U.S. Air Force Plans for War In Space

Weapons in space? by misspelled · 2004-02-20 07:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

Isn't there some treaty banning that? But then, the Bush administration doesn't seem to mind breaking arms-control treaties. (ABM treaty, anyone?)

Re:Weapons in space? by baldass_newbie · 2004-02-20 07:21 · Score: 0, Insightful

(I know I'm gonna regret this...)
You know, it's not like the Soviet Union, with whom the treaty was signed, ever adhered to the ABM. Where, exactly, do you think all of these rogue weapons have come from?
Also, there's an argument to be made for a treaty that was signed being so long ago, never enforced and agreed to with a state that no longer exists being null and void.
But like, no, there is no treaty against that.
And you're right, Bush would probably break one if it was there because he's mean and evil and he breaks little kids candy bars.

--
The opposite of progress is congress
Re:Weapons in space? by kalidasa · 2004-02-20 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

White Sands is on the ground, not in orbit. HELTF doesn't violate UN Resolution 2222 overview, text, which the US has signed (but the Senate has not ratified). This would. So it's not mindless Bush bashing crap, it's an awareness of the fact that the Bush Administration is perfectly willing to do the same thing (violating UN Resolutions) that it considered to be a causus belli when Iraq did it. (And you can forget the arguments about how we went into Iraq to topple a vile dictator, if that were the real reason we'd be at war with N. Korea.)
Re:Weapons in space? by DjMd · 2004-02-20 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

(I know I'm gonna regret this...) You know, it's not like the Soviet Union, with whom the treaty was signed, ever adhered to the ABM.

You are right, you are going to regret this.
The ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) limited the number and type (non nationwide) of ABM systems a country could have.
The ABM treat was resigned, in 1992. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) signed the treaty with us, the US. Of course, the US pulled out of the ABM in 2002. But the ABM never had to do with the weapon systems that "evil do-er" ever were after...
You can read all about it Here

--
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Re:Weapons in space? by geoffspear · 2004-02-20 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know that there's any solid evidence of anyone who signed it violating the NPT; actually building a nuclear weapon isn't that difficult to do, if one can obtain the materials. Mining and enriching enough uranium or obtaining enough plutonium to build a bomb is the tricky part; once you've done that you just need a few halfway competent physicists to design the thing; the science behind it is more than 60 years old and not all that secret. This is why it's silly to start saying the problem was that Iraq having the technical knowledge necessary to build a bomb without having the materials was a imminent threat. You can walk into any university physics department and find a handful of graduate students with the "technical knowledge" necessary to build a crude bomb.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Weapons in space? by Homology · 2004-02-20 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The United States withdrew from the ABM treaty, as permitted in the provisions of the treaty. The treaty was not "broken". Get your facts straight before you start jerking your knees.
Indeed, this is correct. However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker. The problem, is of course, to sign new agreements with strong states, or even weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Re:Weapons in space? by b-baggins · 2004-02-20 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Never let the facts get in the way of a little agenda, eh?

The ABM treaty contains a clause for exiting the treaty. We followed that clause by officially notifying Russia 6 months in advance that we were formally withdrawing from the treaty, even though, technically, we didn't have to because the national entity with which we originally signed the treaty (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) no longer existed.

So, we didn't break the treaty at all. In fact, we honored it far beyond the letter of the treaty required.

But, of course, you love hating Bush so much, that you really don't care what the facts are.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:Weapons in space? by b-baggins · 2004-02-20 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

We won the race? Really? The last time I looked, China hadn't stopped running to shake our hand and declare us the winner.

We're AHEAD in the race. We haven't won because the race isn't over.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:Weapons in space? by cayenne8 · 2004-02-20 09:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

"even weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent."
I could assure you that if N. Korea got rid of all nukes...proved they did. We'd pretty much ignore them from now on...
I'm sure someone would bitch about that too tho...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

wow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah the sheer scope of our commitement to killing each other is staggering.

Technology? Progress? Dude, nothing has changed since my ancestral parent kicked your acestral parent's ass with a bone club.

Web pages, blogs, palm pilots....big fucking deal.

Re:wow by Ian+Bicking · 2004-02-20 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most peaceful? What the hell are you talking about? War has been ravaging the world for the last sixty years. Not in the US or (most of) Europe, but elsewhere in the world -- nearly all of Africa, most of South and Central America, South and Southeast Asia have all seen significant conflicts in the past 60 years. Is it more than in the past? It's hard to say -- there's more people and more activity. There's less "war", but that's largely meaningless, it only reflects on modern diplomacy and current definitions of war.
War has a tremendous effect on our world. Every famine you hear about in Africa is caused by war -- not by drought. I think history will identify both halves of the 20th century as times of war, not peace.
Re:wow by Wellspring · 2004-02-20 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree.

Mainly, people have this impression because they aren't given a good grounding in history. On many important metrics, the environment is far better off than it was a century ago-- but increased scrutiny means we are only in the last couple decades paying attention to the problem at all. Similarly, conflicts that we never would have heard about (in Rwanda, for example) are now front-page material, with pictures.

In previous centuries, we just didn't track all this violence as carefully or with the same outrage. A hundred years ago, war in Africa, Asia or South America was ignored. To this day, history books kind of gloss over it.

Most of the ethnic conflicts of the latter half of the 20th century are longstanding affairs dating back hundreds and thousands of years-- eg the Balkans, central Asia, the expansion of Islam, Rwanda. Is any of this new?

As bad as war is, the second half of this century has seen less of it than most of the rest of history. The first half saw unprecedented conflict in both scope and severity, so you are right for the century as a whole.
Re:wow by Ian+Bicking · 2004-02-20 10:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

FWIW, the Balkans had as much to do with WWII as with past conflicts. Of course, alignments in WWII reflected alignments in past conflicts, and so on continuing back. Modern analysis of the Balkans has often ignored WWII, because it's an awkward subject and doesn't offer the bias the West would prefer (since our alignment has followed the Nazis).
There's lots of ways to compare conflicts -- obviously there's no objective way to compare the last 60 years to some other point in history. But it doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to appreciate the importance of the wars we have seen since WWII. Lessee... this page says around 8 million died in WWI. Vietnam had around 1 million deaths. That's only an order of magnitude for a huge international war, compared to a more modern single-nation war (that was only diplomatically a police action).
I found this page which gives a lot more statistics for deaths in modern wars and conflicts. The statistics are kind of scattered, but I think that's because the sources are themselves so scattered. Anyway, it offers something more concrete to think about.
Re:wow by k_head · 2004-02-21 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The *global* war on terrorism is more of a law enforcement issue than a military one." I disagree. We have fought this war with the army not the interpol or the CIA. In Iraq, afghanistan, phillipines, and south america we have mobilized our army to go fight this war. "Nothing like the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo has been seen since then" First of all I agree that nothing like that has been seen since then. We are not allowed to see such things anymore. I disagree with yout metrics though. I don't care about the weight of the bomb dropped or the percentage of people killed. I think a true measure is the actual number of human beings killed and maimed. The estimates for the first gulf war were anywhere from 200,000 to 300,000 killed. The civillian count for the second gulf war is around 10,000. If we presume that our weapons are accurate and that we were trying to minimize civillian deaths I figure out accident rate was under 5%. This means that another 200,000 people probably died in the second gulf war. I have no idea how many people died in afghanistan at all. That's an awful lot of people killed just by our country. Add up all the other people in all the other countries that have been killed and it's not a pretty picture. Face it we live in a state of constant war. As if that wasn't enough we have declared an unending war on top of all that.

--
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.

$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by grub · 2004-02-20 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

So these weapons will float up there without an enemy (at the moment) but once a foreign nation is considered "evildoers" the U.S. can rain down destruction as their war-machine infrastructure is already in place.

Naturally the American taxpayers will be told that this will make the world a safer place.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by corbettw · 2004-02-20 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Naturally the American taxpayers will be told that this will make the world a safer place.

