Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Future War

reidcourchie

17:45 / 07.10.01

Partially inspired by the 9/11 Cyberpunk thread and a programme I'm currently watching on BBC2 called future war.

I've just watched some experimental man portable stuff being used. Pure cyberpunk, smartgun, backed by satelite etc. That however wasn't the scary bit. The scary bit was watching the part on space combat. They were talking about a time when spaced based weapons will be able to attack a target on the ground anywhere in the world. It occurs to me that this is what the space based missle protection thing was for (I mean who has ICBM's these days? They're so eighties.). This is total strategic dominance over every other nation state in the world.

I'm sure this has already occurred to many of you but I'd like to know how likely you think my scenario is? How would the above situation make you feel? Do you trust the American government with such a responsibility? If such a situation was to begin happening, should it be stopped? How would you stop it? Conceivably could this be the start of a one world government? Is this oppression?

Molly Shortcake

18:08 / 07.10.01

well, cyberpunk media been commenting on this kind of stuff for years.

In Akira, the Japanese government has the SOL satellite, but only uses it as a last defence. Starship Troopers features strong commentary on a completely globalized, liberal (?) military state. Beyond free in certain respects and utterly restricing in others; the same as any society.

reidcourchie

18:23 / 07.10.01

I think sub conciously I was also thinking of the Naked God by Peter F Hamilton which I'm re-reading at the moment. That has earth and many other planets completely covered by what the call Strategic Defence Platforms.

Also a little while ago I spoke to a friend of mine who was under the impression that the current war on terrorism would lead to a Star Trek-esque one world government. He was also of the opinion that a Starship Tropper style government (national service in return fo citizenship) was a good idea and a key to this utopia.

One world under America?

Molly Shortcake

18:31 / 07.10.01

Starship Troopers is no utopia, or rather, utopia is always a dream. The human society aspires to be like the superior one, the insect.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Ice Honkey U.B.C.S ]

03:51 / 08.10.01

...well...space does offer a point or points to do many things from...

I'd figure on defense, offense, surveillance, deployment...

...also curious if there's any code of conduct or watchgroup over space deployment, etc. Does the UN have any interest or conversation about these kind of things?

06:17 / 08.10.01

Orbital weapons aren't difficult to make.
A few large rocks with thrusters can be as devastating as nukes (without the fallout)
'Brilliant pebbles' could fly through the atmosphere to knock out tanks.
With that much velocity you don't need shaped charges or complex designs.
Imagine a tank formation being hit be a meteor storm.
To refer to Peter F Hamilton, Kinetic harpoons are nothing more that girders.

Orbital weapons doesn't have to mean lasers and particle beams.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

10:58 / 08.10.01

Just think if Bad Superman was up their with his laser eyes and Super-hearing... Oh wait, Grant already has.

reidcourchie

15:14 / 08.10.01

I think I'm more interested in the political ramifications of such a global coverage. What it would mean to us down here. Could or should the U.N intervene if these plans go ahead?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:14 / 08.10.01

If it's the US doing it the UN can't do a thing, or rather they could but the US would ignore them as they do whenever the UN says something they don't like.

18:49 / 08.10.01

Pop off a nuke in orbit and see how long their lazer weapons last..and their satelites..and ours...
In David Gerrold's The War Against The Chtorr they had developed these magnetic beam type weapons which would hurtle small commets at "the bad guy" on earth.

Its amazing to see how much of our war sciences are just ripe offs from bad (and good) sci-fi.
Im waiting for the teleporters..then fort knox..come to poppa!

reidcourchie

18:54 / 08.10.01

Kegboy, that's kind of the point. For various reason as orbital nuke wouldn't be very effective against a network of satelites. Besides wht the nice man from Strategic Air Command was talking about was the ability to completely lock down the word, so how would you get your nuke into orbit?

If such a network was in place would the temptation to dictate to the world be made to easy?

03:19 / 09.10.01

reidcourchie: (and off subject..what does the name mean..it sounds phonetically french but...)
I would launch a satelite, way before they would have any reason to lock down the world...but did I forget to mention the attached nuke? (in a SECRET compartment ofcourse)....goodbye MTVland, hello Lord of the Fliesville.

reidcourchie

08:11 / 11.10.01

Get your satelite up quick then and I like MTVland, I just think it took me 5 years of education to enable me to interpret it in a way that I feel safe watching it.

Well this thread was dieing a death anyway so what the hell. Reidcourchie is badly bastardised Scots Gaelic from an online translation thingamejig. It comes from Reid (red) and courchie (cap though that can be translated as something else but I'm not telling you what). Redcap, which ufortunatly wasn't available when I got my hot mail account, hence my name. Redcaps are vicious little faeries originally from the borders of Scotland, where I'm from originally. I pronounce it reed-coor-ch-ee, the ch being the soft sound in loch.

