Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Politics

US Warns on Russia's New Space Weapons (reuters.com) 179

Posted by msmash from the on-the-watchlist dept.
The United States voiced deep suspicion on Tuesday over Russia's pursuit of new space weapons, including a mobile laser system to destroy satellites in space, and the launch of a new inspector satellite which was acting in an "abnormal" way. From a report: Russia's pursuit of counterspace capabilities was "disturbing," Yleem D.S. Poblete, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, told the U.N.'s Conference on Disarmament which is discussing a new treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. A Russian delegate at the conference dismissed Poblete's remarks as unfounded and slanderous. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, at the Geneva forum in February, said a priority was to prevent an arms race in outer space, in line with Russia's joint draft treaty with China presented a decade ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Warns on Russia's New Space Weapons More

US Warns on Russia's New Space Weapons

Comments Filter:

  • Oh, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @10:47AM (#57122780)
    While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 )

      While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

      You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "whose"

      • The Space Force is more an attempt to separate out programs from the Air Force that have been killing their budget the past decade or more. Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          The Space Force is more an attempt to separate out programs from the Air Force that have been killing their budget the past decade or more. Whether it is wise or not is debatable, but to automatically declare sinister motives is silly.

          There's no good reason to move that stuff out of the Air Force at this time, because it is a small amount of activity compared to the whole. The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it. Trump works for Putin, who would very much like to see our ability to manage military interests in space impaired...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

            There's no good reason to move that stuff out of the Air Force at this time, because it is a small amount of activity compared to the whole. The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it. Trump works for Putin, who would very much like to see our ability to manage military interests in space impaired...

            Trump just wants to go down in history as the guy who created the Space Force and guarantee having spaceships named after him. I can already see it 30 years from now: President Ivanka Trump christening the launch of the first armed and manned US vessel in space: the USSFS Donald J Trump.

          • Either that, or to send a whole bunch of (more) money to defense contractors to get specific "Space Force" ships created, crew trained, etc. The actual "Space Force" needs within the Air Force are minimal - with the Russian and Chinese threats best handled through diplomatic channels at the moment - but making it its own separate "Force" will increase pressure to funnel more money to it and beef it up as much as possible even if there isn't a threat worthy of the Space Force.

            Of course, the third option is a

          • The only reason you might want to move that stuff into its own force is so that you can handicap it.

            Or you want to expand it. You want to give it more funding/resources but you don't want the Air Force to redirect that money for other things.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah a space force of literal space cadets in tiny tin cans seems the ideal entity to deal with a mobile ground based laser that can destroy satellites.

      • Re:Oh, (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @11:25AM (#57123128)

        While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

        You do understand that the "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction to this kind of activity from the Russians and Chinese right? As campy as it sounds, it sure seems like an idea who's time has long since come.

        The "Space Force" thing is likely a reaction of a person with declining mental faculties (see the very name "Space Force" as an example) who is determined to put his name on things and is unable to understand the bureaucratic inefficiency, financial strain, duplication of effort, and wastefulness that creating another military branch would bring. Especially one as ill-defined and rudimentary technologically as space warfare/space combat. Leave it under the auspices of the Air Force until technological capability or operational necessity warrant it's own independent command structure.

        • Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.

          There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be c

          • Re:Oh, (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @12:23PM (#57123554)

            Interesting issue you bring up, but you need to divorce yourself from the political considerations on this.

            There are reasons to create a new branch of the armed services that go beyond costs. The mission and budget of the Air Force is quite big, as is their command structure. Carving out a new branch, much like the carving out the Army Air Corps, does have it's advantages. Flattening the command structure allows more flexibility and faster response times, allows for specialized training and skills to be closer to the top of the command structure, and allows for focusing appropriated budget and resources on specific areas of the mission.

            Of course, there is a down side to everything. But in my opinion this idea has merit. It flattens the hierarchy at the Pentagon, allows the development and advancement of resources with specialized skills. And creates a sharper focus on a specific problem set. Rockets and satellites go one way, things that depend on wings go another. It's a natural division and there is very little overlap, so it actually makes sense to me.

            Remember what happens when you flatten something: it gets wider. Have space forces be a subsidiary command of the Air Force makes sense right now because the technology simply isn't mature enough to warrant in independent command. As an independent command you add senior command staff at the political level (think White House/Pentagon) and the support staff that goes with it, scientific staff, support and logistical staff, training facilities for both basic and advanced training, OCS/academy locations, etc. So you are either relying on contractors for staffing (very expensive but politically attractive) or robbing from other branches/setting up your own training pipeline or manpower pool.

