefit to the US. It's not as if space launches are quiet - no one is going to sneak an attack force up there. And if space does become militarised, the huge cost of launches would make space unworthwhile -  satellites already cost a fortune and are a huge risk. If you have to launch a military satellites to protect them, and accept inflated risk that some one will blow them up once in orbit, it seems unlikely that they remain economic.

I think the point is that space has become necessary for life to continue on earth, as far as the US government is concerned. They need their satellite network to police the world, and therefore they have no choice but to protect it.

Quote
And what would Chomsky's death star add over the US's ICBMs? They can already place a nuke anywhere on the planet.

Bush only declared reconstituted global strike capacity last year, and that's via a combination of subs, bombers and ICBMs. Deployment on bombers and subs is still problematic and dependent upon political cooperation of other nations.

MojoJojo

But is it not possible that this is more about getting money into states that will help the republican election campaign? I don't know enough about US politics and internal affairs to know where the money is likely to end up going, but I'd be surprised if something like this didn't make a few jobs in a few important states.