US Military Plans Space Combat

Aftermath by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Neither don't I. Just like I doesn't see any plans for editors to ever edit a retarded submission.

Problems? by LegoEvan · 2004-10-02 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with space combat is many fold a) You piss tons of people off. b) You open the opportunity for others to blow up your satellites. c) You have missiles in space. Come on now, I thought that finished up a while ago. d) It's expensive! e) I'd rather the military jam the communication signals from spy satellites than start launching rockets

Re:Problems? by Necrobruiser · 2004-10-02 10:57 · Score: 4, Funny

You forgot the biggest problem with space combat: getting the sound of a near miss of a laser to travel through space.

--
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
Re:Problems? by iocat · 2004-10-02 10:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may set a precedent, but the opportunity for others to wreck our satellites wouldn't change if we started wrecking others'. In fact, if others were relying on some kind of futuristic hunter-killer satellite, it might actually lessen the opportunity. Reading the article reveals that the Air Force also favors option E over actual destruction.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:Problems? by NotQuiteReal · 2004-10-02 11:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Huh? War sucks. But if you find yourself in one, you'd better be prepared to win it by any means possible.
I see no problem planning for stuff - it would be irresponsible to stick your head in the sand and not prepare for new potential battle venues.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:Problems? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 11:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

We already have the technology to down even the highest stationary orbit satelite, and have had it since the early 80's. The USA is currently beleived to be the only country with such a device (it's a missile that's fired from a steeply climbing F-15 at about 90,000-100,000 feet). At least, we're the only country that say we have such capability

Frankly, this stuff was considered a LONG time ago; that the Air Force has plans to down the MLB's satelite if need be, is unsuprising, to say the least.
Re:Problems? by andy1307 · 2004-10-02 13:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

a) You piss tons of people off.
And the problem with that is? Seriously...Most of the world envies US economic and military might. You can either be strong or popular.
Besides, if it can be done, someone will do it..think stem cell research..Just because the religious right in the US is oppossed to stem cell research, it doesn't mean stem cell research won't happen in other countries.
Re:Problems? by Alpha+Soixante-Neuf · 2004-10-02 16:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you pick strong and rub the rest of the world's face in it the whole time. It is that exact attitude, not just the strong part that makes the rest of the world hate the US (myself not included). Instead of using strength for altruism or being the slightest bit helpful, the US attitude has always been look out for number one above all else. That means don't join any international organization you can't control or ignore and try to badger the rest of the world into your viewpoint. This works most of the time with cultures similar to your own but when it comes to the middle east or asia, basic American propoganda runs counter to their belief systems and those in charge haven't quite figured that out yet.

--
"The world is a tragedy to those who feel, and comedy to those who think." -- Shakespeare
Re:Problems? by sql*kitten · 2004-10-02 21:13 · Score: 2

I see no problem planning for stuff - it would be irresponsible to stick your head in the sand

The problem is the word "plan". To a civilian, plan implies intent, saying "I plan to do..." is the same as saying "I intend to do...". The average Slashbot reading this interprets it as "the US government intends to shoot down everyone elses satellites".

But to the military, a plan is just that, a plan. The general staff spends its time thinking of hypothetical scenarios, writing down what they think should be done if said scenario actually happens, then putting the plan in a filing cabinet.

Nah. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 10:10 · Score: 5, Informative

By international consent, space is demilitarized (at least until the pod people attack us, or whatever). I doubt the US can afford breaking any more treaties.

Re:Nah. by orzetto · 2004-10-02 10:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

I doubt the US can afford breaking any more treaties.

Look, I wish you were right. But, there was the guy who said:

A lie repeated seven times becomes truth

And another who said:

A death is tragedy, a million statistics

They were both assholes, but they were right in those remarks. That's what make them scary. The biggest asshole of them all, to return in-topic, is the one who (wisely?) said:

Treaties are pieces of paper

The USSR isn't there any more to deter the US, so the US can do pretty much what they want. (If English had the same distinction as German, I would say können, and not dürfen.)

--
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Re:Nah. by RWerp · 2004-10-02 10:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

The USSR isn't there any more to deter the US, so the US can do pretty much what they want.

That's why we need common European defense and common European foreign policy, both funded at levels comparable with the US.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Nah. by ShieldWolf · 2004-10-02 11:00 · Score: 5, Informative

You are incorrect.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty only restricts the use or deployment of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION (more info here ) in space. Conventional warfare is not restricted. What has kept everyone from weaponizing space is:

a) It is expensive
b) Soldiers, Ports, Airstrips and Radar stations are not found there
c) The first nation to do it will be universally despised
d) It is expensive

Now however there are enough 'assets' in space that the US is beginning to fret that a space Pearl Harbour is a distinct possibility because of the military's (over) reliance on GPS and other satellite-based communication. Therefore the costs, both economic and political, are becoming less important to military thinkers.

--
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Re:Nah. by iocat · 2004-10-02 11:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

OMG, you almost made me spit take my coffee.
I don't know which is funnier, the notion that Europe would ever fund defense at US levels (with the resultant sacrfices required by the welfare stare), the notion that Europe would ever be able to do anything but what it's done since the end of WWII (namely: kow-tow to whoever has the guns, be it the US, USSR, or now, increasingly, Muslim extremists), or the notion that somehow a united, militarized Europe would actually threaten the US, or be seen as threatening by the US.
Given the US's perfect 5 and 0 record against European adversaries (Revolution, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII), and the fact that European cultures would likely have to fight in the same kind of culturally sensitive way that the US does (and our recent adversaries have not -- eg using human shields, not wearing uniforms, crashing civilian planes into sky-scrapers, etc.), I think a US v. Europe conflict would be over very quickly.
I understand this is going to quickly get modded -1000 Anti European, but common. Realisticly, Europe does not have the political will to ever stand up to the US in any significant way.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:Nah. by irokitt · 2004-10-02 11:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Space is not demilitarized, both the Soviet Union and America have posessed weapons designed for space in addition to military satellites (including the beloved GPS), and there are no treaties concerning anti-satellite warfare.

During the Cold War, F-15 fighters recieved the capability to take out low-orbit satellites via the ASAT missile, a capability they still posess. The USSR had satellite "bombs" designed to take out low-orbit satellites via EMP (there has been speculation that they could take out medium-orbiting objects as well, but we really don't know). With the demise of the USSR and the collapse of their military, Russia has been willing to sell almost anything, and it wouldn't be a stretch to find China, North Korea, Libya, or Iran with weapons based on Soviet designs. Note that higher orbital objects were immune from these approaches.

There are no treaties concerning the destruction of satellites, although there was one for ballistic missiles; America withdrew in 2002, using a procedure outlined in the treaty which required six months of notice. Incidentally, the ABM treaty allowed the US and USSR to deploy weapons around capital cities. America chose not to, while Moscow is still protected by anti-ballistic missiles. Moscow once expressed interest in a anti-satellite weapons treaty, as did various groups of scientists in the US, but no such treaty was ever signed.

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:Nah. by RWerp · 2004-10-02 12:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't know which is funnier, the notion that Europe would ever fund defense at US levels (with the resultant sacrfices required by the welfare stare)

According to US military, some European countries spend nearly the same amount of GDP on defense as the USA. On the average, EU would have to spend additional 2.5% of GDP on defense, to match the USA. Now, according to Goethe Institut, EU spent on average in 1999 around 28% of GDP on welfare. Moving 2.5% from welfare to defense would be a noticeable, but not drastic policy shift. The reason why Europe is so drastically outperformed by the USA in terms of military capabilities is that European armies are mostly (UK is an exception --- not surprising, since it is shielded by sea) cold-war style, prepared to fight a large scale land war against the Russian invasion. Such armies are useless in today's combat fields, be it Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. USA did not have to pay this 'Russian tax', being separated by an ocean. You could develop a more mobile army (leaving aside technological superiority). Given some time, Europe will remodel its armies, abolish the draft entirely and increase the spending. Creating an common foreign policy will give the incentive to do this, and creating a common army will give the economies of scale.

the notion that Europe would ever be able to do anything but what it's done since the end of WWII (namely: kow-tow to whoever has the guns, be it the US, USSR, or now, increasingly, Muslim extremists)

The USA could well afford to be more rash with the USSR, being shielded by an arsenal of nukes and an ocean. Europe has its problems with sending soldiers abroad (again: abolishing the draft will lessen them), but we were not afraid to send soldiers to Afghanistan. Some EU countries fight in Iraq (UK, Poland, Netherlands) and their experiences (if we still have the UK in the EU in the future) will add to EU military capabilities. The fact that other countries opposed war with Iraq does not mean that they do not fight terrorists. They simple were sane enough to notice that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.

the notion that somehow a united, militarized Europe would actually threaten the US, or be seen as threatening by the US.

