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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Damn they have bigger dicks and they are taking all of our jobs. Oh. well I could always be a customs agent.
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!!!
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."
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
"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."
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.
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.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
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.
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
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 10 cammandments were present in the Old Testament, and are are there for part of Judaism...
Also, Islam and Christianity are both derived from Judaism and share these 10 commandments...
Thou Shalt Not Kill
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
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!'
"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.
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?
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.
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...
Yes, I can see the relevance to space wars... But really, yeah.. Did your roommate know you had just got together? If so, I would get out of that room! Otherwise, you could carry out a bizarre sexual fantasy with her involving torture and whips and such....if you wanted
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
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
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!
A common misconception is that Jesus spoke of international relations.
He spoke of interpersonal relations.
Thus, what a G.W. Bush might or might not do in the context of 'loving his neighbor' in Crawford, TX needs to be seen as distinct from his actions as POTUS.
Now, I think Jimmy Carter is the most under-rated president in US history. 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. Because the compassion Jesus preached for dealing with everyone around us, regardless of race, age, political- and sexual orientation simply doesn't apply to acts of war on the international level.
</rant>
Getting back on topic, the article is a joke. Putting stuff in space is ridiculously expensive.
Targeting stuff in space is ridiculously hard.
Thus, a war could potentially start with something out there in the vacuum, but would quickly be pulled down into the vauums in the heads of the leaders on earth.
There is no need to preach pacifism; preach the common sense that war is too expensive.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
If that was the intent, why would a standing military be authorized in the Constitution?
Absolutely brilliant point. No one has ever gone against that tenant of major religions. If we'd all just live by the bible like they did during the crusades the world would be a better place.
Maybe we should all just sit around and think happy thoughts and send positive vibes to these evil men trying to do bad things. Then the world can all gather together and sing songs for the children.
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
usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
Best Slashdot Co
Not you again...
Stick Men
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
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.
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.
The backwaters of the world rarely care dude. With the exception of china, all the world powers are either european or european decendents (india is where it si now becuase of england). Secondly, its pretty obvious I am talking about the western world dude.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Many of the space shuttle's missions have involved putting classified military satellites into orbit and other secret stuff.
Because the compassion Jesus preached for dealing with everyone around us, regardless of race, age, political- and sexual orientation simply doesn't apply to acts of war on the international level.
I've never bought this line of argument. I can't call myself a Christian, but OTOH I can't see Jesus bellowing "Drop JDAMs on the F***ers! God loves it when you kill children in his name!" and so on.
Your line of arguemnt strikes me as playing lawyer with the Bible - "Now come on Lord, you did not say 'Thou shalt not kill EVER', now did you? You only said 'Thou shalt not kill'. What did you REALLY mean by that?"
I would have thought "Thou shalt not kill." would be self-explanatory. Thou art killing whether it is by stabbing your neighbour for letting his dog poop on your lawn, or by flicking a switch at 50000 feet.
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.
Distinguishing nations from people like that is a nonsense.
Nations are composed of people. When nations go to war, people go to war. And when that happens, there is a whole load of negative interpersonal relations going on between people belonging to different nations.
To claim that declaring war against other nations does not defy the morals taught in the New Testament is ridiculous.
fuck that....he didnt have the majority as in 51 49, but he had the most votes of the three losers out there at the time.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this. Could you give me an example please? Or are you just regurgitating what you are reading in the NY and LA Times?
...or was it Fry's incompetence... no wait, that is what got us into that mess in the first place.
You're confusing paranoia with historical fact.
Why? Because I view the fall of rome as one of the world more important events even though large sections of the world whose cultures have had only a minimal impact on the modern world didn't care?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
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...
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.
Yes, like the pope says "Judaism is Christianisties older brother."
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
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.
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 same God said to kill the enemy, every man, woman, and child, and burn their cities to the ground. Take no booty, but destroy everything.
I might have to agree with the other reply, differentiating war from murder.
