Another Space Race Emerging?

[CapTon 592]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saadiampekkanen/2015/04/28/dont-blame-just-china-for-escalating-the-arms-race-in-outer-space/?utm_campaign=ForbesTech&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Technology&linkId=13830307

 

Found this article rather interesting. Don't really have too much to say about it; just looking for different perceptions from people.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well as the article said, a space weapons race is inevitable given the political situation in Asia. Controlling space gives you a huge strategic and tactical advantage over your competitors in much of the same way that air superiority did that in the last century. But as long as they don't put Ion cannons, nukes or mass weapons in orbit, I'm not to concerned. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As long as patriotism is a factor on earth, we can expect trouble everywhere.  People are weak and easily led when someone waves the national flag.  How any activity of the UN debating society can affect this is moot to say the least.

[Alejandro24 575]

Militarization of the space? I don't know, if we don't respect each other even in this planet, why should we carry out our problems and make more big and expensive the problem?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nothing quite as threatening as a satellite loaded with MIRVs.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Not necessary to be armed. State-of-the-art satellites can record real-time video with a resolution of milimeters. Quite useful to spy what the troops of the other superpower are doing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Of course this depends on the atmosphere co-operating.  One wonders what one could do with a solar-powered MASER from orbit.  Could pack quite a punch in mega- or gigajoules.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Nothing quite as threatening as a satellite loaded with MIRVs.

Yeah but those are extremely illegal. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

Nothing quite as threatening as a satellite loaded with MIRVs.

Yeah but those are extremely illegal. 

 

Never bothered aggressors before.  Too many people think that the rule of law is something other than fiction.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Never bothered aggressors before.  Too many people think that the rule of law is something other than fiction.

 

The rule of international law is not 'fiction'. It doesn't always work, sure, and compliance depends entirely on countries being willing to follow the rules set out in the treaties they themselves signed. But compliance for the most part happens. Breaking international law is possible, but it has severe negative reactions for most countries. 

 

Now of course, someone could decide to send up MIRV's in satellites. That someone and the country that does it would essentially put a loaded gun to the head of the world. How do you think the rest of the world is gonna react? Think back to what we did with Iran, based on the mere suspicion that they were building a nuke. Let China try this and see how quickly we sink their economy and turn them into a pariah state. 

 

No country benefits from being the first to openly break the treaty that says you can't militarize space. It would out them as aggressors to the rest of the world and the backlash would be devastating. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, do think about it.  It took 70 years to put an end to the Soviet Union by simply outspending them into bankruptcy.  Once that loaded gun is in orbit, what can anyone do about it?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yes, do think about it.  It took 70 years to put an end to the Soviet Union by simply outspending them into bankruptcy.  Once that loaded gun is in orbit, what can anyone do about it?

They can take it down again. Present the owner with the choice. Keep the gun pointing at the head of the world and get boycotted into oblivion or take the gun down and we will forget it ever happened. 

 

See if China, India or Russia are going to bother with a gun like that if it means they can't do business with anyone and aren't welcome on every political conference. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

Yes, do think about it.  It took 70 years to put an end to the Soviet Union by simply outspending them into bankruptcy.  Once that loaded gun is in orbit, what can anyone do about it?

They can take it down again. Present the owner with the choice. Keep the gun pointing at the head of the world and get boycotted into oblivion or take the gun down and we will forget it ever happened. 

 

See if China, India or Russia are going to bother with a gun like that if it means they can't do business with anyone and aren't welcome on every political conference. 

 

You don't think that such an action wouldn't be a prelude to a world-wide take over attempt?  The lack of imagination is staggering.  What if the perp was the U.S. of A?

[Sabretooth78 808]

As long as patriotism is a factor on earth, we can expect trouble everywhere.  People are weak and easily led when someone waves the national flag.  How any activity of the UN debating society can affect this is moot to say the least.

 

I think you mean nationalism, if you're considering the definition of the words as they were originally defined.  Unfortunately patriotism (allegiance to liberty) is a tainted word much as liberal is here in the US.  Ironic that the two words both relate to the same idea.

[LexusInfernus 908]

You don't think that such an action wouldn't be a prelude to a world-wide take over attempt?  The lack of imagination is staggering.  What if the perp was the U.S. of A?

