Slashdot Mirror
US Ready to put Weapons in Space
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'."
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
The paper that tried to directly influence the United State Presidential election and called for the assassination of the President. I'm sure they're not biased at all.
Regardless, we should be ready to do it when it's necessary. China isn't getting into space to study science.
I'd like to point out that space superiority does not necessarily mean the militarization of space. Already, the presence and testing of ICBMs skirts the issue, and so, too would many other technologies.
That's not that I agree that this should be a direction we want to go, I'm just pointing out that the treaty isn't worth much. To me the millitary objective of space is right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Anyone who's actually surprised? :(
/* We dance to the sounds of sirens and we watch genocide to relax*/
... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?
This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.
Trolling is a art,
There are terrorists in space, duh!
America has never been shy of ignoring treaties or the wishes of the international community, when it comes to establishing and protecting its interests.
Put this in the pile next to Kyoto and the United Nations, the Geneva Convention, etc...
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Um, bad movie where this happens. Under Seige 2 Superman... 3? There are many bad movie references I could make here.. Wasn't this the Star Wars program? Or part of it?
Article IV of the treaty follows:
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 maneuvers 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.
Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A more descriptive article about this can be found here. I found this portion to be most interesting...
The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.
A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?
The article only mentions disarming satellites in space, which I presume would happen from the ground.
Does this violate the treaty? I was under the impression that the treaty only discusses putting weapons in space.
I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.
And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.
And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.
And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.
I do security
has the current US Administration cared about treaties?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
There has been this thing called "Space Command" in the Air Force for a long time now. There has even been talk of branching the space forces from the Air Force for a long while - like over ten years or so?
I call alarmist BS, nothing new here.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Don't tell me China wouldn't try if they didn't have the opportunity.
Space-based assets are simultaneously very valuable and very vulnerable. In a tense international standoff (Cuban Missile Crisis style) they inject a strong "use it or lose it" incentive to go for a first strike. On balance, this is probably not a plus.
That's it: ...
1) Put weapons in space.
2) Send Snake Pliskin to LA to pick up the black box.
3) Snake Pliskin rolls everything back to Stone Age
4) Profit ???
Then it's a good thing Kirk and Spock will be there to resolve the crisis when one of the nukes starts falling out of orbit!
#DeleteChrome
Please stop being mega-jerks and maybe start keeping SOME of the promises you make. I believe you did just re-elect someone who campaigned on 'values' or some such business - abiding by international treaties probably falls somewhere under that category.
Thanks,
the rest of the world
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I don't know about you, but if the giant "conventional" bombs that the US uses on a regular basis don't cause "mass destruction", then we need to re-define the term.
I don't respond to AC's.
I will use my secret orbiting battle station to shoot down anything they launch, to protect the world from American imperialism. Well at least until I am ready to achieve global domination anyway.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Who needs good public schools or child healthcare... we're go'na have mother f***'n space lasers!
Now, if anyone tries to have a gay marriage, they'll be fired upon from the United Defense death star orbiting above.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
approximately 25%?...which election are you wathing?...the one i saw had 51% voting for Bush...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Since when has the US government given a shit about treaties and guidelines? And although my foil hat is rather loose today, who doesn't believe that this hasn't already happened to some extent by either the US or other top countries around the nation?
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.
...bring on the Draft!
As is so often the case, the summary gets the facts wrong.
The treaty does NOT forbid the militarization of space. It forbids placement of weapons on celestial bodies, and it forbids nuclear and other 'WMD's from being placed in space.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
It appears the treaty only excludes nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction from being put into space or on any celestial bodies. According to the Guardian article (why do people take this rag seriously?) the US Air Force is looking to deploy a few small spacecraft, likely highly maneuverable satellites, that can destroy surface to surface missiles, enemy aircraft, and enemy satellites which may be used for surevillance or other tasks which offer an advantage on the battlefield. I'd wager these are laser based weapons and do not violate the treaty as they are neither nuclear nor weapons of mass destruction.
Good thing they're not a bunch of socialist, America-hating, yellow journalists or anything!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
I'm not sure this is accurate, but regardless:
"Treaties? We don't need no stinkin' treaties!"
Due to the somewhat large number of notches in it, the belt has been replaced with a piece of string.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...when the Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, back then chaired by Mr. Rumsfeld, has been released.
on space weapons and why they might not be a good idea see the union of concerned scientist's page on space weapons.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The treaty only bans nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The Air Force want anti-satellite weapons, which are not in either category.
This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.
Proverbs 21:19
From the Treaty itself:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
As long as no weapons orbiting the earth are Nuclear or another type of WMD then there is no treaty violation. Seeing as how the article makes no mention of these types and that the weapons it does talk about are designed to take out ICBMs there is still no treaty violation.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Interestingly enough, whilst the 2nd amendment permits arms, it says nothing about legs.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Of course, I'd be much more comfortable with the UK or Germany or Canada or even Japan having space weapons than, say, middle-east fundamentalists or North Korea.
Hey, let me know when the middle-east fundamentalists get a space program so I can start worrying and taking you seriously.
I hate to say it, but this is probably a very neccessary step in assuring the survival and prosperity of the U.S. empire.
There probably will be no more conventional world wars, we (the U.S.) have enough nukes to dissuade any global conflict. So, since we don't have to worry about a ground assault, we need to concentrate on air/space defense that can shoot down any ICBMs from unstable dictatorial states, or trigger all holy hell on enemy before they have the time to prepare their defenses in case we start feeling threatened by them.
I'd like to believe that Kerry administration would have taken a different approach to preserving the empire, something that would benefit both us and the world, but Bush, being a cowboy that he is, clearly has no regard for global opinion. (Note that I'm not saying that we should let the French shit on us if we do need to defend ourselves, but that we don't really have a right to "liberate" whomever we want through a half-baked war.)
We'll see where the world will be 20-30 years from now in terms of military alleigances...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
But people seriously... Do you think that the US government ( especially the current go-it-alone administration ) puts much stock in treaties? I mean I am honestly asking here.
