Satellite in space destroyed....

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


ICBMs are space weapons because they travel through space to get to their targets.

By that wide definition, arrows are aerial weapons.

The GPS-guided missiles are space weapons because their navigational information comes from space

etc

If you want to make up stupidly literal definitions, yes. BUt that is no what we are supposed to be doing.

The talks Mobius was referencing, AFAIK, were about banning the presence of weapons in space, not the ability to launch weapons into space.

If that were true, why would the US and other states be throwing a hissy fit about the Chinese simply experimenting with another land based missile system??

Because this is all about the control of space.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
This was the first test of the system against a known non manuevering target that was purposely placed in the orbit that would make it easiest to hit. I will be years until they have it perfected, and years after that until they have enough to matter.

Exactly like our ABM systems then.

[Kuciwalker]

GePap: you are simply wrong about treaty violations (unsurprising, given your dismal record on anything related to technology). Weapons are allowed to go into space - we've used our own ASAT weapons, though they were fighter-launched. Positioning weapons in space is the big issue.

[Patroklos]

Exactly like our ABM systems then.

I think the expertise/money/experiance going into our ABM system is orders of magnitude greater than the Chinese ASAT hobby.

[Kuciwalker]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty:

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and, among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not expressly prohibit the placement or use of weapons in orbit, so long as they are for peaceful purposes.

Key words here: nuclear weapons, ORBIT. These missiles never go into orbit, they are conventional, they aren't "stationed" in space in any reasonable sense, and they're legal anyway as long as the Chinese assert they are for a peaceful (defensive) purpose.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think the expertise/money/experiance going into our ABM system is orders of magnitude greater than the Chinese ASAT hobby.

I'm definately with you on the second one. That's a good thing?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
GePap: you are simply wrong about treaty violations (unsurprising, given your dismal record on anything related to technology). Weapons are allowed to go into space - we've used our own ASAT weapons, though they were fighter-launched. Positioning weapons in space is the big issue.

1. Given that there is no set of rules regulating space weapons as of today, anyone can put anything in space. That includes weapons systems.

2. Anti-satellite missiles are considered space weapons, at least by most people:

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

* attack and negate the capability of space systems in orbit (i.e. anti-satellite weapons)
* attack targets on the earth (i.e. orbital bombardment weapons)
* defeat missiles travelling through space (i.e. elements of the ongoing U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative program)

3. Of course the US and the USSR tested anti-satellite weapons during the Cold War - it was an obvious thing to do. The issue is that since the end of the Cold War, specially under this administration, the US felt that since there was no real competition, there was no need to contemplate a ban on Space weapons because that could only limit the US, which had a huge lead. The Chinese have now shown that lead is not eternal, and it would be in the interest of the US to squash Space weapons at this point because we do have such a huge lead in space already. A ban would help enforce it for longer.

Poor Wesley...

[Kuciwalker]

1. Given that there is no set of rules regulating space weapons as of today, anyone can put anything in space. That includes weapons systems.

Excuse me?

[GePap]

Edit: to beat Wesley here, I was wrong on putting nukes in orbit.

Beyond that, my point still stand.

(Or not. Guess he is never too far from a computer, the silly child)

[Kuciwalker]

You said, once more "Given that there is no set of rules regulating space weapons as of today." That's your premise. Given that it it completely false, I see no reason to even consider the rest of your argument.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap




1. Given that there is no set of rules regulating space weapons as of today, anyone can put anything in space. That includes weapons systems.

This is simply factually incorrect, as Kuci pointed out

And you are also completely ****ing wrong about proposed treaties. As far as I know, there has never been a serious proposal to ban the development of weapons which can reach space, but simply the deployment of those weapons to space.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


This is simply factually incorrect, as Kuci pointed out

And you are also completely ****ing wrong about proposed treaties. As far as I know, there has never been a serious proposal to ban the development of weapons which can reach space, but simply the deployment of those weapons to space.

The point, and follow me here if you don't mind, is banning weapons that turn space itself into a battle zone. A missile passing by on its way back to earth does not affect Space assets. A missile meant to blow up thing in space, even one based on planet Earth, DOES. Ok, let me stop and let you catch up....

SO, (and this is why Wiki has the definition it has, one both of you have conviniently ignored, but I can guess why) anti-satellite weapons are part of the militarization of space, if only because they increase the rationale for weapons in space, to counter anti-satellite weapons on earth, to protect your valuable space assets. Which is why anti-satellite systems, whether they be in space or on earth, would be in the agenda of a ban on space weapons.

NOw, do I need to draw diagrams in crayon, or has this been made clear enough?

[lord of the mark]

continue please gentlemen. KH vs GePap. Given the continued failure of the Redskins to get into the playoffs, this will have to do.

[GePap]

KH and Wesley (I mean Kuci) are obviously both trying very hard to win the title of "Personification of why intelligence does not equal wisdom"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


The point, and follow me here if you don't mind, is banning weapons that turn space itself into a battle zone. A missile passing by on its way back to earth does not affect Space assets. A missile meant to blow up thing in space, even one based on planet Earth, DOES. Ok, let me stop and let you catch up....

SO, (and this is why Wiki has the definition it has, one both of you have conviniently ignored, but I can guess why)

You're going by a wikipedia definition of what constitutes a space weapon in addition to a vague mention of a proposal to ban space weapons in order to demonstrate that somebody has proposed to ban ASATs. That's not enough.

anti-satellite weapons are part of the militarization of space, if only because they increase the rationale for weapons in space, to counter anti-satellite weapons on earth, to protect your valuable space assets.

Oh. My. ****ing. God.

You think that people are planning to base weapons in space to counter ASATs? What the **** are you smoking?

Which is why anti-satellite systems, whether they be in space or on earth, would be in the agenda of a ban on space weapons.

Nice speculation. Do you have any direct proof that ground-based ASATs have ever been on the agenda?

NOw, do I need to draw diagrams in crayon, or has this been made clear enough?

One would think that an arts major would know what a mixed metaphor was, and how to avoid one.