Slashdot Mirror
Next Major War in Space?
An anonymous reader writes "A US Northern Command general thinks that with US and international military dependence on space assets (such as GPS, eyes in the sky, communications), the next major conflict will occur in the heavens. He acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful, but that can't last forever, and potential threats might not care, anyway. Yes, China's recent success (or what we heard from the military secrecy) relates to this, but he also said he's not implying China is a threat, or will be."
where is obi wan when you need him
aren't all other countries threaths to USA?
kill them before they can touch you, yankeeboy.
I'm reminded of the scene where he spins the data ring and hears about the war which destroyed civilization having lasted over 300 years.
How sad that we see great technology which could be used to save lives and find people and generally restore order to this hectic world, but instead of seeing that for its benefits we see it as a tool of war.
imo this is only feeding the existing paranoia 'everybody is after us' that the people in the united states have been brainwasged with since 911. yes, sure, there are people that are after you but that does not mean a complete breakdown of civil rights like it is happening now.
Maybe its just another statement to get more money as a 'space defence' project...
GTRacer
- Trek II is still the best
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Just because a country can't send people into space does not mean that they will not be a space threat.
Satellite seeking missles could easily take down our communications and GPS systems. Multiple different countries now have the ability to buy or launch satellite systems directly into space.
China isn't the only player involved here.
This is why the USA should continue to pour money into our space program--not just for research, but for security.
US wants to keep space peaceful
:)
oh my god... US has became the police of the galaxy now..
next time the terrorists will come from mars
Sounds like someone(possibly the one person who watched Moonraker) just trying to find new ways to justify their existence and even greater military spending.
Please help metamoderate.
God put Bush in charge, says the general hunting bin Laden
By David Rennie
The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it emerged yesterday.
Investigative reporters from the Los Angeles Times and NBC television have dug up two years' worth of seemingly incendiary comments from Lt Gen William "Jerry" Boykin, the newly promoted deputy undersecretary of state of defence for intelligence.
Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.
He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.
He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy".
On the Middle East, Gen Boykin told an Oregon church in June that America could not ignore its Judaeo-Christian roots. "Our religion came from Judaism and therefore [Islamic] radicals will hate us forever."
In the same month, Gen Boykin told an Oklahoma congregation that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were not the enemy.
"Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. . . His name is Satan."
The disclosures will doubtless be seized on by Muslim critics as proof that the US-led war on terrorism is a crusade against Islam. It is a charge that Mr Bush has worked hard to refute.
Though careful to respect minority religions within its ranks, the US military is strikingly devout from top to bottom. Mr Bush and several key figures in his administration are staunch Christian conservatives.
Few outside the Pentagon noticed when Gen Boykin, a 13-year member of Delta Force, the top-secret commando unit modelled on the SAS, was promoted this summer, with responsibility for speeding the flow of top-secret intelligence to commandos hunting bin Laden and other high-value targets.
At a routine press conference yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld, the normally confident defence secretary, appeared wrong-footed by the controversy. He hailed the general's "outstanding record" and said his comments were made "in his private capacity".
However, Mr Rumsfeld was careful to cite Mr Bush's injunctions against viewing Islam as the enemy.
Gen Boykin told NBC that he would be curtailing his speeches to religious groups. "I don't want to come across as a Right-wing radical," he said.
From the article, it looks like the general is just suggesting that at some point, some adversary may decide to attack US satellites. I mean, it's no surprise that they would - if your enemy in war has an advantage and you could take that advantage away from them, you would. It's just that, so far, the US hasn't got into a shooting war with a country that could attack this capability. But blowing up a few satellites hardly constitutes a 'major' war, merely an important part of it.
that's the won you need to watch for. there's not enough space to hide in, if you've been party to harming the creator's innocents, when the big flash occurs.
the lights are coming up now
you can pretend some more if you want to/need to/must.
the daze of the felonious georgewellian fuddite southern baptist freemason corepirate nazi stock markup fraud execrable, is WANing into coolapps/the abyss, at the speed of right.
you know who to consult with/trust in? see you there.
We would literally become prisoners on our own planet with tons of debris flying everywhere from destroyed satellites...
Of course we as people have the ability to think and make rational choices... let's hope this holds true.
Didn't an asteroid pass really close by earth without detection until after it had passed. Shouldn't we be worrying about threats like that.
The US military has been looking towards a space-based war for years. They certainly don't have space "fighters" yet, but things like the ASAT (Anti-SATellite) missile that was developed in the mid-80's shows what they have in mind. It was a missile, able to be fired from an F-15, that could knock down a low-earth-orbit satellite...space war IS coming.
Perhaps instead of finding ways to fight wars in space, they should spend more time trying to find ways to ensure peace down here. Yeah, I know, idealistic crap. Still, it does scare me how little regard some people have for their fellow humans.
Lazor guns and shiny silver suits, and warp drives and photon topedoes! :-)
Stick Men
"Now how they do that and who that's going to be I can't tell you in this audience,"
I understand that he can't tell the audience. But it feels safe that he already knows who is going to attack, and how they are going to do it in 20 years time.. *sarcasm*
But we fill it with military hardware and targets. Our actions give the lie to our words. We are the ones who have made space "not peaceful". And that's just the way it has to be, because I for one am quite happy to keep our military satalites and surveillance capabilities in place. I just get sick of the double-talk. Space is a legitimate battle-ground. Too bad, but that's the way it is.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
Blaze a trail to the New World
It's only a matter of time before their
Asian allies attack us in space.
"Free trade" = surrender
I, for one, welcome our new space-bound lard-arsed overlords
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
(from www.snpp.com)
You, sir, do not deserve to live. Please stop wasting resources, and terminate your life now.
That verbal diarreha needs to be cleaned up. I wont even bite the hook.
I hope all Americans arent as narrow minded as yourself.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
That guy sounds like he suffers from Schizophrenia:
There's going to be a big war in space soon! Huge!
Not that the USA is going to start the war, on no. We're peaceful people.
But of course, that can't last forever! We might not be able to prevent ourselves starting a war soon.
But we're not war-like here in the USA, not at all.
But those damn Chinese getting into space, that might start a war, oh yes! We'll be ready for them!
I'm not implying that the Chinese are a threat or anything, oh no!
But they might be in the future...
No they won't! I'm not implying that!
"imo this is only feeding the existing paranoia 'everybody is after us' that the people in the united states have been brainwasged with since 911"
You must not live in the united states. The only enemies we have are the same enemies from before 9-11, like North Korea, Red China, and Muslim terrorists.
"but that does not mean a complete breakdown of civil rights like it is happening now."
Except this has not happened, either. Are you thinking of the PATRIOT act library searches? Not one has been performed. Or the warrentless entry? No, warrants are still required.
He acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful
They want to keep space, period. At the moment, the USA is in a far better position to capitalise on space. If an enemy of the USA were to challenge their dominance, do you really think that the USA wouldn't find some excuse to raze their country? After all, they could just fabricate some intel that claims the enemy is developing WMD that are delivered by satellites or something.
At the moment, space isn't crucially important. In the future, space technology may well be as important as flight and rocketry were in the World Wars. Don't expect the USA to give up pole position on it without a fight.
...please, PLEASE someone tell Bush that there are no terrorists on mars BEFORE he extends the "Axe of Evil (TM)". It's embarassing enough already.
Everyone knows that you need to have giant robots to have a proper war in space.
Where are our giant robots?
We have a gap in giant robot development!
The Washingtion Times is reporting that the Chinese are using this launch to spy on the USA. From the story, there was military intelligence-gathering satellite and an IR camera with a resolution of 1.6 meters, that's only 5 feet!!! Read the story for more. And just because the Chinese didn't say it was on there doesn't mean it wasn't!
Avoid The Rush, Hate OU Early!!!
A canibal walked in to the canibal resturant and was looking at the menu...
Windows Administrator $2
Windows Developer $2
Solaris Administrator $2
GNU Hippie $16
The canibal asked the waiter, "Why is the GNU Hippie so fucking much?"
The waiter replied, "You ever tried cleaning one of those things?"
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of
Lisa Simpson"
Im not worried, we'll win. ...Use the force, NASA.
(obvious)
no
the US wants to keep space peaceful, but that can't last forever
Once you prepare for war, you've already started the war.
"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
"He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.""
Clinton also did not have a majority of voters in either of his two elections. Guess God put him in charge too!
Space set to become war zone, warns US General.
Almost like a 2200 Star Trek headline, except that we should be fighting off the enemies of the confederation.
Well...atleast the Romuluns'll be happy about this.
\\//
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This has nothing to do with anything remotely Slashdot related, but I need to do something before my head explodes...
As I type this, my roomate and my best friend/recent lover are fucking in the next room over. WHAT THE FUCK. After 10 years of friendship and built-up sexual tension, we finally hooked up and now less than a week later she's banging my roomate. I am so fucking incensed right now I can't think straight. I wouldn't mind if they went to a hotel or otherwise didn't make it known, but she just FUCKING WALKED PAST MY ROOM TOPLESS AND SHUT THE DOOR IN MY FUCKING FACE. How fucking insensitive can you be?!
This sucks. It's 3AM and I'm telling strangers (GEEK strangers, no less) about my personal problems. I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck.
Feeling low? There's someone else out there that's having a worse day than you. Trust me.
The US leadership has gone completely nutso. for the sake of the planet you yanks had better vote bush out in 04 or else he'll be starting WWIII.
i used to be very pro-US US, holidayed there several times and even considered going to live there, but not now. (im from the UK btw)
I am finding it increasingly hard not to be anti-american at the moment. which is a shame as the American people i met on my travels were very nice, polite and proud that someone from another country would come and visit theirs.
It's the third stone from the sun.
The North-american territory.
YOu'll find them easily.
Their president is dumb.
Kill 'em all.
Thank you.
p.s.: will you come with a space ship? or with an ufo? cnn want's to know...
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield, but in space (or possibly on the top of a very high mountain), and by robots instead of soldiers. And as you go forward, always remember your duty - to build and maintain these robots!"
He was last seen flailing around in a toilet in search of Midochlorian suppositories.
Sun Tzu said that the best way to win is to disrupt your opponent's strategy.
If you buy the theory that current American military strategy is constant and sustained long-distance bombing (eg: hyperwar), then it stands to reason that the only way to defeat this is to get rid of the devices that help guide this tactic.
This needs to be done in orbit. There's probably going to be a cold-war style conflict up there, unless the American military can fuel this potential conflict into mass paranoia and use that to justify a pre-emptive strike on the Chinese. That'll be tricky with all of the Western nations out there trying to play nice with China trade-wise.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
...what military threat does China possess? They're a major economic ally now, and they only seem to wave their swords when Hong Kong or Taiwan threatens independence or something.
