Fire from the Sky

May 17, 2005 9:28 PM

Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Arms (nytimes.com). The US Air Force seeks to develop several frightening weapons,including one called "Rods from God," which would fire metal rods at a target from the edge of space, striking with the force of a small nuclear weapon. With a presidential directive expected in the weeks to come, what consequences could an approval have on the global community?
posted by Tlahtolli (53 comments total)

The "Rods from God" plan sounds like an issue of Warren Ellis' Global Frequency comic.
posted by papakwanz at 9:31 PM on May 17, 2005

"The Crossbow Project... Because there's no defense like a good offense."

Whaddaya say we watch that film on blinding techniques, and then go get some lunch?
posted by Triode at 9:42 PM on May 17, 2005

The "Rods from God" plan sounds like an issue of Warren Ellis' Global Frequency comic.

I was actually thinking it sounded like one of the religious porns from Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles".
posted by aburd at 9:46 PM on May 17, 2005

as long as they have catchy names, i'm all for weapons of mass descruction.
posted by puke & cry at 9:58 PM on May 17, 2005

The US Air Force seeks to develop several frightening weapons

Speaking as a liberal pacifist - why exactly are these weapons "frightening?" You've got a bit of bias on your shoulder there. If we were talking salted nuclear weapons capable of making Chernobyl look like Yosemite, then yes I can see that being labeled frightening as if it were objective fact. But simple kinetic energy weapons? There really isn't anything about that which strikes me as "frightening," so much as "unfortunate but inevitable."

The simple fact is that this was always going to happen - someone is going to do it at some point and there's no particular reason why we shouldn't be first, although the rest of the world will justifiably disagree with the latter statement. If anything we should be thankful that space-based NBCs appear to remain ruled out, as an ill-timed micrometeorite could result in a very very nasty global catastrophe in that case.

Hand-waving and histrionics aren't going to help anything or change the situation - there was never any way to stop this, and the proposed implementation could be far worse. Hopefully the impending economic collapse due to energy crisis, nearly $8 trillion debt will nip it in the bud but sooner or later this will happen, just as a rogue state (North Korea) inevitably managed to acqure a nuclear weapon. You can't prevent these things from ever happening, only delay them.
posted by Ryvar at 9:58 PM on May 17, 2005

Ryvar with the optimist's viewpoint, I see.
posted by papakwanz at 10:03 PM on May 17, 2005

Ryvar: Point conceded on the bias.

I say they're frightening not only because to me it's the depersonalization of combat to the maximum level. Well maybe not at the ground level.

Supposing North Korea and Iran are handled diplomatically (I hope), what kind of threat would warrant the use of these weapons?

I suppose the movie Akira really impressed me, with the huge laser beams falling from the sky and annihilating places.
posted by Tlahtolli at 10:25 PM on May 17, 2005

For what it's worth, no country should have the option of waging warfare from space. The only two countries that did have that capability signed an agreement space would not be used for warfare. Wonder what country broke that agreement first. Hmmmmm.
No other country on earth is capable of fielding such weapons, no other country on earth has the budget for it. No other country on earth stands to lose so much by doing so.
We are not the chosen few here. Only the damned many.
We need to stop screwing with the planet like it's our plaything because the world is getting pissed and every american is eventually going to suffer from this screwing around, whether it be neo-con or liberal. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
So as you sow so shall you reap. . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:28 PM on May 17, 2005

A third program would bounce laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites

Oh, humanity! Did Real Genius teach us nothing?
posted by ruddhist at 10:32 PM on May 17, 2005

And I was just thinking how "Hellfire" missiles are a remarkable amount of hubris. "America, we're for the rule of law, but our military is strictly divine right."

Oh, and with all due respect, Ryvar, you have given nothing like an argument for "this was always going to happen". There is far more than hand-waving and histronics in the repertoire of well-meaning people. Some of us believe it is the goal of international law to see that such systems do not come about. Others direct their energies at tearing such systems down. It reminds me of the "no civilization has ever built a weapon they didn't use" argument for why nuclear holocaust was inevitable.

We put some serious brakes on nuclear ambitions that may have worked completely if not for Reagan's antics at Reykjavik.

We may not be able to stop it, but we can give it our best.
posted by ontic at 10:34 PM on May 17, 2005

Here's another thought: We develop these weapons, deploy them, think we're all king shit and everything, then we have a situation like where the U.S.S.R. obtained the Hydrogen Bomb, except it's control over our 'Rods from God', said nation says 'screw it, these guys are assholes' and we have righteous vengeance visited upon us from space . . . How many country's across the world are going to come running to our aid in that scenario? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
posted by mk1gti at 10:46 PM on May 17, 2005

I say they're frightening not only because to me it's the depersonalization of combat to the maximum level. Well maybe not at the ground level.

What significant difference in terms of depersonalization is there between a satellite dropping a tungsten rod from orbit on a building because someone at a control station pressed 'Launch,' and an Aegis cruiser launching a Tomahawk cruise missle because someone at a control station pressed 'Launch?' Or even that one video that was all over the 'net for a time showing the turret-cam of an AC-130 gunship killing several individuals with explosive rounds?

