Slashdot Mirror
Military Seeks Approval to Develop Space Weapons
ranson writes "The New York Times is reporting that U.S. Air Force officials are seeking Bush's Approval to begin researching and developing space arms. While analysts feel this move will be unwelcome in the international community, military officials believe that "Space superiority ... is our destiny, ... our vision for the future.""
So they are going to close some 20-30 bases in the US so we can have weapons in space. Space weapons sound cool, but a substantial ground presence is needed in any confrontation, either to mop up the mess, or contain it.
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
From informative, well researched fiction by Stephen Baxter (Moonseed) and others, I gather than the USAF has long held a grudge against NASA. Could this be the not so thin edge of the wedge of moving all space funding to a militarily organisation rather than a civilian one?
You might need it some rainy day,
Dreams can come true again,
When ev'ry thing old is new again!
- Throw rock
- Hit other guy with stick
- Throw rock with stick on the end of it
- Shoot stick with rock on end of it at guy with curved stick
- Hit rock with fire, make copper, bronze, iron, steel rocks to put on ends of stick
- Put fire in tube, throw rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal tube, throw metal rock with fire.
- Put fire in metal rocks, drop exploding rocks on other guy
- Drop rocks made of unstable atomic metals on other guy
- Head for the asteroid belt. Throw rock
Ronald Reagan pushed his Star Wars plan at around the same time (rough estimation) that Episode VI was released, and Bush is pushing Star Wars part II at the same time that Episode 3 is being released. Coincidence? I think not!
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Will some nation eventually deploy weapons in space? I'd say there's a high liklihood.
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
This is an escalation targetted against the rest of the world, and will be taken as such.
Nothing will defeat terrorism like billion dollar space weapons!!!
You never know when Al Qaeda is going to build a rocket.
Those kids in Explorers did.
Remember his speech, now known in history as the "Star Wars" speech.
"As we pursue our goal of defensive technologies, we recognize that our allies rely upon our strategic offensive power to deter attacks against them. Their vital interests and ours are inextricably linked. Their safety and ours are one. And no change in technology can or will alter that reality. We must and shall continue to honor our commitments."
Sad how little has changed.
Linux Resources
Its sad to see that the 'militarization' of space is the only 'hope' that we have of making additional space ventures.
Why not develope space technologies to help in safely travling through and living in space instead of ones to kill each other out there. We're already killing ourselves too much here so why must we be able to do so elsewhere before we'll even work on being able to go elsewhere?
-Tim Louden
Do you honestly think they would launch a missile (expensive to develop) that is very easily tracked back to the source rather than smuggling something in? Tons of drugs are imported to this country every year and you don't think they could get a nuke on site, and avoid retaliation?
I don't know about you but I read that as a grand "fuck you" to the rest of the world. "We own the entire rest of the universe and we'll blast you to subatomic particles if you try to have a piece..."
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Breaking treaties isn't exactly a new sport for the American Politic. Remember the American Indians? Yeah... no, really, we wont utterly annihilate anyone in our way using nefarious means. Never. One only hopes to learn from history...
Do space-based weapons do anything about that?
Remember, it was the Republicans in the 80s insisting that the only defense against the dreaded Russian menace was exactly this kind of thing. Do you remember that? Did that swirl away down the memory hole yet?
Get out of this perpetual war mentality you're stuck in. Get out from under this premise of fear that you cling to. Attitudes like yours are far more dangerous to the safety of the planet than North Korea.
I trust that's not too tough to understand, right?
=>jd
Hell yeah it sounds like us. America fights to win. Now maybe we fight too often and in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons (I'm not interested in debating the appropriateness of the most recent war, I hate it, but that's not the question at hand), but when we fight, we don't just march out some poor draftees in front of enemy machine guns to be fair to the enemy. We airstrike them and snipe them and smartbomb them, because we're not there to be fair, we're there to win. We're there to liberate or conquer or raze, but we're not there to die.
I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
It is as great a crime to send our boys in defenseless, ill-equipped, and without backup to die as it is to subjugate and persecute the enemy.
And as for the name 'rod of god', it's a nickname for Pete's sake. It's not official marketingspeak from the government, it's a bloody nickname! And a pretty damned good one, too.