Remember Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Also http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/newnuclearwe aponsissuebrief.asp
Why is this even news?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I'm pretty sure putting missiles on the unmanned Predator drones over Afghanistan was a violation of a similar treaty, one that said you can't weaponize drones (and thus make a hideous, inhuman robot army).
But that one kind of slipped by in the name of the War on Terror.
I have to say, what appears as a near-total disregard for the other countries in the world on the part of the US regarding sensitive and dangerous military issues bothers me, and I live here. Doctrine of Pre-Emptive war was a dangerous road to start walking down. The people who wrote the Weaponization of Space treaties knew that it was a also a treacherous path, and yet it seems we're about to start down that road too? What kind of future are we heading towards?
I don't care WHO has to die for me to get my damn X-Wing. X-WING I SAY!!!!
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Don't forget Real Genius with the huge, frickin' hotter-than-the-sun laser that could disintegrate a single human from space or, even more frighteningly, overcome a two-story home with a giant container of Jiffy Pop popcorn!
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Hubble shot down in friendly fire incident.
AT&ROFLMAO
The treaty bans WMDs in space. Therefore, using Bush logic, Saddam must have some there! Everyone, we know where Saddam is hiding them! :D
:| )
(moderators, this was meant as a joke. please don't hurt my karma
got sig?
Funny... I had forgotten about how you treated Native Americans. But, at least I guess that proves that YOU haven't forgotten about that shame.
This is not a sig.
If given the chance to fight a war in space,or a very high mountain, I'd jump at the chance! Bring on the sub-orbital death machines, I'll take 'em on.
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that. --Homer Simpson
A country will follow a treaty when it's in their best interest, break it when they feel they can get away with it. Pursue their own perceived best interest.
Remember that idea of a nation is fundamentally based on coercion and force, and will do what it can to assert and maintain dominance. It's like an organism at times. The current administration has no monopoly on realpolitik.
Conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not destroy mass. Nuclear weapons generate their explosive energy from the destruction of mass due to nuclear fission. Thus, only nukes are truly weapons of mass destruction.
...and now, shame on us, too.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Does this make anyone else think of Dr. Evil's plan to "turn the moon into what I like to call a 'Death Star'..."
"If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space." Since when did the US care about treaties, Kyoto, Geneva, Nuclear Non-Proliforation? Need I go on?
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Well, if the USAF conducts preemptive strikes against enemy satellites, wouldn't that strongly suggest someone else has already violated the space treaty?
If The Guardian, et al, are so bent on seeing this treaty upheld, why don't they suggest a way that it can be enforced? Preferably, something other than "pretty, please?".
Or, is it that they might find space weaponry under the control of, say, China, or a coalition of radical states to be just fine? Where I come from, that's a clue about whose side you're on.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Moonraker.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
There's even an article from Texas.
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
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... (unquote)
It DOES ALLOW the use of space for military purposes: communication, observation, navigation aids etc. It also does not prohibit the suborbital use of WMD (i.e. ICBMs). Niether does it prohibit "burning out" satelites with energy weapons, or "shooting them down".
I'd really like you to back that statement up.
If you like the Kyoto so much, why don't you move to a country that supports it?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I, for one, welcome our new shotgun weilding robot overlords in space!
So this is what Bush had in mind when he said he wanted to rebuild relations with Europe. Violate yet another treaty.
/me can't stand presidents who urinate on the laws of our nation. Bush has a big bladder.
Is there anyone here who still thinks Bush isn't looking for a war?
Many Americans are ineligible to vote, either by being too young or by having broken laws that were enacted by legislators elected when they were too young.
Not allowing a nation to claim a section of space has completely made going there pointless. If I were President, I'd put a human on the moon and claim the son of a bitch for the USA. Then you'd immediately see every nation on the planet going up there to claim their piece, and suddenly space flight would be as common as a boat ride.
This is my sig.
Remember, at the time this treaty was signed space was still very much a frontier. It was more than reasonable not to want military endeavors to derail lunar exploration or peaceful scientific research. It was also in everybody's interest not to do something like allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on satellites, because it would have been much more difficult to differentiate between a nuclear decapitation strike from orbit and, say, a meteor. Neither of these is an issue with the proposal to put anti-satellite weapons into space and, for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. Even the Iranians now have photo sats.
Always a godfather; never a god. -Gore Vidal
Let's face it, true or not, this will be just one more step in the right direction to defend ourselves.
First we invade a country in the middle east, then encourage our traditional allies to become neutral parties, then we start looking at militarizing space. And in the meantime, the real enemy, faceless, dificult to trace, and to strike back gets away...
If true, this is just one more exhibition of the cluelessnes of the present administration for fighting the wrong wars at the wrong time, and for the wrong reassons.
I'd rather see my taxes going to a decent healthcare, and a cheaper education than all these military nonesense.
Kemo Sabe
Now we're safe from aliens too. Take that, ET!
What? They're pointed back at Earth?Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
When you can't even fly to your space station on your own. It's time for Russians to renew their anti-satellite program. Yeah, the one that they've developed back in the "Star Wars" day to shoot satellites down using a high-intensity military laser sitting on the ground.
This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.
>> ...I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky..."
How would you feel about that if the "other countries stuff" included satellites carrying nuclear weapons or biowarfare payloads?
Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Now that our fearless leader has a mandate, who cares about your stinking Pinko treaties?
I don't think I feel any more safe with weapons above me, but some people might.
I am invisble, and you can't see me.
Can someone explain to me why this was modded down?
Isn't this old news anyway? The Rumsfeld Doctrine has always included superiority in space. For example, reference from April 2001, http://www.msnbc.com/news/546843.asp?0sp=n5b6&cp1= 1:
"To reduce the nation's vulnerability, the Rumsfeld commission urges leaders to develop 'superior space capabilities,' including the ability to 'negate the hostile use of space against U.S. interests' by using 'power projection in, from and through space.' Translated into lay terms, that means the development and deployment of anti-satellite weapons."