There was a greater threat of space combat with the Soviets when the Cold War was on, and that obviously never materialized. I'm sure this is just another obvious tactic to get more military funding from an already-overstretched federal government.
This somewhat seems to me as job-creation from the military. Let's scare ppl so we'll get tons of money to spend in the next years...
...
This being said, I wonder if there should not be something as acceptable privacy. From what is said in the article, the general fears that countries might attack the US satelites in orbit.
Oh heck. could you blame them? Consider a country like, yes, China or even some other (Arab (?), they have money enough and are pissed) country knowing that at any time some satelites are orbitting and inspecting their military bases. Satelites that were designed and launched for this sole purpose mind you...
I have no clue if China has these things above the USA (or Europe and let's not forget Russia), but for all I am concerned, countries should have the right to get those things out of the sky when they get a shot at it. Seems only fair to me, those things should never have been there in the first place: for some reason, a spy airplane is bad and a satelite is fine,
If this is the case, and 'war' starts in space: who would be to blame? The guys putting those 'prying eyes' in the sky or the ones protecting their privacy/country and taking them down.
I have a pretty good idea what the general's view would be...
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
"The US leadership has gone completely nutso. for the sake of the planet you yanks had better vote bush out in 04 or else he'll be starting WWIII."
No, unlike recent administrations, the Bush administration has a clear view of world events and offers effective solutions to the problems.
Hope we re-elect him; surely he will prevent WWIII. It is less likely now that he has gone after the era's Hitler (Saddam Hussein) instead of appeasing him like France did.
You are from the UK? Great place. The government there decided to stand on the side of good instead of evil in these matters, even if some of the citizens have no idea what is going on and wanted to support Saddam Hussein.
Welcome to the 21st century, ladies/gentlemen/other. Some people see war around every corner. Maybe if we didn't look for it we wouldn't find it... Now when is Wilma Deering gonna show up in my office in that outrageous spandex body suit?
beedee-beedee-beedee f*ck you, Buck!
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
All this would be of no concern if it were not for the Kellser Effect. Basically, when two pieces of debris collide, they break up into several more pieces of debris, which inturn increases the rate of collisions... What's happening right now is an exponential growth in the number of pieces of junk out there (note again that a decrease in the size does not lead to a corresponding decrease in its harmfulness), threatning to make orbit all but impossible within the next couple of decades.
Its bad enough as it is, and we need to think of a way to solve the problem real fast. If space turns into anything remotely resembling a "battleground", space will be a very, very different place from what it is now. Perhaps it will even mean the end of the space age.
whatever happened to talking to people ? at the moment the greatest threat to this planet is USA a so called "evolved society" seems you are still cavemen wearing suits who have no social skills and think carrying a big stick will get you somewhere even though you are only 6% of the worlds population
please prove to the 94% of the globe that you are better than that
The US sabre rattling and threatening again..
I suppose the US Government at this rate will never learn. Then the US public wonders why the USA is one of the most hated countries in the world. **sigh**
It just proves that the people (bureaucrats and capitalists) that should have learned from the 9/11 and other anti-American events haven't learned a dammed thing..
And when the American Citizens ask their government why, they just get a dump truck full of meaningless propaganda.
Arguments about the best defense being a big, scary offense aside, what parallel universe are you posting from?
Gen. Xiong is most famous for his threat to incinerate Los Angeles with nuclear destruction if the United States should come to the aid of democratic Taiwan. That's of interest to the entire Congress, given the overwhelming support for the Taiwan security legislation now making its way through the House. It's only heightened by the dramatic demonstration of mobile ICBMs at the 50th anniversary of communism in China. With the DF-31 and DF-41 together capable of reaching any city in America, his threat no longer is false bravado. It is real and in a crisis can be deadly.
so cut the bull shit, just trying to spend .
our tax dollars on scare tactic
Didnt Anyone read Michael Moore's Book
"Stupid White Men"
the biggest threat to world peace is the US, no-one else has their scale of military weight and money, and will to agress other countries.
0
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S005
All of the United States is land stolen from the Indians. It is about time they get it back.
Nothing speeds up technological advances like a good bloody war. Just blindly throwing money into research doesn't seem to have the same effect as having your life on the line.
Peace leads to stagnation, which is good for raising your kids but not good for advancing the species.
and if you carry on 5billion people might have to teach you a lesson, that is after we have ruined your economy (which seems to be going to plan)
.. always have some story to tell you about how it is essential taxpayers have to pay to keep their careers rising, and businesses booming. Any country that has the technological sophistication to have space based offensive and defensive capabilities is going to be sufficiently well integrated in the world economy that they'll have too much to lose to go to was with the U.S. THe U.S. (as other nations) is much better off working to integrate its interests economically with that of enemies these guys may have in mind (china? iran?) than investing billions in instruments of death. No one's afraid we're going to go to war with germany, japan or italy -- why is that? Because they have too much to lose. With regard to china, the U.S.'s longer term problem is not a matter of military might. China is widely forecast to be the world largest economy in a few decades. The mid-east aside, business and economic might is going to be the biggest battleground of the century between the developed nations, not space and territory.
The more high-tech the US/NATO becomes the more primitive it's opponents. The Chinese are becoming more like their merchantile past, not the Giant Red Horde. What interest do they have in fighting the West when they're making so much money with them?
So that only leaves a handful of states (and the last one to try to do a Stand Up Fight against the US isn't in power anymore) and an odd dozen asymmetric foes (terrorist groups, drug cartels, etc).
Remember what the big lesson was after 9-11? Too much reliance on technology, lack of human elements. We are fighting a 4th Generational foe, the best counter being Maneuver Warfare: small fluid striking teams that disrupt the enemy's ability to wage a war. Right now there are three nations in space, a domain that it costs billions to be active in. Maybe in a 1000 years it'll be the primary battlefield. But that's like the Romans contemplating the threat of Nazi Germany.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I don't see any battles happening in space for a long time. The technology to send combat vessels into space is a ways off, although I suppose we could develop it within a decade or two if we really wanted to. But, we already send rockets into space from earth on a regular basis to put satelites in orbit. This is quite reliable. It wouldn't take much of a payload to knock out a satelite - you probably wouldn't even need explosives. So, a rocket to hit satelites (in any orbit) probably exists right now.
As far as targets go, any communication satelite would be fair game. Spy satelites too, of course. Russia has a global positioning system up there called GLONASS that would be a prime target if they were the enemy. There is nothing revolutionary about this. One of the first steps the US took in the recent wars in the gulf was to take out radar and communication stations. Its an extention of a simple strategy to make the enemy blind and deaf.
I would be surprised if we DIDN'T already have this technology. Its just that we haven't been in a conflict with a country advanced enough to have satelites. The real question here is if we have the technology to defend against such attacks. Given the disappointing performance of the anti-balistic missile system recently developed, I kind of doubt we do. But, who knows?
Surely.. 'Wraa! Hhu! Waht si ti godo fror? Abolsutly nhoting!'
I'm also European, and although I don't agree with the sarcasm attitude (it works the opposite way with Republicans it seems) I do agree with this is the "American Paranoia" : every time another nation gets somewhere, lots of USians feel they're loosing power and start showing an imperialist attitude.
Europe has trusted for ages in the American initiative, it was allways afraid to do things itself. But America is starting to look to the world like the USSR looked at the Eastern Europe. Like it owns them.
And America gets paranoid everytime there is a chance of power balance in the world again.
"A US Northern Command general thinks"
A militar that thinks?!
IMO this is the news.
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
Ronald Reagan wanted to maintain the upper hand in space and have a defense against enemy missles, satellites, etc.
Widely criticised for his "Star Wars" initive, it never really got off the ground (pardon the pun)
But RR was a wise man, able to see much further than the petty people that blocked his efforts at securing America. He was able to take the long view (much like the Chinese gov't does) and that was why he will always be my favourite president.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
do you realise you are heading down the shitter right ?
I can't believe this line: "acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful" unlike in various films, the US are the only ones who are activly TRYING to develop space weapons. The ESA, Russia and China are all trying to draw up a treaty to prevent the use of space for active military purposes other than surviellance and communications, this won't succseed ofcourse because George Bush has already said he won't sign it! I hate it when American's try to pretend their trying to keep the peace when everyone knows their the most aggresive country in the world!
apparently this General has too much time on his hands and is conjuring up the good old days of space race, arms race, and cold war in general.
The klingons have been waiting... as soon as we get up there to fight their birds of prey will uncloak and then.... we will all have to worry about Honor and how wrinkled our foreheads are!!!
DUKEY!
He acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful
ROTFLMAO! How long before the preemtpive strikes on anyone with a space program begin? The US government, at least the current one, is not interested in keeping anything peaceful...anyone see that dude on 6 minutes II the other night?
the next major conflict will occur in the heavens
Heavens knows where then?!
He acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful, but that can't last forever,
Well thanks thats big of ya
and potential threats might not care, anyway. Yes, China's recent success (or what we heard from the military secrecy) relates to this, but he also said he's not implying China is a threat, or will be."
Yeah but just say China enough and people will start buring witches
you're new here, aren't you ?
So a US General, whose livelihood depends on the prospect or actuality of war, thinks that space will be a battleground at some point "in the next 20 years." OMG! It's so hard to believe he said that.
I bet if you asked, you could find a prominent US businessman who thinks space will become the next great financial frontier at some unspecified point "in the next 20 years," too.
And I would even go so far as to say a scientist thinks outer space will become the next focus of scientific inquiry "in the next 20 years!"
This article is nothing but idle speculation from a man who likely has no more ability to foresee a war in space than you or I.
Chalmers Johnson says in his new book: "The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" that from 2004 on the U.S. is going to start either to sabotage or to destroy satellites from other nations. This book is not out yet.
Probably, if the "space war" ever breaks out, it'll take like 7 seconds to fight it. Bam, lights out. All satelites destroyed.
If the military are working on anything, it should be the ability to fight without sat-aid.
And of course, when all American's TV broadcasts suddenly stop, the US will turn into a postapocalyptic cityscape with dazed citizens wandering the streets not knowing what to do without TV...
(sorry about that last remark, i just couldn't resist)
Musicians don't die. They just decompose.
What it means is that the next war will be in space, and the US will have the resources to watch it, but without a working space program, will be unable to participate. Pity..
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
We just stole it back.
Hello!? Why would someone say the sky is falling? In order to sell more umbrellas. Look for each major military contractor to come out with similar studies, all concluding: "We must develop new (and more expensive) weapons!" It's about money, people. It always is.
