champu 1 #1 November 3, 2009 ...well, there goes the neighborhood. QuoteBEIJING — A top China air force commander has called the militarisation of space an "historical inevitability", state media said Monday, marking an apparent shift in Beijing's opposition to weaponising outer space. In a wide-ranging interview in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Daily, air force commander Xu Qiliang said it was imperative for the PLA air force to develop offensive and defensive operations in outer space. "As far as the revolution in military affairs is concerned, the competition between military forces is moving towards outer space... this is a historical inevitability and a development that cannot be turned back," Xu told the paper. "The PLA air force must establish in a timely manner the concepts of space security, space interests and space development. "We must build an outer space force that conforms with the needs of our nation's development (and) the demands of the development of the space age." Superiority in outer space can give a nation control over war zones both on land and at sea, while also offering a strategic advantage, Xu said, noting that such dominance was necessary to safeguard the nation. "Only power can protect peace," the 59-year-old commander said in the interview given to coincide with this month's 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA air force. China has long stated that it supported the peaceful uses of outer space and opposed the introduction of weapons there. Beijing has also sought to establish an international treaty to control the deployment of weapons in space. In January 2007, China surprised the world by shooting down one of its own weather satellites in a test seen by many, including the United States, as a possible trigger of an arms race in space. Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gDrce4fjESD3cLHgo-KPFYvINfpA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 November 3, 2009 QuoteChina chief says space arms inevitable Of course. All technology eventually proliferates and becomes commonplace. Thus, I've always felt that militarization of space, along with near-universal nuclear weapons proliferation, is simply a matter of eventual time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #3 November 3, 2009 This is not good. Welcome to the beginning of a new arms race. I don't think we'll be able to compete in this one.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 November 3, 2009 QuoteThis is not good. Welcome to the beginning of a new arms race. I don't think we'll be able to compete in this one. The issue with militarizing space isn't that it's all that expensive, but rather that it's not expensive enough when you consider the results of even the most minor of skirmishes. I'm not talking about nukes being launched or anything that even destroys life, but rather the simplicity of essentially launching lead shot at space based communications and navigation satellites. You end up screwing up space for everyone very quickly. You make it so that nobody has the ability to even use it for peaceful applications any more. A cloud of destructive space debris that prevents utilizing orbits for hundreds of years.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 November 4, 2009 They will probably use mines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 November 4, 2009 >They will probably use mines. They don't even need to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #7 November 4, 2009 Who said anything about need? This way they can actually extort us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #8 November 4, 2009 >Who said anything about need? Quade. >This way they can actually extort us Like I said, they don't need mines to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #9 November 4, 2009 QuoteI'm not talking about nukes being launched or anything that even destroys life, but rather the simplicity of essentially launching lead shot at space based communications and navigation satellites. erm... I don't know that I would downplay the technical difficulty of shooting down a satellite. From easiest to most difficult I'd order the related tasks as follows - Unmanned sub-orbital flight - Manned sub-orbital flight - Unmanned orbital flight - Hitting a target (CEP < 500m) with an ICBM - Launching a satellite to geosync - Co-orbital intercept of a spacecraft - Manned orbital flight - Direct-ascent/Hypersonic intercept of a spacecraft - Direct-ascent/Hypersonic intercept of an ICBM/RV Difficulty actually trends well with kinetic energy. Note that while co-orbital intercept or "essentially launching lead shot" at a spacecraft is easier than Direct-ascent intercepts, it would also be easier to counter. In other news... DARPA has recently started the ball rolling with cleanup efforts. I wouldn't hold my breath for a program coming out of that any time soon, however, the challenge there trumps all of the above imho. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 November 4, 2009 It may not be trivial, but shooting down a satellite represents a pretty cheap victory. The cost (dollars and opportunity) of launching a useful satellite far exceeds the cost of rendering it useless. I think that math makes it difficult to develop substantial space arms. Everything up there is a sitting duck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
