Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the may-you-live-in-interesting-times dept.

The LA Times (archive.fo) reports that the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes changes that could lead to the deployment of weapons in space:

President Obama has signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding U.S. nuclear defense policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems. The National Defense Authorization Act, a year-end policy bill encompassing virtually every aspect of the U.S. military, contained two provisions with potentially momentous consequences.

One struck the word "limited" from language describing the mission of the country's homeland missile defense system. The system is designed to thwart a small-scale attack by a non-superpower such as North Korea or Iran. A related provision calls for the Pentagon to start "research, development, test and evaluation" of space-based systems for missile defense. Together, the provisions signal that the U.S. will seek to use advanced technology to defeat both small-scale and large-scale nuclear attacks. That could unsettle the decades-old balance of power among the major nuclear states.

[...] Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." Known as "Star Wars," the initiative cost taxpayers $30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.

Other NDAA changes include a 2.1% pay raise for enlisted service members and officers, a boost of 16,000 more service members (to 476,000), restructuring of Tricare, and the final nail in the coffin for the Obama Administration's promise to close detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The bill also elevates the United States Cyber Command to the combatant command level, instead of a sub-unit of the Strategic Command, and addresses the recent National Guard bonus fiasco by requiring the Pentagon to prove that an individual soldier "did not accept their enlistment bonus in good faith", while allowing those who did make repayments to get a refund.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:53PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:53PM (#446731) Journal

    The defence should be in the strike distance, right? Meaning probably in low(ish) orbit. Even if it's not, that "defensive" missile will need to cross the low orbit

    Here's an idea for an attacker: deliberately increasing the space junk density - just launch some hundred of tonnes of this high tech named steel balls into low orbits - its not like its rocket science, those balls can withstand higher accelerations than electronics, thus a space gun [wikipedia.org] may be cheap enough for Kim as a countermeasure, certainly cheaper than a "space defence" missile/satellite.

    Good bye space defence. Good bye space exploration

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by nobu_the_bard on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:04PM

    by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:04PM (#446733)

    I believe one of the problems with the original "Star Wars" project was it would have a serious issue dealing with large numbers of targets, like huge numbers of decoy missiles. I mean, there were lots of problems, but this one there's probably data out there about it already.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by lgw on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:05PM

      by lgw (2836) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:05PM (#446829)

      I believe one of the problems with the original "Star Wars" project was it would have a serious issue dealing with large numbers of targets, like huge numbers of decoy missiles. I mean, there were lots of problems, but this one there's probably data out there about it already.

      Huge numbers of targets are now a solved problem. Shooting down a missile with a missile is now proven in combat. Technology has come a long way since the 80s.

      The missile defense system for an American carrier group is quite impressive. This includes ballistic missiles. [wikipedia.org] The broader Aegis combat system is very mature technology, can track and engage hundreds of incoming threats, share data between ships in realtime to allow multiple radar systems to coordinate with the weapons systems on all the ships in the group in the group, so that a missile tracked by one ship can be shot down by another.

      The ballistic missile defense system isn't so proven, but it's built on a solid foundation. The most sensible land-based missile defense system is "Aegis Ashore" - just do the same solution, but land based. That's near completion now (you'd think someone would have thought of it 20 years ago, but politics).

      I'm fine with putting weapons in space (as long as they're poor if turned to attack cities), but it seems like we should have a proven land-based system first. The main advantage of a space-based system is that we might use it to protect anyone, we don't have to build it permanently in one nation. Of course, there might also be advantage in shooting down missiles while they're still boosting, very visible targets in lower numbers, but that's speculative. The Airborne Laser project did OK, for what it was, but it's not exactly a proven system.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:58PM (#446897)

        Seems a great idea, until you realize the UN is faltering and there is no one nation that would be entrusted with operating such a system.

        Somebody mentioned either here or on the green site a few months/year back about a novel covering exactly this, where the space based system got taken over by a coalition of soldiers who proceeded to use it to nuke all the major leadership platforms on earth, then make it a lifetime job to 'serve and protect' by keeping any future groups from gaining enough power to attack another nation, or their space based planetary defense force.

        • (Score: 2) by lgw on Thursday December 29 2016, @08:40PM

          by lgw (2836) on Thursday December 29 2016, @08:40PM (#447184)

          1 - yes, that's why I specified a system that wouldn't be good at attacking land targets, such a laser or shotgun-based system.
          2 - it's a good thing we have missile launch codes and would never just set all of them to 11111111 - oh, wait.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jcross on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:54PM

    by jcross (4009) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:54PM (#446750)

    Yeah if the purpose of this type of system were actually missile defense, you'd have a great point, but my guess is the purpose is to transfer something north of $30 billion from taxpayers to the military-industrial complex. Reagan already showed us that it doesn't even need to wind up working to accomplish that.

    On that note, is anyone else disturbed by all the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiments flying around lately? Seems like with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the "war on terror" all winding down (i.e. ongoing but apparently not very newsworthy), another menace is needed to justify massive defense spending. This smells an awful lot like the Cold War to me, except without referring much to Communism vs. Capitalism, and with a strange new alignment of US partisan politics on the issue. I guess Russia and China both seem to have some expansionist desires, so that might prove to be an excuse for war. Not that most Americans actually care much about the independence of the Crimea, or some rock in the South China Sea, or even Taiwan for that matter, but like containment you know?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:56PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 28 2016, @04:56PM (#446753) Journal

      China is an actual threat. Russia isn't. Trump is right about that much, even if he doesn't know why.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:57PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 28 2016, @05:57PM (#446767) Journal

      On that note, is anyone else disturbed by all the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiments flying around lately?

      The fact one is disturbed by the reality doesn't make it easier for the one to survive that reality, especially when the reality is disturbing So why would I?

      Seems like with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the "war on terror" all winding down (i.e. ongoing but apparently not very newsworthy)

      Terrorism is a good scare for NewYorkers, LAsians and so on. Not the ones which delivered White House to Trump - too spread geographically, much more self reliant for a terrorist to try something meaningful. Instinctively, they know they aren't at risk So Trump must find a proper stick to scare them and the scapegoat for the daily two minutes of hate (and the latter cannot be the banksters or those moving the capital around the world, Trump may be crazy but he's not that stupid to attack the hand that is going to feed his "public infrastructure projects"). Given the restrictions, what other choices do qualify?

      Not that most Americans actually care much about the independence of the Crimea, or some rock in the South China Sea, or even Taiwan for that matter, but like containment you know?

      You reckon? This would be a rational "don't care", but rationality is something I'd refrain from accusing those who elected Trump.

      I wouldn't be surprised to hear justifications on the line of "Philippines were our protectorate, how dare those job-stealing Chinese steal that one too [time.com]?" I suspect the Trump voters have a higher sense of ownership (and a higher pain in seeing what they thought a stable ownership evaporating) than big-city dwellers.

      One thing Trump said is true: the American dream is dead (has been dead for a decade, he's just the one to say it publicly). He'll masquerade "making America great again" but at no times he promised to make the Americans great (or even just back into middle-class).
      The Americans can expect "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!" [youtube.com]. I can believe it will happen - except for a minor semantic detail: the "we" that will be winning won't necessary include the "you" that will be getting tired.

      Is it disturbing? I'd say it is. But... does it worth to be disturbed?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford