# Will we ever see space-based (anti-Earth) weapons systems? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226 "2007-10-18T21:39:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/1 "2007-10-18T21:39:12Z")
Commentary from Dave Szondy’s website [Tales of the Future Past:](http://davidszondy.com/future/war/orbitalweapons.htm) > [@](#): > > At first glance, the idea of space-based weapons, whether on the Moon or in Earth orbit, seems logical enough. The bomber had revolutionised warfare; allowing armies to launch assaults out of sight of one another and made cities vulnerable to massive attacks. Space, by extension, should provide an even greater advantage. Weapons could be set above their targets indefinitely and attacking one’s enemy would be like dropping stones down a well. By contrast, attacking an orbital or lunar base would require fighting against the full force of the Earth’s gravity and the vagaries of the weather. > > Fortunately, neither the Moon nor Earth orbital bases turned out to offer any sort of advantage over surface-based missiles, which could strike targets quickly and accurately from silos or submarines yet were easily protected or hidden. Moon bases, on the other hand, were easily targeted, required very large rockets to deliver their bombs with any speed, and an attack took many hours or even days to execute. Orbital bombs were just as bad. Low orbiting bombs only passed over their targets occasionally and predictably, and being over target in a satellite is not like being in a bomber. The bomb still had to be got to Earth and that meant either a rocket engine as large as that of a surface-based missile or having your bomb spiral gently in with all the delays and problems that involves. > > By 1967, the military of the superpowers had reached the conclusion that though space might be ideal for reconnaissance and communication, it was a dud as a staging area for nuclear attack and a treaty was signed banning nuclear weapons from a place where no one wanted to put them anyway; rendering the opening space scenes of 2001: a Space Odyssey with its orbital bombs obsolete before the prints even came back from the chemists. But then, in the 1980s, we saw Reagan’s [SDI/Star Wars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative) proposal: Space-based weapons to serve a (purportedly) purely defensive function against enemy ground-launched or submarine-launched missiles. The SDI program might have played a role in encouraging the Soviet Union to spend itself bankrupt, but it never produced any practical weapons, AFAIK. But **then,** in the current Administration, we have seen the withdrawal of the U.S. from the [ABM Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty); promulgation of a new [National Space Policy](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/4267069.html) that rules out arms control; the idea of [“Rods from God” satellites](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/700oklkt.asp) floated; and plans by [NASA,](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061204-moon-base.html) [Russia](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/31/wrussia131.xml) and [China](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2298.html) for permanent bases on the Moon, in all cases for ostensibly peaceful purposes, which you are free to believe as much as you want to. And the [Space Preservation Treaty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Preservation_Treaty) – fuggeddaboudit! Has somebody decided space-based offensive (to Earth’s surface) weapons might be practical after all? Might they be? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/2 "2007-10-18T21:49:57Z")
I remember when I was in the final years of college one of my professors was looking into all the Star Wars funding things. He was discussing a system called (IIRC) Thor which was essentially a space based weapon system that used guided kinetic energy weapons (something like smart BB’s or guided crowbars) for taking out tanks and such. I think that there is a modern prototype system for this (that isn’t space based btw) that can be used to guide smart sub-munitions to things like armored vehicles and forge the warhead on impact essentially. What does this mean? No idea…it was just an interesting concept. But as you said in your OP you can do the same job with conventional air craft and cruise missile technology…which is a lot less costly and less vulnerable. So…I seriously doubt we will see space based weapons until we have a much greater presence permanently in space. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2007, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/3 "2007-10-18T22:07:50Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] So…I seriously doubt we will see space based weapons until we have a much greater presence permanently in space. [/QUOTE] As you state that, you seem to be assuming the weapons would be intended, not to strike at Earth’s surface, but to protect the other, non-military installations (scientific, industrial, tourism, etc.) we’ve already got in space by that time, and/or to threaten the non-military space installations of other powers. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2007, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/4 "2007-10-18T22:54:48Z")
You’re making me want to play that old, crappy PC game “Call to Power” Space Bombers sucked there, too. All that matters when it comes to new weapons are “is it more accurate/easy to use?”, “does it make a bigger boom?”, or “is it cheaper?”. Space based weapons systems fail at all three, so until we have a cheap(er than launching a missile) way to get into space we can assume that we won’t be dropping death-rocks from orbit. ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/5 "2007-10-19T12:59:41Z")
\*\*Has somebody decided space-based offensive (to Earth’s surface) weapons might be practical after all? \*\* At least partially what I believe you are seeing is what we saw with the “Psychic Warfare Gap” in the Cold War. About 1970 the CIA confirmed that the USSR was spending millions upon millions of rubles on “psychic research”. **This** is mainly why the U.S. began to fund this stuff, not because of academic research or “breakthroughs” – but because the USSR was doing it and they were afraid of being left behind on the short chance there was something to it. So, China’s Space program is what has changed in the past 10-15 years and the (BushCheney)U.S. is not going to sit on their hands while the PRC do heaven knows what in space…even if Engineers-who-know tell them nothing has changed technologically or is even likely to in the near term The U.S’s Moonbase is in response to China’s, Russia in response to ours…I will say though that to me space-based weapons are different than moonbases which could be military useful reconnaissance and communication (not necessarily weapons) hubs. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/6 "2007-10-19T15:51:07Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] As you state that, you seem to be assuming the weapons would be intended, not to strike at Earth’s surface, but to protect the other, non-military installations (scientific, industrial, tourism, etc.) we’ve already got in space by that time, and/or to threaten the non-military space installations of other powers. Is that right? [/QUOTE] Not exactly, though I’m sure that will happen as well. My assumption is that until its much easier and more cost effect to GET to space, and until there is a major human presence IN space (at least in and around Earth orbit) there is really no point in spending the money to have spaced based systems that could be done cheaper with conventional Earth based systems (ground/sea launched missiles and cruise missiles, conventional air craft, artillery, etc etc). -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-see-space-based-anti-earth-weapons-systems/423226/7 "2007-10-19T17:09:53Z")
[Relevant article (pdf).](http://www.hrmacmillanspacecentre.com/pdfs/Spider4.pdf)