Call me crazy, but I think the US having the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in our way does make the world a safer place. For Americans. And those are the only people our tax dollars should be protecting in the first place.

Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Dutchmaan · 2004-02-20 07:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

It doesn't make the world a safer place it makes *America* a safer place.. and even that is arguable.
Space weapons seem a whole lot like pork spending for defense contractors. To bad more of that money couldn't be used to improve the lives of America's citizens.

All it does it remove the mask of civility and democracy from what is ***IMHO*** an increasingly tyrannical power.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

The military is glorified welfare. The poor and lower-middle class fill the ranks as disposable weaponry. Bush evaded Vietnam by being rich while 50K others died.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
Amen... And while we're on the topic gimme back the billions we spent to prop your ass up.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pointing a gun at someone's head does not make it less likely that you get hurt. As any crime specialist will confirm, you are much more likely to get killed if you are a perceived threat. Get it through your head (no pun intended). Fear produces HATE. Don't you remember the cold war at all?
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Correction: the weapons will be used to keep everyone EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES in line. An interesting corollary is that while this will force non-US nations to be more "in line", the existence of such a system will pretty much guarantee that the US will be even more "out of line".

All this depends, of course, on what "in line" means. Let's say the US decides to invade Canada, but has a difficult time convincing other nations to provide cannon fodd---um, troops. Well, any nation gumming up the works at the UN (probably France) can just get blasted from space until they send French troops in to liberate Canada and hand it over to the US. So basically "in line" means "whatever we want".
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by ArghBlarg · 2004-02-20 07:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

How can this be seen as anything *but* an act of aggression (NOT self-defense) by the rest of the world?

And how does making the rest of the world even *more* afraid and distrustful of the world's most heavily-armed and interventionist country make the world "a safer place"? Why does the US need to protect itself from space? No one else has huge frickin' laser beams up there. Not to mention that this totally violates the international treaties on the militarization of space.

One of the biggest reasons the US and its citizens are targets of terrorism is because the US government has, for the last 50 years at least, blatantly disregarded the sovereignty of other nations, killed innocent civilians, toppled democratically-elected governments because they didn't do whatever the current administration wanted, etc..

I'm not excusing or condoning what terrorists do, but a lot less people would choose to resort to terrorism if their wives, daughters, cousins, and children hadn't been killed by selfish "foreign policy" actions by the US. Same goes for *any* country that resorts to force for its own selfish reasons.

--
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by T-Ranger · 2004-02-20 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

The reason why everyone hates America is because you have the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in your way. Not anyone who does something wrong. Not anyone who wrongs a non-friendly country. Just anyone who happens to have something that you want that paticular week.
The problem is not the underlying forign policy of "make the world a better place" but that you only execute it when there are also self serving reasons to do so. I can not think of a single wholy selfless use of US militray might, ever. Sure youve done some good along the way while getting what you want. But the US has NEVER done good just to do good.
It wouldnt even be so bad if diddnt try to claim differently. I dont think the US (or any country) is obligated to do good just to do good. Just stop trying to con the rest of us into thinking thats what you're up to.
If you diddnt have the ability to rain down death and destruction on whomever you wanted then you wouldnt NEED the ability to rain down death and destruction.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by ajs · 2004-02-20 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

"All it does it remove the mask of civility and democracy from what is ***IMHO*** an increasingly tyrannical power."

I hate to pick on a specific foreign power, but I'm going to here. My appologies to those it offends.

China is going to space. What scenario would you prefer: that China have a sole lock on military power in Earth orbit or that we share that (potential) battlefield?

I'd much rather that there be a stand-off. Heck, I'd prefer that over having the US there alone.

And as for the US being a tyrannical power... heh, you clearly have never seen tyranny. Yeah, the US isn't exectly the good guy. What we've done to Central and South America are pretty awful, for example, but compare that to the rest of the world, and I would say we're better neighbors than about 1/3 of the world, and better to our own citizens than about 2/3 of the world.

Should we be better? Hell yeah, but that's not the definition of a tyranny.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Go get your own military for once"

I love the smell of NeoCon bullshit in the morning. You know what? Other nations DO have militaries. You know what else? They are often quite sufficient for self-defense against any plausible attacker (except the US of course).

Let's take France, since NeoCons LOVE France. France has a decent military. It can defend against any plausible threat except a US invasion. You know why they don't commit troops to our campaigns? Because the countries we're invading aren't threats to France (or anyone else)!

So now that we've established that other countries CAN, generally speaking, defend themselves with their existing armies, I guess the only unanswered question is whether the US, being the only country capable of successfully invading any country they like, will actually do it. Frankly, the money of those outside the US is better spent trying to prevent the US from attacking them than it is trying to match the US in military capabilities.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Homology · 2004-02-20 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Call me crazy, but I think the US having the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in our way does make the world a safer place. For Americans. And those are the only people our tax dollars should be protecting in the first place. Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
You see, I think you are fairly representative of the current US administration in the first part : raining destruction on anyone they like with impunity. The second part : "get your own military" they object strongly too.
You see, you are scaring allies and potenial enemies alike. I, and many with me, are very concerned with the direction US has taken during the Bush admministration. (And for the record, I did military service in a NATO country, just in case you call me a peace-loving treehugging liberal).
The Bush administration has made the world a much less safer one.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Jerf · 2004-02-20 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The basic problem with your view is that there is no alternative.

Are Americans supposed to get back in touch with their hippy selves and spread peace and love all over the world, until someone finally scrapes together the means and the intent to nuke us wholesale? Because it takes complete and willful ignorance of human nature to not realize that we have no choice but to arm ourselves and defend ourselves, or die, both collectively and individually.

Military science is like any other science. Sticking your head in the ground as a society merely guarentees that somebody will beat you to it; it does little to nothing to prevent the science from being done and subsequently implemented by engineers. You're free to keep thinking that life would just be hunky dory if that big nasty USA would just take a collective hit from the Bong of International Willful Ignorance of Human Nature, but I don't think we're about to do that no matter how much you whine... thank goodness.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by ACPosterChild · 2004-02-20 08:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

on anyone who gets in our way
That's kinda the point. To rain destruction on anyone who threatens us is one thing. To be a fucking swaggering cowboy barking orders and giving "because I said so" excuses, one who would be laughed at if he weren't so dangerous, is another thing altogether; and that is the position we're in right now.
does make the world a safer place. For Americans.
Yeah, until you guerilla activities. Then your nukes and space lasers are useless. Try compromising and getting along. Sure, it's harder than threatening people, but get better results. Anyone who does what you say through coersion will stab you in the back the first chance they get. But then, we're right and God is on our side and the heathens will see the light once we show them the way.
Now, get me my bucket of molten lead and my red-hot poker. I'm ready to save some souls!
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by LS · 2004-02-20 09:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Actually, your view of the world is unrealistic.

95% of the people out there are actually nice and generally non-violent, but they are mearly pawns in a big chess game run by the powerful who care little for individuals on the battle field.

Power changes hands all the time. If you build a large military structure and a mass of weapons, they will eventually be used, and the two men shooting at each other don't hate each other. They are both pawns of evil people at the top playing games with their lives. There is no "we must defend ourselves against them". In actuality, we must remove the scum that parasitizes humanity and manipulates everyone into war for profit.

LS

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by prisoner-of-enigma · 2004-02-20 09:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Try compromising and getting along.

That's all fine and dandy so long as both sides are willing to compromise and get along. What if they're not? What if one side's demands, such as "we want to kill all Jews" is completely incompatible with the other side? How do you compromise? Just let them kill a few Jews?

