Slashdot Mirror
Weapons in Space
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sure the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) has a low-orbit only kill-vehicle now, but how long before it has an Electron Beam Device that can annihilate a person playing golf or taking a shower (possibly with company)?
Rather than do the typical knee-jerk US-Bashing, lets examine this. China is wanting to go into space. Do we REALLY want China to be the first ones with space weapons pointing back at us?
Honestly think about it for a bit.
Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..
We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.
but it's not "outer space", it's "near-Earth space".
anyway, since when does America's word mean anything?
I guess therell be for instance space-to-space and space-to-air and space-to-ground weapons. We should be mostly worried about those aimed space-to-ground since their development are directly targetted to humans and their privacy, even at the peaceful time. Wether we can prevent the militarization of space is more like "Kioto" kind of question ... so Ill say not possible at the moment.
Not just bad, expensive. We've spent billions of dollars on an unnecessary war, and now we're going to spend billions more on unnecessary weapons to act as a deterrent? What about education, and jobs for Americans?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?
If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Thats insanely short sighted.
If I remember correctly, one of the co-inventors of the first nuke was quoted as saying that it would mean the end of war, as noone would be crazy enough to use it.
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
We know that other nations are getting to be space-capable. Are we just to trust that they won't put weapons up there? Has China really got that great a record with respecting human rights? And do we really think that Pakistan/India wouldn't put a weapon system up if the other was suspected of having one?
The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.
Seems to me this would be pointless if any other country launched a weapon-destroying weapon, which, of course, will be the next progression in the arms race. I say stop this now before there's so much exploded space junk up there that we can't launch any more spaceships.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
Aside from my doubts that the force imparted by a bullet on a multi-ton object would cause it to move a few miles between shots at the same target...
Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.
Sickening.
Clinton: Tax dollars from dot-com bubble that later bursts because he failed to reign in corrupt corporations with inflated values.
Bush: See above for deep dive in supposed "surplus". Though I disagree with many spending policies.
Clinton: UN backing? What are you smoking Go read news articles from back then.
Bush: 40 nation coalition just isn't enough? Only if France says go?
Clinton: Did nothing to keep the Reagan era policies that allowed such expansion to take place. Failed to enact policies to prevent overinflated corporate valuation leading to inevitable collapse of the market.
Bush: Present when Clinton-era corruption collapses, then post-9/11. Enacted tax cut policy that stimulated growth. Economy bounces back from terrible scandal and god-awful attack on home soil, a decade shorter than Roosevelt policy ever did for the Depression. Last 7 months, economy sees 765,000 new jobs created.
Clinton: Did nothing
Bush: Does everything.
Repeating history, are we?
The sad thing is that if we were the only one with all this, it probably would be true. But the real problem is that as soon as we develop something, we sell it to our enemies. They have no real need to steal all this. They can just get cozy with the right politician and then get money or dollars. Consider that W gave the taliban 10 Millions dollars in april 2001. Where do you think that it went.
50 countries... but many of those countries are actually offering no support and simply put their name on the list as to not offend the USA. I don't have the list offhand, but it includes countries that simply cannot offer support, such as Ethiopia.
and we all know that "they" are the US government? or what countries are you talking about? I am getting annoyed about people who (still) believe in the "clash of civilisations" where the poor (undemocratic) countries are going to fight the "civilised" world.
:\
Since the breakdown of the Sovjet union, the world cheered for peace and everyone did their best to join as many international treaties as possible. The few who didn't was the US. The reason: to easier fight back on socalled "evil" societies.
I find this currious, and as an example of an use of this, can be seen in an incident, where a couple of Danish soldiers killed two civilians in Iraq. They payed compensation to the families and started a trial, but I haven't heard such trials from the socalled civilised US Army (maybe they are hiding it, but why would they do that?).
What I am really asking is, is there no direct democratic control of the armies in the US? Why do you give so much control to the president and his cabinet? are you in constant mode of war?
