Russia warns U.S. about weapons in space

[Darius11 12]

Quote

MOSCOW - Taking aim at the United States, Russia’s defense minister Thursday threatened retaliatory steps if any country puts weapons in space and said Moscow won’t negotiate controls over tactical nuclear arms with nations that deploy them abroad, Russian media reported.

While he mentioned no country by name, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov’s comments reflected persistent wariness over U.S. intentions, despite arms control deals and increased cooperation between the Cold War foes since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

“Russia’s position on this question has not changed for decades: We are categorically against the militarization of space,” the Interfax news agency quoted Ivanov as saying during a visit to the Baikonur space facility in Kazakhstan.

“If some state begins to realize such plans, then we doubtless will take adequate retaliatory measures,” ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying.

The comments came as the Bush administration reviews the U.S. space policy doctrine. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last month the policy review was not considering the militarization of space. But he said U.S. satellites must be protected against new threats that he said have emerged since Washington’s space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996.

'Star Wars'
Moscow’s concerns about space-based weapons go back to the Soviet-era space race and President Ronald Reagan’s 1980s plans for a “Star Wars” missile defense system.

In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new ban on weapons in outer space.

But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.

Ivanov’s comment about negotiating controls over tactical nuclear weapons was also a clear reference to the United States, which has such arms in Europe.

“We are prepared to start talks about tactical nuclear weapons only when all countries possessing them keep these weapons on their own territory,” Interfax and ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. “Russia stores its tactical nuclear weapons on its own territory, which cannot be said about other countries.”

Seeking accountability
The news agencies said Ivanov was responding to calls by former Sen. Sam Nunn for a Russian-American agreement providing for accountability of each other’s tactical nuclear stockpiles, which have not been addressed by a series of treaties reducing strategic nuclear arms.

Nunn, an architect of a major program to secure and destroy nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union, has called for “transparent accountability” of tactical weapons as a safeguard against nuclear terrorism.

Russia wants to keep its tactical nuclear weapons — and to keep their number secret — to compensate for inferiority in conventional weapons, said Alexander Pikayev, a nuclear expert with the Committee of Scientists for Global Security.

The Bush administration has not publicly called for an agreement on accountability and control over tactical nuclear weapons, which do not threaten U.S. territory, Pikayev said.

However, a hawkish former top Russian military official, Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, said that Washington had tried unsuccessfully to put the issue on the agenda of talks three times in the past, Interfax reported.

Ivashov spoke out strongly against any negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons, saying information about them “is perhaps the only military secret that we have,” Interfax reported.

I really don't know how to feel about it. My first reaction would be to say we don't need more weapons but I am not familiar with this issue.

So good idea to put weapons in space or bad idea, and why?

I say bad but like i said i don't know all the facts. I just don't want WMD out orbiting above my head.




Edit to add: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8073961/

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Why does it feel we are slowly walking backwards in policy with this admin?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kelpdiver 2]

Star Wars II in all proposed incarnations don't involve nukes in space. Just a good waste of money, and during the cold war, a destablizing concept.

And I'd like to see the Russians 'retaliate' with their own!

As for tactical nukes, they seem out of place with our current mantra on the evils of WMD.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So good idea to put weapons in space or bad idea, and why?
I say bad but like i said i don't know all the facts. I just don't want WMD out orbiting above my head.

As long as they are defensive, I have no problem with any nation having them. For example, a space-based laser weapon that could shoot down incoming nuclear missiles before they vaporize American cities.

The Russkies are only whining because we are beating them to it. You can bet that if they had one ready to deploy now, they would do it.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still"
Space man to Earth people:

"For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in space ships like this one and prepare for peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power, a power that cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is, we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned out cinder. your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Star Wars II in all proposed incarnations don't involve nukes in space. Just a good waste of money, and during the cold war, a destablizing concept.

And I'd like to see the Russians 'retaliate' with their own!

As for tactical nukes, they seem out of place with our current mantra on the evils of WMD.

The Russians are supposed to have a SCALAR E.M. weapon.

[billvon 2,433]

>As long as they are defensive, I have no problem with any nation having them.

A perfect defensive system could indeed bring peace. A partially effective defensive system is far worse than having none at all.

"At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk."

This quote argues against a defensive system and for MAD.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

A partially effective defensive system is far worse than having none at all.

How so? Would you explain your thinking here, please?