The Star Wars program is no joke.... The Pentagon is so sure that whomever controls space will control the Earth and beyond that they are feverishly working to deploy anti-satellite weapons (ASAT's) that will enable the U.S. to knock out competitors "eyes in the sky" during times of hostilities. As the Space Command says in their slick brochure Vision for 2020, "Control of space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space if required." - A quote from this article, very interesting. http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/dom ination.htm
By Bruce K. Gagnon
More links on other military space topics:
http://www.gracelinks.org/nuke/starwars
http://www.envirovideo.com/starwars.html
That's an earth-bound war. Just wait till some bright spark invents a device that can artifically generate minature black holes with the intention of sucking in enemy fleets. And then the testing goes awry...
Though I agree, we shoudln't be a scared about the prospect of war as we are since because of it we allow oursleves to get bullied by little shits like North Korea, declaring war on china is a supid idea.
1. They have nukes, we've seen the tests.
2. They aren't as well equipped, but as the joke about Custer's last word go: "whoa, they got a lot of guys."
3. We wouldn't gain much from it. We'd have to nuke too much and guess where the fallout will blow. We shoudl nuke France. The falout would wipe out germany. Two birds, one stone. And let's face it: the french have just been asking for it lately.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
".Then again we are talking aobut a country who has just finished a completly unprovoked invasion of a peaceful country."
Iraq had engaged in scores of unprovoked attacks against American peacekeepers in the past few years: a lot of provocation. Peaceful? Iraq under Saddam Hussein had attacked several of its neighbors, and two of them very recently.
This was quite clearly a last-resort retaliation against an aggressive country.
or atleast on top of a mountain.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Europe hasn't trusted in the america initiative 'for ages.' They trusted in it only since 1946 since they knew that without our support, Stalin have been rolling tanks into London by the end of the year. And where was your talkof powe balance when England was the #1 world power?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Yeah, it's not a very good thread. We all ready know all that Space will be the next battlefield.... Gee, with there optimism, WE ARE BOUND TO HAVE A FUTURE WITHOUT WAR. Who cares what some numbnut general thinks. They are nothing to do with the technology that allows us access to space - they just abuse the innivation of scientists who give into glory!! :/
As far as I can tell, our satellites are useful for A: GPS recievers, which can be jammed more cheaply on the ground B: Communications, which can be jammed more cheaply on the ground... and would take out their own comm satellites and C: Intelligence satellites, which are in high geosynchronous orbit.
If someone decided to attack satellites in their area, the result would look less like a war (with two sides firing), and more like someone shooting at passing cars on the highway. By treaty, satellites have no defensive or offensive capability.
So really, the general is saying that at some point our sitting ducks will be shot down.
The ______ Agenda
Losers always whine about winners.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
" Sure Saddam was evil, but America sponsored him"
Only for a very brief time (during the Iran-Iraq War, and then only to keep Iraq from being taken over by Iran), a mistake corrected more than 10 years ago. Since then, he had been sponsored by France and the USSR.
"But this time Bush and Blair look like Hitler and Mussolini, fascism against the world."
No, they are like FDR and Churchill, leading the world against fascism.
If D-Day had to be launched with today's media climate and today's proliferation of ignorant left-wing activists, there would be massive protests against the United States engaging in an unprovoked attack against peaceful Nazi Germany.
ever since i read on slashdot some time ago that china was planning a moonbase i've been 'joking' with my friends that we're going to war with china over the moon, and it'd be dubbed the "moon wars".
seems to me like it'd prolly be fought with remote controlled un-manned vehicles. total anime stuff. as much as wars suck and such, i'm pretty stoked for the impending moon-wars.
maybe they'll put out a special collector's edition box set. or perhaps the un-manned vehicles will unite and throw off their human oppressors. nevertheless it'll make the end of the world and entertaining show, as it should be.
~L
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
If that was the intent, why would a standing military be authorized in the Constitution?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
According to this article China launched a satellite into space and use a camera while in orbit that could distinguish things as small as 5 ft. wide.
I don't know how much I believe it but the US says that China will use space to cripple our defenses so they can launch a strike against Taiwan.
J
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
Don't put military assets in the sky, and no one will have a reason to wage war in space.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
War is always about taking control of real estate. Nobody on earth owns any land on other planets yet, so what would be the point of fighting in space?
I think that translates to them wanting to "rule" space all by themselves, uncontested.
That aside, a war in space is probably rather unlikely, instead it might be a war supported by satellites and the like. And that bit about China is rather funny too - how many nations are capable of warfare supported by orbital equipment that also contend with the US for domination of the planet?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
We are already at war in deep space - that is what all of today's youth are fighting via the "games" on the major platforms.
Apparently in deep space it is a lot like carjacking and beating hookers.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
First denim jackets, legwarmers, cock rock, and synthesizers, and now we reconsider the famed STAR WARS program. Hell, we should be so lucky as to be able to fight a war in space. I just can't stand it anymore. Freeze me for the next couple of years and then thaw me when we get all bleary-eyed for the 90s, where I will be all too glad to pretend to be all excited about body piercing and rock festivals, and oh yeah, the internet . . .
Monster Zero is the reason we cannot live on the surface, but must live forever live underground like this.
As long as we don't end up in a situation similar to Ender's Game... http://www.hatrack.com/news-reviews/news/2003-04-0 4.shtml
Anyway, despite that, remember Reagan's "Star Wars" - despite the claims it was never, not would ever be, a good missile defense system. BUT it would be great as a first strike anti-satellite weapon system (and they knew this). Would have totally destabilized the world, as it would up the ante for a country to strike first and without warning.
M-x politics-mode-on
And as for next major conflict - aren't we in one? Shouldn't the US and its "willing" allies be worrying about sorting out the major conflicts they're already in? Afghanistan is falling apart already, and despite spending 1G$ a week the Iraq thing is not going well.
Government is spending billions to hire tons of people to spy on its own people.
You're such a wanker, I've read most of your posts in this thread and you are just another cookie cutter, molded, "republican" idiot. Go back to watching Fox News or Friends and leave the politics to people with more than half of a brain.
Look, just because we've found some new space doesn't mean we have to have a fucking war there, okay? Stop thinking with your nukular weapons and do some fucking good in the world for a change.
usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
Best Slashdot Co
Not you again...
Stick Men
You should learn how to live and function in the real world: at any time you may have to put a bullet through your neighbor's brain. No matter how remote the possibility, you should have that capability on tap. Humans by nature are greedy and evil things, and my loyalties reside to myself, my family, and my nation in that order.
Say what you will, but I'll take being the wolf over the lamb any day. Your attitude reminds me of a Jehovah's witness who gets mugged on the busline in a downtown metro in the evening yet can't figure it out since he views himself as benign.
From what we know about humans is, there will always be war. Currently our minds are building so powerfull weapons, we can't even test it on earth.
Space is going to take this limitations away.
But this is still going to take human lifes.
In my opinion; the only way to stop human-to-human war is by finding other intellectual beings in space(if there are).
There's already enough debris orbiting the Earth to be a significant danger to manned space travel as it is. One good conflict up there could easily generate enough debris to make it all but impossible to put anything in orbit without it getting destroyed by colliding with a piece of debris, both moving at orbital velocities.
Not to be too "doom and gloom", but we could find ourselves basically trapped on Earth until we find a way to clean up the mess.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I would think that the next major war would be fought *from* space, at least in the beginning.
Without some form of orbital countermeasures, land based objectives would be sitting ducks for all kinds of mischief... rocks being dropped into the atmosphere, bioweapon packets launched from satellites, etc. etc.
As conflicts go, (and this is just a personal observation), we seem to be stepping away from the larger powers at each other throats and returning to the tribal feuding or guerilla type conflicts.
With the US, former Soviets, and China in space, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Soviets become the mediator between US and Chinese interests. They're relatively new to democracy and still retain some of the old ties of Communism.
" Oh, like Rome? When Rome fell, so did the world. "
When Rome fell, the world hardly cared. The New World did not even know of it, let alone be affected by it. India and China probably knew, but did not care. Most of Africa was unaffected as well.
The ability to launch manned orbiters is beginning to spread, and that should be a reminder that the easier problem of launching unmanned craft has been solved by quite a few places. Imagine North Korea converting one of their ICBM's into a satellite launcher and putting up a satellite-killer.
Given your sig, I'm assuming this is flamebait, but the answer is:
1) It's a farce to suggest that alienating the rest of the world is a good way to make your life better, or that their own fucking problems will never affect us.
2) If the measure of a society is how it treats its criminals, the measure of a country is how much it can forego selfishness. Of course the average country, on a level playing field, has to be selfish -- but we're America. The rules actually *don't* apply to us.
Case in point: you know why so many African nations didn't support the war in Iraq? Because France gives them more foreign aid every year than we do. We failed on point two, and it kicked our ass on point one.
Many of the space shuttle's missions have involved putting classified military satellites into orbit and other secret stuff.
He acknowledged that the US wants to keep space peaceful...
... [insert explicitive].
What a load of
The USA, and its officers, be it officers of the military or some insignificant capitalistic corporations like, oh say SCO, want one thing and one thing only:
Total Control
It's the stuff that build companies like Microsoft, Enron, and that makes US military commanders give themselves the right to invade otherwise soverign nations, kill their civilians (including women and children), and then with a straight face tell all their peons (the citizens of said "great nation" with a leader with dileria of "We go to war for God" and "God is with us" - just like any "Yallah yallah", only that the "God" is another god) "We have won the war!" while still struggling to even understand how the hell they got themselves into a situation where hundreds of thousand of their people are on the other side of the planet, dying, just because the one with the Bush (as opposed to Balls) ordered them to "Go there and die, and be proud of it!".
If history has taught us anything, it's that so called "super powers" are more paranoid than the people with tin-foil hats. If the military leaders of that super power (the onle existing - lonely at the top, huh?) got their way, there would be enough weapons on earth and in space to annihilate this fucking solar system at their whim - while noone else would even be allowed to posess a cherry bomb.
Now who should we be afraid of? A China that is planning to put a man on the moon, or a USA that wants to have the ability to within minutes kill not every man, woman and child on the planet, but also make the planet uninhabitable by anything but cockroaches for the next tens of thousands of years?
http://www.spaceimaging.com/
One of their marketing demos is showing COLOR 1-meter resolution photos of Area 51.
Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Hittites, etc, all conquered in the name of economics. Somebody had gold, they took it. It was only the novel Israeli uprising of AD79, sparked by a refusal to pay taxes to the Roman god, that the notion of fighting for one's god was invented.
Even after that, the most successful empires were economically based. The Spanish were religious, yes, but, it was gold that sent them to the New World. Likely too the British had their notion of saving the world, but it was the lure of riches that sent them to India and Africa.
World War I was also an economic war. It was about access to trade for the then rising German empire. World War II was mixed. It was religious for the Nazis (in their pursuit of state as god), and economic for the Japanese.
