Space Weapons Guarding a Prison Planet
US Space Weapons Circling the
Globe
by John Lasker
The US
space weapon X-37 is now circling the globe in relative secrecy. It is
an unmanned space plane that looks like a smaller version of the Space Shuttle
and was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on April
22, 2010. This new weapon poses threats to global peace and risks
sparking an arms race in space.
"At
one time, [the X-37] was going to replace the Space Shuttle," said Bruce
Gagnon, director of the Global
Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. The replacement plan
was scrapped, however. In 2004 NASA handed over the X-37 to DARPA (Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency) and the Phantom Works at Boeing, the major aerospace
player racing to develop space weapons and missile defense systems with
millions of taxpayer dollars.
The X-37 officially is a US Military Space Place or
MSP, and like most US space weapons, spreading anxiety across the globe. The
Pentagon also has an unknown number of "dual purpose" space planes in
the works; the Pentagon has publicly stated in their budgets these
prototypes have been tested in wind tunnels. They might be space bombers, but
no one is completely sure. They're so secret, no one can say what they'll be used
for or how far developed they are.
A space vehicle that can repair, deploy and even
attack satellites, or insert reconnaissance drones back into the atmosphere -
all within hours of orders - is also desired. As one NASA official put it, the
space plane will "be the key to opening and conquering the space
frontier."
To those trying to keep weapons out of space, such
as Gagnon and his Global Network, the orbiting X-37 is a set-back. "I would say it is one of the first
(space weapons) to be deployed, so yes the X-37 is now operating in space and
should be defined as a space-based weapon," says Gagnon. "The
Pentagon though will claim it is not permanently stationed in space and thus
falls outside the Outer Space Treaty - which is why we are strong advocates for
a new comprehensive treaty to ban all weapons in space."
The fear of an American space bomber, say experts,
has one significant and severe backlash: other nations will develop their own
space bombers or space weapons to counter any US
MSP.
"There are scores of Chinese articles over the
last two years that mention a U.S.
space bomber," said Gregory Kulacki, Chinese specialist for the Union of Concerned Scientists,
from his office in Berkeley, California.
"The Global Times and even television stations like Phoenix TV out of Hong
Kong have a track record of hyping military technology and are unreliable, but
the space bomber stories also appear in more reputable sources."
Early in the Bush administration, and especially
after 9/11, the Pentagon was making overtures that it desperately needed the
ultimate quick-strike weapon when US forces, aircraft carriers, and even
drones, are far from the target. Soon enough, the Pentagon was salivating over
the prospects of acquiring a bomber that could take out a target within two
hours of getting eyes-on-the-target intelligence. Katz-Hyman says the space
bomber's research is driven by the Pentagon's desire to carry out this
"rapid global strike". Currently, long-range bomber runs using
stealth bombers or B-52s take 12 to 24 hours to execute. Their effectiveness
also depends whether certain nations will allow the US
in their airspace.
The X-37 was born from a unique, stand-alone
secretive US military program (and
as its name states) referred to as the "X" series. Pinpointing how
many planes are in the X-series is a challenge many investigative
tech-journalists and scientists have been trying to overcome since the
beginning of the Cold War.
One X-series brother of the X-37 is the X-43. Just 12-feet long, the X-43 is a scramjet or
Supersonic Combustion Ramjet; its engine is designed to take oxygen from the
atmosphere instead of from a huge and cumbersome liquid oxygen tank on board, like
all rockets must do. In November of 2004 the X-43 broke the world record for a
jet-powered aircraft by reaching Mach 9.6, or about 7,000 mph.
One of the X-series most classified
descendents is the spy-plane the Aurora,
which unlike the X-37, is manned. Conspiracy theorists believe the "black
aircraft" - researched under the Pentagon's black or secret budget - has
been tearing through the skies since the 1970s. The Pentagon let it slip the
classified Aurora existed when in 1985 the name "Aurora"
appeared, accidentally, below a budget request for the SR-71 Blackbird and the
U2.
