Space Wars

There have been lots of interesting stories recently about the US's growing reliance on satellites to control gee-whiz weaponry and provide detailed real-time images to battlefield commanders. MSNBC has a story on the military's growing bandwidth crunch. The AP has a story about how many other nations are putting up their own spy and communications satellites, suggesting that the US edge in space imagery might disappear (unless we start shooting other satellites down, of course). And Bruce Sterling has a fun story in Wired (fun in writing style, not in its implications) suggesting that we're entering an age of Pax Americana, where the US military is so dominant that competitors exist only at our sufferance (though that might not stop people from trying).

Comments

Military threats promote innovation

[atrowe]

While war and weaponry are generally considered to be Bad Things(tm), there could still be an upside to all this. The fact exists that the military is traditionally the single biggest innovator in new technologies and ideas. During the cold war, our government spent trillions of dollars funding research in all fields of science and as a result, we gained a lot of useful technology that has civilian as well as military usefulness.

Without the soviets to compete against, NASA's budget has been shrinking to pathetic levels, leaving little funding for research and exploration these days. Perhaps the threat of military satellites orbiting the Earth, and the need to defend against them could be just the thing the government needs to start funneling some more much deserved money into NASA again. Think of all the benefits that would result from the US getting into another space race with China.

Re:Military threats promote innovation

[technos]

Barbed wire is a much older invention. Try 1860.

The important parts to World War I were aerial recon, machine guns, and long-range artillery. Oh, and poison gas. And the end of the grand march across Europe, as was done as late as 1880. It gave us real trench warfare too. Of course, it also gave us the laughed at Zeppelins and bombers that were nothing more than a man throwing a grenade with an impact fuse out of a plane.

I remember a writer claiming that after his experiences in Italy and France in WWI, that all wars after would center over air superiority. He was damn well right, even though his other prediction, that we would build huge honking land-cruiser tanks to rival battleships, was not. Of course, he was extremly pleased that his idea, the tank, had been built, and I think we can excuse him on that basis.

WWII was an expansion on air superiority. Everything revolved aroung getting your long-range artillery and bomber targeted on a real kill, so you could push them back.

What we have here it the ultimate in air superiority. We can see everything they do, and plop a laser-guided bomb down into their tent twenty-five minutes after they get ballsy enough to set it up. What is left to innovate? The speed of the kill vehicle? The number of kill vehicles available for any one target? Reducing the thirty minutes of time between SuperSekretSpySat-7 taking a picture of that BadGuy going to use the outhouse to a delay small enough to hit him before he finishes wiping? Do we need to watch everybody, all the time, and have the capibility to take out people at any place on the globe at any moment in time?

Re:Military threats promote innovation

[PsiPsiStar]

The problem is that this dosen't measure what is lost. A cold war might spur innovation, but a government is neither the most efficient innovator, nor is it the most likely to freely distribute its innovations. You can measure what war 'gives' in terms of technology, but it's difficult to measure what it 'takes' away.

Would lower taxes result in more innovation, or not? Our economy is based on the idea of constant expansion. Research (in war or peace) is one way to do it.

Re:Military threats promote innovation

[no-body]

Sheesh - old propaganda trap you fell into!
The military budget is so overblown, wasteful and outdated: stoneage dialog: Uh - you hit me, I hit you better with a stone
Fact is all the $$ are going into a destructive porpose which could be avoided altogether with a little bit more smartness

Re:Military threats promote innovation

[PsiPsiStar]

>It 'takes' away either one's self or one's enemy.
Yes, resources, money, destruction of capital and destruction of human life....

So if a war costs 100 million in taxes total to both sides, does 250 million in property damage, kills 200 people on your side and 10,000 people on the other side and produces some cool night vision apparatus for one side...

Did it spur technological innovation or not?
Would the money have produced more innovation in peacetime?

