The REAL obstacle to SPSS

> >
> > Also, knocking out structures in space are not
> that
> > real difficult. Just get a really big radio
> telescope
> > like Arecibo to direct some energy at it and it
> will
> > knock out most of the electronics on board a
> > satellite.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing how that would work.
> Arecibo as an
> antisatellite weapon?
>
> I wonder why the Pentagon spends so much money on
> missiles, etc. to
> knock out missiles when there's a solution this
> simple.
>
ignoring your sarcasm for a bit, I'd suggest reading
up on threat assessments to space. Its an extremely
hot topic right now in DoD circles. Arecibo is only
an example of a place that is capable of getting
enough power to be a viable ground-based anti-sat
weapon (not anti-missile, which is a a completely
different problem). There are obivious problems
though with its ability to target places and the like
and its obvious civilian control.

If you truly want to learn what is going on in this
field, the best place to begin looking at
organizations that research these topics like the FAS
and RAND. Here is a good paper put out by the FAS on
this topic:
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/article05.html

> > The U.N.'s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
> > Space (COPUOS) comes to mind as a good candidate
> to
> > regulate this too.
>
> The UN needs to have some significant work before it
> can be trusted
> again; the recent oil-for-food scandal wrt Iraq
> highlighted some of
> the fundamental problems.
>

You asked for an independent body, I merely mentioned
that there are in fact ones out there like ITU and
COPUOS. The UN monitors on the proliferation of
nuclear weapons are some of the most respected
authorities out there and fit your previous desire for
a third party who could monitor such activities. Love
em or hate em, its the best we got.

Ryan Z