The thing that bugs me is the talk of a 'Judeo-Christian Ethic'. From what I can see, there's a major ethical disconnect between Old and New Testaments. Other than that Jesus was a Jew, there appears to be little commonality between His teachings and Jewish historical behavior.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Wow! You really are brainwashed!!!
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.
U.S. invasion of Grenada
U.S. invasion of Haiti
U.S. involvement in Nicuragua
U.S. creation of Panama (formerly a province of Columbia)
Do some research on those countries, and try to stay away from the American history books to do it.
grenada.
US -- 19 dead, 116 wounded.
Grenada -- 49 dead and 358 wounded.
Cuba -- 29 dead and over a hundred wounded
Civilian -- 24 dead
next?
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
you can not simontaneously prevent and prepare for war
If history is a guide, we'll have all too many major wars before space technology is developed enough for a decent skirmish.
Look up the budget of NSA and tell me what it does. It spends all its time spying on its own citizens, rather than enemies....CIA spends a chunk of its resources spying on its own citizens too. It's hard to prove this so you either believe me or not. Examples include tracking civil rights activists during the civil rights era in the 60's, attempting to brainwash citizens using LSD (look up the origin of LSD), trafficking drugs to support its activities (drugs hurt citizens), etc.... more recently, Department of Homeland Security has been trying to get some programs going but haven't had much success (eg. getting utility workers to spy on citizens, establishing toll-free snitch line, Total Information Awareness, etc). I expect that they already spend a few million on such programs, which haven't been publicized. In about 10 years, expect their budget on these clandestine activities to zoom towards $1billion, just like how the CIA and DEA have. Right now (for 2004), the Department of Homeland security has a budget of around $36.2 billion. I suspect around 0.1% is spent spying on innocient citizens (36.5million) and you can expect this to increase as the department increases it size (due to bureacratization, as DEA and CIA have).
Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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.
You're splitting hairs. Panama was part of Columbia, hence South America, until the U.S. staged a coup. Grenada is actually considered part of North America, although for political reasons.
How about I phrase it this way: Central America and the Carribean? Does that make it any better?
Does that make the killing right?
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.
Christianity has the concept of 'Just War' - where battles are fought against a greater evil.
Unfortunately the exact definition of 'just' is often left up to the politicians who launched the war in the first place.
Best wishes,
Mike.
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
"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?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Biblically, the government is given a separate role than individuals. This isn't too hard to understand, 'cause we do the same thing now, anyway. I'm not allowed to hunt down a criminal and put him into a cell in my garage for as long as I think he deserves, but the government can and does do that. When questioned about paying taxes, Jesus himself directed the questioner to "render under Caesar," when (if you'll forgive me for arguing with a little circularity) the Romans did not have in many senses a particularly "Christian" or (if you prefer) "Christ-like" government.
"Thou Shalt Kill" is NOT self-explanatory. Precious little is. The commandment was given in the historical context of a people who had left Egypt and were on their circuitous way to fight a series of wars against the Cannanites. As a non-Christian, I'm sure you don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible, but I think that you should at least find it interesting that the Israelites evidentally did not interpret "Thou shalt not kill" to mean, "Thou shalt not fight wars."
What this commandment (and the sayings of Jesus about pacifism) are most sensibly interpreted to condemn is vengence, and not correctly apportioned justice, or a proper defense by the government of its people.
P.S. I am in no way defending Bush
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.
Western world means western culture dude. And which continents? Asia had the middle east and byzantium who cared a lot. Africa had eygpt. If your talking about the americas, they weren't part of the western world unitl the 1500's when the spaniards brought the western culture to it and made it the dominant philosphy there.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
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.
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order. The courts have gotten pretty strict about the surveillance of citizens without either of those. If you aren't a citizen, then pretty much anything goes.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful? Probably. Do I want my neighbor calling the FBI if I have a muslim house guest? No. Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely. So, I don't know where the line should be here. The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs. Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
You don't know me or what I think or believe.