There isn't a significant difference in terms of the process of releasing the ordinance, nor is there a significant difference to those on the receiving end of said ordinance. All that's changed is the theater.

Supposing North Korea and Iran are handled diplomatically (I hope), what kind of threat would warrant the use of these weapons?

I hope so too. As for what threat necessitates the development of such weapons, one only needs to look at the development of radar, guided missles, and most notably nuclear weapons - the threat of somebody else getting there first. Do you really think that absolutely every single major country economically capable of developing space-based weapons platforms over the next half century can be trusted not to do so? Especially those who have a strong desire for a strategic advantage such as China so that it can invade Taiwan with impunity? How many of those potential nations would even have the courtesy of the United States to announce that they were doing so in the first place?

Above and beyond that, there's the principle of contigency planning. If you wait for the situation which requires said weapons to arise, you're generally not going to have them until it's too late.

I suppose the movie Akira really impressed me, with the huge laser beams falling from the sky and annihilating places.

While I appreciate the shock value popular culture has on our perception of these things, you have to look at the forest rather than the trees to understand why they happen. Nobody wants people to drop the stupidity and the tribalism and the mutual threats of total annihilation more than I do, but until the human race as a whole does a hell of a lot of growing up it simply isn't an option. Banking on it isn't just bad policy - it's downright suicidal. Especially with world opinion of America being what it is thanks to this administration. We're committed to this path now, such as it is, thanks to the short-sightedness and stupidity of our leaders. All we can do now is try not to get killed because of it.

On preview:
Ontic I thought the reasoning behind my statement was pretty self-evident. On a long enough timeline the probability of nearly anything trends towards one, including the destruction of Earth.
posted by Ryvar at 10:47 PM on May 17, 2005

ruddhist - lasers bouncing off mirrors in space is actually the plot of "Spies Like Us". And, frankly, if it means we can blow up the satellite carrying MTV, I'm all for lasers being fired into space.
posted by nathan_teske at 10:55 PM on May 17, 2005

"Rods from God" are nothing new, it's been a concept since the RAND corporation proposed adding rods to ICBM tips in the 1950's. There's a nice document on kinetic space weapons on their site. Also known as 'Hypervelocity Rod Bundles' or long-rod penetrators, there are some issues that limit their effectiveness. Example: presentation from 2003 on space-based weapons, touches on the limitations and requirements of such a system, among others. (link from 2004 Wired article covering space warfare.) Regardless, it seems to be a fairly low-probability development until we make space flight quite a bit cheaper. At which point, we can get off this rock when it all goes bad, anyway.
posted by sysinfo at 10:57 PM on May 17, 2005

Ryvar:
I'm not sure I agree with having to get there first before anyone else does. That's like automatically assuming that everyone is on the same mindset we are.


But you know, you're right. If we're going to have to fight our enemies, we should think like them. Except now, we've created a problem for ourselves because in thinking like our enemies and throttling that to as far as we possibly can, we find that we're out there by ourselves. We're already miles ahead of anyone as far as death and destruction goes.

Again, I don't think I like that line of thinking: that in order to win over our enemies, we become our own worst enemy to show everybody who's boss.
posted by Tlahtolli at 10:58 PM on May 17, 2005

sysinfo, I'm glad I didn't move into your old apartment.
posted by fenriq at 11:01 PM on May 17, 2005

What? Once the defense journals and engineering schematics were cleared away, it was a pretty nice place! The steel-reinforced walls made it quite fireproof.

Well, maybe not. I didn't have those links before I started my comment, just remembered a Pournelle/Niven story with a kinetic weapon system in it and started looking around. The book was Footfall, if you're curious. The system was "Project Thor".
posted by sysinfo at 11:21 PM on May 17, 2005

Is it just me or does it seem like the world is getting more evil?
posted by garycarlson at 11:27 PM on May 17, 2005

garycarlson:
I wish it were you. Then we'd all know who to blame.
posted by Tlahtolli at 11:38 PM on May 17, 2005

We're already miles ahead of anyone as far as death and destruction goes.

Good.

Again, I don't think I like that line of thinking: that in order to win over our enemies, we become our own worst enemy to show everybody who's boss.

The former statement does not follow from the latter. Being superior in arms does not harm one's self. And falling back on the "it's so impersonal" argument is insanity - there's no moral difference between swinging a sword at someone's neck and pushing a button to drop a kinetic-energy-weapon (formerly known as Thor). If you have the option of doing both, choose the one that's more effective.
posted by kmmontandon at 11:42 PM on May 17, 2005

kmmontandon:
I think your argument assumes that we can be trusted enough to use our weaponry responsibly. At one point with all the superiority thrown around, there's not going to be anyone to deal with us, but us.

As for the it's so impersonal argument, you're right. It's what's most effective that works. I guess it's just the removal of humanity that bothers me.
posted by Tlahtolli at 12:03 AM on May 18, 2005

sysinfo:
Thanks. The 2003 report you linked to makes discussion of several types of space-based weapons - penetrator rods in particular - seem moot. I would like to see a more thorough one though, namely one taking into account the possibility of using iridium rods. I also fail to grasp why SBLs would have to use conventional fuel as a power source, rather than a system of solar panels and capacitors.

Harry:
I don't like it either, frankly, but I don't see a viable alternative that keeps me alive after taking human nature into account.

