File Title space weaponization good 2
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Link --- SSA
- Countries would feel threatened by US unilateral SSA and weaponize space
- Link --- SSP
- SSP dual-use would be perceived as a weapon
Link --- SatellitesSatellites would be perceived as weaponsMineiro 8 – Michael C. Mineiro, member of the North Carolina bar, the International Law Association, and the ABA forum on Air and Space Law, January 1 2008, “The United States and the Legality of Outer Space Weaponization: A Proposal for Greater Transparency and a Dispute Resolution Mechanism,” Annals of Air and Space Law, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1268022 One of the major difficulties in defining "space weapon" is that many space systems designed for peaceful purposes have the capacity to destroy or interfere with another object or being in space or in the Earth environment.26 For example, NASA recently launched their first autonomous robotic spacecraft, a repair robot called DART.27 DART is laying the groundwork for future projects like robotic delivery of cargo to space shuttles and automated docking and repair between spacecraft in orbit. DART is capable of maneuvering to satellites and physically interacting with satellites. DART's ability to maneuver and interact with other satellites gives it the potential to be used as an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT). A DART-like space system could target a satellite and force it out of its orbit, either destroying it or effectively negating its usefulness. Is a space robot like DART a "space weapon?" Is it a dual-use system? Or is it strictly a peaceful non-weaponized system? Lawyers and policy makers debating the issue of weaponization must consider the overlapping capabilities inherent in space systems. Most space systems, due to their very nature, will exhibit some weapon-like capabilities. Link --- SSASSA would be perceived as the first step towards weaponizing spaceGasparini and Miranda 10 – Giovanni Gasparini space expert at Istituto Affari Internazionali, Italy, Valerie Miranda, assistant researcher at the Security and Defense Institute, 2010, “Space Situational Awareness: an Overview,” http://www.springerlink.com/content/n480x67nj5m0w92m/fulltext.pdf The debate over the best way to protect American space capabilities and ensure U.S. control of space is thus part of a wider and heated discussion over space weaponisation in which SSA initiatives play a key role. Indeed, some argue that these latter are the first step towards the acquisition of space-based weaponry. Laurence Nardon, for instance, claims that while the Eisenhower Administration formally excluded the weaponisation of space in 1958, deeming it to be too destabilising, the 2001 Rumsfeld report and the three-phase-USAF plan represent a change in attitude. The 2006 National Space Policy seems to go in the same direction. Despite the denials of the Bush Administration, the principle that “the United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space”72 has been interpreted by many experts as a thinly veiled authorisation of space weaponisation. For instance, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, said this new policy would reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons.73 Countries would feel threatened by US unilateral SSA and weaponize spaceGasparini and Miranda 10 – Giovanni Gasparini space expert at Istituto Affari Internazionali, Italy, Valerie Miranda, assistant researcher at the Security and Defense Institute, 2010, “Space Situational Awareness: an Overview,” http://www.springerlink.com/content/n480x67nj5m0w92m/fulltext.pdf A Space Awareness system that does not work as a confidence-building measure between potentially competing space actors will inevitably increase the likelihood of a conflictual posture in space that exploits the asymmetrical vulnerability of U.S. military space assets. This could also create an environment in which non-military security and commercial satellites would not be adequately protected. A commonly agreed governance and data policy system that resolves the tradeoff between the effectiveness of the transparency approach and the secrecy requirements of the military and intelligence community could bridge the current gap between the European and U.S. positions. The key to this approach is to allow differentiated access to data according to the real “need to know” of the potential users. In the case of commercial operators and the wider public, this would exclude knowledge of the characterisation of satellites unless specifically requested when an event requiring the assessment of legal liability occurs. U.S. authorities need to take more account of the dual character of space. At the same time, European institutions need to think more strategically. This discussion should take place between all U.S. Space Agencies on the one side and the European Council, the European Commission and ESA on the other. The problem with other space nations that are not bound by the Transatlantic Alliance is however much more complicated. China and to a lesser extent Russia, as well as other minor space-capable countries such as Iran, would feel potentially threatened by a non-inclusive American or even transatlantic approach to space awareness. As it is unlikely that they will field a national SSA system, the incentive for them to develop ASAT capabilities would be high. This is particularly true due to the complexity and high cost of defending a space asset compared to the relative small cost of attacking it. Link --- SSPSSP is actually a death machineRako 8 – Paul Rako, technical editor of Electronics Design, Strategy, and News, July 25 2008, “Solar power in space, a really stupid idea,” Electronics Design, Strategy, News, http://www.edn.com/blog/Anablog/38434-Solar_power_in_space_a_really_stupid_idea.php This is a flat-out lie. It’s a lie in so many places it hurts my teeth. Sweeping all the alternative energy sources under the rug, without looking at the complex analog tradeoffs involved is an affront to reason and decency. That is a bad enough lie. But to then follow that absurdity with the assertion that space solar power is somehow economically possible and environmentally friendly is complete madness. Now I am going to give some sources you can read that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this proposal is clinically insane, but first I wanted to share an epiphany I had. Paul’s epiphany came about 5 hours into a wasted Thursday night where I should have been in downtown San Jose having fun at the free concert. Instead I spent all night reading all the sources I could find regarding SPS. I am embarrassed because it took five hours to realize something that was plainly stated in the comments to the article that I read five hours before. Someone pointed out that the technology of this proposal did not matter. This space-panel microwave gizmo was also a weapon and it would be politically impossible to deploy it. Wow, hours of my personal time down the drain before the epiphany. The epiphany was that this thing was exactly that, a weapon. That is why NASA researched it in the 1980s, that is what all the feasibility studies were about and that is why it is being floated out