Russia and China are planning to formally submit a space weapons ban treaty today at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva today. It’s not the first time, of course, that the two countries have tried to push for such an accord, and, as in the past, the US is expected to object to the treaty, arguing that there is no arms race in space. China’s ASAT test just over a year ago will no doubt add to the skepticism in American circles about China’s sincerity in pushing the treaty.
However, a poll last month found “large majorities” in favor of such a ban in both Russia and the US: 78 percent of Americans saying they US should negotiate a treaty banning attacks on satellites, while 65 percent of Russians said Russia should negotiate such a treaty. In an essay in The Space Review a couple weeks ago, Mike Moore argues that the US had little to lose to start such negotiations: the US already has a sizable lead over China in relevant technologies, so even if China is bluffing about their interest in a space weapons ban, the US will not be put at a disadvantage. “We are so far ahead of everyone else in the military uses of space, we could afford to spend a few years in serious negotiations. If it becomes apparent after two or three years that the Chinese and Russians were just posturing, we will have learned something important.”
Moore has a similar essay in Tuesday’s San Francisco Chronicle, in advance of a talk he is giving tonight at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California. In it, he concludes, “A good question for the remaining presidential candidates: Will you fight for such a treaty, or risk a new arms race?” (Given the difficulty of getting the candidates to commit to anything more than the basic details of their civil space policies, good luck with that.) Meanwhile, for those in the Washington area, the New America Foundation is hosting “Space Race With China? The Chinese Anti-Satellite Test and U.S.-China Relations in Space” today, an “engaging panel discussion and robust question-and-answer session” featuring Gregory Kulacki and Jeffrey Lewis.
Why would China carry out a space weapons test, and then turn around and push a treaty to ban that kind of thing?
Why would China…then turn around and push a treaty to ban that kind of thing?
Because they have no intention of keeping the treaty, but know that the West will do so.
OR for the cost of a sounding rocket they shot down an OLD satelite that was just about to deorbit and now they do not have to spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS developing weapon potentials they do not have the slightest ability to do now. Why not do a treaty, they did a asat test on the cheap and now could get a treaty that could save them tons. Reagan’s threat of star wars broke the russian bank when they tried to compete in space, if the chinese were to try it would break their bank too.
“Reagan’s threat of star wars broke the russian bank when they tried to compete in space, if the chinese were to try it would break their bank too.”
Sounds like a good reason to tell the Chi Coms to suck an egg.
” Because they have no intention of keeping the treaty, but know that the West will do so. ” -Craig Eddy
Because the US has never, *ever* broken a treaty, just because it suited them.
” Reagan’s threat of star wars broke the russian bank when they tried to compete in space, if the chinese were to try it would break their bank too.” -Vladislaw
Remind me, who owns whose debt again?
Reagan’s threat of star wars broke the russian bank when they tried to compete in space
I realize this has been gospel in some quarters for a long time, but it’s still bogus. Add up what the USSR spent in Afghanistan and on their broad strategic buildup in the 1970s; add in the impact of the high oil prices they were getting in the 1970s vs. the low prices of the 1980s. Compared to those, what they spent on responses to SDI was a rounding error.
Where and with what transportation system can a human routinely travel with that the U.S. military can not also travel?
Land, sea, air, whatever vehicle you choose the miliary has the capability to match what the civilian public can do.
Can anyone even remotely imagine that the military would give up cars and trucks and only civilians could use them? Or ships? Planes? Whatever transportation civilians have it is ALWAYS used by the military and in some cases e.g. submarines, the military uses more then civilians.
If someone wants to build a car, boat, or small plane in their garage and operative it is relatively easy to do, financially, technically and government regulations. Gone are the care free days of Goodard when anyone could build a rocket and launch them. Rockets were a whole new ball game and the government and military stepped in and civilians were VERY limited in what kind of model rockets you could make and civilan manned flight was a regulatory nightmare that no one would even consider.
In order for the Ansari X prize to proceed it had to be cleared by the Federal Government, who would consult with the military and do risk assesments as to whether civilian suborbital flight posed a security risk.
Suborbital civilian flight was BANNED prior to the Xprize. So today’s hype on the new suborbial space tourism could NOT have proceeded without a green light from the military.