We seem to have split the conversation between the ethics of further developing new forms of weapons of mass destruction, and the economic viability of such weapons. I'd like to suggest broadening the scope of the former portion to include any and all next-generation weaponry (antimatter, genetically engineered and targetted virii, nanotechnological weapons, etc).

I think most of the nations capable of fielding next-generation weapons (the USA, Russia, China, India, Israel, France, Germany, and Britain are the obvious ones) could be trusted not to do so over the course of their next few administrations (except the USA) assuming none of the others did. However, you can't deny that at least three of those (Israel, India, and China) have a compelling strategic interest in doing so because of bad relationships with neighboring governments (the entire Middle East, Pakistan, and Taiwan, respectively). Eventually one of them probably would.

Alternatively, we have to consider that given the rate of world industrialization - assuming the entire world doesn't undergo severe economic collapse (if, say, oil were to run out well before the development of fusion power or wide proliferation of fission) - that it is entirely plausible that Somalia could be capable of fielding rudimentary next-gen weapons in fifty to seventy-five years.

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was written in 1968, only five countries were 'supposed' to be allowed to ever develop nuclear weapons. Since then at the very least India, Pakistan, almost certainly Israel and North Korea have developed such. Iran will soon join them if it hasn't already.

That's a doubling of nuclear-capable nations in approximately forty years. Space-based and other next-generation weapons are no different.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a hell of a way to run a planet, which is why like sysinfo I think our best bet is to spread our race out to other planets of which we can also be mutually assured of destroying. Hopefully we'd stay ahead of the game for at least a little while.
posted by Ryvar at 12:06 AM on May 18, 2005

Ryvar:
I see what you're saying... that basically, there is no other course for us to follow.

...

...dude, that hella sucks
posted by Tlahtolli at 12:17 AM on May 18, 2005

Some proselytizing:

Harry there is another course in the sense that mankind could spontaneously begin to behave in a mature, rational manner at the macroscopic level.

There's also a chance that every air molecule in my apartment could give probability the middle finger and crowd into a corner causing me to explosively decompress - or that space-based weaponry will never be developed until the universe comes to an end.

But none of these things are very likely.

The problem is 'simply' that tribalism, healthy paranoia, and the will to make expedient choices at the expense of the lives of others are all bred into the human race at the cellular level. These traits are naturally selected for in nearly all primates including hunter-gatherers and early agrarian farmers - which is roughly where we stopped significantly evolving as a species. Our failure to evolve beyond these behaviors - and inability to muster the will as a species to breed them out of ourselves either via eugenics or direct genetic engineering - is what all but assures our eventual demise as a species at each others' hands. One, or even many individuals can and sometimes do behave in a focused, rational manner which defies these genetically ingrained behaviors - but the human race as a whole is unlikely to ever stop reflecting the lack of intelligence and perspective possessed by the average individual unless there is a significant disruptive event or technology of some kind.
posted by Ryvar at 12:53 AM on May 18, 2005

(keep your fingers crossed)
posted by Ryvar at 12:56 AM on May 18, 2005

Big sci-fi fan huh, Ryvar? It'll never happen - look at the arguments against abortion, genemod foods and stem cells. There is no way that the average person is going to get behind genetically engineering in the way you might suggest.

Also, for a moment - think about the possibility of breeding behaviours out of the human race, like for example rebellious attitudes, authoritarian regimes would love that one...
posted by longbaugh at 2:03 AM on May 18, 2005

Longbaugh:

I don't believe, given my current layman's knowledge of genetic engineering, that such a thing is possible. However, nearly every day we seem to find some trait that at the very least influences behaviors thought to arise for purely sociological reasons. One recent study claims that there is a genetically heritable trait which can make a person more or less inclined to be religious.

Because I cannot exclude the possibility of a tribalism trait nor have sufficient knowledge to understand the nuances of such a thing even if there was evidence it existed, I logically am in no position to comment one way or the other. What I can state though based upon my observation of human society is that if such a thing existed, we wouldn't breed it out of ourselves for exactly the reasons you state. I probably should've have rewritten that sentence to include 'even if such a thing were possible', because that was what I meant. Sorry. You and I do not, in fact, disagree.
posted by Ryvar at 2:23 AM on May 18, 2005

The "Rods from God" plan sounds like an issue of Warren Ellis' Global Frequency comic.

"The concept of kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on the tips of ICBMs in the 1950s; the satellite twist was popularized by sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle." Popular Science, June, 2004
posted by caddis at 4:19 AM on May 18, 2005

Jesus you 'it's bound to happen so we have to do it first and more radically' people are sick in the head. Your very existence is some kind of demented, self-fulfilling prophecy.

there's no moral difference between swinging a sword at someone's neck and pushing a button to drop a kinetic-energy-weapon (formerly known as Thor).

What? No moral difference as to the result, sure, since dead is dead. But there's a hell of a real difference as to how easy one is to do over the other. If I have the option of killing I man I need believes killing (whether he murdered my family or I'm just batshit insane), the difference between confronting him physically and a knife and trying to overpower him to sink it into his flesh, watching and feeling him struggle and die or just yawning and pushing a button from a safe and private room to have him vaporized is just about everything in the world.

