g.w.
03-25-2003, 02:02 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL FORUM'S DISCUSSION ON "WHY FIGHT IN SPACE?"
_____
GWR: I propose that the first space war started with Sputnik in 1957, and was a cold war--contrary to the claim that the Gulf War was the first space war. Some might go all the way back to Nazi Germany's V-2s attacking England, but it seems as if they demonstrated space weaponry in the same way aircraft used in Libya (c.1911?) demonstrated air weaponry. One interesting note about assuming the first space war began with Sputnik is that it goes along with the idea posited in "America's First Battles," i.e., that we (as a nation) usually do poorly in, if not actually lose, the first battle of every war. Of course, that brings up the question of whether the first space war has ended. We still may be "fighting" the first space war, or we may be in an "inter-war" period. Nevertheless, the question on the table is:
* WHY SHOULD WE EVER FIGHT A “HOT” WAR OR BATTLE IN (OR FROM) SPACE? *
Note that this is different from the question of using space as a support medium; for example, we do not call the US Civil War the first air war, even though observation balloons were used.
ELI: I agree with your position that Sputnik started the first space "battle" in the still ongoing "war". And yes, it does fit in nicely with some other commonalities with other wars as you mentioned. Wars can last a long time and the technological advances within the conflict don't define new wars, they just make good test questions for PME students and longer history books to read.
MIKE: Couple comments. . . possibly Sputnik might have been the first "shot" so to speak in the space battle that was a branch of the Cold War. I think Sputnik had far greater psychological effects than military. [**GWR: Agreed; it was not a military "strike" per se. However, the military invested heavily in the rocket programs.**] In fact, it may have served as a catalyst to bolster U.S. space development or accelerate it at the very least. [**GWR: Absolutely--we were working hard on rocketry before Sputnik, but it focused our attention like nothing else.**]
STEVE: First I think Mike hit it right on the head when he said we pursued a space race in the first place for strategic reasons, although not necessarily to deliver weapons, but to make sure we knew whether or not the other guy was planning to do it (ie CORONA). Weapons came shortly thereafter, but the concept is accurate. Space is currently not an environment where we necessarily go to do business, but more a medium for enhancing our business on the ground. Its more like subscribing to cable so you can get CNN. Its not a theater yet, its a service industry. In that respect, in the short term I feel our greatest risk in space is not armed conflict, but economic. Its more like the ongoing battles between AT&T and Sprint for phone customers. And with commercial multinational corporations currently far exceeding governmental use of space for the first time last year, the governmental presence in space will continue to decline as more and more governments will simply purchase services (imagery, comm, weather) from commercial suppliers. Maybe the ultimate "victory in space" will be when we don't have to resort to combat there at all. Is that too naive? [**GWR: Have you taken your argument any further? Use of a commercial service for military purposes makes that commercial service a legitimate military target; if my enemy buys imagery from France, say, to plan military action against me (as Iraq tried to do), then everything from the satellite to the ground is a potential target. Now, turn that argument around and you have the case where our commercial entities can be legitimate targets, too, which necessitates protection (as Mike pointed out, below).**]
JAMES: I agree with our moderator that Sputnik, or more accurately the process leading to it was the start of the "Spacewar", or maybe the 1st engagement in a new theatre of operations in a pre-existing, largely "Cold" war.
I do not accept that the V-2 was a "space weapon" in the conventional sense, (IMHO), but rather a rocket-propelled artillery/bombardment system. Calling it a space weapon is ultimately reductionist, no less so than calling the "Paris Gun" of 1915 a space weapon, (68 mile range, mid-flight trajectory in excess of 100k feet.)
[**GWR: Don't you refute your own argument when you refer to the V-2 as a "rocket-propelled" system? Perhaps later we should consider what constitutes a space weapon.**]
[**JG-B: I don't think that "rocket-propelled" necessarily makes for a space weapon. Nobody would reasonably call the Katyusha or Nebelwerfer systems space weapons - nor for that matter was the Me-163 Komet interceptor. All cutting edge rocket technologies, to be sure, but not space weapons. (At this point I want to express my belief, and fear, that we are going to get into a tactical vs. strategic applications rut in the process of defining "space weapons", that will distract us from our original goal.)**]
[**GWR: Okay, let’s leave that topic for another day.**]
We do normally enter conflicts unprepared, or underprepared - a cursory glance at Russell Wiegley will demonstrate why. Whether or not we are still fighting the "first" space war, or are in another engagement of an ongoing, or evolving conflict/battlefield, we are assuredly not in an interwar period as re: space war, since we have mission-essential systems in use today for the air war in South-west Asia, (Afghanistan & Iraqi no-fly zone), to say nothing of trying to navigate a MAC flight without GPS, or MILSTARS or whatever you guys in Blue use these days instead of dead reckoning. For that matter, how else will you monitor for BMEWS or troop/unit dispositions with realtime feedback on a theatre-wide scale?
