Moonraker :
Posted on 06/22/2018 5:47:37 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
LOL...what is that??
Moonraker :
You refer to the strategic rocket forces. Russia has its ballistic missile force separate from the other branches. That's not a space force (but neither is what Trump has proposed if you follow other posts I have made on this topic.)
The Tungsten atom doesn't have a nucleus with a large nuclear mass?
Strongly disagree. The US and its allies use to great advantage (and are also more reliant on) space than most of our adversaries. MAD policy for space hurts us more than the bad guys. Its much better to have policies that prevent the weaponization of space. If we fail at that and real shooting starts, we lose a great advantage from the standpoint of communications and remote sensing that support our warfighters on the battlefield.
Yes, Dr Goodhead....
Ya know, right? mmmm...Mmmmmm.MMMMM. I would have tried re-entry with Dr. Holly "Jolly" Goodhead too:
Ah, Moonraker.
One of the not so great Bond movies.
At Jaws got some lines.
Honor Blackmon but she was quite a bit older than me.
Ditto Mie Hama.
...and their commo and early warning.
That would be nice, but does not seem realistic to me. Technology is producing new paradigms for waging war, in every theatre. There are ever-increasing asymmetrical capabilities. Rogue states like NK and Iran can do great damage. And peer adversaries can quickly wipe out our advantages as you suggest. Much better to acknowledge that we need better offense and defense and build those capabilities.
Considering the other side does not give a rip for "policy" how are you going to get them to follow said policies?
Write them sternly worded letters?
Maybe they can learn how to make babies in the process.
Actually, the Russians use space to their own advantage and would like to be able to continue to do so, and the Chinese are getting there themselves, so at some point, even the adversaries convince themselves that MAD is bad. We just have to continue to do space ‘better’. And at present we still do.
Sorry but the would be world denominators will at some point attempt to push us out of space with force unless they have some incentive not to do so.
That incentive is always the threat that we can knock them in the dirt and take their lunch money.
Since such things can not be pulled out of thin air they have to be built over time.
That is one path but its arguable that its the better path. Weaponizing space has several risks.
One, its VERY expensive, and we have limited resources. If you allocate 5 billion more for space, that costs the Navy a carrier, or the air force its next generation bomber. Its not for free.
Two, if we do have a space war exchange, the high ground now becomes a waste land for all. But we use and need that high ground most, so we stand to lose the most.
Three, weaponizing makes conflict more likely. We, the Russians, and the Chinese have spent huge sums on nuclear forces that we hope to never use. Unlike the nuclear forces, a war in space wont cost lives directly so its easier for one side to pull the trigger. For reason two, our goal is really not to have that conflict. So we would like to avoid, for reason one, spending all that extra national treasure (TAX PAYER dollars) if ultimately we don't want to use it and it could be better spent elsewhere.
My arguments aren’t my own, They come from a lifetime of experience and work in national defense, including combat, war college, industry. If you are going to start calling them stupid, then I have no problem letting you think what you want.
As Trump has demonstrated impressively with North Korea, incentive doesn’t always come in the form of a threat. Rest assured we don’t ignore the potential threats from our adversaries, but I can guarantee you that a space war has no winners. But all the talk of a space war is really myopic anyway. Space is a component and force multiplier for the war that takes place on the ground. So the priority is to make sure that we can fight and win those wars with or without space.
MAD has worked partly from the great reluctance to press a button and kill millions of people. But also because millions of your own people will be killed in response. The increasing use of space for peaceful purposes will help bolster a MAD deterrent. Space is very similar to cyber and getting closer to cyber all the time. We don't pretend that cyber can ever be demilitarized. OTOH we do not have MAD for cyber, and it is probably not possible, cyber is too robust. We need to make space similarly robust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.