Experts claim that billions have been spent on the
Aurora, an aircraft that theorists stress must be hypersonic (fly between Mach
5 to Mach 20) due to all the secrecy. Speculation says the Aurora's
speed could be one-mile per second, or just over Mach 5 (3,600 mph roughly),
giving an armed Aurora the ability to reach a
target potentially within minutes. Theorists say the prime contractor must be
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works (now the Lockheed Advanced Development Company),
one of the US military's most
secretive civilian-run research efforts.
As for Aurora
witnesses, they are few and far between. In 1989, while working out on the North
Sea, engineer Chris Gibson said he saw a strange triangular-shaped
craft accompanied by a pair of F-111 bombers. Indeed, a similar craft has been
glimpsed several times streaking over the North Pole. Satellite imagery has also
captured a single, high-altitude contrail stretching from Area 51 to deep into
the Atlantic.
Like the X-37 and the Aurora,
the Obama administration's future plans for exotic space weapons are cloaked in
secrecy. Gagnon says President Obama is perceived as a typical Harry
Houdini-like president.
"I call Obama the magician, you have to watch
both his hands to understand what he is doing," he said. "On the one
hand he talks nice, says good things at times, but he is proving to be the
classic politician who says one thing and does another. Obama is clearly
comfortable carrying water for the weapons industry which is probably why the
military industrial complex gave him more campaign donations than they gave
john McCain. Obama is doing virtually nothing to reverse the militarization,
weaponization, and nuclearization of space."
From Toward Freedom @ http://www.towardfreedom.com/special-reports/1980-us-space-weapon-now-circling-the-globe
Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space
The prospect of Earth
being ruled from space is no longer science-fiction. The dream of the original Dr.
Strangelove, Wernher von Braun (from Nazi rocket-scientist to NASA director)
has survived every US administration since WW2 and is coming to life. Today the
technology exists to weaponize space, a massive American industry thrives, and
nations are maneuvering for advantage.
PAX AMERICANA tackles
this pivotal moment. Are war machines already orbiting Earth? Can treaties keep
space weapons-free? Must the World capitulate to one super-cop on the global
beat?
With startling archival
footage and unprecedented access to US Air Force Space Command, this elegant,
forceful documentary reveals the state of play through generals, space-policy
analysts, politicians, diplomats, peace activists, and hawks.
As if there weren't
enough weapons here on earth, space has become the newest arena for countries
around the globe to launch their struggle for supremacy. Denis Delestrac's film
Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space is packed full of some truly
startling facts — everything from the "Rods of God" (space weapons
that can launch from orbit) to the fact that fifty cents of every American tax
dollar goes towards military spending. The astronomical costs of arming and
policing the heavens (more than $200 billion) has largely fallen to the US Air
Force, but with China and other nations challenging American supremacy, there
is the potential for a war to take place right over our heads.
Comparison of the space
race to the sea battles of the 18th and 19th Century are apt, since so many
global interests are at stake. As per usual, economics are at the heart of the
struggle. Noam Chomsky draws analogies between the US weaponization of space to
good old-fashioned colonialism in the tradition of empire. In the name of
protecting commercial investment, the US has charged itself with being the
arbiter of peace in space. But with the weapons industry replacing almost all
other manufacturing in America, is this simply a ruse? Many experts
unequivocally state that missile defense is the longest running fraud in the
history of US defense. That it, in fact, disguises true American intentions to
dominate space as a means of dominating the entire globe. (Getting rid of the
anti-ballistic missile treaty was one of the first activities undertaken by the
Bush Administration.)
If a space war were to
happen, the effects could prove catastrophic. Since there is no way to clean up
debris and space junk, it stays in orbit, circling the globe at some 14,000
miles per hour. At this speed, even a pea-sized piece of debris has the
capacity to destroy whatever is in its path. This includes satellites that
regulate most of the world's information systems (everything from GPS to
banking to media). But with China shooting down one of their own aging satellites,
the race shows every sign of heating up. This time, the sky may indeed be
falling.
America’s Orbiting Nuclear Platform
Get to
know the unusual aircraft that has been one of the best kept secrets of the
Pentagon for the last forty years.
