US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:16 am

<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-13T115717Z_01_L13495545_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-SPACE-USA.xml&archived=False">today.reuters.com/news/ne...ived=False</a> By Stephanie Nebehay GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday reasserted its right to develop weapons for use in outer space to protect its military and commercial satellites and ruled out any global negotiations on a new treaty to limit them. In a speech to the Conference on Disarmament, a senior State Department arms control official insisted that such weapons systems would be purely defensive. Washington sees no need for negotiations to prevent an arms race in space as a 40-year-old international treaty banning weapons of mass destruction in space remains adequate, he said. John Mohanco, deputy director of the office of multilateral, nuclear and security affairs, said the United States faced a threat of attacks from the earth or from other countries' spacecraft. He did not name any potential attackers. "As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our assets," he told the United Nations-backed forum. "For our part, the United States does not have any weapons in space, nor do we have plans to build such weapons," he said. ________________________________ heh..Okey-Doke.. <img src="http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/Public/documents/image/cms01_055738.jpg" style="border:0;"/> The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) is the intercept component of the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), the weapon element of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Its mission in the defense of the nation is to engage high-speed ballistic missile warheads in the midcourse phase of flight and to destroy them using only the force of impact, or hit-to-kill. EKV consists of an infrared seeker in a flight package used to detect and discriminate the incoming warhead from other objects. The EKV also has its own propulsion, communications link, discrimination algorithms, guidance and control system and computers to support target selection and intercept. http://www.raytheon.com/products/ekv/

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:29 am

"For our part, the United States does not have any weapons in space, nor do we have plans to build such weapons," he said. Yeah of course not. I was 27 then 44 then something else and I'm full of shit.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:43 am

I know Popular Mechanics is not a reliable source of information, considering the many "hit-pieces" they've run and the habit of PM authors to get orgasmic over military technology in a detatched celebration of death. . . But I do recall an article, probably within the last year, highlighting 'possible' future U.S. weapons, several of which were launched from space. The only one I recall specifically was land-based - a type of giant bolt gun which fired heavy metal objects high into the atmosphere and let gravity magnify the force of impact. If I get time, I'll try and find it online or on hard-copy, somewhere in my stack of old magazines.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:53 am

Like some sort of meteor gun?

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:01 am

What is this "meteor gun?"

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What is this "meteor gun?" <hr></blockquote> Just the impression the thing in the article you mentioned gave me. I don't know of any weapons like that that exist, it just seemed that would be the effect of such a device. A big bolt of metal smashing into the world would have a similar effect to a big chunk of rock wouldn't it? I am not talking dinosaur killer scale... Just big enough to take out an army.

by **Sepka** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A big bolt of metal smashing into the world would have a similar effect to a big chunk of rock wouldn't it? [...]Just big enough to take out an army. <hr></blockquote> Probably not quite big enough to kill an army. You have to get the bolt into orbit to begin with, which imposes a practical size limit. Most proposed weapons systems have positted a tungsten bolt around 1 foot thick and 15-20 feet long. It's going to hit with the force of a fair-sized tactical nuke. The concept is often referred to as "The Rod from God". -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:41 am

Cheers sepka, that was the concept I was stumbling toward (or away from probably).

by **Cosmic Cowbell** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:08 pm

From the very prescient document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", released in 2000 (pre-election) by The Project for the New American Century. <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">www.newamericancentury.or...fenses.pdf</a> "In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions: • Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased components. • Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. • Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions." An interesting list of contributors to this document... PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Roger Barnett-U.S. Naval War College Alvin Bernstein-National Defense University Stephen Cambone-National Defense University Eliot Cohen-Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Devon Gaffney Cross-Donors' Forum for International Affairs Thomas Donnelly-Project for the New American Century David Epstein-Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment David Fautua-Lt. Col., U.S. Army Dan Goure-Center for Strategic and International Studies Donald Kagan-Yale University Fred Kagan-U. S. Military Academy at West Point Robert Kagan-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Robert Killebrew-Col., USA (Ret.) William Kristol-The Weekly Standard Mark Lagon-Senate Foreign Relations Committee James Lasswell-GAMA Corporation I. Lewis Libby-Dechert Price & Rhoads Robert Martinage-Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Phil Meilinger-U.S. Naval War College Mackubin Owens-U.S. Naval War College Steve Rosen-Harvard University Gary Schmitt-Project for the New American Century Abram Shulsky-The RAND Corporation Michael Vickers-Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Barry Watts-Northrop Grumman Corporation Paul Wolfowitz-Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Dov Zakheim-System Planning Corporation Shook hands with Kristol two months ago and I -STILL- want to gnaw my arm off. This document does prove that Dr. Greers claim of our governments desire to "weaponize space" was not far off the mark. "Even the loser's, get lucky sometime...."~T.P. ~Cowbell

US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Re: US insists on right to develop arms for outer space

Who is online