Orbital Weapons

[Blazedtown]

It has made us reliant on foreigners for our space lift capacity. If we had a space station to ourselves, we would have been forced to have a replacement for the Space Shuttles before they were retired.

And the price tag that comes with, yes?

So? we didn't spare any expense on the Manhattan Project and the exploration and colonization of space are far more vital for the future of America and all mankind than the Manhattan Project was.

[Lotari]

I think it is a good idea. The US needs to stick it to the Russians and the Chinese and build an ABM system so powerful as to make all of their ICBMs obsolete. Preferably it would enable the US to nuke them, but they wouldn't be able to nuke back. A world in which the US is the only superpower is one I'd like to enable again.

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

Anti-ballistic missile systems are not nukes.

[Tyrants]

And the price tag that comes with, yes?

So? we didn't spare any expense on the Manhattan Project and the exploration and colonization of space are far more vital for the future of America and all mankind than the Manhattan Project was.

The Manhattan Project was seen as a means to an end. Blowing up space isn't.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

Anti-ballistic missile systems are not nukes.

Some can be.
They'd have been bloody effective if they'd ever needed to have been used.

[The Corparation]

*sigh* People just don't get it...
No nukes in space
No nukes in space
No nukes in space

Anti-ballistic missile systems are not nukes.

The really good ones are though. One ABM system we could of and should have built used Bomb-pumped X-ray lasers. A single warhead can power a multitude of lasers. Had we done the R&R and built one. We could do one shuttle launch and we'd would have had a satellite that could theoretically shoot down the entirety of the USSR's land based arsenal.

[Wisconsin9]

Space stations to attack the ground are bad ideas. Space stations to shoot down ICBMs are Bad Ideas™.

[The Corparation]

Space stations to attack the ground are bad ideas. Space stations to shoot down ICBMs are Bad Ideas™.

First one I agree with, second one is just flat out wrong. Space based ABM Defenses remain some of the most potent ABM systems ever designed. We could have built them and we should have built them.

[Blazedtown]

So? we didn't spare any expense on the Manhattan Project and the exploration and colonization of space are far more vital for the future of America and all mankind than the Manhattan Project was.

The Manhattan Project was seen as a means to an end. Blowing up space isn't.

Where did I say we should blow up space?

Its not a means to an end, its a means to the beginning of the next chapter of human history.

[Wisconsin9]

Space stations to attack the ground are bad ideas. Space stations to shoot down ICBMs are Bad Ideas™.

First one I agree with, second one is just flat out wrong. Space based ABM Defenses remain some of the most potent ABM systems ever designed. We could have built them and we should have built them.

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

[Imperium of Tanith]

Simple, just have a Space Station that fires Orbital Bombardments.

[Blazedtown]

First one I agree with, second one is just flat out wrong. Space based ABM Defenses remain some of the most potent ABM systems ever designed. We could have built them and we should have built them.

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

Putting a tm after the end of it doesn't make it true.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

First one I agree with, second one is just flat out wrong. Space based ABM Defenses remain some of the most potent ABM systems ever designed. We could have built them and we should have built them.

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

Okay, this is just wut.
You have exactly, unequivocally said, that defences against nuclear attack are bad.

[Trollgaard]

Hey do you think a orbital defense grid is a good idea? please respond to this I would like to find out.

Lame OP, but despite the UN resolution I feel that it is the next logical step for the USA to take in our strategy of complete dominance in the military sphere. The treaty be damned, we come first.

[The Corparation]

First one I agree with, second one is just flat out wrong. Space based ABM Defenses remain some of the most potent ABM systems ever designed. We could have built them and we should have built them.

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Simple, just have a Space Station that fires Orbital Bombardments.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

[Priory Academy USSR]

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Simple, just have a Space Station that fires Orbital Bombardments.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

F-15's can hit space-borne targets? Huh.

[Wisconsin9]

OK, maybe I should have been a bit more specific: ABM systems in general are Bad Ideas™.

Putting a tm after the end of it doesn't make it true.