In
1999, the designation of state secret was removed from the project that worked
on the creation of an unusual aircraft, whose characteristics are
reminiscent of a “flying saucer”.
The
creation of the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle (LRV) or lens shaped aircraft,
started at the end of the 1950s, as a part of the project code named Pye
Wacket, whose aim was to create a flying defence system in the shape of a disc.
Even though the project was cancelled in 1961, it proved that there are
“healthy foundations” for the development of the lens shaped aircraft, which is
a shape that has proven efficient as far as entering and returning from orbit
is concerned.
The
first concrete information about the LRV leaked into the public in 1999. One
year later, the American “Popular Mechanics” used the Freedom of Information
Act, FOIA), and launched a story that deserves a dominating position on
magazine covers.
Orbital nuclear war
platform
According
to a report that was created by R.J. Oberto, a member of the US Air force,
Los Angeles division, the LVR is an orbital
war platform of an offensive character, that is capable of carrying
four nuclear projectiles. The aircraft is fuelled by nuclear and/or chemical
fuels, it has a diameter of 12 meters, it can remain in orbit for up to six
weeks, and has a standard four member crew.
The
American Army never gave official confirmation of the existence of a
functioning prototype, but there is no lack of “earthly flying saucer”
indications. For example, one retired employee air force employee said for
Popular Mechanics that he personally saw an aircraft that fits the description
of the LVR in the late 1960s in Florida.
Testing in Australia
More
concrete evidence that lens shaped aircraft really flew (and are probably still
flying) comes from Australia where in 1975, the farmer Jean Fraser found
honeycomb-like remains of a “UFO”.
Fraser’s
ranch is located near the area where the Australian, American and British
forces tested some of their most secret nuclear weapons, which matches the
technical characteristics of the aircraft fuelled by atomic/chemical fuel.
According
to information that is being passed around, a “flying saucer” is in question,
that exploded during testing in 1966. According to the sightings of the local
population, the American Army then collected all of the remains of the aircraft
that it could find, and returned them to the USA by plane.
However,
the businessman Dick Smith found one of the pieces, and personally ordered
testing of the material at the New South Wales University, where the chemical
analysis confirmed that the “UFO” remains corresponds to components that are
ordinarily used in the construction of aircraft.
From Dalje @ http://dalje.com/en-world/americas-orbiting-nuclear-platform/121890
Into The Black: NASA’s Secret Space Shuttle Missions
By Ben
Evans
This is
the first in a five-part series that will cover the secret space shuttle
missions that NASA conducted. Photo Credit: NASA
The Secret History of
NASA’s Middle Child: Part 1: An Open Secret
With
the recent groundbreaking at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, the
final journey of Atlantis – NASA’s ‘middle child’ in its Shuttle fleet – has
finally begun in earnest, cementing a pledge by Administrator Charles Bolden in
April 2011 to “showcase” his old friend at the historic site from which all of
her 33 missions began.
When
the Atlantis attraction is unveiled to the public, sometime in the summer of
2013, it will see the venerable orbiter suspended in a 6,000-square-metre, $100
million chamber, with payload bay doors open, as if in orbit, backdropped by a
multi-story rotating digital projection of the Home Planet. If anything can
reinvigorate excitement for the space programme and inspire the next
generation, then surely Atlantis’ final mission promises to do just
that.
The
final resting place of the craft, which achieved so much in a quarter-century
of operational service, is both triumphant and saddening, filled with honour
and a tangible tugging at the heart-strings. Atlantis took the Shuttle’s first
planetary explorers – Magellan and Galileo – aloft and her astronauts logged
several hundred hours of spacewalking time, building the International Space
Station, working outside Russia’s Mir complex and upgrading the Hubble Space
Telescope. She was instrumental in Shuttle-Mir, which kicked off Phase One of
co-operation with the Russians, and during her watch the citizens of nine
discrete nations – Mexico, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, France, Russia, Canada,
Germany and the United States – viewed the grandeur of Earth and the profound
emptiness of the cosmos through her windows. If the ‘International’ Space
Station is part of Atlantis’ enduring legacy, perhaps she should now be
honoured as an ‘International’ Space Shuttle.
