Why going back to the moon?

[SiberianTiger]

They are also much more vulnerable to attacks - you only need kinetic energy.

Put them above 2000 kms and you will have little trouble with surface-based kinetic interceptors. That's what Bullethead called an ultimate high ground.

They are always visible, so people know where they are.

The "People" have to have a global satellite detection and tracking system with the maximum responce time in range of five minutes if they want to be warned ahead of a space-originated attack. Detecting tiny deorbit burns is much harder than detecting a massive ICBM launch.

Also you violate almost all treaties against such weapons.

After all, you can always pretend that your objects in orbit are just spy satellites. Or just say nothing and nobody would find out which of the satellites are threat and which aren't.

What one would do by putting nuke into space is pushing MAD out of balance: it's the possibility and imminence of retaliation that keeps things in MAD together. Only the one who really wants to begin a war would put weapons to space.

 

[Urwumpe]

Put them above 2000 kms and you will have little trouble with surface-based kinetic interceptors. That's what Bullethead called an ultimate high ground.

Even in geostationary orbit, they can be intercepted in at least 12 hours. Enough for taking them out during a conventional war phase as potential risk.

The "People" have to have a global satellite detection and tracking system with the maximum responce time in range of five minutes if they want to be warned ahead of a space-originated attack. Detecting tiny deorbit burns is much harder than detecting a massive ICBM launch.

You have no tiny de-orbit burn. If you use a tiny one, a large platform satellite turned into a huge cluster of objects when entering ground based detection range.

When you want to deploy the warheads without time to notice, you need large burns, which cause only short warning. Also you need more cross range, so the burn will also have to create a decent plane change for making the warheads hit targets off track. Finally, you also need a good navigation solution, far better as ICBMs need before deploying the devices.

After all, you can always pretend that your objects in orbit are just spy satellites. Or just say nothing and nobody would find out which of the satellites are threat and which aren't.

Would be found out by ISAR radar analysis.

What one would do by putting nuke into space is pushing MAD out of balance: it's the possibility and imminence of retaliation that keeps things in MAD together. Only the one who really wants to begin a war would put weapons to space.

You could answer by placing your own devices in Orbit. 5 minutes is enough for triggering autopilot.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Would be found out by ISAR radar analysis.

Interesting... (gone to research the topic)

All in all, I think numbers would matter for all the said above: enough to weigh out for 'yes' or 'no' answer.

 

[Urwumpe]

Interesting... (gone to research the topic)

All in all, I think numbers would matter for all the said above: enough to weigh out for 'yes' or 'no' answer.

well, maybe it would make sense to create a competition in orbiter - the orbital weapon platform challenge. :lol:

 

[Bullethead]

I have to disagree with you on this point. Over the past 150 years, the peak of military technology development coincided with the biggest wars.

Arms races are more about numbers than new tech. How many bayonets and sabers, or tanks and artillery, or battleships, or ICBMs, do you have compared to your rival? Not enough? Then you need to build more, which makes the other side build more, until one side or the other decides it can't keep up the building pace and needs to attack now before it loses all hope of winning. That's an arms race.

Tech advances during wartime have USUALLY had little or no effect on the overall outcome, because the products have USUALLY been available in quantities too small to matter. The obvious exception are the nukes of WW2. But otherwise, quantity has usually trumped quality in the past, and that quantity has come from the prewar R&D and building programs.

WW2 was fought primarily with weapons that were at least in the design stage when the war started. It was the things that were already in production or very close to it that got mass-produced during the war. Very few totally new systems were developed from scratch and deployed in significant quantities. Those that were pretty much all came from most massive industrial-military complexes: the US and the USSR. Everybody else had to make do mostly with updated versions of what they had to start with, supplimented by insignificant numbers of new things.

 

[Bullethead]

What one would do by putting nuke into space is pushing MAD out of balance: it's the possibility and imminence of retaliation that keeps things in MAD together. Only the one who really wants to begin a war would put weapons to space.

I respectfully disagree. War is only 1 stage in diplomacy. Weapons, however, are useful in ALL stages of diplomacy, not just war. If you've got a lot of conventional weapons, or even just a half-dozen nukes, you've got a lot of political leverage. This lets you get most of what you want in all the non-combat stages of the diplomatic process. And for this reason, I foresee orbital nukes hanging over all our futures.