A quick Google search shows numerous "space superiority" references dating back to the start of the Bush administration.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
How do you plan on getting those weapons past the firmament?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
If there are species in space that share our territorial behavior, we'll be sure to discover their existence when our $2B interstellar lasers start "internally combusting" (as the media will put it).
-- n
Technology has always influenced the conduct of "foreign policy by other means". Emerging technologies relative to "nonlethal" weapons may offer political choices for limited intervention previously unavailable. These choices will create new challenges for the military profession. As with all choices whose outcomes may affect human beings, ethical dimensions exist. The ethical ramifications of this emerging technology extend from the Jus ad Bellum decision criteria for political decision makers to the combat soldier at the front.
Support Texas Troops use TXGoogle
Ok Class, I want a paragraph from each of you, starting out: The motivation to adhere to a treaty is... Single-spaced, by the end of the hour.... ( 60 mins later ) Ok, I see nobody has written anything. Let me explain: Sovreign nations sign treaties when it is in their interest to do so. The interest might be political, economic, social, historical, cultural, or otherwise. The participants may be acting in good faith, or being devious, or seeing a short-term advantage, or a strategic opportunity. In any case, nations adhere to a treaty as long as it is in their interest, and not much longer than that. That's why most treaties have a boilerplate paragraph along the lines of :: And any participant can back out of the treaty with 30 days notice.
So it's not too helpful to yell BUT THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE TREATY! A treaty is not an iron-clad dissuader, just a way to identify common interests, if any.
See: German non-agression treaty, et. al....
Space forces support involves launching satellites and other high-value payloads into space using a variety of expendable launch vehicles and operating those satellites once in the medium of space.
Space control ensures friendly use of space through the conduct of counterspace operations encompassing surveillance, negation and protection.
Force enhancement provides weather, communications, intelligence, missile warning and navigation. Force enhancement is support to the warfighter.
Force application involves maintaining and operating a rapid response land-based ICBM force as the Air Force's only on-alert strategic deterrent.
More info here.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Forbidding weapons in space is sorta like forbidding criminals from owning/using guns. Without an overwhelming force (*) to dissuade rogue nations from contravening the treaty, it's useless.
Rogue nations? Who's worried about rogue nations? Groups like S.P.E.C.T.R.E. They make Al Kaida look like a bunch of low tech camel jockeys who couldn't pilot a plane into the side of a barn. Er, I mean. . .
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I used to be in Army worked with several Air Defense Artillery missile systems. As early as 1990, I recall THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) objectives being a high priority which included the ability to hit targets outside of the earth's atmosphere including low orbiting satellites with full anti-satellite capability being a longer term goal.
WMDs and nuclear weapons are out, but they say nothing about high powered lasers for striking specific targets...
Space? They can't even put a laser on a frickin' shark!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
Does America care? Who can enforce it?
Are the targets going to be military, or civilian news organizations? The US military has hit Aljazeera and two other Arab news agents on the same day (during a curious PR event in Baghdad) in an alleged attempt to control media broadcasts.
* The newspeople gave precise coordinates of their location to the US government.
* one may see the Al Jazeera footage of the plane in attack formation and the missles being launched.
* there were calm winds and no hostility in the area
* the weapons were supposed to be "smart" and accurate
were these three press agencies deliberately attacked?
So are news satellites next if they broadcast something counter to the US or Bush's political interests?
I know, it's a bit of a leap, but we (i.e. the free information loving world) should be wary.
It is ironic that the US should attempt this as we have more orbiting platforms than any other nation.
Of course, the least expensive and rapid option to deter such a program is for other nations to place very large (say 3000-1000 mgt warheads) in space that will explode on impact from any incoming projectile. That way all US space-based weaponry will become obsolete the moment it is used. The fact that these might go off due to random impacts from meteors, would simply be the cost of doing business, but then the PR advantage would be immense. They would be able to blame us for forcing them to defend themselves.
The irony of the Chinese defence will be that we will pay for it for them by buying at WalMart.
Oh well, I guess we might as well get used to the progress a second Bush term is about to provide us. Glad I loaded up on Boeing stock before the election as at least I'll be able to party during the upcoming wiennie roast.
Get your facts straight, or at least look a little past the headlines. You might start by reading some of the posts above this one.
Aren't you supposed to be all into nuance and such?
And did you know that you can actually read the text of the treaty itself rather than trust some media "authority"? A fascinating concept.
Given the innate warlike nature of humans, expecting space to remain non-military was just plain foolish.
Nice fantasy, though.
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/spa ce_is_for_peace.htm
"the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"
Also check out space4peace.org
The US military has been developing anti-satellite weapons in plain sight for, oh, 30 years. IIRC we have a little missle, launched from a F-15, that can knock down satellites. We've had it for 30-some years. It doesnt violate any treaty as it's not based in space. Prolly been other more secret developments, not anything to get too worked up about.
In what way is the US national interest served by maintaining the demiliterization of space, when the other non-US aligned major powers in the world (Russia, China) would certainly militerize space if they could do so?
The only reason Russia and China have not is because if they did, the US would know it had to as well, and would certainly beat them at it.
The US has come to a position where it can obtain a firm grasp of near space. This is a huge geopolitical advantage. Why should it not be taken, given that if it is not taken now, it will have to be taken later, when a non-democratic country does obtain or begin to obtain a firm grasp of near space?
Does anyone imagine for a second that unilaterally choosing *not* to hold near-space would lead Russia or China to abstain from doing so, if they could do so?
--
Toby
There were some people asking why should receive recognition a country like india for developing space programs, also china, etc... hmmm surely they started for exploring and scientific research, but now they have another reason to develop their space capabilities....
**Not sure if I explained my idea correctly, sorry i'm not a native english writter**
Rimember: Jappi Pipol In Da Jaus
For those curious about some general details the pentagon has in mind for their future of outer space look here. Vision For 2020 leaked presentation.
...and it should be known by now
They begged America not to vote for Bush because of all the negative articles about Bush that the write, not the other way around. I suppose their public opinion is somehow less savory to you than Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC's "claimed" balanced view despite obvious bias?
