Arms Race in Space

Bluey 006

Member
Object 2014-28E

With a newly assertive Russia,rising China and the US all developing space technologies with military applications. Is a new arms race looming?

While several treaties exist regarding space based activities - military or other; are they enough to prevent hostile events or actions by the aforementioned parties or any others in space ?

How long before terrorists view space as a viable theatre of operations?
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
[While several treaties exist regarding space based activities - military or other; are they enough to prevent hostile events or actions by the aforementioned parties or any others in space ?
I view the treaties more as a deterrent to an expensive arms race than actual usage. Once it becomes financially viable...the treaties will go away or be ignored. I think we're still on the outside of viability...but not for long.

How long before terrorists view space as a viable theatre of operations?
When it becomes cost-effective for them to do so. It takes fairly developed nations awhile to develop effective space operations; expect terrorists to take longer, if ever.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I view the treaties more as a deterrent to an expensive arms race than actual usage. Once it becomes financially viable...the treaties will go away or be ignored. I think we're still on the outside of viability...but not for long.



When it becomes cost-effective for them to do so. It takes fairly developed nations awhile to develop effective space operations; expect terrorists to take longer, if ever.
Iran and NK could be a back door for terrorist activities in space, albeit a risky one, for Iran anyway. NK has nothing to lose.
 

bobby_77

New Member
I think in the 21'st Century, China will build a moon base.

China already put a small space station in Orbit, and will be expanding it to 2020 and then have a space station. By 2030, I think they will try to put a man on the moon and maybe even a moon base.

In the 21'st Century, this century, I think China is going to be a hyper super power. I don't think a hyper super power is going to be defined by just weapons or nukes. America is in a lot of debt. They owe Japan about 1 trillion, and then they owe China another 1 trillion. America will have to keep printing dollars to keep there economy afloat.

In the 1700 century I read China acounted for almost 60 percent of world GDP. Will that happen again this Century. By share volume I read China is already the biggest Economy in the world, and it's not another Japan. China has 1.2 to 1.4 billion people, and the surrounding countries make up another 3 billion people to trade with. China isn't a Japan about to attack another country.

Technology, military, nukes, ships, Aircraft Carriers, and a new space station. I mean the Russians and, England, France , don't even have a space station. And the the Americans, don't really want to continue funding there space station.

China on the other hand I read is planning a possible moon base. I think China is going to become a Hyper Super Power, with a moon base.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
China already put a small space station in Orbit, and will be expanding it to 2020 and then have a space station. By 2030, I think they will try to put a man on the moon and maybe even a moon base.

In the 21'st Century, this century, I think China is going to be a hyper super power. I don't think a hyper super power is going to be defined by just weapons or nukes. America is in a lot of debt. They owe Japan about 1 trillion, and then they owe China another 1 trillion. America will have to keep printing dollars to keep there economy afloat.

In the 1700 century I read China acounted for almost 60 percent of world GDP. Will that happen again this Century. By share volume I read China is already the biggest Economy in the world, and it's not another Japan. China has 1.2 to 1.4 billion people, and the surrounding countries make up another 3 billion people to trade with. China isn't a Japan about to attack another country.

Technology, military, nukes, ships, Aircraft Carriers, and a new space station. I mean the Russians and, England, France , don't even have a space station. And the the Americans, don't really want to continue funding there space station.

China on the other hand I read is planning a possible moon base. I think China is going to become a Hyper Super Power, with a moon base.
And a moon base will mean what really?

In regards to the US economy, No they won't have to keep printing money to stay afloat. The US financially has a lot of room to play around to get things back in order, What they lack is bipartisan support while also having some groups (ie: ALEC) putting forth so much crap it is weighing the US down with red tape.

Tax wise the US only takes in around 25% of there GDP, The OECD average is 35%. So no, The US economy is not so bad that they will have to print money just to stay afloat, What they need is real reform (ie: Rip everything up and rebuild it from scratch) such as reducing the 75,000 odd pages of tax codes. Do that and the economy will be cruising.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
And a moon base will mean what really?

In regards to the US economy, No they won't have to keep printing money to stay afloat. The US financially has a lot of room to play around to get things back in order, What they lack is bipartisan support while also having some groups (ie: ALEC) putting forth so much crap it is weighing the US down with red tape.

Tax wise the US only takes in around 25% of there GDP, The OECD average is 35%. So no, The US economy is not so bad that they will have to print money just to stay afloat, What they need is real reform (ie: Rip everything up and rebuild it from scratch) such as reducing the 75,000 odd pages of tax codes. Do that and the economy will be cruising.
The US debt is north of 16 trillion, that's almost equal to its GDP. Even worse are the huge unfunded liabilities like Medicare and social security which will see rising costs as the boomer generation tries to collect. It's going to be a very rocky cruise for the US economy down the road, even with a functional Congress.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The US debt is north of 16 trillion, that's almost equal to its GDP. Even worse are the huge unfunded liabilities like Medicare and social security which will see rising costs as the boomer generation tries to collect. It's going to be a very rocky cruise for the US economy down the road, even with a functional Congress.
Try US$21 trillion for the US debt. It's debt is 105.4% of GDP. The other 5EYES nations debt as % GDP:
  • Australia 41.90%
  • Canada 89.60%
  • New Zealand 22.20%
  • United Kingdom 85.30%
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
So they have added a few trillion more in the last 2 1/2 years. I'm sure the the Donald will claim it was all Obama.:)

