 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2007Strategic Weapons on the SS or ISS?
Have any dummy nuclear bombs/missles ever been carried aloft into orbit on the Space Shuttle or transported to the International Space Station (or any other space station)? The theory is if it can be done, it has been done or will be done. While it may not seem practical to do so and there are treaties against real weapons in orbit, that doesn't mean space powers would do a test, particularly if the test involves dummy weapons which would seem not to violate any treaties. Such tests would explore the feasibility of using the real thing in case an enemy violates treaties or is an imminent threat. If such tests have been done, there is a case for Government secrecy for obvious reasons. However, if anybody knows the facts, please break forced silence and let us with inquiring minds be disclosed the truth as to how our tax dollars are put to work. Besides, it's good ethics in government for the truth to be universally known in its entirety at all times, unconditionally. > Have any dummy nuclear bombs/missles ever been carried aloft into orbit on > the Space Shuttle or transported to the International Space Station (or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for the truth to be universally known in its entirety at all times, > unconditionally. Umm, why the heck would anyone bother. Neither makes a great launch platform. And with a Russian crew member on-board ISS at all times, it would make even less sense to do this. As for anyone disclosing the truth, yeah right. Those who say, don't know. Those who know, don't say.  SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > Have any dummy nuclear bombs/missles ever been carried aloft into orbit on > the Space Shuttle or transported to the International Space Station (or any > other space station)? I don't know about *nuclear* weapons, but I do know that space stations had been planned with combat capabilities. Most notably, the Soviet Salyut-3. Salyut-3 was launched as a response to the planned American Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). MOL would have certainly had military capabilities--it could retrieve enemy satellites and, if necessary, damage or destroy them. The Pentagon eventually canceled MOL, but the Soviets went ahead with Salyut-3 anyway. Salyut-3 actually had an onboard cannon; but I don't know if it was ever tested against a real orbiting target. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html Finally, note that orbiting nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers were among the defensive systems that had been considered for President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. These would, as you say, have violated the letter of the Outer Space Treaty. SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. > Finally, note that orbiting nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers were among the > defensive systems that had been considered for President Reagan's > Strategic Defense Initiative. These would, as you say, have violated the > letter of the Outer Space Treaty. By no means. They would have violated the ABM Treaty, bot the 1967 OST. But by then, the Soviet KASKAD and SKIF battle stations would have been tested in orbit, and the treaty would have become moot. > > Finally, note that orbiting nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers were among the > > defensive systems that had been considered for President Reagan's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > battle stations would have been tested in orbit, and the treaty > would have become moot. SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? > SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. > Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? "nukes in space" were not outlawed by the OST, only "weapons of mass destruction". A weapon designed to destroy missile warheads, no matter what its operating principles, is not a weapon of mass destruction by ANY definition. >> SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. >> Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warheads, no matter what its operating principles, is not a weapon of > mass destruction by ANY definition. No, but your correction isn't 100% correct either. The treaty does prohibit nuclear weapons OR any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Article IV. Now I'd tend to agree that a nuke-pumped x-ray laser is not really a nuclear weapon but more of a nuclear-powered weapon. But international lawyers might argue otherwise. And I'm not familiar enough with EMP to know if such a device would create an EMP which would wipe out most orbiting satellites. If so, we're starting to slip towards one use of a nuclear weapon. (or turn it around, if I put a "physics pacakge" into orbit solely for the purpose of creating an EMP, would that be a nuclear weapon? If not, how do you convince other nations that it's not?) SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html >>> SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. >>> Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > an EMP which would wipe out most orbiting satellites. If so, we're starting > to slip towards one use of a nuclear weapon. No, generation of EMP would still not make it a "nuclear weapon." To me, a "nuclear weapon" causes destruction by an EXPLOSION that is nuclear-powered. > (or turn it around, if I put a "physics pacakge" into orbit solely for the > purpose of creating an EMP, would that be a nuclear weapon? If not, how do > you convince other nations that it's not?) It's not a "nuclear weapon"--because it didn't cause an explosion. It's a weapon that uses nuclear power. If it doesn't go boom, it's not a nuclear weapon. It's a nuclear-POWERED weapon. SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. >>>> SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. >>>> Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > It's not a "nuclear weapon"--because it didn't cause an explosion. > It's a weapon that uses nuclear power. Make up your mind. Above you're requiring destruction (I'm guessing thermal or shockwave) and here you're simply requiring it to explode. > If it doesn't go boom, it's not a nuclear weapon. It's a nuclear-POWERED > weapon. Ah, but one of the easiest ways to make something generate an EMP is to make it go boom. And an X-ray pumped laser DOES use a nuclear explosion to perform destruction. So... by your definitions above, you seem to agree it's a nuclear weapon. And again, it really doesn't matter what us laymen think, it's what the lawyers think. > > SDI X-ray lasers were to be bomb-pumped. Ergo, nukes in space. > > Not a violation? Did Regan administration plan to withdraw from OST? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warheads, no matter what its operating principles, is not a weapon of > mass destruction by ANY definition. Actually nukes were outlawed: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." True, there is no internationally acepted legal definition for a nuclear weapon. The argument can be made that if it blows like a muke and could be used as a nuke it's a nucular bomb. >> Finally, note that orbiting nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers were among the >> defensive systems that had been considered for President Reagan's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > By no means. They would have violated the ABM Treaty, bot > the 1967 OST. No, you've got it backwards. The 1972 ABM Treaty prohibited anti-ballistic missile systems employing technologies specifically laid out in the treaty. So-called "advanced or exotic technologies" would NOT be banned a priori, but subject to future U.S.-Soviet negotiation. It could plausibly be argued that *orbiting* nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers would constitute just such an "exotic" technology whose development, at least, would not be prohibited by the ABC Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty is the problematic one, since it explicitly bans "nuclear weapons" in space, but it's not clear whether a nuclear-pumped X-ray laser qualifies as a nuclear weapon. Personally, I don't think so, since to me a "nuclear weapon" is a weapon which causes an *explosion* by nuclear reactions. But I'll bet the Soviets would have made a stink about it. :-) SignatureSteven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.