(And yes, it does appear if you actually read the treaty, that this action doesn't break the treaty. But your Ad hominem attack on the newspaper is what I'm refuting, not the main article.)
Military contractors are having a field day selling all manner of ridiculous, untested, worthless junk to the government at insane prices and none of this is an accident or oversight.
E.g. cure for cancer
To reduce incidence of Cancer, abort all babies conceived in October. This will make sure fewer babies are born in July.
If we don't militarily dominate space, how will we be able to ensure our right to force global warming on the rest of the planet?!
This is a must. We need nukes up there like yesterday. I shit you not my fellow christian white Americans. This is a matter of supreme national security.
I know some have already made the connection of the Star Trek : TOS episode and the arming of space, but this also reminds me of a particular episode of Stargate SG1 called "Absolute Power"
v let/showid-185/epid-7401/
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageSer
"Don't worry, there's no threat of residual radiation. It's quick and clean--like cutting your enemy's heart out with a scalpel."
- Danny
Perhaps they noticed a loophole in that treaty and will deploy weapons which can neither create nor destroy mass, only convert it into energy.
Ever get the feeling that the neo-conservatives in the US are just plain wrong?
I would hope that the new category would shunt off non-scientific articles like this. Why hasn't it been used for the last few days?
Unfortunately the dimwittedness that permeates the article kicks in again before they even finish the sentence. Why on God's green earth would anyone "target enemy missiles as they . . . landed"?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Space laser! Damn, i'd be happy with a tank of sharks with lasers mounted on their heads. But Ma always said I aimed too low...
[This sig left intentionally blank.]
That's just Dismisinformation
Let's not be bothered by the facts when dissing the US:
Space Pen
Well, actually in the beginning of the 80's , when Reagan's Star Wars initiative started to be discussed, Russian leading missile engineer offered even cheaper solution - load Progress cargo craft with a nuts and bolts and other small metal objects (Progress can take a few tons up there), put it in the high orbit and explode - in a few hours all orbiting gear will be pierced and perfectly malfunctioning.
In other news North Korea has decided to start dumping all it's garbage in space...
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Just great, another Star Wars project! Just one question, the original Star Wars was supposed to scare the Russians. But now that they're out of the picture, who are we trying to scare this time, Bin Laden? lol
It amazes me that our state of the art satellites from space can zoom in and take a snapshot of your license plate but they can't find Bin Laden anywhere on planet earth.
Sig of the day: Be sure to work hard, millions on welfare are depending on you!
Does the name Abu Ghraib mean anything to you?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
The US is already looking at low yield nuclear weapons for tactical use, kinetic weapons are one better since they don't have any fallout.
The problem with a falling chunk of metal is that the amount of energy it releases on impact is less than the amount required to get it into orbit in the first place. Instead of launching a rocket into orbit, you might as well have taken those explosives and detonated them at the target site.
Nuclear weapons make more sense because the energy required to lift them into orbit is miniscule compared with the results.
Of course, I in no way wish to encourage the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit...
I expected at least one... :(
I'm going to assume that it's the outer space weapons treaty.
I realize that there was only about 5 lines of text you could click on for the link to the 1972 treaty. Sorry to have made it so difficult.
As to your other point about convenience I see that you took the easy way by just throwing as much crap in your post as possible without even giving any of it any research. This is how the left works though. Throw enough crap on the wall and either hope some of it sticks or force the opposition to spend all of it's time and resources proving that you're wrong.
Proposal:
To change the title of this site.
From: slashdot.org
to: (select one)
A) FUD.org
B) LiberalPropaganda.org
C) [close site, simply forward traffic to the tinfoill hattery already present at www.democraticunderground.com]
For those still not getting it, 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. is applicable to precisely 0% of the Guardian article.
-Styopa
It's just a marketing ploy by Microsoft. Come on, this type of story one day before the official launch of Halo 2?
Oh wait....
Don't be silly, they're only Arabs. They don't deserve human rights!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
That treaty exists between the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me know if the political entity known as the USSR has any objections.
If you can track their orbit (relatively easy) and can launch small bucket containing millions of tiny ball bearings in the same orbit but opposite direction you can kill them easily. (relative speeds can be 10-50 km/sec)
For slow orbit spy satellites this is quite feasible for many contries.
Relevance: If there is weapons in the sky, you can expect countries to prepare for countermeasures. After first major space battle against well prepared enemy our low orbit space will be full of fast flying tiny metal objects, satellite parts, and other space junk for decades/centuries.
And suddenly space travel is more dangerous and more expensive for all.
Dyslexics have more fnu.
It's the cry that instills panic into hearts everywhere: "The UN is coming!"
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
Nothing can really stop a dirty bomb from going off in Manhattan. There are bigger threats out there though, a dirty bomb in Manhattan might wipe out a few buildings and throw some fallout around. The number of people that would be killed would be fairly low. A ICBM in the wrong hands however could kill millions.
>> This reminds me of that joke
See the word "joke" there?
That is a completely unrelated issue. Should we redirect all our military funds to making Manhattan the most secure area in the world?
It's called being proactive. In 10 years, if China has weapons in orbit and decides to go Napoleonic on the rest of the world, the same people complaining here will be complaining how irresponsable the Bush administration was to sit back while the Chinese filled orbit with weapons. In order for the US to maintain military superiority, they must retain the upper hand in future areas of warfare.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I should probably just leave this alone, but...
Please control the knee-jerk tendencies and actually think about the information you're being fed. I know the Guardian article hints at all the stuff you want to believe, but that doesn't mean its right.
First, the treaty bans WMDs in space (see Article IV of the linked treaty). Not "weapons" that would temporarily or even permanently disable another satellite (is an EMP or jamming device considered a weapon?). I understand it is still something to be concerned about.
Second, the US isn't the only country that has the ability to knock down satellites today using ground and/or air based weaponry. Its also not the only country that understands the strategic importance of being able to do this.
