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)?
...is it could be the start of a new cold war, or at least cause some countries to get a little nervous about the U.S.
Specifically, China.
not forbidden, but looks like it may be:
" In concluding, I would like to stress that efforts to achieve a ban on the weaponization of outer space must continue so as to protect the space assets of all nations in the interests of international peace and security."
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.
That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this
.technomancer
Who cares? Even if it were, we all know by now that international treaties and international law are null and void. They can do whatever they please.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Last November, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Outer Space Treaty, reserving space for peaceful use only. But the United States abstained from the vote. The region beyond the stratosphere is seen by the Pentagon as a theater of engagement. A 1996 Air Force report predicts "space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness [will] effect very many kills ... This technology [is] advanced at Los Alamos National Lab and other nuclear weapons labs" (Air and Space Power for the 21st Century).
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
NASA and the USAF have joined forces to place two hundred Spud guns in orbit! GotSpud
whenever I see "[whatever] in Space" of the old Muppets "Pigs in Spaaaaace!" .
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.
It is forbidden to put nuclear weapons into space but in the end we still dont know if the US is going to respect international treaties.
No International Law YET governs the deployment of arms in space. In the even that space tourism & travel catches on, I'm sure we'll see more regluation on where such devices may fly, much like warships on the seas now.
My question is, should such travel become common, do my State & Federal (SD, US) rights to carry arms permit me to carry my OWN arms into space on my own craft?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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.
There have been persistent rumors that Salyut-3 had a 23mm autocannon mounted, and occasional denials.
On another level, any reaction drive is useful as a weapon in proportion to its efficiency, which was the topic of a Larry Niven story some years back.
-- Jeff Paulsen
Kinetic energy weapons are probably useful, but testing and re-use are extremely difficult things in the harsh space environment.
If you have a manned presence in space, the most effective weapon to take out an enemy satellite is probably a shotgun.
So, pretty much any military activity in space is banned by THAT treaty. Okay so not everyone accepts it, but then the US not accepting the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean no-one else is going to uphold it.
... is going to end up like Nazi Germany and The Roman Empire, if they keep going against the UN. This weaponizing of space is clearly in violation of this UN treaty; and Slashdot missed this? I for one recommend Mr Rumsfeld step down from his administrative duties at Slashdot! And this could be the start of the next cold war. *sigh*
"Mars has recently sought significant quantities of urainum, from Africa."
blech
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
How would we defend against the Gouald? The Asguard weren't arround last time they attacked, and the only help we got from the rebel Jaffa was Bra'tac. The Tok'ra were naturally ignoring us, if it wasnt for the F302 and X303 (And a little help from O'Neill) we'd have been deadified. The no weapons in space or Antarctica agreements work against the whole world.
The Soviets have already deployed offensive weapons in space. A large calibre cannon was included on the Salyut-3 space station. In tests, it is reported to have destroyed a target satellite during testing.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
From the link in the post itself, for the article, which claims to demonstrate that weapons aren't prohibited in any way in space...
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, whose 35th anniversary we are commemorating this year, establishes the principles governing peaceful activities of States in outer space. The Treaty bans the orbiting and stationing of nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It further provides that the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any kind of weapon and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies. These principles were further elaborated by the Moon Treaty of 1979.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I don't think the militraization of the space could be prevented until ballistic missiles outlawed. If ballistic missiles, including medium-range forbidden there wouldn't be exuse for space based weapon. While a lot of ballistic missiles are around space based antimissile system coud be considered a legitimate defence.
Only if you're prepared to fly backwards rather uncontrollably for a while...
Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?
Well, our enemies already have ill-tempered sea bass with frickin' laser beams. Seems the next logical step is for us to put weapons in orbit capable of neutralizing this horrible threat.
The problem I see with weapons in space (and was wondering if someone here could help me) is that when you shoot a bullet in orbit the gun goes backwards relationally to the bullet it sends foward. So how can any reasonable weapons system maintain accuracy if it moves several miles between shots?
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
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.
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.
Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space.
This guy must not have been alive during the cold way. I don't care what the nuclear space ban treay says, I am positive both the USA AND USSR put nukes in space during the cold war. That also includes ani-satelite satelites.
"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already"
I get the feeling I have heard this before. Mainly from people who believe something to be impossible right before someone else goes and does it. Besides, at some point someone will put some form of weapon in space, I just don't know what kind. The question I have is, who is going to be the police?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Vaporizing a human target from space? and all this time I thought 'Real Genius' was just a movie
VBJonC
You might be right! :-)
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
I thought it was forbidden by the Brannigan's law and the Democratic Order of Planets.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Humans are naturally antagonistic. Violence is our nature. Peace is universally sought after, but it is always only a temporarily-reachable goal, because the only way to achieve it is to make the consequences of attacking too severe. Then somebody discovers a way to lessen those consequences, so another "preventative measure" must be found...
Realize that benefits other than protection will almost certainly come from this as well. Advances in technology, science, etc. will be made.
Typos... that's just how I role.
I suspect we've had weapons in space for some time. Reagan cut the Star Wars project budget at a time of its exponential growth ... why? Probably so that we didn't have to keep public all the vast improvements we were making in the field of lasers.
Why go back to the moon? Because in military conflict higher ground gives you an advantage. Why build a space station when we're already got a natural space station that orbits us already?
rant,rant,rant..
*DrugCheese rants*
> They'd investigate for 3 years, and come back and say that they saw nothing wrong there.
if(WMDs == 0) $US = 'fullashit';
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.
You mean, there gonna send all the politicians and lawyers into space?
BTW, IAAL
What about if i put a giant "Laser" on the moon??
I plan to turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star"
c - a blessed +5 grain of salt
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
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.
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.
The US is part of the world. It has to start acting like it.
"Anything worth doing in space can be turned into a weapon" -Larry Niven, N-Space
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
the US Coalition will dominate the world with ION Cannons from space, while terrorists will be stuck in the stone age firing nuclear weapons.
What about the famous "Star Wars" project under Reagan? Sagan led the charge against it even making fun of the concept at one point. The point still standing that, when all is said and done, it's simply impractical to implement military deployment, of any kind, in space especially when considering the cost:
WHY STAR WARS IS DANGEROUS AND WON'T WORK By Carl Sagan, Hans A. Bethe, Henry W. Kendall, Kurt Gottfried, Richard L. Garwin, Victor F. Weisskopf
The following statement by six prominent scientists on the dangers of Star Wars appeared as part of a letter to The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 1985
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5561
A nearly impermeable strategic defense system would indeed have the capability to "save lives" rather than to "avenge them," to replace strategic deterrence by defense. But such a system is not in the cards, as even the program's director, General James Abrahamson, readily admits. Anything short of an impermeable system tends to undermine, not improve, US national security. Here are some of the reasons that we consider the Star Wars scheme unworkable and a grave danger to the United States:
-- Underflying: Star Wars does not defend against, or even address, low-altitude delivery systems--bombers and cruise missiles, and "suitcase" nuclear weapons. By themselves, they are able to destroy both nations; Star Wars would accelerate their development.
-- Overwhelming: The number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal (as in our own) is about 10,000. If even a few percent of these warheads exploded on US territory it would represent an unparalleled human disaster and effective collapse of the United States as a functioning political entity. The Soviets could keep ahead of any American Star Wars system because it is cheaper to build new warheads than to shoot down old ones (and easier to shoot down orbiting defensive systems than incoming missiles).
-- Outfoxing: It is cheaper to build countermeasures than to build Star Wars. Some decades in the future when a (still highly permeable) US Star Wars system might be deployed, the Soviets would have added tens or hundreds of thousands of decoys and other penetration aids to their arsenal. Their objective would be to fatally confuse the American Star Wars system, which can never be adequately tested except in a real nuclear war.
-- Cost: Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown and James Schlesinger, and senior Pentagon spokesmen of this Administration, have all estimated the full Star Wars cost as hundreds of billions to one trillion dollars.
-- Soviet preemption: Despite US reassurances, the Soviets perceive Star Wars as part of a US first strike strategy, allowing us to launch a preemptive attack and then to destroy the remnant of any surviving Soviet retaliatory forces. In a time of severe crisis, this may tempt the Soviet Union to make a preemptive first strike against the United States.
-- Institutional momentum: When a trillion dollars is waved at the US aerospace industry, the project in question will rapidly acquire a life of its own--independent of the validity of its public justifications. With jobs, corporate profits, and civilian and military promotions at stake, a project of this magnitude, once started, becomes a juggernaut, the more difficult to stop the longer it rolls on.
We do not oppose defense in principle. We are in favor of carefully bounded research in this area, as in many others; we are also concerned that the line between research and early deployment of key Star Wars components not be blurred. Several of us have devoted considerable effort to research on missile defense. Some of us have advocated missile defense for individual missile silos. But we agree with Department of Defense experts who make it clear that cities cannot be so protected. Mr. Schlesinger has said "in our lifetime and that of our children, cities will be protected by forebearance of those on the other side, or through effective deterrence."