Moore says the following: “Actually, the United States has been talking about space weapons for decades. Consider this bureaucratese from the U.S. Air Force Space Command’s Strategic Master Plan FY06 and Beyond: “Non-nuclear prompt global strike from and through space can transform the war fighter’s role in the future. Most notably, a non-nuclear strike capability, possibly in the form of a Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) launched by a ballistic missile, air launch system, or a SOV [Space Operations Vehicle], could provide the President and the Secretary of Defense with a range of space power options. These options are for deterrence and flexible response when time is absolutely critical, risks associated with other options are too high, or when no other courses of action are available.”
As a general rule the military stays technically ahead of the civilian marketplace by about 10 years, more or less on different catagories. There has been all kinds of stories about the military having manned suborbital or orbital capability. Like the Blackhorse, Aurora, et cetera these systems could have and can be already operational. Could the military today order some suborbital fighters? In my opinion, the political climate is not right and the military believes so also. How could you do it then? The way the military often times does it, they release the technology into the private sector and they then buy it “off the shelf” and no one thinks twice about it because it is now seen as a common everyday item.
In 2014 – 16 would the military beable to buy a suborbital fighter pretty much off the shelf? I believe so. Would anyone think it out of the ordinary that the military has vehicles that civilians do?
“Rather than explore our military options, the United States should denounce the “weaponization” of space and lead the treaty effort. A good question for the remaining presidential candidates: Will you fight for such a treaty, or risk a new arms race?” Arms Race In Space, Moore
So only civilians, smugglers and other villians should have cars, boats, planes? The military protects the interests of the United States of America and all our personal freedoms. Whatever form of transportation a bad guy can get from the civilian sector and where ever they can travel in it, I want our USA military to have that same capability. Our modern warfighter deserves no less.
D. Williams, I didn’t say what it did to our bank, only theirs. -smiles-
Monte Davis, ” realize this has been gospel in some quarters for a long time, but it’s still bogus. Add up what the USSR spent in Afghanistan and on their broad strategic buildup in the 1970s; add in the impact of the high oil prices they were getting in the 1970s vs. the low prices of the 1980s. Compared to those, what they spent on responses to SDI was a rounding error.”
What the Russians spent in afganistan was cheap BEFORE Reagan gave the afgans missles and Russian Helicopters and planes started dropping like flies. And THEN to top that Reagan tells them he is doing star wars. It brought Gorby to Rakavik.
You say I should “add in the high prices of the 1970’s” they were lowest in 71 and rose during the 70’s but didnt peak UNTIL the 80’s and russian production remained at it’s highest historic output THROUGHOUT the 1980’s and they saw the HIGHEST price for their oil ALL THROUGH the 1980’s. So you are totally incorrect on what you were saying. Russia was pumping more oil in the 80’s AND getting the best price for it AND was not inccuring the highest costs in the war. They lost 118 planes and 333 helicopters, I would imagine after Brezhnev died the two leaders had a hard time selling those losses and they only got higher when Gorby came in in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nominalrealoilprices.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top_Oil_Producing_Counties.png
I think Russia saw the writing on the wall and knew they could not keep pace. Regardless if SDI was a sole contributing factor, it was still a factor.
Vladislaw: “Rockets were a whole new ball game and the government and military stepped in and civilians were VERY limited in what kind of model rockets you could make and civilan manned flight was a regulatory nightmare that no one would even consider.”
High-powered amateur rocketry is alive and well in the U.S., without a high amount of regulation (FAA waivers, etc.) Go pick up a copy of Launch Magazine and see what civilians are up to in rocketry.
Vladislaw: “Suborbital civilian flight was BANNED prior to the Xprize. So today’s hype on the new suborbial space tourism could NOT have proceeded without a green light from the military.”
Um, no. Back up your statements with verifiable facts or take your tinfoil crockery someplace else.
they saw the HIGHEST price for their oil ALL THROUGH the 1980’s
Yep, going from $68/bbl in 1980-82 to the low $20s in 1989-91 sounds like a bonanza. You really ought to reconsider this habit of posting links that make nonsense of your own statements. And do you really not grasp that maintaining ~100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan (along with supporting and equipping 2-3x that many Afghan troops) cost a great deal more than their hardware losses?
Stay away from economics, Vladislaw, it embarrasses you (or should).
Monte – The Soviets were spending roughly half of their GDP on their military in the 80s, while we were spending roughly 6.5 per cent. It was not just SDI or Afghanistan that did the Soviets in, but the entire cumulative effect of trying to dominate the world with an economic system that was–putting it mildly–dysfunctional.
While a space weapons ban treaty sounds good, and has wide public support, I must agree with the other posters. China and Russia know we would abide by the treaty, while they do whatever they please.
side note: Anyone remember the military shuttle “West Wing” episode?