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.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. At what point do people stop being people and start being "them"? Do you designate a radius in miles? "Those people who are within two miles are my neighbors, but people outside of that are fair game"? I honestly think that Jesus meant for us to consider all our relations with everyone as personal relations.
Check out Matthew 5:38-48. It seems pretty clear there that Jesus means for us to include everyone as our "neighbors". That whole "Love your enemies and pray for them" (Mt 5:43) thing, you know?
I do agree with you about Carter, though. He had vision and compassion and courage and honor and integrity... which, of course, made him absolute unqualified for the Presidency. At least he's the best ex-President we've got!
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Iran didn't kill 3000+ people in one day... jack ass.
www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
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.
I bet those extraterrestrials will shoot down our military satellites with their highly advanced photon-lasers (incorporating nano-technology on a MACROSCOPIC level!)
The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
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
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.
let's ask the next question: why are they enemies? because we're rich? or because we and our "allies" dictate the terms of economic and financial terms of the planet and force everyone into compliance with the policies of WTO, NAFTA, IMF, GAT, etc, etc.
"The opposite of courage is not cowardice, but compliance"
(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
Presuming you are the Anonymous Coward in the two parent posts, you didn't prove him wrong you simply ignorantly said he was wrong on every point - I saw no proof there.
"If they attack you, why not?"
When has any Middle Eastern country attacked the USA ?
"LYING through your teeth to get popular support"
"Has not happened."
Then where are all these huge amounts of ready to use WMD ? How come the reasons politicians are giving today for the war are totally different to the reasons stated before we went to war ? How come both the dossiers used to support the cause for war have been demonstrated as either being plain wrong or giving undue credit to unsubstantiated rumours ?
"Imposing orwelian laws with little judicial process"
What is the Patriot act and raft of complimentary legislation to help deal with terrorists at the expense of our personal freedoms ?
"holding prisoners incomunicado"
Why are prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay where they are outside any legal system of justice ?
Kyoto is for the good of no one. It allows countries to greatly increase "greenhouse gases", and there is no connection between that and global warming. Also, the kangaroo court benefits no-one: a playground for antisemites.
That's just rubbish.
"Q: pissing off a peaceful europe"
A: The transgression was made by those coutries that supported Saddam's warlike regime. Hardly peaceful. Thankfully, not all of Europe is evil-minded: there are good countries like UK, Poland, Spain, and others."
No European countries have supported Saddam - at least not recently, no doubt we were all selling him weaponary the same time the US was. You are basically saying that any country or people who disagree with the US are wrong - no reasons, just plain wrong.
"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.
Getting back on topic, the article is a joke. Putting stuff in space is ridiculously expensive..
Oh my yes. Which makes it a tempting target.
Targeting stuff in space is ridiculously hard.
Actually, its ridiculously easy. Its an object on a fixed path, with a fixed velocity and limited maneuvering ability. All you need is radar and a calculator to do the math. Once you are close, a proximity blast will take the target out. You don't even have to hit it directly.
Thus, a war could potentially start with something out there in the vacuum, but would quickly be pulled down into the vauums in the heads of the leaders on earth.
Very true, except at that point, our eyes and ears are debris in the ocean and we loose our ability to see the enemy before they see us. Since that's what keeps our military a cut above the rest (information is everything in warfare), we would be on an even keel with the other millitaries out there. Not a good way to fight a war.
There is no need to preach pacifism; preach the common sense that war is too expensive.
Now you are expecting the heads of state to have common sense? C'mon. Let's be realistic here.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order.
:) Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned it because I can use it as an example. What is YOUR criteria for SUSPICION? What if I have 500kg of fertilizer? How about 250kg? How about 100kg? What's bad? What if I am observing the water pipelines? Am I plotting to poison the water supply? All this is so subjective--and most importantly gives some people or some organization POWER.
It is MUCH better now but it still exists. For instance, protests and marches are secretly recorded by the police. I don't have any links bookmarked but I have read stories where left-wing groups (I'm a leftist) point out people who record the marches but aren't affiliated with any news organization. I'm sure the government has tons of data on protestors.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Yeah.. it's not really spying. My point was that the government carries out activities AGAINST its OWN CITIZENS.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful?