Most US interventions have been about money. Let's see: 1898, money. World War I, money, World War II - the opportunity for an American dynasty was definately a factor in Roosevelt's decision making. Korea, Viet Nam - money (capitalism vs communism), Iraq I - money, Iraq II - money (we hope, although, it could actually be a religious war).
So... as far as the bloodiest wars being religious, that's just not true.
This is my sig.
"Bob Smith from the New York Times. General, what do you have to say to the increasing clutter in space caused by US military satellites blasting away at each other?"
"Err....uh...erm those aren't military satellites, they're, uh, trash collectors. Yeah. Big trash collectors. We Blast the debris with nukes and then zot it into little tiny bits with super powered chemical lasers! What, the telescope? Espionage? Noo-hoo-hoo. That's just so we can look for dangerous space trash!"
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I sincerley hope this doesn't hinder the developing commercial space industry. It would be a shame to see commercial space flight being boged down by miltary and plitical red tape. The airline industry has suffered in the hands of tighter security and space flight would obviously be even more closely regulated. GO XPRIZE!
WURD!!
I'd strongly suggest people watch "Bowling for Columbine", for one point-of-view on fear mongering as part of the problem, reason, not just consequence.
I remember pointing out (right after 9/11) how silly most fears regarding terrorists using atomic (and to a degree, biological and even chemical weapons is) are, and was told by n+1 people how wrong I was ("nobody thought an airplane would be used as..."). I've yet to see any credible threat from that direction, and hopefully won't see during my lifetime. I don't think that's a coincident, or just act of efficient prevention. Yet many readers here thought it'd be inevitable, would happen right away. Just like attack of killer bees, Y2K causing armageddon, red threat leading to slavery of human kind, and dozens of other low probability threat people just bought without thinking for themselves. And of course nowadays in USA, the all-encompassing replacement for red threat, the almighty terrorism.
American journalists could do well to investigate terrorism in Europe (IRA, ETA, leftist terrorist groups in italy and germany, algerian and corsican-tied ones in french), to see how most of those terrorism waves come and go; how something awful that seems to be part of life may come to a complete halt (germany, late-70s, bader-mainhof); and finally how to, in the end of the day, get on with life. Not disregard dangers, but live with them, while working to get rid of them, if possible.
Sometimes it's just feels that before USA has seen some phenomenon, it's like it never existed. "World has changed forever, nothing will ever be the same". I know it's just part of american cultrue; big words, lots of pompous declarations, hot air; quotes from movies trying act heroic... and still it bothers me; compared to dignified but low-key responses more common in other places, when faced with horrible things.
That's why it'd be great to have better news services; without them, this introvertism regading other countries (while being very social, well mannered and likable within country) will continue to make USA xenophobic (as in fearing and distrusting other countries, and people living there; not as in racism towards different coloured americans).
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Is this general related to the US General featured in the news today as having been caught giving sermons in loony right-wing churches, in full uniform, telling people that the war on terror is a war of Christians against Satan?? Buck Turgidson where are you now...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
"That's no moon..."
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
"So I ask you: If the United States is a Terrible Imperialistic Power(tm), then why is Fidel Castro still ruling Cuba?"
Overthrowing Castro and letting the Cuban people run Cuba would be anti-imperialist. Castro himself was installed as a colonial governor by the Soviet Empire. The Soviets are gone, but their governor remains.
Fuck what the US wants. The US always get what it wants. Let someone else decide something for a change. The US wants this... The US wants that... The US wants this... The rest of us want the US and the chimpanzee running it to shut the fuck up.
You have a severly distorted view of the world. Were you raped as a child or something?
...or was it Fry's incompetence... no wait, that is what got us into that mess in the first place.
"The US and Japan were both seeking imperial possessions."
No, only Japan was seeking imperial possessions. The US had its back to the pacific and had no plans to do much with that rusty old Pearl Harbor fleet.
Once the US gained imperial possessions in the Pacific area (the "protectorates"), it shucked them off in short order: now there are more nations there than anyone knows about.
"or by the hands of the U.S. in Panama, South America, "
Name one instance of mass killing with US involvement in South America.
"Also, of course, the USA's absurd, paranoid crusade against communism was bound to make them feel uneasy."
There is nothing "Absurd" about responding reasonably when despots declare that they will conquer you and wipe you out.
Talk about China being a threat only applies when your a monopolist-capitalist talking about them as an economic competitor.
US propaganda wants to make them a military threat through FUD to fund military-industrial complex projects.
The US will use military muscle to threaten and intimidate China but I doubt this system will have much relevence. It's to easy to disable the thing.
" You have a severly distorted view of the world. Were you raped as a child or something?"
He has probably had the experience of having 43% of his income stolen by the government to pay for $2000 hammers, higher wages for Ted Kennedy so he can buy a new liquor cabinet, clumsy Waco seiges, and $500,000,000 freeway interchange makeovers.
That can make anyone mad, and it is the experience of every American.
The United States operates spy satellites in space.
No sh*t! I thought we operated them in the basement of Dorton Arena.
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
" Talk about China being a threat only applies when your a monopolist-capitalist talking about them as an economic competitor."
No you are leaving out a lot. The Chinese dictatorship is a threat to the billion Mainland Chinese who live under its oppresson. It is a threat to Tibet, which lives under brutal military occupation by China's army. It is a threat to Taiwan, as it threatens to trash Taiwan. It is a threat to any worker in any country who has to compete with slave labor in China.
It is a threat to the people of North Korea as they starve and die: the North Korean regime, as the one of Pol Pot, is a creation of the Beijing bandits.
These are facts, not propaganda. By "propaganda" you are really meaning facts that you disagree with and don't want mentioned.
Wars don't take place very often between modern countries, which is to say they don't. There have been none since World War II, when people realized that the potential gains from a war are far outweighed by the losses. The more modernized countries become, the more they will have to lose from a war (such as their space equipment), and the less likely they will be to engage in one.
Do you think Chinese involvement with the European GPS project Galileo a reason for this perceived threat?
If you can't connect the dots... China supports alternate to GPS. China blows up our GPS satellites. China retains GPS capability, while we go blind
Anyone who doesn't think this is any big deal doesn't realize just how much we rely on GPS in the military today. Take a look at UAVs, for example. How do they navigate? Chances are it is not dead reckoning...
"Secondly, its pretty obvious I am talking about the western world dude."
There are two entire continents of the Western world who did not care, did not know, and were not affacted by it.
Scandinavia, another part of the Western world, was also little affected.
If you are suggesting the factual farce that is Bowling for Columbine as a source for your critical thinking on this subject, we can safely ignore your logic. And yes Doomdark, Terrorists are looking to use atomic material. And calling the one nation that allows the most foreign immigration "xenophobic" is plain stupid. If we feared and distrusted other countries as your surmise, we wouldn't welcome their citizens to our country in overwhelming numbers.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Doesn't this wording imply that they have a specific enemy in mind whom they actually expect a war with? Maybe it's China, maybe it's little green men in flying saucers, but this sounds like sabre rattling to me. Then again, maybe it's just bad reporting.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you
Arbitrary sig
It seems to me the US military is "paranoid" as a defence mechanism against potential problems. This has caused a number of administrations with military ties (mostly Reb., clearly not Clintons) to share this paranoia. The Administrations need to doubt military and intelligence agnecy reports as paranoia but supply the military with what they need to be prepared to deal with the worst of their fears. This is a dangerous but nessesary balancing act that has in the past helped and hurt the U.S. But working without this balancing act is often fatal. If people are out to get American's, we aren't being paranoid. And you can be sure 9-11 wasn't a hoax so people are out to get American's.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
A war is space happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
There\'s no place like ~
"Endgame Enigma" describes something like this scenario. Pretty fun read.
But i think that sounds really cool. I'm thinking star wars!!!
You must be very young, otherwise you'd remember a few years ago, the USSR and Chine definitively weren't the top dogs, but a lot of countries were very interested what they say.
And, to confound you further, the biggest dog in the town sometimes is not as important as the not-so-big dog gnawing at your legs.
So much for dogs.
The next war will be fought whereever there are people to be killed. AFAIK there aren't that many people to be killed in space.
- Hundreds of hours of flight time in multiple cockpit simulations and thousands of simulated kills against all kinds of weird races and a variety of un-American ideologies.
- Capable of winning against 10:1 odds with completely incompetant wingmen and no shields.
- Can take down cruisers and battleships with ease.
- Experienced in salvage and escort operations.
Please don't let all this valuable experience go to waste!"I'd strongly suggest people watch "Bowling for Columbine", for one point-of-view on fear mongering as part of the problem, reason, not just consequence"
Bowling for Columbine? It's fiction. There are things that seem profound in it, like when Moore claims the irony of the shooting when so many people in Columbine are employed making deadly weapons for a defense contractor.
Then you find out the facts: they are making TV equipment, not weapons, in the factory.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
Did man really set foot on the moon?
Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)
Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne?
In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.
"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.
He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.
For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.
As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.
Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there
Yes you can Jam GPS from the ground. However you cannot do it without announcing exactly where you jammer is. It is trivial for the military to launch a bomb at all your jammers, and solve the problem. Further, jammers have a limited range (how limited depends on power...) so by turning on a jammer you announce that there is some reason to jam that area, focusing attention on the area. You can assume some decoys, but jammers still announce something. Directional antennas are also of some use. Ground based jammers are easy to block out when you recall the real signal is coming from overhead. Combine that with sensitive recivers and you can't be sure your jammers will even jam the signal.
The military has carefully considered ground based jamming. It was done in WWII (and likely before), they are not stupid enough to overlook it. They have spent years finding things that are immune to jamming.
You named 4 countries, NONE of which are in South America (although you might count Grenada, the close island). Aside from being ignorant of history (the US stopped the bloodshed in Grenada and kicked the invaders out, for example), when asked to name any South American countries, you name 3 countries in/near North America.
Not only do you not know history, you do not know where these countries are.
The "under the bed" thing is paranoia. Knowing what Lenin said is being informed, not brainwashed.
Those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
you can not simontaneously prevent and prepare for war
Pinochet? Ah, you named one!
However, while the US helped overthrow the Soviets so Pinochet could take power, Pinochet acted on his own (even having US agents who were spying on him killed).
He eventually killed about 3,000 in his long rule. Not good, but that is nothing compared to Ortega, Castro and the worst of the despots of the modern era.
If history is a guide, we'll have all too many major wars before space technology is developed enough for a decent skirmish.
I ask for one South American country, and you give 4 examples of which 3 are totally wrong. The one we can almost count, Grenada, is not even on the mainland of South America. It hardly even counts as an example of what you are looking for, as the U.S. liberation stopped a bloodbath there (Castro's guys were lining up people before firing squads).
