More thoughts on Iran’s sat
Iran’s satellite launch has got folks concerned about whether they’re about to perfect ballistic missile technology as well. This is something that’s good to be concerned about, but it’s worth remembering that if you can get something into orbit you’ve already got a global missile. It may not be as sexy as an ICBM capable of hitting any street you like in New York City from the moment it’s launched, but as long as you can de-orbit your payload with precision you won’t be worried about sexiness.
Nikita Khrushchev certainly wasn’t. Right about when he was ranting on about how “we-is-gonna-bury-you” was when he was signing off on development of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System: strap a massive warhead to a satellite, and then de-orbit it over the U.S. city of your choice. Technically, FOBS (as it’s affectionately known) wasn’t even in violation of the soon-to-be-signed Outer Space Treaty of 1967, since the orbits were obstensibly partial ones.
But before everybody starts to panic, let’s get back to Iran. To attain a FOBS capability, they’d need three things.
1. Increased payload. The Safir-2 payload isn’t enough for anything but the most tactical of nukes.
2. Precision de-orbiting capability. Getting something into space is tough, but it’s a helluva lot easier than re-entry/landing.
3. A nuclear warhead. Always top of any self-respecting nation’s shopping list. And it turns out that today is the day that discussions resume in Frankfurt about just what the West should/could be doing to prevent Iran from getting one. Hmmm. If I were a fly, I know where I’d like to be. . .
And I should note that you don’t even need #2 if you want to have some fun with EMP effects. But more on that later.
For an in-depth look at the weaponization of space a hundred years from now, my novel Mirrored Heavens is available at your local bookstore and at Amazon.
Tags: iran, iran's satellite launch, nuclear warheads, nukes, satellite
February 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Obama seeks space weapons ban…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s pledge to seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy while posing the tricky issue of defining whether a satellite can be a weapon.
Moments after Obama’s inauguration last week, the White House website was updated to include policy statements on a range of issues, including a pledge to restore U.S. leadership on space issues and seek a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites.
It also promised to look at threats to U.S. satellites, contingency plans to keep information flowing from them, and what steps are needed to protect spacecraft against attack.
The issue is being closely watched by Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, the biggest U.S. defense contractors, and other companies involved in military and civilian space contracts.
Watchdog groups and even some defense officials welcomed the statement, which echoed Obama’s campaign promises, but said it would take time to hammer out a comprehensive new strategy.
Enacting a global ban on space weapons could prove even harder…
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125
February 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hey, is it true that this Super Bowl commercial was clipped from your upcoming novel The Burning Skies?
February 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I can neither confirm nor deny it.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:11 am
So what do you think of this ‘ban’ announcement DW?
February 6th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I think it deserves an entirely separate post. : )