Yes, the latter does in fact desensitize the fuck out of the killer in this case. It removes him or her from the act. It makes it incredibly easy, and it turns something that is the most radical drama and tension possible in life into a repercussion-free 'process'.

I really hope to God that these views of yours aren't the product of serious thought. That would be almost as terrifying as the thought of computerized death machines flying overhead at all times. You know, because computers are so fucking secure and problem-free.
posted by the_savage_mind at 4:25 AM on May 18, 2005

That would be almost as terrifying as the thought of computerized death machines flying overhead at all times.

They're called F-14s and F16s. They both have multiple onboard computer systems. They patrol D.C. and NYC's airspace nearly constantly, last I heard.

Their pilots have certainly never been knowing to commit acts of joyriding and stupidity, and it is impossible that one of them could ever snap and start firing missles. Computers crash, yes, but so do people.

watching and feeling him struggle and die or just yawning and pushing a button from a safe and private room to have him vaporized is just about everything in the world.

The simple fact is that killing was densensitized a long, long time ago. Consider how many casualties to artillery fire there were in World War 2 - did the attackers ever see their targets? Did the victims ever see who killed them? What about the bombers in B-17s?

We passed that point a long time ago, and it's too late now to go back. What moral difference is there between accomplishing these impersonal, push-button kills with artillery and accomplishing them with cruise missles? Or Predator drones? Or satellite-based weaponry?

Another point to consider - the people making the decisions to engage in these pathetic squabblings over land and resources will never see actual combat. For them it has always been impersonal since the dawn of feudalism. The real question is whether you want to scar the psyches of the people forced to perform the killings frequently against their will and better judgement or not. Many of them had no options outside of starvation, a lifetime behind a gas station counter, or the military.

Jesus you 'it's bound to happen so we have to do it first and more radically' people are sick in the head. Your very existence is some kind of demented, self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think I've amply explained why these things will happen regardless of our actions. Perhaps instead of making moral proclamations without justification you could point out what you believe to be the critical flaw in my reasoning?
posted by Ryvar at 4:44 AM on May 18, 2005

People also have to consider that such an overwhelming weapons advantage ,in the minds of adversaries, justifies any tactic or any method in the hope of achieving parity. Armies that are well-matched don't resort to guerilla warfare or, for that matter, terrorism.
posted by costas at 5:39 AM on May 18, 2005

They're called F-14s and F16s. They both have multiple onboard computer systems. They patrol D.C. and NYC's airspace nearly constantly, last I heard.

Oh yes, because there's no difference between a mostly mechanical jet that isn't prone to being hacked and an orbital death machine that is designed to be controlled by wireless transmissions that can drop nuclear-equivalent blasts all over the globe. Much like a knife and afore-mentioned orbital death machine are really the same things as well.

We passed that point a long time ago, and it's too late now to go back. What moral difference is there between accomplishing these impersonal, push-button kills with artillery and accomplishing them with cruise missles? Or Predator drones? Or satellite-based weaponry?

Again, it's a matter of scale. I won't argue with you that things went too far a while ago. Frankly this is why I have issues with hand-guns. Too god-damned easy to kill someone. Fists and knives take so much more in the way of guts or being disturbed, I think we'd have a lot less in the way of murder going on if it was honestly a tougher and more personal issue. But just because we've had anti-aircraft guns fired by a guy in a little room, that doesn't somehow equate to it being great to waste hundreds of billions of dollars more that we've already wasted on machines that will certainly increase the risk of massive damage dramatically. It's like the asinine decision to pursue tactical nukes. Tactical fucking nukes. "Bunker Busters". Yee-fucking-ha, go cowboy! We're worried about nuclear proliferation, so the answer, obviously, is to inject much more usable nukes into the world. The logic of these fucking cowboys (and I'd recommend going back and reading the quotes in the article from the air-force general... he's like a character out of Dr. Strangelove with his talk about American destiny) does in fact sicken me.

Another point to consider - the people making the decisions to engage in these pathetic squabblings over land and resources will never see actual combat. For them it has always been impersonal since the dawn of feudalism. The real question is whether you want to scar the psyches of the people forced to perform the killings frequently against their will and better judgement or not. Many of them had no options outside of starvation, a lifetime behind a gas station counter, or the military.

I do not in any way, shape or form want to make it easier for people to engage in the mass slaughter of other people. You go ahead and color it any way you like. I don't care if they are a mass of starving orphans. That in no way makes it a 'good' thing to make either conscious or accidental nuclear-equicalent blasts from space a desirable or even an acceptable development. I'm sorry you feel differently. I'm very sorry that that is your reality.

I think I've amply explained why these things will happen regardless of our actions. Perhaps instead of making moral proclamations without justification you could point out what you believe to be the critical flaw in my reasoning?

The critical flaw is that there is no proof that these things have to happen. They only have to happen if they are allowed (or encouraged, as the case may be) to happen. Bullshit mantras about manifest-space-destiny while we trash our own treaties to keep space from being militarized. It's nothing but a demented failure of ethics, will and human preservation that is really all about greed. Hundreds of billions blown on missile defense that we already knew was a no-go? I got it... we and our Defense Dept. buddies can cash on several new systems that will cost even more over the next ten years.