Isn't it ironic that we don't hear anything about the plans of other countries in the Guardian? IMO the article is a basket of FUD, fed to a world all too willing to eat it up without really thinking about it. As far as the strategic importance of space and the plans of the US, it contains nothing that hasn't been known since the Reagan years, on through the Clinton years and into today.
"3000-1000 mgt warheads" So you are saying 3 to 1 gigaton warheads? Detonate those anywhere near the atmosphere, and you won't have any orbital platforms to worry about...nor will you have much of an earth to worry about. Although that would certainly fit with MAD...
Not to mention the difficulty of getting the match to the fuse in sub zero 50+mph winds to light the ACME Ground to Ground Missle.
music lover since 1969
What about friction in atmosphere ?
I mean, the weapons are not expected to blow up when re-entering the atmosphere.
Did I miss something or is it really a good idea to send nuclear weapons at 25000 km/h and thousands of C ?
Oh and please, don't flame about Rockets coded in Ada. That's dangerous too.
I could be wrong (not usually when it comes to weapons terminology) but point weapons such as "kinetic kill vehicles" and lasers are not generally considered weapons of mass destruction. These are more than sufficient and actually prefered for attacking satelites, launch vehicles, etc. for a variety of reasons and are in no way prohibited by the treaty as long as they are not installed on the "moon or other celestial body."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Orbital Mind Control Lasers! Those crazy Gnomes of Zurich...
Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?
Yes, and that explaines it all, right ? Such weapons shall be deployed just-in-case ? This just smells as the cold war.
To me this seems again the same story as when Uncle Sam objected on E.U.&co. deploying their own GPS system too, stating that would provide U.S.'s possible enemies with possible unwanted tactical advantage in case of war.
What if those bloody europeans suddenly got to their senses and started to look upon the U.S. as offensive - on their rights, freedoms, daily lives ? Oh, well, that would just prove them "right" (well, what an obfuscated use of the word).
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.
The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.
Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
Let me hear you say that if you are attacked by some idiot country.
" war is bad, ill just let them take over and kill us all, after they rape and pillage "
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is MADNESS!
What are our leaders thinking?
Please, please, raise the taxes on the rich.
Stop spending so much money on the war machine, and start spending that money on healthcare for all citizens, and funding basic biomedical research! You people are all dying, and you let these politicians spend our blood sweat and tears on needless war.....
MADNESS!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I'm happy to see that humankind is finally starting to grow up!
I mean, come on. They have been trying to do such a thing for years and years, since prior to the Reagan administration. It would surprise me not at all to find out that something weapon-like already exists up there. Spy satelittes that can read your newspaper from 260 miles constitutes a weapon of mass privacy violation in my mind alone. Somehow I think that since we have the ability to put weapons on unmanned drones that hang out at 65,000 feet for days at a time, surely we can put such things in Space. DARPA doesn't have a huge black ops budget for no reason after all. My question is, what in the hell could they possibly think that we need to defend ourselves against from space anyways???
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
And if they send the US back to the 1700's by sabotaging the economy, killing off science, and generally lousing up both the economy and education, we won't be able to afford to do anything to stop them then.
So yes, I will complain about how irresponsible Bush was. A wise steward invests in the future when threats in the present are minimal.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I would imagine many American readers might not be laughing.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
http://www.stratmag.com/issueApr-1/page02.htm/
"THE TEST OF a weaponized UAV took place only after the US State Department lifted its objections because of concerns that a "weaponized" Predator could breach the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Officials were concerned a Predator carrying a laser-guided Hellfire could be classified as a ground-launch cruise missile, which is restricted by the treaty. The State Department official was also worried that demonstrating Predator's ability to launch a Hellfire would worry the governments of Russia and European allies, which could host the platform in the future. Inside The Air Force first reported on the issue Dec. 8, 2000."
I said I'm "pretty" sure because multiple high level organazations were concerned about the legality but proceeded anyway. What changed to ease their concerns? It is not that the Predator became less deadly. I would suggest the War on Terror gave them additional leeway.
It's not good strategy to try to militarize an area when other countries have more active space programs. Maybe we should try to find a way to get things into space again BEFORE we threaten to put weapons there.....
Qxe4
How about weapons of world destruction? Which is worse? I simply cannot believe US gets away with this BS when rest of world is condemned if there is the slightest feeling they have nukes!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
End federal taxation and eliminate the welfare/warfare State altogether. Return the power of government to the local level where citizens actually have a chance to keep it in check instead of letting a bunch of redneck hicks in Alabama waving the American Flag dictate our foreign policy or a bunch of blue-blooded elitists on the coasts tell us how we have to pay for everyone's health care.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
I seem to recall something from the 80's during President Reagan's administration, the 'Star Wars' missile defense system or SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) as it came to be known. Various presidents and congresses have kept it alive, moving it forward for over 20 years now and it has yet to happen. I don't see how we can pin the blame on G. W. Bush for something that has been in planning for so long.
There is an article today at space.com where an expert says that weapon platforms in space could be easily defeated by cheaper, mine-like microsatellites which could be easily launched by any country with a space program. Just get the satellites within 10-100 meters of the platform and BOOM!, no more fancy-pants space missiles.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Anyway, I don't give a toss. The US dollar is going to tank, massively, over the next couple of years. Your economy will be completely screwed. And no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to pin the blame on gays, Clinton's penis, or black people. The rest of the world will cry crocodile tears and happily divert their exports to China and India. And perhaps, finally, people like you will reconsider whether it was wise to hand the country over to such an incompetent party hack.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
and guided by active tail fins is a weapon of *ss destruction.
You don't WANT explosives to interfere with such precision guided ordinance.
One minute you're there and the next you're there but you have a big glowing hot metal bar sticking out of your *ss.
THAT's what's at stake here.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Unilateralism. WHY!?!
Is cooperation that difficult?
With power comes responsability and I don't mean responsability to the shareholders. The world isn't a marketlace. It's a place to live. Together.
The world used to be easy. The cold war was over, and now we're starting all over again. why!!!!!
Privacy is terrorism.