You don't take over countries, let alone the world, with nukes. You could try to blackmail the world into giving you what you want, but even then the stakes have been raised so high that it is unlikely to work. 

 

And the same applies to the US. Although I find them to be the least likely to try this. 

 

That said, there are other WMD's that you can put up in space without really breaching the treaty. The superweapon from Call of Duty Ghosts for example, technically doesn't breach the treaty I think, and while it has only starred in fiction, the weapon itself is not unfeasible or unrealistic. Dropping Tungsten rods from orbit does result in some rather big craters. I'd be more worried about someone putting that kind of weapon up in space than MIRV's. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

As long as patriotism is a factor on earth, we can expect trouble everywhere.  People are weak and easily led when someone waves the national flag.  How any activity of the UN debating society can affect this is moot to say the least.

 

I think you mean nationalism, if you're considering the definition of the words as they were originally defined.  Unfortunately patriotism (allegiance to liberty) is a tainted word much as liberal is here in the US.  Ironic that the two words both relate to the same idea.

 

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.  I don't know where that definition comes from but patriotism is based on the Latin noun patria meaning home country.  The idea of 'my country, right or wrong' has been a causus belli for centuries.

[hym 358]

Breaking international law is possible, but it has severe negative reactions for most countries. 

 

Consider this from the perspective of the United States:

 

The US has recently entered what has been colloquially referred to as "nuclear middle age."  The significance of this is two-fold.  First, it is a recognition that the Cold War is over and the nuclear threat the US built its arsenal for no longer exists (at least in the format for which the US originally planned).  Second, it is a recognition that nuclear weapons have a shelf life and they need to be retired and replaced with newer weapons (that also incorporate newer technologies).

 

The second issue is the one that presents a particular problem for the US government.  The deterrence value of a nuclear weapon is well understood, but that deterrence is significantly reduced if the weapon isn't known to work.  To definitively know that the weapon works, it has to be detonated, but any such detonation would be nearly impossible to hide.  The entire developed world would know that the US was testing new nuclear weapons.  There is widespread agreement that the US could conduct such tests and get away with them, as the rest of the world lacks viable responses that don't carry unacceptable consequences.  However, such tests would prove a headache for the US, not because it pissed off the international community, but because it just gave them justification to conduct their own nuclear testing, negating the work the US has invested in nuclear disarmament (and the benefits that offers the US).

 

This is why the US might pursue an alternative solution to this problem.  Thanks to research facilities like the National Ignition Facility and Sandia National Laboratories, the US is the world's leader in nuclear weapons design.  The US is the only country in the world thought to have enough knowledge of the detailed workings of a nuclear weapon that it could satisfactorily design and test such a weapon entirely through computer simulation.  If the US government is comfortable with this approach to the problem, this gives the US a powerful advantage over its nuclear brethren: the ability to wield the next generation of nuclear weapons while simultaneously denying the capability to the rest of the world.

 

We know that the US is looking at the issue, but no one knows for certain how the US is going to proceed forward towards a solution.  Many experts think the US will go with the second option because it can yield a viable deterrent weapon while simultaneously avoiding all the pesky problems that go with conducting a real world test.  However, many experts also feel that the real world testing approach cannot be discounted because the desire for a real world test is strong, and there is very little the international community can do to punish the US for such a program.  If the US does decide to forego the real world testing in favor of simulation only testing, it likely won't have been because of fear of reprisal by the international community, but simply because Washington policymakers decided that such an approach was counterproductive towards US goals.

 

The US has reached the point where it gets to do unpopular stuff because there is relatively little anyone can do to stop the US from doing it.  No matter what the US does, no one seriously proposes widespread economic sanctions against the US because of the destructive consequences it would have for their own economy.  China is approaching that point if it isn't already there.  Economists are already questioning whether the world economy can survive the loss of China.  If China were to put nuclear weapons in space, what would you do to it?  You can't force a military solution to the problem.  Attempts to destroy China's economy will destroy yours as a secondary consequence.  Political sanctions only matter if you care about your political standing, and if you're putting nukes in space, it's fairly evident that you don't care about political brownie points.  So what do you do?