15:50 / 26.10.01

GRIM> But most of the SDI stuff advocated by Teller and co. was bollocks, wasn't it?

And it's hopelessly out-moded for 21st century warfare.

'Future War' is not a matter of ICMBs and supersmart missiles in space or even superior tech - it's a matter of where your threats come from and how you cope with them. The US is still geared up to fight 20th century-style warfare - directing cash-intensive hi-tech towards an identifiable nation state enemy. Now, it does fairly well in these wars - Kosovo, The Gulf, Panama even. But it can't handle the kind of low-intensity, nebulous terrorist threats its suffering from now (which states like Britain, Spain and Italy - to name a few in the west - are more used to). I think it'll learn how to but it'll take at least 5-10 years.

With its current military and economic might, the US does have a strategically dominant position in the globe. But that doesn't make it invulnerable. Nor does it mean it will keep it.

reid> One world under the US? Well yeah, in that the US is relatively unconstrained by other nations in its actions. But politics and money matter far more than simple military might. The success of the US makes it vulnerable - it has so much more to lose than other combatant forces. 5000 people die in a day of flooding in Bangladesh or famine in North Korea - who gives a shit? 5000 people get hit by a plane and it's war. I'm sorry if that sounds callous (it's not meant to be) but the US cannot afford (literally afford) to embark on too much military action.

Bush's current flirtation with Star Wars technology is the martial equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'lalala, i can't hear you'.

12:47 / 27.10.01

I agree...lo-tech always tends to use one's readily available resources against the enemy. Hi-tech just appeals to those who have a military budget and an overactive childhood toy fetish (but if you touch mine, I'll kill you).

I "like" the ideas of using naturally occuring resources to create the damage. Is it possible to cause disruptions in the earth's crust in a local area to destroy things? Like an earthquake hits afganistan while a bunch of suits smirk.

When you think of it...spying is probably the most feasible use out of any for space commanded technology since if you know where something is, it's just a matter of sending conventional resources to handle it. If a laser shoots from space, I'm sure that beyond the immediate surprise you'll know who's behind it. Might as well send in a plane or two instead.

reidcourchie

07:47 / 01.11.01

Originally posted by Belbin
"With its current military and economic might, the US does have a strategically dominant position in the globe. But that doesn't make it invulnerable. Nor does it mean it will keep it."

Yes I understand that but at the moment for them to move on any other country it costs a lot of money and they have to deal with the possible bad publicity of deaths on their on side (not to mention the possibility of losing). If however the enemy could be dealt with by the press of a button, the next time a satelite was overhead, with out that much expenditure (even bombs and jet fuel cost money) and whomever offends you ceases to exist. The technology shown on this program didn't seem that far fetched.

The thing is this sort of stuff is nt the same as high tech helicopter gunships, or tanks, or stealth bombers. It's the brutal, enforcement end of information/intekigence warfare. The psychological impact of using space based weapons on terrorists, alone would be devastating.

Originally posted by Belbin
"One world under the US? Well yeah, in that the US is relatively unconstrained by other nations in its actions. But politics and money matter far more than simple military might."

I take your point however what I'm talking about is this space based warfare would be easy, in relative terms. I don't see America becoming an evil overlord but rather the military option would become a lot more attarctive and serious global dissenters (or suspected dissenters) would dissapear very quickly.

Maybe this is a good thing, I don't know. "Oh there's bin Laden." Zap. No more bin Laden, no need to bomb Afghanistan. Maybe they would eventually be able to get the pin point accuracy they're always lieing about at the moment.

The thing is the militarilisation of our space seems to be going on and unlike national territory it's based purely on who has the most money to kick around and it seems that there is nothing people can do about it.

01:37 / 10.11.01

Lots of places have ICBM's, and lots are trying to get them or make the ones thay have better.
As for hitting ground targets from space, I'm reminded of the USSR's responce to the Space Shuttle. Some of their analyts were scared to death it would be a "Space Bomber" capable of opperating in a benign orbit and suddenly changeing to an orbit that passes over Moscow and deliver a first strike with almost no warning.

tom-karika nukes it from orbit

17:00 / 10.11.01

quote: Yes I understand that but at the moment for them to move on any other country it costs a lot of money and they have to deal with the possible bad publicity of deaths on their on side (not to mention the possibility of losing).

If I were an impoverished, bad little country under space attack, I would always be happy in the knowledge that I had one last defence.

The mass media.