I disagree with that. A partially effective defense system is partially effective in deterring agression. While not perfect, that is still a good thing. I'd rather have just two nuke missiles get through the defensive screen than a full one hundred. If the Russkies realize that a preemptive attack won't be successful, they won't try. I don't see how that can possibly be worse than none at all.

The Japanese have been limited to only defensive forces since their American-installed Constitution after their defeat in WWII. It recognizes their right to defend themselves, while denying them the capability to repeat their past aggression. It has worked so far.

Quote

Re: "At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk."

This quote argues against a defensive system and for MAD.

Yes, that was just thinking material, because the subject reminded me of that movie. But MAD is a type of defensive system, it's just one that is very brutal. And in the movie, the "M" part, "mutually" didn't apply. Because the robot (Gork?) would punish any aggressive nation with annihilation, and there was no one that they could strike back against in-kind.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the Russkies realize that a preemptive attack won't be successful, they won't try. I don't see how that can possibly be worse than none at all.

The Ruskies viewed SDI as America's attempt to give itself a first strike capability. If they viewed the system as credible, it would give strong incentive to attack while they still could.

[billvon 2,433]

>Would you explain your thinking here, please?

If we are to believe in the philosophy in your quotation above, no one will become an aggressor against the US if they know that the inevitable result is complete annhiliation, which is our response for a nuclear attack against our soil. This is the MAD philosophy that we've been using for about 50 years now.

If we have a defensive shield that is 75% effective (say, a boost-phase neutral beam particle weapon) then that goes away. North Korea launches an ICBM, we blow it out of the air over the ocean, we make threatening noises, they say "why'd you blow up our plutonium-powered communications satellite?" - and they have a chance to try it again. Or, one time out of four, it gets through and takes out Attu, in which case we would _probably_ retaliate.

Now, North Korea knows this; they may be crazy but they're smart enough to build ICBM's and nuclear weapons, and wily enough to not be defeated by the US during our war with them. And they know that if they launch such a missile, the US will probably shoot it down, they'll probably get away with it, and they will have demonstrated their capabilities. In other words, that shield will give them a higher confidence that an act of aggression will not be retaliated against. And as I do not believe that the rest of the world would tolerate our annhiliating 10 million people based on potentially faulty intelligence concerning a missile intercept, so it would be in our best interest to hold off.

If you believe that the world will launch X ICBM's against the US no matter what, then any shield that works even halfway decently is a good thing. If the shield makes potential aggressors think they can get away with more, then it can lead to more problems than it solves. Given the current sentiment towards the US worldwide, I believe the latter is true.


>And in the movie, the "M" part, "mutually" didn't apply. Because the
> robot (Gork?) would punish any aggressive nation with annihilation,
> and there was no one that they could strike back against in-kind.

Right. Now imagine you develop a system that will stop Gork from seeing the violence 3 out of 4 times. Will you be more or less likely to attempt violence?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And they know that if they launch such a missile, the US will probably shoot it down, they'll probably get away with it, and they will have demonstrated their capabilities. In other words, that shield will give them a higher confidence that an act of aggression will not be retaliated against.

You lost me there, Bill.

If N Korea launched a nuke capable of killing millions and doing hundreds of billions in damage but we manage to stop it, we're not going to say, hey great, the system worked!

It's going to be - those fuckers just tried to kill us. We'll show them how that's done right. We demolished Iraq and Afghanistan after a far smaller attack.

N Korea would never use such a method to demonstrate their capability either. It defies any sort of sense of self preservation. What have they gained by demonstrating our defense system will stop them?

[AMax 0]

Quote

The Russkies are only whining because we are beating them to it. You can bet that if they had one ready to deploy now, they would do it.

Both statements are questionable. I would partially agree with the first one since US has and uses far more funds for developing its space program. However, Russia too still has a lot of unique technologies and continues too work on developing the new programs. Lets not forget that Russian technologies keep the station alive (granted, with a lot of help from US). The second statement is simply a speculation. Even knowing the facts from the past you cannot perfectly predict the future.

A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen (C) Winston Churchill

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

...they know that if they launch such a missile, the US will probably shoot it down, they'll probably get away with it, and they will have demonstrated their capabilities. In other words, that shield will give them a higher confidence that an act of aggression will not be retaliated against.