            Keep it as part of the Air Force and you keep the vertical efficiency the Air Force already has. Pull from Air Force enlisted and officer recruits or existing unit, rely on the technological and institutional knowledge the Air Force already has from decades of cooperation with NASA and working on Star Wars, X-37, etc. Until it reaches a critical mass it is too inefficient and expensive to have it operating by itself.

            • Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.

              Wider doesn't mean less efficient. It just means that there are certain functions that require enough specialization to be organized separately. While the army studies battlefi

              • Re:Oh, (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @01:23PM (#57124178)

                Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.

                Exactly my point. The Marines serve a very niche, specialized, and important role. But, that role is not large enough to warrant it's own, independent branch. The Marines rely on the Navy for medical, logistical, and even training support (Naval Academy for Marine officers), and the Navy uses Marines for certain functions as well, such as guarding conventional and nuclear weapons aboard ship. If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent. At that point it would have organically grown most of the logistical and command structure necessary to be an independent branch, making for a relatively easy transition. Right now, it's just forced.

                • Or I dunno, forget about any notion of Republican Space Rangers and just use the organisation that's been successfully doing space travel and exploration for 60 years.

                  But that would mean some orange retard admitting he was wrong to de-fund them in the first place.

                  There isn't a need for a military presence in space, in fact it would be an expensive boondoggle.

                • If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent.

                  I am guessing that you are not familiar with US Space Command.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                  Trump is not the driver behind this, he just happens to be the sitting president while US Space Command is trying to become its own branch. This not being forced from the top, it is being pushed from US Space Command itself. The US Air Force is the precedent they are following. The US Air Force used to be part of the Army.

                  Not that I am saying there should be a Space Force.

          • You have had some good comments. Am rather disappointed with /. comments on this topic. It seems like it would be great for discussion to breakdown and understand what a separate branch dedicated to mastering the access to space and space technology would be. It's actually kind of exciting in a way because it is a signal of our time. Space is so normal to the government that it is being seriously considered to be treated as equals to the flight.

            I like the think of the military as the frontier normalizers. T

          • Re:Oh, (Score:4, Interesting)

            by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @02:50PM (#57125142)
            Just like star wars in the 1980's, this whole thing is a ruse. If the U.S. military is doing something in space, what makes anybody think it wouldn't be a well guarded secret? The US is either goading them into wasting money on something that doesn't matter, or creating an enemy to justify increased military spending, and probably both.

            A quick internet search indicates that the US "black budget" for the military is more than $50 Billion US dollars annually. The entire Russian Federation military budget is much less than $100 Billion - probably closer to $70 bilion. Additionally, there's the $600 billion the US spends in its public military budget numbers.

            Arms race - LOL.
      • Uh no it's not...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by higuita ( 129722 )

        yes, because the US also do not have any satellite destroying weapons too (please ignore that little secret satellite and those ground-space missiles)

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          yes, because the US also do not have any satellite destroying weapons too (please ignore that little secret satellite and those ground-space missiles)

          Anyone who thinks the X-37B doesn't have a weapons payload package is deluding themselves.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Space Force is pork for the military industrial complex and the communities being wrecked by his other financial mismanagement.

      • Please explain to me what this "space force" would accomplish, which nuclear ballistic missile submarines and existing reconnaissance satellites don't already do at a fraction of the cost, and have been for decades.

        Orbiting weapons platforms can be tracked with radar, and destroyed with systems that exist today - China proved this when they blew up a satellite years ago. Silent missile submarines can still be 50 miles off your coast and you won't know where it is until it's already launched, and then it's

        • The US blew up a satellite in the 1980s to prove they could. It pissed off my astronomy professor because it was a perfectly good radio telescope satellite. IRAD I think it was called.

        • So, the nuclear triad doesn't mean anything to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          As I understand the idea here, a "Space Force" would carve out the parts of the Air Force that wasn't based on wings and aircraft into a new branch of the department of defense. It wouldn't be taking over the Navy's mission. So the rocket vehicle based operations of the current Air Force and satellites would fall under "Space" and not "Air". The Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard wouldn't be affected, except that they'

      • If it's a reaction to Russian and Chinese activity, then it's an unnecessarily provocative one that will only lead to further escalation. The US - all countries in fact - would do well to keep their military space capabilities as low-key as possible, and one good way to do that is to place them under an existing branch of the military. Creating a new one called a "SPACE FORCE" is the opposite of that.

        • Why is being provocative a problem? And is this really provocative?