...regarding NOT militarizing space?
zork% mv *.asp
283 files eaten by a grue
I'd rather see no further manned exploration in space for another 50 years than see any exploration (exploitation?) that's driven by a military agenda: all that will acheive is a military build up in space with the US and most probably China developing space-based weapons.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only. The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
Just as the US's nukes begat the USSR's, which begat China's, which begat India's, which begat Pakistan's, any overt US militarisation of space would only lead to others following suit.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
You'd better not make a mistake with one.
You'd better hope their orbits are stable.
You'd better hope their orbits don't decay
What if one gets fired by accident or software bug?
The basic problem is that once the weapon is deployed into orbit, it's already half fired.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Imagine if some terrorist organization hacked into the communications channel to something like 'Rods of God' and fired at will on America?
What am I thinking? It's not like the terrorists would ever think of using our own technology against us.
Enemies? Wake up. We're in the information age. The thing that controls these space weapons is information. We can spend all this money putting up creative technology in space, and all our enemies have to do is gather the information to control it.
My point is that we need to get rid of our enemies. And the only way to do that is to spend money on convincing our enemies that we're not their enemies at all.
If we're talking about arms in space, what's to stop [insert nuclear-capable country here] from declaring that their airspace extends above geostationary orbit levels, and that any transgression thereof will result in terrestrial nuclear retaliation?
The US is waning as a global superpower. Get over it.
The US *could* set an honourable standard of behaviour for superpowers while they still can, but I suspect that greed will get in the way. Oh well...
well, this is a little different. George and his big corporation buddies are right now making big bucks with the cheap cost of production in countries that don't have liberty and esteem for human life or safety. These countries will use alot of that wealth to develop strategic weapons (for example, China will upgrade its missiles to ones that don't take 25 minutes to fuel/prep so they could then preemtively strike the U.S.A. if need be), so now we go to phase 2a of The Plan, which is pump the military industrial complex with our tax dollars for the day when phase 1 comes back to bite us in the ass. Phase 2b of the plan is to get everyone to own nothing, everything will be leased so as to provide recurring source of revenue, whether your're talking about entertainment or housing or transportation. Only electronic money, the goverment and banks get a slice of every deal. Stay tuned for phase 3, you won't even recognize the place!
When you think of the cost of putting such systems into orbit, let alone maintaining systems with enormous destructive power (remember what the Hubble and ISS pricetags have been so far?), it's enough to bankrupt many a nation. And of course we also have to ensure that they can't be tampered with by other satellites or massive EM storms like the recent one.
The point of all this is not to say that space should stay completely demilitarized--much as everyone would like that, the odds are that it's a pipe dream. If the United States decides to play the altruist and refrain on ideological grounds from militarizing space, that's just an invitation for less scrupulous powers like North Korea to try it at a future time. At some point the issue will inevitably come up.
But this does not necessarily mean that America needs to be proactive in the deployment (though it certainly does in the development) of such systems. The astronomical pricetag and tremendous practical issues associated with any space-based weapons deployment are such that any country attempting it, including hostile countries, could not do so without extensive difficulty and a very long time, and wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being clandestine about it.
In other words, it is unlikely given America's current military superiority that we need to militarize space at this point. We would likely (for the time being, when anti-missile lasers are not yet practical) have sufficient time to destroy any hostile nation's weapons systems and implement our own--sharing the cost with our allies instead of unliaterally bankrupting ourselves for the sake of pie-in-the-sky showboating. Frankly, now is not the time to start the arms race when we don't have to. Keep space weapons free until such time as we reasonably expect to need space-based weapons (are we really going to need tungsten rods with the kinetic energy of tactical nukes in order to take out guerilla fighters and small terrorist bands? What's the immediate large-scale military threat that requires this sort of tech?).
We can't kid ourselves that it will never happen, but we can for the time being avoid spending astronomical sums on an unproven system to address a threat that doesn't exist at the expense of international censure. The arms race doesn't need to happen now.
While Ronald Reagan was visualizing the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire", George W. doesn't have as easy a target to rail against: the vague threat of a terrorism.
So let's compare it to a movie that did extremely well financially despite a half baked idea behind it. Viola, we have "Star Wars, The Phantom Menace"
Assuming these military industrial complex string pullers get their way, we will probably find ourselves in another version of the Starwars type programs Ronald Reagan tried to push during the 80's. It will for sure cost tens/hundreds of billions of dollars, makes go deeper in debt, and will bring nothing but space war stalemate.
Yes because I'm sure if china wanted to attack then saw the US building up its arms it would stop and think, gee well they certainly put an end to that.