Well, personally I was looking at how the government reacted to Celera's attempt to sequence the genome, and how state funded universities employeed poorer technology that made sequencing less efficient. The public sector won the race by throwing money at the problem (which I'm glad of, but I wish they could have been more streamlined about it). Of course, it may be bad to generalize here. But with the bay (sp) dole acts and technology transfer acts forcing public research to become more privatized and secretive the point starts to become moot.

Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty..

[0xB]

This is some information on a treaty from 1983 which prohibits use of force against satellites and also prohibits using satellites to shoot at the earth.

Space Defense Initiative (SDI)

[Prolapsed Anus]

I believe that the US push for 'defensive' weapons in space is a farce; they're going to primarily be offensive weapons, 'defensive' only in their 'deterrence' to nations (particularly Third-World) that do not possess such weapons....

Dr. Bob Bowman http://rmbowman.com/ssn/ has asserted this for years - his website is an excellent resource for alternative analysis of the SDI programs that you won't find in the major media outlets.

PA

Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I'd love to know how you'd propose turning a space-based kinetic kill vehicle into something you could conceivably use against a ground target. Or for that matter an orbitting laser.

Do a little research on kinetic kill vehicles from the old Reagan-era "Star Wars" program. It's essentially a hunk of dense metal with a few thrusters and an infrared seeker on the front. It has no explosives and doesn't need any; it kills its target by impact at orbital velocities (18,000mph). Using this against a ground target would result in either (a) a burnt-up kill vehicle or (b) a small hole in the ground about the size of a trashcan. Offensive weapon? Unlikely.

What about space-based lasers? Well, let's forget for a moment that no easily-loftable laser is currently available, and if it was it'd be hideously expensive to launch. Let's focus on the physics, namely "blooming". No, we're not talking about flowers here, we're talking about atmospheric attenuation of a laser beam. You could try shooting a ground target with an orbiting laser, but you'd lose a ton of beam power just punching through 50 miles of atmosphere. And again, all you'd get is a very small impact. You'd do much more damage with a cruise missle.

No one is proposing lofting any orbiting nukes, and even if they did, so what? What can an orbiting nuke hit that an ICBM or nuclear-tipped cruise missle can't already hit with impunity?

Or were you referring to space-vs-space offensive weaponry? Well, what would we shoot down with our lasers and KKV's? Comm and surveillance satellites perhaps, but we'd risk war by doing so, and for what gain? The only folks on earth who have a sizable space presence other than the U.S. and the E.U. is the former Soviet Union. Last I checked, the cold war was over, so I don't think they're our target. China is starting to get into the game, but a conflict with them would have to be decades off if China wants any hopes at actually winning anything.

So, in short, take your knee-jerk reaction and apply a little logic and common sense to it. Space-based weaponry right now pretty much HAS to be defensive, because we lack the technology to make an offensive use practical or even economical. If you're so concerned about indiscriminate use of offensive weapons, why not choose weapons that are actually useful at what they do, like cruise missles.

Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Just to put a little perspective on your comment, the Roman Empire was the most dominant empire in the history of man in terms of total amount of world population under their control as well as territory, technology, and medicine. They lasted for much longer than any other modern empire on record, and formed the basis of a representative democracy which you now participate in.

Granted they were brutal in some of their rule, but you cannot ignore the benefits they brought to this world in the midst of said brutality. If you're going to use them as an example, you must speak on BOTH sides of the issue, not just the one that happens to support your argument.

Using the Third Reich is a poor example and you know it. You might as well use the Taliban as an example.

Before you start calling other people myopic, it might do you a little good to open your eyes a bit more yourself. The world is not a pretty place, but that does not make it evil. Darwinism forces us to survive by whatever means possible, and you are not in a position to criticize the very system you benefit from without sounding a tad hypocritical.

Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I would point out that an orbiting nuclear launcher would be subject to intense scrutiny by any potential target, thus partially offsetting some of the "surprise" factor. It would also be a fat and juicy target, as manuevering satellites is very expensive from a fuel standpoint -- ergo, the satellite will be easy to track, target, and destroy with something much cheaper than an orbiting nuclear "bomber".