Hans A. Bethe
Richard L. Garwin
Kurt Gottfried
Henry W. Kendall
Carl Sagan
Victor Weisskopf
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
List of Countries With Troops in Iraq
By The Associated Press
November 13, 2003, 4:40 PM EST
Countries besides the United States that are assisting in postwar Iraq:
Albania -- 71 non-combat troops in northern Iraq.
Azerbaijan -- 150 troops for law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.
Bulgaria -- 485 troops patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 are to be sent.
Dominican Republic - 300 troops
El Salvador - 360
Honduras - 360
Nicaragua - 120
Czech Republic -- 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.
Denmark -- 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.
Georgia -- 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.
Estonia -- 55 troops.
Hungary -- 300 transportation troops.
Italy -- 3,000 troops.
Japan -- Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.
Kazakhstan -- 27 troops.
Latvia -- 106 troops.
Lithuania -- 90 troops.
Macedonia -- 28 troops.
Moldova -- Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.
Netherlands -- 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.
New Zealand -- 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.
Norway -- 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.
Philippines -- 177 troops.
Poland -- 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.
Portugal -- 120 police officers.
Romania -- 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.
Slovakia -- 82 military engineers.
South Korea -- 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.
Spain -- 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.
Thailand -- 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.
Ukraine -- 1,640 troops.
United Kingdom -- 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned
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
"Ronnie Ray-gun"... that reminds me of a game I used to play on the Amiga. I wish I could remember the name. It was all about nuking eack other. It had parodies of all the main end of cold war leaders. I seem to remember being quite amused by the game and I wish I could play it again - it balanced up the more serious Conflict Europe that I used to play at the same time on my PC.
something called the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space" or something
Or is this another treaty that Bush has decided to ignore (like the one with the russians banning Defensive Missiles and such)
I need to get the government to give me millions of dollars to figure out how to deliver a flaming bag of dogshit onto someone's front porch...from orbit. Think of the applications...
"Psst! That's Saddam's house! Do it!"
"No way!"
"Don't be a chickenshit!"
"I'll do it if I can do it from orbit!"
blog |
gun on spacecraft invented first. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzvi.htm Sorry tinfoil hat crowd, you're decades too late.
...ever read Stanislaw Lem's "Fiasco"? >:\
When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed....
only Outlaws will have Orbital Weapons Platforms!
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!
We have watched you for millions of years. We have watched you grow and advance and learn and war and love and die.
We have viewed you babarity with curiousity that a race of such intelligence could ravage its own. We have seen you let your own starve when your Earth produces more than enough for all. We have only watched.
Whilst you have been left alone, we cannot allow you to bring your babaric ways into the vastness of the universe. Your weapons will not be tollerated above your atmosphere.
You have been warned.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
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!
Mitch: This is coherent light.
Mitch's dad: Oh, so it talks.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
OK. Read your own quotation. Military activity in space of the sort being discussed in the article relates specifically to satellites orbiting the earth.
The quotation you provided refers to the placement of military bases and structures on other celestial bodies. So no bases on the moon or mars. Military activity in space has been around since the very first ICBMs. Read your own damn quote please.
--Kevin
there is some stuff about it here:8 .htm
http://www.astronautix.com/details/sal3167
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.
are then renamed The State...
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
There you go trying to make a joke, and those damn idiot mods ruin your day by marking it up insightful. Never underestimate the intelligence of slashdot. Mainly because you can't.
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 know how you see a word for the first time, and then you keep seeing it for the following week? Over the weekend I saw the movei "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and the evil brainwashing company was Lacuna Inc. Now, this UN document also uses lacuna - it means "A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity"; applicable to both cases.
That would be Nuclear War. Such a morbid, hilarious game.
detailed information about any death machine you could possibly think of.
Also see missile defense (Condi's favourite),
or nukes
or conventional weapons.
Tons of material there...
First of all, The Kyoto Treaty was a joke. I find it totally irrelevent to anything productive. I'm glad we didn't sign it and frankly, it's has nothing to do with this issue. Second, yes we are "part of the world" but we're a sovreign nation. When it comes to security, it's me first. I cease to care about the world at large when it comes to defense because by nature I have to put self first. The U.S. gives more nations monetary help than any other nation on the planet. No one is more benevolent than we are. This idea that we need to somehow see ourselves as "just another nation on the planet" and that THAT translates to giving up some of our sovreignty to people like the U.N. (Yeah, the U.N. is the world body that put Libya in charge of it's Human Rights arm) or any other world body is a joke. How our putting a weapon of defense or offense into space violates some other nation's right is beyond me. Like most arguments anti-US it comes down to jealousy. Those nations lack the technology and I'm supposed to refrain from using mine out of guilt. I stopped caring less for the world and more for my country on Sept. 12, 2001.
Especially those who have done the most harm to the USA in the last 50 years? What was it again? Nukes? Anthrax? Laser guided super bombs? Oh no, that's right...Stanley knives!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
The fun thing is to go down that list and tick 'em off like this (in no particular order): Bribed, bribed, bribed, invaded by US a few years back and still scared, bribed, bribed, needs to keep Americans sweet because of scary neighbour to the north, bribed, bullied, bribed, still under US occupation, bribed, bribed, Prime Minister actually believes in weapons of mass destruction even the 45-minute thing and had nothing whatsoever to do with naming of Dr Kelly and didn't lie and anyone who says otherwise is a lefty, bribed, bribed, now pulling out after unpopular pro-war Prime Minister lost election, bribed, bribed...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"What are you doing with a gun in space?" - from Armageddon movie
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.
How come they managed to crash-land in China and get captured by the Chinese, then? Gone a bit off-course by mistake?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
The Federal Government shouldn't have anything to do with education beyond handing money out to the states.
There is no need for a Department of Ecuation beyond that role of handing out some of the funds taken from the Federal Taxes. Education should be handled by the States, Counties, School Districts and Cities.
Seriously - if he can't pocket money from something, he's not interested. It sounds like a typical bashing of an unpopular politician, but it's true. 100%. He's the epitome of the professional politician. His wheels are greased by cash. He doesn't care about America. I mean, he's dealt with the Bin Ladens and the Taliban, all for money.
Bush = very, very bad for everyone. Even those he says he's standing for.
There's one thing that you have to say about Republican administration. They very rarely have to come up with a "front" initiative to mask defense spending.
"We need more guns"
"OK, go buy some... Next..."
"Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five."
We're not #1 yet, but we'll definately overtake Soviet Russia soon. They've only had 2 vetoes since the collapse.
I don't think any treaty or law will stop any nation to put weapons in space. I was hoping that we could be mature enough to resist the obviously very strong temptation we have on bringing death and violence wherever we go. I'm such an idealist. I hope I'll never grow out of that. :)
So, he's only representing rich white straight christians. Hardly representative, is it?
Ever looked at a map? Crashing into the sea can be somewhat non-survivable.
From article: But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite.
Sounds to me a lot like the "kinetic harpoons" described in the "Night's Dawn Triology" by Peter F Hamilton.
A recommended SF read too, if you like the genre.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
>>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.
And it's all going to be the United State's fault. Seriously. Think about it. We were doing just fine for about 1,000,000 years until some asshole in the U.S. built a nuke. Then it all went down-hill. Can you guess? I'm Canadian. Hate me!
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
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.
Here is a link to the same story that does not have a bunch of ads and click-throughs.
There are hundreds of billions of dollars in military and commerical devices in LEO.
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/almpart1.htm
For the longest time NATO and the Soviets kept systems out of orbit because they didn't want to expand thier military spending out there, not because of some higher reason like space was to be a DMZ. They were afraid someone would get the initative from up that would allow a decapitation strike.
But even then the US and Soviets worked on FOBS and other systems for combat and bombardment in space
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ogch.htm
Since so much of the military and commercial sectors for the United States, NATO, EU rely on space, it's just sensable from a defense standpoint to have systems to defend them. Maybe it's from China, maybe it's from a resurgant Russia it doesn't matter.
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!
I saw bright light appear at night 2 or 3 years ago, and I thought -- damn that's gotta be a new supernova. Then a few seconds later it fizzled out, and I said. Damn, that had to be a close man-made explosion. A few days later I read (probably on slashdot or wired or the bbc) that the first test of a space weapon had occurred by the U.S. Anybody else remember that? I have been looking for independent confirmation since then, and see no reference to it in this article.
I've been rereading the articles on this matter - it's been a few years. Looks like the plane was flying over the sea off China, busily not monitoring transmissions, and it collided with a Chinese fighter jet which was shadowing it to make sure that it didn't not monitor any more closely than it shouldn't. The result was that it landed on some Chinese island; the Chinese did not then take the opportunity to take a very good look at the super-secret spying equipment which was not on the plane, and eventually returned both plane and crew to the US.
