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)
Someone really should search the U.S. fro WMDs.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Clinton: Good
Bush: Bad
It is that simple. Restore Integrity my ass.
the United States of America, in its quest to isolate itself from the rest of the world.
"But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources."
Then it should be a 'sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources' treaty and forget the Global Warming(tm) crap. There are very good reasons to limit reliance on fossil fuels, we don't need typical lefty lies to promote that.
"Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs"
You seriously think that CO2 emissions will have "a health toll on our lungs"? What planet is this you're on?
"Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing,"
No, they're moronic, and would have minimal impact on "Global Warming" if it's actually happening. It's purely a desperate last-minute lefty attempt to bring global industry under their control before it gets completely out of control.
The amusing thing is that it wouldn't even achieve that, now that outsourcing is moving so much energy-consuming manufacturing to China, which wouldn't be affected by Kyoto restrictions! Yet the lefties who support Kyoto whine about outsourcing...
Where have we seen global warming? On what planet??
We only have evidence on regional warming, and we also have evidence on regional cooling. And thoses only if you look at specific times.
Funny about that whole "NO international support" thing. I participated in the war (I wasn't in danger of getting shot, so I can't really say I "fought" in it, especially since I have friends who did), and where I sat at the Northern Command Center, there was a British officer on the other side of the common desk, and usually two or three Turkish officers just to my left. I would also regularly talk with Italian, Bulgarian, and Greek allies over telephone, coordinating missions. Guess those are just provinces of the US in your worldview, huh?
As for the economic things you list:
1) The recession started on Clinton's watch, and is the fault of the dot-com implosion. An implosion which wouldn't've happened if Clinton hadn't encourage a short sighted bubble economy to develop.
2) That projected surplus went away once all the income from dot-bombs went away.
3) Same with the jobs.
4) Clinton (thank God, 'cause he would've screwed it up) didn't have to deal with 9/11. Bush did, and did so as a leader, not a poll reader.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
from those criminal states WMD...
Luckely, the US has a president with his prio's straight..
"/Dread"
The last humiliation is more or less 30 years old, so we might need a new one.
Cheers!!!
Let's go get them fuckin' Aussies. First we'll lure AC/DC into building a summer home here promising them toilets that flush in the other direction, then we'll bomb the piss out of every white boy running around that says "cheers" and leave the whole continent to the kangaroos.
And those other people, you know, the ones that were already there. I'm sure we can justify invading Australia with some sort of human rights argument based on ye aborigines.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Amazing. They must have been particularly brilliant scientists to be able to deploy a strawman argument in only 5 words!
..."
:)
"A nearly impermeable strategic defense
Besides, a point by point analysis of their reasons:
--Underflying: Valid criticism; however, does that mean that if you have a gun and a knife, and I have the opportunity to reasearch a defense against the gun, I shouldn't? All of the alternatives are defendable by OTHER MEANS, procedural, technical, etc. Not 100% of course, but Ballistic Missiles - there's pretty much not squat you can do about it when it's launched...yet.
-- Overwhelming: As usual, scientific brilliance doesn't equate to understanding Realpolitik. Inducing a % chance of failure in the other's vulnerability calculus can quickly make the idea of first-strike as prevention of a 2nd strike impossible. The fact that they could overwhelm the defenses is irrelevant, if there is a significant number of surviving retaliatory warheads. Besides, now that the nuclear arsenals are much, much smaller would these scientists concede that an SDI program is now more effective in probability? I would guess not.
-- Outfoxing: True, but again, every decoy built into a MIRV is effectively a kill, as it replaces a warhead. Besides, most SDI plans talk about multilayer defenses, including boost-phase kills before spoofs and decoys would deploy.
-- Cost: Irony, table of one. Irony, table of one. Are these the same scientists that are willing to throw BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars at the most esoteric pure-research programs detecting primal particles (SSSC) or gravity waves?
-- Soviet preemption: Ridiculous circular logic. Because I'm safer from them, they are more likely to attack me? That's like in the article: Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space." R-i-i-g-h-t. We have more undefended satellites in space than anyone, and are more dependent on satellite tech than anyone, but we're SAFER if we don't try to protect them? Sure, and you must live in Bizarro World? Because (heavens!) nobody would EVER consider attacking American satellites until those nasty, stinky, warmongering AMERICANS came up with the idea of weapons in space. All of the other peace-loving peoples of the world, like the woodland bunnies and squirrels, would have lived in peace & hearmoy without the greedy capitalist Uncle SAM! (insert hallucinogenic here)
-- Institutional momentum: this is a description, begging the question that it's "bad". I don't hear them arguing that institutional momentum is such a bad thing for other multi-trillion dollar boondoggles like REA, TVA, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc. ?
Conclusion: even idealist scientists are not beyond a little chicanery to advance their politics. (Not that that should surprise anyone.)
-Styopa
-1: Troll
And you think in a country where power is bought with the almighty dollar, that your opinions matter?
What the poster said is that "there is no democratic control of the armed forces." I think that having one person as the commander in cheif is not a "democratic control." Especially when much of the US and most of the world disagrees with his decision to go to war.
You're in denial, man. Must be all those pledges of allegiance etc etc. Get over your nauseating patriotism and admit your country can do, has done, and will do wrong.
-=- 4ntifa -=-
Sorry wrong. We have now, have had for some years - and will have forevermore space based rail guns.
There is a famous video that was taken from the space shuttle that was analyzed which showed a foreign object fly close to the earth from off camera (outer space) which was then fired upon by a satellite which was equipped with rail guns. The object - then made a 14G 90 degree turn.
Rail guns fire projectiles at ~18K MPH - yet were unable to hit the object seen in the video...
I am googling for it now - can't find it yet.