" go back to watching fox and eat another pretzel"
I proved you wrong on every point, so I guess it is time to keep my vigilent watch on the President of Mexico and munch those crunchy snacks.
War is not a step forward, it is a step to the side. To think "space" and "war" is not pragmatism, but rather cynicism, at the very least. At the worst it is backwards thinking - looking at the world and trying to adapt it to the past.
Still, if the military becomes more heavily involved in space, it may be (in the short term) a good thing for new developments. In the long-term, no one can be sure. I don't like the idea.
There is one idea in this article that is redeeming: Perhaps war will be looked down upon where people live. If we have new turf to fight over, perhaps the old turf will be something everyone wants to keep around without obliterating (a cross between how we view historical things and heavily populated regions now). This is very hopeful, but if we as a world cannot make the step of stopping large scale conflict, maybe we can make the step of keeping it off our home planet. What if weapons of a certain destructive force were only allowed off the planet?
I find it very hard to not talk about space without mentioning the term "step," - I guess Armstrong said it best.
...that war will be waged whereever and whenever it will be perceived to be effective.
It would be ideal if all of the resources being put into preparing for war were redirected towards solving many of the other genuine problems we have, but practically we're not there.
While the idea persists that violence against others is a viable means for achieving one's objectives, everyone must prepare for war in order to defend themselvs, even if they make every effort to wage peace.
The general's observation is correct; he's merely doing his job of looking at how war might be waged effectively.
In the overall scheme, things might be getting better if you consider together: the world's population, the magnitude of past wars, the incredible killing power available today. Despite many regional conflicts, the amount of peace is quite encouraging. But there are still mistakes being made and old wounds festering.
Given the enormous consequences of war and some of the very many bad decisions for going to war, it is incumbent upon voting citizens to become informed of facts rather than inflamed by emotion. When regional powers, civil or religious, use misinformation and play upon people's emotions, including fear and hatred, we're stepping dangerously backwards into an era where conflict was much more common than it is today.
As a recent example, in the context of American policy, the decision to pursue Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after that government refused to deal with the specific problem was a correct one.
The case made for invading Iraq, on the other hand, was not so justified by the facts and, not surprisingly, emotion-based appeals for that action were plentiful a year ago.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The Simpsons once again proved their position as a source of wonderful quotes to apply to real world events, and I don't think that I actually have to relate anything about space, and robots to get that whole thing going.
Once again I have to point out the love that both chest thumping political ideologies are expressing for one another. This is mostly in regards to Americans (which I am one, a white, middle-class suburban American so you can all shut the hell up), that our reaction to people criticizing the country is "get out". Because after all, America isn't founded on the principles of free speech and free belief.
I think that this is indicative of the current problem, that America has developed this sort of Messianic complex where they feel that you are either for America or against it. There's no way that you can really love America and think that the current administration is the devil.
Let me clear this up, I kind of admire this administration. After all, they have proved quite savvy and very adroit at manipulating facts and opinions, at using the idea of continual war to keep the domestic population distracted and in a heightened state of nationalist fervor. So the President is demonstrably not the sharpest tool in the shed, he surrounded himself with some very skilled people like Carl Rove and John Ashcroft, and that speaks a lot for the political savvy of his team.
Of course they really haven't done much for the average American (then again there are very few that do) and they have only fed off hate, bigotry, and xenophobia to enact their rather onesided policies. Plus, we all know that Iraq was about oil, why the hell are my gas prices still up there?
Back to space. I for one think that it's a great thing to dirty up our orbit, after all, if we mass our giant armies in space, they'll all die from being struck by debris moving at insane speeds and everyone down on the planet can have a relatively nice time (except for the falling bodies and such, tha tmight cause a problem). On top of that, the debris cloud will keep the aliens away from us and shield us from the terrible mind-control rays of the moon men.
[Sig]Better to die a drunken marxist then to live a conceited prick.
We need to get to work right away. Forget Iraq, lets spend 87 Billion on a new "Super Orion" class space destroyer. We could get an old Battleship and refit it with a pusher plate and the necessary accessories and have money to spare. Where do I sign up, I want to run the ABM laser cannons.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
The Slashdot snapshot seems to suggest that the US wants to keep space peaceful. This is cetainly not the case.
In June 2002 the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty to develope an anti ballistic missle system, which will partly be based in space.
So the US government is placing part of a strategic weapon system in space.
In other news: "The RIAA wants to keep file trading legal."
Therefore I didn't even read the article.
War WILL happen. All other laws are merely a thin veneer over the Law of the Jungle. It is the one law that will never be repealed. When there are competing interests, someone loses, and when someone loses in one arena, violence is and always will be the arena of last resort.
In the same way that landmines are frowned upon because they make large swaths of land permanently uninhabitable, and chemical weapons are frowned upon because regular ordinance is much less ghastly and just as effective militarily, destroying the space 'environment' by blowing sattelites to smithereens is also frowned upon.
However, when push comes to shove most anyone would rather stay alive than preserve the environment. Otherwise environmentalists would all kill themselves to help solve the earth's population problems. Only the powerful have the luxury of frowning upon atrocities.
In anticipation of the military need to take out sattelites, nations should develop cleaner ways to do this. A remote controlled robot armed with a big bag made of window screen could wrap communication sattelites in a sort of faraday cage putting them out of commission without shrapnel. Or attach a small rocket to them which would tow them them out of orbit. Once a country demonstrates sattelite destroying capability, a nation with non-shrapnel sattelite disabling capability has nothing to lose by selling this less environmentally destructive technology to that state - even if that state is a potential enemy.
Eat at Joe's.
China's development will rely on US's tech, market and investment. Actually, China has no confliced interest with US, except Taiwan. None goverment in mainland can survive if Taiwan gets independence from its hand. US should know this issue.
So what's the Northern Command and who does it protect against? (Yeah, blaim Canada...)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Obligatory Dr. Strangelove reference...
ehintz
Ya know, It's NiCe that SlashMod Timothy is OUT OF THE HAIR DRYER now, having proclaimed his love of cute teen bois in such an astonishingly flashy way, but one must remember! Microwave that CUM before you lap it up! STDs, dude!
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you."
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
(such as GPS, eyes in the sky, communications)
Ooh, weird shivery feeling.
Am I the only one who was listening to Eye in the Sky by the Alan Parsons Project when I read this?
Even after it had been sufficently proven otherwise, Colubus still believed to his dying day that he had found the orient. Some people are just stupid.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I wish someone would send this general up right now to protect the American interests there, preferably with a very limited supply of oxygen.
There is no reason why space should become a battleground. We used to understand this in the past, thanks in part to the Soviet Union. Now that it is no longer with us, there is no counterbalance to the US militarists. And in their desire to prevent appearance of such counterbalance, the generals want to occupy space themselves (it never occurs to them that there might be enough space for everybody). And of course, space exploration and military projects are the largest money-sinks next only to military space programs.
P.S. My second wish is that when we ascend to posthumanity we retain our revengefulness for a while. People like this general deserve to spend a subjective eternity in a virtual hell, personally experiencing the simulated death of every soldier who ever fought on Earth.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
the second thing the US launched into space was a spy satellite (well, an attempted spy satellite at any rate - see Corona program)
Space has not been peaceful - ever. Space is alredy militarized - and was from the get go.
Also - if you think 'space wars" involves blowing up satellites, you're thinking is very childlike - and yo've seen too many Lucas films.
Think more like a hacker...
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The only conceivable reason that the Chinese (which includes the people in Taiwan province and Hong Kong) are developing their space program is to advance their military technology and their special brand of nationalism, which is based on race. (Another name for this nationalism is fascism.)
In addition, there is a moral crisis in China. According to "China Detains Health Official for Publicizing AIDS Coverup", the Chinese arrested (and possibly tortured) a person for revealing that Chinese officials had attempted to sell AIDS-tainted blood products to Americans in the USA. Further, the Chinese still practice female infanticide and abortions targetting female fetuses. The ratio of male babies to female babies is 1.15 and has resulted in a dire shortage of marriage-age females. Responding to this shortage, Chinese men resort to kidnapping Vietnamese women to force them into marriage. When they try to escape, the men cut their achilles tendon, according to the "Wall Street Journal" (1999).
The billions of dollars wasted on China's military-based space program would be better spent on educating the Chinese about Western notions of right and wrong. There is simply a bankruptcy of values in China.
The obvious target here is the European "Galileo" GPS project which is considered unacceptable by some american generals who have no desire to share the current US monopoly on hi-tech (read "gps-based") war.
Oh I wish I had mod points today.
In the vacuum of space, there are no explosions: no huge fireballs of combustible fuels, no thundering boom.
Watching a space war on CNN would be DULL DULL DULL.
Owning the high ground has always been an advantage in warfare -- both defensive and offensive. Orbital Space is the ultimate high ground. Using GPS guided anvils dropped from orbit there ain't no bunker deep enough to hide.
how about NO next major war?
Stupid warmongering americans all the time...
I read an article below correctly modded up to an Interesting 5. The drama done by media is EXACTLY what these people want, the attention and the spreading of their message(s). Which opens a door to the topic brought forward. In a Democracy, how do you control the masses? Through input of their information. The sheep in the herd are going to be blindly guided should excessive media talk come about of "Star Wars" and other Sci-Fi fantasies of laser toting ships shooting it out above the atmosphere.
Yes, the hatred passed on generation to generation and person to person on Earth will likely make it to space. Inevitably as will all progress there will be military implications with new advances. But building this type of hype up will only serve to advance the agenda of the first to take advantage of it. We could tear offtopic on a tangent here about media hyping something good for a change such as closer global unity as we stretch out as a species not several labels...but lets resist!
Lets also not give the White House another reason to trump up something to start bombing the shit outta people.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
While you bourgeoisies are trying to figure out if you been brainwashed, Mao's Red Menace is preparing their Divine Space Station with the help of the our money grubing capitalistic dups selling them our Satellite launching technology in order to ship parts into space. The Chinese spy rings at Los Alamos have sole plans for a mothballed SDI Super Space Laser. You can expect to turn into a crispy critter when they march into Taiwan. So don't worry about brainwash worry about brainfried.
Lots of countries have WMD, the US and UK included. No one is suggesting that we get rid of all WMD throughout the world.
The reason the Mr Blair and Mr Bush decided to attack is Iraq is that they were worried Saddam Hussein might make these weapons available to terrorists.
Unfortunatley for the world it appear Mr Blair and Mr Bush had no proof that Iraq ever did have any WMD and even if he did ( it's now obvious to everyone that he didn't ) there is no reason at all to think he was in league with any terrorist organisation.