To be honest, the whole thing was pretty reasonably handled. Had the Americans been not spying over the Chinese mainland, rather than just not spying over the sea (whether they were not over Chinese waters or not over international waters is debatable) then they might not have been seen again...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I don't have any problem with the U.S. not joining the Kyoto treaty, or ignoring the U.N., etc. I have a problem saying that we WILL do these things, and then not living up to our word.
I'd rather we live as honest brokers. If that means we tell the world "no" more often, then that's fine. Let's just say "no" rather than saying "yes" and then backing out. It's dishonest, it destroys our credibility, and it incites people to dislike us.
Finally, you'll note that I didn't say we shouldn't put weapons in space. I was simply addressing the "respect" issue.
I guarantee you that you don't care for this country any more than I do. That's why I'm so adamant about this. I don't consider the White House to be the sum total of our country. So forgive me if I dare question his highness, Bush 43; but he's been an inept and divisive fool since taking office.
By the way, read some books, his leadership style is a mess.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
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?
During the Cold War that was the case, but times have changed. The US military is getting to the point where it is dominated by information systems rather than hardware platforms. The hardware platforms are merely modular components that are the eyes, ears, and fists of the network.
It's essentially impossible to export an all-encompassing data-driven warfighting structure. The US can still export individual components such as planes and tanks, but even then hardly anyone can afford the most up-to-date American equipment. So yes, we often do face American equipment on the battlefield, but combatting soldiers who wield M-16s and drive M60A3 tanks isn't in the same league as fighting an opponent that has laser-guided munitions, ubiquitous night-fighting capabilities, and GPS down to the squad level.
If you're worried about our enemies getting a hold of space weaponry, you're barking up the wrong tree. Just remember that our most sophisticated aerial and space reconnaissance equipment hardware has never been sold to anyone, even during the height of the Cold War.
For fiscal and geopolotical reasons I'm not sure that we need to militarize space, but the argument that such technology will be used against us is a bit far-fetched, given the technology imblance between the US military and the rest of the world.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Imagine you have some weapon installation in orbit. How are you going to protect it? A small orbiting fleck of paint could tear a hole in it... or I could atleast claim that it wasn't my fault your weapon system blew up.
Big waste of money. Big freakin waste of money. God it's been a long 4 years.
The president of the US can't even get "serviced" in secret. I think you're over-estimating it's ability to conduct a large project (one which would, of necessity, be known about by a large number of people) without any kind of story escaping.
High powered laser, eh? Even back here on Earth -where there are no real limits on size, weight or power - nobody has a laser that's going to cut a car in half in the dramatic fashion you're imagining. Perhaps the US could put a laser up there you could feel the warmth of. And then it would take 3 weeks to recharge.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Not that I care, I got karma to burn, but HOW am -I- a troll, if this very same topic is now on discussion on the USsian 911 hearings?
Let me guess, Richard Clarke is a troll too?
"/Dread"
Looks to me like another boondoggle to Protect Us From the Soviet Union. A bunch of Republican campaign contributers get a whole pile of tax money and the military gets some more expensive, useless toys.
...
All the serious analyses of future warefare that I've seen have third-world "rogue states" and semi-organized terrorists as opponents. How do space weapons help here? I don't think we have to worry about some future Saddam Hussein's space capabilities.
Note also that, given high-tech opposition (from who? I dunno.) the US has a *lot* more to lose than anybody else. Check out what a Keyhole satellite costs
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
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.
Guess they don't have any.
Tell you what though. We could work out the level of commitment by the percentage of troops from each country from the total number of troops.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
care to list what we bribed Poland, Great Britain, Spain or Australia with?
I hope it wasn't reduced trade barriers, because they lose.
Last post!
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.
The gist of the matter is that it's apparently okay to simply blow buildings up at will with "smart" bombs rather than just get the whole matter done with by deposing the tyrant that is causing the problem.
Quite what got the Poles and the Aussies in I'm not sure. The Spanish I mentioned specifically; their new PM can hardly be listed as a partner in this poss^H^H^H^Hcoalition. As for the rest, America's influence behind the scenes has been fairly well documented. You think El Salvador joined up because they felt threatened by Saddam?
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Coa lition_of_the_willing
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
>figure out where you need to push it to get it
>to impact, and you've got the most powerful
>weapon known to man.
You don't even need a targeting system.
"I have the power to drop rocks on Earth. Maybe they'll land in the ocean, maybe in Kansas, maybe in downtown Helsinki. I don't know. You will continuously appease me if you don't want to find out."
We can also speculate about the intentions (Saddam's oil, not offending France, Germany, Russia etc) of the nations that did not support us. The knife cuts both ways.
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.
I would only argue that when you decide to join in principal a treaty or any other agreement and you find that in fact there are things you find opposition to then you have the right not to sign. I don't agree with everything Bush does. I respect your right to question anything. I wouldn't call him a fool, however.
We've had them for years.
d 6. html
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/i
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The rest of the world was convinced as well, and so was Clinton. I am convinced the evidence of the WMD is so large that they were definitely there, probably still are. Look at all the mass graves, torture rooms, etc. Saddaam Hussain and his evil regime was a WMD itself. Also, remember when they found 'pesticide' buried in the middle of the desert? Why have pesticide with no agriculture for miles around? And if they were legit pesticide, why not build a shed instead of burying them? (please tell me why you need pesticide in the middle of the desert with no agriculture for miles around, anyone?) Also remember the trucks that were found which were a portable chemical lab? I can add 1+1. Just because 50 gallon drums were found with 'pesticide' labeled on them does not mean that they were. That was evidence itself. Sure 'pesticide' is not WMD by itself, but if we just mix it together in the back of this truck and drive around for an hour it changes to something totally different. We look back at history, we see what the nazis did in WWII. We say, 'if we only knew what they were doing we could have stopped this'. Well now we do know what Hussain did, and he is evil and had to go. We stopped it. Saving countless lives and stricking a blow to terrorism. Bush drew a line. He said 'if you cross this line there will be trouble' France was whiney and said 'lets move the line back some' Well when does it end? Bush did the right thing. Allowing countries to barely cross the line without punishment let to the German military buildup that preceded WWII. We need to defend our country first and foremost, and if the UN will not allow it, then we don't need to be part of it. Look at history. We need to learn from it, and if we can prevent another hitler (which Bush DID do) than the world is a better place.
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.
Was that Bill Clinton while he was smart bombing random buildings to get the heat off Monica and himself?
Oh, never mind.
I find it interesting that there's been no mention of it.
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
the world, or how i enjoyed to eat more rice.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
It's annoying that the media and now Congress are saying that the Bush administration didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, but they give those Clinton do nothing's a pass on their 8 years in office. The only decisive thing the Clinton administration ever did was in Waco, and we know how that turned out.
There are all these folks saying that the war in Iraq was not needed or that it was premature. Then the same people fault Bush for not going after Bin Laden before 9/11. Can you imagine the uproar if he had!!
It boggles my mind that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on more than 1 occasion and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what to charge him with. Now the Bush administration is supposed to have known, in the first few months of their term, that they needed to take pre-emptive action to remove Bin Laden, when 8 years of Clinton policy was to ignore him. What are the liberals in our government and media thinking ? How does this make any sense at all?
I understand the liberals buying all this, because they already live in some alternate reality, but surely the average citizen of the US sees the duplicity in this.
I'm sorry if I offended - that was never my intention.
Clinton: War in Iraq, zero American casualties and cost less than a billion dollars. Its a real stretch to call one retaliatory strike a war in this day and age.
Bush: Nearly six hundred dead American soldiers and counting, thousands of soldiers wounded, many with permanent burn scars and lost limbs, thousands of dead Iraqi civilians(the provisional authority wont let anyone even count them). Cost at least a $150 billion dollars and counting. The end result is a country that is teetering on the brink of a civil war. If we pull out it will explode. If we stay it will probably cost us $100 billion and hundreds of casualties a year, indefinitely. And, of course, we don't really know why we did it. Everyone in the Bush administration has admitted the WMD charges were at best wrong, and at worst intentional deception. Bush recently made jokes about the missing WMD's during a speech in Washington. The families of the dead and wounded soldiers weren't laughing. There have been no proven ties to Al Queada or 9/11. Fact is Saddam was only Muslim out of convenience and Islamic extremists for the most part hated him.
Saddam was a bad man but there are a lot of bad men ruling countries around the world. If we are going to take it on ourselves to get rid of all of them we will be very busy, very broke and our military will be broken. As General Shinseki said before the war it takes a big army to occupy a country. Bush fired him for saying it, he's been proven to be correct.
If we are going to take down governments the minimum we should except from our government is for them to think about the day after the tanks rolled in to Baghdad. This administration clearly didn't. Bush #1 could have rolled into Baghdad in the first gulf war, there was justification then. They said they didn't because our allies wouldn't support it. I wager its more likely they considered the consequences of deposing Saddam and realized Saddam if nothing else held Iraq together. Without him the Kurds will seek independence which will start a war with Turkey. The Shia's will seek the power that is their right being the majority, and they will institute an Iran friendly Islamic republic. The Sunni's being pushed out of power will be shit on by the Shia's, turnabout being fairplay, and will generally get pissed off and start blowing things up which is what they are doing.
