objectives of the united states in space

As of 2oo2 at most, the Air Force Space Command conceived an outlook for the next 25 years in space technology and military force. The plan is entitled "Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond". It can be seen in PDF format on the Air Force Space Command website Here, almost near the very bottom under, the online library. And a copy is Here.

Its purpose may seem rather mundane at first: "Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) creates the Strategic Master Plan (SMP) as the capstone to its two-year Integrated Planning Process (IPP). The SMP presents the AFSPC vision; outlines a strategy to implement this vision; and defines a 25-year plan, integrated across the AFSPC mission areas, to provide the space capabilities required to achieve the vision" (page 1).

The AFSPC states a summary of its own vision: "Space warfighting forces providing continuous deterrence and prompt global engagement for America and its allies...through the control and exploitation of space" (page 3).

The plan sums it up a bit: "Control and exploitation of space implies that we can use our space capabilities at our discretion while at the same time denying our adversaries access to space assets at their disposal" (page 3).

How many adversaries in the near future are there really to contend with that have substantial space assests at their disposal?

The slightly disturbing parts.

These people plan to turn back the clock or just plain ignore that it's there. "To fully develop and exploit potential Counterspace and space-based Space Force Application capabilities, some US policies and international treaties may need to be reviewed and modified" (page 2o).

Then the totally contradictory statement: "International treaties and laws do not prohibit the use or presence of conventional weapons in space" (page 2o).

A treaty between a number of nations inluding the United States from 1967, found Here, agreed upon the use and exploration of space only for peaceful and benefical purposes, and prohibited 'weapons of mass destruction' in space: "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner" .

It's appalling to think of the United States disregarding all efforts to not militarize space, all for to keep 'ahead of the game'. By that, the United States disregards peace.

*Note: The PDF files may take some seconds to appear, but the one on the offical site takes longer, I'm not even sure it appears at all.

Heh Heh I like the usage of the word 'capstone.'

Yes of course the main objective is military, so what else is new.

It is less clear what they want with Mars though? Are they looking for some substance? Do they want to build a base there? maybe some weapons system?

Good posting and you dug through this heavy document to find some meat.'

ditto.
mars? i think for once, its possible the MAIN objective cud be science. planetary exploration has been a human fantasy for a really really loooong time, and its only inevitable. might as well be now rather than later.
as we move towards the stars, so will weapons. granted, were decades, centuries, away from the public bein around up there, but when that comes, itl be jsut like here: crime, war, etc. research in the field prepares for the coming (far off) tide, and helps in space research, and, of course, helps with the whole military dominance thing.
speaking of space treaties, uno the only two treaties signed by everyone is that u cant contact aliens and u cant own anything in space. i personally think theyre both bogus. theres some validity (dun want no green dudes attackin) but really, we should be able to do these things. somethings need to be revamped

Yeah, I saw a great video on this subject a couple years ago. While it's a little bit of a bummer to have this happening, if we don't do it somebody else will. As bad as our government can be I still prefer them over the other space capable governments, thus I'd rather see the US to continue to hold the high ground.

The ideas, the pretexts, and concepts of this and other like programs has been discussed before.

DARPA has been implementing this program(s) for quite some time. Mr. Donald Rumsfeld's 2001 Space Commission's report was the first step into making this a 'reality':

"Mastering the Ultimate High Ground: Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space"
This has a free PDF file for download concerning the Pentagon viewpoints towards weaponizing space.
www.rand.org...

DARPA/the US Air Forces intiatives: Counter Satellite Communication System and Counter Surveillance Reconnaissance System.
"NRO WANTS TO "KNOW EVERYTHING"
www.fas.org...

"U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad"
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

"Unclassified: RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit)"
216.239.41.104...:9hsoxZvp7zgJ:www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2001/AirForce/0603438F.pdf+The+US+Air+Forces+Counter+Satellite+Com munication+System+and+Counter+Surveillance+Reconnaissance+System++&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
PDF Version here:
www.dtic.mil...

DARPA's Project Falcon Program:
www.darpa.mil...


In noticing that the only country that was named in the militarization of space was the United States, my question would be "why" just the US. Militarization of space has been going on for decades and has involved a number of world community nations. Prime example would be the former USSR, currently Russia, and some European nations. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" has been slightly amended but is still enforce.

Regardless of the "peaceful" and beneficial intents and purposes and the "the common interest of all mankind" of the treaty, nations will continue to militarize space, currently and in the future. This is an inevitability and the only question that can really be asked or addressed is "who" will be the dominent nation.

I mean, after all, that is the crux and bone of contention in and of this topic and thread? Be assurd, if the US is in 'violation' of not wanting "peace", in regards to space, that the US is not the only nation who is or will be in said 'violation'.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Perhaps the situation is more like if we dominate space, no one else will.

We could of worked with other countries to keep space at peace. I mean, who knows what we could eventually do to space? As a superpower, we can set an example and make sure people follow. But as of now, we really aren't following our own. That's what makes things lose validity I think.

the issue arrives when you realize that space isnt this special area. the problems that occur here are even more likely to happen there, after all, it is a pristine environment (and we cudnt keep it that way, now cud we?) and as Requiem stated, if someone's gonna gain power, id much rather it was us. weve had practice when it comes to being the major power.

Well, I can understand why the military wants control of space. Eventually, weapons will be in space. No amount of treaties and promises can stop that.

As for Mars, a little RC Racer isn't going to be giving us any info that could possible be military in use. If we wanted any stellar body, it would be the moon. It's close, and ahs abundant resources. Stationing missiles or the like on Mars would be useless, since they'd take months to reach their target after firing.

I predict that if we ever set up a base on the moon that is mor than eye-candy. It will be mining the He-3 that is there.

Originally posted by Esoterica
I predict that if we ever set up a base on the moon that is mor than eye-candy. It will be mining the He-3 that is there.

He? last i heard it was H-3, tritium. the stuff that, if refined there, a payload could power the US for ten years or so.
yeah, a base on the moon would do it, but the problem there is its harder to keep up, and resupply. satelleites in orbit wud do the same job, be able to react much quicker to threats, deal more directly with the earth's surface, and can be repaired by humans.

Originally posted by Esoterica

As for Mars, a little RC Racer isn't going to be giving us any info that could possible be military in use. If we wanted any stellar body, it would be the moon. It's close, and ahs abundant resources. Stationing missiles or the like on Mars would be useless, since they'd take months to reach their target after firing.

Not if 'their' enemy isn't of Earth.

Think about it.

Originally posted by ME
Not if 'their' enemy isn't of Earth.

Think about it.

I did. Why put a weapon on a planet six months away when the threat is going to be on this planet? It doesn't make any sense any way you look at it.

Originally posted by ME
Not if 'their' enemy isn't of Earth.

Think about it.

implying theres other threats besides us earthlings.
a good point tho, if u, and i quote, "think about it." a base of some sort on mars would be a good jump point for defense against something else, alien or just a rock, but itd also be a great place for research. we all no military bases tend to do research as well. a little multitaskin wud do the trick.
arm mars, study mars. kinda catchy...

I agree that weapons will follow into space eventually, unfortunately. The same with any bases or colonies on the moon or on mars. Especially, if or when, the globe discovers (without denial) that unearthly beings are visiting the earth. We may find the need to become more universally involved, and point our guns toward space.