>>It’s already been done.<<

That is a ridiculously simple statement to make as if it summarizes the state of space weapons development, let alone production and deployment. No, it hasn’t been done; at least, most of what we hope to avoid with space arms control hasn’t been done yet. Most of the basic technologies have been developed and tested, yes. But only some weapons have been developed and very few put into operational status, mostly by the United States.

>>As for arms races, there will always be arms races. Have you looked at the evolution of life?<<

Ummm, yes I have looked at the evolution of life, and it provides little comfort to see how species have experienced catastrophe and gone extinct. I am left seeing no reason to expect a guarantee of humanity surviving its encounter with nuclear-age technology.

>>Any object that can change its orbit can be used as a weapon. The higher its specific impulse and delta-v, the more effective it will be<<

Again, simplistic statements. The first one is categorically false. Lots of satellites up there can change their orbits, slightly, and most are still attached to the engines that iserted them into orbit. Very few, if any, have any capability to be used as weapons. Furthermore, weapons spacecraft would be distinguishable from ordinary spacecraft by many observable features, such as speed, stealth, the presence of sensors and autonomous proximity maneuver capabilities, or other characteristics. Why would weapons not be engineered for maximum stealthiness, in order to quietly prepare a surprise space strike over many years? First, because such a strategy would be idiotic and suicidal, almost certain to be detected before maturation and to fail in the unlikely case the strike preparations go undetected and the strike is executed. That’s “fail” as in “massive nuclear destruction and the likely end of civilization.” Second, because weapons optimized for long-term stealth would be compromised as weapons. The most effective weapons, as with all kinds of things, will be ones optimized as weapons, capable of fast, sure, effective disablement of opposing forces, not things that can be hidden in space for years as weather satellites. The technical criteria that would make a space weapon effective are so many that I can’t really respond to your statement about “specific impulse and delta-v” except to say that while in some cases these criteria do distinguish effective from ineffective weapons, and can be used to discriminate weapons from nonweapons systems (given a plausible account of the nonweapons purposes of the nonweapons systems), in other cases these measures are irrelevant or of much less importance than other aspects of technical performance.

>>in order for the spacecraft to blend into the cosmic background, it will have to refrigerate its surface to 3-4K. Try doing that in space while firing thrusters and/or lasers.<<

Yes, there are important limitations on what you can do and remain stealthy. However, for now it is not necessary to get quite so cold to defeat the relevant sensor systems.

>>Arms control treaties are just pieces of paper if they’re without any threat of reprisal.<<

Treaties will likely be ineffective if they ban things that nations want to do but there are no consequences if they do them anyway, either because it can go undetected or because they do it and nobody does or can do anything. In the case of space weapons, it isn’t clear that any nation wants to do it, or has any reason to do it, although some people in many nations want to do it, and some entrenched interests in a number of nations have reasons to want to do it. As for consequences, if you live in a world with a space weapons ban, the worst consequence of violating the space weapons ban is that everybody knows you do it and so they violate it too, and the ban collapses and then you live in a world with an uncontrolled space arms race and probably not for very long, unless you all figure out how to get the space weapons ban up and working again. Because that is a world of hairtrigger “strategic” confrontation in space and on Earth between nuclear-armed nations, a world we prayed through the 20th Century to escape and the rejuvenation of which we now in the 21st Century stand perilously at the threshold of.

In the world we should hope to build, there would be no reason to “cheat” on a space weapons treaty because there would be nothing to be gained by “cheating,” except to reap the whirlwind. In fact, that is already the world we live in, enforced on us by our knowing the laws of physics. No wonder you must resort to insulting human intelligence in general to argue that we can’t think our way out of a Cold War shoebox.

It’s already been done. As for arms races, there will always be arms races. Have you looked at the evolution of life?

Mark Gubrud said:

“In that case, do you think handguns held by astronauts or “VASIMR or Fusion type engines” will be the weapons of choice which will be developed, tested, deployed, stockpiled, and sold to other countries by the United States, China, Russia, and God knows who else in the next few decades?”

Any object that can change its orbit can be used as a weapon. The higher its specific impulse and delta-v, the more effective it will be (I chose VASIMR and fusion-rockets as an example of propulsion that can have moderate to high thrust with high specific impulse. Features that will also be quite useful to any proposed interplanetary manned spacecraft).