The only country that is probably really happy about all this is Israel. They managed to get the U.S. to, by proxy, take down one of their bitterest enemies without firing a shot.
@de_machina
In short, the very fact that he has mentioned these aspects of his life (and lets them encroach on his political life) means he doesn't represent everyone.
Supplying most of it for a start. I't was known he had modest stockpiles of chemical's. Most of which where used long before even the first gulf war with the rest being destroyed afterwards.
The locations were documented, as well. However, crafty Saddam had them moved elsewhere by the time his aggression forced the US and numerous allies to retaliate against him a year ago.
So what if they where documented. I could document that you like to dress up as Barney the dinosaur and then beat up tramps, which is not true (I presume) but I can still document it, there is documentation saying that Iraq destroyed its WMD they can't both be right.
What Iraqi aggression? And don't say 9/11 as that' was nothing to do with him. Where did he move them to? He couldn't have moved them outside of his country as he has no Allies (the only ally he ever had was the US). He couldn't leave them in his country because of the risk of them being betrayed to US forces or his enemies (and you can include Al qaida in that list sorry conspiracy nuts but that's the truth). Its simple Sadam got rid of anything that could potentially be used against him in an international court, the only court that can try him is an Iraqi one.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
the internet was originally a military project to devise a computer network capable of surviving a nuclear war by routing around missing nodes.
the original version of it was eventually passed on to university researchers which later become what we have today, and a separate, more secure military one was created.
-
You're a little late. ICBMs travel through near earth space, and therefore come from "space".
Yes, I suppose so... as the crew of the Chinese plane that the American spies swerved into discovered.
A little biased there ain't cha? Keep in mind the aircraft involved in the collision, a quad-prop modified P-3 ELINT (electronic intelligence) aircraft. Versus a relatively spritely Mig-21 (knockoff of the style) jet fighter. Its hard to imagine how stupid (or bad a pilot) the chinese pilot had to be to get himself deliberately rammed by the US aircraft. If a US fighter pilot had this happen to him, I would have to wonder what the hell he was doing to let himself even accidentally get hit by the airplane.
Flying along the edge of a countries airspace happens all the time, by anyone that can get the aircraft/ship in range. Luckily for the US most of our neighbors are not actively working against us to provide places to launch from. The russians used to run planes along the edges of our airspace all the time, as well as have "fishing trawlers" ( though they weren't fishing for fish, more for information) along the coast and following our major fleet deployments. Its just the way the game is played.
I seem to recall the Clinton administration actually stopping a terrorist plot pre Y2k. Remember the higher security/threat level that got the guy coming in from Canada at the border (trying to blow up LAX).
If Bush weren't living in 1980 (see weapons in space article) maybe he would have seen a real threat instead of focusing on a missile shield. The funny thing is now we will need a missile shield since this asshole we call a president is sending weapons into space.
I am more disappointed daily at the stupidity of the American people believing the propaganda they are fed. Pull your heads out morons, this administration is horrible. But what do I know, spending on domestic programs is more important than killing Iraqi citizens to me. I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
If you're for Bush you're a fucking fool. The one nice thing is every stupid Republican is enjoying the victory at the polls.
Unemployment 5.7%
500 Billion Dollar Annual Deficits
Higher Crime Rate
Significantly Higher Animosity from Foreign Countries
I think my dead dog could run the country with more success. Oh wait, Interest Rates are at a 50 year low (note: this is an artificial low to keep the recession from getting worse).
FYI to every dipshit that says the Surplus was bogus: Why did your genius president use that as a justification for lowering taxes? Morons you cannot have it both ways.
Pathetic really.
I'm late to this one, I've got to do a little work sometime...
But I would only pass along three well known words as comment on this post: "Get Over It"
Best Regards,
Reports of my deaf have been greatly exaggerated.
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).)
If you think the war in Iraq ended at any time in the last 10 years your hat is on a bit tight...
In point of fact there was no period longer than 3 days without shots fired on both sides and likely Iraqi military casualties. The only reason it didn't make the news was that there were no "allied" casualites... primarily due to the technological advantage.
but Iraqi forces fired AA weapons at the aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones as quickly as they could rebuild/resupply the AA sites and just as quickly they were bombed to pieces... perhaps the sanctions weren't working.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Oh, for crying out loud! I am just as unhappy with some of Bush's choices as the next person, but anyone who believes a president has anything to do with the economy is delusional.
Clinton didn't give us the wealth and prosperity of the late nineties. The Dot Com bubble did that.
Bush didn't destroy the stock market, cause bankruptcies, or otherwise put the economy in it's current state of despair. The burst of the Dot Com bubble did that.
Honestly, you would think grown adults would understand simple economics by now. Are we still blaming Hoover for the depression? As if he had anything to do with the years of build-up and over-speculation that preceeded him?
Also interesting: The same clowns who blame Bush for the economic slide seem to have forgotten whose term it started under. If you're going to completely screw up your logic on who affects what in national economics, at least be honest about who fits into the blame box under your faulty model. Even our favorite chubby intern could figure this one out.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
If you think the US had a "war" in Iraq during the Clinton administration, your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.
I believe he meant Serbia.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Russia holds the record for most vetoed.
Holy shit. An insightful comment from a Coward! Maybe there is hope for the world after all... :)
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Not to bash theories of global warming, but there are also theories out there that we are heading toward another ice age (ice ages go in cycles) and the global warming will soften the impact.
Theism of any kind should automatically disqualify anyone from office. If you want to believe in God, or aliens, or pixies, you should do so strictly in private, and certainly not from a position of power.
Think about it: Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews all have different, and incompatible, ideas about the nature of God. At most one of these conflicting groups can be right, and at least they can all be wrong. But whether or not God exists, and whatever God is like, there are still certain things that will be right and wrong.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> You're forgetting 1812 - US invades Canada. Possibly the only Canadian military victory ever.
v imy.htm)
/ index.html)
Not by a long shot.
Vimy Ridge is one of the more obvious examples - Britain and France had been trying to take the German strongpoint for _years_, and the Canadian Corps took it in a _day_.
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW
A second obvious example is D-Day. Canadians were given the second most heavily-defended beach (Juno), but penetrated farther inland than any other force, and were the only ones to fulfill all their objectives.
(http://www.stormpages.com/junobeach
That we don't fight often doesn't mean we aren't damn good at it.
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
The US is part of the world. It has to start acting like it.
That's right. The US is part of a world, where other countries have ICBMs that they could lob at the US. The question isn't "why are we developing missile defenses", but "why did we wait so damn long?!?!". We should have started developing something like this in 1945.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Of course there aren't... any such resolution would get vetoed by the US in the first place.
In the midst of a flamewar about Iraq, you think that using an abortion analogy will help bring sense to the argument?
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!?"
Just wondering how being Anti-Israeli makes someone Anti-Semetic? Kinda like if you think the Saudi Arabian Government is evil, that automatically presumes you think Islam is evil??
Ok. Lets for a sec presume thats EXACTLY what Clinton was doing. What's GWB's excuse? All the reasons he gave for the war were untrue (and dont say removing Saddam cuz that wasnt the reason we were given pre-war). Somehow seems killing less then a hundred iraqi's (number pulled outta my ass) vs killing 600+ US Soldiers / maiming thousands / killing tens of thousands of Iraqi's, both essentially having shitty reasons if any. Hmm what's worse?
It noteworthy that Poland, with one of the of the larger contingents, flat admitted they are there because they wanted a cut of Iraq's oil wealth and all the other lucrative contracts being let to rebuild Iraq, largely funded by U.S. tax dollars.
I really wish my tax dollars were being spent to rebuild the U.S., to create jobs in the U.S. and were not being pouring them in to a country that is likely to explode in civil war anyway,
@de_machina
... I expect the Yanks to mod this post down to Flamebait and Troll status.
The decline of the American Empire will be interesting reading when the smoke clears.
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...
Before we outlaw wars fought with spacecraft, surely we should first outlaw wars fought with 747s.
Oh yeah, that's right, that already is illegal. So noone would ever do that...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
"He has
EMPLOYMENT
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002
Employed (mil)
125.8 132.3 142.6 143.7 144.9
Unemployed (mil)
7.0 7.4 5.7 6.8 8.4
Unemployment rate (percent)
5.6 5.6 4.0 4.7 5.8
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.
And the US is fascist dictatorship that has a history of invading...
I won't dispute the second part of your assertion, the USA has indeed done some immoral shit over the years, but as for the first, there's no way you can argue that US is either fascist or a dictatorship. A capitalist oligarchy maybe, but even that's stretching it.
You're lucky that the USA invaded and overthrew the governments of certain countries (Germany, Italy, and Japan to name a few) so that you have the liberty of being confused as to the actual definition of fascism.