The EU is not going to wage a war against the USA. It is only going to be taken more seriously by the USA, seriously enough to able to say 'we don't like your blowing up satellites in the sky' and be taken into account by the USA.

--
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:Nah. by LPetrazickis · 2004-10-02 12:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wouldn't call your record in the War of 1812 spotless. You could argue that you didn't lose it, but you didn't come close to winning it.

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:Nah. by khallow · 2004-10-02 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Given the US's perfect 5 and 0 record against European adversaries (Revolution, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII), and the fact that European cultures would likely have to fight in the same kind of culturally sensitive way that the US does (and our recent adversaries have not -- eg using human shields, not wearing uniforms, crashing civilian planes into sky-scrapers, etc.), I think a US v. Europe conflict would be over very quickly.
A couple of corrections. The War of 1812 wasn't a true US victory. The US fought hard and had a number of significant victories, but at the end of the war, Great Britian had successfully invaded Washington DC and more relevantly was in the process of invading New Orleans. Andrew Jackson's victory wasn't the end of the story there. A key reason the UK stopped was because they had tremendous debts from the Napoleanic wars.
Second, in the wars where the US fought significant European forces (ie, only the two World Wars), the US had great support from European allies. For example, we didn't enter the First World War until very late when Germany was almost exhausted anyway. In the Second World War, the USSR did the lion's share of the fighting and dying and the UK was totally committed. Even though most countries were under German control, there were still significant numbers of Europeans from these countries (particularly, Norway and France) fighting in the allied side. And of course, a lot of troops from the Commonwealth were involved (eg, Canada, India, South Africa, and Australia).
It's extremely doubtful that the US would get support from Europeans in a war with the EU. I certainly wouldn't write Europe off so easily.
Re:Nah. by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 13:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeh. Hitler had the right idea, was just a little haevy-handed bringing it altogether. Go EU go! With your sociopathic urge to unite, barely hidden anti-semitism, and nationalistic chest thumping (I suppose that should be multi-nationalistic, continentalistic? I dunno) you have everything it takes to bring his vision to fruition.

The cultural diversity over there beats the shit out of U.S. Hollywod-generated monotony any day. But again, when one doesn't know about something, he sure cannot see it...

There are days I'm glad there is an ocean between us.
My, my. I've never seen bile covered glasses before. But how they do color the world!
Red, white and blue (ha! like France). More specifically, red and white stripes with white stars on a blue background.
Re:Nah. by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 13:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

No political will. Setting aside the problems of states like Ireland, Switzerland and Finland - states with a firm tradition of military neutrality - the will to expend the economic resources in order to achieve parity with the US simply isn't there
And what good would it be for? Another pissing-contest cold war? Unlike the Soviet Union, the European Union is not hell-bent into converting the whole world to communism.
The US certainly won't invade Europe. What advantage would they get?
No, the US is strong-arming itself just because it is AFRAID. It is afraid of the rest of the world, generally because people are afraid of what they don't understand, and if there is something the americans are severely lacking, is the ability to understand others. The same comment goes for the british, too, and is exemplified with theyr half-hearted all brakes-on adhesion to the European Union.
Re:Nah. by Dalcius · 2004-10-02 14:23 · Score: 3, Informative

"...European armies are mostly ... cold-war style, prepared to fight a large scale land war against the Russian invasion. USA did not have to pay this 'Russian tax', being separated by an ocean."

Actually the main thrust of our R&D during the cold war was towards defeating the Russians on open ground in large scale battles in Europe. The Apache attack helicopter is a good example; it was intended to fly around and mask behind trees and destroy large numbers of Russian tanks on the open grounds of Eastern Europe. A number of our other vehicles were the same way.

Recall that the US has a handful of military bases in Europe and had great interest in stopping any Russian advance. The US army structure was very much devoted to fighting a cold-war type war.

No beef with your post, just wanted to point that out. :)

Cheers

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Nah. by fucksl4shd0t · 2004-10-02 15:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

And the missing link? Since both of your posts are spot on, but they've both left out the missing link.
The missing link is that because we're separated by two oceans from any potential front with the USSR, we had to develop a mobile military. We paid the same USSR tax in military strength as the EU, in fact it could be said we paid much more than they, considering how much of their defense in the event of Soviet invasion would have been fought by American forces stationed in Europe. In any case, both continents were developing military to fight the same enemy from their bases, it's just that our base didn't have any hostile countries advanced enough to fight us while the European continent is shared by our former mutual adversary.
Come on, I know you guys have played enough Civilization to grok this pretty easily. First you hope you're on an island big enough to support 4-6 cities. If so, then you destroy any civilizations that might be there. When that's done, you build a mobile military. Your navy is more important than your ground forces. OTOH, if you're on a large continent with multiple civilizations you have to build land-based military, and when it's time to build navy you frequently have to build the cities first, and then build them up. Starting off landlocked is the worst way to start, obviously the US has an advantage in that respect.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Nah. by MadMorf · 2004-10-02 15:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

USA did not have to pay this 'Russian tax', being separated by an ocean. You could develop a more mobile army (leaving aside technological superiority).

I'm not disagreeing with the overall gist of your post.

I was in the USAF for 8 years, and I would argue that our (US) military became more mobile and hi-tech precisely BECAUSE of our committment to the defense of Europe from the (potential, if not actual) Soviet threat.

1.) Despite the fact that we had a number of heavy divisions garrisoned in Europe, the bulk of our manpower was still in the Continental US and required heavy airlift capability to mobilize in a timely manner. The ability to project our combat power to anyplace in the World on short notice was driven by the need to counter the Soviets and their proxies.

2.) We developed hi-tech precision munitions to even the odds against superior numbers of Warsaw Pact forces in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. One account I have read estimated 20 Warsaw Pact divisions versus 8 NATO divisions. Even taking into account that NATO divisions tended to be larger than WP divisions, (IIRC, NATO divisions were 15K to 20K troops and WP divisions were generally about 12K troops) that's a 3:2 ratio of Warsaw Pact troops to NATO troops.
Our hi-tech weapons (M-1 tanks, Apache and Blackhawk helicopters, TOW and Hellfire missiles, MLRS artillery, Patriot SAMs, AWACS, J-Stars, Aegis guided missile cruisers, GPS, precision guided munitions) were all in response to the Soviet threat.

--
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
Re:Nah. by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 17:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not communism, no. Socialism. Almost as bad.
Just to demonstrate that I mean what I say, please explain to us what is socialism, and why do you think it's almost as bad as communism. Oh, and if in case you believe France is socialist, please note that it's president, Jacques Chirac, is nothing less than the french version of Bush. And the prime minister is of the same ilk.
Assuming by AFRAID you mean not desiring to kowtow or go along with because of presumed social superiority, yes. If you mean fear, no.
A country that executes retarded children certainly cannot boast of any social superiority. A country that detains people without trial nor access to a lawyer cannot claim to promote Liberty. A country that sends canadians abroad to be tortured cannot be a serious proponent of human rights.
Interesting you mention our not invading Europe. I thought you considered us empirialists?
Your empire is not ran and fought for from officer's messes, but in croporate boardrooms. It is not built by generals and gunpowder, but by MBAs and stock options. It is not wrought by soldiers and sweat, but by PHBs and tears. But it is foremost fought by infecting the minds of the bourgeoisie who then thrive to annihilate the State to cripple it and prevent it from being the protector of everyone; instead, they thrive to turn it into the protector of sole rich. Just like in the USA.
Re:Nah. by The+Original+Yama · 2004-10-02 18:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Before I start, I should state that such a debate is very theoretical and war (fortunately) unlikely to happen any time soon. If a war were to happen now, I seriously doubt whether the EU could win. Their forces just aren't geared for that kind of war.
You know, the one that has the largest fleet in the world, the largest airforce in the world, and the most advanced equipment in the world? Yeah, that one.
True, but I would imagine that much of the US forces would already be tied up in various places around the world. Even if you could recall them it would take a while for them to arrive. Of course, you would have to leave some behind for homeland defence.
Well, yeah...none of the US lost that war, Britain lost that war. The goal of the war was: We become independent from Britain. The result of the war was: We became independent from Britain. That's called a victory.
My knowledge of the War of 1812 is minimal, but I remember reading somewhere that one of the aims of the US was to annex parts of Canada. If that is the case then they have failed miserably.
Is there any case of a country declining that far, ever? Here's a questions: What first world nation has ever ceased to be a first-world nation? I know of none, and I'm guessing you know of none either.
It depends on your definition of "first-world" (which is an obsolete Cold War term anyway). Many non-Americans would argue that any nation with a wide income disparity, a high degree of poverty, and low standards of education and health can not be considered to be a 'developed' country. How can you claim to be 'developed' when a large proportion of your people live in conditions which are characteristic of an underdeveloped country?
Various studies have shown that the real standard of living in many 'developed' countries has been falling since the 1970s, most of all in the USA. Such measurements take into account 'quality of life' elements like availability of health care and education (NB: this does not depend on public systems; private systems are OK as long as it is affordable and of a decent standard), real income (counting inflation and household debt), pollution, politcal/speech freedom, etc.
Further, look into economics. If the US economy crashes, the world economy crashes. That's the way things are right now. It may suck and be a serious problem, but it's also true.
Yes. Even more frightening is the possibility of the USA defaulting on its borrowings. The USA has accrued massive debts, and it is questionable whether it can all be serviced. That would throw the entire global economy into chaos. Some even fear that this could be used as a tactic by the US government to get what they want. If that happens, nobody can do anything about it, and they'll be forced to acquiesce for fear of destroying their economies.
And as for us have more homeless, starving, and poor people in LA than Europe has throughout, that's not even true if you only consider western Europe.
No it's not true, but the parent post makes a good point. There is a massive dispaity of wealth in the US, and levels of poverty and homelessness are much higher than in other developed countries. I am not a socialist by any means, but there is something seriously wrong when you have the resources to prevent (or at leat reduce) this yet nothing is done.

