Bush Plans to Monstrous Fleet of Space Bombers in Bid for Global Domination
Cheryl Seal | 25.11.2003 17:59 | Analysis | World
While the world is looking the other way, diverted by the Bush UK visit and the violence in Iraq, the Pentagon quietly announced last week it has revived the deadly X-37 Space bomber program, aided and abetted by NASA and Boeing
On November 17, "Space News International's" page one story announced that NASA has laid plans to revive the X-37 space plane, which it will now send into orbit for 270 days. This trial period, says SNI, was "originally set by the US Air Force as a way to begin proving the feasibility of orbiting Earth with camera- and bomb-laden space planes for months at a time....The Air Foprce's 270-day requirement stemmed from a proposed space warfare stretegy of global strike that Air Force space planners have pushed hard inside the Pentagon in recent years [read "since the Bush junta took over]."
This scheme represents nothing less than a colossally arrogant, power-drunk bid for total global domindance. The scheme calls for the creation of a fleet of unpiloted space panes that would be able to stay in orbit, circling the planet with bombs and spy cameras for months at a time. These monsters would carry smaller "reenetry vehicles" called Common Aerospace Vehicles (CAVs). CAVs in turn would carry up to 10 500-pound bombs each. Nice, eh?"Targets would be struck quickly nearly anywhere around the globe without having to position aircraft to forward positions," reports SNI.
While the Pentagon and Sean "NASA's-worst-nightmare-come-true" O'Keefe are trying to say that the revival of the program is purely for "scientific instrument deployment" purposes, Therea Hitchens, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information in Washington says this argument simply does not hold water. "You could do that [test remote sensing instruments] on a microsatellite. I don't get the justification for testing that kind of instrument on that kind of platform." ]
But most folks now familiar with the Bush administration "get it." The administration is simply using its usual modus operandi: lying to achieve its ends.
It also appears that much of NASA's funding is getting diverted into the space bomber program under cover of the inocuous sounding "Orbital Space Program." Boeing quietly announced on 11/4 to industry papers that it had set up a whole new office dedicated to this program. Less than two weeks later, the official revival of the space bomber (under the title of the "space plane" ) was announced. The same article observed that NASA was negotiating with Boeing to alter its current contracts to include the 270-day trial. I have the feeling the altered contracts were a "done deal" before Boeing opened its new office on 11/4.
But the Bush cartel appears to realize that news of what thespace bomber program is really all about would not help his popularity any. So, the White House propaganda machine is taking no chances and is using its favorite coverup strategy: Hide what the left hand is doing by drawing attention to the right hand. To do this, the corporate media/White House propaganda specialists routinely create diversionary stories in the media. The stories may be either completely fake (ties between Saddam and Bin Laden), sorta fake (Jessica Lynch) or real, but with manipulated timing.or example, doesn anyone really think that it was a coincidence that the California judicial system decided to arrest Michael Jackson the same week the Terminator took control of the state and the same week Bush was under heaviest fire for his UK trip and the escalated bloodshed in Iraq? Hardly.
Now, barely one week after Space News ran the story about the space bomber revival, Boeing and the Pentagon have pushed a story into the media about the firing of two Boeing execs over alleged unethical behavior. A classic CIA propaganda tactic that can be described as "distract and redirect." The investigation of the two execs has been ongoing for months. But they decide to fire them this week just by chance? Yeah, right.
It's also no coincidcence that Bush did not sign the defense bill until Nov. 24 - AFTER all of these "taking the Bush war into space" ducks were in a row: the new Boeing office, the NASA agreement to collude in the space bomber development, the firing of the two execs, which, insiders say, will insure that Boeing is at least temporarily exempt from the same scrutiny as before. The only thing that continues to astound me is the absolute stupidity and/or monstrous indifference to any allegiance to moral standards, let alone the American citizens, that nearly 2/3 of the people in Congress exhibit. Bush was handed every penny he requested, thus insuring that planet Earth, as of November 24, became a considerably less safe place.
RESOURCES
The Space News story is inaccessible to the general public. But information being released to the general public is very, very different. Check out this supposed "fact sheet" about the X-37. Do you see anything in it about bombs. Once again, the Bush administration is planning to plunge the nation and world into danger and possible war once more without bothering to inform anyone of the truth until it is too late.
Bogus "fact sheet" : http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/x37facts2.html
To read the Space News International story, try your nearest college library and look for this issue: November 17, 2003 Vol. 14, No 45
Firing of Boeing Execs
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001800318_boeing25.html
Bush Is handed $87.5 billion to "fight terror"
http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6741/674101.html
Cheryl Seal
Comments
Hide the following 23 comments
ignorance of orbital mechanics
25.11.2003 21:39
1. Any X-37 would, at best, pass over any particular part of the earth once every 24 hours. This makes any rapid response impossible. The payload penalties for trying to manoeuvre a re-entry body to some other part of the Earth are extremely considerable.