Here is a LINK to a pro israeli site on the 6 day war.
Of course thats what They want you to believe, They even made an episode of SG1 where there was a TV show about SG1. The truth is that the Stargate is real, it's pure brilliance not only to haev a TV show to point to and say "thats where all the conspiracy nuts got their idea from", but also document the real Stargate so accuracy there's a TV series about it!
For crying out loud, geeks everywhere watch Star Wars, Star Trek, and all sorts of other War in Space related sci-fi subjects. So this might be real, how is it a hard concept for you to get?
Like all DOD advancements that are publically released, if it is of any significant strategic value, the project is probably complete or so close to completion, that the news is really kind of a tool of intimidation. Intimidation has its uses. Some people complain about the cold war, but I for one am glad it stayed cold, reletively speaking.
How is Space considered 'unmilitarized' these days anyways? With ICBM's that leave the atmosphere, Military satelites that spy on your enemies, GPS satelites that give positioning data to military navigators and weapons guidance systems, Military communications satelites that give secure communications links between battelfields and command centers, and ICBM launch detection satellites to give early warning to SAC, the only think left out is a space based weapon. It was probably left till now, or a few years ago, if it is there now, because of cost/effectiveness/application issues.
RUN AWAY!!!!!
That's right. All your base.
Nope. It was reported by BBC and all the major U.S. news outlets last summer. I have to give your foreign minister high marks for truthfullness, if nothing else.
Here is the BBC on it, thanks to 30 seconds in google:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm
"The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields."
"He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton."
"The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq."
"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency. "
@de_machina
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'.
Cold Relic or no, I'm still more worried about North Korea or some other hostile country with a Nuke and capability to put it on target (read: US or allies). If nukes weren't a future threat, why would they continue to pursue them and test their weapon's capability. We're geeks on here, so layering your security should be intuitive. You have muliple defenses for each plausible type of attack. You don't solely rely on SSH for network security, and hence, you don't base your whole defensive posture on terrorists. I'm assuming you're genuine in your discussion, since you preceeded your comments with the comment "no offense...". So I'm trying to entertain your argument...but honestly...we're talking apples and oranges. And, "you're not defending USA" assumes this is ALL I (or USAF) is doing...IMHO.
Terrorists are like flies. More annoying than effective. They're in a lose/lose situation. One question: With all the women bombers lately, do they still get the 100 virgin women too?? :) j/k
Well Mr AC, since you havn't watched the news at all or have a very short memory, here's a quick refresher: Trucks that are portable weapons labs . These are the trucks you conveniently forgot about. What other purpose are they for? I suppose a portable babyfood lab or something. As far as the pesticides, we aren't talking about your regular pesticide found in your garage, or even on a large farm for that matter. Heavy duty stuff. This isn't Raid or DDT, its a magnatude more potent than that. Again, why the pesticide with no agriculture for miles in any direction? Especially heavy duty stuff like they found. Why would legit pesticide be hidden so well also? It just doesn't make sense no matter how you try to justify it. According to your numbers, 15,000 iraqi civilian and military personnel are dead. You also mention he killed hundreds of thousands of iranians. That is quite a big difference. How many in mass graves have we found? There are countless thousands saddam killed we are just finding out about. Much more than 15,000. How many lives were spared by overthrowing this madman? The iraqi people's lifestyle will improve and they will not have to live in fear now. Saddam had to go.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years)
Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
I think you ment to say a $10 trillion dollar budget surplus, which most certainly did not translate into a real surplus. Why else would the national debt go up from $4.4 Trillion to $5.8 Trillion during the Clinton years, and never go down from year to year?
Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support
Um, the Bosnia/Serbia conflict never had UN backing, and the war with Iraq had 17 UN resolutions authorizing it (in fact, requiring it from the UN Charter).
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
Bush: Most job losses since great depression
Just like the fabled Clinton Budget Surplus, the so-called economic growth and expansion of the late '90s was FAKE. If you will recall, we had company after company finally admit that they actually had not been making money during the late '90s. Economic growth and expansion isn't measured by astronomically high PE ratios on stocks, you know.
Also, Here is the national employment summary for March 2004. Compare to the national emploment summary of Jan. 2001, when Bush took office. Current civilian employment is 138,298,000, which is 2,200,000 more than Jan 2001 (135,999,000). How is this the biggest job loss since the depression when we have 2.2 million more jobs now than we did when he took office?
One correction though. We did not take down Iraq for vague suspicion of developing nuclear or other weapons. That was merely one of the many public justifications for war.
We did it as part of the neoconservative's grand vision of remaking the world with a pro-western democracy in the heart of the middle east. Trouble is, we're finding it's hard to spread democracy with the end of a gun.
Haiti was run by the US Marines 1915-1933.
Of course, most US territory was a neighboring country before it got incorporated to it...
Flying along the edge of a countries airspace happens all the time, by anyone that can get the aircraft/ship in range.
Landing a spy plane in that country without authorisation, however, does not. I'm willing to bet that if a Chinese spy plane were (a) flying that close to American territory and (b) collided with an American fighter plane that there's no freakin' way it would get to stage (c) landing without authorization on an American landing strip. I doubt that it would make it to step (b) though.
Heres another link about the barrels of 'pesticide' with better pictures in case you forgot. Any readers out there please explain one thing: why is this in the middle of the desert with no agriculture for miles around? the only reason i can think of is it was the ingredients for some weapons. it certainly wasnt going to kill aphids in the middle of the desert with no farmland anywhere near... It may possibly be hidden underground to keep it out of the hot desert sun, but i cannot figure out why you would keep pesticide so far away from any area it could possibly be used in a legit way.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
While I wouldn't disagree, because I don't know about the comment facts. I would like to point out that Granada also has a few strategic factors like LOCATION that might have been a factor.
I live in Alabama. While the folks in California thought Nicaragua was no problem as their closest point is about 1300 miles (2000 Km) from the country I only live about 850 miles away and was well within range of the Russian Bombers that they were building runways for and also on Granada. The Critical link from Russia was Ganada to Nicaragua.
The supersonic bombers take about 20 to 30 minutes to get to my house and thus make very little of coastal defenses whereas they tended to give nearly twice the time to defend for California.
The Issue of a 12000 foot runway in Granada was Refueling for Strike and also basing. Doubtless other issues came up as well.
For those discussing the merits of US efforts, I submit that for the most part the Americas have not been the "Armed Camps" of war like Europeans and Asians is largely due to US Intervention and US VERY STRONG policy regards the rise of power in the region.This actually is the issue regards space based weapons. The USA is seeking to extract from the world the situation that has us perpetually at risk for massive destruction that currently exists. This is why.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
God???
Argggghhhhh!!!
(sudden 'lightning bolt' comes from the sky setting my testicles on fire)
Israel already has nuclear tipped missles in orbit, on a satellite, aimed at the USA. The code name for this weapons platform is "Sword of Damocles"..
Do the research. They've had them in orbit for several years now. I became aware of this back in 1996. Brazil also has space based weapons in orbit. Yes, Brazil..
Ever heard of "Janes" ?? Do the homework..
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
I know it's fictitious, but has anyone else seen the episode of Stargate SG-1 "Absolute Power," wherein Daniel helps to design a satellite weapon system using Goa'uld technology and it winds up firing on Moscow? Granted it was due to a lust for power on his part and, if implemented, would most likely be subject to some pretty extensive checks and balances, but the thought is a bit unsettling either way. And why did it fire on Russia, by the way? As a means of silencing the questions they were asking.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
But oddly enough the economy started to falter the last year of the Clinton Administration. When Bush got it he was already in the middle of an economic slowdown. And part of the problem of this slowdown was a realization that the New Economy didn't exist. Although the president and politics actually very little that they can do to help a slumping economy. One could possible fault Clinton for not trying to slow down the economy earlier. But everyone thought that this New Economy will never end. (Kinda like what the people in the 20s thought as well). As well with clintons weak issues on terrorism. Caused many of the issues of today.
I am not saying the Bush Administration is great but there are always variables that cause things and often they may not be direct.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When you look at the euqations for the optical properties of metals, all of them do well in reflecting long wavelength light (such as IR or microwave) with near perfection. Foil hat would work great.
:)
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
My two cents
-Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
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).
What about the idea of shooting it down because for (IIRC) 23 miles around the WTC is restricted airspace? You can't tell that it is on direct course for the WTC, but you *can* tell that it is illegal to be where it is, heading the direction it is, and all commercial pilots know with no question that if they enter that airspace they will be shot down.
t ml / septembereleventh.org/airdefense.phps tanddown.net/911commissionsubpoenasnor ad.htm
A quick google turns up these interesting sites:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HUN311A.h
http://www.coastalpost.com/02/06/02.htm
http:/
http://www.
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Aren't most of the aussie troops special forces types? I was under the impression that they were one of the first groups in (along with the american SEALS), and thus _should_ hardly be noticed...