_____
GWR: I propose that the first space war started with Sputnik in 1957, and was a cold war--contrary to the claim that the Gulf War was the first space war. Some might go all the way back to Nazi Germany's V-2s attacking England, but it seems as if they demonstrated space weaponry in the same way aircraft used in Libya (c.1911?) demonstrated air weaponry. One interesting note about assuming the first space war began with Sputnik is that it goes along with the idea posited in "America's First Battles," i.e., that we (as a nation) usually do poorly in, if not actually lose, the first battle of every war. Of course, that brings up the question of whether the first space war has ended. We still may be "fighting" the first space war, or we may be in an "inter-war" period. Nevertheless, the question on the table is:
* WHY SHOULD WE EVER FIGHT A “HOT” WAR OR BATTLE IN (OR FROM) SPACE? *
Note that this is different from the question of using space as a support medium; for example, we do not call the US Civil War the first air war, even though observation balloons were used.
ELI: I agree with your position that Sputnik started the first space "battle" in the still ongoing "war". And yes, it does fit in nicely with some other commonalities with other wars as you mentioned. Wars can last a long time and the technological advances within the conflict don't define new wars, they just make good test questions for PME students and longer history books to read.
MIKE: Couple comments. . . possibly Sputnik might have been the first "shot" so to speak in the space battle that was a branch of the Cold War. I think Sputnik had far greater psychological effects than military. [**GWR: Agreed; it was not a military "strike" per se. However, the military invested heavily in the rocket programs.**] In fact, it may have served as a catalyst to bolster U.S. space development or accelerate it at the very least. [**GWR: Absolutely--we were working hard on rocketry before Sputnik, but it focused our attention like nothing else.**]
STEVE: First I think Mike hit it right on the head when he said we pursued a space race in the first place for strategic reasons, although not necessarily to deliver weapons, but to make sure we knew whether or not the other guy was planning to do it (ie CORONA). Weapons came shortly thereafter, but the concept is accurate. Space is currently not an environment where we necessarily go to do business, but more a medium for enhancing our business on the ground. Its more like subscribing to cable so you can get CNN. Its not a theater yet, its a service industry. In that respect, in the short term I feel our greatest risk in space is not armed conflict, but economic. Its more like the ongoing battles between AT&T and Sprint for phone customers. And with commercial multinational corporations currently far exceeding governmental use of space for the first time last year, the governmental presence in space will continue to decline as more and more governments will simply purchase services (imagery, comm, weather) from commercial suppliers. Maybe the ultimate "victory in space" will be when we don't have to resort to combat there at all. Is that too naive? [**GWR: Have you taken your argument any further? Use of a commercial service for military purposes makes that commercial service a legitimate military target; if my enemy buys imagery from France, say, to plan military action against me (as Iraq tried to do), then everything from the satellite to the ground is a potential target. Now, turn that argument around and you have the case where our commercial entities can be legitimate targets, too, which necessitates protection (as Mike pointed out, below).**]
JAMES: I agree with our moderator that Sputnik, or more accurately the process leading to it was the start of the "Spacewar", or maybe the 1st engagement in a new theatre of operations in a pre-existing, largely "Cold" war.
I do not accept that the V-2 was a "space weapon" in the conventional sense, (IMHO), but rather a rocket-propelled artillery/bombardment system. Calling it a space weapon is ultimately reductionist, no less so than calling the "Paris Gun" of 1915 a space weapon, (68 mile range, mid-flight trajectory in excess of 100k feet.)
[**GWR: Don't you refute your own argument when you refer to the V-2 as a "rocket-propelled" system? Perhaps later we should consider what constitutes a space weapon.**]
[**JG-B: I don't think that "rocket-propelled" necessarily makes for a space weapon. Nobody would reasonably call the Katyusha or Nebelwerfer systems space weapons - nor for that matter was the Me-163 Komet interceptor. All cutting edge rocket technologies, to be sure, but not space weapons. (At this point I want to express my belief, and fear, that we are going to get into a tactical vs. strategic applications rut in the process of defining "space weapons", that will distract us from our original goal.)**]
[**GWR: Okay, let’s leave that topic for another day.**]
We do normally enter conflicts unprepared, or underprepared - a cursory glance at Russell Wiegley will demonstrate why. Whether or not we are still fighting the "first" space war, or are in another engagement of an ongoing, or evolving conflict/battlefield, we are assuredly not in an interwar period as re: space war, since we have mission-essential systems in use today for the air war in South-west Asia, (Afghanistan & Iraqi no-fly zone), to say nothing of trying to navigate a MAC flight without GPS, or MILSTARS or whatever you guys in Blue use these days instead of dead reckoning. For that matter, how else will you monitor for BMEWS or troop/unit dispositions with realtime feedback on a theatre-wide scale?