--
OLPC Australia
Re:Nah. by Quobobo · 2004-10-02 22:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Link re: the sending Candians abroad to be tortured part here. This is frigging terrifying.
Re:Nah. by angel'o'sphere · 2004-10-03 03:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunatly most of your claims are simply wrong.

Unfortunatly I mixed up seseccion with seperation, I ment the seseccion war.

Regarding the steel ropes on carriers, no, the united states a complete run down steel industry. They will not be able to find a process to make them in time. The amount of ropes a carrier is carrying with it is enough for 14 days operations.

The report after 9/11, that several 1000 pages thing, stated clearly that you have less then 10 wings of aircrafts operational in USA territory. All other wings are somewhere else on the planet.

While your bombers might be able to start in the united states and to fly to Afghanistan, they rely for that flight on global (NATO) infrastructure. But the point you really miss is: Afghanistan has no Air Force. Afghanistan has no Radar, Afghanistan has no weather sattelites.

Your anti missile lasers are not operational yet and they work anyway only under "perfect weather" conditions. The missiles are not aimed against your carriers in the first wave, they will hit the destroyers first of course. You forget that a carrier to attack Europe needs to be in range of about 500 miles. That is in range of the european, e.g. french and united kingdom air forces as well. The NATO defense strategies allways have been that the local defenses specialize in the local territory and local circumstances, while the US forces are formed to be a strike force to hit any point of the globe fast. For that reason, a lot of sub marines are deployed in north and east see. The US lack capabilities to detect them reliable. Because the anti sub marine forces in that area are european as well. You can extend that example to tanks etc. While the US has quite good tanks they use them only in countries whre no resistance exists.

I don't want to say that Europe would win such a war, because your answer is quite better than the original posters claims (erm, was that you as well? Can not see it while typing this.) You are right, such a war would be a total mess.

Regarding homeless people, probably the statistics are wrong :D But they claim more homless and more starving and more HIV infected and more murders and so on in the US than in western europe. The question is not wether the US are 'dropping' from first world standards to third world standards, but how fast the standards do evolve furhter. E.g. countries like India and probably soon Indonesia (and China as well) are approaching first world levels. And if they start overtaking the US in terms of standard of living, IMHO US would be considered second world then.

angel'o'sphere

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Consequences? I'd say! by DigitalRaptor · 2004-10-02 10:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Space junk will be the least of our worries if we make it a habit of shooting down everyone elses technology from space.

I swear, especially under this new administration, America has taken on the roll of big brother / playground bully to a degree I'm not comfortable with.

Yes we need to be afraid of attack. Yes we need to protect ourselves. No that doesn't mean we have exclusive rights to space.

If we start shooting down China et al's space technology, the next target will be painted on our foreheads, and every other soveriegn country on earth will have their fingers on the trigger.

--
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix

Its official: George Bush is building a Death Star by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 10:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station.

English. by Jonas+the+Bold · 2004-10-02 10:11 · Score: 5, Funny

"I don't any plans for the aftermath..."

And I don't any verb.

--
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice

Not planning for the aftermath ... by Triumph+The+Insult+C · 2004-10-02 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

sounds familiar

i guess dubya is consistent in some things ..

--
vodka, straight up, thank you!

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by QBasicer · 2004-10-02 10:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree. Isn't it true other countries cannot take pictures of other countries (like the US), according to the US, but it's fine and dandy for the US to take spy pictures of others?

Do unto others as you would others unto to you (Or something like that)

--
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.

zerg by Lord+Omlette · 2004-10-02 10:14 · Score: 3, Funny

Only someone who truly hates America would ever have written this:

I don't any plans for the aftermath...

Isn't it obvious? Once we liberate all the Chinese satellites, China and space will welcome us w/ singing and dancing and rose petals.

I personally like the "Fire high-powered laser beams from Earth to redirect objects so they will burn up in earth's atmosphere" option because it means less stuff we have to attach to our spacecraft plus if Aliens invade, we'll at least have something to use against them...

--
[o]_O

Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Foggiano · 2004-10-02 10:14 · Score: 5, Funny

The Commandant to the graduating class of the military academy that Bart and Lisa joined:

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.

Ridiculous by dotwaffle · 2004-10-02 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I find this notion preposterous - the US has a massive number of satellites for the purposes of espionage, and general usage that they are trying to prevent other countries from doing. Lead by example, not hypocrisy. If I was the leader of a country that had a satellite shot down, or the head of a corporation that had their spacecraft blown up if it was entering US airspace (and by this, I mean under 100km) and had submitted a suitable may-day, then I would be looking for retribution. The same goes for Nuclear Weapons - how come the US seems to be the only country that is allowed to build them? Russian nuclear missles are being destroyed left, right and centre, the British and French are happy with just a few, yet the US happens to have several THOUSAND... Hypocracy is an awful thing.

I'm not anti-US, by the way, I'm just anti-US government. And that doesn't make me a hippie, that makes me British...

Re:Ridiculous by Jerf · 2004-10-02 10:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lead by example, not hypocrisy.

"Hypocracy" means saying one thing and doing another. Using it as a label is a sign of weak thinking.

So, tell me: When did the US Military tell people that nobody should think about how to take down satellites?

If you can't answer that... and you can't... it is not hypocracy. It may be other things but that isn't it.

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by jdhutchins · 2004-10-02 10:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just becuase we have the ability to do it, doesn't mean we'll use it. We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them. That doesn't mean we should get a rid of them. It's better to be able to do this kind of stuff and not use it than to need it but not have it. And besides, we've worked on this in the past, it's not like this is a new idea.

Aftermath? by general_re · 2004-10-02 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

"The aftermath" is, rightly, not the purview of the military. The job of the military is to break shit and kill people - "the aftermath" is someone else's domain, reserved for "after" the fighting is all over. Reducing space junk and eliminating enemy satellites are mutually exclusive propositions, so you might as well choose which you want more, because you can't have both.

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

Defending against who? by Ars-Fartsica · 2004-10-02 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

In case you hadn't noticed, the US is far more open to low cost (how much do twenty box cutters cost?) and low tech ("just teach me how to point this thing down") attacks.

This is just another transfer of Federal tax dollars to Boeing and TRW with no real defense benefit.

Re:Defending against who? by flossie · 2004-10-02 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

In all fairness here, would 20 guys with boxcutters be able to do that today?
Undoubtedly. The extra "security" that has been implemented is mainly for show. An anecdote always helps to demonstrate the point. About a year after the attack on the WTC, my girlfriend and I were flying out of DFW. She forgot that their were sharp things in her pencil case and put it in her hand luggage. At the security gate the guard opened it and confiscated a pair of scissors. She also took out a very sharp scalpel (used for art), looked at, and put it back without a word!

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Re:Defending against who? by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 12:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wasn't entirely clear about that - I don't think that 5 guys with boxcutter could take over a plane with 100 people in it today. The economics of hijacking changed on September 11th from "sit down and be quiet until released" to "we're all going to die anyway so let's get them first".
Some very public failures of the screening process (like that college kid from Louisianna(?)) show that you are correct about it being mainly for show - and for disarming those who would fight back in the event of a hijacking.
Airplanes would be less apt to be hijacked if they issued everyone on board a stun gun or a big pointy stick and locked the pilots in the cabin.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Defending against who? by Epistax · 2004-10-02 12:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why don't we spend this money on making sure another American doesn't kill me? I'm sure the odds of that happening are thousands of times greaterthan anyone outside of the country.
Re:Defending against who? by flossie · 2004-10-02 13:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

If everyone in the cabin is armed and sealed off from the cockpit - they can do what they will to each other but not take the plane. ... unless the pilots open the door because they know that their families are being held hostage. A quick message to the pilot just before they board and all bets are off.