Honestly what do you think would happen to the US if china decided to stop exporting goods. What if all the asian countries got together and stopped exporting goods? No more electronics thats for sure.
The US building up arms is just as bad for global stability as the middle east building up arms. Most countries are worried the US will attack them and other countries who are allied with the US are afraid the US will attack someone close to them and thus result in crapping up their country. South Korea is just as worried about the US attacking North Korea as the North is.
I'll let you in on a secret, other countries don't like being in this position.
Don't be so arrogant as to think the US is invincible.
The original space ventures weren't exactly done for pure science you know. Superiority in space was seen as a major military objective in the 1950s and 1960s, which, combined with the propaganda value, is why the government was willing to pour so much money into it. Apollo would never have happened if we weren't trying to defeat the Soviets.
Wasn't our space program fueled by a tense rivalry with Russia? Didn't we build rockets rivaling and eventually surpassing Russia's because of the competition with the Soviets? If you think it was a battle of the intellect, you're sorely mistaken. We wanted to be better than them, pure and simple. I don't think that we should seek to drop weapons on the rest of the world -- I hate it -- but it's naive to think that a space program can exist divorced from any military interest.
You obviously.. ...haven't read the "Patriot Act" have you?
Neither did the Senate.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us (that *certainly* doesn't help "secure peace" in the world!), it's about not militarizing *space* (once we do it, Russia and China will follow--how would *you* feel knowing the Chinese can nuke us from space? Now imagine Chinese space nukes when Taiwan declares independence.), and it's about not being grotesque monsters who nuke whole populations of innocent people.
Hell yeah, fight to win, but let's remain a people worthy of winning, if we can.
The neocons suffer from a severe case of hubris. No one's saying "don't fight to win", they're saying, "the only winning move is not to play the game". How can we be so utterly stupid as to be the ones to *start* the game? It's one thing to be forced into it (you can't help that), but voluntarily starting it?
The United States has thus far demonstrated that it is the most responsible when it comes to protecting human rights, helping countries in need, providing aid to other countries when disaster strikes
Uh, riight. I guess you are ignoring cases where the US is the one who CAUSED said disasters.
and because the American people are the most generous throughout the world.
That would explain why everyone on earth just loooves Americans, right?
this nation has done the right thing time and time again.
Which time? When training terrorists for dirty little secret wars in South and Central America? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Haiti? Panama? Iraq? Isreal? Face it, your foreign policy has been a total fuck up for over 50 years.
The same applies to nucular weapons (I voted for Bush, can you tell?) and every other type of weapon in existance. This is because the U.S. uses such weapons responsibly
Please explain the responsible use of said weapons. Nuking civilian populations? Providing said weapons to "friendly" dictators? Spraying said weapons over entire coutries? Let me know when I get to the example of responsible use.
It is not okay for most other nations to have access to such weapons
Really? Then why not get your retarded leader to invade Isreal and take theirs away. Or India. Or Packistan. Or China. Or North Korea. Or any of the vast number of nations who ACTUALLY posses said weapons. So far you have only managed to flaten countries who DIDN'T posses said weapons.
This is akin to a police officer carrying a gun (the United States) versus a bank robber carrying the same gun (parts of: Europe, Africa, Asia--these areas have demonstrated, within the last century, that they are not responsible)
Check your history books, I think there is one country you forgot on your list. Google "Fat man" or "Little boy", it will lead to the answer.
Since you want to use cops carying guns as your example, wasn't it just last week that some of your ever responsible cops unloaded 120+ rounds on an innocent man (unarmed). The saving grace is that these cops were only able to hit the target twice. Trigger happy, ignorant, and incompetent. Yup, sounds like the US to me.
Face it, the US has fuck all for moral authority. Rape, torture, war crimes out the wazoo, illegal invasions, state sponsored terrorism, you have it all. You want to police your people, go right ahead. I would love to know why you think you have the right to dictate to anyone else what they can or can not do in their own country.
In case you wonder why the US is globally hated, read your post. You have included most of the ingredients.
1) Like it or not the US no longer holds to the no weapons in space treaty. Bush pulled out of that a couple years ago. So everyone stop whining about Bush breaking international treaties. I don't like him either but at least focus on what he is really doing.
2) Space is the high ground making it highly strategic. All in all I think the US is better suited to handling the power of being first more than say China. ESA would be a good candidate too but they are pretty damn happy to sit back and let the US handle all the shit jobs and ensuing flak.