Remember our anti-sat missle program using F-15 jets as launchers? Very cheap. Not very reliable, but if you can launch 50 missles at it for 1/10 the cost of the target, who cares?

And I'm going to go out on a limb here that will undoubtedly bring some flak, but I'm going to say it anyway -- the U.S. is not about to start an offensive nuclear war of conquest. If we were, we would've done it in the 50's when we could've wiped the Soviet Union off the map without fear of retribution. We had the nukes, they didn't. We could've taken over the world militarily and nobody could've stopped us. We didn't. I have a very funny feeling that had things been reversed (i.e. the Soviets having the bomb, not us) the outcome would not have been so pleasant. Or if the Nazi's had developed it first...imagine a nuclear payload on a V-2 rocket hitting London. How many of those would Churchill have put up with before capitulating? He would've had little choice except extermination, and the Nazi's already showed they had no compunction in that area.

The U.S. will continue to ply the world's economic and political culture to further our national interest -- as does ANY country on the planet. Again, I will allude to Darwinism and the survival instinct. It is in our best interests to cultivate governments that are friendly to us and to penalize those that are not. Like it or not, that's the way the world operates and the U.S. is far from being the worst example here (we are, however, the LARGEST example, one reason we're a lightning rod for criticism). While other countries kill their own citizens for speaking out against their government and no one utters a whimper, we are castigated daily for failing to shell out billions in economic aid to "the less fortunate", even though "the less fortunate" chant "Death to America" every other breath.

Okay, I'm heading OT here, so I'm going to stop. I still say that a defensive space-based weapons system is absolutely necessary. One crazed madman controlling one silo in Siberia could make the WTC disaster look like a sunburn, and there is nothing at all we could do to stop him once the "launch" button is pressed. A defensive shield would not be to protect us from mass nuclear war for the obvious reasons that are plaguing the system now (tracking, decoys, etc.), but it could make childs play of a small attack mounted by some lunatic with an axe to grind, nothing to lose, and a desire to be a martyr.

Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)

[maxpublic]

You cannot dispute this fact -- it is true.

Sure I can dispute it. The fuckwits who claim that only hard work and their own superior intelligence got them to where they are today are also saying that they're more hardworking and more intelligent than everyone else lower down on the social food chain. This is complete, self-serving bullshit readily apparent to even the casual observer, not to mention incredibly arrogant.

Hard work and intelligence are good starting points, but by far the biggest determinants of where you are going to end up are a) what social circle you were born into, and b) luck - lots and lots of luck. Fact is, your hard work and intelligence might have helped you get where you are, but plain dumb luck put you there ahead of everyone else who works harder than you and is more intelligent than you - and is still not making it. Because no matter what you claim, there are *millions* of people smarter, more determined, and more hard-working than you are and yet aren't making as much as you do, or have the kind of money that you have, or wield the kind of power that you do.

Modern social darwinists - the laughingstock byproducts of a bygone era - assert that luck has nothing to do with it and that everyone who doesn't make it just doesn't have 'what it takes'. Which presumes that they do, and the millions who're fucked are somehow less worthy than they themselves are. This is nothing more than the 'nobility by birth' argument in different clothing that ruled the upper classes prior to the industrial revolution.

End result: your argument is a crock. No one except these freaks takes social darwinism seriously. If you have a burning desire to factor chance out of your success so you can bolster your own ego, kindly spew the megalomania in a different direction.

Max

What time is it?

[depth_13]

This is kind of scary stuff really. When I was in the military there were several times when we were using Satellite Communications Uplinks and we had to sit around on our asses waiting for the right time so we could get an allotted frequency. There is so much demand for the few frequencies that the military satellites possess that you can end up waiting quite a while. The bad thing was sometimes you REALLY needed it. And you could get it...in 30 minutes.

For what its worth...

ph34r th3 U5

[Myriad]

"Huge American sums spent on space strengthen US economy by creating Tang instant orange drink and heat-trapping pizza delivery bags. US will commodify your discontent, sell it back to you on DVD."

