US Military Plans Space Combat

MacDork writes "Wired news is reporting that the US Air Force has documented its plans to shoot down "commercial spacecraft, neutral countries' launching pads -- even weather satellites" should the need arise. From potential Chinese militarization of space to commercial spy satellites their reasoning seems obvious, but there are just as obvious consequences of such actions. Just glancing at the PDF, I don't see any plans for the aftermath..."

Comments

Nah.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[orzetto]

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.)

Re:Nah.

[ShieldWolf]

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.

Re:Nah.

[iocat]

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.

Re:Nah.

[irokitt]

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.

Re:Nah.

[RWerp]

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.

Re:Nah.

[khallow]

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.

[Pig Hogger]

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.

[fucksl4shd0t]

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.

Re:Nah.

[MadMorf]

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.

Re:Nah.

[Pig Hogger]

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.

Consequences? I'd say!

[DigitalRaptor]

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.

Its official: George Bush is building a Death Star

[Anonymous Coward]

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

English.

[Jonas the Bold]

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

And I don't any verb.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Foggiano]

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.

Re:Consequences? I'd say!

[jdhutchins]

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.

Defending against who?

[Ars-Fartsica]

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?

[TykeClone]

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.

Typical Stuff

[inKubus]

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 ;)

Re:Typical Stuff

[Solder Fumes]

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

[AnwerB]

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?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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.

Re:Consequences? I'd say!

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

WRONG.

[Beautyon]

the next target will be painted on our foreheads

That space is reserved for the mark of the beast.

Oh Great...

[RAMMS EIN]

``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...

What does this administration have to do with it?

[Sycraft-fu]

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).

Impact of debris at 3-6km/sec

[SendBot]

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

...and this is a surprise?

[fitten]

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!

[myowntrueself]

"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.

They've toyed with this for years

[cyclone96]

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.

Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun?

[eSims]

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

Re:See? Isn't breaking International Law Fun?

[general_re]

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?

Re:What does this administration have to do with i

[DigitalRaptor]

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.

Re:Consequences? I'd say!

[flacco]

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!

Re:Problems?

[Necrobruiser]

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

Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us

[gordgekko]

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?

Re:Aftermath?

[Bi()hazard]

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.

China vs. the USA, redux

[theolein]

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?

[zogger]

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:Problems?

[NotQuiteReal]

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.

Re:Whatever, you're either with us or against us

[Eric Damron]

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?

Re:PNAC from top to bottom

[vandan]

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.

Re:Talk about mixed messages...

[rxmd]

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.