Such activities are the principles of totalitarianism. Is the DHS totalitarian? Not RIGHT NOW but how about in 10 years? Condoning such activities and organizations means that you are on a path towards an Orweillian society. What's bad about such society is not that the govt violates your privacy (it already does so it isnt' a big deal). The real problem is that you will end up with a society where the govt or some powerful organization does not TRUST the citizens. Already, governments don't trust their own citizens. This will just make it worse. What's the difference between a liberatarian and authoratarian society? In one the govt trusts you; in other, it doesn't.
Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely.
What if the guy has a large farm or something?
See... the thing is.. the whole notion of SUSPICION is very subjective. Building a system based on that (that IS what you are doing), will result in a totalitarian society. What if I don't like you and simply call you in? Your life will be made a mess at my expense. What if some fundamentalists or some extremists get the govt on my case simply because I read Das Kapital or Mein Kampf? Is that suspcious? Someone with 1 ton of fertilizer IS suspcisious. I agree. But another person might consider going to some anti-war website to be just as bad (I know some people who feel that way). So where is the line? And lastly, do you really think the government will make the right decision and ignore the bogus cases?
The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs.
Isn't that what they all say? Isn't that the ultimate slogan of a hypothetical "ministry of information"? Why does a private company need my social insurance number (in Canada)? To do their job? This thing wasn't even supposed to be made public but now everyone wants it?
You don't know me or what I think or believe.
I was mainly addressing that to the original poster, who seemed like he was a blind patriot who worships the government. He dimissed NYT even though it is a mainstream source. I can see him dismissing some leftist magazing like The Nation or Zmag, but NYT and LATimes? If he didn't believe those papers, he surely wouldn't have believed me...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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.
No, Hawaii's an hour late. According to Windows Control Panel, he could be in either Samoa or Midway Island (GMT -11 hours)
Rank Presidents by th
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.
It's "Thou shalt not commit murder", actually.
Which would excuse war.
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
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.
War isn't about killing people. It's about coercing policy changes. Up until now, flat out killing people has been a very effective way of achieving that. You would be foolish to think that they sit around at the Pentagon thinking about killing people for killing's sake, though. They think about how to most effectively change the disposition of their opponents. Sometimes killing is involved.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Dissenting, strongly stated, unpopular opinion, but not a troll. That was an unfair rating - and you don't have the history of it at all.
You do make a point.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
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.
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.
Actually if I remeber correctly, in the orignal ten commandments, it actually states that thou shalt not commit murder.
Theres a slight difference in the wording. but the meaning changes entirely.
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.
Wait! Mrs. Brady said that only policeman should be allowed to have guns!
I guess Switzerland must a real violent place, with all of those assault weapons!
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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
every pair of straight lines in the universe can be viewed as parallel when projected onto the cylinder whose axis is the normal of these lines. (crack open a geometry book if you can't picture this --- sorry, slashdot is not so great for sharing images.) "projection" is the impersonal form of "viewing". so of course it can be seen the parallel you speak of. who actually sees it is a statistical question. who actually does anything about it (and how they go about their business) is a cultural question.
I am not the anon coward btw but...
"Then where are all these huge amounts of ready to use WMD ? How come the reasons politicians are giving today for the war are totally different to the reasons stated before we went to war ? "
Link me to a where Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11. The media insinuated that Saddam was involved, the gov't did not.
"Why are prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay where they are outside any legal system of justice?"
They were mercenaries in the employ of a terrorist organization. They have no rights -- usually people in their position are summarily shot.
Regarding Kyoto "That's just rubbish."
Kyoto required that Western countries and Japan slash greenhouse emissions while "developing" nations like China get to increase emissions. Great idea.
"No European countries have supported Saddam - at least not recently, no doubt we were all selling him weaponary the same time the US was. You are basically saying that any country or people who disagree with the US are wrong - no reasons, just plain wrong"
French companies sold Iraq radar systems as late as 1997 and provided technical support for weapons systems.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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"
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!