With some people there is no compromise available. It's then that the guns are needed, and the more and better guns we have, the more likely others are to compromise their extremist views. Either that or the Darwinian forces of "extermination by choice of refusal to compromise" will start to come into play.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by Panoramix · 2004-02-20 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

- North Korea would march right past the 38th parallel and into Seoul and hundreds of thousands of people would die in the process

That may be, but I missed the part where that is a problem where you should be involved. You lack standing to interfere in that affair. And you are welcome to say that you're picking fights with NK to "protect" South Korea citizens, but you should consider that you may be doing just the opposite, by taunting the sick fuck that rules NK to actually use his nukes. And anyway, my very personal belief is that you're doing this only because that particular sick fuck interferes with your control of Asia. Which is not the situation with other sick fucks that you seem to have no problem with, say, the ones you just gave two billion in military financing, and another half a billion in cash each year, to help them kick palestinian butt.

Hell, you'd probably love to get China, too, except for the little annoying fact that the Chinese can actually defend themselves against you (maybe even kick your ass, at that). But hey, at least you are quite good at badmouthing them.

- Pakistan and India would lob their brand new nukes at each other over Kashmir killing millions of people

As for Pakistan and India, may I remind you of your little show at East Pakistan, in early 1971? You know, the one the "Bangladesh concert" was about, the one that inspired catchy headlines such as "Bloodbath Inferno," by the Washington Post; "Pakistan, Dacca, City of the Dead," by the Times Magazine; and "Vast Destruction but No Fighting," by the New York Times. The one where the Pakistan Army, with American armament and led by U.S. trained officers, engaged in one of the bloodiest slaughters of the past century to reassert Islamabad's authority over the Bengalis. Damn ungrateful Bengalis, they should be thanking you dearly for all the "good" you've done with your "military power."

- The Muslims and Christians in south eastern europe would begin to kill each other again because there would be nobody to stop them
- Every country in the world that currently relies on the US for defense (and there are A LOT of countries that do rely on us through treaties and non-proliferation agreements) would collectivly crap a load of bricks and scramble to buy their own weapons
- Much of the world would degrade into dog-eat-dog anarchy, but this time everybody would have better technology.

You know, that kind of patronising bullshit gets really annoying after a while. Look, I'm not saying that what you say is an absolute lie, or that what I say must be held as absolute truth. But when it comes to our dear US of A as the white knight, defender of justice and democracy, well... Looking at your field record, I can't help but think that you have even less credibility than McBride ranting about his heroic defense on the "new frontier" of intellectual property.
Re:$1 Trillion debt and counting.. by d_i_r_t_y · 2004-02-21 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

it would be more like me sitting outside your house with a truck-mounted M60 trained on your lounge room window. try telling me that wouldn't make you uncomfortable if not downright belligerent.

it is unlikely that the US would attempt to territorially conquer any major country in the foreseeable future because of the MAD principle -- mutually-assured destruction.

you also neglect to note that the modus operandi of the US is to "conquer" countries by installing puppet governements or overthrowing democratically-elected leaders and the like.

a very relevant example: overthrowing the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh and installing the shah in iran, giving saddam his first chemical and biological weapons to fight the shah when he got a bit too feisty, only to then invade saddam for supposdly having the very same weapons the US taught him to make 2 decades previously.

the US have been, and continue to be arseholes when it comes to interfering in world politics, always to its advantage. the people of the US are too easily subverted by government propaganda to be held to be truly accountable.

Arms Race by Pinchy · 2004-02-20 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, this will certainly put an end to the arms race.

Re:Arms Race by wirelessbuzzers · 2004-02-20 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yup. Just like nukes did. Just like smart bombs did. Just like cruise missiles did.

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

There is a treaty by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

banning weapons in space, but it'll just be broken. (otherwise the terrorists win)

Although, suppose they are really preparing for already detected aliens....

Call Art Bell!

Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:20 · Score: 0, Insightful

Everytime I attempt humor on slashdot, the mods get it, but I get about 50 replies explaining why what I wrote is wrong. If you have no sense of humor, get off the net and go find some

A little sensitive, eh? Quit flattering yourself. Nobody wants to get your jokes, because THEY'RE NOT FUNNY.

Oh my god by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-02-20 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Get me out of this looney bin. I didn't sign up to be American, it was just bad luck.

--
Un-news

China by strictnein · 2004-02-20 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are wondering what country this might come in handy against in the future...

China

--
Casual Games/Downloads

1 Bad Idea by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-02-20 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground.

I'm not up to date on my space program figures. But it is expensive as hell to put a kilogram of material into orbit. I'd much rather pay for a plain old bomb, or even a reusable space laser. Carrying a rod into space to shoot it back down to earth is not cost effective.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong by SparafucileMan · 2004-02-20 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually it was just the standard practice of using government funds to prop up the economy. The Russians, as every knew, have been fucked since the 1960s. Besides, it was the mercenaries we sent into Afghanistan that bankrupted the USSR (before the Soviets got there, btw), not SDI.

Re:That sounds bad ass. by angryelephant · 2004-02-20 07:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because people expect lots of collateral damage with bombs, but you hit just one innocent bystander with a bullet and everyone gets huffy.

There are plans for *everything* by bravehamster · 2004-02-20 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Chance favors the prepared mind....our military has contingency plans for EVERYTHING. There are departments in every branch whose only job is to constantly think up the most outlandish scenarios, idea, plans, etc. With every possible variant of enemies, allies, strength of forces, technology. I once saw a detailed plan of battle in the event that Canada and Mexico ally and attack the US. This same philosophy applies to funding projects. If congress suddenly gets a bug under it's ass about space defense, the Air Force can whip out this portfolio and say "Well, with only $60 million, we can put these forces in place." What's funny is to watch the public react when some of these plans leak. All sorts of people freak out, like a few years ago when a contingency plan for invading China leaked out at the same time that there was tension regarding Taiwan. Now maybe this proposal for space has advanced beyond that wild ass idea phase, and if that's the case then it's because the Air Force thinks Congress might go for it.

--
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!

This is insane by zx75 · 2004-02-20 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Brief overview of a proposal in front of the UN to ban all space-based weaponry which the US is actively part of.

This, the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and the landmine treaty. Doesn't the US have ANY respect left for other countries let alone their own integrity? This is just getting disgusting.

--
This is not a sig.

Nows the only time... by pablo_max · 2004-02-20 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least Im sure that how the USAF see's it. You have several countries that are trying to get themselves into space. A few of which are a precieved threat to US interests. China of course comes to mind. We are at a crossroads of sorts. We are at a point where we are still the only contry that is able to put up large scale space based weapons. In five to ten years time, this will not be the case. My guess is we will put them up there and use the as leverage against other contries to insure that they do not attempt to place their own weapons in orbit. Im not saying its a good idea, im just assuming this is the pentagons thinking. I did serve in the USAF so I do have some idea of the ways in which they think.

Funding space programs? by octalgirl · 2004-02-20 07:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

If I had to pick which space program to fund, I would choose planning for war in space before I would put a man on Mars. Mars is a big dead rock. It may have held life at some point, maybe not. We can put a robot up there today to help take a peek, 10 years from now, they'll probably be shipping samples back to earth. Having someone bypass our ground/shore weapons and detection systems, by shooting at us from outer space, seems to be a lot more likely than finding someone to talk to on Mars.

Re:The reasonable, pacifist nerd in me Is horrifie by flacco · 2004-02-20 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

But the adolescent male heterosexual in me is giddily excited at the prospects. Same with you, don't deny it.

true, definitely true. but the weary middle-aged male in me isn't looking forward to eating catfood out of a can with my fingers in my retirement, what with all the output of our economy whizzing around in space over our heads.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons. by meta-monkey · 2004-02-20 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

The ABM Treaty had a clause in it that said that any party can withdraw from the agreement with six month's notice. Bush gave the six month's notice, and withdrew from the treaty.

Of course, the ABM treaty was also signed with a nation that no longer exists, the USSR. So...what's the problem?