Thanks for that lengthy explanation. But the reason I don't agree with it is because of the part that I have back-quoted above. I don't think any aggressor nation will assume that just because we can shoot down most of their missiles, that they will feel free to try as often as they like. I think any U.S. President will immediately retaliate in very severe fashion to any attempt to strike the U.S. in this manner. Because of the possibility that some missiles might get through, the U.S. would have to attack the source of those missiles, since they have just proven their willingness to try and destroy millions of Americans. To allow such attempts to continue unabated would be foolhardy.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

So good idea to put weapons in space or bad idea, and why?
I say bad but like i said i don't know all the facts. I just don't want WMD out orbiting above my head.

As long as they are defensive, I have no problem with any nation having them. For example, a space-based laser weapon that could shoot down incoming nuclear missiles before they vaporize American cities.

The Russkies are only whining because we are beating them to it. You can bet that if they had one ready to deploy now, they would do it.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still"
Space man to Earth people:

"For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in space ships like this one and prepare for peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power, a power that cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is, we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned out cinder. your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration."

I'd worry more about nukes arriving by ship or truck than by ICBM. Developing a space based system is just more corporate welfare.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>It's going to be - those fuckers just tried to kill us.

We think. We will know we downed a missile; we won't be sure what the missile _was_. Then what do we do?

We could annhiliate North Korea with submarine-launched ICBM's. If we took out their four largest cities, that's about 5 million dead. China, seeing an unprovoked attack against Asia (remember, there's no evidence of the attack, just our claim) seeing the largest genocide against Asians since WWII, and seeing the fallout drift into their country, will retaliate. We cannot stop a Chinese attack. Even if 25% of their missiles get through, we will lose several major cities - and that's not a price we are willing to pay to destroy someone who threatened us.

And don't say "we will show them the evidence." Our intelligence is the laughingstock of the world.

We could invade. Didn't work so well last time, but who knows? Perhaps we'd have better luck this time - provided China has no problems with our invasion of their neighbor.

>N Korea would never use such a method to demonstrate their capability
> either.

Good! Then we don't need a defensive system - at least, against them.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

the fallout drift into their country,

I just had to point out that the Fallout would more likely land in the US not China.... The prevailing winds are westerly (From the west).

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

and that's not a price we are willing to pay to destroy someone who threatened us.

Also, it is not like they "Threatened us"
Actually, they would have "Attacked us".

And bill this is why you couldn't be president. You obviously can't make the "Hard" choices. If NK lobbed any type of missle over here, Nuke or conventional, they MUST be attacked with no concern about China PERIOD.

Worry about China later, defend yourself against the aggressor now.

So if NK lauches at us, yoiu would do nothing????
What would prevent them from launching again tomorrow????
and the next day????
and the day after that????

Being Passive doesn't solve the problem.
Attacking their ability to launch more weapons does!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,433]

>Also, it is not like they "Threatened us"
>Actually, they would have "Attacked us".

Again, that's easy if you have the rubble of the Twin Towers. A bit harder to prove if all you have is a stream of data from a US satellite and no wreckage. Would you believe North Korea if they claimed we had launched against them if that's all the data they had? Would anyone?

We can stand against North Korea. We can't stand against the world.

>And bill this is why you couldn't be president. You obviously can't make
>the "Hard" choices. If NK lobbed any type of missle over here, Nuke or
>conventional, they MUST be attacked with no concern about China PERIOD.

People _have_ done such things. China recently downed a US military plane in international airspace. Fortunately at that time we did not have a president who believed as you do, or there would be about 20 million fewer people alive now.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

and seeing the fallout drift into their country

I dunno. You can never be sure how the world will react. I remember back in April, 1986, a radioactive cloud from Chernobyl was contaminating northern Europe. Europeans reacted by protesting the American bombing of Tripoli.

Well, I guess you are right. If Americans did it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We think. We will know we downed a missile; we won't be sure what the missile _was_. Then what do we do?.

You want me to believe we would have the techology to take out an ICBM midflight, but with no idea where it came from? If you want to launch a secret attack, a rocket is the worst choice out there when you could instead smuggle it in with the drugs.

Aren't we monitoring known ICBM silos around the world?

Sorry, it's crappy game theory that would lead to such a decision. As I said, N Korea doesn't gain anything in a trial where we destroy their nuke. That didn't demonstrate their ability to attack, it demonstrated our's to defend. And retaliate.