3) Very surprised nobody has put together the other obvious piece in this puzzle with Griffon announcing a major new initiative by NASA to deploy space based nuclear reactors. Lasers in space have to have gigantic sources of power... Solar arrays are not very feasible and they remove darkside firing. Nuclear power will provide both power for weapons and propulsion that does not exist today. At the very least this will bring about serious space based observation platforms. Think AWACS in Geosync over a Theater of operations. One of the military thriller wirters used that for a book a while back... can't remember which one but the title was Silver Tower.
4) for the gravel in space folks. Granted it can be effective... but I am not sure you grasp just how big an area you are talking about. Also, if you grasp orbital mechanics you will understand anything that is a continual problem (ie remains in orbit) you can match orbits with it to remove danger (small relative differences in velocities) or launch clean up efforts.
5) For those that think space is silly considering you need ground troops I suggest you read up on what people thought about air power prior to WWII. A single laser system with a good rate of fire, capable of tracking an air target long enough to destroy it will alter the face of war in a way not seen since the introduction of mechanized assault. If it cost 100 billion to develop and 100 billion to launch it would be cheap. Check out the cost of the air force... then consider such a weapon could theoretically render it obsolete. Make it like mounted Calvary taking on tanks.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Look at the history of the H-Bomb.
America came up with the theory, but didn't test it. We thought we were taking the moral high ground.
Russia came up with it and tested it...
Guess who had to play catch up?
You think if America dosen't do it nations like China, India and Paki won't?
Please.
I agree with you in one sense: In a time of war we need to protect our American soldiers using every means possible, including technological superiority.
In a just war, space-based weaponry could be an incredible asset. However, there is at least one negative consequence to be considered: Such weaponry can lower the bar for what, in Americans' minds, is proper justification to go to war. The more "smart" weapons we have in our arsenal, the easier it is for our leaders to convince Congress and the American public that wars, including those fought for the wrong reasons, can be fought with relatively little loss of American lives. With a sufficiently superior military at our command the ideologues have much less to stop them from "liberating" other nations as they see fit, for better or for worse.
They want to close bases in the US, but maybe they need to close the ones in Uzbekistan.
We go after dictators in Iraq and N. Korea but support them in other places like Uzbekistan. People world wide are seeing us as hypocrites.
It is too bad that our country is not consistent in our policies. The only consistency seems to be "how do we get more oil".
Any Neocon want to defend our support of Uzbek dictator?
Space does not belong to the US military. Space does not belong to the United States. I would rather not have those who pioneer the exploration of space have to ask for permission to pass the US military's ring of Death Stars.
This move should be viewed by citizens of the world in the same light as Native Americans might have viewed US military outpost showing up in the west.
With the immenent exporation and and exploitation of space, the Military WILL try to lock down control before it becomes an area outside their jurisdiction and control.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only.
Given our not-so-stellar record, that's unlikely.
Serious science, and even pseudo-science like manned missions to the Moon or Mars, provides the West with the best means of fostering positive relations with China in the medium term, and I'd hate to see any opportunity for the betterment of mankind blown because some cowboy decides that putting nukes above our heads is a smarter move than making sure that nobody will want to do it.
China, except for small altercations with Taiwan and Japan, seems to be taking the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' approach. I agree that any move towards weaponization of space would be matched by them.
There is an excellent book by Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought : Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War about World War I and Britain's efforts to stay ahead of Germany, to maintain their sea advantage as their land army was weaker. IIRC, they wanted to maintain a 3:1 ratio over the Germans. Britain as this sort of weakening power, overextended, struggling to maintain it's colonies across all parts of the globe, the sun never setting on their empire, yet the hordes ready to crush their Hadrian's Wall.
Now the U.S. in a similar situation, relatively unopposed superpower, but it's unclear where the financial and technical ability to invest in Space technology would come from not too far in the future.
One would think it imperative for the U.S. to balance the budget, start paying off debt, and likewise continuing to keep it's schools (whether college or grade school) top notch.
First of all, there is no talk of placing nukes into space.
"the only winning move is not to play the game".
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free; unless made and kept so by the exertions of a better man than himself."
John Stuart Mill
China is doing its damnedest to become a military force to be reckoned with. And given their economic growth, China is the only nation with the capability to participate. But given the explanation in the article, it seems that the hawks in the pentagon are more interested in rapid deployment of force across the globe, the consequences (an arms race) be damned.
There are lives at stake here!