Back pretty early in the Cold War, the Soviets actually tested an orbital nuke system. Naturally, this caused a lot of controversy for the reasons you state, and eventually the US and USSR agreed not to use such weapons, so nobody's overtly said they have one ever since. But really, there's nothing stopping anybody except the old Cold War treaty, which IMHO ain't worth the paper it's printed on in today's world.

For example, there's another old Cold War treaty against ABM systems. In the unique circumstances of that time, it worked. These days, however, there are too many people with nukes, and too many of them are crazy, for anybody to live without an ABM system. After all, it just takes 1 nuke to ruin your whole century. So the US is busy building an ABM system, treaty be damned. I expect that within a few years, everybody will have such a system, even if they're whining about it now, because we all face the same threat.

When that happens, those crazy countries with a half-dozen nukes will lose the political clout their nukes currently give them. This they will not tolerate. So they'll do their best to find a way to circumvent whatever defenses are in place. I expect this will lead them eventully to putting nukes in orbit. What have they got to lose? They've been under international sanctions for years already. And there's no way to stop them, because somebody will always sell them the tech. How do you think they got nukes to begin with?

But it's not just the crazies we'll have to worry about in the future. I expect major wars by the middle of this century as the oil runs out, food and space get scarce, etc. These will be wars of national survival fought for resources, not for altering the balance of power such as we've long become accustomed to. As such, any gentlemens' agreements from more normal times will go by the boards. And I figure that all types of space weaponry will figure prominently in these conflicts. Orbital nukes, killer satellites, bases on the moon to just drop rocks like in Heinlein's book, etc.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Arms races are more about numbers than new tech. How many bayonets and sabers, or tanks and artillery, or battleships, or ICBMs, do you have compared to your rival? Not enough? Then you need to build more, which makes the other side build more, until one side or the other decides it can't keep up the building pace and needs to attack now before it loses all hope of winning. That's an arms race.

That is true (on the numbers part). However, I also disagree that it is only numbers that matter. The Cold War (the biggest arms race in the modern world) saw the advancement and creation of tons of new, advanced technology throughout its span. When you see your opponent is creating the same technology just as fast as you (USA and the USSR), you want to start creating better technology so that you gain the advantage.

For example, the 50s saw advancements in both Jet technology (which we "won") as well as the beginning of the Space race (who could build the rocket that was more accurate, could carry a heavier payload, and could go faster and farther; the USSR basically "won" this in the 50s).

The 60s saw more advancement in Rockets, and new advancements in Naval (The race for the Nuclear Sub), Land (Tanks and Mobile weapons), and Flight (Even better jets and the start of helichopters as a military mainstay).

It went on until the 90s, where the USSR simply couldn't keep up economically (not to mention the other numerous problems politically and socially). Some of the things that turned up as a result of the cold war are simply amazing. The M1 Abrams, the Nimitz-class Carriers, and the space technology we have today, all products of the Cold War. All (well, almost all ) are unmatched on the battlefields, too.

 

[Moonwalker]

I expect major wars by the middle of this century as the oil runs out, food and space get scarce, etc. These will be wars of national survival fought for resources, not for altering the balance of power such as we've long become accustomed to. As such, any gentlemens' agreements from more normal times will go by the boards. And I figure that all types of space weaponry will figure prominently in these conflicts. Orbital nukes, killer satellites, bases on the moon to just drop rocks like in Heinlein's book, etc.

You might be right concerning oil as the trigger of conflicts. But your scenario is far away from what could be called reality.

Anyway, I expect a risk of this century which springs from US foreign affears basically (yes, oil). The USA took the risk of a division of Europe just to get legitimations for an aggressive war once again. Trying to bring democracy and freedom with guns, which just is a pretense for dirty politics, might be one of the most dangers of this century if this imperialistic way should continue. The USA actually is the only country at the moment I'm afraid of really.

Do you think that 9/11 has changed "the World"?

 

[Urwumpe]

Do you think that 9/11 has changed "the World"?

No, I think 9/11 is the fanal of the old world, which we accepted too long.

 

[Bullethead]

That is true (on the numbers part). However, I also disagree that it is only numbers that matter. The Cold War (the biggest arms race in the modern world) saw the advancement and creation of tons of new, advanced technology throughout its span.