Guantanamo bay. A large number of prisoners are being kept there without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation, and without having had a hearing to decide whether they are in fact "nonlegal combatants" as the US administration claims, or just ordinary PoWs (in which case they are entitled to legal counsel) or civillians (in which case they are entitled to a trial or else being released).
I am trolling
It is only a violation of the treaty to place WMD in space. Non-WMD like lasers can be placed into space.
In addition, a country may withdraw from the treaty.
It appears that not even moving to iceland will get me away from this administration.
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou
This article is from the Guardian, which has the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer. Nothing more than a sensationlist rag.
The treaty in question is only about WMD's and is just between two countries. One of which doesn't exist anymore, making the treaty meaningless.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Space warfare was a long-standing feature of the cold war. The only nation to date which has fielded both an armed manned spacecraft and space station is the former USSR.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I think you added that first comma. Anyway, it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation of that is a condition - if a well armed militia is essential to the security of a free state, then the right to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed. Which means that these days, with most of europe showing that such militias are not necessary, you ought to be able to introduce some gun control and stop all those people getting shot.
I am trolling
Soon we will be making our own SpaceshipOne and retrofitting them with laser cannons. Mobile Suits anyone?
True, but for the wrong reason. Look at the complete lack of action by the UN in Sudan. Just a lot of jaw flapping and hot air, nothing to actually stop any killing. That's why the UN is totaly irrelevant. They don't do anything but talk.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
And I suppose you claim that reading of the article is unbiased.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
or am I missing something with the argument? :) Or we could just stop short with the "Pump Billions into defense". Seems that's more the goal.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorists?
China.
Have you ever seen/heard of an actual dirty bomb in an actual terrorism attempt? We know China has a strong military with nuclear weapons. The terrorists are a lot less of a threat, and to think otherwise is to admit defeat to their tools of terror.
Having just gotten out of the Air Force, I can tell you that "Air and Space Superiority" has been an Air Force catch phrase for YEARS. This 'recent' developement stuff simply means 'This hasn't been publicized before, and not many people have heard of this, so it must be new.' Wrong.
Holding something in space is dangerous and inefficient. Most probably dangerous asteroid will be spotted while it is far enough to launch rockets from earth and change it's path. ESA http://www.esa.int/ is planning Don Quijote http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060 188707?v=glance mission http://www.space.com/spacenews/donquixote_040714.h tml http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMZO8M26WD_Expand ing_0.html.
I saw a 15 seconds movie illustrating the impact but can't find a link at the moment.
I guess, if we spot something that close to earth that launching from space would be quicker than from the Earth, that would already be too late.
Truer than the bullshit spouted as the truth by the U.S. networks.
My other OS is also FreeBSD
All Your Space Are Belong To U.S.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Good point. How can parent be modded +5 Insightful (which it most certainly wasn't) where my original post (grandparent) wasn't touched. I guess we know where the Slashdot crowd stands on the War.
Anyway, that is really fascinating. Can you document it? Andisn't there already enough trash up there to cause this already? And if it was done, wouldn't it pretty much end nearly all space travel be ended forever - or at least a very long time.
I propose that we establish a public school system on our orbiting death stars. Children will go to school during the day, and during the evening their small stature will allow them to serve an the ideal child labor maintenance crew.
We should also put ninjas into space. The moment terrorists fire ICBMs at the US, we could fire sub orbital interceptor ninjas (the ninjas will be stored in space pods) to detonate the ICBMs with their numb-chucks and kick ass ninja stars.
Ninjas will also be used to stop gay people from marrying or old people from getting affordable pharmaceuticals.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
See here.
To quote from the link (from October 25th):
Can you say appeasement for trade?Actually I don't believe that placing arms in outer space is illegal under that treaty. After reading it am I wrong in concluding that only WMDs are forbidden in earth orbit, and that pure demilitarization would be limited to celestial bodies such as the moon?
The treaty was not a U.N. Resolution nor treaty, it was a treaty between the US and the Soviet Union (now defunct of course) and the UN simply passed a resolution supporting the signing of this treaty (yes, weird.) The treaty, unless I've misread it, no longer applies.
Loading...
As a citizen of the olden days version of Mars, Australia, may I say "Thanks!", all them criminal types certainly made a damn nice country down here. :D
A quick, cursory reading of the treaty referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.
The treaty bans the following:
- Space-based nuclear weapons
- Space-based weapons of mass destruction
That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.
Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.
As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.
Presumably, for us to shoot down another country's platform would be an act of war. War planners, thus would want a "failsafe" design for such a defensive system so that it could be sure to clean out all platforms in the "earth shadow" as well. The point being that to be sure its an effective deterrent to any space-based platform zapper, one would only need to a) place a few sufficiently large weapons in orbit or b) add many more small ones, c) or both and and b.
Actually, I was attempting to be absurd with respect to the mega-tonnage, but only to demonstrate that once we start down this road, we shouldn't be surprised at the potential responses others might make. We should also keep in mind that responses such as putting a few warheads in orbit would be a lot less costly or technically difficult to employ than a system required to shoot them down.
A great number of scientists are already on record opposing work on space based interceptors because it would be extremely difficult to actually explode the target. The tests conducted to date, still remain highly contrived.
This reminds me a lot of the mobile MX system that was going to be build early in the Carter administration. It was "the raging fad" of defense contractors. That was until it dawned on a few folks whose grey matter was still working, that their was a significant danger of having nuclear warheads traveling around the country on the highways and on railroads all day and night, perhaps even greater than war time of the nuclear weapons themselves.
Presumably, "defensive" warheads could be attached to a variety of orbiting platforms that could perform other work as well, ie. global weather monitoring, land use monitoring, space science/photography ect. As you correctly point out they could be a lot smaller. The point being that they could still serve as an effective deterrent against space-based zappers. In any event the development of such weapons by the US would only serve as an incentive for other countries to park more platforms above the US in geosynchronous orbit.