The armed response paradigm is losing us our current war. They money could be far better invested in things like collecting the loose nuclear material from former Soviet bloc countries, to adequate education, food and shelter for the world's poor. To developing real democracies that don't churn out hordes of raging, anti-American fanatics in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines and now, woo Demecracy!, Uzbekistan. To developing real energy policies that de-link foreign policy from quick-sand and flash-fires. I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky, here, I'm talking reality.

The reality is that the same god-damn tactics keep producing the same results. If you can't realize that and move on to trying other tactics that have been shown to have far more effect keeping the nation secure, then I have zero problem characterizing that as mental illness.
posted by the_savage_mind at 6:04 AM on May 18, 2005

I also fail to grasp why SBLs would have to use conventional fuel as a power source, rather than a system of solar panels and capacitors.

I am not a laser weapon engineer, nor do I play one on tv, but my understanding is that all of the lasers powerful enough to be useful weapons are chemical, not electrical, so you need the (unpleasant) fuels to make them go zap.

We seem to have split the conversation between the ethics of further developing new forms of weapons of mass destruction

None of these are city-killers. Except in that narrow sense where, if you were really industrious, you could wipe out a city with any weapon including a single sharp stick.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:15 AM on May 18, 2005

Who knew that Batman posted to Metafilter?
posted by Snyder at 6:21 AM on May 18, 2005

yeah, yeah, Snyder, that's actually funny. I know the whole 'gun too easy' thing is trés Batman, but I believe it's true. In the heat of things, people will often do (or say) something if the risk isn't severe.
posted by the_savage_mind at 6:36 AM on May 18, 2005

I used to think that guns were "too easy", too. The twitch of a finger could terminate a life from 300 yards.
If you are gonna kill someone, take a knife, get right up close to them, and plunge it in.
Watch their eyes glaze over. Feel their last gurgling, gasping breath on your cheek.

But then I started thinking, "I best be gettin' me some o' them gunz, afore they outlaw 'em alltogether."

Now I have a descent stockpile. There may be a time when they will be considered some of the wisest purchases of my life.
posted by Balisong at 6:45 AM on May 18, 2005

swinging a sword at someone's neck

I kind of see the Rods from God being more like the sword of Damocles.
posted by caddis at 6:53 AM on May 18, 2005

That's no moon... it's a space station!
posted by fet at 6:57 AM on May 18, 2005

The only thing I could see this being a usefull tool would be if it was used to "zap" much of the random orbiting debris that is circling the planet.
But at the cost, and the fact that any slippery slope scenario looks like a killer double black diamond ready to be shreded by this administration, that a project of this scale and power can't be trusted in the hands of this adminstration.
They have no choice but to fuck it up worse than any worse case scenario. It's what they do. It's who they are. It defines them.
posted by Balisong at 7:03 AM on May 18, 2005

The idea that a falling rod is going to have the impact of a 'small nuke' is just silly.

I mean how is a rod going to cause more damage then an entire space shuttle falling to the ground? It's not.

And how much damage did the space shuttle cause when it fell? hardly any.

This is just about funding some pet project.
posted by delmoi at 8:37 AM on May 18, 2005

The US has the most advanced weapons systems in the world, and this, to some degree improves the stability of the world. US doctrine emphasizes technological superiority, to the point that the other nations give up hope of matching the US qualitatively.

In other news, I had heard that the US was developing attack spheres for ground combat. Essentially, huge spheres that would roll around searching for the enemy, and would have machineguns and grenade launchers. My friend suggested they should pain these yellow, with a smiley face. : >
posted by hurting.the.feelings.of.thechinesepeople at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2005

This is a good (thoughtful, civil) conversation. Delmoi, the space shuttle never fell from orbit, in one case it was more or less torn apart in an explosion and most of it landed in the ocean, in small bits, from a relatively low altitude. Second time it came apart during a gliding descent. Nowhere near terminal velocity. Small, dense objects dropped from orbit can go quite a bit of damage. Not that this isn't another boondoggle.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:00 AM on May 18, 2005

Looks at the facts: Very high power. Portable. Limited firing time. Unlimited range. All you'd need is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 9:12 AM on May 18, 2005

You have, unfortunately, setup a major strawman and proceeded to burn it to a crisp. Let's take a look at what I've actually said over the course of this thread:

1. I said that these new weapons were not significantly more 'frightening' than existing weapons. sysinfo's link to the 2003 analysis of the practicality of space-based weapons systems bears this out.

2. I said that the development of next-generation weapons was inevitable due to international competition for a strategic advantage, and that there was no particular reason for America not to develop them first, outside of the madmen running our government. At no point did I ever suggest that developing these weapons was a good thing or a useful expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

3. I said that the situation could have been significantly worse - placing NBCs in orbit where a satellite failure and uncontrolled reentry could have horrifying consequences (widely dispersed plague, atmospheric irradiation). Tungsten rods are, relatively speaking, harmless in comparison (see sysinfo's link).

4. I said that there was no significant difference between the impersonal nature of entering coordinates and firing artillery, and the impersonal nature of entering coordinates and deorbiting tungsten rods.