I wonder how many nukes you could fit in the payload bay. lol
I actually contacted an old friend and former VP at Rockwell Intl. who swore up and down “The only shuttles we built are the ones you see.”
Joe Smith, “High-powered amateur rocketry is alive and well in the U.S., without a high amount of regulation (FAA waivers, etc.) Go pick up a copy of Launch Magazine and see what civilians are up to in rocketry.”
Model Rocketeers Lash Back Against Federal Rules
By Alex Canizares
Special to SPACE.com 2000
“WASHINGTON (States News Service) — Model rocket hobbyists, arguing the future of the sport is in jeopardy, are turning to the courts to seek relief from increasing government regulation.
Fired up by recent actions to crack down on the sport practiced by thousands, rocket hobby associations are engaged in a legal battle with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms over its classification of the key ingredient used in rocket motors as an explosive.”
“The mounting paperwork and costs required to launch model rockets is having a chilling effect on the hobby, said Tripoli President Bruce Kelly. The sport already faces regulation from the Transportation Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies.”
—————————
Explosive Regulations Threaten to Kill Model Rocketry
By Jim Banke
Senior Producer, Cape Canaveral Bureau 2003
“HOUSTON — A provision deep within the regulations of the new Homeland Security Act is threatening to shut down the popular hobby of model rocketry because the propellant used to make the rocket’s solid-fueled motors is now classified as explosive material.
The change in status, approved in November 2002 as an update to the Safe Explosives Act of 1970, imposes new restrictions on shipping and handling the rocket motors, which have been safely flown by thousands of students for many years.
Under the new rules, which fully take effect May 24, shipping companies are required to have every employee who might touch the rocket motors be certified, pass background checks and get fingerprinted — an added expense the companies are unlikely to bear.”
—————————————————
Wall Street Journal Reports Hobby
Rocketry’s Struggle With Government Regulations
May 8, 2004 – Friday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal ran a story that summarized the on going battle between rocket hobbyists and the Department of Justice and ATFE over Government regulations. The article mentions that the classification of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) as an explosive is at the core of the problem. Reporter Robert Block also mentioned the ATFE tests at Hill AFB with hobby rockets and summarized the contention by hobbyists that their activities are not dangerous to the nation. He also mentioned in the article that some hobbyists are turning to amateur rocketry with home made motors to escape ATFE permit requirements.
The Wall Street Journal article reveals the attitude of some federal law enforcement officials towards the hobbyist with a quote. “Most of the people involved in these activities are harmless fanatics and nerds,” says one federal law-enforcement official. “But since 9/11, we have a responsibility to make sure the nerds are not terrorists.”
——————————
Oops, your correct, alive and well. And PRE Xprize the government was MORE favorable to MANNED flight? The House and Senate did not have to pass LAWS to let it happen?
“The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, or H.R. 5382, puts a clear legislative stamp on regulations already being formulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. More significantly, the law would eventually let paying passengers fly on suborbital launch vehicles at their own risk.”
And this law would “EVENTUALLY LET” paying passengers. empasis mine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6682611
“Safety concerns
H.R. 5382’s trip through Congress to the White House was not a smooth one: The legislative language was the result of months of negotiations, and the bill didn’t win final congressional passage until the final minutes of the session on Dec. 8.
The FAA’s role in suborbital spaceflight safety was a key sticking point: Under the terms of the legislation, the FAA would regulate the industry over the next eight years primarily to protect the uninvolved public and the public interest. The agency would start regulating space vehicles to ensure crew and passenger safety only if the operation of those vehicles resulted in death, serious injury or a dangerous close call. Beginning in 2012, the FAA could regulate suborbital spaceships however it saw fit.
The bill’s backers said the eight-year period would give spaceship developers more freedom to experiment and also allow them to generate revenue by taking on passengers, as long as those passengers knew exactly what they were getting into.
That two-step regulatory regime rubbed some House Democrats the wrong way. During last month’s floor debate, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said the legislation could encourage a “tombstone mentality,” in which regulators would have to stand by until someone got killed or seriously hurt. Nevertheless, the bill was resurrected and approved by the House, 269-120, on the last full day of November’s lame-duck session.
Final consideration in the Senate had to wait until an even later mini-session in December, which was required in order to approve an intelligence reform bill. The spaceflight bill went virtually unmentioned on the Senate floor, but the behind-the-scenes debate continued up to almost the last minute.