Dear Customer,
Upon ordering your DVD make sure to order using the correct Region Designation. Should you plan to move from the caves of Afganistan to some other hidyhole you will need to re-order your DVD. Also, you may not sell, lease, transfer, display, view, listen to, or otherwise make use of any products purchased.

Thank you,
US Gov. ^H^H^H^H^H MPAA/RIAA Consortium

Just don't shoot down mine!

[SrlKlr]

I could really care less if they shot down some military spy satellites, but can you imagine if a foreign country went after our other satellites? Boom, no more cell phone, no more tv, no more satellite internet. You could seriously harm a nation's communications by targeting their satellites. Also, it is not just consumer end stuff, but much of the backbone of the communications go through satellites. I wonder if there are any internation war laws about this. I am sure the government has already mapped out this senario, at our cost of course...

Re:Pax Americana

[stoolpigeon]

Military spending?

Nope-- Not even close.

Willingness to invest in military?

Nuh uh.

The usual actions that European militaries have been involved in follow a disturbing pattern.

Enter a troubled region to protect someone.
Set up bases.
People they are to protect flock to those bases.
When situation gets hot- leave.
People to be protected are now gathered together for the slaughter.

It has happened over the last 10 years in various countries in Africa and Europe.

Most European nations do not have the will to carry on any kind of extended operations. They would rather pull out and let the defensless die than deal with all the negative side effects of taking action.

.

Lots of Fun 'til It's Used on You

[Nightspore]

Sometime around 2008-2016 the machinations of supra-national trade organizations will have finally hammer-locked the bulk of humanity into a cycle of miserable economic and cultural servitiude as well as political impotence. At that point we'll experience protest like those of Seattle and Genoa but played out on an enormous, international scale.

That is the moment you and/or your children will find out first-hand what it feels like to be attacked by space-based weaponry.

All of this stuff is ultimately meant to exert power over /you/ - American, Canadian, French, Pakistani -- it doesn't matter. This is a jackboot in your face and the joke is you're paying for all of it and Bruce Sterling thinks it's cute. Have a nice day!

Night

Bandwidth crunch

[Chairboy]

One of the biggest roadblocks to military bandwidth is the number of TDRS satellites in orbit. These guys (Tracking Data Relay Satellites) are the backbone of modern space communications and have been in orbit since the early 80s.

The TDRS network was originally put in place to support the Space Shuttle and provide 24x7 communications access to ground control. Before TDRS, there had to be tracking stations around the world and in expensive ships crewed by hundreds. Before TDRS, re-entering spacecraft would experience a communications blackout because the ionized gases of the reentry blocked line of sight transmissions from the ground.

With TDRS, there is almost always a relay satellite around to link a spacecraft (or military satellite) to ground. Re-entering space shuttles now have contact with ground control through the entire entry sequence because the antennas can 'see' the TDRS network above them, unblocked by the plasma around the nose.

The problem? The TDRS network (which is continuosly refreshed with new satellites as older ones go out of service) is based on protocols from the 1970s that were supposed to provide voice and telemetry. Now, they're being tasked to channel still images and even video in some circumstances, and not just by the shuttle fleet and NASA. The military uses TDRS on occasion to get spy satellite data too, further sapping the infrastructure.

It's time to start upping a new network of satellites with K band or better transmitters and receivers (which use more power) and so on.

Re:Not Really A Concern

[(outer-limits)]

You don't need to get many nukes past a 'missile shield' to make the whole 'lets have a war to solve this problem' point of view pretty well pointless. No way can stop them all, ever.

This is all just a massive build up to spend ever more pointless billions on arms that don't solve a problem, except how to line the pockets of the rich, powerful and dangerous.

This is a planet we live on, not the plaything of the maniacally aggressive and greedy. Either we all get on, or we don't. The underground caves aren't big enough to hold you all, and who want's to have to live in caves for the next thousand years anyway?

Well in Canada...