          We often project force forward and have done so for more than 100 years now. It's what the Navy was initially for and what the Air Force and Navy do now. What do you think the point of deploying aircraft carrier task forces into the middle east is if not provocative? Sometimes all one has to do is display the ability of applying overwhelming force to keep things in line. Being provocative can be a good thing. "Speak softly and carry a b

          • Being provocative is a problem if provoking a response would be a negative development. Like provoking Russia into building an antisat laser or covert deorbit drive satellites for example. Those seem like negative developments.

            "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is actually the opposite of provocation - it means peaceful negotiation (the "speak softly" part) but having overwhelming force as a fallback option (the "big stick"). It's not "threaten loudly and carry a big stick" or "carry a big stick and boast

            • LOL.. I seriously don't think Russia or China will be in any way deterred from their current research, nor will the realignment of the Air Force to split out a "Space Force" would spur them on to additional activities or fielding additional weapons... Unless you are claiming that the development of a "Space Force" would actually advance the arms race, because it would actually produce additional capabilities and expertise on our part.

              IF you really think the latter, then I've got to ask, shouldn't we be d

              • No, I'm saying that the mere PR effects of creating the "Space Force" are provocative, regardless of what happens with the actual capabilities behind it. When your opponent goes from secretly working on space weapons to making public statements of intent to create a space-focused branch of the military, that's provocative, and that's not even getting into the talk of militarily dominating space that came alongside those statements.

                You build the bigger stick quietly and continue to speak softly rather than b

                • I think you are hyperventilating about nearly nothing. Just like they went off on Reagan about his Star Wars thing, but for a whole lot less actual reason. It's not like there was an announced weapon system with specific capabilities that eclipse anything anybody else has, we are talking about reorganizing the department of defense to provide some additional focus into military force in space, there isn't some new revelation of some new weapons system or some huge R&D project that would catch them flat

                  • But to hear you talk, it's like they are going to be incensed and be all that closer to entering a shooting war with us, JUST because we broke up the Air Force and created some "Space Force" from the pieces.

                    That's an overstatement but it is certainly provocative, I've made a good case for the reasons why. Let's not forget the effect a simple radio beacon in LEO once had on the US.

                    • Again, your example is totally out of proportion to what we are discussing.

                      Sputnik was obvious a provocative act, overflying another country with a new technology, demonstrating a capability that could be obviously used for less than peaceful purposes. Yea, that was provocative, clearly so.

                      WE are discussing an organizational change of the DOD, which is a far cry from demonstrating some new level of technology like Sputnik did. Yet, here we are, comparing this move to the launch of Sputnik. You are really o

                    • You continue to downplay the message sent by creating the world's first explicitly space-based military branch in a world where space is not supposed to be militarized. This is not just some boring bureaucratic shuffle. It is a historically notable provocation, if only symbolic rather than practical in nature so far.

                    • Boy, are you misinformed.

                      The *only* limitations about the use of space are from a couple of treaties over 40 years old, but they do not keep the military or weapons out of space. You cannot deploy nuclear weapons and you cannot claim space or parts of it as your sovereign territory by the traditional means of military occupation, but you can fly conventional weapons and operate defensive and offensive weapon systems in space all you like So no building a military installation on the moon and claiming it a

      • Well, you're in good company. Dr. Michio Kaku thinks a Space Force is a good idea as well. [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Only a moron thinks turning satellites into high speed shrapnel travelling at tens of thousands of kilometres a second is a good idea. Here's reality for the stupid, destroy all their space stuff and the shrapnel left over will destroy all your space stuff. Also, a weapon on the ground is not a space weapon, a weapon in space is a space weapon. You got any idea how easy it is to mass destroy satellites, just set up a bunch of mirrors and wait till they orbit over head during the day, problem solved, if that

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      While you're at it, please ignore our new Space Force.

      Our new Space Force is a reaction to Chinese and Russian attempts to militarize space.

      For example, Russian Air Force [wikipedia.org] is but a branch of the Russian AeroSpace Forces [wikipedia.org], since 2015 — when America was still run by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate...

  • Not a Russia appologist but really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @10:48AM (#57122802) Journal

    With the US creating a whole new military branch (or at least the executive trying to) why would be surprised other quasi hostile nations with the capability of doing so would NOT be preparing space based counter measures?

    Space Force aside what did people think was going to happen everyone was just going to play nice and abide by already 40 year old treaties to not put more than 10 warheads on an ICBM for all eternity?

    Time marches on folks - technology improves.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Space Force is a direct reaction to stuff like this. Russia didn't just get that laser and spacecraft overnight. They've been working on it for years. The signs that Russia and China are working to militarize space have been apparent for a long time now. China shot down one of their own satellites in 2007 in an ASAT weapons test. The whole point of the Space Force is that we've noticed this going on for some time and congress doesn't think the Air Force is doing enough to protect our interests in orbit.