Mark Gubrud said:
“As to stealth being impossible in space, there are a number of measures you would take today to reduce your signature in space, the most important being miniaturization.”

Miniaturization will also result in far superior sensors and computers that analyze the data. Also, in order for the spacecraft to blend into the cosmic background, it will have to refrigerate its surface to 3-4K. Try doing that in space while firing thrusters and/or lasers.

Mark Gubrud:
“Man may be a “predatory animal” but that is not a good argument against arms control as a (perhaps ultimately futile) attempt to prevent our self-destruction.”

It is a good argument against any solution presented that doesn’t factor into account that humans are a predatory species. Arms control treaties are just pieces of paper if they’re without any threat of reprisal. That means, a universal ban on space weapons will fail since humans have the instinct to cheat on others outside their “monkeysphere” (Dunbar’s Number). Such bans have already failed in the past and will fail in the future. “Reprisal” is the key word when it comes to deterring predators. And you can’t hide if you’re fighting in space.

True. Short-term stealth against sensors with known characteristics in known locations should be quite feasible. Long-term, all-aspect, all-phenomenology stealth is a much dicier proposition. I would not, for example, be inclined to try to stealthify a large spysat intended to operate in LEO for years on end. (Which is what the NRO apparently tried to do on at least one occasion — and got caught.)

Let’s say that there will be no ban on space weapons and that nations will therefore, prudently, develop and deploy them against each other since each other will be doing the same (such is the logic of arms races and the implication of the premise that there will be no space weapons ban).

In that case, do you think handguns held by astronauts or “VASIMR or Fusion type engines” will be the weapons of choice which will be developed, tested, deployed, stockpiled, and sold to other countries by the United States, China, Russia, and God knows who else in the next few decades?

As to stealth being impossible in space, there are a number of measures you would take today to reduce your signature in space, the most important being miniaturization. Stealth is never perfect, however, and its employment is ultimately detectable and recognizable.

Man may be a “predatory animal” but that is not a good argument against arms control as a (perhaps ultimately futile) attempt to prevent our self-destruction.

If I do an EVA with that handgun, then I can use it to attack a space vehicle nearby.

Mark Gubrud said:
“But if they are deployed in the dozens, kept in reserve and not put to use, if they have obvious stealth characteristics, if they are equipped with powerful, fast-maneuvering engines, etc., then the claims of innocence will be much less credible.”

This means that any spacecraft with VASIMR or Fusion type engines can be a weapon. And, stealth isn’t possible in space anyway. My opinion is that all spacecraft can be used as weapons. If it has thrusters, then it can be used as a weapon.

yousaf said:
“ we choose to make murder illegal, even though some people will still murder.”

But it’s not the law itself that deters most murders, it’s the threat of reprisal.

People must not forget that Man is just a predatory animal. Any idea proposed on this type of issue must take that into account.

These problems are not hard to solve, but one has to be trying.

I agree with your point about the military value of space-based systems creating a strong incentive to attack them, which is why the rise of extremely dangerous space arms race in the near future is so greatly to be feared. On the other hand, China and Russia do not want to fight a war with the United States, for the obvious reason that it would very likely result in the end of human civilization. That’s why they are also interested in arms control agreements with us which would limit everyone’s military options in order to avoid the creation of an ever more dangerous and unstable military confrontation.

Exactly so. I will commit the solecism of citing something from fourteen years ago:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/at_960610.htm

> And any US military space organization that isn’t devoted to making its space based assets LESS attractive targets to interference — hardening, hiding, multiplicity, camouflaging, dispersal, etc — also needs to wind up unemployed.

There would be a huge number of houses on the market in the DC area if that happened.

What I am saying is that if you want to get the stakeholders involved around a table within the next 40 years you will likely need to start with the discussion of the rules, as these almost all rational people can begin to agree on.

Talking of bans from the outset will ensure that important stakeholders do not come to your party. This has been the case for the last 40 plus years.

A dose of pragmatism would go a long way towards initiating discussions on space security. Talking on bans is unhelpful on getting discussion started, whether or not it makes any sense to you.

Agreed w/ MK’s response to Oberg: we choose to make murder illegal, even though some people will still murder.