The Space Treaty does not ban weapons in space, it only bans nuclear weapons in space. None of the weapons specified in this report are nuclear.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong by El+Cabri · 2004-02-20 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

It makes you wonder : what is the next country with a 6% GDP deficit that is going to get bankrupted by bellicose technological developpment... oh, wait ...

By the way nice try propagating this worn out reaganite theory that the arms race in the 80s was a clever American plot to win the cold war. Interesting is that it comes in contradiction with the idea that communism as a system is unable to sustain its own people, if it took an artificial arms race to bankrupt it.

Slashdot - Forum for Nerds (who play at politics) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

To the "I'm sorry I'm American" crowd

I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?

The 70's called. They want their world view back. by khasim · 2004-02-20 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Being able to drop MORE weapons on other nations does not do ANYTHING to "protect" the US citizens.

We already spend more money on our military than anyone else in the world.

What possible threat will this "protect" us from?

Back in the "Cold War" era, this might have been useful. Now it is just a waste.

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons. by praksys · 2004-02-20 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe if the Europeans didn't keep selling nuclear technology to nutjobs the US wouldn't feel the need to develop counter measures.

Correction... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-20 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a treaty but the Bush administration doesn't give a shit.

Just like it didn't give a shit about:

1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;

2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;

3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements;

4. Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate, hence the UN-bashing when the US didn't get close to getting what it wanted (no, the previous decade old resolutions were not sufficient, if they were the US wouldn't have been looking for a new resolution green-lighting the war in late 2002 and it wouldn't have got so shitty with France and the other countries in the Security Council that promised to veto any such resolution);

5. The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office.

And that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head.

Face facts, when it comes to international relations, there's a lot that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about. Pretend all you want, but the current US government has set back US-World relationships more than any other in history. It took all the goodwill and support the World had to offer after September 11 and either pissed it away or threw it back into people's faces.

Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be.

It's not hard to find "Bush bashing crap". The man's done a lot of crap that's worthy of bashing.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Correction... by thejackhmr · 2004-02-20 08:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just like it didn't give a shit about: 1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;
http://www.co2andclimate.org/
2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311es.html
3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20 031204-5.html
4. Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate, hence the UN-bashing when the US didn't get close to getting what it wanted (no, the previous decade old resolutions were not sufficient, if they were the US wouldn't have been looking for a new resolution green-lighting the war in late 2002 and it wouldn't have got so shitty with France and the other countries in the Security Council that promised to veto any such resolution);
Pfft. give me a break
5. The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office.
what is this, 1986? who cares about russian missle treaties?
And that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head. Face facts, when it comes to international relations, there's a lot that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about. Pretend all you want, but the current US government has set back US-World relationships more than any other in history. It took all the goodwill and support the World had to offer after September 11 and either pissed it away or threw it back into people's faces. Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be. It's not hard to find "Bush bashing crap". The man's done a lot of crap that's worthy of bashing.
OK, yeah, I'll be sure to forward your suggestions on to the arabs.
Re:Correction... by Mr12inch(Powerbook) · 2004-02-20 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Uh no, any "aid" that our government hands out is at a price. Sometimes it means letting us put troops anywhere we want in their country, sometimes it means high interest rates on the "aid," and sometimes it means buying certain goods only from the US, or selling certain goods at a steep discount only to the US. For example, the Bush administration recently gave "aid" to South Africa in the form of millions of dollars to help fight the rapid spread of HIV. This money was not just given away, it was loaned at higher than market interest rates and the stipulation of the arrangement was that South Africa could only use this money to by AIDS drugs from US pharmaceutical companies at above market costs (rather than from South American companies selling the same drugs at a fraction of the cost). Now you tell me, is that a free handout? The free handout concept is a myth used by non-political (i.e. uniformed) republicans to place blame for our deficit. Much like how they whine about welfare as draining our pockets. In actuality foreign "aid" and welfare combined are less than 10% of our national spending, and defense (a misnomer, as it should be labeled "offense") is over 50%. So I ask, where are our priorities? And does the allocation of our national monies reflect the will of the people or just a few warmongering, wealthy, assholes who can never seem to accrue enough money to satisfy themsleves.

--
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Kyoto protocol was voted against 95 to 0 in the senate, and therefore had no chance of being legally binding in the US. We don't live in a dictatorship a president signing a treaty is mostly symbolic.

2. The provisions of the ICC would have been unconstitutional in the US. Therefore any such treaty would be null and void, and a crime against the american people.

3. The EU has been breaking a judgement by the WTO about bananas that went through the full appeals system for quite sometime now. Don't here a lot about that now do we? Besides.. those tarriffs were lifted.

4. Awww... the rest of world honestly didn't understand what "serious consequences" was going to mean... get real!

5. The ABM treaty was ALLOWED to be broken, with notice. Russia said the same thing although they called it "regrettable"
Re:Correction... by Performer+Guy · 2004-02-20 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow you've really being drinking the cool-aid.

Can you list the other countries that refused to ratify Kyoto or are you only interested in bashing the U.S.

Comments and attitudes like yours explain exactly why the U.S. didn't sign the treaty on the international criminal court. They are held to a different standard. Does anyone give a shit about numerous nrth vietnamese war crimes during vietnam both against the U.S. and the vietnamese people? I've never heard anyone complain.

When was the last time anyone like you posted a rant here about China's numerous civil rights violations or occupation of countries?

It's completely one sided even in the US media.

When you explain why Clinton never did the scores of sins by omission that Bush is bashed for you might have a case.
Re:Correction... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-20 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here, here.

If you think that the US is the great philanthropist and the rest of the World is just stretching out its collective begging bowl then you've seriously got it wrong. As a percentage of it's GDP, the US gives less in foreign aid than most other developed countries.

I for one would happily love to see all US foreign aid stop overnight because it would mean that the $3-4 billion per year in military aid given to Israel would cease and Israel would have to seriously consider non-violent solutions to its problems.

I know saying this will get me labelled anti-semitic* but as long as Israel feels that the US is 100 percent in its camp then the situation in the Middle East will never improve. It will take a serious commitment by Israel, and by the US, as well as by the other parties to achieve lasting peace in the region. That commitment will never be made as long as Israel and hardliners like Ariel Sharon are allowed to dominate the politics of the region with bombs, rockets and tank shells.**

So, please cut US foreign aid to zero. Even if nothing changes in the Middle East, it would be interesting to see how many oppressive right-wing puppet regimes fall as a result.

(*Laughable when you consider I went to a school that was 90 percent Jewish, that most of my best friends whilst growing up were Jewish, my first two girlfriends were Jewish and that I went to at least 40 Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs as a kid.)

(**Yes I am aware of the devastation wreaked by Palestinean suicide bombers. But this discussion is about the influence that US aid has on the region, and that influence is solely on Israel. The one thing I will say about the subject is I don't see how escalating levels of violence can bring about the peace that both Israelis and Palestineans deserve. Sometimes, you have to be the one willing to break the circle of bloodshed: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as Ghandi so eloquently put it.)

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Correction... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-20 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

So lets give the same amount of aid to the muslims/arabs so they can build bigger and better terrorist armies... yeah right

No, let's not give any military aid to anyone: people with no weapons find it hard to wage war effectively. The idea isn't to give people the means to blow each other to bits, the idea is to take those means away and hence force the parties concerned to address their mutual problems diplomatically rather than militarily.

Is that really so hard for an AC to understand?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Correction... by Shakrai · 2004-02-20 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Go ahead build a country of protectionism, don't trade. Let's see how long the US lasts. Argentina did a real bang up Job issolating themselves from the world. Let's see just how well the us United States does going it alone. Greater nations have fallen.
Go ahead and outsource all of our manufacturing jobs to communist China. Then see how long the West lasts. It's as big a threat to you as it is to us. Too bad your too short sided to see that.
There's a reason why the WTO meetings draw grass-root activists no matter where they go in the World. The common man on the street sees free-trade as nothing more then a ploy to line the pockets of the fat cats at the expense of the rest of it.
Free-trade and globalization may very well prove Karl Marx to have been correct.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Correction... by SedentaryZ · 2004-02-20 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

As a percentage of it's GDP, the US gives less in foreign aid than most other developed countries.