[sfrenchie]

the US edge in space imagery might disappear

Ha! When I read that I couldn't help but chuckle... here in Canada it is a FACT that the US basically tells us whether we are allowed to launch a new satelitte or not.

For example, when Canada wanted to launch the RADARSAT 3, which would give the Canadian military a resolution about 5 times LESS than the current estimated US imagery resolution, they had to bargain with the US gvt before launching.

By the way, I am pretty confident that the US WOULD start "shooting other satellites down" if the need be.

So in other words, Americans need not fear, as long as their mighty guns are near!

500Mbits/s for a spyplane...

[cybergibbons]

The article says that each Global Hawk requires 500Mbits/s. That is a huge amount of data. Yo think that it must be relaying a lot of recon information (probably at least three cameras, and I should imagine they have radio scanner as well), on top of the data required to fly it in both directions.

They must have some major processing power on board - I should imagine that trying to fly something over a relatively high latency satellite link would be hard otherwise/ But they still have a lot of human intervention - it's probably more guidance than actual flying. I remember seeing an experiment where they introduce a random delay between 0 and 0.5 seconds to what the pilot sees (not feels, as this was in the back of a large jet used for remote flying experiments) and it made control of the aircraft very hard - the pilot overcompensating, and almost unable to land the thing.

There could also be a level of redundancy in the 500Mbits/s - possibly two or more links, because clouds and other conditions can stop them working, and I should imagine that would be a bad thing to happen.

Anyway, I'm off to do some research on these planes... but if anyone else finds anything interesting, why not post it.

PS. Yes, I am glossing over the real issues behind these articles. But hey, it's better than the "What about the treaties" or the serious "US kick ass, no one can touch us posts". Wake up. The world isn't like that anymore. Flying planes into building, killing lots of civilians goes against a lot of international laws and treaties.

Face it - these treaties are to stop developed, civilised, large military forces from wiping out small countries and commiting war crimes. The smaller countries do not give a shit.

Like the US listen anyway:http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/r ec.bush.abm/

Re:Not Really A Concern

[bm_luethke]

I have heard that argument many times and it still makes little sense. When testing a guidance system (i.e. can we even manuver the missle to contact the other missle) then how we detect it is irrelevant. Much the same as any software product you write does not meet every goal before you test it neither will this. Just the same as a software project you write "drivers" for the parts not implemented. The parts to counter act those measures have not been implemented, thus testing a guidance system any other way is stupid.

As a test for the guidance system it was a very large success, they successfully made one missle strike another. Of course as a test of overcoming counter measures it was a complete failure, but well, the linux kernel makes a pretty shitty word processor - read what they are working on/testing before you make a knee-jerk reaction to a success or failure. Now then when they test detection systems then that's another story.

Shoot them down?

[quantaman]

Why go through so much trouble? Just get the other nations to run their satellites on Windows CE and use IIS. Those satellites will go down faster than a shashdotted err... umm... really really small server? Hey... Why even go through that much trouble, just post a link to the satellites on /.!

Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty..

[flewp]

The US has already developed an anti-satelite missile, launched by an F-15 in a steep climb. Not sure if it's still part of the ready arsenal, but I'm sure it could be if necessary.

Pax Americana Can't Be Done With Weapons Only

[Mittermeyer]

Folks, this is not good military analysis, this is just Bruce selling an article.

It is true that the satellites provide massive reconaissance and communications force multipliers to the military. It is also true that we are very dependent on them not just for military functions but also for tele-economic industries (making them juicy targets). And it is true that America's constant investment in various technologies mean a uni-polar world re: conventional military power.

What Bruce fails to realize is that these tools are just that- tools that can be broken, circumvented or worse copied and used better by others.

For instance, if we follow through with heavy DEWAD use (Directed Energy Weapon Air Defense), yes we can knock down missiles and rule the skies- for a while. Then our enemies will eventually duplicate the technology, and knock down our cruise missiles, UAVs and bombers. Then all the satellites in the world won't help our inability to affect events on the ground with airpower.

Even if we have a Rumsfeldian dream US Space Force, that doesn't stop the VW driving in from Mexico City with the nuke in the trunk.