5. I pointed out that three nations with the necessary resources to begin development of these and other next-generation weapons had significant interest in obtaining strategic advantages over neighboring countries, even if they could be trusted not to pursue such for their next few administrations. I also pointed out that given the pace of world development that in another fifty years even the poorest of nations may be able to consider developing these weapons. In support of this I pointed out that the number of countries with nuclear capability had doubled since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was established.

6. I said that despite my wishes that humanity would mature a little, it was unlikely to happen anytime soon and in light of this falling behind in the arms race could be extremely dangerous. That our leaders set us on this path and we were bound to it due to their short-sightedness. That given the genetically-ingrained tendency towards tribalism, we might very well destroy ourselves.

7. Finally, in response to you I pointed out that we had computerized death machines flying overhead already, flown by even more unreliable humans. That killing has been densensitized for a long time now. That for the people who were responsible for making the decisions warfare has always been impersonal and without risk - and there is no need to psychologically damage those who are often forced into carrying out their wishes.

Oh yes, because there's no difference between a mostly mechanical jet that isn't prone to being hacked and an orbital death machine that is designed to be controlled by wireless transmissions that can drop nuclear-equivalent blasts all over the globe. Much like a knife and afore-mentioned orbital death machine are really the same things as well.

'Mostly mechanical' jets, or rather their larger counterparts (bombers) can and do carry nuclear weapons capable of obliterating cities. I'd say that the reliability of nuclear submarine captains, missle silo commanders, nuclear bomber pilots and most especially our beloved president are the weak link in the chain, not encryption algorithms that have withstood the best efforts of two generations of the world's finest mathematicians and cryptologists. Secondly, see sysinfo's link - the space-based weapons, at least, are nowhere even near existing nuclear weapons in power.

The weapons and the security of their triggering mechanisms are not the problem - the people controlling them are and always have been, and space-borne weapons for specialized purposes will do little to add to their ability to cause destruction on an apocalyptic scale. Even if that were the goal of these systems, which it is not.

Again, it's a matter of scale. I won't argue with you that things went too far a while ago.

It is indeed a matter of scale - but one of time. Combat wasn't just impersonal during World War 2, it was impersonal when the Basilic pounded the walls of Constantinople with cannonfire in 1453.

There's no going back from here.

Frankly this is why I have issues with hand-guns. Too god-damned easy to kill someone. Fists and knives take so much more in the way of guts or being disturbed, I think we'd have a lot less in the way of murder going on if it was honestly a tougher and more personal issue.

You'd be wrong, then. Gun homicides have dropped from 8,000 per year to 5,000 since 1995. Knife homicides have remained steadily at 2,500 in that time. The tougher and more personal method has remained constant while the 'easy' method has dropped nearly forty percent. I will say, however, that handguns and SMGs are easily concealed and carried where rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles are not, so there's something to be said for attempting to keep them off the streets (while noting that violent crime in the UK has skyrocketed since most firearms were outlawed there).

But just because we've had anti-aircraft guns fired by a guy in a little room, that doesn't somehow equate to it being great to waste hundreds of billions of dollars more that we've already wasted on machines that will certainly increase the risk of massive damage dramatically. It's like the asinine decision to pursue tactical nukes. Tactical fucking nukes. "Bunker Busters". Yee-fucking-ha, go cowboy! We're worried about nuclear proliferation, so the answer, obviously, is to inject much more usable nukes into the world. The logic of these fucking cowboys (and I'd recommend going back and reading the quotes in the article from the air-force general... he's like a character out of Dr. Strangelove with his talk about American destiny) does in fact sicken me.

You do a disservice to any valid points you might make by blanketly ascribing irrationality to those you disagree with, and describing them as caricatures rather than confronting their actual words and finding fault with their actual reasoning. Knee-jerk reactionary attitudes make you look bad, not them, and since what you want is what I want in the final measure, I'd prefer you didn't.

In any case, see my second point above: I agree that developing next-generation weapons is economically a waste, but given that some nation eventually developing them is just shy of inevitable it would be a mistake to not have parity especially given the rest of the world's feelings towards the United States. This money is sadly wasted, but we're stuck on this path thanks to the colossal stupidity of the Bush administration and as with impersonal combat there is no going back now.

I do not in any way, shape or form want to make it easier for people to engage in the mass slaughter of other people. You go ahead and color it any way you like. I don't care if they are a mass of starving orphans. That in no way makes it a 'good' thing to make either conscious or accidental nuclear-equicalent blasts from space a desirable or even an acceptable development. I'm sorry you feel differently. I'm very sorry that that is your reality.

I would challenge you to find where I said that I wanted to make it easier for people to kill other people - I am, as I said, a liberal pacifist. I said that I wanted humanity to grow up, rather than flush money down the spiral of the arms race. But humanity growing up is not an option, and our leaders throughout human history have never demonstrated the ability to behave like adults at the macroscopic level. Because of those leaders who rarely experience war as anything other than impersonal decisions they make in a comfortable office we are trapped in our current situation - and all the chest-beating in the world won't change this fact.

Failing humanity growing up or spending money on anything worthwhile, I would prefer not to die. There is a world of difference between 'desirable,' 'acceptable,' and 'necessary due to inevitability.'