Sure, technology advances every day. But that doesn't mean its effects are felt immediately. But defense procurement always lags the state of the art. When a nation wants to go to the new Weapon B, it'll take several years get it out of prototyping and several more years before it replaces all of Weapon A in the inventory. If a war starts during this timeframe, it'll be fought mostly with Weapon A. Weapon B will only become a real factor if the war lasts long enough to make it in significant numbers.

Here's an example. When I joined the USMC, we drove Jeeps. Shortly afterwards, my unit got our 1st few Hummers. My unit had something like 50 jeeps, and it took about 3 years to replace them all with Hummers. This despite Hummers not exactly being high tech--they're just 4WD trucks--and even though this was in the 80s at the height of the Reagan defense spending.

 

[eveningsky339]

The UN is the boil on the backside of humanity and will have little or no effect on future efforts to further explore and even colonize the moon.

China had been the dominant civilization on earth for literally thousands of years in terms of culture and learning prior to the rise of Europe. China is on the rise again after a brief hiccup in history in which the West surpassed the East in superiority.

Since the U.S. is spreading itself thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (thanks to mentally challenged Republicans), there will come a point when the U.S. and China are both on the same "power level". Hopefully by this time China will have ceased the horrendous communist policies such as forced abortions and religious intolerance, because I believe China will surpass the U.S. in a short time.

This could very well create a second Cold War scenario. The U.S. will not have as much support from Europe due to steadily decreasing population and birthrates. Some countries are even considering adding to this decreased birthrate-- I believe Britain is entertaining the notion of voluntary sterilization for young girls who want to avoid a teen pregnancy. Europeans are steadily being replaced by Muslims (hopefully the good kind) and residual animosity between the Muslim population and the U.S. will prevent any sort of effective alliance.

Japan will also prove to be ineffective as an ally in the future because it also has a quickly decreasing population.


By the time all this happens, we'll all be dead, so I don't see much of a problem for me personally...

 

[Bullethead]

Trying to bring democracy and freedom with guns, which just is a pretense for dirty politics, might be one of the most dangers of this century if this imperialistic way should continue.

OK, let's see. You've got a part of the world that breeds crazy people. It breeds people like this because of the total lack of civilization and good government there. Back in the day, that was fine because they couldn't hurt anybody but each other. Now they can do major damage anywhere. So you can either accept this and take more hits like 9/11 and the various subway bombings, all over the world, no doubt with nukes eventually, or you can try to solve the problem.

Europe chooses to play ostrich, ignore the problem and take whatever hits come their way. We choose to fix the problem, not only for us but for the Euros, too. Naturally, we're not appreciated for our efforts, just like nobody's thanked us for the Marshall Plan, ending the Cold War without WW3, or anything else we've done for the benefit of the world at large.

You say "imperialism". :rofl:If this was imperialism, it would have been over the year it started, with us annexing the place and taking the oil directly. There'd have been no elections, there'd be no Iraqi voice in how the country was run, etc.

The USA actually is the only country at the moment I'm afraid of really.

Oderint dum metuant, I guess. Too bad you feel that way, but it's your choice.

Do you think that 9/11 has changed "the World"?

No. The world was like that long before, but EVERYBODY ignored it. Now we don't ignore it, but the Euros still do.

 

[dougkeenan]

There's a part of the world that doesn't breed crazy people? Whoda thunkit?

 

[Dr Pepper]

Sure, technology advances every day. But that doesn't mean its effects are felt immediately. But defense procurement always lags the state of the art. When a nation wants to go to the new Weapon B, it'll take several years get it out of prototyping and several more years before it replaces all of Weapon A in the inventory. If a war starts during this timeframe, it'll be fought mostly with Weapon A. Weapon B will only become a real factor if the war lasts long enough to make it in significant numbers.

Indeed, however it was not the actual act of war that drove a lot of the development. Most of the time it was out of fear; develop that better weapon before the next war starts so you get the advantage. For example, when the Soviets unveiled (well, it was more like when we first heard of) their new MiG-25, our government wanted to get a fighter in service as quickly as possible to counter this could-be threat. The result was the F-15A, making its first military flight only about 6 or so years after the discovery of the new MiG, and was assigned the sole goal of countering the new Soviet fighters. 6 years is fast for the conception, testing, and production of a highly-advanced air superiority fighter, not to mention the technology that came with it (Radar, EWS, ect.)