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Coming soon to the friendly skies of North America... Russian Flying Saucers.
l
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/04/05/ufo.shtm
(Moscow News)
Article has photo of the thing
Russian "Flying Saucers" to Grace American Skies
Created: 05.04.2004 20:12 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 20:14 MSK
MosNews
You might not have to go to New Mexico to see a UFO-flying saucers are coming to your home skies, thanks to Russian aircraft designers. The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command has signed an agreement with Russia's EKIP Aviation Concern to cooperate in the production of unique flying saucer-shaped aircraft developed in Russia, perfect for putting out forest fires and monitoring oil pipelines. Originally developed in 1992, the alien-looking aircraft failed to secure funding from the Russian government. Twelve years later, the U.S. and China are very interested in making it work.
Obviously, the unusual round shape in itself makes such a vehicle exciting-but what are the practical applications? "This is a radically new craft," Alexey Konovalov, EKIP's executive director, explains. It doesn't require a long runway and can land on sand, but most importantly, the shape of the aircraft is a brilliant solution for getting rid of vibration, a long-time problem in aircraft design. EKIP plans to build first unpiloted vehicles that could be used for monitoring in hard-to-reach areas and then move to building larger craft weighing up to 100 tons. The unpiloted EKIP "ships" could aid in putting out forest fires as well as collecting information that could be transmitted to a land base, Konovalov said.
Originally, the Russian government had promised funding for the project, but in 1995, three years after the construction commenced, all funding was cut off. Private investors couldn't be persuaded to commit the millions of dollars necessary to continue work on the craft, Konovalov laments. Now, with the agreement between EKIP and the Naval Air System Command signed, EKIP is waiting for the funds to come in and in the meantime, negotiating with China to discuss a possible joint venture.
Russian designers will keep the rights to their unique work, but the vehicles might be produced either in Russia or the U.S. Currently, the plan is to test the aircraft in 2007 and launch it into mass production in another five years. Until then, any strange shapes in the sky are certain to be flown by little green men.
Here is a link to a 1997 Washington Times article about a letter Boris Yeltsin sent to the Clinton administration regarding the Soviet Anti-satellite program and a demand for the US to stop developing one. http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/wt971 107_asat.htm
In the late 70's and early 80's the Soviets had a strong Anti-Satellite weapons program. So the US Air Force designed and tested an anti satellite missile in an attempt to have a counter weapon.
I wish I could find some of the old news stories from back then, but they are all pre internet. While surving in the US Navy in the late 80s there was a case where we lost a satellite that was sent in close (10km) to check out a suspected Soviet anti-satellite satellite.
It was common belief, in military circles, at the time, that the Soviets had taken the opportunity to "live test" the technology on our conveniently placed satellite.
Um... no.
Israeli soldiers + Arab country = gasoline + fire. It's the same reason they stayed out of the first Gulf War as well (though Saddam tried really hard by shooting SCUDs at them).
If you want to start a major war that spans across the entire region, one that would probably answer the question "Who has WMDs?" with absolute certainty, this is how you would start it.
Aren't we libertarian geeks, not "liberals"? Weapons in space is very cool. And it shouldn't be regulated. I want to rent a space laser to zap anyone who tresspasses my perimeter.
-I am an elective eunuch.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of.
Damn skippy. And don't forget about the Rwandan genocide, which Clinton tacitly supported. But I guess that one was ok, because they were just poor blacks.
Liberals are such hypocrites. They want the world to be a nice, safe place, but aren't willing to risk their necks to make it happen.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Man, that's awesome! ~2.3million more jobs since Bush took office. I'm soooo glad Kerry has made jobs a core focus of his campaign. :D
Thanks for the links, I'll be sharing those with all my friends.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
In regards to "more annoying than effective," and, "Three hours in line," you made my point. You're annoyed, rather than dead (this is assuming you're a US citizen).
Actually, again, history and current practices do not support your assertion. National Defense as a function of overall spending, and GDP, is still at an all time low. We do far more, with far less resources than ever in the past. The hikes you mention are Homeland Defense, which is NOT a DoD funded group. To be honest, they're doing EXACTLY what you're calling for...they're the ones preparing for a terrorist (on our soil or elsewhere).
So you'd ignore North Korea's unveiled threats and their efforts to get a fully functional intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear payload?? One that now has the range to reach the West Coast?
"Hey, all of San Diego is radioactive...but we're ready for them terrorists with shoe bombs!!!"
Compare that with post-WW2 Japan. The Emperor stayed on his post and rather than forcing Japan to pay compensations, money was provided for rebuilding instead.
If you think bombing is the way to win any war, you have much to learn.
I guess that I'd better start building a prototype Zaku before it's too late.
I agree. By the books I'm sure I count as a "rich" (upper middle class, anyways) straight Christian (non-practicing) but this guy makes my skin crawl every time he opens his trap.
But when I look at the alternatives I'm left with a sense of hopelessness. The world is going to hell in a handbasket... in fact we're already mostly there I think.
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
"Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing"
s /panorama/transcripts/dividedworld.txt ]
"Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support"
That's a disingenuous statement, given that the Clinton Administration did not have U.N. approval for its war on Serbia during the Kosovo conflict.
Your comment recalls this amusing exchange between Edith Cresson, John Reid, and Richard Perle:
EDITH CRESSON: No, the problem is not to know if Saddam is a bad chap or not. Of course he is and
nobody doubts of that. The problem is, is it allowed to enter a country with arms and make war outside the
legal framework of the United Nations who has two conditions very clear. Either you are attacked and then
of course you can respond or there is a resolution with a majority that delivers the authorisation to make a
war. Outside of those two conditions you are not allowed to make a war.
REID: Bonsoir Edith. Isn't it the case that you joined us in Kosovo without a resolution in the face of a
Russian veto precisely because we thought the danger was so great that people had to be protected?
CRESSON: But everybody agreed then.
REID: No, no, everybody didn't agree. The Russians didn't agree, there was no UN resolution. We went
into Kosovo through NATO because the United Nations wouldn't agree but we thought the moral
consequences of not going in were so great that we should take that action, and the French agreed with us
on that occasion and this occasion they don't think that the consequences are so great.
CRESSON: There was a big problem inside Kosovo, people were killing each other and we of course... the
intervention was quite normally taken.. the decision was taken so we agreed on that aspect. Nobody has
said that there has been a majority to get inside Iraq, there was no majority, there was not even a vote.
PERLE: Well I am listening to this discussion and there is no question that John Reid has demolished
Madame Cresson's argument. When France thought it was a good thing to use force outside the United
Nations, France did so, didn't complain, didn't say this is illegal and outside a legal framework. In this
case, where the French President believes that it is not in France's interest to use force, she is invoking a
legal argument that was irrelevant the last time. Let's not be hypocritical about this.
[I've edited out the moderators comments. The full transript appears here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programme
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Moscow knew about the economic problems, but the reform interests in the Kremlin had to circumvent the old guard. This circumvention happened as a result of two incident, first the shooting down of civillian flight KAL007 by the Russian military and the second was the landing of a Cessna in Red Square by Mathias Rust. Essentially this discredited the old-guard in the military and allowed the economic reforms.
Last time I heard, nuclear weapons need a service from time to time to keep their ability to detonate - this would certainly hamper any country's wish to hold a nuke in space. If such a weapon was launched in 96, it would have been useless by 2000.
>The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Reference, please.
Simple the classic reaction to an over inflated stock market is to raise prime lending rate. That was never done in the Clinton Administration. Was the stockmarket over inflated??? I think Linux.com having a larger market cap than SGI is a good example.
Clinton did nothing to influence the development of the Internet. If anything Linus , the developers of BSD, and the Apache developers had more to do with it than Clinton. They provided cheap software that turned cheap hardware into good servers. Would the Internet have caught on if to start an ISP or hosting service you had to pay hundreds of dollars for NT, Solaris, or SCO Linux per machine? I know some hosting compaines did but alot of the big sites. Hotmail, Yahoo, Google... all started with BSD or Linux.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Since war is "merely" the extreme end of diplomatic tools used by countries to interact with each other, how does this change a thing? I'm sure that US soldiers will appreciate the enhanced ability to do their jobs more effectively with less risk, and their opponents will experience the benefits of being on the receiving end of a much more precise application of force. Compare the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo to the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq... Those horrible horrible modern weapons allowed the US military to take a major capitol city with a fraction of the civilian and military casualties that would have been required even 20 years ago. The weaponization of space is just one more step along that road.
Whether or not you agree with the application of that power is a personal decision, and as the 2000 US Presidential elections proved, your vote might be more important than you think. It's a matter of time before all modernized nations have the ability to create these types of weapons, so you're a fool if you think your own country should allow others to capitalize on your own sense of right and wrong. Give your military the best tools, but TIGHTLY CONTROL the government that authorizes the use of those weapons. Vote the power away from the central government if necessary, but cast your vote for the people you'd trust with these weapons that each country is going to have anyway.
hoa! [good god yall]
what is it good for?
absolutely nothing!
say it again!
woo hoo! lets hear it for insta-gib from space. seriously though, pretty neat technology, really crappy purpose.
|plastic....or gasoline?|
The only people he is bad for is Enron...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAA!!! That's funny!
