-Caveat Lector-
Government: MILITARY RESEARCH AGENDAS FOR THE FUTUREPosted by: souljah on Dec 11, 2002 - 05:09 PM
"If and when 'Aurora' makes its appearance, it is expected to be able to do upwards of Mach 5 or 6 - it is a hypersonic plane built, according to certain sources, on the 'waverider' principle, utilizing 'pulsed wave detonation engines' that employ a unique means of external combustion. Such a hypersonic plane, even if not radar-invisible, would have little trouble penetrating most air defenses at such velocities, and probably could strike with complete anonymity"MILITARY RESEARCH AGENDAS FOR THE FUTUREThe Militarization of SpaceNow that the armies of the Earth have covered its land area and its navies have filled the sea, the only area left to be militarized is space, and the Pentagon is doing it with a vengeance. Some of the very persons involved in this effort may be ex-Nazi rocket scientists brought over from the Peenemunde V2 factory to work on our fledgling rocket program so we could beat the Soviets to the Moon. While space has already been used for military purposes - mostly the use of reconaissance sattelites to gain information on the enemy and carry communications for military operations - there has never been deployment of actual weapons in orbit. Concern over the deployment of ASAT (anti-sattelite) weapons led the UN to pass the treaty on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, forbidding such programs. Fortunately, the use of space has mostly been limited to exploration and cooperation, as with the Soyuz linkup of the 1970s, and the planned joint Mars mission of 1992. But there are plans to change that.The COPUOS treaty has not hindered the U.S. under Reagan and Bush from pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more colloquially known as "Star Wars." The idea would be to deploy space-based X-ray laser sattelites and projectile systems for 'shooting' down interballistic missles before they can reach their target. While Reagan characterized such a defense as a 'shield,' most physicists see it as having so many problems in both the technological and strategic area that they call it a 'sieve.' At best, it might be able, according to some computer models, to take out 20 to 40% of incoming warheads. But, as with any system, there are countermeasures, and multiple warhead systems (MIRVs), decoy missles, and enemy ASATs might reduce even that level of effectiveness. Most scientists were afraid, especially during the Cold War, of "Star Wars" destabilizing effect as a concept. An enemy which even thought that a country was on the verge of creating such a shield might feel they were prepared to launch a 'first strike,' and they might feel pressured to launch an 'anticipatory' strike to prevent it!Many scientists are afraid that militarization of space also represents a territorialization. While there are UN treaties to restrain the nations of the world from taking what is in the seas or in Antartica for their own, there is no real set of agreements that declares space to be the common heritage of mankind. So, could nations then declare the sovereignty of the space above their countries, even as they do over their 'airspace'? Would they then declare the right to control all space launches or orbital paths that enter that zone? If wealth is located in space - say in the asteroid belt - will nations also go to war in space over who owns it? When nations begin settling in space - either in permanently manned stations or in lunar colonies - will there be conflict over docking rights? The militarization of space is a bad trend, away from where mankind should be going - declaring space to be the place where our lines on Earthly maps should not matter."Smart" Weapons: The automatization and mechanization of warfareHuman soldiers make mistakes. They can be sloppy and very inefficient and undisciplined. They are subject to fatigue, terror, and other problems of the human condition. And occasionally they are restrained by other things like 'conscience' or 'morals' which prevent them from carrying out orders. Robots represent the Pentagon's wet dream: a soldier that can deliver its 'payload' with no foulups and no guilt. "Smart" bombs may be more accurate, since they are guided by complex terrain-mapping programs, but they do not distinguish between civilians and military targets. And they serve to further separate the act of killing from its completion, because the person who programs the guided missile can claim that he bore no malice toward the people that it hits. They may make war more 'surgical,' in that certain targets and sites can be carefully and precisely excised, but if their programmers are in error, these "smart" systems can make very stupid errors, because they don't "know" the difference between a bunker and a milk factory, or between a jet fighter and a 747.The Pentagon also wants to computerize the chain of command at higher levels than delivery - specifically, in the