You would be foolish to think that they sit around at the Pentagon thinking about killing people for killing's sake, though. They think about how to most effectively change the disposition of their opponents.
No, maybe the US President & Cabinet consider ways to change disposition. By the time they hand a problem off to the Pentagon, the choice for a killing-based solution has already been made.
Nonviolent solutions are for the State Department.
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.
I understand your opinion but the bible does make a distinction between an individual who is commanded "Though shalt not kill" and "to love his neighbor" and the government which has not only the authority but a responsiblity to execute justice and to protect it's populace. The relevant New Testament passage is Romans 13:1-4 specifically vs. 4 which is talking about the ruler " ...For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
As for Jesus' personal teaching in the issue there isn't much specific about the government responsiblity (aside for the responisiblities of citizens *too* the government) but it's worth noting that in his encounter with the Roman Soldier in Matthew 8 He commends the soldier for his faith and makes no comment on his career as a high ranking soldier (of an occupying army oppressing Jesus' own people at that). Also, when he himself was under the death penalty Pilate asked him if he understood that he (Pilate) had the authority to have him executed - Jesus' acknowledged his authority to do so and further noted that this authority was granted to Pilate (as the "ruler"/government) by God Himself (with the clear implication that such authority was under a higher authority which would itself judge how it had been used or misused. The entire exchange is perfectly consistent with Romans 13.
I'm not arguing that the current war is just or right, only that the argument "the bible says 'thou shalt not kill'" or "love your neighbor" is grossly simplistic and just plain ignorant of what the bible, Jesus and historic christianity teach on the subject.
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.
Aaugh! Some one set us up the bomb!
[Insert pretentious and semi-clever sig here: ______ ]
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.
Grenda was not invaded by any country other than the United States. Cuban contractors to build an airport don't count and even if Fidel himself came to Cuba (I don't think he ever did) it's no excuse to invade. The US created the bloodshed, it didn't stop it. Even Maggie Thatcher thought Reagen was wrong to invade this tiny country.
If you were right about the Pentagon only being for killing, I suppose we should initiate another bureaucracy, the "Department of Temporary Non-lethal Deprivation of Resources" to manage a good fraction of the Defense Department's current programs.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
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
Actually, the "Thou shalt not" that most people are thinking of is from the KJV, and is "Thou shalt not kill." Even so, I agree that it is more properly translated in modern language as "murder."
The bible you read is a translation of a translation of the Xth edition of...
It's actually just a translation of the original Greek/Hebrew. Original manuscripts still exist, and modern English Bibles are translated directly from those. Additionally, most Bibles include countless footnotes to describe possible translational misinterpretations. So although it would be best to learn Greek and review the original manuscripts yourself, you can get an extremely accurate picture of the Bible without doing that.
Not South America but... Invasion of Mexico (1847). Mexico lost half os his territory and killed thousands of mexicans.
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
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 . . . !!!
which is cain and which is abel?
Strc prst skrz krk and vomit! Can help.
hups kain ?
Strc prst skrz krk and vomit! Can help.
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.
I think its yet to be decided, since both are alive still. To pimp on this line of 'thought' even more ... if lilith is the mother of Caine. Which nation state is Lilith?
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
This guy is such a moron. If you had read either the Torah or the Q'uran you'd know that the TEN COMMANDMENTS are in BOTH. They also occur in the Bible. Lie down before you hurt yourself.
http://www.submission.org/quran/ten.html For the ten commandments in the Q'uran. As the rest of us educated people know. The Torah's book of Exodus contains the Ten Commandments. The same Ten that the Christians follow.
If you're such a Christian you should know. But.. since were talking Godliness and murder. Christianity is responisible for more deaths than ALL other religions combined. You do the math: Dear Fellow Patriotic Americans: IN GOD WE TRUST REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN slaughter of the Native American Peoples. REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN enslavement of the African Peoples REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN killing of African peoples (over 12 mil.EN ROUTE to North America and millions more upon arrival.) REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN crusades in which CHRISTIAN soldiers murdered MUSLIM women and children. .Estimated death toll 200,000.
REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN nazis flying Jesus' symbol and executing people of the Jewish Faith.
REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN genocide of the aboriginal peoples of Australia..
REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN inquisition that caused the death of more than one million people in the crusade against what was considered a "heretical" sect called the Albigensians in the South of France.The final death toll easily exceeded fourteen million for the ENTIRE INQUISITION.
REMEMBER the CHRISTIAN witch trials of Salem Massachusettes in which innocent victims were burned alive or killed with weights.
REMEMBER all the lives that were lost in those vicious CHRISTIAN attacks.
Are you referring to yourself? Seems to be.
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
>told us to turn down the barometer.
Wouldn't that be something!
It ain't the heat, it's the humidity?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>> that war is too expensive.
>Now you are expecting the heads of state to have
>common sense?
The language being spoken here is "dollars and cents" not "common sense." So, as a matter of fact, it's reasonable to expect them to understand.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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...
That many facts are fuzzy, and theories at times contriver is unfortunate; furthermore I agree in that particular connection implied was far-fetched... but it was just one of multiple tangents in the movie.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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 ---
Um...no.
Some were in the employ of a sovereign government. Some were overseas volunteers fighting for something they believed in. Either way it makes no difference, what's happening in Guantanamo Bay is (along with the US attitude of 'can do no wrong' towards Israel) is the main reason many of us in Europe are disgusted with the current US administration.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
I agree with you 'not always' but there were plenty of times when the destruction was supposed to be complete. There was one case (begins with A, but when I try to spell it, it looks wrong. (Amalekites, sort of, but not right)) where they were punished for NOT thoroughly destroying them. I supposed I can start looking up too, if needed. Really most of this stuff happens pre-David.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Setting aside Godwins law and your completely inappropriate comparisms, the problem is that the US is bypassing the law and freedoms that Americans are so fond of shouting from the rooftops. Either the law applies equally to everyone or it is an instrument of tryanny. THAT is the problem.
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
There is no law protecting terrorists.
If the Geneva conventions or any other international agreement afforded those people in Guantamano Bay any rights -- the Europeans would be actively campaigning against the Americans instead of holding America in holier-than-thou disgust.
It's particularly ironic that France, Belgium and Germany have been the biggest opponents of american efforts. After all, France spent a century brutalizing Indochina and Belgium raped & pillaged their way through the Congo for decades.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
May be? I'm sometimes not sure if that's a good or bad thing though; that some people don't get ANY news is a scary prospect too. That said, I think that newspapers have similar problem too, although fortunately not quite as bad. I guess it's easier to write stories to read, without having to fear short attention span as much as TV news.
I've also read about Moore's fact twisting, to suit his needs. I don't like it, I just hope people don't completely discredit every point he makes, but use their own judgment on evaluating them. Same thing as I would expect when watching or listening any information. But it's true that the format matters, so that things presented as documentary tend to get, by default, less critical treatment (by critical I don't mean negative, just objectively critcial).
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
So...you are just going to remain ignorant of all those deaths? [sarcasm] It didn't happen because I say so.{/sarcasm] Whatever. Nazis weren't Christian? [sarcasm] Oh OKAY[/sarcasm] Oh, well. I really don't have time to spend arguing with someone that ignores facts, history, and reality.
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 . . . !!!
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. Bigotry? On the part of what? Pointing out that Christians AS WELL as Muslims account for more deaths than all plagues put together. I never defend the Muslim fundamentalists. Why do Christians automatically assume that anyone who points to the various faults of their religion is de facto defending one of the other larger religions. As to skeletons in the closet of my faith...there are none: I follow the Dao (Tao). Jesus was a daoist.
So you're saying that because France, Beligium & Germany have been guilty in the past of the same behaviour America is demonstrating now they should keep their mouths shut and let America get on with it ?