Probably I am too stupid to understand the USA
(yes this can be compared with sex)
These are two different things. Space has been militarized almost from the get-go.
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries.
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
The US isn't going to put nuclear weapons into space because it doesn't fulfill any strategic goal.
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Also, considering the huge advances the US has made in stealth technology, wrapping the whole thing up in a stealthy package that a foreign governments radar based space tracking equipment couldn't see seems very logical.
Here's something to think about as well. When the US retired the SR-71 from active service, did you really think they didn't have a replacement coming into active service? Space based sensing is nice but it has some inherent limitations.
I would take an uneducated guess that the US has a top secret spy plane that has eclipsed all of the short comings of the SR-71.
Also, why would the US need to put nuclear weapons into space when it has a state of the art fleet of nuclear missle submarines that are roaming all over the world with lots of ICBM's that can be launched from anywhere anytime and hit anything.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
TO apply laws from an individual or craft's point of origin would encourage folks to travel in space. If the laws that apply are one's own, then one need not fear unknowingly breaking one.
By Contrast, uniform laws would encourage commercial development in space. If all the rules are the same, investors can tell what they're getting into.
A balance is probably the best solution, but where do we draw such a line?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Us: Puts some space defense.
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The reason we developed the first nuke was that we believed that Germany was well on their way to developing their own nuke during WWII. Who were the nuclear physicists who made this possible? German jews fleeing the Nazi regime.
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
I know this is going to start a flame-war but...
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
That doesn't mean one should do it...
We've also learned in the past day or so that a Pentagon agency has set aside about $68 million to spend on something called the Near Field Infrared Experiment. This is an experiment in how to identify rockets launched from the earth and, if need be, destroy them from space.
... which country do you want that to be? Would you prefer China to be the first with a weapons system in space? How about Russia? Me? I'm voting for us ... the good ole US of A. Like it or not, we're the good guys ... and I want us to have the edge -- not somebody who might use that edge against us.
Now it's that "destroy them from space" thing that is upsetting some on the left. The evil United States is going to (gasp!) "weaponize" space. We're actually going to place honest-to-goodness WEAPONS out there!
OK, my illogical, fact-challenged friends. Look at it this way. China is in space now. China isn't exactly what you would call a cuddly friend. Russia is in space also. So, that leaves three strong military powers with a presence in space. You can bet your bottom dollar that one of these countries is going to be the first to place weapons in orbit around the earth. Tell me
"Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law."
....
Well it damn well should be an quickly. We need a World moratorium on this to declare that the development of any form of weapons in space is illegal under international law and for it to take effect sooner rather than later. If not, we'll end up with the same situation as for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, where they've already proliferated an awful lot with or without any treaty, leaving us with a few countries, like the US, France, UK, Russia that all happily using nuclear complaining about other countries developing it or having it.
Weapons and war are not the answer, dialogue is the only way to peace. Or do we really believe that you can only bring reconciliation by pointing guns at people. Mr Bush and his cronies certainly seem to think so
Bah!!! You can argue these kind of facts all day!
All I know, is that I have respect for a guy that uses the position of the most poweful man on the planet to get an illicit blow job and also has the good sense to lie about it!
Do we really need another Cold War? I can see it now, the videos going "When the terrorists strike, get under your desks and pray."
I disagree with the notion that humans are antagonistic. Granted, they are self-serving, but what is good for me may also be good for you. The entire notion of service industry commerce is based on that.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
The wording of that paragraph indicates that WMDs are banned in space, and military activity is banned on the surface of planets and moons, but I don't see where applies to Weapons of Less Than Mass Destruction in free orbit. So we are free to put up a pinpoint weapon that can take out just The Terrorists (tm) from outer space, while leaving the surrounding area unharmed.