      • China did not 'shoot down' one of their satellites in 2007, they destroyed it in orbit. And they did so with technology not terribly advanced even in 2007.

        The primary aftermath was a debris cloud that still is largely in orbit, and will probably pose a threat to various other objects over time. Indeed, debris is likely going to be an actual weapon type in space.

        China certainly used space weapons in 2007. We are behind in only now focusing on space warfare.

        • Sure, China deployed an antisatellite weapon in 2007 but the US has been working on weapons like that since the 1950s [wikipedia.org] and has also destroyed satellites in orbit. To claim the US is "behind", at least in antisatellite weapons systems, is just simply wrong - they have a number of different antisatellite weapons in their arsenal.

          The purpose of "Space Force" is simple, it's just another conduit for politicians to funnel public money to their cronies. This "news" is just propaganda to justify it. Nothing new.

    • Why is America doing a space force? Because Russia/China are way ahead in space weapons.

  • Well Kent (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What do you think a secret phase conjugate tracking system is for?

  • Joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)

    by belthize ( 990217 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @10:49AM (#57122810)

    We have a Space Farce so ha.

  • Why, did they announce they were setting up a space force or some thing?

  • "counter" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    as in they getting prepared for exactly the stupid shit americans are doing cause they cant be trusted

    • Russia is ready to respond to any provocation, but (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Russia is ready to respond to any provocation, but the last thing the Russians want is another war. And that, if you like good news, is the best news you are going to hear."

      A whiff of World War III hangs in the air. In the US, Cold War 2.0 is on, and the anti-Russian rhetoric emanating from the Clinton campaign, echoed by the mass media, hearkens back to McCarthyism and the red scare. In response, many people are starting to think that Armageddon might be nigh—an all-out nuclear exchange, followe

  • But seriously, who came up with that name? Can't we instead call it the Star Force?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      "who came up with that name?"

      Some guy who's always wanted to be the top Space Cadet.

    • I'm sure the name "Air Force" seemed silly when it was broken off from the Army to become it's own military branch in 1947.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        I'm sure the name "Air Force" seemed silly when it was broken off from the Army to become it's own military branch in 1947.

        Not really. The RAF (Royal Air Force) had already existed since the end of WWI, and it a logical step to go from the Army Air Corps to simply Air Force. Space Force does sound like a name straight out of a campy 50's pop novel, though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      who came up with that name?

      Someone who wanted to earn another service patch [shopify.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      No. Because the Space Force is not interstellar.

      • We call 'em astronauts and cosmonauts when not one has been past the orbit of the moon, though...
  • We know that massive technological advances were made in the 1800's and 1900's due to each country one-upping the other on technology. In WWI, one country would make a plane that could go 200mph, their enemy would make one that went 215mph. If this is applied to space warfare, we would achieve lightspeed, antimatter weapons, and antigravity far sooner than we would otherwise.

  • Made up names (Score:3)

    by Zaiff Urgulbunger ( 591514 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @10:58AM (#57122898)
    The name "Yleem D.S. Poblete" sounds like the type of name a race of alien lizard people would choose as sounding nice and inconspicuous!

    And that's coming from me!!

  • Start a space war branch.
    Whine that Russia for whatever related to war in space.

    Make sense.

    Also the agencies have no credibility for the stories they make up. Right now a top 10 video of militray plans which never happened is playing on my computer including CIA suggesting supporting American communists to attack the USA to put the blame on Cuba and make it possible to attack them.
    It's happened so many times.

    Of course Russia will make weapons for space war if the US do so.

  • We cannot allow a fake laser satellite gap!!! (Score:3)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2018 @11:13AM (#57123032)
    >> United States voiced deep suspicion on Tuesday over Russia's pursuit of new space weapons, including a mobile laser system to destroy satellites in space

    Clearly, the red-blooded Men of America cannot allow a fake laser satellite gap - open the nation's pocketbook now!!!

  • Firstly, why would I believe anything that the Trump administration says about anything?

    Secondly, it's a bit handy this coming a few days after the pile of vomit in in the White House twitted about his great new Space Force and how it will "dominate" the world, isn't it? Almost as if the two announcements were connected.

    Thirdly, what the hell should anyone about to be "dominated" by the US do? Sit and watch?

    Trump is a disgrace to his mother's cunt.

  • We designed bitcoin to allow us to track down all of Putin's cash horde, worldwide.

    Boy is he going to be surprised!

    • hahaha, he's not stupid enough to put money in that pyramid scam.

      mmm, boy, time to buy some, it's getting cheap. hahahaha

  • Both China and Russia are blowing big bucks on space weapons while claiming they want to stop it. What a joke.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close