there right now. The military industrial complex wants to test how stupid we are. If the American people are dumb enough to believe that solar panels in space is even the slightest bit possible then they can use that cover as they do what they really want to do, make a death machine. The images of the Terminator movies and SkyNet are too chilling to even contemplate. Now there may be some Pollyanna types that think our wonderful government is way too nice to ever try and develop a death machine. Sorry, for those of you that think the United States Government is more like a fluffy little fabric softener sheet tumbling around the dryer, making everything silky smooth and smelling fresh, well, news flash: Governments are about coercion. Force, killing, jails, waterboards, and the rest are the essential nature and job of the government. Sure they hand out a bunch of middle class entitlements to stay in power and keep the sheep bleating happy sounds, but the core nature and purpose of governments is forcing people to do things. Most of the less naive among us are OK with that. After all, I am sitting on a lovely little parcel of land that was stolen from the Mexicans, who stole it from the Spanish priests, who stole it from the Portuguese priests, who stole it from the Indians, who stole it from each other for 10,000 years. Works for me, I just planted some cactus in the front yard. Of course I will be complaining about the effective 45% tax rate we engineers have to suffer till the day I die, I hate the government forcing me to do that. But I will just kind of skirt around the benefits all the killing and mayhem provided me. After all, I deserve a happy little Domicile of the Future here in sunny Sunnyvale. I have a title to prove it is all mine. I am glad my government stole the land for me, just like I am glad Burger King shoots a rod into a cow’s head so I can have a tasty burger with none of the emotional baggage. Who wants to drive a nail into Elsie’s skull? OK, still doubtful that NASA, our beloved space program would try to fund a death machine under the cover of alternative energy? Well, you didn’t have the benefit of working at several military contractors, like I did. When you work at those places you invariable meet people who think in military terms. One of them told me twenty years ago that the entire space program was a military operation. I was incredulous. He patiently explained. See, warfare has always been about controlling the high ground. If you could control the plains while the enemy was in the ditch, you won. If you controlled the hill while the enemy was on the plain, you won. If you control the mountain while the enemy is on the hill, you won. If you controlled the airplanes while the enemy was on the mountain, you won. OK, news flash, live at five, film at eleven: If you control space while the enemy is in an airplane, you win. The military types at those military contractors told me what was already pretty apparent—that there is no sensible scientific reason to put people in space. All the science is much much much cheaper if you don’t need to launch life support. Sure astronauts do maintenance on the Hubble telescope, but for what we spent developing the shuttle, especially when you count the dead astronauts, we could have sent up a dozen Hubble telescope and just let the broken ones fall out of orbit. The space station is a prototype AWAC and this solar-power death-machine is a prototype AC-130. And remember, for the $100 billion we spent on the space station, every American household could get 952 dollars for gasoline. Trust me on this one; this solar power in space stuff is a military research project to make a death machine. Then things start to makes sense technologically and sociologically. Some of the most severe limitations of the system go away when it is a weapon. There is no need for constant maintenance since it is used intermittently. There is no need for a geostationary orbit, you want to be able to kill people anywhere, including and maybe especially inside the US borders. Keeping us in control is just as important as killing foreigners. Heck you don’t even need a geosynchronous orbit. You can put the death machine in low earth orbit. That saves a huge amount of cost and dispenses with fantasy proposals like the NASA guy that said we should build them on the moon and then bring them down. I started to ask myself if these idiots have even been in a semiconductor fab, much less one on the moon, but see, then I realized, Doctorates are not stupid. The government needed some fantasy cover story to keep the research going in the face of the fact that the power would cost not 10, not 100 not 1000 but about 10,000 times more than terrestrial based power of any form. Ok, sorry to all you hard-core technical types for that diatribe, but I did not want you spending 5 hours researching this like I did without understanding this is death machine proposal, not an alternative energy proposal. Here are the sources. The URSI (Union Radio-Scientifique Internationale) has a nice web page as well as an identical pdf that debunks most of the SPS proposals. They seem to make an error when they say you need 10,000m2 to receive 14GW solar flux. With 1.37 kW/m2 solar flux I see it as a million square meters, a solar panel 1 km on a side. The 14 GW is reduced to 1 GW by the 7% system efficiency they describe. The paper is very neutral, unlike some of my ham buddies that would just say; “You want to beam a gigawatt of RF energy into the atmosphere, and then build a whole bunch of them? Are you out of your f*(&^ing mind?” This paper has references, both pro and con and it is the con ones that have the good reading. One good resource is S. Fetter, “Space Solar Power: An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come?,” (pdf). Where you might want to start is just read all the comments in the NY Times article. Read all 6 pages. SSP dual-use would be perceived as a weaponFan et al 11 – William Fan, distinction MBA holder having strong background in telecommunication, Harold Martin, freelance software developer and author, James Wu, Communications Associate at Acumen Fund, Brian Mok, author, June 2 2011, “Space Based Solar Power,” Industry and Technology Assessment, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf Due to the high energy transmitter that it will utilize, space based solar power could potentially be in violation of international space treaties. In 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was signed by the United States and other world powers. One of the key issues addressed by this treaty is space based weapons. The Outer Space Treaty bans the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space or on any celestial body. This could become a serious issue for space based solar power because of the potential for the transmitter to become a dual use weapon. Additionally, the newly proposed Space Preservation Treaty could severely hinder the implementation of space based solar power, as it would ban the any kind of weapon from being placed in space. In addition to political issues, there may be social disapproval of having a potential weapons system in space Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.17 Mb. Share with your friends:
|