"Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
As I took it, the main topic of concern was the proposed denial of
access to space spy/intelligence technology, even for US allies. I
came across to me almost as "The US will forbid all other countries to
have any spy/intelligence satellites." I've seen spin on this that
the point is the US is intent on developing greater capabilities to
enforce denial (selectively) if necessary, rather than this being a
broad new policy of space denial to all other nations ...
Yes, the "US is intent on developing greater capabilities to enforce
denial (selectively) ...."
Specifically, starting a year or so from now, the US should have the
capability of destroying ballistic missiles launched at US targets
from Korea or China. Until non-nuclear weapons are developed and
found reliable, according to US President Bush last year, the
anti-ballistic missiles will carry nuclear warheads. (Many think that
non-nuclear warheads will take at least another 7 and more like
another dozen years do develop and deploy.)
The reasoning is straight-forward:
North Korea has launched a long range missile (which it said was for a
satellite) and the US believes the North Korean government when it
says it is working on nuclear weapons.
The North Korean government can threaten the US in two ways:
* by threatening to launch a ballistic missile against the US, or,
* by launching a satellite that carries a nuclear warhead in a
re-entry vehicle.
The currently under-construction anti-ballistic missile site in Alaska
counters the first threat. Everyone believes that you can stop a
ballistic missile, even a MIRV, by detonating a nuclear bomb near it.
Moreover, many believe that President Bush would be willing to
detonate a nuclear bomb, or several, over the North Pacific Ocean.
(Not so many believed that President Carter would have been willing to
detonate nuclear bombs at a low altitude over the Dakotas or the
nearby part of Canada. President Carter's nuclear anti-ballistic
missile system has been shut down.)
There are several reasons to believe that President Bush would be
willing to order a launch against incoming missiles: Most of the EMP
effect would be over water. Those parts of North America that would
be hurt by EMP are Alaska which does not have many voters, Canada,
which does not vote in US elections, and parts of the US north-west
that voted against Bush last time. Moreover, US commercial satellites
are believed to be pretty well protected against EMP, but foreign
satellites might be harmed.
The way around this kind of US defense is to orbit a satellite and
then say it contains a nuclear warhead that can be de-orbited
anywhere. This makes for a believeable threat, since the Alaskan ABM
site cannot destroy satellites that come over the US from the
south-west.
The way to counter this new threat is to create an anti-satellite
capability and advertise it.
As a practical matter, the US probably does not fear that China would
do this, since the US figures that China will be deterred by the
threat of a US counter.
(However, it is easy enough to think up a scenario in which the
Chinese launch a perfectly harmless satellite that comes down, purely
by accident, in Peoria, Ill. The Chinese apologize profusely and pay
for damages. They say how lucky everyone is that the satellite did
not carry a nuclear weapon. At this point, the US public decides it
is not so keen on supporting Taiwan against a blockade, like the one
several years ago. In that instance, the mainland Chinese simply
tested non-nuclear missiles in such a way as to hinder ship traffic to
and from the island. The US countered by sending an aircraft carrier
group to the area. The goal of dropping something harmless on US soil
would be to make enough Americans scared enough that they would give
up their promise defense of Taiwan.)
The prime stated purpose of an anti-satellite capability is to prevent
the North Korean government from successfully threatening the US.
While many do believe that the Chinese government can be deterred, few
believe that North Korea can be deterred. North Korea has succeeded
over the past decade by adopting and using the `brinkmanship'
techniques that were developed and written up by Americans and Soviets
in the 1950s and 1960s. Many in the US government believe that the
members of the North Korean government who make the decisions may well
be willing to accept what they might consider a 20% or 40% chance of
being killed in order to gain large amounts of money and a guarantee
by the US of their personal safety.
Wasn't Star Wars more about intercepting incoming ballistic
missiles, rather than destroying ground targets?
Yes, it was more about that; but a `space based' system can also hit
ground targets at little extra cost. This was touted both as a way
to test the system with some degree of reality (since no one believed
the system would work without a fair degree of testing) and as a way
to gain extra military power without paying a huge amount.
You also spoke about
... the proposed denial of access to space spy/intelligence
technology, even for US allies.
This is to deal with a possible change in US allies. The recent
French opposition to the second Gulf War makes sense if you think of
it as the initial `positioning' for setting up an alliance 20 years
from now composed of France, Germany, Russia, and India.
The major west European powers have, in the past two weeks, not only
agreed to fund their own GPS that will be `more accurate' than the US
GPS but also agreed to fund the purchase of more than a hundred large
military cargo aircraft. Both these actions may sound dull, but they
are necessary if in the future those powers wish to influence others
militarily.
Currently the positioning is `anti-war by the US', but over a
generation, it will be possible to drop the `anti-war' part of the
notion -- perhaps by engaging in more peacekeeping actions -- and
focus on the `anti US' part.
Moreover, in 20 years, the US may well be countered by China, giving
Europe and its allies more maneuver room.
In addition, the actions of the Bush Administration, if successful,
will reduce US governmental power. In particular, the Bush
Administration is trying to reduce the percentage of the GDP spent on
government. It is doing this by inducing very large deficits that
eventually require cuts. The consequence is that future
administrations become as limited and hamstrung in working through the
IMF and World Bank as the first Bush adminstration was by the Reagan
borrowings.
Also, the Bush Administration is trying to extend monopoly or
oligopoly capitalism through, for example, its support of patent and
copyright laws that hinder small entrepeneurs. This is a major break
with the old Republican idea of supporting competitive, free markets.
(You will notice that members of the Bush administration talk more
often of `commerce' than of `competitive, free markets'.) Over a
decade or two (but not immediately), this action will reduce US
technological prowness since monopolies and oligopolies have less
interest in innovation than free competitors. All told, the French
government has a course of action that may eventually benefit them.
The slant you detected in the news story is a way of telling the
French and the Germans that if they want to counter the US in the long
run, then they too must spend a fortune on anti-satellite and
anti-missile defenses, as well as on a GPS system and airlift, and the
like. Implicitly, the Bush administration is asking France and
Germany whether their potential increase in military influence is
worth the cost.
(Personally, I think the West Europeans should spend 300 million Euros
a year on alternative sources of energy research: fund a tokamak for
hydrogen fusion (ITER, 5 - 10 billion Euros), fund a spheromak (an
alternative UK design, another 5 - 10 billion Euros), fund 20 billion
Euros worth of windmills, fund 20 billion Euros worth of wave-powered
electric generators, fund 20 billion Euros worth of solar collectors
... you have another 220 billion Euros to spend ... and then start
again next year ....
(With a vast research program on alternative sources of energy,
something is likely to pay off. Then the West Europeans would become
the people who supply the rest of the world with clean energy; I think
that this would give them more influence over the rest of the world
than military capabilities, and sooner, too.)
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