Our enemies will move around our military power. Take a looksee at this translation of two Chinese colonels writing about our Desert War dominance, and how to circumvent and defeat the US in spite of military superiority. Somehow in his rush to sell his article, he did not deal with assymetric warfare.

Pax Americana needs these toys to happen, but the toys by themselves can be beaten. What we really need is plenty of mutual interest (read money and self-determination) for most of the world to participate in Pax Americana, the will to crush in Cold or Hot War those who will take away self-determination and money from others in the name of an ism (even if they are American), and the spread of fair legal and financial system to the average world citizen.

We will win with satellite TV moreso then satellite lasers.

I don't know what happened to Bruce- way too many blue hawaiians on Austin's Sixth Street I imagine.

Re:Pax Americana

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Um, it would take *alot* longer than 10 years for that to happen. Remember Yugoslav? If the EU can't even take care of a problematic country in their own back yard, how the heck are they going to project their power anywhere?

For example, a great deal of America's power comes from its Aircraft Carriers. It would take them alot longer than 10 years to build anything equivalent to our fleet. And even, they tend to do stupid things like spend billions on a carrier that isn't even long enough and broke its port propeller on its first long-distance trials:

http://www.romanchess.com/DeGaulle.htm http://www.pigdog.org/auto/laughable_technology/li nk/2357.html

Re:Pax Americana

[rho]

I might be worried, except the EU can barely operate cohesively now. Entropy always increases--they'll be squabbling like a bunch of horny teenage boys over a Playboy in 10 years (or less).

The EU already has traitors in their midst economically. The end result of that debate will be quite interesting.

If you want to get a look at what an EU military would look like, keep an eye on the UN's military endeavors.

Well, I would agree with most of that there...

[El Camino SS]

Our enemies will move around our military power. Take a looksee at this translation [die.net] of two Chinese colonels writing about our Desert War dominance, and how to circumvent and defeat the US in spite of military superiority.

I believe that you think that some of these weapons are useless or easily circumvented, and most of the rest of the world sees our army as full of "toys."

Toys indeed, if you definition includes things that burrow in ground and blow you up inside rock, track you with your cell phone, passive radar that just listens and never transmits, and all sorts of other nefarious things like that. They are not toys. IF OTHER NATIONS THINK THAT A SMARTBOMB IS A TOY, THEN THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS. They are up for a rude awakening.

Why is it a small, voluntary service US force always seems to run over a full blown, military controlled, conscripted nation in days? Its got to be the toys! Yeah right.

That is a childish justification for the fact that there are people that have put in billions (yes, freaking billions!) into not only developing these weapons, but coming up with the concepts and designing systems for their best implementation.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE RESEARCH EDGE. Go ahead, thwart it, Version 2.0 just shipped last week. See if you can crack it now.

Good example-
the trusty M-16 and its variants. Reliable. Cheap. Useful. All other modern nations have gone to guns with bullpup designs (clip is behind the trigger for more streamlined, futuristic look), because they say they are better balanced, shorter designs for guns. Sounds like a great idea. I thought so. They look cool in movies.

Until you learn that you have to not only take the 'dangerous end' of the weapon away from the enemy, but you have to take your trigger hand off of the grip and trigger to reload it. It takes two hands and more time. Also its nearly impossible to reload easily while laying down to fire, and soldiers do that A LOT. Also a bullpup exposes more head and shoulders around a corner when firing.

That idea has brought you such guns as the British SA 80. It looked and fired like it was made by Kenner. It had plastic parts. IT WAS EASILY OUTMATCHED BY A GOOD OL KALASHNIKOV.

Every arms manufacturer wants the M-16 contract, for obvious financial reasons. They hold competitions constantly and try every possible idea. The US military has tight, important standards FOR EVERYTHING. To think that there is a nation that can just up and exploit the weakness of the US tools in five minutes, is well, ridiculous and full of speculation. The difference? The US has not been speculating, they have been testing these things for decades even after they implement them. They know their holes.