Regarding Canada's debt, the federal contribution is about 53% of GDP. The total Canadian debt is indeed close to 100% of GDP when the provinces debts are added in. Also, household debt is the highest in the world at 101% of GDP. Here is a link to provincial debt clocks. Note the horror show in Ontario, another Liberal government. No wonder defence takes it up the a$$ year after year. Rant over.:eek:

Canada's National Debt Clock : The Canadian Taxpayers Federation
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Chinese military researchers are concerned about the potential threat posed by Space X's Starlink satellites and have urged the country to develop ways of destroying or disabling them. The news comes soon after CEO Elon Musk was threatened by the head of Russian space agency Roscosmos over the Starlink terminals that have been sent to help Ukraine.


 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Sounds like a science-fiction story, but it seems to be true. Quite interesting.
Have to disagree about the risk to the pristine lunar environment. No atmosphere and the sun make a single H-bomb rather insignificant.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Sounds like a science-fiction story, but it seems to be true. Quite interesting.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the military and strategic experts of the time would often come up with outlandish proposals when it came to nuclear weapons. These were "radical qualitative shift" in warfare, especially in the sense that they provided the political authority with war initiation and termination power with single push of a button (metaphorical). Hence, the political authority - which was as yet trying to wrap its mind around the n-weapons but not fully grasping the consequences - was willing to entertain or at least listen to all the ideas, many of them being outright disastrous. Many scientists, spurred by parochial, and research and technological imperatives, were also elbowing out some of their sane colleagues or those who just simply opposed their outrageous proposals from the picture to win the US political authority's approval for the execution of their ideas/proposals and were willing to in-turn entertain the politico-military-strategic enclave.*** All of this they were doing at the expense of global security. In part, it was only as the more sane minds and disarmament groups began publishing their findings on nuclear weapons and their actual and possible impacts that the sanity - as many perceived it to be - prevailed. And in part, nuclear deterrence played its role.

*** i.e. Oppenheimer vs Edward Teller. Although, I do not consider either of them to be moralistic - despite Oppenheimer often presenting himself to be one - Teller was definitely in the wrong in his behaviour and motivated by his parochial ambitions than by the nuclear deterrence requirements of the US' security enclave.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
In the 1950s and 1960s, the military and strategic experts of the time would often come up with outlandish proposals when it came to nuclear weapons. These were "radical qualitative shift" in warfare, especially in the sense that they provided the political authority with war initiation and termination power with single push of a button (metaphorical). Hence, the political authority - which was as yet trying to wrap its mind around the n-weapons but not fully grasping the consequences - was willing to entertain or at least listen to all the ideas, many of them being outright disastrous. Many scientists, spurred by parochial, and research and technological imperatives, were also elbowing out some of their sane colleagues or those who just simply opposed their outrageous proposals from the picture to win the US political authority's approval for the execution of their ideas/proposals and were willing to in-turn entertain the politico-military-strategic enclave.*** All of this they were doing at the expense of global security. In part, it was only as the more sane minds and disarmament groups began publishing their findings on nuclear weapons and their actual and possible impacts that the sanity - as many perceived it to be - prevailed. And in part, nuclear deterrence played its role.

*** i.e. Oppenheimer vs Edward Teller. Although, I do not consider either of them to be moralistic - despite Oppenheimer often presenting himself to be one - Teller was definitely in the wrong in his behaviour and motivated by his parochial ambitions than by the nuclear deterrence requirements of the US' security enclave.
The one outlandish proposal was the nuclear powered bomber which actually got built. Given the crash rate of 1950s era military aircraft, the project was considered too risky for deployment. The other issues were readiness (the reactor) and radiation shielding wasn’t really sufficient for the crew and aircraft maintainers.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
The one outlandish proposal was the nuclear powered bomber which actually got built. Given the crash rate of 1950s era military aircraft, the project was considered too risky for deployment. The other issues were readiness (the reactor) and radiation shielding wasn’t really sufficient for the crew and aircraft maintainers.
In 1950s nuclear seemed like a good sales pitch. The were conceptualising nuclear powered cars, small reactors to power homes, and other "outlandish" ideas.

Also in the 1950s, the USAF - newly birthed but run by old dogs like Curtis LeMay - was still obsessed with bombers instead of fighter jets and ballistic missiles. In fact, people like LeMay opposed ballistic missiles in favour of bombers. I am not surprised with them pondering on n-powered bombers.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It will be interesting to see if any of the mobile reactor concepts for charging future military EVs actually arrive.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
It will be interesting to see if any of the mobile reactor concepts for charging future military EVs actually arrive.
Scientific R&D programmes like the Project PELE may continue ahead but I perceive their fruition or operationalising to be improbable unless there could be a foolproof mechanism for minimising the risk of radioactive fallout to almost zero and guaranteed security against the theft of fissile material from damaged or destroyed mobile stations/vehicles.
 

Larry_L

Member
The cost effective vector for space warfare is cyber attacks. The first satellite was disabled by a cyber attack in 1998. That is 25 years ago. The battle in space has been going on between the white and black hats at least that long. The European Space agency recently issued a challenge to white hats to target the ESA's “OPS-SAT”. Thales managed to take over the sat, and and do quite a number of things.

 
Top