Here's an example. When I joined the USMC, we drove Jeeps. Shortly afterwards, my unit got our 1st few Hummers. My unit had something like 50 jeeps, and it took about 3 years to replace them all with Hummers. This despite Hummers not exactly being high tech--they're just 4WD trucks--and even though this was in the 80s at the height of the Reagan defense spending.

However, for the time, the replacement of Jeeps with Hummers was almost certainly not a high-priority project. The Jeeps showed their worth and their was no huge rush to replace them, and I doubt that the US believed that the reds would storm across the iron curtain in their versions of Jeeps.


I would have more to say but I'm out of time.

 

[Moonwalker]

You've got a part of the world that breeds crazy people. It breeds people like this because of the total lack of civilization and good government there.

You've got lots of parts of the world. I wonder where Timothy McVeigh even did come from. Or the Red Army Faction. And don't forget the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or the Irish Republican Army too for example.

Terrorism is not related to a single region. The things Americans get told by politicans and media is scare tactics to try to cast a damp over a hole nation for legitimating aggressive wars and to "modify" rights and freedom.

The USA had no experience of war on their on territory and got shocked on 9/11 of course which was a tragedy without any doubts. But Europeans know very well about war and terrorism on their own territory. I think that's why we handle things a little bit different and more careful. At least Germany did. I still feel safe and I'll continue to do so.

I feel sorry for people who live in steady fear and believe in doomsday scenarios caused by political scare tactics and bad newspaper. I really hope for the future of some US citizen that domestic policy and external policy will change an lead into a more scare-free life soon when Bush has left the White House finally...

 

[Linguofreak]

There's a part of the world that doesn't breed crazy people? Whoda thunkit?

There are people who aren't crazy?

 

[SiameseCat]

Europe chooses to play ostrich, ignore the problem and take whatever hits come their way. We choose to fix the problem, not only for us but for the Euros, too. Naturally, we're not appreciated for our efforts, just like nobody's thanked us for the Marshall Plan, ending the Cold War without WW3, or anything else we've done for the benefit of the world at large.

The Soviet Union deserves as much credit as the US for not turning the Cold War into WW3. And I don't think the US (or any other country) has done anything for the benefit of the world. In both the cases you gave,the US acted to protect its own interests, which happened to benefit the whole world.

 

[Bullethead]

There are people who aren't crazy?

Never heard of them if there are.

Anyway, the heck with it. I'm buying a round for the house. Drink up

 

[Linguofreak]

The USA had no experience of war on their on territory and got shocked on 9/11 of course which was a tragedy without any doubts. But Europeans know very well about war and terrorism on their own territory. I think that's why we handle things a little bit different and more careful. At least Germany did. I still feel safe and I'll continue to do so.

Well, there's the Revolution, 1812, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, the Aleutians campaign, and the Phillipines, as well as probably a few other things that I've forgotten, but the first three were over a century ago, and the second three were on the edges of US territory, so your point stands. Although Vietnam, even though it wasn't fought on our territory, did have much the same effect on us as the world wars did on Europe. Americans aren't as monolithically in favor of the War on Terror as you might think.

But the problem with feeling "safe" as you do is that that's exactly how Britain and France felt leading up to WWII. They let the psychological scarring from WWI affect them to the point that they were so unwilling to deal with another war that they closed their minds to the possibility that letting Hitler run around might be anything but safe. Had they nipped him in the bud before Nazi Germany had built up its military, WWII would have been a brief local conflict rather than the horror that it was. This is the error that (rightly or wrongly) the Bush administration has been trying to avoid.

I feel sorry for people who live in steady fear and believe in doomsday scenarios caused by political scare tactics and bad newspaper. I really hope for the future of some US citizen that domestic policy and external policy will change an lead into a more scare-free life soon when Bush has left the White House finally...

If Chamberlain had done the smart thing, it's possible that, though the War would have been much smaller, history would still condemn him, though for having been a warmonger (rather than an appeaser). In fact, the attitude of the time was such that he almost inevitably would have gone down in the history books as such. People wouldn't know what he had saved them from, so they would think he was a bit of a bully to poor Mr. Hitler.