That all sounds rather nice, but is really rather hollow, reactionary thinking. Space-borne weapons might offer a way to fight conflicts with precision and minimal loss of life to both sides.
Or they might not - hasn't this been the excuse for ever more destructive weapons since time immemorial 'they'll save more lives than they destroy'? It has never turned out to be true. The aim of war is never minimal loss of lives to both sides.
The agressive militarisation of a domain which all space-capable countries have explicitly agreed not to militarise is an insane, hubristic waste of money which will backfire when China, Europe, India et al decide they can't tolerate a US with space weapons and start to arm their satellites. Why not press for ratification of a treaty which explicitly bans all weapons in space? You could then pour funding into the civilian related technologies directly.
The science involved will invariable trickle down. Do you have objections to the fact that airplanes benefitted from military research? Hell, we got the jet engine from the Nazis for the most part.
Why don't they spend the money on the science instead then? As an aside the Nazis were not the only ones developing a jet engine.
Sometimes the hippy dippy shit that sounds so good is just a gloss coat on reality that makes you feel smug. But it comes at the cost of the complexity of the real world.
Sometimes that jingoistic talk is just a varnish on a primitive desire to dominate driven by fear. An attempt at cooperation with other nation states would go a lot further than unfounded paranoia about possible future threats.
The complex reality is that war always kills thousands, maims hundreds of thousands, and sends the countries invaded back to the stone age. It is not something to be sought out or justified, even if it is, very rarely, a necessary evil. I'd be interested in an example of a war that has been fought with 'precision' - in Iraq they're not even counting the civilian casualties.
The US has no need of a bigger, better, weapon - they already spend more on weapons than any other nation, almost 10 times more.
"the only winning move is not to play the game".
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
The French were in the game and didn't know it. It only takes *one* party to start a war. Right now there's no real space war going on. In other words, *no one* is playing the game. It's disgusting to think *we'd* be the ones to start the game.
WWII *is* a good example. We didn't start it, but we helped finish it. That's the way it should be. Starting down the path to war undermines ones moral authority.
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited? So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous? When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
There are many motives for hatred, and "jealousy" is one of the feeblest.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they *hate* us because we go around killing them. Just look at South America. People really don't like having some jerks from thousands of miles away come and tell them what to do, and siphon away their natural resources. They *do* like a role model they can look up to, and who helps them.
Which do you think we are?
We keep creating the people we have to take down: Noriega, Saddam, Osama.
Who was it who was screaming so loudly for us to come and defend them when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Oh, yeah, the Saudis...the same lot that's demanding we leave their terroritory.
No, we lied and told the Saudis that Saddam was massing troops on his border with faked satellite photos. *They* didn't want us there at all. We also told Saddam it was alright if he wanted to invade Kuwait.
Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
Are you purposefully being an ignorant fool? The world *used* to like us, and life was good. Now the Europeans are forming their own economic superpower, the Chinese are becoming powerful and would be good to keep as friends, and even our long-time friends in *this* hemisphere are telling us to take a hike.
How can you *possibly* think that not having true friends and allies is good for America?
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
In the eyes of the world, America can do no right. If we decide to fight, we're being imperialistic. If we decide not to fight, we're blind to the suffering of the world. There is no way to make the United States popular.
The war in Iraq WAS the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit. (Even though nobody else was willing to lift a finger to get rid of Saddam.)
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
If you're referring to WWII, they *did* like us. Liking someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. They were very glad for the help.
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
That's a huge load. We've asked for *plenty*. We've asked for permanent military bases, we've asked for money and for troops to help us fight our unpopular wars.
Most of our military actions ever since Korea have been exceedingly unwelcome by the people of the countries we've invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked.
No, the world doesn't hate us for when we offer true assistance--they hate us when we assert our will on them. They hate us when *we* are responsible for death and destruction.
We're like the corrupt police who beat people and extort from the innocent. The people *hate* those police, and it's not because they are jealous, or because they are ungrateful for the times the police actually *do* protect them, it's for the times when the police abuse their power, and betray the public trust.
The world was *overwhelmingly* with us after 9/11. They were with us on Afghanistan. They listened to us make the case for Iraq, and then said, "No, you're wrong." We went ahead anyway, and it turns out we *were* wrong.
If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit.
Sure we will. But that credit also comes with the cost of the war--how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will it have taken by the end?
Not to mention the fact that we are *directly* responsible for Saddam's party gaining power in Iraq long ago, and we supported Saddam when he was gassing people, which we now hypocritically condemn him for.