Never said it did. But the existence of nuclear weapons keep the major powers from openly tearing each other's throats out. Moving the fighting to proxy wars in third world nations still isn't exactly desirable, but I for one think it's better than having tens of millions of people getting killed in relatively pointless wars every few decades.

[Oogium]

[citation needed]

Not that I'm saying it's wrong, but source?

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

If we obeyed every treaty ever written South America would still be split between Spain and Portugal and Germany wouldn't be allowed to have tanks or an air force. Times change and international law needs to change with it.

I believe this treaty is pre-World War 2. Also, remember when the Chinese blinded American sats with a laser? All they'd have to do would be EMP under the thing, and boom! Giant piece of explosive space junk.

[The Corparation]

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

F-15's can hit space-borne targets? Huh.

Yes.

[Blazedtown]

Hey do you think a orbital defense grid is a good idea? please respond to this I would like to find out.

Lame OP, but despite the UN resolution I feel that it is the next logical step for the USA to take in our strategy of complete dominance in the military sphere. The treaty be damned, we come first.

You can't damn a treaty! its printed on paper, one of the most resilient materials ever made by mankind. Any law printed on paper is unbreakable. Like just last night I tried roll through a stop sign and paper sprang out of no where and stopped my car dead in its tracks.

[Thronegaria]

An Orbital Weapon would be a bad idea, perhaps even wars happened because of it. who would be in charge?

[The Corparation]

Putting a tm after the end of it doesn't make it true.

Never said it did. But the existence of nuclear weapons keep the major powers from openly tearing each other's throats out. Moving the fighting to proxy wars in third world nations still isn't exactly desirable, but I for one think it's better than having tens of millions of people getting killed in relatively pointless wars every few decades.

And the existence of ABM systems helps to ensure that the major powers don't rip each others throats out as it gives them a greater incentive not to attack, as they won't be able to make as decisive an attack.

[Blazedtown]

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

If we obeyed every treaty ever written South America would still be split between Spain and Portugal and Germany wouldn't be allowed to have tanks or an air force. Times change and international law needs to change with it.

I believe this treaty is pre-World War 2. Also, remember when the Chinese blinded American sats with a laser? All they'd have to do would be EMP under the thing, and boom! Giant piece of explosive space junk.

So? The outer space treaty is 40 years old. It was written during the Cold War to keep the Russians from claiming the moon while they were still winning the space race.

[The Corparation]

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

If we obeyed every treaty ever written South America would still be split between Spain and Portugal and Germany wouldn't be allowed to have tanks or an air force. Times change and international law needs to change with it.

I believe this treaty is pre-World War 2. Also, remember when the Chinese blinded American sats with a laser? All they'd have to do would be EMP under the thing, and boom! Giant piece of explosive space junk.

Source on China blinding Americans Sats? And also satellites can be made resistant to EMPs.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I fail to see how ABM systems are bad.

Seriosuly Space station weapons platforms aren't that great an idea. ASAT missiles are cheap.

F-15's can hit space-borne targets? Huh.

So can lightweight Navy cruisers.

Putting a tm after the end of it doesn't make it true.

Never said it did. But the existence of nuclear weapons keep the major powers from openly tearing each other's throats out. Moving the fighting to proxy wars in third world nations still isn't exactly desirable, but I for one think it's better than having tens of millions of people getting killed in relatively pointless wars every few decades.

ABM would be far from capable of outright eliminating an enemy strike (it's part of why the US and USSR stocks were so hilariously overstocked. Redundancy), though US efforts are ahead of Russian and Chinese systems (though Russia invested very heavily in ABM-defeating penetration aids countermeasures).
It's about mitigating the loss to your own arsenal, infrastructure and population.

[Thronegaria]

What do YOU think?
And the world says no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

The world also said that you can;t built aircraft carriers that displace more than 27,000 tons but the US has 10 carriers over 100,000 tons and 9 amphibious assault ships over 40,000 tons.

Treaties can be broken, international law is just words if there is nothing to back it up. The outer space treaty is obsolete and needs to be scrapped.

U.S. does not obey anything, and people still think they are the good side