The first problem here is that there are two possible errors a nation can make: The first is being overly paranoid and warlike, and this is the kind of error that led to WWI. The second is being overly complacent and pacifistic, and this is the kind of error that let WWII become what it became instead of being a minor local conflict.

The second problem is that it can be very difficult to know until afterwards (if even then) if you made an error and which one it was.

 

[Urwumpe]

*rant*

OK, let's see. You've got a part of the world that breeds crazy people. It breeds people like this because of the total lack of civilization and good government there. Back in the day, that was fine because they couldn't hurt anybody but each other. Now they can do major damage anywhere. So you can either accept this and take more hits like 9/11 and the various subway bombings, all over the world, no doubt with nukes eventually, or you can try to solve the problem.

Yes and no. No proper government, but lot's of civilization. The people don't life in the stone age, even if you try to bomb them there.

And do you know why there is no good government: Because the USA ensure, that only tyrants stay there, as long as they are allies of the USA. You even supported Saddam Hussein until he decided to attack Kuwait (another country ruled by tyrants) instead of Iran (which is a theocracy, but at least more democratic as most US allies in the region) .

Most terrorists come from Saudi-Arabia. Ever thought about it?

Europe chooses to play ostrich, ignore the problem and take whatever hits come their way. We choose to fix the problem, not only for us but for the Euros, too. Naturally, we're not appreciated for our efforts, just like nobody's thanked us for the Marshall Plan, ending the Cold War without WW3, or anything else we've done for the benefit of the world at large.

I think the USA are playing ostrich, and let me tell you why: For your stupid beef with Iran, which is mostly based on the fact that USA supported a terrible tyrant who was completely contrary to your values, (but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?), you allow yourself again tyrants as allies. You are, in foreign politics, since decades, the enemy of democracy, because you replaced democratically elected presidents with tyrants, if the elected presidents didn't fit your government.

I would think about why people in the region have a reason to hate you, while the worst guys are pretty irrational, there is also many rational reason to be your enemy.

Also, the effect of the Marshall-plan on the European economy was pretty limited, at least according to economists. The Berlin Airlift was more important. And yet, it is 60 years in the past. What did you do for democracy and freedom in the last 60 years? Is a Kleptocrat like Karsai suitable to be called a democratic ruler?

Remember: When Iran decides to fire medium range missiles, we are the only guys in range. If at all, Iran is actually our problem. The USA only has to risk that they have to pay actually money for their gasoline. We have to fear getting attacked directly. If you want to help us, bring this mess in Iraq under control. Only a strong Iraq can really make Iran become modest. The same with Afghanistan, but that is full NATO problem, we also have to do some work there.

The USA are also the major driving force behind the new NATO doctrine, which can be summarized: We are not only defending what is ours, but also what we want to own.

*rant over*

Oh, I really hate it when people have a horizon which is only as far away as the effective range of their rifle. Also I can't hear the "we brought democracy to Germany" argumentation anymore. First it ignores that the USA had not been the only force in WW2. Second it ignores that Germany had many democratic moments before, which got crushed by united European monarchies and royalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_German_states

Can't ignorance be also painful to the people who use it?

But the problem with feeling "safe" as you do is that that's exactly how Britain and France felt leading up to WWII. They let the psychological scarring from WWI affect them to the point that they were so unwilling to deal with another war that they closed their minds to the possibility that letting Hitler run around might be anything but safe. Had they nipped him in the bud before Nazi Germany had built up its military, WWII would have been a brief local conflict rather than the horror that it was. This is the error that (rightly or wrongly) the Bush administration has been trying to avoid.

Actually, the problem was something else: They oppressed Germany for about 15 years before Germany started rearming. From 1922 to 1935, there was only a small army, trained better as allowed in the soviet union. When Germany was rearmed, they attempted to use diplomatics to avoid a war, for getting time to rearm themselves. Finally, France got practically crushed in WW2 for not being able to learn from WW1... like Patton later also said about Nazi Germany: Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. Anything built by man, can be destroyed by him.

WW2 was from the European perspective, the result of WW1. Not more, not less. The accounting of unpaid bills.