War in Space, is this possible?

[Xhalite]

I've been thinking about space exploration lately, but what about spacecraft meant for warfare? I know that there has been a treaty not allowing nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction to be placed in space, but what about military space stations? And conventional weapons I think are allowed, such as launching planes built to withstand the vaccum of space for space-to-space warfare or for space-to-ground warfare. Yes, a military space-station orbiting the Earth could be used to launch spacecraft for that purpose. Also, particle beams, and laser technologies are being developed for conventional use, but lasers don't work too well in the atmosphere, but work in a vaccum like space. Indeed, we do have the technology to conduct war in space and probably the manufacturing capability. But, do we have the money? Yes, I am sure it is possible, but can we pay for it? I'm not really encouraging war in space, I'm just seeing if it is possible and I think it is.

What do you think of this?

[01101001]

I'd expect nations to spend their money wisely and prepare some contingencies just in case, sticking to their avowed treaty obligations, skating right up to the edge of what they are permitted to do, as they are technologically able.

Welcome to BAUT Forum.

[Elukka]

There's little reason for space warfare to happen as long as all the belligerents, infrastructure and accessible resources are on Earth, unless you count things like intelligence satellites, anti-satellite missiles and possibly suborbital spaceplanes.

[Jens]

Also, the treaty about weapons in space is an international treaty, and hence not binding ultimately. So if anybody wants to do it, they can, in the same way that numerous countries around the world have developed nuclear weapons despite the existence of the NNPT. But at least at the moment, as Elukka said, there is no reason for it to happen.

[RGClark]

Top 10 Space Weapons.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...e_weapons.html


Bob Clark

[eburacum45]

There will always be the possibility of war ins pace, for a simple reason; any technology which is useful for accelerating a spacecraft to reasonably rapid velocities can also be adapted for use as a weaopn. The better and faster your spacecraft can travel, the more destructive the weapon that can be adapted from that same technology.

This is such an iron rule of the cosmos that I wonder if it is the real answer to the Fermi Paradox; that is, as soon as a civilisation has the technology to travel rapidly between the stars, it also has the technology to destroy itself.

[eburacum45]

In the near future war using spce-based technology is already possible; in fact the V2 rocket launched against England in the Second World War was a suborbital ballistic missile which went quite close to the edge of space (depending on your definition). One landed at the end of the road where my family lived.

A large-scale conflict nowadays would almost certainly involve the use of weapons that travel above the atmosphere for part of their trajectory, as well as anti-satellite and anti-missile measures.

[Garrison]

Oh there are all sorts of options. You could nudge a small NEO out of orbit and arrange the 'accidental' destruction of your enemies capital city, or of course flatten all his cities without any pesky radioactive fallout. You could enerate an EMP and just cripple their infrastructure, endless supervillain fun.

[Xhalite]

Your replies have helped me understand this topic better, thanks.

[Ilya]

In the near future war using spce-based technology is already possible; in fact the V2 rocket launched against England in the Second World War was a suborbital ballistic missile which went quite close to the edge of space (depending on your definition). One landed at the end of the road where my family lived.

A large-scale conflict nowadays would almost certainly involve the use of weapons that travel above the atmosphere for part of their trajectory, as well as anti-satellite and anti-missile measures.

All of this involves either targets or weapons (or both) being on the ground. It is no more "war in space" than aircraft combat is "war in air" -- they spend in air only a few hours at a time. Whereas naval combat truly can be considered "war at sea", as warships can remain independent of land for months.

So if OP question is "War in Space [akin to war at sea], is this possible?", then the answer is: Possible, sure. Practical or militarily useful... not in foreseeable future.

[JustAFriend]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

In addition to reconnaissance equipment, Almaz was equipped with a 23mm Nudelman rapid-fire cannon mounted in a stationary position to the forward belly of the station.[1] This self-lubricating cannon was modified from the tail-gun of Tu-22 jet bomber, and was capable of firing 950 rounds per minute. Each 200 gram projectile flew at a speed of 690 m/s relative to the station[2]. To aim the cannon the entire station would be quickly reoriented facing the threat.
Salyut 3/OPS-2 conducted a successful test firing on a target satellite remotely with the station unmanned due to concerns over excessive vibration and noise.
OPS-4 was to have featured two unguided missiles instead of the aircraft cannon, but this system has not been shown publicly and may have never been fully manufactured.

[joema]

All of this involves either targets or weapons (or both) being on the ground. It is no more "war in space" than aircraft combat is "war in air" -- they spend in air only a few hours at a time...

Air-to-air or even air/ground combat is definitely "war in air" and is commonly referred to that way by historians. Even lightweight, fledgling World War I aircraft are often termed an "air war".

Likewise whether the vehicles are manned or unmanned doesn't change this. When V1s attacked Britain, it was stilled termed part of the "air war". Just search on "air war" to see typical and common historical use of the term.

The OP asked whether war in space was possible. Whether the initial efforts are simplistic (like World War I aircraft) or not, this is still called war or combat in space. The OP seemed to think this had not yet taken place.

