From: bondage@frontiernet.net
william mook wrote:
>
> Joann Evans wrote in message news:<4
C8E863.E0B1EB69@frontiernet.net>...
> > william mook wrote:
> >
> > > This would also help the US contain missile proliferation. If a
> > > low-cost RLV of the type described here were operational by a US based
> > > firm, it would undercut the rationale others in other nations have (as
> > > in Korea) for building an expendable launch vehicle.
> >
> > As a commercial satellite launcher for world markets, yes. Some
> > nations who can't build (or buy) RLVs will still look at ELVs to
> > maintain an independent launching capability, however.
>
> Yes, absolutely. But, their motives will be clear to everyone, which
> will make things easier for our State Department.
>
> >
> > And of course (espically in Korea's case), they will still want ELVs
> > as medium and long range weapons.
>
> But they won't have the fig leaf of space launch development. That's
> the point. They will clearly be developing weapons systems to
> threaten us and any coalation that we can assemble who is similarly
> threatned. Again, this makes things easier geopolitically for the US
> to contain missile proliferation.
>
> > The fact that the other guy operates a
> > fleet of RLVs won't affect that. (Except perhaps to the extent that he
> > knows that the other guy can get someone up there for recon on short
> > notice.)
>
> Well, there are tactical issues and there are strategic issues.
> You've got the tactical right. The strategic you are ignoring.
As noted in the other message, that distinction depends partly on who
and where you are.
> Consider a world where no RLVs exist and everyone still uses ELVs.
> Any nation can build an ELV and say they're doing so to become space
> capable. Its not as clear in this environment that they're building
> weapons systems.
>
> Now, consider a world where ELVs are a technology of the past and
> everyone's using RLVs. Those who make, maintain, and operate the
> RLVs, lack the capacity to mass produce the components on a scale
> needed to create threatening weapons systems. In fact, RLV
> manufacturers can be controlled in a way that still permits them to
> operate, but also allows them to demonstrate through inspection and
> whatnot that their systems are incapable of being converted to
> long-range missiles.
And what happens once they leave the manufacturer's hands? We want
RLVs to ultimately be as common as, say, wide bodied jets. What stops
someone from modifying one of those for some military purpose? (Some
wanted the US to use modified 747s as long range cruise missile
carriers, rather than develop the B-1, for example.)
You can't really stop someone from customizing one of these. And if
they're willing to clandestinely pre-place nukes (or other weapons) in
orbit, it doesn't even take modification. Then you have the added issue
of demanding satellite inspection for everyone, when anyone can launch
anything on an RLV.
> In such an environment, someone who set up an
> assembly line to produce hundreds of ELVs would have a very hard time
> of it geopolitically.
Mot everyone will care.
> They'd be asked what with all the aid and
> incentives given by the US and its allies, why they chose the ELV
> route? There would be a very clear sense of international threat and
> as a result a very high probability of effective action to shut the
> ELV system down - either through negotation and cooperation - or
> through decisive limited military intervention - dropping a set of
> precision guided tungsten KKV rounds from orbit onto the plant.
Hmmm...acting pre-emptively has a bad reputation these days. and
similary, your intel had better be good.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