[LexusInfernus 908]

The US has reached the point where it gets to do unpopular stuff because there is relatively little anyone can do to stop the US from doing it.  No matter what the US does, no one seriously proposes widespread economic sanctions against the US because of the destructive consequences it would have for their own economy.  China is approaching that point if it isn't already there.  Economists are already questioning whether the world economy can survive the loss of China.  If China were to put nuclear weapons in space, what would you do to it?  You can't force a military solution to the problem.  Attempts to destroy China's economy will destroy yours as a secondary consequence.  Political sanctions only matter if you care about your political standing, and if you're putting nukes in space, it's fairly evident that you don't care about political brownie points.  So what do you do?

I disagree with your assertion that the US can get away with everything simply because its to big and powerful to be hurt by anyone. Yes its true that if the US decides to break its commitments and breach a bunch of treaties, no one can and will effectively stop them right away. But that doesn't mean there aren't severe consequences to doing such a thing. As you said, if the US breaches its commitments, then everyone else will as well. We will have nuclear weapons tests again in other countries. Worse even, it might result in a complete stop or even a reversal of the disarmament policies. So a consequence is that the US now exists in a world that is no longer trying to curb its nuclear capabilities. Is that a world the US has an interest in? 

 

Secondly, if the US breaches the law often enough, it will loose standing. And there is a point where the US does something and the world will no longer accept it. In the short term, breaching treaties means that US diplomatic power diminishes. No one wants to sign a treaty with a partner that treats treaties as toilet paper. There will be no inclination by the other side to stick to any treaties it signed with the US because there is no more trust. Furthermore, a state that behaves more and more erratically, and becomes more and more unreliable will have trouble keeping its economy up. Unreliable states are not a good place to invest in. So, less economic growth and more difficulty of gaining capital and loans will slowly diminish the US economy and at some point that means that the US is no longer invulnerable. At which point it becomes possible for other states to impose sanctions against the US because it does something stupid again. 

 

As for sanctioning China, well the same principles apply. Maybe they get away with it for a while, but it will diminish their power. Also, if they put a gun to the head of everyone else, everyone else will put a gun to their head. The question is, would China think its wise to cause a world where there are multiple satellites loaded with MIRV's pointed at China? Would the benefits outweigh the costs? 

[CapTon 592]

I'm thinking that in the near future, we will be fighting wars through computers, attempting to bankrupt other countries and destroy their economies instead of sending out soldiers to kill one another. I really don't think that mass weaponry such as nukes and whatnot would be used either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Perhaps the nuclear age has passed insofar as warfare is concerned.  The great concern in the first half of the 20th century was CBW, which was outlawed and nations have abided by the ban.  A general outlawing of nuclear weapons could be possible.  Why should this sword of Damocles always hang over our civilization?

 

Have we made striking at each other now unthinkable for nations?  Perhaps not quite if you look at the less developed areas of the world, but we may be approaching the point at which war and insurgency becomes so unprofitable that it simply fades from the scene.  Should this happen, budgetary relief would make funds available to be employed on other pursuits such as improving food and medicine distribution across the globe.  This would increase general happiness.

 

Let us study war no more.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I'm thinking that in the near future, we will be fighting wars through computers, attempting to bankrupt other countries and destroy their economies instead of sending out soldiers to kill one another. I really don't think that mass weaponry such as nukes and whatnot would be used either.

That is a good point as well. Why risk the end of humanity if you can disrupt your enemies economic infrastructure in plausible deniable manner? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Why bother?  Unfriendliness is generally unprofitable.  There are enough  tools available now for tracking things on the Internet that makes the plausible deniability arguments moot at least.  There are enough security watchdogs on the Internet now, that avoiding them may be too difficult.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Why bother?  Unfriendliness is generally unprofitable.  There are enough  tools available now for tracking things on the Internet that makes the plausible deniability arguments moot at least.  There are enough security watchdogs on the Internet now, that avoiding them may be too difficult.

There are always day one exploits that might be used by skilled hackers to cause havoc. 

 

But more importantly, even though you might be able to track where the hacker comes from, good luck proving that they are working for the government and were hacking you as part of a government assignment. Thats where the real plausible deniability comes from. 

[SAGG 4]

Consider this: History shows that every weapon that man has ever created, he has used at least once....

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Quite true in the generic sense.  I don't recall any of the really virulent war gases being used except in exceptional atrocities of late, and weaponized microbes seem to have been kept from the scene.

 

"I know not what weapons WW III will be fought, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-- Albert Einstein.