Firm opposition from even one senator could have stymied the bill, and if the Senate had not acted before ending its session, the legislation’s backers would have had to start from scratch next year — potentially delaying the industry’s development.”
You do not think this legislation will return under a democratic president like obama or clinton who will be going after everything bush did?
Monte: “Yep, going from $68/bbl in 1980-82 to the low $20s in 1989-91 sounds like a bonanza. You really ought to reconsider this habit of posting links that make nonsense of your own statements. And do you really not grasp that maintaining ~100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan (along with supporting and equipping 2-3x that many Afghan troops) cost a great deal more than their hardware losses?”
Stay away from economics, Vladislaw, it embarrasses you (or should).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nominalrealoilprices.gif
Monte see if you can wrap your mind around this:
The average price of oil from 1970 THROUGH half of 1979 was 12 dollars a barrel, this what you call the:
” add in the impact of the high oil prices they were getting in the 1970s vs. the low prices of the 1980s.” Monte Davis
It was only after deregulation that the price soared in late 1979 to almost 40 dollars ( nominal dollars) so the “70’s” did NOT see the high prices YOU SAID they did. The average price through the 1980’s was 28 dollars a barrel, more then TWO TIMES the price during the 70’s. The 80’s ended at the low 20’s dollars a barrel, STILL MORE then they were getting in the 70’s.
The soviets paid peanuts only provided domestically produced food and clothing through a command economy and stamps out AK 47’s like we produce video games, the standard russian troop in the early 80’s was pretty cheap in their system. What DID cost in THAT system, was HIGH TECH, and their planes and helicopters represented that. They did not have a commerical high tech sector to buy from so that equipment was pretty costly in relative terms.
Monte YOU ARE THE ONE having trouble with economics. I just showed you TWO TIMES, your statement
” add in the impact of the high oil prices they were getting in the 1970s vs. the low prices of the 1980s.” Monte Davis
was incorrect, deal with it.
Vladislaw
Vladislaw:
A minor nitpick it is spelled Reykjavik.
My take on the off-topic discussion:
As noted Russia (then Soviet Union) is among the three largest producers of oil in the world (even though they do it with fairly low efficiency). During the Cold War they were giving some of it away to Cuba in return for sugar they didn’t really need. They were of course supplying the rest of their allies as well before selling leftovers for “pure” profit.
High tech is far more costly for a country that doesn’t mind using millions as cannon fodder (I would even say they’re proud of it and in some ways they ought to be). The Stinger (and its ease of use) won the Afghan war, end of that story.
However the lesson of Afghanistan had ramifications particularly in respect to NATO defense of Germany. The envisioned massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact tank invasion of Germany (one of the three main WWIII European scenarios) looks very different when you have experience suggesting/supporting and lending credence to the idea of three-man fireteams destroying an average of three tanks before dying. The Soviets realized it too; their (still superior?) active tank armor can be traced to both the Afghan war and the German scenario.
The SDI (and I would note that everything SDI expect the fancy illustrations of orbiting battle-stations has been a part of the US military for a while now in some form or another) and other high-tech military endeavors had the Kremlin worried enough to spend plenty of resources. Whether or not their ground-based laser stations in Sibir ever became operational money was spent (to the best of my knowledge they went for the very culturally Russian brute force solution; at least ground-based lasers with orbiting mirrors seems like the one requiring the most brute force to me since the laser had to traverse the atmosphere twice). And how about that Buran?
Back to the original topic.
I don’t know the orbital mechanics of it and the more I think about it the less likely it seems but when I read about banning space weapons I wonder how many satellites could have somewhat inherent dual use. Could circumstances (orbit and fuel) allow already orbiting satellites to function as improvised kinetic kill vehicles?
I’d like to hear technical opinions on that considering how a lot of satellites aren’t that remote from each other in terms of delta v. How many satellites have sufficient delta v/propellant to potentially ram at least one other satellite? How many satellites would be able to deorbit fairly quickly in an aggressive manner and hitting a satellite (possibly in a lower orbit, possibly one owned by yourself) to produce debris fields? If only a few satellites have this possibility it would still blow a big hole in the notion of a ban.
Perhaps that’s all too farfetched but I have another issue I’d like to see discussed.
Sputnik allowed the US (and everybody else) to treat orbits as being outside the borders of sovereign nations.
The Chinese ASAT test allows the US (and everybody else) to…? If the answer is nothing then a piece of paper with the word “ban” might make sense but if the answer is “…to codify that national interests don’t stop 100 km up and that they will have to be defended militarily when deemed necessary” or something else (suggestions?) then such a treaty is at best officially supported idiocy (but sometimes that can be useful so there might still be a case for it).