Don't forget to count the money the US spends on its military that is used to defend other nations (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, NATO, etc.) The amount of money spent providing defense for Western Europe during the cold war (and beyond - e.g. Kosovo) more than covers this difference.
Re:Correction... by Camel+Pilot · 2004-02-20 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

seriously consider non-violent solutions

Been there done that. The ruling Palestineans do not want peace they want annilation.

Israel does have a free press and does hold reasonable free and open elections something that no other middle eastern country can boast.

Also, while there are moderate (even peacenik) Israelies there are few to none moderate Palestineans - Why? Because any moderate or peace loving Palestinean are executed as a traitor.
Re:Correction... by haggar · 2004-02-20 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

And you are aware of the military aid that Egypt and the United Arab Emirates receive from the US? The aid to Egypt is both in development (Abrams M1 co-developed in Egypt) and money (about $2B/year) and similarly with the UAE - the US is developing a new type of missile defense system with the Emirates. Of some interest is the military aid to the Saudis, as well.

I would be more than happy if the US didn't give a single dollar to Israel, as this money has to be spent on armament, which Israel needs only because of it's neighbors. This armament has to be bought from the US, even in case where there are better Israeli solutions (like the radar system in the F-16i).

It's just a dirty game the US plays, and some Israeli politicians agree to play along. But in reality Israel doesn't need this "help", even though it's surrounded by enemies that have sworn contless times to wipe her off the face of the earth, and even though Israel is really a tiny country in comparison to Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia and Iraq (add the Iranian Hizbollah and Lebenon to the enemy forces). Israel can not afford to have foreign forces penetrate it's territory, as there is so little space there. These are severe constrains, but even so, I believe that the American military aid is not necessary, as it ties down Israel in it's decisions.

So what I find laughable is your assertion that the US influences only Israel. Where'd your common sense go?

Of course, with American help to the other Arab countries, Israel might find itself at a disadvantage, but so it did in every war that was planned and/or carried out by it's enemies, and as far as I know, Israel is still on the map. Even when Kissinger decided that Egypt should be allowed a victory to "stabilize the middle east" and withdraw all help from Israel, the Egyptians failed to conquesr the Holy Land. I think that's the best proof that Israel can fend off these threats.

Sadly, the Israeli leaders have put their faith too much into this american "aid", instead of the people of israel. The 1948 war of independence should have proven aboundantly that it's not the weapons but the people that win a war, with determination, skills, tactics and production.

As for you being aware of the devastation wreaked by Palestinean suicide bombers, that's such rich bullshit. No, the 3-year old boy with his innards being picked up by the first aid doctors isn't it, or the Zaka volunteers having to use spatulas and such tols to collect the pieces of shattered bodies, for a dignified burial. It's not even the nails that have to be removed from the head of unfortunate bus passengers. No, the worst, most frightning thing I'd like you to have in front of your eyes is this 5 year old girl with bloody face, eyes wide open in disbelief and utter horror, and not a single tear.

So don't tell me you are aware and such crap. You don't even understand the real facts of life in the region. The "some of my best friends are Jewish" is usually an excellent filer or preface to the worst anti-semitic tirades I have ever heard.

--
Sigged!
Re:Correction... by kmweber · 2004-02-20 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ehh.

The Israelis deserve peace.

The Palestinians don't.

The Palestinians are the ones promoting violence against innocent civilians. Israel is only acting in its self defense.

The Palestinians, by being violent, have shown that they are irrational. The only way to deal with irrational people is in terms that they can understand. The Palestinians only understand violence; therefore, Israel's only option is violence.

--
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Re:Correction... by SedentaryZ · 2004-02-20 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm just trying to point out that the contribution made by the US shouldn't be measured by looking at the number of dollars allocated to foreign aid.
For years, the US shouldered a proportionately larger burden of the defense needs of Western Europe. I'm not complaining or bashing; it was necessary and worth doing. I do agree with you though that there isn't much need for many of the US bases in Western Europe anymore; I'm in favor of redistributing these forces.

However, even with the end of the cold war, Europe needs to do more to pull its own weight. For example, it was unable, or unwilling, to do much of anything about the problem in Kosovo without US participation.

As far as the current levels of defense spending: the percentage of the federal budget spent on defense as been falling ever since the late eighties. Before the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was the smallest portion of the budget it had been since the Depression. Spending has risen lately, and you can track the turning point to the fall of 2001. The US is at war. Haven't you noticed?

There's another point - if we are going to start comparing expenditures on foreign aid, does the money spent on trying to build free societies in Afghanistan and Iraq count?
Re:Correction... by Patrice · 2004-02-20 12:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Couldn't it be instead because the Israelian army has killed enough children and women as "collateral damages" that the Palestinians don't see any future ?

And justifying a state-backed series of murders by an eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth against suicide bombers who are so easily enrolled by terrorist groups because they are desperate and humiliated daily is not something anybody in their right mind can condone.
Re:Correction... by blincoln · 2004-02-20 12:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually Boeing has two ideas on the drawing board to counter the A380. One is a super-cruiser that would fly just shy of the speed of sound.

No, that project was cancelled last year. There isn't a big enough market for higher-priced, moderately faster air travel anymore. It's too bad, because the concept art of the plane looked awesome, like something that really should be flying in the 21st century.

I live in Seattle, and I can see that Boeing is doomed. They seem to have been infected by too much influence from the execs of the other companies they bought up. I'm sure they will continue contracting with the military, but Airbus is going to stomp them in the civilian market.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman

Wake up shithead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

The war in Iraq is not over!

Re:That sounds bad ass. by ncc74656 · 2004-02-20 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll never figure out why we'll use a bomb which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to snipe someone... when a 10 cent bullet would do the trick just fine.

The bullet is cheaper (not 10 cents, but I'd think it'd be $5 or less)...but getting a sniper into position to fire it can be nearly as expensive as dropping a bomb. It's definitely more dangerous (for the sniper, anyway) if he's caught before he can complete his mission.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.

Illegal by ToadMan8 · 2004-02-20 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I had the distinct impression that the original space charters drawn up made weapons and war in space against international law. Then again the US often ignores these things (and who's gonna' do anything about it, eh?). Hrmmm.

--
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.

Re:What are you smoking? by zoidberg,+MD · 2004-02-20 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

you aren't counting the airstrikes and subsequent civilian casualties that racked up in the years leading up to the Iraq war.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong by PHlLlPY · 2004-02-20 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

well it began as a research project into a space-based missile shield, but once we realized it was impossible (can't shield satellites from a nuke exploding in orbit, aiming the lasers/depleted uranium projectiles accurately and fast enough to do any good...), it turned into a fake program that was PR for the American public and made the USSR flow money that they could not afford into trying to match the "superiority" of America's SDI that only existed in some cool little animated video clips and press releases...

Are YOU terminally stupid? by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-20 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is that why the US managed to hit a clearly located Red Cross compound in Afghanistan not once but twice? Or why it managed to hit a Chinese embassy building in the Balkans?

It's not just about your bombs landing where they are aimed. It's about making sure that they are aimed in the right place as well. Without the latter, the former is pointless.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Are YOU terminally stupid? by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-20 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Man, I seriously hope it wasn't intentional.

I'd like to think that the people in charge of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal weren't deliberately targetting a potential adversary that had its own massive nuclear arsenal, as well as the world's largest army and air force.

Because, if that were true, then "dumb" is a gross understatement: I'd rather that the fate of the world isn't left in the hand's of people that shortsighted. If it is true then I don't think it's me that should be being labelled "stupid" or "naive" here.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by eclectic4 · 2004-02-20 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, we spend more on our military than all other industrialized countries COMBINED.