Next thing, you'll be telling us he's been bad for defense contractors and pharmaceutical companies. What a comedian!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"As long as you don't worry about the thousands of people, mostly black men, who were "accidentally" labeled as felons and were turned away from the polls."
This is a racist myth, actually. The felon list cleaned without regards to race or party. It was put into place and run by Democrats.
Sorry, you are going to have to resort to another lie to try to justify claiming that the sore loser really won the election.
I have a friend who went to school with the current President of El Salvador. They went because George Bush and the Spanish PM called the guy on the phone asking for help. Most of the Central America countries are on good terms with the US because of their citizens are working in the US. El Salvador's offical currency is the US dollar.
Bribed, not really.
If I remember correctly, a few months ago I read about a space weapon developed by the U.S. govt. called MILES in the LA Times. Supposedly, it launches a capsule from space, explodes above it's target spraying trillions of small, super flammable droplets within a hundred-something mile radius, and a second little ignitor sparks a chain reaction that creates a devastating explosion more powerful than a modern thermonuclear bomb!
<Recovers breath.>
When I read that to a friend who happens to be in an Air Force ROTC, he said that that would go against international space laws... Maybe he got that idea from a Sci-Fi book, but it makes sense...
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
Addendum: remember that earthquake in Iran? They refused the aid that Isreal offered. Now think about Isreal actively attacking a Muslim country...
Um, you are aware that even Colin Powell has admitted that those trucks weren't mobile weapons labs, yes?
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
"emember that the US economy was plunged into recession for the cost of ten box cutters and some unconventional thinking."
Erm, no, it was plunged into a rather mild and short recession because of massive tech overinvestment and the associated stock market bubble.
[...] this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space.
What do you MEAN "beginning"? It's been military since day one.
The whole POINT of the satellite program was that a rocket capable of orbiting a satellite can launch a bomb to hit anywhere in the world - and that an orbital base could watch AND hit anything it wanted to.
Early satellite launch attempts and rocketry development were done (and still are done) by the military. (That's what Vandenberg Air Force Base is about.) In fact they were the whole show before what became NASA had its mission expanded from researching aircraft issues.
One of the first uses of satellite technology was spy satellites, to replace high-altitude aircraft such as the U2 (which was no longer invulnerable to interception).
The space shuttle design is extremely inefficient (heavy LARGE wings - with their weight coming straight out of payload) because it was co-developed for handling civilian and military missions. The wings are oversize so the shuttle can do a "pop-up" single polar orbit mission, and have enough cross-range ability to manouver eastward by the amount the earth has rotated while it was up, landing where it took off. A strictly military mission - to do a quick-look or take a shot. (And it mostly hasn't happened because going polar with such heavy wings reduces payload to just a few hundred pounds above crew and consumables.)
Shuttle missions have been used to test several "Star Wars" systems.
Various space-based military systems beyond pure observation have been under development for a while.
So what's new? Just that they're thinking about actually deploying one of these other systems.
Whoop-tee-doo.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I had not seen this news until now, but still find it impractical they would build a mobile hydrogen plant. Seems much more economical to build a permanent building if everything was legit. Why clean the trucks so good and go through all the trouble to hide them if it was perfectly legal? A mobile plant costs much more to operate than a fixed structure. Sounds fishy and i don't buy the explanation. Still, why are the potent pesticides so far away from any agriculture? That just makes no sense at all. Real pesticides would be in a barn or something, not where you have to go 50 miles each way to spray your crops. Also, didn't Saddam fire banned missiles at us during the war? What more proof do you need? The world is a better place now his regime is over. I certainly dont believe the trucks in question were used to make hydrogen. More weapons will show up, they are probably in Syria now. Also, look when we kicked Sadaam's ass, Libya got so scared they opened up their doors and showed us their weapons programs, knowing they might be next on the list. We got another evil terrorist dictator and didnt even have to launch one bomb. The weapons exist. They will be found.
It's all here : Rebuilding American's Defenses.
"Since the Supreme Court sealed the records"
The records were not sealed. In fact, major newspapers had access to them for quite some time.
"any speculation about what an accurate result would have been is futile"
We knew what the accurate result was within hours after election day.
"And the event that you are pointing to is but one of many that cast doubt upon the honesty of the election"
There are no doubts except among a "sore loser" minority who would not be happy even if Gore lost 95% - 5%. As for the rest of the country, everyone knows that the winner won.
Probably so. But what about the one after that? And the one after that one? The future has a way of surprising us, and it's smart to hedge our bets. Need I remind you of the dependency of our military operations on satellite communications and GPS? Those satellites have to be defended--and there are several countries in the world now that have a satellite killer capability
As for the argument that China would never attack us because then we'd refuse to buy their stuff...well who ever told you countries have to act rationally? There were intelligent well-informed people who argued that a major war was impossible, because the world was too tightly knit by commerce...in 1910. Yeah, it was crazy, but it happened anyway.
"The future will surprise you"--repeat it until you believe it.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
while never publically admitting it, it's common knowledge that israel is a nuclear state (with our help, of course), with 50-200 boosted fission bombs (~2-400kT yield).
now - if we just drop israel and "let that problem sort itself out", how long do you think it would take for them to decide that their very existence is in mortal danger and use that as a convenient, as-near-to-morally-justifiable-as-possible excuse for unleashing the fires of hell on the surrounding countries? i don't agree with what israel is doing and i think they do need a firm slap, but just ditching them would be one of the worst things we could do.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
#1 hit for "National Defense spending versus GDP" leads to a page with this chart. You'll note the steady decline past the Clinton days. Bush did ask for a 3.8 in 2003 (which would be a .8% increase....still not close to record highs, or even a real significant increase compared to the previous 5/10/or 20 years).
They will level Tokyo and Seoul before they consider San Diego, you know that
No...no ones know for certain who will attack whom. I'm sure in the mid-80s, as we handed weapons to Osama Bin Laden and helped them fight the Soviets, no one in their wildest dreams thought he would fund/manage/administer the group(s) that would bring down the Trade Towers. I'm certain as the Japanese ambassador was handing the medal (of friendship) to our government, no one had an inkling of the mass formation of aircraft carriers and their intended target.
You've made your point of terrorists being a threat, however, you've repeatedly been unable to give a convincing reason to discount the need to defend against missiles. Maybe you question the method, maybe you just don't trust "old generals in a room in the Pentagon"...I don't know your motives. I do, however, know war and am a trained professional in the profession of arms. Such training leads you to make calculated decisions based on varying levels of risk and the task at hand. The Department of Defense has one focus: To extend the foreign policy of the US, at a moments notice, anywhere across the Earth. The fulfillment of that mission is to break the others guys toys, kill them and save US lives (civilian or military). This is why the DoD will continue to watch both the large, and small scale bad guys. I very seriously doubt Hussein is the very last person to consider invading and annexing another country. (so before you say it...we're not the same...there will not be a 51st state). North Korea has been very blunt in threatening the US, as well as South Korea. An attack from them would not be in a vacuum, so they understand very well that an attack on anyone would prompt a US reaction. So, again, going to my earlier point, premptive strikes are best, and more effective when strong (e.g. shock and awe). So N.K. would be stupid to not give serious consideration to hit us at the same time. We would be even dumber to not be defensively ready for it....
As far as what's effective and what's not. I'm not going to touch it because I'm not jeopardizing my clearance by disclosing weapon capabilities. Let's just say...don't read everything you read, and some things you read are more true than you'd imagine...
ok...now can we get back on topic?
Larry Niven once pointed out that "Anything worth doing in space can be turned into a weapon". When you consider the kinetic energies involved, any small fleck of paint can cause significant damage. A mere bucket of sand placed in the path of an orbiting spacecraft will destroy it. Drop something from orbit and you also get damage.
Really, this is just a logical step for humanity. Every new frontier has been weaponized: the seas, jungles, the Arctic, the tremendous volume of water under the surface of the ocean, and now space. It's going to happen weather or not we sign treaties. I'd prefer there not to be weapons in space, but eventually, someone is going to do it and it might as well be a country that is in theory free (as long as we don't keep socializing everything).
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
We need to have something in our arsenal to defend ourselves against the PIGS IN SPAAAAACCEEEE...
Good for the US 'cos it ain't neccessarily good for the REST of us
I didn't realise that Australia had withdrawn its troops! Geez, you'd think that the papers would have mentioned it.
You might chooose to view this as a bad thing. However, the alternative, making it more difficult for democracies to change their foreign policies, is worse. For instance, suppose Bush were to declare his intentions to invade Iran and North Korea and promised allies in the appropriate regions $1 trillion for the privilege. You might wish to reverse that policy by voting to remove Bush from office or persuading your representatives to block his funding in Congress. Likewise, the senators decided that, regardless of what Clinton thought of Kyoto, they didn't like it. For another example, should all presidents subsequent to LBJ have been required to uphold unlimited obligations in Vietnam?