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Re:Defending against who? by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed with that.
I work at a bank and I'm more worried about that kind of a robbery than one where I'm personally held up.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Defending against who? by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-02 13:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

In all fairness here, would 20 guys with boxcutters be able to do that today?

Plenty. U.S. border security is a joke. 4 months after 9/11, I went down to the US with a friend. The border stop took 30 seconds (including a peek at the trunk - they didn't even blink at the beer in there). And the kicker is that they don't even looked at my face nor at my ID either (which is funny, because my father routinely gets questionned because he looks like Saddam Hussein).
Last time I went, the immigration officer looked at my ID, then let us through laughing because we had the same last name...
Re:Defending against who? by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 14:15 · Score: 2, Informative

I maintain that on 9/10, you and four other guys with boxcutters could hold a large room full of people hostage because of their expectation that the outcome wouldn't be their demise. 9/11 changed that equation - the expectation of a safe outcome for the hostages no longer exists, so it would take more than 5 guys to hold them, or better weaponry.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

What about others? by QBasicer · 2004-10-02 10:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why did the US go to war? Because Iraq was thought to have weapons of mass destruction... What are in those silos? Weapons of mass destruction.

--
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.

Big policy shifts with current administration by PIPBoy3000 · 2004-10-02 10:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

With Bush giving Kerry a hard time for his "Global Test" remark, it seems clear that the US is taking a more aggressive stance militarily. The cold war is over and there really isn't anyone who can threaten us except with terrorism or nuclear missles (China, India, Pakistan, and certain EU states).

What we're seeing is an administration who's willing to do whatever it takes to advance its goals. Personally, I find that chilling. As Machiavelli said, it is better to be feared than loved, but it is worse to be hated. I worry that our current policies are moving America towards a position where it is universally hated by the rest of the world.

Re:Big policy shifts with current administration by dasunt · 2004-10-02 11:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

The cold war is over and there really isn't anyone who can threaten us except with terrorism or nuclear missles (China, India, Pakistan, and certain EU states).

In the waning years of the cold war, the Russians found that the whole "turn the world into nuclear ash" idea was becoming a tad expensive.

They still wanted powerful weapons as a deterrent to a first strike, and they wanted those weapons to be cheap.

They ended up building one of the scariest biological weapons programs this planet has ever known. Diseases that were vaccine resistant. Weaponized Ebola. Plague. Variants of common diseases that were much more infectious, and much more lethal.

With the fall of the USSR, and the Russian economy going down the drain, there are a lot of poor, job-hungry biological warfare people out there looking for any employer. Some of these people have already gone missing.

So, lets say you are a rogue state and you want to take down the US. Are you going to do it with an ICBM? Probably not, since the origin is easy to find, and retaliation will probably destroy you. Smuggle in a nuclear device? Good news coverage, good terror, but, to be honest, working nukes aren't easy to come by, even after the fall of the USSR. How about a nice biological weapon? Send one person to Europe or whatnot, let him or her infect themselves, wait until they are infectious, and have them stand outside an airplane gate with tourists and business travelers departing to the US.

Nukes don't scare me. They are too hard to find compared to biological weapons.

Junk, a challenge for commercial space travel? by Fiz+Ocelot · 2004-10-02 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

What amazes me is how it seems like space junk does not cause as many problems as it sounds like it should. What kind of problem could this pose for commercial space tourism?

And if more commercial space programs go into production, it seems like the debris field will grow very rapidly.

An unacceptable idea by Slinky+Saves+the+Wor · 2004-10-02 10:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

So... if this is put the other way around, it goes like this: China can decide that they must keep their perceived "space superiority" and exercise their "freedom to attack" in space. China will want to kill the devices which aid the adversary, and then they'll go and blast five US satellites and a shuttle (with crew inside) to pieces in orbit.

I think that would be totally unacceptable.

That's why I also think it would be totally unacceptable for the US to think of doing similar things at all.

Like it says in the article, in a modern world, an orbital war would leave the world deaf and blind. We rely too much on satellites for communication, remote sensing, surveillance, everything. Only fools would play with such a risk.

--
I do not moderate.

Re:An unacceptable idea by rsax · 2004-10-02 15:50 · Score: 2, Funny

We rely too much on satellites for communication, remote sensing, surveillance, everything. Only fools would play with such a risk.
Fortunately the people who are currently in charge and most likely to be re-elected are completely balanced, non-reactionary and rational folk.

Typical Stuff by inKubus · 2004-10-02 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd say the Air Force has thousands of plans for all kinds of different contingencies. This is just another needle in the haystack. War in the modern age is based on information more than pure might, and the side with the control of the information will win.

That said, I think that releasing this information to the public may cause tension polically between us and other countries. Everyone already knew it, but you just don't talk about some things. I'm sure there's plans to nuke children in Africa, for instance, but you don't talk about that because it's better for everyone if we don't have to think about such possibilities...

An interesting thing also, is that our society is quite vulnerable to attacks such as these. Imagine the damage high-altitude air burst EMP weapons could do to our digital economy. Everything from money to the title of your home is based on the old ones and zeros now which tend to be a little more fragile than paper and ink..

There are downsides to technology and it's really imperative that everyone tries to get along in this day and age or we risk going back to the turn of the century in a few hours.

What with the new laws in place now, even a few whackos in the upper echelons of the government could give orders and literally turn off the world in a few minutes and all military electronics are typically protected from EMP, whereas your average consumer stuff ISN'T.

And of course there are already contingencies in place if such a thing happens.

Interesting side note, I was reading on one of those crazy whacko conspiracy sites about something called "TACMARS", which are basically tactical markings on signs and stuff that you wouldn't normally notice but could be used by people to organize movements in the absence of sophisiticated computerized mapping and logistics systems. They mentioned something about those bright reflective tags you sometimes see on the backs of road signs, and how you'd use a quadrant system (left corner, right corner, etc.) to make a code which gives someone directions covertly. Interesting ideas, even if it's nutty. Do a search sometime.

Anyway, the point is, we live in a very fragile age, and the people we (Americans) pay to worry about such things do.

Whether they are bad or good of course depends on how you vote next month ;)

--
Cool! Amazing Toys.

Re:Typical Stuff by Solder+Fumes · 2004-10-02 12:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Interesting side note, I was reading on one of those crazy whacko conspiracy sites about something called "TACMARS", which are basically tactical markings on signs and stuff that you wouldn't normally notice but could be used by people to organize movements in the absence of sophisiticated computerized mapping and logistics systems. They mentioned something about those bright reflective tags you sometimes see on the backs of road signs, and how you'd use a quadrant system (left corner, right corner, etc.) to make a code which gives someone directions covertly. Interesting ideas, even if it's nutty.

Hello, they're road signs. What about the information on the front of them?

Sexy stuff, but I really hope it's not necessary by AnwerB · 2004-10-02 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wish they would spend just 10% of the time and money that spend on making a better war machine into making sure that they don't have to use it.

This is just my perception, but it seems we spend hundreds of billions for solving a problem that could have been avoided with a few billion dollars and a little diplomacy.

For example, with the Iraqi mess going on right now, it seems that we could just have let the Iraqis overthrow Saddam when they tried dozens of times. A lot of times, all it would have required was for the CIA to just not tip him off. Even when he officially became bad (after Kuwait), there were several opportunities to remove the embargo and help the Iraqis to revolt, but we vetoed every time the UN suggested it. I don't want to go too far into this, because then it would be off-topic...

Aftermath? by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-10-02 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once a situation arises that requires this type of action, the aftermath isn't quite the most pressing problem. This is for if a hostile government or a hostile group has taken control of launch pads or satellites to install their weaponry or spy systems, and the US is at war or cold war with them. That situation would be so rare and so dangerous that we really shouldn't be worrying about the political and biological aftermath, let alone the resulting space junk -- if we ever have to use such a plan, the damage from the whole war will be so terrible that we probably won't be going back to space for a long while.

Michael Crichton's fictional account The Andromeda Strain mentions plans for nuking non-Soviet-controlled areas (even neutral cities) should they become infected by a biocontaminant from outside earth, because the worldwide threat from such a contaminant would be high, and the chance for global nuclear war is low enough (less than 50%). At that point, the danger of nuclear war is less than the danger of the contaminant surviving and spreading.