If they research the M-16 so deeply and periodically, then what do they do with bleeding edge stuff?

I just don't see those Chinese Colonels reaching any new conclusions that we probably haven't a generation ago, and are actively trying to fix.

Satellites are one of many redundant networks.

[Christopher Thomas]

imagine if a foreign country went after our other satellites? Boom, no more cell phone, no more tv, no more satellite internet. You could seriously harm a nation's communications by targeting their satellites. Also, it is not just consumer end stuff, but much of the backbone of the communications go through satellites.

...And through ground-based fiber, and through microwave relays (all those metal towers in the middle of nowhere that you drive past).

Satellites are very useful for sending _small_ amounts of information over long distances to destinations that are relatively isolated. High-bandwidth communications to/from densely populated and well-connected areas don't go through satellites.

Knocking out microwave relay communications would require either a host of *insanely* powerful jammers orbiting overhead, or far more sticks of dynamite than is likely to be practical.

Knocking out fiber communications would involve taking out all of the fiber routing nodes on the continent, or cutting an insanely large number of backbone cables.

Taking out satellites isn't a cakewalk either (it only takes a box of nails, but the box has to be very high up and positioned to within a few metres).

In summary, I think the lower levels of the US's communications network are robust enough to survive virtually all practical attacks (if an enemy can wipe out the communications infrastructure, we have bigger problems than just losing communications).

I thought the title was intended ironically...

[Bnonn]

...but apparently I was wrong. I couldn't help but grind my teeth when reading this article. It seemed to capture so perfectly what makes the US not only unpopular in other countries, but hated as well. The quote at the end of the article sums it up brilliantly:

• "On the other hand, Washington's war wonks don't seem actively oppressive, bloody-handed, or evil. Old Glory hangs all over town in its riveted incarnation as the 9/11 battle flag, but there are no jackboot parades or martyr cults. Let's face it, the world might do much worse."

Leave that mod button alone for a sec--I'm trying to present an honest viewpoint, not troll. I don't hate the US. But this smug, presumtuous attitude is a problem. I agree that there must be measures in place to stop factions like the Taleban from damaging our own society. But I believe this should be something that is done through international cooperation. A single country cannot assign itself as judge, jury and executioner simply because its the most powerful. When people do that, they're called bullies.

The article seems to take the attitude that the "Usian way" is the "right way"; that it's just fine for the US to target whomever they please in order to ensure their own safety. You can't build a "New World Order" by simply crushing anyone who disagrees with you. And if you're on the side that would benefit from such a New World Order, you should probably be concerned about how your way of life is built, and who will be the next target after all the opposition is gone (hint: the population of this New World Order).

Once again, please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to bash the US; I would like to question the article itself for assuming that the world must go along with the US or be beaten into submission, because to me that's what it seems to say. The problem is primarily with the leaders, who are people apparently intoxicated with their own power and completely without the wisdom or responsibility to use it with restraint; and also with the population, who are apathetic to the attitude their leaders hold as long as their easy way of life continues.

Now, I'm not saying that the US is without cause for its actions. I don't want to make any judgements on who is in the right in specific instances. But the reckless attitude of "Global Cop" put forward in the article, as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, is something that is heavily, heavily resented, and not just by radical Middle-Eastern parties. I don't feel I speak for myself alone. As a New Zealander and former South African I know that what I'm saying is a fairly prevalent viewpoint in both those countries. One only need watch TV to hear Bush commenting on the Israeli activities of the last few days: words to the effect of "I am not going to put up with this." Perhaps to people in the US these sound like strong words, but to people in other countries they sound like the words of a spoiled man with no real understanding of what he's talking about, assuming that the power he has gives him some right to dictate the actions of other countries. Of course I'm not saying that Sharon is right or that Bush is wrong--I agree with Bush's intent, but not his conviction that whatever he wants another country to do must happen, however true that is.

