Comments on: US Wants to Defend Satellites From Laser Attack

By: Taras

Taras — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:49:55 +0000

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Russia, China or any other country with the know-how does use lasers to either blind or even destroy military satellites. However, simply sending another satellite near the target and commanding it to explode will do the job, and make space inaccessible because the debris created would make short work of other spacecraft by destroying them in hyper-velocity collisions.

By: Steve Macharia

Steve Macharia — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:56:19 +0000

Why waste so much resources on "What if" When "what is" is on the ground for example Soaring food and oil prices? What about global warming?

By: Richard Lalancette

Richard Lalancette — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:25:26 +0000

Well, if China fires at US satellite, it would be with a reason.

M. Fulford brought forward the evidence that US HAARP technology might have been used in at least 3 occassions to create disaster, including the latest China Earthquake and the Japanes Earthquake.

The Elites in the US are getting Cocky fire their new weapons on other countries will not remain unanswered…

By: Maxwell

Maxwell — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:58:58 +0000

Two things are certain:
1) There will be wars in the future
2) space is too valuable to be ignored.

A nation that sits around on its laurels waiting for its enemies to make something new sets itself up for a nasty surprise.
With China in the space race and Russia's history of tinkering with armed spacecraft, the US would be foolish NOT to be up-armoring its satellites. They would also be silly not to develop a reliable sat killing technology of their own.

By having the power to defend space and keeping the details secret, we can prevent an enemy from getting confident enough to attempt a war there. It may sound like a M.A.D strategy for the high frontier, but apparently that works very well in todays world.

By: ggita stephen

ggita stephen — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:57:36 +0000

i really wonder what Russia's reponse this time will.the last U.S suggested stars wars they came up with a missle that they claim can defy any defence system.

By: Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:13:45 +0000

Department of Defense is such an Orwellian term.

Of course they can't say that they're * designing a system to attack enemy satellites using optic lasers * – instead it's:

"We're developing a defense against the possibility of being attacked by enemy lasers."

Naturally they will have to… duh, develop the technology to fry satellite optics. Otherwise there is no way to test their defense.

By: Kevin M.

Kevin M. — Sat, 31 May 2008 06:19:51 +0000

The military "paranoiacs" are sometimes the only ones who see the future clearly. Shooting down satellites, like genetic experimentation and nuclear proliferation, is a logical development which is approaching inevitably. The shuttle disasters and 9/11 were mere premonitions of the social disruption which could result from major commsats being taken out by hostilities. So the military is waking up to the enormous risk we have created for ourselves. Western Civ is an ever-fatter sitting duck, and the only realistic defense is preparing to live without.

By: brillo

brillo — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:54:59 +0000

cold war politics and mentality? Who would you blame when our defenseless satellites start getting fried? "well they shoulda taken the proper precautions".

How is it cold war paranoia to have some sort of defense (ANY defense) for an otherwise super secure communications system.

By your logic, I'm paranoid for having fire extinguishers in my house and in my car.

By: Fergie

Fergie — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:31:48 +0000

"fall fowl" – I think you mean 'foul', unless they're playing chicken.

By: DannyBoy

DannyBoy — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:36:59 +0000

Huzzah to RL. Hopefully the military hasn't forgotten Morse code. Remember "Independance Day"?
Being serious though, We should never rely on specialized systems in the military (or for that matter, in any aspect of life) to the exclusion of other alternatives.

By: alphonso richardson

alphonso richardson — Fri, 30 May 2008 07:35:59 +0000

Aren't we going back to Cold War politics & mentality, where policies/hardware are being developed because of the 'other side's' percieved capabilities.
I remember documentaries featuring Defence staff getting funding for project simply because they said 'the Commies/Arabs were at it', yet conveniently never came up with any proof.
Yes, yes, I know, there are time, when waitning increases your chances of being a target (smoking hole in the ground), but invoking the 'bogeyman' to appropriate funding for a dodgy project of dubious merit is hardly good practice.
Then again, I'm not a politician. Or military bigwig (for which i'm grateful)

By: Silver Thread

Silver Thread — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:44:35 +0000

Equip the Optics with Mirrors so anyone shooting a Laser at you would blow themselves up. Heh.

By: RL

RL — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:23:29 +0000

One of the first objectives in any armed conflict is to take out the enemies communications and control systems. We have become increasingly dependent on satellites for communications, GPS navigation and more. It would be foolish and negligent not to prepare to defend these systems.

By: Ian O'Neill

Ian O'Neill — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:03:00 +0000

To David: Brilliant! You're totally on the ball with this one. SASSA really doesn't cut it for me either – SHAFTED on the other hand is perfect. We just have to think up what "SHAFTED" could mean…

"Satellite-Handy Armed and Feared Targeted Defences"? I actually like that one!

Seriously though, this does look like downward turn for keeping weaponry out of space. As soon as I read that the Air Force had gotten defence contractors involved I realized this juganaut has only just begun rolling…

By: David

David — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:53:07 +0000

"So what do you do if someone fires a powerful laser at your satellite? The optics on the satellite will probably be fried, so you couldn't see who did it. The US military appears to be concerned that this possibility may become a reality."
-Of course the military is concerned. This is not anything to do with the advancement of meaningful science but rather national defense. Nothing wrong with that, unless someone with good intentions (the advancement of science for the general population) wants to collaborate with the people working for the military. Like that would ever happen.

"This development program has become known as Self Awareness/Space Situation Awareness (SASSA). "
-Come on, guys give me a break. Self awareness and government? Space situation? No…not "space situation," but rather "earth situation that spilled over into space. " A black hole is a space situation. A magnetar is a space situation. A solar flare is a space situation. But lasers pointed at satellites–come on. Call the whole thing SHAFTED instead.

By: Frank Glover

Frank Glover — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:14:28 +0000

What we really need, of course, are shields/force fields…

And Missile Command permitted an effect (causing incoming warheads to themselves detonate when they enter the defending warhead's 'fireball') that could help you play more effectively, but wouldn't work in the real world.

By: joker

joker — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:55:04 +0000

there was a game in the 80s called missile command.

http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=761