However,
her space career began very much as a ‘national’, rather than ‘international’,
asset and of her first dozen missions,
almost half were classified and dedicated to the Department of Defense.
This is understandable, since the Shuttle’s original mandate was to transport
large reconnaissance and intelligence satellites into orbit, with its payload
bay, delta-shaped wings, cross-range and unique upmass capability specifically
tailored by NASA to satisfy its key champion, the Air Force. Early plans
envisaged the reusable vehicles flying single-orbit, 90-minute sorties to place
secret payloads into space, whilst later in the pre-Challenger era a second
launch facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California was in the final
stages of preparation for a series of polar-circling missions.
From
its conception, the design of the Shuttle was dictated to NASA by the military.
The dimensions of its cavernous payload bay - covered by clamshell doors, here
seen during the process of opening at the start of Mission 51J - were
specifically engineered to meet the needs of the Air Force, whose powerful
lobbyists offered political support for the reusable vehicle. Photo Credit:
NASA
It is
therefore a little ironic that Atlantis’ maiden voyage in October 1985 should
have been top-secret…and yet details of her classified payload had already
trickled onto the pages of Aviation Week, before the mission had even
ended. Today, images of the payload from Mission 51J have long since been
declassified and are firmly in the public domain, but only because it was
little more than a pair of military communications satellites and not a ‘deep
black’ reconnaissance platform or imaging sentinel. For that reason, almost two
decades since the Shuttle’s last classified flight, most of the Department of
Defense missions remain cloaked in secrecy…and rumour continues to abound about
their nature. This series of articles will seek to uncover what little is known
about them.
Mission
51J began with an upset wife. Management consultant Diane Bobko was
particularly irritated as her husband prepared for his third trip into space.
Unlike his previous missions, this one was classified and she knew that he was
permitted to tell her very little about it.
“Bo,”
she said, one morning in September 1985, “you’re not telling me exactly
what day you’re going to land, but I think it’s going to be pretty close to a
day I have a programme in Baltimore.”
“Diane,
it’s the first flight of a new vehicle,” her husband replied. “Probably the
safest thing you can do is go ahead and schedule that right now.”
To this
day, Karol ‘Bo’ Bobko retains a noteworthy, yet often overlooked record as the
only astronaut to have flown the maiden voyages of two Space Shuttles
and he was clearly reflecting on the problems experienced getting Challenger
ready for her first flight in April 1983 when he assured his wife that the
first flight of Atlantis would probably also meet with delay. Ironically, it
did not.
The
'open secret' crew of 51J are pictured at the end of their Terminal Countdown
Demonstration Test, standing in front of an M-113 armoured personnel carrier,
which would be used in the event of an emergency evacuation from the launch
pad. Karol 'Bo' Bobko (left) was joined on the flight by Ron Grabe, Dave
Hilmers, Bob Stewart and Bill Pailes. Photo Credit: NASA
Atlantis
was named in honour of a two-masted ketch, operated by the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute from 1930 until 1966, which became the first vessel
built specifically for interdisciplinary research in marine biology and geology
and physical oceanography. During her time at sea, Atlantis and her scientists
scored a number of impressive discoveries, not least of which was the
identification and description of the first abyssal plain – the ‘Sohm Abyssal
Plain’, to the south of Newfoundland – in 1947. Today, she is owned by
Argentina as a naval research vessel. The construction of the spacefaring
Atlantis got underway in January 1979, following a contract award to Rockwell
International to configure a structural test article into the future Challenger
and build two additional orbiter vehicles, OV-103 and OV-104. The names ‘Discovery’
and ‘Atlantis’ were assigned to these new orbiters a few days after the
award.