Of course, this doesn't even consider the problem that nations who know they can't defeat us and will be be destroyed by our nuclear weapons, might not simply in the end consider the suicide bomber strategy and simply build a very large, very dirty bomb that will so fill the atmosphere with Sr 90 and Pu that nothing would survive no matter where it was detonated. No space-based weapons system would be able to counter-act or intercept such a weapon.
But isn't this is really only about letting out some contract work among friends anyway? Don't expect to be reading soon about the "plan" for dealing with any of the consequences of such (no bid?) contracts. Besides, what's the difference if there isn't enough money to go around for other priorities? Besides, we wouldn't be leaving ANY children behind.
Remember in the new scheme of things in the second term, yours is not to question why, yours is but to pay and die.
Isn't that a common thread shared amongst totalitarian regimes/facist regimes?
Not intended to be a troll, just food for thought.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Is it such a good idea for a country with a BAD track record for "friendly fire" incidents during time of war to have Space Weapons ? One targetting error and OOPS a city block got vaporized by accident! I'd hate to see the insurance claim on that one!
---START SIG It is better to know that you have lost than to NOT know that you have won! ---END SIG
No joke, but I read this a year or two ago in the Austin American Statesman:
One weapon the Air Force has been developing propells a canister from space filled with unimaginably flammable liquid. The canister bursts at a specified height, sending the liquid into billions of tiny droplets covering a known radius. A small igniter in the middle of the resulting droplet sphere...well...ignites. A devistating chain reaction occurs and can turn sand into glass!
Let's hope the terrorist scum don't get ahold of that!
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
I'm not saying it's unamerican to disagree with government policies but Kyoto specifically would *screw* us beyond all recognition. So many people are making a big deal out of nothing. I would think Slashdot of all places would see how bad Kyoto would mess us up.
Instead of the freaking X-prize, why don't we setup prizes that combat some of the problems Kyoto attempts to solve?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Anyone see a coincidence with the fact that Asian countries are doing real progress in the space ?
The treaty was with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn't exist. Since one of the two signing parties doesn't exist, the treaty isn't valid.
Can you name the movies in which they had weapons in space ?
According to Article 4, Section A of the POW Convention, you must satisfy the following criteria to be considered an enemy combatant subject to the rules governing prisoners of war:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3. That of carrying arms openly;
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I dont understand how that warmonger could win? I refuse to believe that the american people consists of a bunch of evil terrorist wannabies whos sole wish in life is to blow up little kids and women!
Enough already!
Peace..
HTTP/1.1 400
If the People's Republic of North Korea or the Chinese or the likes of Iran were ever to start putting weapons systems into orbit, do you think that the treaties would still be ignored by Uncle Sam or would he be trying to enforce them?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Of course, this doesn't even consider the problem that nations who know they can't defeat us and will be be destroyed by our nuclear weapons, might not simply in the end consider the suicide bomber strategy and simply build a very large, very dirty bomb that will so fill the atmosphere with Sr 90 and Pu that nothing would survive no matter where it was detonated. No space-based weapons system would be able to counter-act or intercept such a weapon.
We must not allow a doomsday weapon gap!
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
You mean, the cold war we won? Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
What if those bloody europeans suddenly got to their senses and started to look upon the U.S. as offensive - on their rights, freedoms, daily lives ?
So far as I can tell we don't interefere with your silly trade-unionist constitution, nor your self-serving politics, nor your enfeebling socialism. Of course, it is America which is interefering with the right and freedom of Bosnians, Croats and Serbs to murder one another, which I suppose impacts their daily lives by forcing them to live in peace. Sorry.
OK, granted for conventional explosives. I'll change my assertion as follows:
Only nuclear explosives (and to a much lesser extent, conventional explosives) are weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons and biological weapons are not.
We must not allow a doomsday weapon gap!
Very true. By doing so, we are encouraging attacks we won't be able to prevent (say, sailing a small nuke up the Patomac)....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Every hightech weapon can be defeated by a less high-tech defence.
Reminds me of the Serbs in Yugoslavia using microwave ovens as decoys for our missiles which home in on microwaves (targetting communications or anti-aircraft targetting systems).
This is because every complex system will have weaknesses which can be targetted by something simpler.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
No graphite, no shorts.
Well, it's high time US Empire builds a Death Star. It was all foretold in the prophecies. After the construction of the death star begins, we will see the return of the last messiah.
The messiah will attack the death star with a craft similar to SpaceShipOne and crash Internet Explorer that's running on the main DeathStar controller.
However, this joyous moment is not without its sadness, as Darth Chaney accidentally knocks out Obiwan "Dalai" Kenobi who was on a peace mission.
The treaty was signed in 1966! It was a treaty between the USA and the Soviet Union.
Last I heard, the USSR is no more...
Thus making the treaty null and void, all thanks to Ronald Reagan.
As per our converstion:
U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030522S0050
Where I come from, honestly I could not say. My family lived there for at least 1700 years I presume. 500 that I know of, unfortunatly I am unable to trace my heritage far enough to know if I am descendant of the Romans, or of the native Germanic tribes that roamed the interior of Europe. Most likely some of both.
Where I live now, before we became a nation the British broke treaties that they signed in faith with the native north americans, however they along with the french allied with the native nations against their common foes. The native people of Canada, though not hunted and assimilated as ruthlessly as their southern neighbours, were not treated well at all. There still linger disputes, but our government now works to resolve them as best it can given the circumstances.
I make no excuses, nor deny what occured, nor deny them their right to their culture, their way of life, and of self government within the larger whole.
This is not a sig.
It's high grade metal, The removal of the rubble at ground zero is nececary for the freedom towers anyway. It would be wastefull not to use it, although I would prefer for as much of the rubble and steel from the WTC to go into the freedom towers as posible.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
*whoosh*
Sorry...that was supposed to be a humorous quote from a humorous movie.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Politician A says that 2+2=5. Politician B disagrees, and says it's 7. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Also check out this scary little number: September 2002 National Security Strategy of the U.S.A.
I'm convinced of it now. I'm glad I didn't vote for the fucker.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
And when you wake up in four years, it'll all be okay.