2. There is no point at all in having a manned reconnaisance platform. That idea was killed by MacNamara in 1964 with the demise of the Dynasoar programme.
3. Even if the vehicle is intended to carry bombs - 100 500lb bombs is a pathetic load for an ordinary aircraft, let alone for an orbital craft - there is no point in having it manned. An unmanned satellite would do the job just as well for a few per cent of the cost.
4. To think even for one moment that this system would give 'total global domination' displays a level of ignorance rarely surpssed even on this forum.
sceptic
Space
25.11.2003 23:57
Arming outer space
LOOK UP at the sky. Imagine space-based weapons orbiting the globe, ready to zap or nuke any country declared an imminent threat to the United States.
No, this is not science fiction. It is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's vision of global domination.
Before he headed the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was chairman of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management Organization. In its final report, submitted to Congress on Jan. 11, 2001, it warned, "If the United States is to avoid a 'Space Pearl Harbor,' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems." The commission recommended the creation of a U.S. Space Corps that would defend our space-based "military capability."
Rumsfeld's report was actually a tamer version of an earlier Department of Defense Space Command document -- "Vision for 2020" -- that, on its Web site, showed laser weapons shooting deadly beams from space, zapping targets on Earth. Beneath this sci-fi image crawled the words "U.S. Space Command dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments."
"Vision for 2020" rightly predicted that the global economy would widen the gap between "the haves" and "the have-nots." By deploying space surveillance and weaponry, the United States would have the ability "to control space," and, from this higher ground, "to dominate" the Earth below.
By appointing Rumsfeld as his defense secretary, President Bush chose a man whom the Washington Post described as "the leading proponent not only of national missile defenses, but also of U.S. efforts to take control of outer space."
Since then, the Air Force Space Command has issued a progress report, "Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond (SMP)," which puts forth the U.S. intention to dominate the world by turning space into a crucial battlefield.
In the introduction, Gen. Lance W. Lord proudly writes, "As guardian of the High Frontier, Air Force Space Command has the vision and people to ensure the United States achieves space superiority today and in the future. A new space corps will fight from and in space."
"Space," according to the SMP, "is the ultimate high ground of military operations . . . . Our vision calls for prompt global-strike systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets. Space superiority is essential to our vision of controlling and fully exploiting space to provide our military with an asymmetric advantage over our adversaries."
The immediate goal, according to the SMP, is to prevent anyone else from launching space-based weaponry. To dominate the globe, the United States must dominate outer space.
Clearly, this space-based vision is useless against terrorist attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. China, however, believes it is the unnamed enemy who might be the target of this country's newly articulated policies of pre- emptive war and global supremacy.
Last September, China fought hard at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for an agreement that would prevent an arms race in outer space. The Bush administration, as usual, insisted that an international treaty was unnecessary.
Rumsfeld's dream is dangerous. It not only violates the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which wisely prohibited the militarization of space, but also threatens to reignite the arms race, this time in space. It is also hugely expensive, costing hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to care for people who live right here on Earth.
Look up at the heavens. Do we really want to leave future generations with a legacy of space-based warfare? If not, let's pressure every presidential candidate, as well as President Bush, to keep the heavens free of weapons of mass destruction.
E-mail Ruth Rosen at rrosen@sfchronicle.com.
For documentation, go to www.wslfweb.org/space/spacedocs.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/13/EDG11308KV1.DTL
Andrew
To Mr. Mockingbird (er..."sceptic")
26.11.2003 00:05
As everyone who reads my article (who is not a "trained sceptic") will realize: the space bomber is just step one. If it works for more modest payloads, then it can be scaled up to bigger payloads. And, concurrent to the work on the orbiter, the Pentagon just announced that a supersonic unmanned bomber is being developed that will be capable of bombing any site on Earth within two hours.
http://www.primezone.com/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=48827
Oh, but of course, you'll simply respond by pointing out that the article in PrimeZone states the planes will carry "nonnuclear payloads." Sure. Just like the invasion of Iraq was only supposed to be about disarming Saddam, not a regime change. Just like the bombing of Iraq was only supposed to be "precision strikes" on military targets, and "absolutely not" an attack on the infrastructure. You're no sceptic, pal, you're as gullible as they come!
Cheryl Seal
ignorance of celestial mechanics
26.11.2003 00:19
1."laser weapons shooting deadly beams from space, zapping targets on Earth". Do you know how much energy would be needed to make a laser into a weapon of war? And do you know what the best defence against a laser weapon might be? A nice rainy day. In fact, you don't need the rain ... just the cloud. UK will OK then.