In
March 1980, engineers started the structural assembly of Atlantis’ crew cabin
and over the next few years the vehicle grew: construction of her aft fuselage
began in November 1981, her wings arrived from contractor Grumman in June 1983
and she was complete by April 1984. Rollout from Rockwell’s Palmdale plant in
California in March 1985 was followed by an overland transfer to Edwards Air
Force Base and arrival in Florida, atop the Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier
Aircraft, in early April. By September, after installation on Pad 39A, Atlantis
was ready to fly; on the 5th, her three main engines burned at full power in a
Flight Readiness Firing, one of the last milestones to prepare her for her
voyage. All told, the new ship required less than half as much time to assemble
as did the queen of the fleet, Columbia, and historian Dennis Jenkins pointed
to the greater use of thermal protection blankets, rather than tiles, on her airframe
as one of the principal reasons for this.
Atlantis’
crew for 51J had been in place for some considerable period of time. As early
as November 1983, NASA had identified a ‘standby’ crew for Department of
Defense flights. It consisted of Bobko in command, together with pilot Ron
Grabe and mission specialists Bob Stewart, Mike Mullane and Dave Hilmers. In
February 1985, this group (save Mullane, who had been assigned to another
flight) were named to 51J. The final crew member, payload specialist Bill Pailes,
was only the second member of the Air Force’s corps of manned spaceflight
engineers to fly the Shuttle…and, as circumstances transpired, he would also be
the last. In the wake of Challenger, the military steadily distanced
itself from the orbiters, moving more payloads onto expendable rockets, and the
cadre was disbanded.
Command
of this new flight posed something of a problem in the spring of 1985,
particularly when Bobko’s previous mission was cancelled and he ended up
leading his crew into orbit in April, under a different designation. The
inevitable consequence was that Grabe, Stewart and Hilmers were forced to train
without him for a time. What really made 51J a pain was its classified
nature, in which the astronauts had to conduct virtually their entire training
in secret, filing misleading flight plans to training destinations…and then
finding out through the pages of Aviation Week and Flight
International that details of their supposedly ‘secret’ payload had leaked
and been exposed.
In
fact, the twin-satellite cargo of 51J became something of an ‘open’ secret and
details were published as early as 7 October 1985, the very day that Atlantis
touched down. A single Inertial Upper Stage booster carried a pair of $160
million Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS)-III spacecraft, stacked
one atop the other, images of which were finally declassified in the summer of
1998. They lend credence to Bobko’s claim that, for all its ‘secrecy’, 51J was
little more than a ‘vanilla’ deployment flight.
Not
until the summer of 1998 were any images from this most 'vanilla' of Department
of Defense flights revealed...although the nature of the flight had long since
trickled into the public domain. A pair of Defense Satellite Communications
System (DSCS)-III satellites, mounted atop a Boeing-built Inertial Upper Stage,
are here raised to their deployment angle in Atlantis' payload bay. Photo
Credit: NASA
The
DSCS – nicknamed ‘the discus’ – has long been an anchor for the Pentagon’s
global communications network, operating in geostationary orbit with half a
dozen super-high-frequency transponders for secure voice and data transmissions
and high-priority command and control links between officials and battlefield
commanders. The Air Force later admitted that it had launched two
DSCS-IIIs in 1985 and, according to space analyst Dwayne Day, “the only
launch that year that fit was the Atlantis mission”. Subsequent documents
highlighted that the DSCS-III satellites had been deployed during a
Shuttle flight, but refused to reveal the name of that flight…even though it
could be quite easily inferred. “Military secrecy can be bizarre at times,”
wrote Day, “like acknowledging that there is a sky, and that the sky can be
blue, but never saying that the sky is blue!”
Physically,
the satellites were roughly cube-shaped, with a pair of articulated solar
panels which produced 1,240 watts of electrical power. They measured 2 m in
height, spanned 11.5 m across their expansive solar ‘wings’ and weighed 2,600
kg. Day considered it significant that 51J’s payload was so readily revealed,
but the natures of the other classified satellites launched between 1988 and
1992 have been kept under wraps to this very day. “If the suspected identities
of the other classified Shuttle flights are correct,” he speculated in an
article for the Space Review in January 2010, “then they are intelligence
satellites. Considering the secrecy that remains about American intelligence
satellites, it seems likely that these other flights will continue to remain
secret for a long time to come.”