And I think most people don't realize that the US has plans for just about everything - they had recently released (under the FOIA) plans for invading Canada. We'll probably never go to war against Canada in at least the next 200 years, but I'm glad we're prepared in case something should go terribly wrong. We probably have to have plans to defeat every country (including a secession of US states) and almost every hostile structure of weapons, etc., if the need ever arises. This is only a small part of that. And I'd guess they also have separate plans for dealing with any severe political aftermath.

See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by c0dedude · 2004-10-02 10:22 · Score: 2, Informative

You are not allowed to do this But since Bush thinks the UN is worthless, the rules fly out the window and the shit hits the fan. And people say Iraq didn't have international consequences.

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?

Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by eSims · 2004-10-02 10:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here goes my Karma...

Before Slashdot goes off half cocked (what? to late?) realize that this is a plan... if...

That's what the US military does best... generate reems of useless paperwork full of plans so that if the need arises.

Would you have them ill prepared? You DO have a DR plan for those mission critical servers, right!?! Same thing... dig through the military archives of pointless studies and you will find alot of plans just in case something goes awry.

Now... IF the US starts shooting down satelites on a regular basis then feel free to Flame On!

My $.02 (not adjusted for inflation).

JKS

--
I .sig therefore I am!
Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by general_re · 2004-10-02 10:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

You are not allowed to do this
That treaty doesn't say any such thing. You are apparently referring to Article IV without having bothered to read it. Allow me to post it in its entirety:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

Kindly note that there is no prohibition on non-nuclear, non-WMD anti-satellite weapons being used in orbit. Further note that "orbit" is not a "celestial body", and therefore not covered by the second paragraph.
But hey, you got to take an obligatory swipe at the current administration, and you got modded all to hell by a bunch of people who didn't read your link either, so it's all good, right?

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by Phanatic1a · 2004-10-02 10:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh, yeah, that's a really binding treaty, with significant powers of enforcement behind it:

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

This is really nothing new. The USAF had an anti-satellite missile program decades ago, a two-stage rocket launched from an F-15 at high-altitude. There was one successful test, and the program was then shelved. The Soviet Union had an anti-satellite satellite, that if used would match orbits with the target, get close to it, and then detonate.

I like how this stuff only becomes Eeeeevul when the Bush administration looks into it.
Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by Homology · 2004-10-02 10:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

You are not allowed to do this But since Bush thinks the UN is worthless, the rules fly out the window and the shit hits the fan. And people say Iraq didn't have international consequences.
The same goes for the Geneva Convention, and US strong opposition to the International Criminal Court. In Bush & Co.: War Crimes and Cover-Up we have
But evidence of war crimes by the Bush administration - notably Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush - continues to emerge. And in spite of Bush's renunciation of the International Criminal Court, many people around the world are clamoring for Bush and his deputies to be held accountable. In the words of Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman: "It is one thing to protect the armed forces from politicized justice; quite another, to make it a haven for suspected war criminals."
Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun? by Phanatic1a · 2004-10-02 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

a haven for suspected war criminals.

That's a remarkably accurate description of the UN itself. I mean, what can you say about an organization that places Sudan on its Human Rights Committee?

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by Wyatt+Earp · 2004-10-02 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is war planning. There are schools for thinking up plans incase something happens. For the vast majority of the plans, even if the conflict comes, they are not used.

I get Air and Space Power Journal and I can tell you that war planning for space has been a staple of the US/NATO and Soviet planning for decades.

How would you know why your satellite died? by bitingduck · 2004-10-02 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not unusual for satellites to die for unexplained reasons. Earth orbiters are pretty reliable lately-there have been a whole lot of them and the environment is reasonably well understood, but it's still a harsh place to make stuff work, and there are things that you can't predict that can take out a satellite. And given what a pain it is to recover them, or even send someone to take a look, it would be hard to ever know why your satellite quit working. If it's in a low enough orbit it might even come down pretty quickly after control is lost, not leaving a whole lot of evidence...

It's conceivable that you might notice from a ground telescope that some other satellite has moved into a nearly intersecting orbit, but I suspect that a lot of spy satellites (independent of who owns them) are in similar orbits to each other anyway.

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by Triumph+The+Insult+C · 2004-10-02 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

oh, right. mutually assured destruction made people feel awfully safe

get rid of the nukes and retared solutions such as mutually assured destruction are no longer needed. fancy that

--
vodka, straight up, thank you!

WRONG. by Beautyon · 2004-10-02 10:27 · Score: 4, Funny

the next target will be painted on our foreheads

That space is reserved for the mark of the beast.

--
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi

Re:WRONG. by Thor+Ablestar · 2004-10-03 00:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Wrong. The TARGET mark is ALREADY on foreheads. Look here.
This picture was shot during a music concert in Belgrad in 1999. Look
here
too. And don't forget that US army and Osama bin Laden were on the same side of Yugo barricades. Aren't USA going to warm another snakes on their breasts?

Of course they have plans for space combat by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 10:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

They probably have plans for an alien invasion, Canadian sneak attack, and another Civil War. It doesn't mean they are likely to be used, only that they are trying to plan for every contingency.

Sheesh, if on 9-10-01 they had made plans in case terrorists hijacked multiple airplanes and ran them into skyscrapers, there would be someone here complaining they were bloodthirsty and paranoid. If you are afraid of war in space, pressure your political leaders to refrain from doing so, don't whack the military because they are preparing for the worst.

Oh Great... by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-10-02 10:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

``should the need arise''

You mean, if Bush accuses them of having WMD?

Sow more hatred, harvest more pain. Piss off everybody, and gee, there are terrorists attacking you. Who would have thought? Good we spent those billions building our super hyper space defense system rather than improving quality of life!

What's that you say? They're using low-tech weapons that we cannot detect? We must have stronger security checks, fuck civil rights and liberties!

And the maddening thing is, voters actually support all this...

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Re:Canadian too by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, the world seems to know a lot about Americans, but the Americans don't seem to know an aweful lot about the rest of the world... What gives!?

Actually, the rest of the world pretends they know a lot about Americans, while most Americans don't bother. Watching our TV shows does not give you any great depth of insight into American culture any more than my watching anime makes me an expert on the Japanese.

What does this administration have to do with it? by Sycraft-fu · 2004-10-02 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look, we have a military to defend ourselves. We use it for other things as well, and that you can critique a particular administration on, but our military in general is around for defense. Well a large part of that is contingency planning, playing what if games so you've got some plans if one actually happens. You do not want something to happen and everyone to go "Hmmmm, we didn't think about this, we're not sure what to do."

War in space is becomming a possibility, thus our military needs to plan for it. Doesn't mean we are going to go randomly shooting at other satalites, just that we'll be ready should the shooting start. We don't want our military planners to stick their heads in the sand and go "We'll just hope it doesn't happen."

It's the same thing as our nuclear contingencies. No sane human wants nuclear war, however that doesn't mean we should just pretend the possibility doesn't exist. Our military has plans as to what to do in the event of one, and the plans are different for different types. Hopefully, they'll be be nothing more than hypothetical documents, but I'd rather we have a plan than just pretend like it can't happen.

This is the same thing. RTFA. The Air Force is NOT saying "let's just start shotting down satalites for fun." They are saying "In the event of a war, where satalites could be used against us, let's have a plan to eliminate them." This is no different than other nations working on ways to jam/counter GPS, and working on their own navigation networks as to not need to rely on the US for it. It's not that they want to fight the US or destroy GPS, but if push came to shove, they want to have some contengiency plans.

Please, RTFA and get a little perspective. Our military plans for just about everything all the time. We even have plans in the event of a war with our allies. It's pretty much unthinkable, but again, better to have a plan. Having a plan doesn't mean using that plan.

I have a plan for what I'd do in the event of a home invasion, fire, etc, etc. Doesn't mean I jsut go around randomly implementing the plans. I just think things through so that if something dangerous happens, I can just follow my plan (which Ithought of while I was calm and rational) rather than run around and panic and try to come up with something (when I'm excited and alarmist).

Re:Talk about mixed messages... by ScrewMaster · 2004-10-02 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

No double standard at all. A lot of people seem to believe that because we use our military and diplomatic powers to keep other nations from developing advanced weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously keeping them ourselves, we're somehow being hypocritical. We're not. This isn't a matter of fair trade or some other political or economic issue. This is a matter of a whole lot of people (American and otherwise) finding themselves suddenly dead.