And, suggesting that putting weapons in space makes the US, or the world for that matter, a safer is nearly laughable. This will only instill even MORE fear in the eyes of all "others". Which, coincidentally, is the reason for the growing animosity felt towards the US at the moment. No, this does only one thing, bring power to even fewer people... those who put those weapons in space. Do we (the US) become supreme ruler of all simply because we are the most powerful? Do I have to explain the numerous and disastrous problems with that sentiment?

We are simply creating the reasons to PUT those weapons in space. It will make many people rich and powerful, but making the world a safer place it will certainly not do.

--

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons. by ABaumann · 2004-02-20 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

As opposed to the US giving technology to nutjobs? We supported Iraq long before anyone in Europe did.

Perhaps it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

to rename the Department of Defense. What should it be called now?

-Department of Military
-Department of Offense
-Deparment of Aggression
-Ministry of War
-etc.

The US military is supposed to be defensive only. Granted, in a modern global civilization that means we must have the capability to kick some ass on the other side of the planet sometimes, but this seems to be far too aggressive. Is there a legitimate defensive purpose to something like this? It seems to be designed solely for aggression.

Re:That sounds bad ass. by SoCalChris · 2004-02-20 07:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Foreign countries are allowed to have weapons, as LONG as they're not as powerful as our own." which is obviously okay with me, as an American, however, so much for a fair playing field.

Screw that. As an American, I don't want a fair playing field. I want every advantage I can get.

Re:That sounds bad ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Scenarion 2: A big motherfucking bomb drops out of the sky, blows your friend into tiny kibbles-n-bits sized chunks, and sends you ass over elbows into a crumpled heap some 20 yards away. Your reaction? "HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!" What ya gonna do about it? You'd instantly realize you're way the hell out of your league.

that just forces them not to fight against those with the big bombs directly.

they end up hiding among civilians, sending out suicide bombers and crashing passenger jets into skyscrapers. they are resorting to these tactics because they know they are out of their league and this is the only way they have to fight back.

also blowing up a city block to kill someone on their way to blow up a bus seems to fullfill their goals anyways. except any surviving victims of a bomb are going to hate us instead of the suicide bomber. of course the only way they will have to get back at us is to become terrorists themselves, since their army couldn't possibly fight us.

but whatever... just means that the inivisible army that we need to be protected from will just get bigger and we'll need bigger bombs to protect ourselves from them.

Exactly by niom · 2004-02-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why care about a far away "big dead rock" which "may have held life at some point", when we can make our own planet a big dead rock which may have held life at some point? In two hundred years, we won't need to go to Mars because we will have a planet-sized replica just here on Earth! Won't it be convenient?

--
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".

The Old Air Force Bake Sale Quote by saudadelinux · 2004-02-20 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It will be a great day
when our schools get all the money they need
and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber

Do we really need this stuff? I could see arguments for more communications hardware up there, but hypervelocity weapons and lasers? How many decades will pass before something even remotely workable is off the drawing boards? Ike must be rolling in his grave.

--
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.

I suppose morality is out of the question by niom · 2004-02-20 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unless you consider "might makes right" the only thing you'll ever need to know about morality.

--
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by Keebler71 · 2004-02-20 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, the US does not become the 'supreme ruler'. It just gives the US the 'final say' in its defense when diplomacy has failed.

'War is the continuation of politics by other means' - Clausewitz

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell

Gonna be really funny when some nutjub by Archfeld · 2004-02-20 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

uses an amatuer rocket setup and lauches say 5000 lbs of NON-METALLIC ball bearings into HEAVILY used geo-synch orbits patterns at decent relative velocity and tears holes in Trillions of $$$'s worth of satelites, making the area unuseable for orbiters or requiring a HUGE expenditure to clean....Seems like a relatively under the radar way to really HURT a huge number of companies, and government services.
Obviously the NSA, CIA etc has 'other' resources but physics determines the LIMITED location and availability of stable accessible orbit slots...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Reminds me of history... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Before you go ahead with your line of thought you should check what happened a few centuries back and learn a little from that.

Remember Rome? The Greeks? The Egiptians? You can see a pattern here. Just remember: no empire lives forever. I think it'd be awfull to repeat the same errors from the past.

points to ponder by tloh · 2004-02-20 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

from the article:

"I don't think other countries will be taking this lying down," said Theresa Hitchens, the vice president of the Center for Defense Information. .... "This will certainly prompt China into actually moving forward" on space weapon plans of its own, she added. "The Russians are likely to respond with something as well."

The Chinese, in particular are willing to spend a lot more on their space program. Despite being latecomer to the space game, they're playing catch up extremely well.

This year, the Air Force will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to find ways to track enemy satellites -- and, if necessary, blind those eyes in the sky.

What is to stop them from doing the same to us? I'd say we have a lot more to loose since we are so much more heavily invested in using space as a military resource.

But it's unclear whether putting weapons into space would provide much protection. The arms themselves could become sitting ducks in orbit -- giving the United States a new weakness, not a new strength. Satellites are already a weak "center of gravity" in American militarty planning, argues Bruce DeBlois, the editor of Beyond the Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought. They're vulnerbale to electronic jamming, orbiting projectiles and nuclear detonations in near-Earth space. The space-based weapons would have all of the same vulnerabilities -- and would make that center of gravity a more inviting target.

My point exactly...

"America is the country with the most satellites, he explained. By developing anti-satellite weapons, "it legitimizes systems that the U.S. has the most to lose from." Other countries could start pursuing long-taboo space weapons efforts. And while countries like China don't have the technical sophistication of the United States, they already have the capabilities to hurt us in space -- medium range missiles, and nuclear warheads.
Wright added, "This could trigger a backlash that actually leaves the U.S. worse off."

...further driving the point home. Is it really worth it?

--
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.

Re:And you get your figures where? by T-Ranger · 2004-02-20 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The whole Gary Power thing was political fallout because it was proof undenieable that the US was routinly invading USSR air space.

If your dropping bombs on someone then you are at war. Pilots getting shot down is part of war.

Unless you want to use these space based wepons covertly, without a declaration of war. Ignoring that space based wepons are illegal, engaging in hostilities before declaration of war is illegal, and has been formaly so for more then a century. Before then it happened as a matter of honor. Hell, 50 years after it happened - long after all the political figures were dead - the US forced Japan to apologize for Perl Harbour.

So much spare change by daveb · 2004-02-20 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess the US, being the only super-power (and colonizer), has so much money left over after ensuring it's people have the best healthcare, lowest crime and best education that protecting it's citizens via these weapons makes sense.

( ok they aren't colonies they are client-states)

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by flacco · 2004-02-20 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

What possible threat will this "protect" us from?

i think the move is primarily strategic. as noted in the article, you're able to deliver far less energy using weapons from space than from terrestrial sources. the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day. space weapons allow the US to deliver military force *immediately* without having to worry about the next french/russian/german mutual masturbation festival, or what turkey's islamic parliament thinks about positioning infidel forces on its soil, or getting overfly rights from countries neighboring an enemy's territory.

also noted in the article: regardless of where the weapons are, there's a lot of communications stuff that *all* US forces depend on flying around up there. if it's possible, i imagine they want to protect that.

the US is in the unenviable position of being top-dog and being resented for it. china is playing it REAL smart, staying out of sight and biding its time as these global resentments and the resulting increased US military spending take their toll on the US economy.

oh well. i have no kids. if we can hold out another 30 years or so, i'm ok with that. i learned long ago that, even if you want to save the world, the world doesn't really give a fuck.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

The US was once a nice place by FreeUser · 2004-02-20 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I suppose our militarization of the seas and the air was a mistake too? I suppose when China/Russia puts orbital weapons in space you won't mind? Aside from the sexier hookers and the better cafes, just what is it about "outside this stupid country" that you find so appealing?

