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That's because we've withdrawn from any treaties that restricted this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.
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.
"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.
Isn't a sattelite used to track enemy postitions and guide other weapons considered part of a "weapons system"?
You can't violate a treaty you haven't signed.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
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.
Your state and federal rights apply inside your state and federation, not in space. If international law decides that a craft is governed by it's owners nations laws, then you might have a point, but as far as i know, there are no such laws.
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*
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.
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
Aside from my doubts that the force imparted by a bullet on a multi-ton object would cause it to move a few miles between shots at the same target...
Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.
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
Kyoto is rather mal-formed. It is based on false scientific premises, and is designed to do nothing but wreck economies of certain countries.
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
gun on spacecraft invented first. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soyuzvi.htm Sorry tinfoil hat crowd, you're decades too late.
When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed....
only Outlaws will have Orbital Weapons Platforms!
The US isn't going to put nuclear weapons into space because it doesn't fulfill any strategic goal.
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Also, considering the huge advances the US has made in stealth technology, wrapping the whole thing up in a stealthy package that a foreign governments radar based space tracking equipment couldn't see seems very logical.
Here's something to think about as well. When the US retired the SR-71 from active service, did you really think they didn't have a replacement coming into active service? Space based sensing is nice but it has some inherent limitations.
I would take an uneducated guess that the US has a top secret spy plane that has eclipsed all of the short comings of the SR-71.
Also, why would the US need to put nuclear weapons into space when it has a state of the art fleet of nuclear missle submarines that are roaming all over the world with lots of ICBM's that can be launched from anywhere anytime and hit anything.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
TO apply laws from an individual or craft's point of origin would encourage folks to travel in space. If the laws that apply are one's own, then one need not fear unknowingly breaking one.
By Contrast, uniform laws would encourage commercial development in space. If all the rules are the same, investors can tell what they're getting into.
A balance is probably the best solution, but where do we draw such a line?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Us: Puts some space defense.
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The reason we developed the first nuke was that we believed that Germany was well on their way to developing their own nuke during WWII. Who were the nuclear physicists who made this possible? German jews fleeing the Nazi regime.
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
I know this is going to start a flame-war but...
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
That doesn't mean one should do it...
"But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources."
Then it should be a 'sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources' treaty and forget the Global Warming(tm) crap. There are very good reasons to limit reliance on fossil fuels, we don't need typical lefty lies to promote that.
"Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs"
You seriously think that CO2 emissions will have "a health toll on our lungs"? What planet is this you're on?
"Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing,"
No, they're moronic, and would have minimal impact on "Global Warming" if it's actually happening. It's purely a desperate last-minute lefty attempt to bring global industry under their control before it gets completely out of control.
The amusing thing is that it wouldn't even achieve that, now that outsourcing is moving so much energy-consuming manufacturing to China, which wouldn't be affected by Kyoto restrictions! Yet the lefties who support Kyoto whine about outsourcing...
"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
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.
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.
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...
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.
One of the most potent weapons we have uses the GPS network orbiting the earth to assit targeting.
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
Clinton: 10 trillion dollar surplus (over 10 years) Uh...that was bogus...also keep in mind that the Gov't's own figures on growth during much of his years had to be revised. Why? They were inflated.
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support Uh...can you count?
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history Where are these figures? Bush: Most job losses since great depression Yeah, more people are in the job market. Very few women worked in the 20's and 30's compared to today. Oh, and the bad 5.7 unemployment rate? yeah, they called 5.6 "low" during the Clinton years.
Move along, folks, don't stare at the liberal idiot he's sensitive! Dork.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
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.
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.
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!
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
Russia, China, US.... guess what, they're all just as bad. The US is NOT the good guy. History has more than proven that regardless of the political and economical structures in place, superpowers inadvertently end up being rules by an elite that will procede to screw over anyone else if they think they can get away with it.
The only thing that has kept a global nuclear armageddon at bay is the the global nuclear balance with Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as an inevibility. If the US manages to build an effective (or perceived as effective) ICBM defense the other nuclear powers wil have to follow suit or sooner or later the US will nuke another country because it can, there's nothing there to plunder and it's a lot cheaper than invading.
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.
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
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.
Um, there are no chapter 7 resolutions against Israel, and those are the only resolutions that can be enforced by the UN.
I don't know, I've seen a lot of interest in people my age this year (mid twenties). Much more than when the last election came lumbering through. I'd love to see some record voter turnout this year.
It is scarey to think about apathy though. I was watching some show about the early 1900's last night. It made me think, wow, my grandparents were alive during all this. And then i took another step back in time, their grandparents were possibly alive during the early 1800's. And another generation or two back and your at the American Revolution. How far we've fell from being accountable for our government, and our government being accountable to us.
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
Space defense has all the appearance of a Maginot line. Its very expensive to build and very easy to defeat, especially in an age of asymmetric warfare. When the most devastating attack in U.S. history was done with civilian airlines explain to me the value of fixating on missile defense. Its a relic of cold war thinking when the one true threat the U.S. had was a missile attack from the U.S.S.R.
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
@de_machina
I can just see it now.... Some alien species is going to see this and wonder "WTF, they have space weapons, and they're pointed at themselves!?"
... 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...
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
Haiti was run by the US Marines 1915-1933.
Of course, most US territory was a neighboring country before it got incorporated to it...
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
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
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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