The U.S. military's job is to defend US. That is, to defend the U.S. citizens that pay for it. Period. We never promised the rest of you that we'd defend you, or for that matter that we'd even be nice to you: we have, on more than one occasion but was because doing so was in our best interests. Keep that firmly in mind when you talk about double standards. We have no obligation whatsoever to disarm ourselves, particularly in the post-Soviet era where more and more unfriendly and decidedly erratic nations are acquiring atomic and biological weapons.

The rest of the world seems annoyed that we won't let it have thousands of thermonuclear devices, ICBMs, bioweapons and things of that nature, but you forget one thing: we've been down that road and don't want to go there again. The Soviet Empire collapsed, and left behind a nuclear legacy that will continue to haunt us (all of us) for years to come. No-one really knows where all of Russia's warheads are to this very day. See, we a. don't believe the rest of you when you say you aren't building these things and b. wouldn't trust you with them anyway. And, honestly, if you look at this realistically and get the anti-American sentiment out of it, you don't want Mutual Assured Destruction to be a major component of United States foreign policy again either. If the world ever finds itself in another Cold War it might not get out of it alive. And when you think about it, we really aren't out of the woods yet.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Impact of debris at 3-6km/sec by SendBot · 2004-10-02 10:37 · Score: 4, Informative

I found this in a link from the "consequences" link in the story.

A shuttle windsield impacted by a paint chip at 3 to 6km/sec
http://www.aero.org/cords/debrisks.html

Re:Canadian too by dotwaffle · 2004-10-02 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

To be honest, if I was voting in America, I would vote Bush. Bush may have been a crap decision, but Kerry is just a slightly less experienced Bush, who is riding on the fact that he served in Vietnam, and won't stop talking about war in general. That's why I liked Al Gore, why I liked Bill Clinton, and why I like Howard Dean. They're genuinely nice people, who wouldn't be taken for a ride. Al Gore was at least partly responsible for the internet we have today, so he's got to have at least SOME sense! At the current time though, I would vote for neither, and there isn't an easy place on the net to explain to we, foreigners, about the third party (no pun intended) candidates.

...and this is a surprise? by fitten · 2004-10-02 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise.

News must be very slow lately... seems like all these places are just stating some obvious stuff in order to fill up their pages or put something with today's date on it.

Of *course* the US Air Force have has these plans for a long time now. Why in the world would this be something just now "found out"? Is this supposed to be some new scuttlebutt just "unearthed" (pardon the pun)? Is there anyone out there who *didn't* think the USAF had these type plans for decades now?

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by myowntrueself · 2004-10-02 10:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We have hundreds of nuclear missiles in the ground all across the west, but we don't use them."

They *are* used; as weapons of terror.

The atmosphere of terror created by threat of their use is their actual value.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Weather sats? by danharan · 2004-10-02 10:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Both Republicans and Democrats, if given the opportunity to target certain assets will do so- even if only by mistake.

What will be the long term consequences, for example if you down a weather sat? Well, for many countries that depend in large part on agriculture for both survival and balance of trade, not having a reliable weather info could be catastrophic. Besides the loss of human life, is it too outlandish to think that a bunch of people that have had their standard of living suddenly diminished could blame the US?

<background>
Clinton had a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan bombed to the ground on suspicion of producing WMDs. It was a mistake they later apologized for.

Consequences? A lot of people without access to cheap anti-malaria drugs and affordable veterinary drugs. In other words, a lot of people die, although not right away or in a "sexy" way for western media. I'm afraid people won't get the point of how dangerous it is to disable key infrastructure like weather sats or pharm plants.
</background>

An other near-term consequence of this will be to piss off some Canadian moderates that are uneasy with the idea of supporting the US on ballistic missile defense (another component of space weaponization).

--
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"

Way to go... by tit0.c · 2004-10-02 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

When did the US buy space? I must have missed the news...

Then americans wonder why most of the world is so pissed off at you as to be willing to crash a couple of planes in to some towers.

If the U.S government doesn`t start realizing that the world (and space now) is not their personal playground ,9/11 is gonna look very small compared to what might come next.

Consequences? by Gannoc · 2004-10-02 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

(The link leads to a page about space junk)

If we're ever at a point where we're shooting down Chinese satellites, I think that "space junk" will be the least of our concerns.

They've toyed with this for years by cyclone96 · 2004-10-02 10:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The Air Force has messing with this stuff for quite some time.

In 1959, they launched a missile nicknamed "King Lofus IV" from a B-58 as an early test of satellite intercept using Explorer V as a target...the test was a miserable failure.

They were more successful in 1985, with a successful intercept and kinetic kill of a satellite with an F-15 launched ASAT prototype. The program was terminated in 1988.

--
Worst...sig...ever!

I'll feel a lot safer... by The+Mgt · 2004-10-02 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

...when the US government can no longer afford to spend 320 billion dollars a year on the military.

Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us by Gentlewhisper · 2004-10-02 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bush doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. Mission Accomplished.

Fry: Stop the cloning. [Smashes up the Clonomat]

Farnsworth: Oh, sure. Smash the *smart* guy's machine.

That's what all idiots do.

--
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!

Keep the millitary out of space... by Genda · 2004-10-02 10:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

This incessant need that humanity has to pave over one another of our race, in the dominant ideology, needs to come to a crashing halt (before the crashing really begins to occur over our heads and ultimately comes falling down upon said heads.)

There is obviously a need to set minimum operational standards for societies around the world, the failure of which to meet, inducing global sanctions and a loss of global participation. That said, we need to have room for a diverse and broad expression of human thinking, perspective, and culture. It's inside of that diversity, that the flexibility of our race shows up. Our ability to address change and challenge is a direct reflexion of the breadth of our thinking and our ability to imagine possible solutions.

The society we now live in, in the United States, is becoming dangerously dogmatic, and our arrogance is leading us to choices which will have terrible reprecussions for our children and our children's children. We need to find a better way to interact with people than blasting and bludgeoning them. Even in our greatness, we can be destroyed by our ignorance and hubris. Creating a safe world for all children will take a far site more than turning LEO into an mine field.

Genda

Re:Keep the millitary out of space... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is obviously a need to set minimum operational standards for societies around the world, the failure of which to meet, inducing global sanctions and a loss of global participation.

What? You mean like the genocide in Sudan? That the UN has ignored for 10 years? That the UN still doesn't want to impose sanctions on Sudan?

That's what multilateralism & working with the UN will get you. More than a million Sudanese dead with no solution in sight.

Many of the world's governments are filled with evil people. They don't want the UN to take action in Sudan. After all, they would be next.

Re:What does this administration have to do with i by DigitalRaptor · 2004-10-02 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

What does this administration have to do with it?

Everything.

The message this administration sends to the world is "We'll decide what's best for the world, we'll decide who we do and don't invade, we'll decide whether it's right for you to have nuclear weapons (which we have in unfathonable amounts), we'll decide whether it's right for you to have long range weapons capabilities (again, we have more than anyone), etc etc etc".

We want the entire planet to play with a different set of rules than we play with, and do it with a smile on their faces. And if they don't, they'll be next (once we get out of Iraq in 2037).

The entire Cold War took place because 2 super powers had plans. Neither side acted on them, but they had them, and it turned into one big pissin' match.

The more we try to keep the battlefield uneven in the world, the worse this will become. Space is no exception. And this administration is worse than any other in this regard. Just ask anyone besides Tony Blair.

--
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix

Re:Wonder when... by dekashizl · 2004-10-02 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your arguments echo the typical wishfulness of a naive pacifist. Here's the simple reality:

Competition is a prime driving force that pushes evolution, including the social evolution that has led to our "civilized world" that you hold in such high regard.
You can't just shut off competition when you get to a point you're happy with. It will always exist on many scales.
There are those who would seek personal gain at the unequal and massive expense of others.
The guardians tasked with maintaining stability are responsible for preventing such "evil" forces from causing chaos. (This explains why nations need military force to defend themselves and others).
Checks and balances are important to prevent those guardians from becoming corrupt and self-serving. (This explains the "right to bear arms").

So if you have any criticisms of this unpleasant reality, then try to be specific about it, rather than just naively wishing for peace. And if you somewhat agree with what I said, but feel "why should we be the ones" (i.e. #4 is fine, but let somebody else do it), then consider the words of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1945):

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Open Source Opportunity at hand! by Marcus+Erroneous · 2004-10-02 10:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Obviously this will lead to a need for personal protection for the individual in the street. Might I suggest an Open Source designed Kevlar umbrella? Already an accepted accessory common to many, it will not only protect your clothing from common rain, but provide limited protection from less common forms of falling detrious. The perfect gift for that hard-to-shop-for individual in your life.

--
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by flacco · 2004-10-02 10:56 · Score: 4, Funny

If we start shooting down China et al's space technology, the next target will be painted on our foreheads

HA! *my* forehead slopes sharply back away from my brow!

take THAT, commies!