Speaking as one American who has, in the past, lived for several years in Germany (pre and post reunification), the UK, Hong Kong (pre-reunification), and Japan, there is no "one" answer that applies to everywhere outside of this stupid country.

However, in Europe there is a great deal more personal freedom than in the United States in most areas (try drinking a beer in a public park in the US vs. England or Germany, for example). There is a great deal of protection against the distribution of personal information in Germany (read: virtaully no junk mail or junk phone calls). I have never had better health care than I had in Germany (and I have an excellent ... by American standards ... PPO now that is a pale and distant last place to the plans I had in Europe).

Crime is lower in all of the places I've lived outside of the United states. It is lower in Europe and so much lower in Japan that the mind boggles (for example, you can leave your wallet on the bar in most parts of Tokyo ... American sailor hangouts excepted! ... go use the toilet, come back, and no one will have touched it).

The list goes on. Every place has its pluses and minuses, but the United States, in its inability to be self critical and its profound policy of self-isolation and absolute denial of things that are obviously and painfully going wrong (such as the healthcare fiasco here; the massive debt; rising violent crime; the wholesale corporate export of well paying jobs; spiralling unemployment ... remember, they stop counting people no longer eligable for unemployment benefits even though many are not reemployed in order to keep the numbers artificially, and dishonestly, low; etc.) has been accumulating a great deal of minuses, and losing many of its pluses.

Contrast this to the rest of the world, which remains a reasonable mix of pluses and minuses, and the outlook for quality of life in the United States gets grimmer by the day. Seing Bush on the Television touting his latest lies, and the passivity with which so many Americans are willing to accept them (rather than confront unpleasant truths about what we as a country have become) and the prognosis gets even worse.

It is a pity. The United States once stood for some very beautiful ideals, and was once a very nice place to live.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

free space by SignificantBit · 2004-02-20 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone who knows better could point out some international agreements on the free non-militar use of space?
I'm pretty sure there is some legal problems with putting weapons on space. For one, it create huge and complex geopolitical problems- US could just put a "military base" up everyone air space.
Second, in a more moral view is just stupid to think any human, country or power could own or control space.. is as idiotic as infamous phrases like "US owns the moon".

Re:Actually.... by Avallach95 · 2004-02-20 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I had the opportunity to hear Gorbachev speak back in 2000 in Florida. One of the quotes I took away was, "America tried very hard to lose the Cold War. The Solviet Union tried harder."

Fairly succinct summary one would think.

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by eclectic4 · 2004-02-20 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are completely disregarding all the bad things that will happen due to this, which FAR outweigh your fears.

We already have the final say when diplomacy fails. Ever hear of Iraq? The rest of the world did not want us to go to war with them. And, what did we do? And this was with a country that didn't present a clear and present danger to us. In fact, they didn't even scare it's neighbors.

--

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin

Dumb idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

We didn't try to militarize space after we put a man on the moon, so why should we try to do so today?

And any kind of SDI program isn't going to be of any use to us if someone enters a building and blows it and everyone inside said building to smithereens.

This is just another pork barrel project for defense contractors.

Re:Kinda reminds me about nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

(2) Would you care to list up the technology that the military technology that the US supplied to Iraq? Here's a hint - the list would have 0 lines. The US provided Iraq with financial support for a while during the Iran-Iraq war, and some military intelligence, but never any sort of technology.

You mean like the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) supplying Iraq with at least 70 government-approved weaponizable biologicals, including, Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium botulinum, (botulinum toxin), Histoplasma capsulatam (histoplasmosis, which attacks lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart), Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium tetani?

Or perhaps that doesn't constitute technology in your book. If this is the case, set up a company and try to sell some to the Axis of Evil (tm), and see how long you last.

Re:The reasonable, pacifist nerd in me Is horrifie by beforewisdom · 2004-02-20 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

true, definitely true. but the weary middle-aged male in me isn't looking forward to eating catfood out of a can with my fingers in my retirement, what with all the output of our economy whizzing around in space over our heads.

Wouldn't rice and beans be cheaper then catfood?

Steve

Pax Americana? by Gothmolly · 2004-02-20 08:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Would that be so bad? Back in the ol' Roman days, the saying went that you could leave a gold ring in the road, and pick it up the next day. Since governments (in non-savage countries) hold a legal monopoly on the use of force against its citizens to preserve the peace, can we make the leap that one nation, or one body (not the UN, something with teeth) has the legal monopoly on the use of force?
As a previous posted put it, to 'rain destruction down on an enemy' can be an effective deterrent, like the nuke, the death penalty, or having your ass kicked by policemen.
Before you cry that its wrong to place all this power in 1 country's hands lest it be abused, consider the existing abuses of power going on around the globe on a daily basis.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:That sounds bad ass. by jsebrech · 2004-02-20 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

We're talking here about people who are willing to let themselves be blown up by setting off a bomb strapped to their own bodies, just to make a point to the US.

Do you really honestly believe shock and awe will make them go "oh, sorry about wanting to destroy democracy, we'll just not bother you anymore"? If so, I have some land to sell you, at a very good price.

Shock and awe have zero longterm effect. The people you'd use it against are so motivated that once they get over their immediate shock they will start looking for weak spots, and there are always weak spots. In the end we're all human, and we all die just as easily. The soldiers in iraq are noticing this now.

I do think the only way to stop terrorists is to convince them they don't want to kill you, however I don't believe dropping bombs on them from outer space will do that.

Re:Just what we need by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 08:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

And if you were dead, there would be one less generalizing, hate filled, bigot in the world. Something that would do FAR more to make this world a better place...

Re:That sounds bad ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 09:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Scenario 3: Bomb drops out of the sky kills 2 terrorists, and 15 civilians...creates 20 terrorists out of the victims families who now know how the shit works. The terrorists now use the subway.

Remember your GiJoe: knowing is half the battle!

Re:Just what we need by johnjay · 2004-02-20 09:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for what you did in Iraq or Afganistan (I can't tell if you were involved in both or just one).

Freeing the Iraqis from their dictator was one of the best things America has ever done, equal in importance to stopping the Holocaust. I don't know why all American's are not proud of this fact. I am and I don't particularly deserve to be. I know you are, and you should be.

Also, the accuracy of those weapons systems was one of the main reasons we had the political will to go through with the war. For the first time in history, there were no massacres of civilians. Mistakes, yes, but compared to the evil you fought, the mistakes were small. It's an awful calculus to have to make, but it's the truth.

We had a plan. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 09:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

The plan was that the Iraqis would love us for freeing them and happily establish a US-friendly democracy that would pay our expenses by selling oil.

I'm not sure if "fantasy" means the same as "plan", but that was the official "plan".

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by pubjames · 2004-02-20 09:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day.

Yes, but it's the US that has changed, not the allies. When all your friends suddenly stop liking and trusting you, the chances are that it's you that's the problem, not your friends!

Thanks for being a veteran by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 10:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

Thank you so much for putting your life on the line to keep the profit margins of our glorious corporate masters safe.

I'll trust your opinion more than anyone else's, on any matter. After all those years of unquestioning obedience, I'm sure you're real good at thinking for yourself.

The Military Plans for EVERYTHING. by Rimbo · 2004-02-20 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, the military has plans for EVERYTHING. Part of being in the military means drawing up plans: "What would we do if XYZ happened?" So that in the odd chance that XYZ happens -- say, we get invaded by aliens -- then the military has a plan that they can execute.

And it's not just about plans for war in space. It's about plans for how chocolate-chip cookies should be made in the mess hall. Or for how clothes must be made, right down to the stitching, type of thread, precise colors and sizes.

It's part of the military's duty: Create a plan that any idiot can follow and execute given existing equipment, along with several acceptable alternatives, for any given scenario -- be it making a bunk bed for a training facility or the threat of Earth being mowed down by Vogons to build a hyperspace bypass.