However, I think that this kind of "silver bullet" thinking is a waste of money until they figure out a better way to choose targets. It was clear from the latest Iraq war that when they used smart bombs and cruise missiles to precisely wipe out a target, they often had little clue as to what was actually inside the target, and they often had no idea where the people they really wanted to get were located.
I would prefer if they used the $Billions that they're sinking into these high-tech boondoggles to hire and train old-fashioned spies instead. If we had only had a few reliable high-level moles in Iraq, we could have avoided that whole war altogether. We would have known that WMDs weren't an issue, and the pissing match between Saddam and the Bush clan could have been handled by just killing Saddam & sons. (This could have been accomplished an off-the-shelf cruise missile if we had actual accurate information about where they were. There would have been some international protest about "illegal assasination", but that would have blown over much quicker than the current quagmire.) This would have saved thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Clinton: War in Iraq without even alerting the UN (remember 1999 around the time of the Lewinski scandal??)
Bush: 2 more UN Resolutions and a war that actually deposes Saddam as opposed to only blowing up buildings with smart bombs.
The Difference: Moveon.org approved of Clinton's war, but didn't approve of Bush's.
Integrity on Slashdot my ass.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
True, but if you RTFA, you'll see that there are no nuclear or other WMDs involved. You see, at orbital velocities, you can just toss some ball bearings or other inert objects into a satellite/missile's path to destroy it. Sometimes low-tech can be pretty effective.
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
You do realize that a "cold war" does not involve fighting..
Maybe not direct fighting, but there was certainly a lot of fighting "by proxy" on both sides of the Cold War. For some parts of the world, the Cold War was decidedly very, very hot.
One of the most potent weapons we have uses the GPS network orbiting the earth to assit targeting.
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years) Uh...that was bogus...also keep in mind that the Gov't's own figures on growth during much of his years had to be revised. Why? They were inflated.
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support Uh...can you count?
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history Where are these figures? Bush: Most job losses since great depression Yeah, more people are in the job market. Very few women worked in the 20's and 30's compared to today. Oh, and the bad 5.7 unemployment rate? yeah, they called 5.6 "low" during the Clinton years.
Move along, folks, don't stare at the liberal idiot he's sensitive! Dork.
I worry about more than that, I worry about the closing of space for generations!
But in reality, space does not clear after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets--all have already become tiny satellites, traveling at about 27,000 kilometers per hour, 10 times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. A marble traveling at such speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton safe dropped from a three-story building. Anything it strikes will be destroyed and only increase the debris.
With enough orbiting debris, pieces will begin to hit other pieces, fragmenting them into more pieces, which will in turn hit more pieces, setting off a chain reaction of destruction that will leave a lethal halo around the Earth. To operate a satellite within this cloud of millions of tiny missiles would be impossible: no more Hubble Space Telescopes or International Space Stations. Even communications and GPS satellites in higher orbits would be endangered. Every person who cares about the human future in space should also realize that weaponizing space will jeopardize the possibility of space exploration.
and
These satellites are already at increasing risk from space debris. At any moment, only about 200 kilograms of meteoroid mass are within 2,000 kilometers of the Earth's surface. But within this same altitude range are roughly 3 million kilograms of orbiting debris introduced by human activities, most from about 3,000 spent rocket stages and now-inactive satellites. Most of the approximately 4,000 additional objects several centimeters in size or larger resulted from the fragmentation of more than 120 satellites.
That's from Bullitin of the atomic scientists. link
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
How about the person who wants to be educated?
What, the five year old child? Yeah, what a bunch of freeloading bastards those 1st graders are!
Whats that, you believe the parents should pay directly for their childs education? O.K, sounds like a plan as long as you know how to take care of those children unfortunate enough to have only one parent through no fault of their own.
Libertarionism wouldn't be a bad idea if it didn't constantly ignore many of the realities of life.