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us by gordgekko · 2004-10-02 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Work to develop anti-satellite weapons has been underway for decades with Russia and China taking an active role in research and development. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this makes the United States and George W. Bush evil/stupid?

Do you think it's a good idea for two potential enemies to have a capability that could cause catastrophic damage to American interests and the Americans just close their eyes to it?

--
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".

Re:Aftermath? by Bi()hazard · 2004-10-02 10:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

You wouldn't be the leader of a country for very long with that approach. You'd end up like Saddam Hussein. I'm willing to bet your role model is North Korea's dictator, who is still in power despite thumbing his nose at the US for quite some time. But he's not declaring "full and all out war". In fact, he's not taking any direct actions against the US.

Funny that you should mention what one sovereign state "should" be able to tell another. The whole point of sovereign states is that they answer to no one, and do what they please. If you want the stop a sovereign state, you either have to create internal pressure to change what that state wants, or oppose it with enough force (of any kind) to make sure fooling around isn't worthwhile.

It might seem "unfair" that one country makes the rules for another while violating all of those rules itself. But there is no possible solution to this problem. By definition, there is no authority with the right to order sovereign nations around. So the nations can do whatever they can get away with. The emergence of a benevolent tyrant alleviates the problems this system can cause, but it's only a temporary solution. Any permanent mechanism would need to make the sovereign states accountable to something-which means taking away some of what makes them sovereign. A world government that co-opts some of the powers of the currently sovereign states could do it, but who is this world government accountable to? If you don't like their decisions, too bad. You can't even leave the country to get away from them. That's why we don't have a true world government. There is an actual need to use military force to oppose those whose ideas you strongly disagree with.

For example, I believe that several hundred beautiful women should be my slaves. (to those of you who read my profile, draw your own conclusions :3 (keep in mind a girl doesn't need to enslave men to treat them like slaves!)) I consider this to be my inalienable right, and all those women should lack this right because I can get away with it and they can't. Now, if you disagree, what are you going to do? Arguing won't change my mind, no matter what you say. I'll just tell you to think about your breathing. When you focus on it, you must carefull control your breathing, or else you will suffocate. If I'm a sovereign state, no laws have the authority to stop me. The only solution is to use force (military, economic, political, or anything else, but some sort of force) to either make it impossible for me to keep slaves, or create other problems for me so that it won't be worthwhile anymore.

The equation is exactly the same between nations. Except that instead of hot sex, we're talking about hot lead. And lots of explosives also heated. yeah. It sounds like war, death, and nuclear annihilation are among the parent poster's goals, but most of us don't really care for that sort of thing, so we have to use military force to keep people like pigscanfly.ca from gaining enough power to kill everyone.

Re:Talk about mixed messages... by Mulletproof · 2004-10-02 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

EXACTLY.

According to some of these people, you'd think we set off nukes every other week in small neighboring countries just to excercise our imperial domain over the rest of the world. I mean come on. In over 50 years of deployment, we've only used nuclear weapons in one campaign and against an enemy that had initiated hostilities and had been at war with for 4 years. Not only that, we had them for over a decade before anybody else, including the Soviet Union, without excercising anything close to Pax Americana. I know we're all enamored with the current mindless propaganda, but the record speaks for itself-- We will develope big fucking sticks and we will make sure you know we have them, but we never use those big fucking sticks unless you absolutely deserve it. ...Depite the whining, bitching and moaning otherewise. To entrust your security to the word of potential advesaries is simply assnine. Clinton trust N.Korea and see where that got him. The best way to prevent them from even thinking about shit is to make sure they they see the massive hammer looming over their heads. Such a massive hammer was the only thing that kept the other half of Europe from speaking Russian.

Besides, compared to keeping a fleet of nuclear rockets, it's got to be tons cheaper to simply drop steel 'I' beams from orbit. You can have one inplace in less than an hour. And less permanent environmental damage. I'm not saying there won't be, just minus the long term radiation hazard.

Really now. If the US was going to wack you, you'd have been the 52nd state by now.

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

China vs. the USA, redux by theolein · 2004-10-02 11:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Firstly, I fully agree with those who note that these are so called contingency plans. It would be incompetent for the US military not to have them. Every nation of a suitable size (and above all, budget) has contingency plans. China, Russia, the UK, France, India, Pakistan... They all have plans about what to do when the shit hits the fan.

However, and this is the sticking point, the comment in the article about the consequences of the US building a large anti-satellite and possible space-earth bombarment weaponry is that the mere existence of such weaponry forces potential targeted nations to respond with their own ability to target US satellities, and this is precisely what China is doing.

With the demise of the USSR there was only the USA left in terms of superpowers, and the USA hasn't exactly been humble about using that power of late, and the potential danger that the US would strike at Chinese or European satellites will force those countries to look for ways of defending their property in space.

While I doubt that the EU will ever have enough of a budget or the will to build a defense against the US, I am positively certain that China has both the will and the budget to do so.

China also has one big advantage on its side and that is time. The Chinese are under no pressure to match the USA today, since they will not risk going to war with the USA right now, but they have the time to develop a large arsenal of space weapons and deploy it over time without the huge seesaw problem of US budgets going up and down depending on who is in power.

Most likely I think the Chinese are aiming for a long term matching of US military capability, in the region of 20 to 40 years from now, and the chances are that they will achieve it too, simply because they have, due to an authoritarian system, the ability to focus on long term projects that the US doesn't.

I think that eventually, towards the middle of this century, the Chinese will probably have the role of second superpower that the USSR used to have.

Protest? by zogger · 2004-10-02 11:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

You mean, stand around inside a cage called a free speech zone? Or be out in the street with cops with rifles on the building tops, military helos over head, and sonic cannons and whatnot pointed at you?

That's the state of "protest" today in the US and why most people don't engage in it. Everyone knows it's one incident away from beoming a bad news scene with a lot of people hurt, and better than even odds some undercover "officer" agent provocateurs starting it.

Everything else by the way of protest in the traditional way they can and will ignore, they could care less about letters to the editor or any emails you send them basically. Petitions, bah, ignored. Redress of grievences? Sure, you have the "right" to cough up thousands of dollars to begin talking to some lawyer, then it gets more expensive from there. He's gonna giggle all the way to his mercedes dealer while you sue the government over something. And the vote? See the so called "official national presidential debates"? An infomercial for the NWO corporate party basically, as much diversity and differences of opinion there as at any regular Klan meeting....and for backup they have new & improved voting, courtesy of blackbox diebold..

Funny, for the primaries and the debates for the two for one party they seem to have no problems finding enough podiums for half a dozen guys up on stage, but once down to the wire,for the biggee, all they can find is two podiums. Funny how that works out. Let me see, two dudes, frat bros for some elitist neo nazi satanic frat, both wearing black suits, wives wearing white suits....Yep, a true difference, there's your choice, and you can protest it all you want..but it won't change a dang thing either....

Nope, we are graciously "allowed" the illusion of protest, but americans know what's up, and what's upo is basically "shutup, sit down, do what you are told or else, here, have some trinkets and gadgets and cheap beer and nascar and football, that's it, don't rock the boat too hard..or ELSE!'".

It's not as bad yet as say north korea, but give it some time, it'll get there. That's eventually what these technofeudalists want, that's why red china is their poster boy model nation, BTW, they dig on that scene there. it's efficient. A few folks give the orders, you get to "vote", and they throw you some bones.

If folks don't agree it will get there,as bad as them other places are now, let them try an easy experiment. Next time you are stopped at a "random courtesy checkpoint" roadblock, you know, those kinds that never existed except for the last few years and are now common, where everyone gets stopped and checked for their "paperz, pleezz! and whatnot" by Darth Vader officer friendly with the glock and MP5, just..don't stop! They don't have any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, they are just stopping you because they can, so go for it, keep driving on your merry way, see what happens, see if it isn't already a lot closer to north korea than you want to contemplate. Of course, you might not make it to even report back, either...in "free" america today.

There's no real protest anymore, people talk about protest, play-act at protest, but the authorites control protest close to 100% now, and they aren't giving up that sort of power. It'sincremental, on a thousand fronts, we read about it all the time here, but it's relentlessly forward for those globalists. That's their plan, you and me and we can "protest" all we want as long as we follow thier rules, their schedule, their methods, manner and location, and remain satisfied with the outcome of any such "protest", which is carved in stone, "they win, you lose."

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by myowntrueself · 2004-10-02 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Depends how you define 'major'.

Maybe if I lived in a third world country I'd say 'lots' (because I'd likely have lost family members to war).