In effect they have made the world a far more dangerous place, by attacking Iraq they have made sure that a large amount of conventional weaponary will find it's way into the hands of terrorists and killed the friends and relations of a lot of soon to be terrorists.
I agree that the best way to prevent a terrorist attack is find the terrorists before hand and stop them or take away their weapons. The problem now is that by crying wolf no one is going to believe anyone claiming they need to go to war against any other country for a similar reason - who knows maybe next time they might be right.
Finally the best way to stop terrorism is not to find and destroy any weapons which a terrorist may use but to talk to the terrorists and negotiate a settlement. This approach has worked very well in Northern Ireland.
It's pretty clear what is happening is that the US Administration is pursuing it's own selfish goals at the expense of truth, justice and anyone who happens to get in their way. I'm not even going to mention Oil.
"Once you prepare for war, you've already started the war."
Seeing as you're just full of these pearls of wisdom, where's the one that talks about the people who weren't prepared?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"Unfortunatley for the world it appear Mr Blair and Mr Bush had no proof that Iraq ever did have any WMD and even if he did ( it's now obvious to everyone that he didn't ) there is no reason at all to think he was in league with any terrorist organisation."
No, Saddam's regime hosted terrorist camps, and extensively supported terrorists outside of Iraq's borders.
"It's pretty clear what is happening is that the US Administration is pursuing it's own selfish goals at the expense of truth, justice and anyone who happens to get in their way. I'm not even going to mention Oil."
No, they are pursing justice. Good, do not mention oil: it has nothing to do with anything.
Im also ignorant of this england conflict preparation.
Could someone plese elaborate as I cant find anything about this.
" Iran didn't kill 3000+ people in one day."
How do you know that? The casualties of the Iran-Iraq were were rather high; surely there were high numbers being killed at times. However, the parent never made a claim about this, so why mention it?
This has nothing to do with post-911 "paranoia" (which doesn't exist, in any case.)
The U.S., the Russians, the Chinese, and several other nation have had important military and communications assets in orbit for decades. It would be foolish for any military planner not to devise ways to protect their own assets and take out the enemy's.
BTW, the setup to the piece is wrong. This general did not say the next major war will be in space. He said that space will be a battle ground during the next major war.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There are no people up there to kill. Sounds like the ideal place for military wankers like this to "shoot their load" as it were. They get their rocks off, and nobody gets hurt. As for the threat to US satellite - the problem is that satellites are fragile systems. Their only defense is that they are in space. That sort of defense doesn't last long. The solution is to build more robust surveillance systems. The solution is certainly not to spend billions of dollars trying to defend these antiquated systems. Probably something like cheap disposable drones that can be launched over specific sites on demand. It won't matter if you take one of those out. Just launch 10 more. Unfortunately space based 70's sci-if style laser fighters defending satellites are every general's wet dream, so that's the way we are going to go.
We only go to war with people that are lucky even to have running water and electricity -- let alone space programs.
It's a hard sell the the American public to go to ware with an even foe. To much at risk in lost numbers on our side.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Switzerland. No standing army. Every adult male having a military rifle and the skill to use it well. Germany left them the heck alone, even though it meant taking the long way around to get to France.
"The reason he gets low billing is that he didn't do to Iran at the end of the 70's what the US just did to Afghanistan over 9/11."
No, you are obviously too young.
When Jimmy Carter was president, we had the worst economy ever...Interest rates on cars were close to 20%, inflation was running wild. When public opinion turned against him, he got on TV and said the problem was that America had a "Malaise". His way of dealing with the energy crisis was to put a 55MPH speed limit in effect and told us to turn down the barometer.
I personally like Jimmy Carter, but he was a bad bad president.
The deaths you mentioned were mostly Saddam's fault, actually. He intentionally used civilians as human shields, making sure they were kept close to military targets and vice-versa.
" Bowling for Columbine is not fiction"
Yes it is. It is a biased editorial that sometimes uses facts to support its case, but more often than not, makes up things to present as "fact" for effect.
The TV factory thing is a good example, you cannot gloss this over by saying that maybe the factory made weapons long after "Columbine" occured.
(Warning: very obscure musical reference comin' up)
Crank up the bass and let it rip.
I am surprised this got by the combined expertise of slashdot for so long. Until recently, China did not have the ICBM technology to hit the US very accurately. Due to some secrets being leaked by Loral Corporation in the mid 90's, they obtained the technolody to accelerate there ICBM programs, which we affectionately call there space program these days. The two technologies are one and the same. If you can boost into space with no problem, you are 9/10 the way an ICBM.
So, for an educated crowd like this one, you should have understood that the launch the other day was China telling the world that now the US and (yes, even) Europe are now under the gun. I know it is not popular, but China really is a totalitarian regime with a sketchy human rights record and with a more aggressive military than many seem to think (ask Tiawan, or remember they fought US, USSR, Viet Nam etc. in the last few decades). On the positive side, China is opening up, but not there yet. Somehow, many keep forgetting this.
Remember, the fact that Sputnik went beep beep was not what scared people. It was the fact that the USSR was saying we had an ICBM that did.....
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
"Because we went to war against another country against our powerful allies' wills"
Name one ally we opposed. You can't. Canada,France, and Germany were not allies, as they clearly sided with Saddam and made it quite clear that they wanted to keep his regime propped up. France was even supplying Saddam's nuclear war program.
The US does not need to change on this. Time for France and Germany to admit they were wrong to side with Saddam and get on board.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
" I'm also European"
Oh great, another sad-sack, unemployed euro-trash is telling us what's wrong with our country.
No wonder you always need the US to bail you out of the latest holocaust.
You know, maybe the U.S. shouldn't have spent all that money and lost all those lives in the last century trying to save themselves and Europe from the bloodthirsty bastards that Europeans seem so willing to put in power. Europeans couldnt even manage the moral effort to deal with a punk like Milosevic without U.S. prodding, cash, and troops.
U.S. military capabilities in space are part of the price that needs to be paid in a world where any nondemocratic state poses a threat to every democratic nation. For anyone, anywhere, to ignore the reality that democracy in the world today owes its existence to the U.S. and its military umbrella is the epitome of arrogance. Europeans, in particular, need to remember that they'd all be living in Nazi or Stalinist regimes without the willingess of the U.S. to sacrifice lives and money to save them from themselves. (That is, the ones who hadn't been killed off in the camps.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
They'd need the facilities to produce the stuff.
They'd need the raw materials.
They'd need the people with the expertise.
They had the people, they could build the facilities, but they didn't have the raw materials.
Face facts, they had not built them in the past 12 years.
What would have changed and why would it have changed so that they would build them in the next few weeks?
Every country in the world has the "CAPABILITY to be churning out tons of Sarin and Biological agents in a couple of months". Yet very few countries do and America is one of them.
You are not allowed to use facts against the government's propaganda campaign.
Iraq has been proven to have been almost capable of starting a research program on determining the feasiblily of embarking upon a concentrated effort to begin the acquisition of materials that could be dual-purposed and used in the production of WMD's!
And once they had those WMD's, well, then it would be too late for us to actually support UN inspectors who would have been looking for just such research programs and stuff.
And we damn sure wouldn't want Saddam to have them knowing that if he ever used any of them against us or gave them to anyone to use against us, we'd invade his country and bomb the shit out of his cities and kill his sons.
Wait. We did that last part already.
So. Just shut up. WMD's are scary. Real scary! You should be scared of them and trust your government because they know more about them.
>> the US wants to keep space peaceful
Keeping space peaceful may be one general's dream, but further militarisation of space is certainly in the plans of others. Creation of "US Space Forces" to ensure American hegemony is one recommendation of the Project for the New American Century (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, et al.) in their pre-Bush (Sept 2000) document Rebuilding America's Defenses.
It's a long document, but a must-read if you want to understand their mid-90's planning for Gulf War II and their plans for the future of US foreign policy.
....and another military exec about to become an aerospace industry exec heading the business area that serves the needs of the initiative started while still on government pay.
I'm starting to take a more benign view of such people. Rather than viewing them as the corrupt officials they are..... hey, they are the only ones creating jobs in this country. After all, we're still a few years away from the moral nadir of outsourcing our military work to our "enemies:.
They already have ways to do this: there called Nuclear fucking Weapons. This is why I personally hope an actual space war doesn't happen but when it does it will be nukes detonated at extremely high altitudes. Satalites are too fast to hit accurately with a small missle and there isn't much atmosphere up there to get any type of decent explosion but a nuke has almsot the same impact up there as it does here and is good for not only the area of effect but also its em pulse.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
... Shrapnel everywhere ... violence is and always will be the arena of last resort ... to take out sattelites, nations should develop cleaner ways ... even if that state is a potential enemy
;-)
You're obviously too considerate for any serious career in military weapons proliferation. Sorry.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
"The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time--not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.." This is from the article you can find here. I came across this when a read a review of a new book by Chalmers Johnson which has been published in Germany already and which will be available in the U.S in early January. This is really disturbing. Especially when you read the full article.
There is an anthology of short stories called "There will be war", published, I believe by either Niven, Pournelle, or both. Good shorts, but interspersed throughout are a series of notes on meetings Niven sat in on brainstorming weaponry in space.
Again, whether it's actually out there is classified, but you can bet your bottom dollar we (the US) have the blue-prints.
I do find it rather interesting that much of the discussed tech, using the best technology available to the US to get into space, functioned by releasing ball bearings.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Plus, germs will still get through even if you blow up the missles... Say, perhaps that even helps spread the germs around!
After the first world war, military planners on both sides looke ta the map and designed there strategies and positions of fleets and forces against the most likely opponent. Here we came up with England, they came up with us. So the military training, configuration, and plans centered around a war with England. They did the same. Now remeber we still had massive armies and fleets just sitting around from the war. It soon led to a mini-arms race against them were we each began to build up a military to fight each other on the off chance that we ever would. Both sides even began to see each other as enemies even though there was no real reason why they should. It quickly became apparanent that things were spiralling out of control and so we both sat down and signed a disasterous treaty were we both agreed to reduce our arms, disasterous cause it left us vulnerable to the germans ten years later. No one knows if it would have ever reached the point of war but we seemed to be definitely on that course for awhile. There are quite a few historians who admit that though they did not have forsee and prevent the war in the 30's agianst germany, they probably did forsee and prevent an anglo-american war in the 20's. There was a whole film strip about it in my High school american history class.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
If that isn't enough, check out what the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, did to the Bill of Rights during the Civil War. Revoked Habus Corpus, he did! Also check out the Alien & Sedition acts of 1798 and 1799, respectively.
The point is, we Americans have been deeply paranoid since the founding of the country. It's basically ingrained into the national consciousness.