>>Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
>>Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
>>Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
>>Bush: Most job losses since great depression
These are one and the same. Umm... Bigest bubble since the great depresion. Linux.com having a greater value than SGI??? A lot of that expansion was pure bubble. The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Lets not forget that what real growth was caused by a little thing called the Internet. Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
>>Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
>>Bush: War in Iraq with NO international suppor
What about Hati? What about the Cruise Missle attack on the Sudan? What about Somalia?
And as far as Terrorism what about the first World Trade Center Bombing? The Federal Building bombing?
What about no increase of funding for NASA even though there was a huge surplus?
As far as Gay rights what about don't ask don't tell and the defence of Marrage act?
It is just that simple????
Clinton Good? Sorry I just do not see it.
I am not all that thrilled with Bush but Clinton was a NIGHTMARE!!!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The way I see it, this is one big pork barrel. From a military perspective, it seems quite useless. The two major threats to the US are terrorism and nuclear missiles. I don't see how space militarization will be more than marginally effective against terrorism. Furthermore, we know that a space shield is probably never going to be effective at stopping nukes. Tests to take down simple ballistic missiles were only marginally succesful and there are plenty of ways to increase the effectiveness of nukes. Multiple warheads and scramjet propulsion are just two techniques which complicate the interception of nukes by many orders of a magnitude.
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
that would be an incredibly useful military weapon. Remeber when Bill Clinton "wagged the dog" during Lewinskigate and tried to kill Osama by lobbing a few missles at him? The time it took for the missles to travel to their destination gave Bin Laden ample time to escape.
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
The USA likes to have the biggest guns, but gets all worried when someone else might have a weapon.
What is it that makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to ignore a worldwide ban on weapons research / deployment? What makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to use weapons of mass destruction if they had them?
Let's just say no weapons in space, full stop.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
No, it's the parent's responsibility to make sure the child gets an education by either homeschooling them or sending them to either the state provided school system or a private school.
It is the responsiblity of the state and federal government to make sure every child has access to at least elementary and high school education and the oppurtunity to further that education. That is why state and federal dollars go to public schools and universities.
Please help me understand why this is news?
The U.S. Government is charged with "providing a common defense" in the Constitution. If a satellite can detect a missle attack and respond to it, how is this a bad thing?
OK.
New revised Slashbot ideals:
#1. Republicans suck.
#2. Democrats suck.
Mix with reality:
#3. There is no alternative to the two.
The only problem with this is that it puts all of us into that category of people called 'radicals'. After all, even if both sides are total shit, you *have* to support one of them or else noone listens to a word you say.
Try to bash Bush and you get people attacking Clinton, saying he was no better.
Try to attack Clinton and you get the anti-Bush rhetoric that started this thread.
Try to say that the whole system sucks and you get people labelling you a tin-foil mad hatter.
Politics make me want to cry.
The facts have never been on the pro-Saddam side.
There never was a "pro-Saddam" side. Anti-war != pro-Saddam, just as those who oppose the pro-life movement on abortion are not "pro-death".
Those of us who opposed the war didn't do so because we loved Saddam, we did so because we felt that our tax dollars would be better spent on ending conflicts (Afghanistan, Palestine, possibly parts of Africa) than on starting new ones - that, to put it bluntly, while the invasion of Iraq certainly rescued a few hundred thousand Iraqis from an oppressive and evil regime, the money we spent on that, if we'd used it for other things, could have rescued millions of Asians and Africans from other equally nasty regimes.
Let's not forget the devastating effects of one of the first big space-related treaties: the Outer Space Treaty, which prevents any nation from laying claim to any celestial body. While it may theoretically have done us some good by preventing wars on the Moon, the negative impact is far more profound: by taking away the major incentive for a country to rush into space, i.e. resource ownership, it set the cause of space exploration back decades. Remember all of those Heinlein stories full of humans in outer space by now? They were there because the government went there, and those governments went there to *own* what they found.