The critical flaw is that there is no proof that these things have to happen. They only have to happen if they are allowed (or encouraged, as the case may be) to happen. Bullshit mantras about manifest-space-destiny while we trash our own treaties to keep space from being militarized. It's nothing but a demented failure of ethics, will and human preservation that is really all about greed. Hundreds of billions blown on missile defense that we already knew was a no-go? I got it... we and our Defense Dept. buddies can cash on several new systems that will cost even more over the next ten years.

You can't prove an untestable hypothesis, period. What you can do in this case is look at every historical prescedent and draw conclusions. The history of nuclear weapons has some very, very direct parallels to the current situation, and I think you know what conclusions those parallels indicate. Manifest-space-destiny mantras are, I agree, bullshit. But just because someone is wrong about statement A does not automatically mean that they are wrong about statement B. You were flat-out wrong about knife and blunt object crime decreasing, but there were a couple points above where you were right and I said so. Just because one general has his head up his ass does not render his basic assertion - that we will eventually have to develop these weapons if for no other reason than parity - somehow magically false.

The money is wasted, but our administration has backed us into a corner on this and many, many other critical issues due to their inability to make sound decisions on nearly any topic.

The armed response paradigm is losing us our current war. They money could be far better invested in things like collecting the loose nuclear material from former Soviet bloc countries, to adequate education, food and shelter for the world's poor. To developing real democracies that don't churn out hordes of raging, anti-American fanatics in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines and now, woo Demecracy!, Uzbekistan. To developing real energy policies that de-link foreign policy from quick-sand and flash-fires. I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky, here, I'm talking reality.

You apparently fail to grasp that there is a difference between escalation and contingency planning. The money could and should be better spent, but that option is - in any realistic assessment of the facts at hand - now beyond us. I agree that educating the world's power is an important task, but disagree with feeding and sheltering them. One of the many factors driving our current geopolitical situation - of which space-borne weapon systems are a result - is our ongoing population explosion. Food and shelter increase birthrates. Education and birth control reduce them. You say you want to talk reality - is it better that one billion die of starvation now or fifteen billion die choking on a poisonous atmosphere in a century?

Our foreign policy is an abortion, but even a complete reversal of course won't undo the damage for decades.

Our hands have been tied by our leaders, and the best we can hope for now is to ensure our survival.
posted by Ryvar at 9:14 AM on May 18, 2005

Attack Spheres would not work out for several reasons -

a) they would be too high on the modern battlefield.
b) to fully armour a sphere with the same level as an MBT would be counterproductive.
c) they would simply suffocate you and drop you back off at Portmeirion at the end of each episode.

Thor is a pointless weapon - the cost of putting a heavy rod in space is in no way proportional to the cost of a single tank (and that's what it would be used for - at least in it's original conception). IIRC it's $10K/lb via shuttle launch and a heffing great big rod is going to weight a lot more than 1lb, especially if it has to have things like a seeker head and GPS with vanes/fins for steering. It's cheaper to use an Apache with Hellfire missiles to take out up to 16 tanks per flight.

Never happen. The only reason it would is for our old friends, the military to spend more money on crap. How many ways do you need to kill someone? The Iraqi resistance have managed to take out $4.3 million tanks with RPGs for heavens sake.

/is really down 'cos all the cool sci-fi stuff he reads about is never going to happen because people are frightened of science.
posted by longbaugh at 9:19 AM on May 18, 2005

Yes, you've said many things so far in this thread. However, speaking of straw men, you've also chosen to ignore the things I responded to and insert many things I didn't respond to in your last post.

1. Nowhere does it 'show' that space-based mass destruction is no less scary than current planetary alternatives. Please cite the proof of this rather than just assert it. Specifically, a combination of ease of use (not just technically but also being able to get away with it geopolitically), degree of destruction, impact on innocents, and likilihood that it can be coopted by either error or conscious effort.

2. You said it's inevitable, and in your previous post asked me to find the flaw in that. I told you where the flaw in that is. It's fallacious from the get-go, unless you care to back your initial statement about it being inevitable up with some kind of proof of said inevitability. If you're going to fall back on 'that's the way it's been,' I'm just going to respond with 'well why the hell not try something new for once then'. In a concerted, global effort. Instead of trashing treaties left and right.

Point noted and acknowledged as far as you not defending such expenditures as a good thing. However, I'm not sure how significant that is since you are claiming that we need this kind of program due to the 'realities' of the world. You are still, in a round about fashion, defending the expenditures. Not morally, but on grounds of 'realism'. I dispute the realism and thus the defense.

3. In your previous posts you also claimed no difference in significance ranging anywhere from guns to orbital blasters. A failing satellite is not the same thing as a rogue and/or hacked orbital blaster. Or one that's operating like clockwork but provides current leaders to use it tactically and at will. Proving that it can even be made to function.

4. You also said there was no real difference between shooting a gun at someone, shooting cannon, or blasting from space by remote. I responded to that. To say I disagree strongly and to explain why I feel there is a difference, one based on ease of use and distance from repercussions.