If I lived in suburban USA I'd probably say zero (because the only war I'd see is on TV and it happens somewhere else).

However, you miss the point of the nukes. Its not about fighting 'major wars'; its about keeping *people* under control by terrifying them with the prospect of nuclear war.

The so-called cold war was, in effect if not in intent, a collaboration between the USA and the USSR.

Both parties maintained a state of M.A.D. and thereby held their populations (and those of other nations) in fear for their lives.

This is the aim of the nukes; not the blast damage they could inflict but the psychological effect their existance has.

This is why their proliferation is so frowned upon by the powers that already have them; because it would dilute their usefulness as weapons of pure terror.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us by Eric+Damron · 2004-10-02 11:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Personally, I like the idea of having a shield that would keep us safe from incoming missiles. However, that statement makes the assumption that the system works. I believe that with enough research and development it could.

There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It might protect us from a terrorist organization launching a missile in the unlikely event that they could get one. The real threat, however, is that a terrorist group might get the materials they need to construct a small nuclear devise and then sneak it into one of our poorly guarded sea ports. They could place it in a cargo ship heading to whichever major port city they wanted to destroy.

So we've got to make some tough decisions. Where would our money better spent?

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Good by TiggertheMad · 2004-10-02 11:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

First off, I am not a hawk, and I think that warfare should only be used as a last resort. However, I am not some sort of peacnik idealist that thinks love solves every problem. The unfortunate truth is there are some people that need to be made dead to make the world a better place.

I think it's great that the military is writing documents like this. Sure, there is a treaty in place to keep space de-militarized. But, I pay taxes to have the military keep me safe. It they aren't trying to think of ways to keep me safe from every concieveable eventuality, I'd be pretty annoyed. The only thing I find suprising is that this paper wasn't dated 1957. I'm sure as soon as NASA figured out that we can shoot monkeys in space, the air force was working on ways to keep us safe from Russian space monkeys.

Just because people are thinking about solutions to potential problems doesn't mean we are planning on conquering space in the name of Emperor Dubyah. This article strikes me as a bit reactionist and alarming. To the thinkers in the military who spent time to start working out solutions to potential problems before they are occuring: Good work guys, thanks.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:PNAC from top to bottom by vandan · 2004-10-02 11:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

John Ashcroft summed up the biggest difference between Islam and true Christianity nicely when he said "In Islam, people send their sons to die for God, while in Christianity, God sends his son to die for us" (or something to that effect).

Yes. Well John Ashcroft is a bit of an arsewipe. I wouldn't be quoting him and expecting to win the argument. As for the content of the quote itself: fucking bullshit! All those American youth that are dying in Iraq each day ... you know, the ones that the media is banned from showing when they return in body bags ... they're all Jesus , are they? The Christian fundamentalists are just as willing to send not only their OWN children to die, but OTHERS as well - anyone who's enlisted in the army at the time ( unless you're Dubya, of course ... there are some exceptions ). The Islamic fundamentalists only send their own people to fight in their name. And at least they've got the decency to speak the truth about what they're fighting for.

If you read the PLO charter, you'd actually see that many Islamic fundamentalists want to control not only their own people, but the entire middle east, and would like nothing more than to wipe out any trace of the Jews from the earth, and anyone associated with them.

I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.

You miss the entire point of terrorism. They aren't targetting citizens because they're lousy shots. They are targetting them deliberately because they know they'll get the very reaction that they just got out of you.

Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy. Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands . And consider the very fucking NAME of the 'shock and awe' campaign, and then tell me that what the US is doing isn't terrorism. In contrast to this, the September 11 attacks were extremely well targeted, and had minimal casualties ( I SAID IN COMPARISON ).

Now once more for the slow among us: I don't support either of these acts. I'm just pointing out the hypocracy in the US's stance. The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties. As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone. They would get MUCH more support world-wide if they did this. But they don't. They are somewhere inbetween this and what the US does. The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation - and they do it officially, and even call it things like 'shock and awe'.

I don't think I'm missing the point of terrorism. I think you're demonising the other side and pretending your side doesn't engage in terrorism itself. It most certainly does.

Houston calling the ISS .... by Taco+Cowboy · 2004-10-02 12:22 · Score: 2, Funny

We are preparing to shoot you down.

We have nothing against you, it's just that our AirForce has determined that any spacecraft with Russians in it must be a threat.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Talk about mixed messages... by rxmd · 2004-10-02 12:34 · Score: 4, Informative

In over 50 years of deployment, we've only used nuclear weapons in one campaign and against an enemy that had initiated hostilities and had been at war with for 4 years. Not only that, we had them for over a decade before anybody else, including the Soviet Union, without excercising anything close to Pax Americana. (Emphasis mine.)

If you want to get your point across, it would certainly help if you got your facts straight:

First US atomic bomb detonation: 12 July 1945 (deliverable)
First Soviet atomic bomb detonation: 29 August 1949 (deliverable)

Or H-bombs instead:

First US hydrogen bomb detonation: 1 November 1952 (stationary)
First Soviet hydrogen bomb detonation: 12 August 1953 (deliverable, first use of fusion in thermonuclear device), 22 November 1955 (deliverable, first "real" H-bomb)

(Sources: Wikipedia; Soviet nuclear weapons program)

We will develope [sic] big fucking sticks and we will make sure you know we have them, but we never use those big fucking sticks unless you absolutely deserve it.

Of course. Tell that the guys who lived near the Nevada desert, they must be terrible wrongdoers indeed. (Then, on the other hand, every American who knows where Semipalatinsk is will comment on how evil the Soviets were to expose their own population to radiation at all.) You should probably try to get out of puberty and get a more balanced world view, where politics isn't explained in terms of "big fucking sticks". I can't help it, you remind me of the bone scene in 2001.

--
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)

Re:Consequences? I'd say! by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 12:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess one solution is for UN to own a small number of nukes in exchange for individual members giving up their own. Then if someone builds a facility to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, they get a warning, two weeks of grace period and then a low-yield nuke to the area if UN inspectors are not overseeing its dismantlement.

Or they'll get a warning, a resolution, some grumbling, another warning, another resolution, some grumbling ...

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

Re:Canadian too by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 12:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Al Gore was at least partly responsible for the internet we have today, so he's got to have at least SOME sense!

Taking credit for inventing the internet could have cost him enough votes to lose the election.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

Re:Canadian too by $raim_n_reezn! · 2004-10-02 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

actually a lot of people from other parts of the world read american books, which gives a lot more insight into american lives than movies do. and yes i've lived in europe, america and i grew up in west africa and there were very few things that surprised me when i got to america. He was basically saying that the average person in other places in the world know a lot more about american than the average american knows about any other country in the world. And we don't pretend to know a lot about america there's nothing to gain for doing that. On the other hand there's a certain kind of swagger (or so it seems)it adds to your steps when you say (in a manner of speaking) "fuck the world". No one makes you guys out to be stupid but please when you're elevated (by virtue of riches or military might)humility goes a long way in making you likeable. And before you go ahead and say we don't owe the world nothing remember that no one/nothing/no empire lasts forever. And a lot of what you guys grew on as per technology came from immigrants enrico fermi/einstein and co. So please read some history and learn that a strong man doesn't need to be agressive around people he can beat, but he does need some friends because you never know what tomorrow would bring.

--
All straight things must come to a bend

Re:What does this administration have to do with i by killjoe · 2004-10-02 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes thanks for transcribing the republican talking points.

Let's see how far you are under a rock.

Why did saddam need to be removed? Why did he need to be removed before any other two bit dictator? Why wasn't a no fly zone, constant bombing by the US, and a huge team of inspectors not enough to control him? Now that he is gone why are we still there? Why are we building over 10 military bases?

Is the world a safer place today then it was before we invaded. Are there more terrorists today then before the invasion?

Was the freedom if Iraiqs (people you didn't give a shit about before the invasion) really worth 200 billion and deaths of tens of thousands of people.

--
evil is as evil does

Obligatory Carlin Reference by ThatsNotFunny · 2004-10-02 17:42 · Score: 2, Funny

getting the sound of a near miss of a laser to travel through space.

"When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. IT'S A NEAR HIT! A collision is a near miss. POOOF, look, they nearly missed. YES, BUT NOT QUITE!!!"

--
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello

Ob debate quote by joranbelar · 2004-10-02 17:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Well Jim, he forgot Poland!

Re:What does this administration have to do with i by lachlan76 · 2004-10-02 23:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

At that point, it is no longer a commercial airliner, but just a hostile aircraft. A target.

Another question is: is it a good idea to shoot down a giant plane over a crowded city?

Slashdot Mirror

US Military Plans Space Combat

106 of 650 comments (clear)