Now I admit that I'm not a fan of the large-scale militarization of space...I think that would be a terrible thing, especially since we're finally getting close to a point where private citizens/enterprises can really blast into space exploration. I just would hate to see a rush on the other side of the coin from militarization that held us back as bad as the Outer Space Treaty did.
How To Get Humans To Mars
Everything not expressly forbidden is mandatory.
To fight drugs?
Some of it, perhaps.
Of course, you're starting from the premise that fighting drugs is a good thing. We aren't all convinced that an administration that takes huge contributions from the manufacturers of dangerous and highly addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol, while wasting millions of dollars fighting other addictive substances, is necessarily on the side of Good
Am I the only one who sees this as no big deal?
IMO, weapons in space are a given. At a minimum, we want to be able to stop someone else from shooting down our own satellites.
A good example would be the GPS system. This system is responsible for not just military navigation, but civilian aircraft landings and navigation (w/ WAAS), and synchronizing both our communications networks and our power grid.
A loss of the GPS satellites above our country could be a VERY big problem:
blackouts, plane crashes, network and telephone outages (both wired and cellular), and probably some more issues I'm not aware of.
And that's never even considering the consequences it would have on our military.
Although it would have less shock value, losing a bunch of satellites could possibly disrupt this country MORE than 9/11.
Am I the only one who isn't yelling: "OMG weapons in space! We're all gonna get zapped by lasers like in Real Genius!"
I just don't see weapons in space as a big issue. They're only going to be used for very specfic applications because they're going to be really fucking expensive.
Weapons is space will be used for protecting valuable assets (satellites and space stations) and shooting down ICBMs.
If we want to rain death from above on some earth-based taget, we're going to use an airplane. The only real offensive use I see for space-based weapons would be to shoot down someone else's satellites.
Life is too short to proofread.
Do you have documentation of that? Apart from some whacko from the Village Voice?
Why isn't John Kerry talking about this at nearly every single appearance!? Could it be because there's no truth to it? Or are you now going to claim Kerry as a co-conspirator?
Saddam used chemical munitions (last I checked these were classified as WMDs) against the Kurds. This fact is undisputed. So, he has had WMDs in the past. There is no evidence according to Hans Blix that Saddam has destroyed his chemical stockpile.
To quote Doctor Evil: Educating children is an investment in the future and an absolute bargain by any standards.
Every dollar spent educating children pays huge dividends in the future. Having a well-educated workforce is THE best way to ensure a prosperous future for everyone. Even the neo-cons who only think in the immediate term should be able grok that one. Education is positively corelated to income, and a better education means having more options when the economy goes flat compared to someone who can just flip burgers. More people with larger incomes is surely in everyone's best interests!
Unless you deliberately want the masses to remain poor and ignorant...
Anyone who believes they don't have a military objective with space is only deluding themselves.
The question is, do you want to wait till it IS a problem or do something now?
Kind of like the questions asked about our lack of reaction to the bombing WTC in the 90s... we know how that turned out.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't buy the negative portrayals of either Kerry or Bush, though. Too many people get their information from the attack ads of opposing candidates, rather than actually bothering to learn about their real records.
As far as I'm concerned, either one would do a fairly good job as President for the upcoming term, and neither would be perfect.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
I don't know, I've seen a lot of interest in people my age this year (mid twenties). Much more than when the last election came lumbering through. I'd love to see some record voter turnout this year.
It is scarey to think about apathy though. I was watching some show about the early 1900's last night. It made me think, wow, my grandparents were alive during all this. And then i took another step back in time, their grandparents were possibly alive during the early 1800's. And another generation or two back and your at the American Revolution. How far we've fell from being accountable for our government, and our government being accountable to us.
The case for Government funding education is a simple economic arguement: "Every dollar you spend now will get you two in the future." :)
Well, that's true of Americans. But just because it's true of you, doesn't mean it's true everywhere in the world.
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature.
The original poster shows ingnorance both of European history (world history for that matter) and human nature. What militarily-strong countries throughout history have not been involved in war?