5. Again, this comes down to failed leadership, not absolutes of national priorities. Nuclear proliferation is a wonderful example because it highlights the failure of the US to live up to it, while trying to enforce it on smaller nations. Instead of merely going along with a vision of all the world's nations operating weapons from outer space (one I find ludicrous, because it relies on a functioning and efficient space program or consistent access to one), a concerted effort to live up to policies of non-militarization (which the US is the first to ditch, btw) would IMO be far more useful. The US is in fact creating the demand by rushing for it. Yours is a self-fulfilling prophecy. No country wants to sink such massive resources into a race that has no other benefit than 'keeping up' if they don't have to. Not unless they're simply happy to subsidize the aerospace and defense industries. The question is, do we want a massive race in this area or would we rather work at a situation where there is a small chance of a rogue weapon of that sort being launched fifty years from now but otherwise we keep a lid on things.

6. Ok, I see that you are not claiming that this is a great answer but merely a matter of accomodating reality. I dispute that this is reality set in stone, as I would dispute the assertion that it is a fact that we are hard-wired for tribalism. Are they likely? IMO, yes. But they are unproven, and considering how poorly we've managed operating under that assumption, I'd love to see a bit of experimenting with other solutions that show promise.

7. Thinking about this, I grant your point.

I also grant your point over all that I go to extremes and don't do my arguments a service. It's hard to stay cool-headed when I read an article like that that tells me we're going to be wasting potentially trillions on more vicious circle policies that I feel completely avoid the conditions of insecurity, as well as furthering suffering on a global scale. I go through the roof. I can't help it. I realize now you are not defending these policies as wise ones, I apologize for misreading you in that respect.

I would challenge you to find where I said that I wanted to make it easier for people to kill other people

Maybe I was misreading, but I thought you did it right here:

The real question is whether you want to scar the psyches of the people forced to perform the killings frequently against their will and better judgement or not.

You were discussing comparable ease and proximity to death based on delivery types, weren't you?

I will have to read the gun/knife violence statistics over, but at first blush, they do seem to demolish my argument. I may have to reassess, although it may stil hold true on a strategic level when dealing with military versus criminal actions.

I do think, however, that reading history and estimating based on known factors and precedent that continuing similar failed policies is in fact a sign of either a) insanity or b) dishonesty on the part of the figures behind it. Those policies have be rerun so many times in the last century, and keep turning up the same solutions.

Without further invective, I don't care if I do those policy-makers working on tac-nukes a disservice. They deserve it. They quite obviously make a mockery of any attempts at reigning in nuclear proliferation. They don't believe in it, which is there right. What isn't their right is flouting legal treaties to which we have subscribed. And while you will find Gen. Buck Turgidsons all over, including that air force officer the article quoted, men who feel strongly about something irrespective of financial profit, I cannot say the same for the dense industry concerns who are pushing these programs on the military.

I do distinguish between contingency and escalation. I believe that what was described in this article falls firmly into the esacalation camp. It goes against our treaties holding us to non-space-proliferation and it will spur other nations to pour great resources into keeping up as best they can.

I believe that since these policies have been shown to be such failures in creating a stable climate for American defense in the past, it is incumbent to attempt policies that might actually help achieve stability.

Again, I apologize for getting hot. I do still believe you have flaws in areas of your argument, but with a cooler head now I have to admit that I was incorrect in some areas and/or misrepresented some of your opinions.
posted by the_savage_mind at 10:18 AM on May 18, 2005

Strategically, these weapons are going to be perceived as first-strike or enabling of first strikes by other, ground-based weapons.

Immediate outcomes: an end to the disarmament progress started by Reagan; a move towards more launch-on-warning and other hairtrigger deterrents; and the biggest damn arms race we've ever seen.

It's consistent with the total hegemony goals laid out in the National Security Strategy.

Can you say "destabilizing?"
posted by warbaby at 10:56 AM on May 18, 2005

I still just can't get over the fact that this technology is actually called Rods from God.
posted by Specklet at 12:15 PM on May 18, 2005

All I have to say is, Second Variety by Philip K. Dick. This stuff is frightening indeed, as is the accompanying ideology that supports it.
posted by juiceCake at 12:16 PM on May 18, 2005

How many porn producers do you think immediately went into production today on a new flick called "Rods From God"?
posted by spilon at 12:30 PM on May 18, 2005

spilon, probably more like "God's Rod" or "Jehova's Hittin' This"
posted by papercake at 1:14 PM on May 18, 2005

Simply put, it's the American way of fighting.

That sounds funny when compared to the history of the war for American independence.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:06 PM on May 18, 2005

Being desensitized to violence is better than learning to like it.

longbaug is correct. It is too cost prohibitive to put heavy shit in space to use as weapons when you can, for one tenth the cost and almost as much imperviousness, do it from a Stealth aircraft. Now maybe if oil gets crazy expensive? But I still doubt it. This is simply another boondoggle to make defense contractor rich.

The reality is that the same god-damn tactics keep producing the same results.

But just as often the tactics have produced the desirable result. In that more of the other guys died or that other guy being afraid of dying did not commit the feared act of aggression against us.

Nukes worked for fifty years my friends. Don't ever forget. They may be past their usefulness now but that is more of an effect of change in global demographics and economic realities.

I think some sort of space based weaponry is gong to be viable eventually and better us than "them". Who ever them may be. Unless "us" is Karl Rove.
posted by tkchrist at 4:46 PM on May 18, 2005