2. As I have pointed out before, a satellite would pass over a given spot on the earth's surface around once every 24 hours [assuming it to be in low earth orbit. You can't put permanent manned stations higher because of radiation]. It will be in a position to fire a laser for perhaps ten minutes in that 24. If it's cloudy --- come back tomorrow.
3. Space based weapons are simply not cost effective. It sounds as though the Air Force Space Command [are you sure such an orgnaisation exists? Can you give a link to it?] is attempting to indulge in some bureaucratic empire building.
4. Even Ballistic Missile Defence can't be made to work. They were trying it in the 60s, Reagan wanted to do it, and where has it got? Nowhere. It doesn't work.
to Cheryl Seal:
You must tell me about training camps. How was yours?
1. Supersonic unmanned bombers have nothing to do with space weapons.
2. Any site on Earth in two hours? I suggest you do some arithmetic.
3. Why bother putting nuclear weapons on it? Trident can do that job much more effectively, much cheaper, and in less than two hours.
ANd I might be gullible, but I'm not as ignorant as you appear to be.
sceptic
Space Command
26.11.2003 01:11
Anyhow, I think this is tending towards the fanastic, but then flights of fantasy are what Bush does best. "You're either for us or against us". Yeah right.
Rebel W
mr "sceptic"
26.11.2003 01:44
Where does the first article say the space plane is manned? It talks about "a fleet of unpiloted space p[l]anes "...
A 24 hour pass still gives a good advantage. And there's no need for low earth orbits anyway.
The lasers sound unlikely - it could be the SF chronicle getting it wrong.
USAF Space Command does exist - http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=155
"Air Force Space Command, created Sept. 1, 1982, is a major command with headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. AFSPC defends America through its space and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) operations, vital force elements in projecting global reach and global power. "
Matt
Matt (A)
Homepage: http://www.afed.org.uk
existence of US Space Command
26.11.2003 01:52
So although, I admit, I can't find a public homepage for it, there are *lots* of credible sources which refer to it, eg:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2002/b06262002_bt331-02.html
ADF
US Space Command
26.11.2003 06:22
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/agency/usspacecom.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/stratcom.htm
Its commander-in-chief was General Ralph Eberhart. Last time I checked, he was busy being commander-in-chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command, commander of Air Force Space Command and Department of Defense Manager for Manned Space Flight Support Operations.
US Space Command's homepage:
http://www.spacecom.af.mil
...is currently offline obviously now that they've been re-org'd, but the domain is still registered to some tech at Peterson Air Force Base:
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=www.spacecom.af.mil
US Strategic Command's homepage is here:
http://www.stratcom.af.mil/
The capability referred to in the article above is now being developed out of the Space Warfare Center, a unit of US Strategic Command based at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado:
http://www.schriever.af.mil/swc/
http://www.schriever.af.mil/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/agency/swc.htm
http://www.stratcom.af.mil/factsheetshtml/militaryspaceforces.htm
(my favorite quote from that last page: "Force Application: Researching and developing space-based capabilities that have the potential to engage adversaries from space. Requires policy change before implementation.")
The X-37 (as it's currently known) is not being developed for any kind of laser capability, but rather for good old American "precision bombing". It will take some time to get working, if it ever works well enough even for the likes of Rumsfeld. Think it was hard to do from planes? Wait 'til you see these homicidal fuckups try it from space.
This is what they were working on in 2001:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010814-space.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,529208,00.html
Now, according to "Space News International" (as noted by Ms. Seal above), they're having another go:
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_031117.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/x37_briefing.html
On the other hand, all is not well between Boeing and the Pentagon at the moment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14843-2003Nov25.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/998240.asp
You have to wonder just how much of the recent $401 billion defence budget the US approved this week is being spent on this evil little project.
Patriotic Geek
Skeptic needs a refresher course
26.11.2003 10:18
Secondly, an orbital "bomb" does not need to contain any explosive materials, conventional or otherwise, to be effective nor does it have to be that heavy. It is mass times velocity. Drop a dense metal such as DU, encased in a ceramic heat shield or an ablative material, from high orbit and by the time it enters the atmosphere and is headed toward its target the velocity will be well in the range of 2000-3000 miles an hour, maybe more. It does not take much in the imagination department to visualize the destructive capacity of a 500 pound DU bullet moving at those speeds.
No need for any manned platforms or vehicles, just robotic craft and drones.
Plans for space domination by the US have been in the works for some time. This is one of the fundamental documents.
Space Force 2020: A Force For The Future- http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/98-170.htm
Stephen
orbital mechanics
26.11.2003 10:45
1. Orbital period at a height of 200km or so is 90 minutes. But the earth is revolving - hence, as I say, it will be over any one point once every 24 hours.