The original poster was referring to a human tendancy, not a tendancy of any specific country. Therefore, the cheap shot on the US was unwarranted.
Umm, we would have won? Some things are worth fighting for -- freedom is one of them. Talk to a Korean War vet and ask them what they thought of the retreat from the Yulu River -- having to abandon villages and cities they had liberated to the communists. Villages that had welcomed them as heroes and liberators.
In hindsight McArthur was right. The Chinese didn't have nukes at this time and the Russians only had a few -- and they had been unwilling to directly involve themselves in the war. There would be a united Korea today and quite possibly a free China. But instead of using a few tactical nukes on the Chinese soldiers when they attacked us we let it turn into a stalemate along the lines of the Western Front in WW1. Millions of people died (mostly Chinese and North Koreans but that's small comfort -- a Human Being is a Human Being) for no gain.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yeah, that'll really calm the terrorists down won't it. We can all be certain of global peace and happiness now.
BTW, if you can't find them now to shoot at them (OBL still at large IIRC), what makes you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to change this? And do you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to make anti-American sentiment (a) weaker or (b) stronger, particularly when (NOT if) they misfire and zap some perfectly innocent soul. (Clue: the answer isn't (a).)
Space defense has all the appearance of a Maginot line. Its very expensive to build and very easy to defeat, especially in an age of asymmetric warfare. When the most devastating attack in U.S. history was done with civilian airlines explain to me the value of fixating on missile defense. Its a relic of cold war thinking when the one true threat the U.S. had was a missile attack from the U.S.S.R.
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
@de_machina
I can just see it now.... Some alien species is going to see this and wonder "WTF, they have space weapons, and they're pointed at themselves!?"
Thats because they were never classified as soldiers to begin with. A criminal or terrorist does not become a soldeir simply by picking up a gun. Did you know there are qualifications to be a prisoner of war? To simplify it they are:
1 25 63cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument
1. Must be answerable to a commander;
2. Must have a distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance on their uniform;
3. Must openly carry arms (weapons);
4. Must conduct their operations in line with the laws of war.
Here is the text of the treaty if you care to actually read it instead of just spewing anti-US rhetoric.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b08868538c2c
These distinctions like uniforms are what help protect civilians in times of war. They are the slim incentive to soldiers who otherwise may have none at all to act with what human decency is possible during a war. It's really pretty simple, follow the rules of war, and you are garaunteed certain rights in event of capture. Don't follow those rules and you have no rights, got it?
Weapons in space have been in existence for some time. If you call a duck a duck, then a satellite with a sole response of killing another satellite is a weapon. The Soviets demonstrated their capabilities quite some time ago to perform this maneuver. To be honest, Star Wars scared the beejeesus out of the Soviets and they tried every measure possible to stop us from developing it. When we "won" the cold war, there wasn't a reason to keep the measure alive since no other country was so capable of putting a nuke on our doorstep in minutes.
This is why Cuba was such a huge issue for us. No time to counter a first strike. If you'll note, we always strike with a heavy first blow, because it's strategically important to do so.
Getting back on-topic. Given the facts above, I really question the credility or motives of the "Expert" cited in the article. Anyone involved in Space, and most certainly any Air Force related personnel, would know about the previous weapons. I've got a copy of the USAF Space Handbook (issued to AF Officers in Space Command), dated over 10 years ago, which outline the Soviet's program in good detail.
The rest of the posts on here seem to really stray off topic, but I'll entertain a few. The problem the US has had is that we see things differently than a good number out there. Conversely, they each see things differently than every one else as well. So there's two foreign policies you can follow:
1. Isolationism
2. Work with the other governments to further your agenda
I'd say anyone even remotely familiar with history would agree that option 1 is no option at all. We tried ignoring Osama Bin Laden, the Japanese and German agression in WWIII and others, yet we eventually get sucked in anyway. We can engage in the "chicken and egg", or cause and effect conversation until we're each sleepy or bored, yet neither of us will ever have the definitive correct answer. The key to courage is to make the best of what you have today and move forward.