Launch
of Atlantis on Mission 51J came at 11:15 am EST on 3 October 1985, following a
22-minute delay to deal with a power controller in one of the main engines’
liquid hydrogen prevalves that showed a faulty indication. As with all
classified Shuttle missions, the assembled spectators at the Kennedy Space
Center were only aware that launch was imminent when the blank face of the famous
countdown clock suddenly came to life and started ticking from T-9 minutes.
Yet
there was still a degree of uncertainty about 51J. Flight International
suggested (correctly) that if the rumours about the presence of DSCS-III
satellites were accurate, then an Inertial Upper Stage was the most likely
booster, but suggested the possibility that other instruments might also be
aboard, such as the Cryogenic Infrared Radiance Instrument for Shuttle (CIRRIS)
and a laser retroreflector for ‘Star Wars’ research. The Air Force cleverly
refused to confirm or deny any of the rumours. After four days – one of the
shortest Shuttle missions to date – Atlantis touched down at Edwards Air Force
in California at 10:00 am PST on 7 October.
As it
turned out, Diane Bobko was in California to meet her husband on the
runway. Astonishingly, Atlantis had met with no significant delays, launched on
time and landed on time. “So she was there to meet me in California,” Bobko
remembered, “gave me a hug and then she had to leave right away to…drive down
to Los Angeles to catch the airplane to go to Baltimore.” Later that evening,
Bobko was startled out of his sleep by a telephone call. It was his wife. Surely,
he thought, if a vehicle as complex as the Shuttle could launch and land on
time, on its maiden voyage, then her domestic flight would have been
trouble-free.
“You’re
in Baltimore?” he asked.
“No,”
she replied, glumly. “I’m still in Dallas, trying to get to
Baltimore!”
This article by Ben Evans
is the first of a five part series – for the next see http://www.americaspace.com/?p=12853
From America Space @ http://www.americaspace.com/?p=12793
Public Plan for American Control of Space
No system of missile
defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be
creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized
for the better part of four decades. Weather, communications, navigation and
reconnaissance satellites are increasingly essential elements in American
military power. Indeed, U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As
the 1996 Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review, concluded, “Space is already inextricably linked to military operations
on land, on the sea, and in the air.” The report of the National Defense Panel
agreed: “Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the
United States.”
Given the advantages U.S.
armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it is
shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to
offset to disable or offset U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation
of space know-how and related technology around the world, our adversaries will
inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future.
Moreover, “space commerce” is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996,
commercial launches exceeded military launches in the United States, and
commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures on space. Today, more than
1,100 commercial companies across more than 50 countries are developing,
building, and operating space systems.
As
exemplified by the Global Positioning Satellite, space has become a new
‘international commons’ where commercial and security interests are
intertwined.
Many of these commercial
space systems have direct military applications, including information from
global positioning system constellations and betterthan- one-meter resolution
imaging satellites. Indeed, 95 percent of current U.S. military communications
are carried over commercial circuits, including commercial communications
satellites. The U.S. Space Command foresees that in the coming decades,
an
adversary will have sophisticated regional situational awareness. Enemies may
very well know, in nearreal time, the disposition of all forces….In fact,
national military forces, paramilitary units, terrorists, and any other
potential adversaries will share the high ground of space with the United
States and its allies. Adversaries may also share the same commercial satellite
services for communications, imagery, and navigation….The space “playing field”
is leveling rapidly, so U.S. forces will be increasingly vulnerable. Though
adversaries will benefit greatly from space, losing the use of space may be
more devastating to the United States. It would be intolerable for U.S.
forces...to be deprived of capabilities in space.
In short, the unequivocal
supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at
risk. As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, “Space control is not an
avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra.” For U.S. armed forces to
continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space
Command as “the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within
the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space” – must be an
essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that
control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely
complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised.
The complexity of space
control will only grow as commercial activity increases. American and other
allied investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and
protect these space assets; they are already an important measure of American
power. Yet it will not merely be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of
space. As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the
capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms
for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely
to become the new “international commons,” where commercial and security
interests are intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about
“sea-power” at the beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American
strategists will be forced to regard “space-power” in the 21st.