2. Orbital velocity will be around 8000m/s - but re-entry slows that down to around 300m/s [terminal velocity]. Next, it will need a heat shield. It will need some form of guidance. Trident missiles have a c.e.p. of 120 metres. That doesn't matter if it has a warhead of 400kT. It does matter if you're trying to land it exactly on the target - which is the only thing you can do if you are using the kinetic energy.
3. If you want to put these things into space, why use a re-usable spcecraft? An ordinary satellite is cheaper.
sceptic
Apology
26.11.2003 11:16
the current U.S. Administration. Apologies.
Sceptic
Nice maths there....
26.11.2003 11:54
Getting missile (kinetic or otherwise) into space would indeed lead to World domination, due to a little thing called gravity. If you don't believe me, go find yourself a nice deep well. Challenge someone to a stone fight with you at the bottom of the well and them at the top, see if you win or not. If Bush gets a decent missile system into space they'll be able to shoot down anybody else's attempts to get weapons up there and will be able to hold the world to ransom if they so desire because of the gravity well.
Afinkawan
further ignorance of orbital mechanics
26.11.2003 12:23
The gravity well is irrelevant for striking targets on Earth since there is something rather inconvenient in the way called the atmosphere. This would slow down any re-entry body to terminal velocity. You would gain exactly the same result by dropping the body from a plane at 20,000feet.
This is not an attmept to justify any US policies. It is an attempt to show that basing conventional weapons in space is pointless. Both the Russians and the Americans dropped the idea of orbiting nuclear weapons back in the 60s. The physics hasn't changed since.
sceptic
So what are the Pentagon developing then?
26.11.2003 13:35
dave
s - C. - ept - I. - c - A. - lly yours
26.11.2003 14:11
Naturally, Sceptic, with his surfeit of knowledge of the subject, just HAPPENED to be browsing Indymedia, and just HAPPENED to come across the article, to which he, as a stern empericalist and lover of the truth felt honour bound to reply in a doughty attempt to put right what is so patently wrong.
Well, that's ok then! Nothing to fear from the US or the Bush administration and no attempt by said power(s) to militarily dominate space in order to being a new Star Spangled Reich. We may as well all go home and stop logging on to such infantile sites, have a bath and get a proper job. What were we all getting so worked up about, eh?
There is nothing to fear
We love Dubya
There is nothing to fear
Trust Dubya
There is nothing to fear
Believe Dubya................................(!)
Bendeus
the original article
26.11.2003 14:52
It then indulges in the usual paranoia about Michael Jackson/Boeings execs etc.
sceptic
the article above ..
26.11.2003 15:02
sceptic
SCEPTICALLY
26.11.2003 16:01
sceptic
Space News
26.11.2003 16:47
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_031117.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/x37_briefing.html
And it does seem to be for military purposes, since they are involving the USAF in the process, following previous USAF investment in the project.
dave
Interesting link
26.11.2003 19:01
sceptic
Field Guide to Rightwing Posers Includes "Sceptic" as a typical "species"
26.11.2003 19:05
As evidence that he didn't really read the article: if he had,he wouldn't be claiming there was no substantiating statements, because he would have seen that I clearly state that the main article about the X-37 is in Space News, which is not readily available to the public (I provide the article date, number, volume, and page, however, along with a likely source for finding a copy). This article is a major industry (space holdings) publication, not a "conspiracy theory" site.
Anyway, for those who'd like an amusing crash course in spotting provocateurs, here's an article I did in 2002 when the "species" were starting to proliferate at indy sites in the states:
"A FIELD GUIDE TO RIGHTWING POSERS":
http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html
Cheryl Seal
Dear Ms Seal
26.11.2003 22:10
"diverting attention away from the article and onto himself" ... er, where in my posts have I done that?
"evidence that he didn't really read the article" .. I didn't read the original article. There was no link to it, so it wasn't possible. I responded to the original post.
If you are a journalist, then you are a disgrace to your profession. You make unsubstantiated allegations without proof, and you sneer and smear.
You want examples?
"My, my, you certainly had that categorically mapped out response ready, didn't you. I think I recognize your style - aren't you the guy who is always ready with the same sort of "categorically" mapped out responses in the Independent's discussion page? Or maybe you just attended the same training camp." smear.
"You're no sceptic, pal, you're as gullible as they come!" sneer
"the Bush propaganda machine is scraping the bottom of the barrel for provocateurs" smear
"This guy is the same one, I am certain that haunts several other "open discussion" sites, including the Independent's topic discussion" untrue, unproven, and another smear.
A joke you probably won't understand: you're the sort of journmalist who thinks ethics is a county near London.
sceptic
Possible but improbable
27.11.2003 01:28
Andrew