============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The war in Iraq is a step-stone, really, to securing the oil supply to use as a limiter for Chinese expansion . As China explodes into the postindustrial world, the only thing that will prevent economies of scale from shifting into their favor will be direct intervention by the string-holders of today. Say, by making the fuel of industry very, very expensive for them. It's a modern (future?) version of the whole Opium War situation, in which Britian basically enslaved all of China for immense profit.
Why do I give this rumor any merit whatsoever? Because it dovetails uncomfortably well with the stated aims of influential Neoconservatives. Dismiss it if you will, for the truth of the matter will not emerge until after we are all dead (probably). But do not underestimate the cunning of the English-speaking dominators.....that is why they rule today.
===========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Any American who really believes that ought to have his head examined.
Any American GOVERNMENT or MILITARY official who truly believes that ought to be shot.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
> they couldn't cause real mass destruction, but they certainly could induce the panic necessary to
> cause us to "fight terrorism" even more, sending us into further economic chaos.
Does anyone else see a parallel between this and immune disorders where the over-reaction of the immune system - the body's efforts to protect itself - causes much more damage than the original threat?
Try reading some history. The U.S. went to war in Europe in 1918 and again in 1941 to prevent Europe from consuming itself in militarism and fascism. The U.S. did not go to war in Europe to fight communism. Indeed, the Soviets were happy to join the Allies in WWII once their erstwhile friends in Berlin attacked.
The point is this: The existence of totalitarian regimes anywhere threatens democratic nations everywhere. Totalitarian states sustain the military power they need to oppress their own people by exaggerating and creating imaginary threats from the U.S. and elsewhere. When they seek to expand their territory, as did Hitler and the Japanese and Italian fascists, democratic states have no choice but to respond. Sadly, many contemporary Europeans don't seem to value democracy any more, placing a higher premium on creature comforts.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Luke, use the force, let it guide your actions.
Once we have the technology to create WMD, there is no way of going back to ground zero.
There will always be war hawks who believe that we need them for defense.
The next best strategy, IMHO is to actually become trading partners with other nations with the potential to create WMD. That way in both countries there will be people who will oppose war because it does not serve in their own personal interest.
This idea and tactic was actually the basis of forming the EU, in order to prevent Germany and France from going to war-- create groups of people that have economic interest in the other nation-- to create hedge way against the war hawks.
I can't bring my box-cutter on my next shuttle trip?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Human rights/life is not of major/minor concern to those that rule China.
Did your high school history teacher also tell you about Masonic plots to dominate the world and the Rothchild's secret 5th column?
The great powers signed a treaty regarding naval strength that allocated each country specific numbers of various classes of fighting ships. The US and Britain were allocated the largest naval forces. That is the only tenuous tie between your assertions and reality.
In reality, the US abandoned the military until around 1934, when Roosevelt started building warships again. US Army strength hovered around 35,000 men, and the Marines were dropped to 5-6 regiments of soldiers.
The only US commitments abroard in the 20's and 30's were the "Bananna Republic" wars in Central America, the Phillipenes and China. In China, US and British troops functioned together and were occasionally even quarted together.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
You did not name any democratic government that the US overthrow, so you have no case that the US did anything against democracy.
The Chilean Allende regime does not count as a democracy. While it was democratically elected, Allende quickly banned dissent and turned it into a "president for life" one-party state dictatorship.
"....military coup which overthrew a democratic socialist regime"
It was not democratic. It was a single-party dictatorship where stormtroopers imported from East Germany helped maintain the reign of terror.
The Pinochet death toll was less than 5,000. A certain number of these were foreign agents who were enemies of Chile (the family of one of these was the leader in the suit against Pinochet just a few years ago).
Is there a right-wing, non-communist dictatorship the United States has NOT supported?.
Probably, but, in any case, each of these were allies against the Soviets. It's an imperfect world, and the enemy of my enemy is my ally.
>> It is true that European powers did not do very much for democracy in the world, but at least, they did not do as much AGAINST it as the US.
You're awareness of history only extends to about the last 5 minutes, eh? The fact that the U.S., and democracy, exist at all is in reaction to the anti-democratic regimes of Europe.
Let's consider the gifts of Europe: the Roman Empire and its attendant follies; the Dark Ages; medieval fiefdoms; absolute monarchies; the notion that a monarch is appointed by god; religous persecution; Marxism; fascism; totalitarianism; racism; Nazism; Auschwitz, Buchenwald, communism...Shall I go on? I, for one, am very happy my ancestors left the place.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yes, the US has an obligation to the world, which must be paid through the United Nations. We trust that the UN will properly distribute the funds to provide much-needed palaces for Castro, and much-needed re-education camps to be run by the needy Libyan government.
Come on, it should be obvious! With his coding skills for 3D engines like Quake and Doom, plus his 1337 deathmatch skills...
Come on people! THINK ABOUT IT! He is the lead coder behind id Software and he works on rockets with Armadillo Aerospace.
Can't you people see the connection? Carmack is working to dominate space, any war fought in space will be dominated by Carmack! I strongly suspect that the real reason he is into rocket science is so that he can lauch missions to Mars for experiments on Phobos and Demios...
Sure, you are worrying about China or some other nation - but I tell you Texas is looking mighty scary right now... Mark my words - QUAKE IN SPACE!!!
(Note For the Humor Impaired: this is a joke.)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
At present, I fear that WW3 is most likely to be started by the US. Seeing non-existent 'threats' everywhere and getting their retaliation in first.
In some ways we may have been safer back in the Cold War when there was at least one real enemy to take their mind off all the imaginary ones...
Something the rest of the world has already learned: LIFE IS RISKY. You take a chance just getting up in the morning, crossing the road, or sticking your face in a fan. And yet, somehow, the rest of us manage to carry on anyway. There comes a point when you have to accept that life is risky, and not search for a security that isn't possible, a search that only brings slavery and terror.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
By God you're a fucking idiot. Go back sucking Ann Coulters's ass.
I am no fearful paranoid who thinks that a space war is going to happen very soon, but just thinking about the possibilities is exciting to me. Consider:
1. GPS satellites. Essentially the entire military from cruise missiles to ships to infantry soldiers basically rely on GPS for accurate movement and location. If these get taken out, you would seriously cripple the US' military.
2. Communication satellites. What happens when these get taken out? Now the soldiers on the ground not even don't know where they are, but they can't even tell each other about it. There's short-term radio, but any major theater-wide communication is going to be rough.
3. Spy satellites. Taking these out would severely cripple any intelligence gathering that could be done. The modern US military relies heavily on technology, and taking out their capability in space would utterly cripple it.
Let's not forget that if some country were to destroy the civilain satellites, you would really throw the US into a state of chaos. You thought the blackout was bad?
Do I think any of this is going to happen soon? No, not really. But to not prepare for it would really be a shame.
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
They are coming for your daughters!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
That's why the US Navy checks its GPS navigation against the traditional sextant every day. Even the carriers use sextants.
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
A "Data ring" talking about war is unrealistic...
Now, if, instead of a history lesson, it spoke and tried to get you to buy viagra or enlarge your penis, I could believe it.
- AC
China could develop anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons and use them to knock out US military and spy satellites before an attack on Taiwan, thereby leaving Taiwan in the dark, intelligence-wise. We have ASATs, why shouldn't they? And if amateur astronomers can locate US spysats, I'm sure they Chinese can too.
ASAT info
Feeaar those commiessses. Smeagol security systems willl keeep you ssssafe. Be afraid. Give the government and the military even more power. The populace must be kept afraid.
I happen to know Lieutenant General Edward Anderson (served together) and have spoken to him about a similiar issue. Shortly after the air bombardment of Serbia I happened to take the same commercial air flight as him. He didn't recall me (I'd been a much junior officer) but he was friendly and we discussed the Serbian air campaign. General Anderson was somewhat peeved at the political restrictions placed on the Air Force by the Clinton administration. Specifically, they insisted that zero chance of American casualties be tolerated. That meant bombings were conducted from over 20,000 ft and many more Serbian civilians and even Kosavar Albanians had been killed (and a few Chinese diplomats) because Clinton valued American life above all else. The General did mention he didn't mind putting his own life on the line to defend fellow Americans but then he extended that to include civilians of allied, non-allied and even opposing nations. He specifically mentioned a quote from Sun Tzu to me, "destroying an enemy's armies is not the greatest achievement, destroying his will to fight is far greater."
You sir, I believe owe the general an apology for grouping him with most terrorists. I believe his opinion of the sanctity of human life is fairly common in the US military. This places it in direct opposition to terrorists who typically, at least if the Twin Towers 19 are an example, hold other human life in little regard.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Fuck you, cracker. Why is it that scum like you are too fucking stupid to realize how ignorant you are. Anonymous Coward, that is quite true. If I ran into you on the street I'd beat your ass. But I can't because you sit at home and when you don't respond to slashdot articles you wank it to porn. What's the matter? Your pasty skin scares all the women away? Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Are you referring to yourself? Seems to be.
"Also I can't stop noticing how much the jews control the American media: in France Sharon was insulted as "Son of Hitler" and Time called it Europe's new Anti-Semitism???"
Yes, it is indeed evidence of growing anti-semitism in modern-day Vichy France. If another Nazi Germany arises, it won't be far from the original one.
The "jews control the media" is a common myth put forth by Neo-Nazis: you only show yourself to be one by repeating it. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner might have something to say about it too.
Grenada (not Grenda) was taken over by Cuba (USSR) soon after it had freed itself from Britain. Forget about the Cuban contracters: what about the Cuban death squads executing civilians. The US stopped the bloodshed.
"Even Maggie Thatcher thought Reagen was wrong to invade this tiny country."
It is clear from this that Thatcher's knowledge of the New World ended once you got north of the Falklands.
You make excellent points. Even the atheist faith is quite warlike at times.
The Quakers are a sect of Christianity: there have been very pacifistic groups within Christianity and within other religions.
However, if you want to go to a major religion with a notable lack of war/atrocity/etc in its name, look no farther than Buddhism. You have to dig long and hard to find some historic period with nasty brutal Buddhist lords.
On the other hand, you mentioned religion being responsible for all the big heaps of bodies. This is not quite true. For most of the sisutations (such as colonizations and conquests) you can factor religion out.
The largest gun ever used was constructed by Nazi Germany and had an effective range of less than 30 kilometers (and that's horizontal distance, it couldn't have got that far up).
Actually, the Germans had a gun in 1918 that had a range of about 130 km. "From March through August of 1918, three of the guns shot 351 shells at Paris from the woods of Crepy, killing 256 and wounding 620." See: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/parisgun.htm.
Kevin Horton
"if lilith is the mother of Caine. Which nation state is Lilith?"