To ensure America's
control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a
robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once
there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space
Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reuseable and
expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space,
including “space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment,
and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control
of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and
from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive
systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot
be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or
by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S.
national space policy, which states that the “Department of Defense shall
maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force
enhancement, space control and force application.” (Emphasis added.)
In
the future, it will be necessary to unite the current SPACECOM vision for
control of space to the institutional responsibilities and interests of a
separate military service.
In sum, the ability to
preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing
measure on the ability to operate in space militarily; both the requirements
for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional
military power demand it. Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor
past U.S. defense reviews have established a coherent policy and program for
achieving this goal.
Ends and Means of Space Control
As with defense spending
more broadly, the state of U.S. “space forces” – the systems required to ensure continued access
and eventual control of space – has deteriorated over the past decade, and few
new initiatives or programs are on the immediate horizon. The U.S. approach to
space has been one of dilatory drift. As Gen. Richard Myers, commander-in-chief
of SPACECOM, put it, “Our Cold War-era capabilities have atrophied,” even
though those capabilities are still important today. And while Space Command
has a clear vision of what must be done in space, it speaks equally clearly
about “the question of resources.” As the command succinctly notes its
long-range plan: “When we match the reality of space dependence against
resource trends, we find a problem.”
But in addition to the
problem of lack of resources, there is an institutional problem. Indeed, some
of the difficulties in maintaining U.S. military space supremacy result from
the bureaucratic “black hole” that prevents the SPACECOM vision from gaining
the support required to carry it out. For one, U.S. military space planning
remains linked to the ups and downs of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. America’s difficulties in reducing the cost of space launches –
perhaps the single biggest hurdle to improving U.S. space capabilities overall
– result in part from the requirements and dominance of NASA programs over the
past several decades, most notably the space shuttle program. Secondly, within
the national security bureaucracy, the majority of space investment decisions
are made by the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force, neither of
which considers military operations outside the earth's atmosphere as a primary
mission. And there is no question that in an era of tightened budgets,
investments in space-control capabilities have suffered for lack of
institutional support and have been squeezed out by these organization’s other
priorities. Although, under the Goldwater-Nichols reforms of the mid-1980s, the
unified commanders – of which SPACECOM is one – have a greater say in Pentagon
programming and budgeting, these powers remain secondary to the traditional
“raiseand- train” powers of the separate services.
Therefore, over the long
haul, it will be necessary to unite the essential elements of the current
SPACECOM vision to the resource-allocation and institution-building
responsibilities of a military service. In addition, it is almost certain that
the conduct of warfare in outer space will differ as much from traditional air
warfare as air warfare has from warfare at sea or on land; space warfare will
demand new organizations, operational strategies, doctrines and training
schemes. Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space
Forces – a separate service under the Defense Department – is compelling. While
it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory
“Space Corps” under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought
to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army
Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Navy
Department. If space control is an essential element for maintaining American
military preeminence in the decades to come, then it will be imperative to
reorganize the Department of Defense to ensure that its institutional structure
reflects new military realities.
Excerpted from The Project
for the New American Century @ http://cryptome.org/rad.htm#V
For more information
about secret space technology see
http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/american%20flying%20saucer and
http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/secret%20space%20plane
- See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
This is a ‘not for
profit’ site -
But if you like what we do please
buy us a meal if you can
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Please click in the
jar -
Xtra Images – http://www.frontierlandpost.com/uploads/7/1/7/8/7178775/3981307.jpg?613
http://www.space.com/images/i/102/i02/091021-x37b-reenter-02.jpg
And see
DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which
raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site
is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article
or other item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit
use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work &
author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along
with this or a similar notice).
Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long
and prosper!
The current space weapons situation becomes exponentially
more grave in light
of the theory of normal accident, which states that the more tightly complex
a system becomes, the more likely unforeseen interactions between parts will
occur, leading to accidents which are inevitable and therefore “normal”. A
classic example of this is the Three
Mile Island nuclear accident. Although the latest breed of directed energy
weapons or ballistic missiles have been tested to a certain extent by the
science that created them, these high-tech systems are rapidly becoming more
automated with greater destructive capability. 
