USAF Wants A Blank Check For Defense

[agdlp]

Source: strategypage.com

February 1, 2008: The U.S. Air Force is asking Congress for more money to defend U.S. military satellites from potential attack. This is largely in response to the Chinese test of an anti-satellite satellite last year. The air force wants more money for additional ground and space based sensors (radar, telescopes and electronic monitoring) to keep track of what's up there.

Read more: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20080201.aspx

[peacetalksforall]

1. First reaction - I don't believe it for a minute. Especially if it's just another

handout without accountability and oversight or for a little treasure box that can be stolen just like the 443 billionf - still missing or if it's a giveaway for friends or it's more money for friends and their military toys, or more Christian academy teachers, or more Blackwater salaries. I am bitter. Apologies to all well intentioned secular broad minded airforce men and women.

[davekriss]

11. "443 billionf - still missing"

Do you refer to the $2 trillion unaccounted for in military spending? You vastly understate the theft.

[ixion]

2. ah yes...for the creation of an anti-satellite satellite satellite

we must not allow a satellite gap!

It never ends with these hucksters, and congress never catches on.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

5. But if we do that, China will develop an anti-satellite satellite satellite satellite

And then we'll have to develop an anti-satellite satellite satellite satellite satellite

And then China will develop an...oh no, I've gone cross-eyed. :crazy:

[ixion]

6. exactly... it's like the old bugs bunny cartoon

where Yosemite Sam comes running at bugs with an axe, who comes running back with a pistol, sam then comes running with a rifle, and bugs comes running back with a canon, and so on.

It never ends until both sides are reduced to ashes.

[AndyTiedye]

7. The Subcontractor Will Probably Outsource the Satellite Defense System to China

[AndyTiedye]

8. .

duplicate post

[ReformedChris]

3. The Air Force is very talented at wasting money in space..

The MOL Program (Manned Orbital Laboratory) was a spy space station that burned billions of 1960's dollars and left us with a cool looking Blue Gemini capsule to look at in a museum. Completely wasted that money along with DynaSoar program (a military space plane that gave a little input into Space Shuttle design). The Air Force needs to step back and re-asses the situation without panicking. Why is it that everytime something happens the military has to tug on the taxpayer pursestrings?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. When it comes to...

Hairbrained, black hole, money-burning budgets, nobody does it better than the Air Farce. It has a real culture, amongst its Generals, of "You ain't shit unless you have your own black project and the money thereof".

Frankly, this black hole budgeting has to be stopped. There must be accountability. These guys even carve the executive branch out of their need-to-know lists. Congress? Maybe they will tell one or two of them. Maybe, but not necessarily.

[smiley_glad_hands]

9. Anyone ever question why that spy satellite is falling down?

Personally, I think it was the chinese fucking with us.

On edit: Not saying I want the AF to have a blank check though.

[Nevernose]

20. I thought that, too.

Of course, we might both be paranoid, or read too much bad fiction. Then again, we may be right.

[Javaman]

10. defend them? fuck, they can't even control them. I do recall one is about to fall on us. nt

[flashl]

12. Sounds like an upgrade of Rayguns Star Wars. nt

[caraher]

13. The only counter that's cost effective is backup satellites

Weaponization of space is a lose-lose proposition, especially for the US given its reliance on satellites. The anti-satellite weapon will pretty much always get through, largely because it doesn't have to be very sophisticated. To intercept an anti-satellite weapon before it strikes would involve making a weapons system far more expensive and prone to failure than the device it's trying to defeat.

This reminds me of the "Ray-gun won the cold war by forcing Soviet military spending to collapse the economy." If we hand the Air Force a blank check and China even just makes threatening noises, the "Gipper as conquering hero" logic suggests we refrain from overreacting.

Of course, in some circles the idea of a program that absorbs infinite amounts of money for infinitesimal return in practical terms is the perfect weapons program... The defense industries are the true "welfare queens."

[donkeyotay]

15. Or warfare queens. nt

[BearSquirrel2]

14. Not necessary ... but ...

I think that a satellite protection system would be about the same as the missle defense shield. Mutually assured destruction has served us well for a very long time. It would be cheaper to develop our own satellite killer weapon and deploy them proportionally with the Chinese. The message is clear, if you take out our satellites, we'll do yours. It's a stalemate.

[donkeyotay]

16. That makes a lot of sense, but the question is, "Is it profitable?"

We need another Star Wars right about now to keep all those contractors employed. :sarcasm:

Consider the last durable goods number, which was supposed to be a good number. The report for Dec. showed durable goods up 5.2%, or 2.6% if you took out transportation. But if you took out defense, durable goods were DOWN 2.9%.

[boricua79]

17. and they will get it

there's nothing our representatives will deny the military...the only guaranteed interest group in the country.

[Solly Mack]

18. I want a pony

[hunter]

19. The Air Force is so rotten we should just get rid of it.

That would save us a whole lot of money, and choke off all the tax money that's diverted back to corrupt politicians.

The problem with space is that you can take out a billion dollars worth of equipment with a handful of gravel. There's nothing gonna change the physics of that.

[caraher]

21. That's right

"The problem with space is that you can take out a billion dollars worth of equipment with a handful of gravel. There's nothing gonna change the physics of that."

And consider this... suppose one did have a weapon that could intercept a Chinese anti-satellite weapon. Is it going to wrestle the marauder to the ground or blow it up? Do this enough times and you have a nasty debris problem that's pretty much guaranteed to intersect regularly the orbit of the satellite you're "defending." Now you've got more "gravel," albeit perhaps in a slightly different orbit...

I don't see how a live weapons use in space does anything other than deny orbits to *all* satellites. So we should ask, is it to our advantage for this to happen? I can't see how it could be.

[dysfunctional press]

22. but since there is no air in space...

shouldn't we add another branch to the military...:shrug:

[caligirl]

23. The O Clubs must be in need of new curtains.