Lilith was the wife of Crane (Dr Frasier)
It's absolutely ridiculous to worry that enemies will destroy our satellites, and what-not.
Quite simply, once they are able to go into outer space, all they need to do is get a nice big rock on radar, and give it a little push torward the Earth. With very little effort (once you are in space, anyhow) you don't just weaken a country's infrastructure, you wipe the entire nation off the face of the planet, in an explosion that would make a 100KT atomic bomb, blush.
Screw the freakin satellites!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
>> ...Time called it Europe's new Anti-Semitism???
Well, as an apparent anti-Semite yourself ("I can't stop noticing how much the jews control the American media"), you would know it when you see it, eh?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The enemy gate is down...
If the US wants to keep space peaceful, why are they the only country with a program for orbital weapons (SDI)? Given that they've demonstrated all too much willingness to use the weapons they've already got, not to mention a remarkable level of disregard for the sovereignty of other countries, I say we bomb them back into the stone age. Ok, a little facetious. A little.
This is interesting. I sent the following letter to my Senators and Congressman two days ago:
"I was reading about the Chinese launching a man into space and though of what a wonderful opportunity this could be for us; and, what a grave National Security risk it represents if we do nothing.
"As their goal is to explore and possibly colonize the moon, we should find a way to collaborate with them. If you remember, I wrote to you regarding a moon base a few months ago. (Word document attached.)
"I would like to point out the ultimate strategical significance having a moon base would be to whomever had it. I mentioned linear accelerator in my 'case for a moon base' paper, what I failed to do was to point out the use such a device would be as a weapon.
"Imagine if you will, using a linear accelerator to launch a payload of a couple of tons of rock at 20,000 MPH straight at the Earth. Neither chemical nor nuclear warheads would be needed as the 'meteor' would cause more damage than any thermonuclear device could. Having a few small reaction motors on the rock would make it steerable into any city on Earth.
"We would not even be able to fight back. Sending a warhead to the moon base would be entirely futile as it would be seen from a long, long way off and destroyed. We would have to be there already and in sufficient strength to ward off any take-over attack.
"(In 1966, Robert A. Heinlein wrote a science fiction story about this very scenario in his book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.")
"The United States must be a presence on the moon if anybody is going to be. If we cannot collaborate with the Chinese then we have to compete with them and build our own permanent installation on the moon. That installation must include at least one linear accelerator. This is imperative for the survival of our country.
"Personally, I would prefer to collaborate with them (and a coalition of nations) to insure a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
"However we approach this situation, though, we have to go to the moon for permanence or our Nation will surely perish.
"Best regards,"
How's that for timing?
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
"the CHRISTIAN slaughter of the Native American Peoples"
Most of this was merely rapacious greed: if they had not been Christians, there would have been little difference (the burning of Aztecs alive for having the wrong religion is one example of this).
"CHRISTIAN enslavement of the African Peoples REMEMBER the killing of African peoples"
Religion had nothing to do with this one as well. The Africans were in fact enslaved by other Africans, only a very few of which were Christians. These Africans then sold the slaves to others. The slave trade also had the full cooperation of black Africans in the countries involved, many of whom were Muslims. There is still a slave trade in Africa, and it is primarily Muslims who are involved. Christianity had nothing to do with starting the slavery, and in the United States, the abolition movement which resulted in it being abolished was fueled by Christian ideology.
"REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN crusades in which CHRISTIAN soldiers murdered MUSLIM women and children"
They also murdered Jews. However, remember also the Muslim conquest of the same area (the Levant) which was done with the same sort of atrocity a few hundred years before. And they kept it. The Muslims were exterminating large numbers of Jews just for being Jewish long before Christians got involved.
"REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN nazis flying Jesus' symbol and executing people of the Jewish Faith."
Nazism was not a Christian ideology, and the Swastika was a pagan/mystical symbol.
"REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN genocide of the aboriginal peoples of Australia.."
Like the situation in the New World, religion had nothing to do with this.
"REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN inquisition that caused the death of more than one million people"
Yes, this is the first situation you have named so far that really had anything to do with Christianity.
"REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN witch trials of Salem Massachusettes in which innocent victims were burned alive or killed with weights."
This is another good example. However, very few were harmed in the Mass salem trials. You are forgetting the European witch hunts in which very large numbers were killed.
" I just pointed out that the point it makes about "calamity channels"; media selling fears, is interesting and intriguing one. "
Moore greatly overestimates the number of people who watch the "11:00 news" with its gunshot reports", then overestimates the impact it is. Most people don't even watch these shows.
"furthermore I agree in that particular connection implied was far-fetched... but it was just one of multiple tangents in the movie.
"
I've been following Moore's career from the early 1980s. He plays fast and loose with the facts (so fast sometimes that they drop from his hands very quickly), and he should be taken as an editorialist... a pundit. He is not a journalist or a documentarian.
The US has about the highest regard for "the soveriegny of other countries" as any country in the world.
When Serbia was invading and violating the sovereignty of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Croatia, it was the US that put a stop to it (while the European leaders thought the Serb actions were all OK).
When Iraq was violating the soveriegnty of Kuwait, Israel, and other nations, it was the US that stopped it. When Saddam refused to stop being imperialist, efforts to pursuade him to reason went on for years, and Iraq was only invaded when he refused. (like with the invasion of Nazi Germany which was forced due to Nazi Germany's refusal to stop aggression).
so they are simply jockeying for position on the government's perceived threat pareto.
never mind that in the same time frame, national energy policy will leave us earth bound.
space will clean itself up as industrialized societies starve for energy in the coming decades. as orbits decay, there won't be anything left to fight over.
unfortunately, reality doesn't generate revenue for Northrop Grumman. so it is necessary to alter perception instead.
Politicus
"After all, France spent a century brutalizing Indochina and Belgium raped & pillaged their way through the Congo for decades.
"
You didn't mention Germany. I wonder if like France and Belgium they might have any human-rights problems during the 20th century?
The comparisons were very appropriate. I wonder if there is a connection between France's past anti-semitism and its current anti-semitism.
"problem is that the US is bypassing the law and freedoms that Americans are so fond of shouting from the rooftops."
No it isn't.
"So...you are just going to remain ignorant of all those deaths?"
No, I am just stating the deaths "Christians were involved in and the ones they were not involved in."
"It didn't happen because I say so.{/sarcasm"
Whether or not it happened in this or that situation is a historic fact, and has nothing to do with our opinions.
"Whatever. Nazis weren't Christian? [sarcasm]"
The top ones certainly were not. Nazism was opportunistic, and use mysticism, old pre-Christian German paganism, or whatever.
"Oh, well. I really don't have time to spend arguing with someone that ignores facts, history, and reality"
Instead of "sarcasm" "sarcasm", consider arguing using the facts.
Your slant indicates some sort of religious bias (or outright bigotry) on your part. What faith do you represent? I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons in your faith's closet too.
You sir, I believe owe the general an apology for grouping him with most terrorists. I believe his opinion of the sanctity of human life is fairly common in the US military. This places it in direct opposition to terrorists who typically, at least if the Twin Towers 19 are an example, hold other human life in little regard.
I respectfully believe I do not owe him an apology. Please let me explain.
A terrorist is a desperate person using extreme measures in a hopeless situation. The person is trying to kill an enemy that is totally superior in strength. The only way for those groups to counter attack is by using sneaky tactics, like guerilja warfare and suicide bombing. In Norway, we still regard our "terrorists" during the war, who planted bombs on the occupying Germans, as heroes. Of course, they had more value for life then, as you say. But this is still a good point, just hear me out.
If, as you say, USA are using tactics that suredly increase civilian losses, to minimize their own military losses, then what is the difference between them and "terrorist states"?
To answer that, of course, fundamentalists hold a slightly more extreme point of view and are much more polarized. Ie, "Bush is Satan, therefore we are granted to wipe out every American by Allah", or some such. But these are insane people which are in the minority. Most muslims are not like that, this is abuse of religion. Their work is mostly political: Bomb as much as you can in order to increase instability, and hope that the muslim countries will start a big war against the West. It has nothing to do with faith or religion, it is just a power-tool for the insanely desperate. While Bush & CO are just slightly less insane (also a ruling minority).. The blabbering of Bush, reminds me many times of a fundamentalist on a crusade.. The only reason democratic leaders can't do everything they want, is because USA is still a democracy, while many muslim countries are religious dictatorships. The same kind of people are in power both places, IMHO.
You totally misunderstood my post. I didn't refer to any specific individual or just the military, and what I tried to achieve is to show that it's not all black and white. What we call terrorists are heroes in their own countries, and what terrorists we've had in the past, are heroes in our books too. It's all dependent on circumstances and who holds the most power. The winners write the history books, unless you're in another country. If you've read Sun Tzu, which I haven't, I'm sure you can appreciate such a point.
What I say is this: Given the same circumstances, many in the US would do exactly the same as the suicide bombers from muslim countries. It's all dependent on circumstances, lack of education and a misidentification, justifying taking life for some "higher cause" AND seeing others as an enemy (separation: reread my previous post for clarification).
Don't believe me? Remember Ireland and Belfast, white people suicide bombs too. It's not about race, you can argue that it's about religion, but the US government still use nuclear warheads and nuclear tests that make people sick and die, use devastating tactics to minimize own losses (understandably, but not so honorable), plus a shitload of other things like treating the world like it's theirs to play with. With media attention, it's gotten better, but there's still lots of hidden activites that we never hear about. The history books are filled to the brim with examples how "free" and "peaceful" USA really have been in the last 200 years.. Of course, all is not bad here either, and USA has been the most influential country in the world, bringing democracy to many places. (Not all B&W, remember?)
What ALL people need is education and knowledge about life, so that some realization can prevent hurting others. Because in hurting others, you are hurting yourself. When you kill somebody, something dies inside you.. You can see this in the eyes of people who have gotten cold-hearted,
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
" . . .I didn't refer to any specific individual or just the military, . . ."
.While Bush & CO are just slightly less insane (also a ruling minority)..
You specifically did refer to General Anderson, now of Northern Command. I illustrated with an example of when he was forced by the Clinton administration, to place a lesser value on civlian life, which upset him. The Bush administration
. .
Specifically ordered the opposite, that the US military should attempt to minimize civilian casualties at the cost of risking a few US military lives.
Bush remains more popular than Clinton ever was. Clinton never won a majority of US votes.
And most importantly,
In Norway, we still regard our "terrorists" during the war, who planted bombs on the occupying Germans, as heroes.
These same men and women are regarded as heros in the US but they were not terrorists. Terrorists strike at enemy civilian population targets. Attacking military targets or logistics (railways to destroy rail lines not kill civilians) is called resistance or guerrilla activity.
No Norwegian terrorists existed during WWII.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!