The link connets to Space.com’s “Top Ten” pages, which has the “Top Ten Space Weapons.”

Sounds liek a bit of false advertising on CSM’s part, but the Space.com writer’s do try to titillate:

Weapons in space may seem like science fiction, but they’ve been creeping ever closer toward science fact. The U.S. may have proposed a space weapon ban, but others are actively researching military strength in the high frontier. Here’s a look at 10 nasty ways warfare may reach space.

The X-37B, A U.S. Air Force space raises concerns about weapons in space. While its exact purpose remains unclear, it joins a host of new space technology that could usher in a new era of space warfare.

This undated file image released by the U.S. Air Force shows the X-37B spacecraft, an unmanned space plane. The Pentagon's forays into earth's orbit have raised concerns about space warfare.

It’s not as if things aren’t bad enough right here on planet earth. What with multiple wars and occupations, an accelerating economic meltdown, corporate malfeasance and environmental catastrophes such as the petroleum-fueled apocalypse in the Gulf of Mexico, I’d say we have a full plate already.

Now the Defense Department wants to up the stakes with new, destabilizing weapons systems that will transform low- and high-earth orbit into another “battlespace,” pouring billions into programs to achieve what Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has long dreamed of: “space dominance.”

Indeed, Pentagon space warriors fully intend to field a robust anti-satellite (ASAT) capability that can disable, damage or destroy the satellites of other nations, all for “defensive” purposes, mind you.

That’s the set-up, and Burghardt highlights one of my favorite Lance Lord quotes:

Back in 2005, The New York Times reported that General Lance W. Lord, then commander of AFSPC, told an Air Force conference that “space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. … Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.”

Of course, I only saw this because I was ego-surfing on Google (see crass self-promotion). I got a kick out of how an accurate quote of mine is intermixed with an opinion on Area 51 (somethign I did not do but am looking forward to the web hits it will generate):

This view is shared by Everett Dolman, a professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.

“Regardless of its original intent, Dolman told Space.com, “the most obvious and formidable is in service as a space fighter–a remotely piloted craft capable of disabling multiple satellites in orbit on a single mission and staying on orbit for months to engage newly orbited platforms.” A project such as the X-37B, more advanced systems still on the drawing-board or in development in any number of Air Force black sites such as Groom Lake (Area 51) “would be a tremendous tactical advantage,” Dolman said.

Even were the system not to be transformed into a space bomber, Dolman theorized that the X-37B could be maneuvered close to an adversary’s satellite and capture details in the form of signals intelligence. “With the anticipated increase in networked-microsatellites in the next few years, such a platform might be the best–and only–means of collecting technical intelligence in space.”

The italics are mine, in the excerpt above, if not the words or sentiment.

Look for my after action report in a couple of weeks:

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. – The Space Innovation and Development Center will conduct the sixth Schriever Wargame at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., starting May 7, 2010.

The Schriever Wargame, set in the year 2022, will explore critical space issues and investigate the integration activities of multiple agencies associated with space systems and services.

The objectives of the wargame will center on: 1) Investigating space and cyberspace alternative concepts, capabilities and force postures to meet future requirements, 2) Examining the contributions of space and cyberspace to future deterrent strategies, and 3) Exploring integrated planning processes that employ a whole-of-nations’ (comprehensive) approach to protect and execute operations in space and cyberspace domains.

Although the details of the scenario remain classified, the game stresses space planning and deterrence in the context of a future global conflict. This wargame builds on the challenges associated with U.S. and allied space systems highlighted during the previous five wargames.

The Space Innovation and Development Center will conduct this wargame on behalf of Air Force Space Command headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Approximately 350 military and civilian experts from more than 30 agencies around the country as well as from Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, will participate in the wargame.

The Schriever Wargame Series is “an important tool that helps us understand a very complex operational environment,” said Gen. C. Robert Kehler, AFSPC commander. “These games give the Air Force and all space mission partners a better idea of how to protect space assets from potential adversaries and how to better integrate space systems through our national security community.”

Agencies participating include: Air Force Space Command; Army Space and Missile Defense Command; Naval Network and Space Operations Command; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Space Office; Air Combat Command; Office of the Secretary of Defense; US Joint Forces Command; US European Command, US Pacific Command; US Strategic Command; US Southern Command; US Transportation Command; US Special Operations Command; US Northern Command; NORAD; Defense Information Systems Agency; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; the National Security Agency; NASA; the Office of Homeland Security; Department of Transportation; Department of State; and the Department of Commerce.

From Asia Times, “US Robotic Shuttle Spooks Iran.”

Methinks he doth protest too much.

First reported by Leonard Davies in Space News, it was picked up by MSNBC :

Frankly, I am stunned at the emergence of good sense.

At any rate, I will try to update this page now and again as long as I can do so. To all my friends who used to visit the site, and especially those who weighed in with their opinions and corrections, hurry back.

Cheers, Ev

Deutsch told the committee that satellite programs managed by the Air Force, which is the Defense executive agent for space, tend to shortchange Navy requirements and missions. “Without active Navy involvement today in ongoing deliberations over future satellite programs, the Navy risks operating in future scenarios with multibillion-dollar National Security Space systems suboptimized for the maritime environment, which is increasingly important as maritime domain awareness requirements are developed.”He told the hearing that “due to the long lead times involved, it is therefore critical that naval requirements and maritime missions be factored into the pre-launch design and planned in-orbit operation of all future satellite systems being considered for acquisition through the DoD executive agent for space..”

U.S. Army Isn’t Broken After All, Military Experts Say

I may refrain from jumping on the band wagon just yet. By the way, I had suggested in this blog and several other venues that the so-called surge, which was supposed to help the army reduce casualties, among other fabulous things, had some serious logical flaws. The parallel lament, the Army is broken and its because there aren’t enough troops to do the job, was the primary justification for the increase in theater called for in the recent surge. At the time, I suggested more troops meant more targets, and more–not fewer–casualties.

Since the surge began, we have had 900 US personnel killed (a toss away statistic overshadowed by the news this morning that the magic number of 4,000 KIA in the Iraq war occurred over the weekend, a figure Dick Cheney said “might” be a significant psychological threshold for Americans). 4,000 dead in just over six years of operations in Iraq, but 22.5% of that number in the last 9 months (12.5% of the duration). The KIA rate appears to me to be four times the average for the whole war–a number that astonishes me. Where am I messing up my numbers? When do we count the start of the surge?