This is why we've changed our posture. Is it aggressive? Sure. But so have our enemies...
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
Launched the first cold war? Nukes, kept the cold war cold. Without nukes, it's pretty fair to say there would have been much more violence in the 20th century.
Further, the only two nukes ever used militarily (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) took ~200,000 lives directly. Not millions. (Yes, obviously increased radiation for a period of time took some more).
It's also relatively certain that a traditional invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives than that.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You read that on indimedia didn't you ?
Cause sure like hell I never seen any of this being discussed anywhere and , unlike you, I can read Polish newspapers.
Sure, but don't kid yourself about how they got there.
It's less of a coalition and more like paying for the boss' birthday present. Even if they think he is a jackass, most people put in a few bucks and write a phony greeting on the card. Especially, as in this case, if the boss has made it clear that anyone who doesn't contribute will face problems in the work place.
Some governments decided that good relations with the US was more important than other considerations, and ponyed up some troops. But the population of every single country in the "alliance" is/was strongly against the war, including the UK. All in all, a pretty funny way of fighting for democracy, IMHO...
Some of those countries received quite substantial monetary favors in exchange for their support, which is why it's been called "The coalition of the billing'.
The first gulf war was like WW1. It didn't solve any of the root problems that led to its start. As a result the gulf war accomplished very little. The bombing in 1997(?) accomplished more. The attack by the israelis accomplished more (1980 something). But none solved the root problem - Iraq was not a peaceful nation and it remained in a very sensitive region. Gulf war 1 didn't make Iraq peaceful. It only contained Iraq. And like all tactics of containment, it was bound to eventually fail. They say the causes of W2 began in the armistace that ended WW1. They didn't, the reasons for WW2 began before WW1. WW1 didn't solve anything becuase it was by exhaustion and not decision that the war ended. The same with Gulf war 1. It was not by decision that it ended. Our victory wasn't a final victory. So the problems that caused the first remained to cause the second.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Clinton was not involved in that (I think he was humpin Monica at the time). It was the intelligence community and border police we have to thank for that. The 93 WTC bombing did kill people, on Clinton's watch. Why wasn't he more proactive? Was he distracted ? Where is the congressional hearing on that, huh? Oh, it's OK because he's a liberal.
I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
Clinton and his cabinet were absolutley convinced that Iraq had WMD's. There are lots of quotes to prove that if you look a bit.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of. You have shown zero compassion for the Kurds (who were in fact the victims of WMD's) or the Shites (brutally massacred after the 91 Gulf War), but your heart bleeds for the enemy soldiers at Gitmo. Give me a break! This isn't about being right or compassionate, it's about getting power back from the Republicans, any way you can. For liberals, the ends justify the means, and if that means you have to wish for a bad economy to get back in power, that's what you do. So wish away, but the economy looks like its coming back quite well, good news for the average American, but bad news for you liberals who have positioned yourselves to only benefit from the misfortune of America. No wonder you're so incensed that Bush is doing a great job, it makes your gloom and doom stories so much less believable. Sad really.
Who's pathetic and racist? You and your egostistical cronies. If you don't like the way America is, why don't you emigrate to France? They will welcome you with open arms since you think like their politicians (If it makes us rich and powerful, it must be OK).
The Spanish people elected a much more fascist and greedy government than they had before. The terrorists won, evil-minded totalitarians in Spain won, and the Spanish people lost.
The Spanish people lived under Franco for decades. I think they know a lot more about totalitarian fascism than you could ever claim to.
The previous Spanish Government went to war with opinion polls 90% against it, and the reasons for the war were later found to be completely spurious. They were then seen to be covering up the causes of the terrorist bombing. Is this the sort of behaviour you want to reward?
deus does not exist but if he does