OR for the cost of a sounding rocket they shot down an OLD satelite that was just about to deorbit and now they do not have to spend BILLIONS and BILLIONS developing weapon potentials they do not have the slightest ability to do now. Why not do a treaty, they did a asat test on the cheap and now could get a treaty that could save them tons. Reagan’s threat of star wars broke the russian bank when they tried to compete in space, if the chinese were to try it would break their bank too.
One word
Unverifiable.
I’m not sure a treaty could improve on the current situation.
Any endeavor that even looks like it might be a new space weapon or contribute to one is being avoided for fear of triggering an arms race, and the 1980/90s era prototypes are in museums or have been cannibalized because they contain excellent components that aren’t made any more.
The anti-space weapons people I know are emotionally and ideologically driven. They still believe space weapons are a big problem even when the reality on the ground (in the US at least) says otherwise. They wish for a treaty to end weapons because they think it will confine the evil enterprise of war to Earth. Logic does not apply, these are emotionally-held beliefs. Believe me I’ve tried.
But I digress. I’m actually quite surprised that Russia still feel they can trust China on this issue. While Russia focuses on Europe, China benefits.
Dennis: A treaty that is not 100% verifiable is not necessarily 100% valueless. Of course they (or we) could work in secret on ASAT technology despite a treaty banning it — but without testing (which would be detectible), they (or we) would have considerably less confidence in it, and to that extent it would be of less value in their (or our) strategic calculations.
The assumption behind “treaties that aren’t 100% verifiable are bad” is “…because they give us false confidence, we’ll relax and fall behind the state of the art, and one day the Bad Guys will surprise us.” In the real world, I’ve seen little evidence that we (or they) are or ever have been that naive. Nor, in this specific case, does it appear that the challenges of ASAT are amenable to breakthrough or “breakout” technology.
[…] has some fancy PR work to do, convincing the world, that non-WMD is necessary. Perhaps, the presidential candidates can offer a stance on a weapons ban? Sphere: Related […]
Monte you don’t sign a treaty unless you think you’re getting something out of it: so what does the US (or any other party to the agreement that intends to live up to it) get from a space weapons ban? Anything tangible?
By the way the problem with unverifiability isn’t that it can give you a sense of false confidence but that it can render the agreement effectively worthless in respect to the effort required –something one sees time and time again in popular feel-good treaties (and policies).
unverifiability… can render the agreement effectively worthless in respect to the effort required…slowdown imposed by the inability to test. That may be worth quite a lot.
When storm-driven sailors don’t have a big enough anchor or the bottom is too deep, they deploy a sheet anchor: a weighted sail that adds greatly to drag, slowing leeward movement. If it keeps the ship off the rocks until the wind subsides, try convincing the captain it’s “effectively worthless” because it’s not a true anchor.
As for “in respect to the effort required”… sending lots of diplomats to lots of meetings is dirt cheap compared to flight testing or deployment of a weapons system.
That should have begun:
unverifiability… can render the agreement effectively worthless in respect to the effort required…
“effectively worthless” is tendentious weasel wording. As long as R&D is undetectible, what I expect from such treaties is not a freeze but the slowdown imposed by the inability to test. That may be worth quite a lot.
No if you’re looking for a weasel word you should hone in on “can” ^_^
Let’s go with your setting; if the sea anchor underperforms and the ship ends up on the rocks anyway then there’s not much debating that it was worthless. So it can be effectively worthless. You said the same thing yourself: “If it keeps the ship off the rocks…”, yes if and if not then it was ineffectual, a failure, effectively worthless. You’re phrasing it from the point of view of success and I’m phrasing it from the point of view of failure.
Returning to the space weapons ban a slowdown could (oh no there it is again! ^_^) be something but what are the arguments for such a ban actually slowing down for example ASAT weapons development? Sure you couldn’t actually blow up satellites any more but there are other ways to test things, even publicly and in space (for example automatic/autonomous approach and docking; a much harder and more complex version of the most difficult thing an ASAT rocket does. There are differences but those can be minimized).
Still if we assume such a slowdown is the argument for the ban then isn’t it more likely that the nations suggesting it views the slowdown as hitting US efforts harder than their own?
Without anything on offer to US interests the conclusion must be that this simply isn’t intended as a serious proposal. Instead they’re using the idea to play politics and form a story-line advantageous to themselves. But even that won’t work if people see it for what it is.