Full Spectrum Dominance

Are you prepared for the coming resulf of our present circumstance? I can't claim to know what it will be exactly, but it just can't be too many more years before something breaks down. And not one hundred years but more like ten or twenty. I might fancy myself paranoid if I hadn't recognized the intentions and tactics of those in power. And a few big things that are changing. But one thing looms largest for me. Maybe you'd agree. Space Dominance offers the end of conventional warfare. The coming dominance of space by a network of spy and weapons satellites will allow the U.S. military to accomplish things that we likely haven't ever considered possible. I submit only what they have admitted. Full Specrum Dominance will be achieved when orbital space is conquered by the United States, and provides our military with the full range of military options in perfectly coordinated operation. They now have space based lasers. You can forget all the other nifty PR shit. Space lasers networked to spy telescopes. A death grid hanging over our heads, able to defend itself from attack, and strike targets on the surface. Fewer soldiers = lower cost + better PR. Here comes remote control orbital warfare. Wave of the future. According to Rumsfeld at least. They couldn't be more than a few years from full deployment. And I doubt any Democrat is likely to run against the new military paradigm. They seem eager to look hawkish these days. Left or Right, the plan will be funded. And soon many of our old concepts of war will be swept away suddenly in a grand loss of innocence about the security that we've been paying for. A sole world super-power. Jefferson knew this day would come. Industry has overtaken this experiment. Don't you feel the fragility of everyone's comfort. Don't you see the cost of our complacency? Don't you see what we might become if we do not demand rationality? Aren't we all marching slowly into the showers? What do you think about Full Spectrum Dominance? What do you think about a weapons grid surrounding the planet? And what can we do about it?
- R.C.

because of the sheer mass problems. if we have "laser" technology in space, it's very limited in the number of targets it can hit per day.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06022000_20006025.html

(snip)

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2000 -- "Full-spectrum dominance" is the key
term in "Joint Vision 2020," the blueprint DoD will follow in
the future.

Joint Vision 2020, released May 30 and signed by the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry Shelton, extends the
concept laid out in Joint Vision 2010. Some things will not
change. The mission of the U.S. military today and tomorrow is
to fight and win the nation's wars. How DoD goes about doing
this is 2020's focus.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces,
operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and
control any situation across the range of military operations.

While full-spectrum dominance is the goal, the way to get there
is to "invest in and develop new military capabilities." The
four capabilities at the heart of full-spectrum dominance are
dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and
full-dimensional protection.

(snip)

platforms will spawn a new generation of hardened, ground-based lasers of much greater power that can track and knock out the relatively fragile and unarmoured orbiters.

This isn't as one-sided as the "visionaries" at DARPA and US Space Command would like Congress to believe. In 20 years, it is possible that even middle-sized states such as Pakistan and North Korea could develop and deploy effective ground-based anti-orbiter lasers and missile systems.

The only predictable thing about this is that the real losers will be the people who will have to forego education, health care, and old age pensions to fund this sort of huge, new global arms race. These things should be banned by international convention.

:freak: :bounce:

Doubt it. Every so called technological revolution in warfare is overated in terms of its impact on power politics.

The sole world superpower stuff is complete nonsense. The defense lobby seeks to line its pockets with our money for insane and completely cost ineffective weapons boondoggles. Modern warfare is more about a man and his bomb and the political groups who direct him than world wide grids of death rays.

Think of the limited payloads and the costs to get them into orbit. Wars are about throughput. Nothing could be more cost ineffective than weapons in space. Space is more suitably used for intelligence collection and communications. Like ships providing valuable commerce during wartime, satellites are more easily replaceable than defensible.

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces,
operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and
control any situation across the range of military operations.

This is a six-year-old boys power fantasy.

You will find my undate below. A few references for you. I agree that much of military spending is bloated, and the result are never what we are sold. However, this plan will have endless funding and isn't hampered by many of the technological restrictions and snafus that have plaqued our missle based defense shield. On new technology that will be operational withing ten years is the 'space ribbon". We are going to have floating platforms in orbit that will be attached to the earth by a ribbon made of a compound derived from spider web, that will allow a elevator to take large payloads into space at a fraction of the cost of sending up the shuttle. This would go hand in hand with space based assembly of sattelites. Expect past fiction to become reality. It seems to be a trend at the moment. - R.C.

You may have some education or insight that provides you with comfort about how unlikely all this is, but don't get too cocky. The "Vision for 2020", "National Security Stategy of The U.S.", "The Defence Planning Guidance", and "Rebuilding America's Defences", all make clear that world military dominance is the plan, and that dominance of space is essential. Under Clinton, while this was all being cooked up, and before we had decided to nullify our signing of a treaty preventing the deployment of weapons in space, the government was only claiming to want military sattelites that could protect themselves. We were admitting at the time that remote coordination and remote control would be important element of future warfare. Now, just last week, Rumsfeld comes out and makes it clear to the world that we are putting weapons in space for offensive use. End of treaty. Now relate this capacity to our doctrine of preemptive strike, and you see why I'm getting nervous. The implimentation of this technology will constitute a 'revolution in military affairs', not in replacing the old system, but by fundamentally changing how it is used with the introduction of orbital space dominance. The infrastructure won't be 'swept aside', it will be the old modes of tactical thinking that are now incomplete. Consider the plausable options. We will be able to track individuals from space, and voporize them instantly, assassinate errant heads of state, destroy any boat, destroy most buildings and utilities, or kill the generals behind an advancing army. Without ever missing. Well maybe occasionally. I'm no expert on military tactics, but I can guarantee that this opens pandoras box real wide. This is new stuff. Don't apply all of the old assumptions. History may shed some light on the nature of this venture, but the outcome will be unprecedented. - R.C.

Do not spam the message boards with the same post. Also this does not belong in GD: P. I have left the same thread in the PNAC forum open.