This attitude is what I see in the article. I imagine I'll be heavily downmodded for this post, since this is a Usiacentric forum, but I'm hoping open minds entertain differing ideas, on the supposition that most Slashdot readers are fairly open-minded and will realise that I'm trying to state an honest viewpoint as inoffensively as I can.

Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty..

[JWW]

Yeah, we espicallly like breaking treaties ..... WE DIDN'T EVEN RATIFY.

Civilian Casualties of the Pax Americana

[jdfox]

Driven by al Qaeda's atrocities, the US charged into the classic quagmire of Afghanistan, legendary death trap of military ambition. With the customary roll of thunder, out came the full routine of the modern American expeditionary force. First, a cautious, methodical, widely televised suppression of local air defenses. Then, once CNN became accustomed to the violence, some leisurely and terrible precision targeting throughout the theater, around the clock. In Serbia in 1999, US aircraft smashed stationary targets, like buildings and bridges. In Afghanistan, thanks to much faster satellite relays, they demolished rapidly moving tanks, fleeing Toyota trucks, and amazed guerrillas. It took only two weeks to chase Taliban and al Qaeda forces into Pakistan, Iran, and beyond.

"Driven by al Qaeda's atrocities", they decided to go create a few atrocities of their own. Seen any estimates of civilian casualties on your TV news lately? A few dozen? Hundreds even? No, thousands. Professor Marc Herold has put together the only methodical public attempt to date on casualty estimates, and his figure is between 3,000 and 3,400.

"Terrible precision targeting"? Yes, the precision was pretty terrible alright. But the carnage isn't over yet, and won't be for decades: the UN estimates that around 14,000 unexploded cluster bomblets are still on the ground in Afghanistan. They're bright yellow, the same color as the food parcels the US very kindly dropped, while all the aid agencies pleaded with them to stop. So thousands more will die, long after you've had all your parades and pinned on all your medals.

Slow, careful police work was far too unglamourous. Much more sexually satisfying to bomb the shit out of the country harboring the prime suspect. Do you really think that the strikes against the US will stop, simply because the Taliban have been chased into retreat? How many more young suicide bombers are being created daily, thanks to these atrocities and all the others supported and funded around the world by the US? Will they all just give up and go home, awed by superior US satellite technology? Use your brain, for God's sake. You will reap what you sow.

Re: Pax Americana? Don't bring Rome into this

[prisoner-of-enigma]

At what point do the ends justify the means? It is very easy for us to sit in judgement of them, with 2000 years of hindsight on our side. The world as we know it today was affected in an untold number of ways by Roman rule, both good and bad. If they had not operated the way they did, the world would be different -- how different no one can say, but most certainly it would be different. Perhaps the world would've been a better place, but it also might've been a more barbarous place. You must accept these tenets because you cannot prove one thing or another with any degree of certainty.

One thing is certain, however. The Roman culture, for all its hedonism and brutality, was the pinnacle of "civilized" society at that time. And I did not say they invented democracy, I said they invented the Republic, which (contrary to popular notion) is the real form of government in the U.S., not democracy. Rome invented the concept of roads to secure an empire, created a system of trade that spanned the known globe, pioneered philosophy, spawned countless objects d'art...they had an immense impact on the future world. Could they have done all this without the crushing heel of a conqueror? Who knows? You and I certainly don't, and we are in no position to judge them since we now live and breath in a world that (for better or worse) they helped to create.

Re:Shooting them down? I think there is a treaty..

[leucadiadude]

Or practically any other goverments, including Japan. Which IIRC is WERE KYOTO IS fer cripes sake.

But who gets an earful, USA.

Re:Not Really A Concern

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You don't need to get many nukes past a 'missile shield' to make the whole 'lets have a war to solve this problem' point of view pretty well pointless. No way can stop them all, ever.

Right. That's why we have to take out any country in the world that attempts to create and maintain weapons of mass destruction that they can unilaterally use in a crippling attack against another country, based on some obscure and unsupported religious argument rather than a morally sound argument and the support of the people of that country.

No, wait. We'd have to start by nuking the US and UK.