It's true there haven't been manned orbital vehicles carrying space marines with jet packs, as pictured in the James Bond movie Moonraker. However that will probably never happen due to increasingly sophisticated computers and robotics. Already terrestrial military combat aircraft are transitioning to unmanned versions: http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr...47b/index.html, http://www.afji.com/2009/06/4040349

If war in space includes one space vehicle blowing up another one, the U.S. had an operational space war capability in 1964. "Program 437" was announced by then-president Lyndon Johnson as fully operational, and entailed a fleet of Thor missiles with nuclear warheads for anti-satellite use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_437

[Messier Tidy Upper]

I've been thinking about space exploration lately, but what about spacecraft meant for warfare? I know that there has been a treaty not allowing nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction to be placed in space, but what about military space stations? And conventional weapons I think are allowed, such as launching planes built to withstand the vaccum of space for space-to-space warfare or for space-to-ground warfare. Yes, a military space-station orbiting the Earth could be used to launch spacecraft for that purpose. Also, particle beams, and laser technologies are being developed for conventional use, but lasers don't work too well in the atmosphere, but work in a vaccum like space. Indeed, we do have the technology to conduct war in space and probably the manufacturing capability. But, do we have the money? Yes, I am sure it is possible, but can we pay for it? I'm not really encouraging war in space, I'm just seeing if it is possible and I think it is.

What do you think of this?

I think it indeed possible and may well happen in the future as more "players" such as China enter the space frontier in bigger ways. Science fiction contains numerous hypothetical examples of space wars and weapons with varying degrees of crediblility depending ontehspecifics of thebooks /movies in question.

Satellites have already been destroyed in space in weapons tests or using missiles for "hazard reduction" ( aka a nice euphemism for weapons tests) in the case of one US satellite with hydrazine fuel whose name escapes me at present. I think the international treaties which lack enforcement capability can already be ignored from a practical standpoint. Some folks would argue that the US "shoot-down-a-satellite" test I referred to above and an earlier Chinese one which left a lot of space debris already have breached international law. Plus they're just ones we know of.

Space is already used for warfare in terms of gathering & communicating information. Unless human nature changes radically & improbably, I think war will always be at least a possibility in our lives. It is, after all, a continuation of politics by other means and where diplomacy fails .. but this is skating perilously close to politics which is verboten here now.

Short answer - yes, not only possible but likely and the UN treaty is probably not that much of a hindrance to it developing further.

[ravens_cry]

Another example of war in space would be the Almaz space station, which actually carried a gun aboard. It was test fired, though never with occupants inside.

[Ara Pacis]

Yes, it is possible and will probably commence with satellite destruction if a major power goes to war with another major power.

BTW, IIRC, only one signatory to the NNPT has created nuclear weapons. All other nuclear powers were either grandfathered in, are not signatory to the Treaty, were not signatory to the treaty at the time, or have a yet-to-bedisclosed/proven nuclear weapon's capability.

[kamaz]

Satellites are widely used for reconnaissance and command & control purposes. (Space-based anti-missile systems have also been tried). Thus a war between major powers would naturally involve destruction of orbital assets.

Space-based offensive weapons are feasible, but the ICBMs are much more practical for three reasons: (1) maintenance of a ground installation is much easier than maintenance of an orbital installation, (2) a ground installation can be protected from enemy strike with radars, anti-aircraft weapons etc., while a satellite cannot (and can be quietly destroyed over enemy's territory) and (3) an ICBM can be fired immediately toward any target in its range, while with a satellite system you have to wait until it happens to be flying over the target area.

[kamaz]

Oh there are all sorts of options. You could nudge a small NEO out of orbit and arrange the 'accidental' destruction of your enemies capital city, or of course flatten all his cities without any pesky radioactive fallout.

Not very practical, because of a bad targeting accuracy which makes it feasible only if the target is on another continent -- at which point fallout is not a problem. The only advantage of a NEO over a bunch if ICBMs is deniability. Plus, it's not like military planners have ever cared about fallout, as you can see by reading an actual war plan: http://php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/c...d=16239&lng=en

[Garrison]

Not very practical, because of a bad targeting accuracy which makes it feasible only if the target is on another continent -- at which point fallout is not a problem. The only advantage of a NEO over a bunch if ICBMs is deniability. Plus, it's not like military planners have ever cared about fallout, as you can see by reading an actual war plan: http://php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/c...d=16239&lng=en

Hence the quotes around accidental, and I think you will find sensitivities about fallout have moved on since 1964.

[mugaliens]

I think a principle reason we're not pursuing this is expense. Air-to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-ground capabilities are expensive enough, and just about bankrupted the major Cold War players. Space is very expensive business, and weaponizing space is more expensive still.

[dgh64]

War in space? Not only possible, but inevitable, eventually.

While the cost of getting a sattelite into orbit is very expensive, it's gradually coming down and that sattelite can stay up there for years (compared with aircraft which can only stay up for hours). I can easily imagine sattelites firing lasers or missiles at ground targets as a logical extension of the continual advancement of military tech we've seen over the course of history. Then everyone will want some way to shoot down the enemy's military sattelites, which either means a ground-to-space missile or laser, or a weaponized spaceplane, and then we'll need some way to counter the anti-sattelite tech. It's the natural progression of things.

[mugaliens]

It's the natural progression of things.

Only to the point where continuing that progression would bankrupt a leading country of the world. At that point, the leading countries got together and realized any further competition along these lines is needlessly and dangerously wasteful.

That doesn't mean designs aren't continuing to evolve on the drawing board, though.