Just because the military has plans to do something, doesn't mean they're going to do them. Because having plans they're not necessarily going to execute today is just part of what they do, so that if something DOES happen, they are prepared for it.

Re:The 70's called. They want their world view bac by gilroy · 2004-02-20 11:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Blockquoth the poster:

the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day

I guess I should be happy that the word was "adversary" and not "enemy" -- but it shocks me how many of my compatriots seem ready to abandon the Western alliance just because the Europeans had a difference of opinon with us. My God, look at what history usually produces and how closely aligned the nations of Western Europe and North America are, and you'll be more careful before flinging around accusations of adversarial intent.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

Why these weapons are a GOOD idea. by rice_burners_suck · 2004-02-20 12:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmmm... This sounds a lot like what we feared the Russians were gonna do back in the cold war or space race or whatever.

You know, I think that instead of having a space race with the Russians, we should have talked to them and tried to understand their feelings, and then they would have gone away and everyone would live happily ever after. We should do the same thing with terrorism in the middle east--talk to them and understand their feelings. That will make the whole world peaceful. Of course, that's what Sarah Conner should have done with the cyberborg from the future in The Terminator. Remember how Reese was saying that it has no feelings and no remorse, and that it won't stop, ever, until she's dead? Well, I don't believe that. I'm sure that they could have gone to a diner together, talked to each other, and understood each others' feelings... Because violence is NEVER the answer, even if it's against an enemy that WILL kill you and will NOT back down, no matter what.

Stupid liberals.

Re:Why these weapons are a GOOD idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-20 15:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

And this is insightful because...?

Oh, I see it now, the post shows how this guy is a moron.

Come on. There isn't anyone left to fight really. You think this will stop terrorists? So tell me, how is your dream world anyway?

Weapons in space by dmccunney · 2004-02-20 14:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is neither news nor a surprise.

As a general rule, in combat, he who holds the high ground wins. Space is the new high ground.

Military organizations do endless contingency plans covering any possible threat they can see and how it might best be countered. The U.S. military is no exception. If they _didn't_ do this, they wouldn't be doing thier jobs.

An absolute essential in any combat situation is communications, command, and control (known as "C cubed"). Troops on the battlefield need effective intelligence on what they face, communications with thier fellows to coordinate responses, and communications from thier superiors about what those responses should be.

Satellites provide all of those things. If you can take out the other guy's satellites, you effectively blind him, and leave him at a severe disadvantage.

This doesn't even count the possibility of actual _weapons_ platforms in space, which are a whole other set of problems.

I'm not upset that the US military is looking at this area. It's part of thier job. I'm concerned with thier ability to get it right.
______
Dennis

Yes.. by Kjella · 2004-02-20 14:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

the problem for the US is that its traditional allies are starting to look more and more like strategic adversaries every day. space weapons allow the US to deliver military force *immediately* without having to worry about the next french/russian/german mutual masturbation festival, or what turkey's islamic parliament thinks about positioning infidel forces on its soil, or getting overfly rights from countries neighboring an enemy's territory.

Did it ever occur to you that this might also be the *reason* your allies are starting to consider you a strategic adversary? The US is already substantially ahead on military force, and they're quite obviously trying to remove dependance on their allies, and potential counter-attacks (missile shield), in short, the US is seeking to become all-powerful and invunerable.

Combine that with a progressively more agressive and arrogant US ever since the end of the cold war, not to mention the recent paranoia after 9/11, are you really surprised that the rest of the world, including your own allies, is worried? If so, I think you are living even more in your own world than I feared.

Not too long ago Europe let Germany come to a position of power like that. The rest of Europe didn't exactly see it coming then, and I don't think anyone sees it coming in the US now. But they know the danger of such a concentration of power better than you. You may have fought in the war, but we were the victims of it. And that time, we had the US to save Europe. If the US does the same to the world, who's to save us then?

Believe it or not, the rethoric of "We have to invade Afghanistan/Iraq (and maybe Iran, North Korea and a few more) in order to ensure the safety of the American people" isn't *that* far off from Hitlers "We have to invade Sudetendeutschland, Czechoslovakia, Poland (etc. etc.) to ensure the safety of the German people". And the "liberation" of the people not that far from the way Soviet Russia "liberated" the people of Eastern Europe, providing goverments friendly to the regime.

Now, you will argue that the US is doing this for the good of the world, or some bullshit like that. The US has shown a complete and utter disregard for the good of the world, last but not least shown by the rejection of the Kyoto agreement because it would hurt the American economy. The US couldn't give a damn about the rest of the world, as long as it doesn't hurt the almight US of A.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:And people are worried about banana republics? by demachina · 2004-02-20 14:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

"What exactly is the US doing this arms race against? Aliens?"

All indications are the Bush administration is pursueing a doctrine of overwhelming military superiority. If I recall the wording they've been using the goal is to establish such military dominance that no country will even attempt to challenge it or match it. The thinking is they can prevent another Cold War style arms race this way. This doctrine does neglect to remember that overwhelming military superiority has been successfully challenged in the past through asymetric means, also known as guerilla warfare, or as its tagged today terrorism.

Indications are at least one country is going to try by conventional means though. It appears the Russians are fed up with being an American door mat, along with the rest of the world, and are gravely concerned that America and the Bush Administration are becoming the real clear and present danger to the world. Can't blame them since its become clear the U.S. will bully anyone and everyone using the "you are either with us or against" doctrine.

It appears the Russians are going to attempt to counter by trying to return to their former glory and are planning to restart the arms race. Russia has been engaged in the largest war games in 20 years this week and Putin, taking a page from Bush, has been riding around on a submarine in a naval uniform. One hitch in his plan was back to back catastrophic ballistic missile failures which suggest its an uphill battle to regain a creditable military especially with Russia's struggling economy. He's also reverting Russia to a one party state for all practical purposes and is siezing control of Russian industry starting with its largest oil company.

In other news, the Russians announced this week they are restarting development of new strategic missiles with manuevering warheads in an attempt to defeat Bush's massively expensive missile defense and are starting missile defenses of their own. Most knowledgable experts have contended it will be a lot cheaper and easier to defeat missile defenses than it will be to build them. So a missile defense race between the U.S. and Russia will potentially bankrupt both. They are also developing a six man capsule to replace the Soyuz so they can take over the ISS as Bush abandons it, and will no doubt make it pay off, on the cheap, as they did with Mir.

As bad as the Cold War was, especially in all the countries where the proxy wars were fought like Vietnam and Aghanistan, it was an era where the two super powers kept each other in check. In a lot of ways that balance is superior to the current environment where one super power is unchecked and unable to resist the temptation to abuse its power.

Meanwhile the Chinese are working to decimate the U.S. by subtler means, economic means, and are well on their way to becoming the world's new economic superpower alongside India.

This opens up an interesting future. Will the U.S. be able to leverage its massive military superiority to stave off economic collapse. They certainly could because they can use their military to gain control, by force or intimidation, of the world's oil reserves and any other scarce resource they choose. No country is like to call in loans or openly challenge the U.S. if there are space weapons pointed at them, stealth bombers warming up on the ramp, and aircraft carriers off their coast.

I think the U.S. has realized they can no longer compete in a purely economic arena with China, India and even Europe so the Bush administation is opting to establish the worlds first truely global empire with the military to back it. It might work, or the U.S. might end up in economic ruin alongside Russia. If so China and India are poised to assume the role of the world's new leaders assuming the U.S. doesn't unleash its military, on the way down, and take the planet with it. As much as the U.S. whines about WMD's it needs to be remembered the U.S. has the worlds largest WMD stockpiles and to quote the rhetoric against Saddam, "Has used them in the past". As Bush has said in speeches a few times this week, can we tolerate weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a madman?

--
@de_machina

Slashdot Mirror

U.S. Air Force Plans for War In Space

110 of 1,349 comments (clear)