If you don't believe me, just follow the money trail yourself. China's space program is military sponsored and controlled. There are so NASA type civilian space agency. All information regarding to the space program are tightly controlled and are consider a state secret.
While I am proud of the Chinese achievement in space, I think I owe Amarican and others a fair warning that China will have every intention, and if unchecked, eventually suceed in putting powerful weapons in space(I can't same the same on the WMDs, although China does have a few nukes).
It is only fair game for US government to consider space dominance by another country a possible threat scanario. Afterall, now all country are completely friendly with US. DOD's job is to protect the country. They cannot afford to play politically innocent.
Klaatu Barada Niktó!
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
it will be really a defeat of humanity if the weapons make it to space. it's a one way street like the nuclear weapons. more over space debris from a war in space would trap us on earth.
here is our chance to stop this from happening:
"The Bush administration's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is now calling for public comment on their Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Ballistic Missile Defense System. Public comment is due by November 17, 2004. People from all countries are urged to send comments." (see URL below for more details)
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/actions/pubor old people from getting affordable pharmaceuticals.
:D
I must be overtired, I misread "getting" as "growing".
Made for an interesting post
Grandma! Quit bogarting the pharmaceuticals!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
SciFi authors from Vern to Campbell to Roddenberry have mostly seen this as inevitable. They may miss the details but this genera of literature has a excellent record for divining the general direction. Note just how Orwellian the world has become in actions like CCTV survellience, drug testing, bioID and even in the inverted logic of the titles of corporate and government divisions. How about the tools of technology and warfare predicted by Verne and others. To expect that humankind, given its nature and history would NOT militarize space is silly. Matthew
Fair enough, but the fact is, that doomsday weapons are only stabilizing when both sides in a conflict have them. If there is too much assymetry, they become dangerously destablizing.
For example, if we have a national defense against ICBM's, then the logical next step for a country like N. Korea is to deploy nukes in SLBM's which are unlikely to be vulnerabile to our systems. Or terrorist means.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This post is not directed toward every american, only the religious nutjobs (well, they sure ain't christian). It however turned out to a big rant, not really applying to the space-weapon race... Sorry about that.
I just have this feeling that your president has understood that it is real easy to control the majority of the population as long as he is able to point towards some enemy.
Whenever the elite in the US need something (taxcuts, cheap labour, protection from competition or a new system of controlling the mindless public) they manage to come up with a good enemy. Your last enemy is as you all know the spooky "terrorists". Well, face it terrorism is not exactly a new enemy. Oh and terrorists usually fight for a cause, does america? Oh, yeah... you fight for your right to be the only superpower with the ability to fuck the rest of the world with polution, shitty food, and crap products (face it, american products went into a decline decades ago.)
Oh, and the american values thingy.. When did christianity promote an eye for an eye (ok, in the old testament). Jesus (the mythological stoner) promoted the direct opposite. If you want people to treat you nicely you will have to look beyond their faults. I seriously doubt that Jesus for instance would be denying people the right to abortion (they might be punished by god, however hell was invented about 1200 year ago, so the punishment shouldn't be too bad).
Oh, Jesus never had a girl, right (maybe the maria magdalena character, though). What the fuck do the right wing religius nutjobs think he was? Asexual, a wanker or GAY?
Okay, let me get back on topic here.
Why on earth do your government think they even have the right to attack other nations, and on top of that they havbe the nerve to try and make it impossible to retaliate. I really think that your government tries to isolate you... And a large portion of the population does not even notice (offtopic again, sorry)..
One thing is for certain, this will not make you less prone to attacks from terrorists.
Oh, and I am not trolling. Just expressing my view, as a norwegian (located in Europe for those that went to a public school in the mid-west.)
Just to finish of, those of you who voted for Kerry or Nader: Thank you. You've proved that not the entire american population is totally brainwashed. Now I can say that I like most of your big cities.
Damn, can't finish off just yet. As a student (School of management and economics) I studied with quite a few american exchange students. They seemed like nice people, even those from texas! And i've met several other americans around Europe, however I've never met anybody admitting to support the republicans! Is the republican party the worlds most elaborate hoax, or are republicans hiding underground in their atomic proof bunkers?
ouch.. this is really gonna get modded down, if anybody reads it, that is.
Oh, and english is not my primary language, so please excuse any gramatical errors.
You must mean the Cold War that began because Europeans were about to be overrun by Stalin, following 6 years of the bloodiest war in history that Europeans started.
You must mean the Cold War that cost the U.S. 50 years and trillions of dollars while Europeans spend an equal amount of time learning not to kill each other, while Europeans tried to learn the same lessons we Americans learned more than 200 years ago.
Understand this:
1. Every nation had the right to defend itself and its interests. The world is comprised of sovereign nations. If you don't like that, campaign to make the UN sovereign. But, you'd better allow me a chance to vote for my UN representatives, because I owe no allegiance to any leaders I had no opportunity to elect.
2. Stop with the holier-than-thou attitude, ok? It looks bad on Europeans, especially Europeans with no knowledge or memory of their own history.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
...we have a certified nutjob here.
I'd subcontract to the same guys who built the Death Stars. I hear they do good work on a tight schedule...
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Oh yeah?
Seems like you're wrong.
The US isn't the only country with "toys".
And oh yeah.
Just because other countries do not show off their "toys" like the US likes to does not mean that they don't have any.
Be careful - India atleast is largely pacifist, China is not. When it all spills over, it may get ugly.
Space Laser Platforms sound expensive, I can't see 7.4 million buying many if those B2 Spirit bombers come in at 2 billion a piece. The Diebold Death Star(tm), would clear the path the a Bush 3rd term nicely.
nuclear warheads traveling around the country on the highways In Britain nuclear warhead convoys do travel up and down our roads, to and fro from RNAD Coulport
This is fantastic news. The truth is waging a successful war on a global front requires always-on-site weaponry that can only be achieved by placing these devices in orbit. The 1967 treaty is irrelevant. Good job USAF.