Attempting to hold a collection of people like a democracy to the same standards of "honesty" as an individual is silly. Obviously, everyone outside the US will take notice of the deep divisions on foreign policy in its body politic, but I don't see how we can avoid the problem without stifling debate and making it impossible to alter past decisions, good or bad.
They weren't. The reasons are and were completely valid.
Where are the WMDs, then? Where are the links to Al Qaeda?
deus does not exist but if he does
Most early "weapon" design for space falls into only two category, surveillance and defense. And most weapon that will actually reach space (example ICBM) are actually just massive rocket artillery that got fired into a long trajectory, who still have a weapon platform (where the weapon can be fired from) on the ground. The article was talking about was actually put weapon platforms in space. Platforms that can stay in space for a long duration of time and strike and any time of it's controller's choosing. Plus several earth based weapon that can knock down said threat when needed.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Do you believe anything else you see on television? Why is it when an patriotic artist with something to say (that the united states promotes violence, as a macroscopic entity, for various reasons), when it turns out that he created an illusion to do so, is shocking somehow?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Well. My two cents follows... A year or so ago I was listening to NPR and heard an interesting talk given by a retired Air Force officer about the weaponization of space. Now, he was against it, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. Thusly: some of the stuff he described was pretty run of the mill as far as what people think of when they hear the phrase, "space weapons--" beam weapons, space-nukes, etc.
But he also mentioned the use of specially-shaped orbital slugs. Basically such a device would be like taking a solid Apollo or Gemini capsule, heat-armor and all, intended to be dropped from orbit and used like a pinpoint meteor strike. Far from being a pie-in-the-sky "now we can shoot down the enemy missles with this brand new laser satellite. Oh crap, they've loaded a nuke on a tramp freighter," it would really be a very useful tactical weapon once you could get the system refined soas to actually hit the intended target (always a nice thing for a weapons system to be able to do). I mean, this sort of thing could bust bunkers, missile silos, and pretty much anything that sits on the ground (as long as you can tell where it will be, generally, when your slug hits), and it would be (fairly) cheap to make in comparison to a laser cannon, being the space equivalent of dropping a rock on your enemy's head. A very, very fast-moving rock, with incredible amounts of kinetic energy.
Speak up if I'm wrong, but I would think that the only really good way to deflect one would be to try to hit it with a powerful laser-- but considering the size of the slug and the fact that it's basically a large, quickly-falling object, that would have to be one heck of a laser array (or it would have to start hitting it from very far out). You wouldn't have to worry about an enemy anti-missile hitting propulsion or blowing up the warhead prematurely, because there wouldn't need to BE a warhead or (unless you wanted to manouver it mid-fall) propulsion.
So in effect, space-based weapons don't have to be Buck Rogers ray guns, or big nukes, or huge anti-missile nets. There's a definite niche for space weapons as a sort of long-ranged tactical artillery with awe-inspiring accuracy and devestating effect. As to the numbers you'd need to support a full military campaign, I'll leave that to the people actually trying to make the things.
-Flakbait
Temporary Minister of Propoganda for the Assyrian Empire
When our oil needs conflict with theirs, we're going to be in one hell of a lot more trouble than terrorists can put us in.
What we need to put in space is infrastructure (orbital and lunar factory sites) and a powersat project which will allow us to replace Middle East fossil fuel, and eliminate our need to be in the Middle East.
This won't make the Islamics love us, but if our economy (and that of China and India) is growing to take advantage of space-based resources, who will it matter to? If we aren't buying oil from the Middle East, anyone who's been previously getting that oil money will be too busy either trying to keep the locals happy with dwindling resources or getting the hell out instead of supporting terrorism financially.
The other point is that if we find out that space does have to be militarized in order to use it safely, if we have an infrastructure up there, big enough launch vehicles to build it or a Space Elevator or railgun launch facility, we'll be able to do this cheaply and quickly.
For more information, click here
Tech Public Policy stuff
That would be difficult considering that we had a queen on the throne from 1837-1901 which cover most of it.
I don't see Australia in the list. I doubt it's accurate.
The Australian SAS forces were rotated out shortly after the conflict 'ended', they've been replaced with about 1000 regular Army troops doing patrols, some Air Force personel handling the Air Traffic Control and Naval units doing coastal interdiction stuff. So far there have been no casualties for Australia. None of the 3 Occupying Powers (Aust, UK or US) was in that list, who were of course the only ones who provided combat units in the actual war, regardless of the list of 'Allied Nations'.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The US is the oldest government in the world...
It's a good thing that you're posting as an AC otherwise you'd really look like an idiot for starting a post that way.
There are older governmental systems than the US one still in existance. For example, the UK Parliament, to name but one, dates back beyond 1700.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
stop smoking that crap.
not bribed, pussy whipped.
fine, if the usa doens't want to protect the fucking world, stop saying that it is. then i wouldn't have cared if iraq had WMD, because they wouldn't be pointed at me anyway.
but, saying the the american way is the only way, and changing opinions on a whim makes everyone hate american policy. oh yeah, and lying through your teeth.
if you want to be the shining light of democracy and freedom, start acting like one. you might want to have a look at what's going inside first, because that's a freakin' plutocracy. whooops...
bush is an asshole, period. the current administration is fucking americans so hard it isn't funny anymore. and still they love them...
Note I said any war.
from the wikipedia...
The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes)
[...]
In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.
---
besides, i wasn't the one spreading the though at slashdot, i investigated and it holds true.
---
and bush? WTF? he knew there are no WMD in iraq. saying otherwise is sheer ignorance at best.
well, i don't know the details since i don't live in the us. it is not what i heard that that was where they were going, with health cuts and high unemployment. however, the point is that money is power. while a little bit doesn't hurt the system, current copyright laws are laughably rediculous. come on! and the DMCA? that's defending who, again?
i'm not discussing wether it is a demoocracy or a republic or a plutocracy or whatever, as that issue is mainly philosophical. however, it is clear that money does have to much influence in lawmaking.
WMD: Saddam's nephew, the guy who defected and spilled everything in 1998, clearly stated that iraq's programs and weapons had been dismantled. inspectors found nothing. people were dying of hunger. also, i find it hard to believe that even if they had them that they should be america's major concern, taking in account that the freaking 911 pilots were saudis.
look, i'm not happy about terrorrism, or against attacks against any nation. but i also don't like people telling lies and obfuscating reality. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorrists" - WTF? i would have to agree if you wanted to torture every last muslim?
oh, about gonverment types... what matters is freedom, right? aren't you seeing americans being less free? that's my whole issue with the USA, most americans don't even understand what freedom is!
wow, that's full of spelling and grammar errors, 8O...
i'm going to sleep now...
I have read the NORC results. Any consistent standard applied state-wide resulted in a Gore victory. That includes Dubya's own proposed standard for voter intent. However, I personally am most angered by the deliberate, partisan, and sadly effective efforts of Harris to disenfranchise thousands of probable Gore voters. Bush lost and then managed an amazing coup d'etat. However, repeat your lies often and loudly enough, and maybe you can convince yourself. SOP for BushCo and their patsies. No skin off my nose. My faith is that in the end the truth is recognized and known. Always.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If it is, you're making the common mistake of mistaking copyright versus encryption. Geeks hate copyright and love encryption, got it?
-I am an elective eunuch.
Allende was a S*o*c*i*a*l*i*s*t* not a facist that the CIA replaced with a facist dictator. I suppose the military dictatorship following the assasination and coup was better.
The US was terribly involved in Ethiopia leading up to the coup. Mengustu became a Soviet client whereas the Emperor was a US client.
The main thing wrong, Mr. A. Coward, is that the US caused or supported multiple coups thereby weakening successive governments further. It doesn't help that we lied the Ho Chi Minh either. We supported and resupplied him in WWII fighting the Japanese. We promised that we'd support Vietnamese independence from France. And they we supported France reestablishing it's Indo-Chinese colonies which was a complete and utter disaster for the French.
I really wish the right would cut the crap and just be honest. They want to fuck the economy and then tell the unemployed people, "it's [insert non-white race here] fault. They want to fuck public education to make certain that the people on the bottom aren't smart enough to figure out what they're doing. And then they want to pit them against each other: "Those illegal immigrants/indian insourcers are taking jobs you should be having! Hate them!" They want to get us divided by saying, "Gay marriage is a bad thing. As soon as you allow them to get married... blah blah blah... slippery slope..." Then they want to distract us once one of the following happens in November:
1. Another "terrorist attack" that this administration miraculously "saves" us from
2. Pop! We found Bin Laden!
3. A "terrorist attack" succeeds and we suddenly need to suspsend elections for national security.
4. Bush loses like Gore did, and Kerry wins like Bush did, then the G.O.P. cries out for recounts and howe unfair it all is
Damned lying sins of bitches. And that include you.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o