The world will certainly give us *all* the credit we are due, good and bad.
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
The current Iraq war isn't the beginning of American aggression in the world, it's just an extremely visible example. In other words, for many people, hatred of America was already legitimate.
> It seems that most of the revolutionary technology was first developed by the
> military and then released to the private sector to benefit mankind
It's basically socialism, except it's defence contractors that get handouts for life (as long as they are pursuing research useful for maintaining American military domination around the world), rather than poor people. Of course, as you can see, the poor of America (and the rest of the world) are gaining from this wealth, as can be seen by the narrowing gap between the rich and the poor. I mean, they will do soon, surely. I mean, that's the point, right?
Its sad to see that the 'militarization' of space
Am I the only one who's sick of deliberately provocative and inflammatory rhetoric like "weaponization of space" and "militarization of space?" When navys first started developing seagoing military vessels, did partisan pundits of the day describe it as the "weaponization of the seas?" When governments first recognized the military potential of flight, did people cry how it was the "weaponization of the skies?"
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I'm sick of double-standards. Weapons on land, sea, and air: OK. Weapons in space: end of civilized mankind. I don't buy it.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I mean seriously. First off, Europe is not a country, its a collection of sovereign states, with very different attitudes towards different aspects of their policy. It is worth noting that after 9/11, the US had more support, sympathy, and respect from Europe and most other countries in the world than ever before. The current leadership systematically squandered that in a breathtaking display of arrogance (which, by the way, is inextricably linked to ignorance) and militarism. I mean to take that much goodwill and turn it into the barely veiled contempt largely prevalent today takes some doing.
The Europeans hate us because we had the nerve to get up and leave the oppressive regimes running the joint.
France is in Europe, genius, and that was one of the nations that actively helped the United States of America against the British, sending armies and weapons to assist.
The Arabs hate us because they believe they're supposed to be running the world
The arabs hate you, slick, because you took a large part of their land and turned it into a refuge for Israel. This was largely sponsored by the religious right in US politics who actually want to bring about the apocalypse, and that can't happen until the jews are back in zion.
The Africans hate us because of slavery
Most Africans (thats a continent by the way, not a country, we call it gee-ogg-raffy) couldn't care less about America. They have enough troubles of their own.
The Japanese hate us because they thought they were supposed to be running the world by now.
The Japanese hate everyone, don't feel particularily special in that. Why do you think they spend so much time and money working on robotics? They want to replace all the migrant workers currently doing menial work in Japan with robots. Not that I'm saying thats wrong or right, thats just how their culture works.
So fine, let's just go ahead and do it.
Two points for you here, Einstein, invading a country and holding a country are two entirely different things, as you are slowly working out in Iraq. And the second point makes the first point moot, which is of course that other mations besides America have nucular weapons. Work with me here. Even assuming that a country has 10 nukes capable of hitting the US, which 10 cities would you like to permanently kiss goodbye to? And they will not launch unless they have been launched at first, so there would be an immediate exchange of nuclear weapons from everyone who has them. And then the sun goes down on the states for the last time... getting the picture?
In a century or so, the Chinese might be calling the shots worldwide
The Chinese are too terrified of having their own country fly apart at the seams to ever think about worldwide conquests.
It seems the world loves to call us when something dangerous or dirty needs to be done
Okay lets just deal with this whole rabid tirade. First of all, if the US hadn't gotten involved in WWII, they would have faced either a cosy little alliance between Hitler, Stalin and the Japanese stretching from Cornwall to Australia, or they would have been facing just Stalin. So, rather than face that kind of power (against which the US would ultimately lose), they got involved to save their own hides. Do us a favour and don't come over all altruistic now, the martyred heroes. The EU already exceeds the US in industrial power, wealth, and population. Imagine that under a dictator like Hitler...
but we're a damned sight better than anything else that's come into being on this blue and green ball.
Correction, you were better. Now you are shaping up to be worse. If the infiltration of the religious right into US politics is not stopped by the American people, you had better believe other countries will step in and stop it. What was the price for a congressman again?
Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
You can give a damn or not as it suits you. The American people as a whole, however, had better start giving a damn.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Bah. Don't sweat it.
Most on this board will disagree, but the military is how we in the US subsidize research. Rather than directly supporting Universities, our tax dollars go to guys with really sucky haircuts to do all the heavy lifting. After those BIG problems are solved, Coroprate Johny CEO says "hey, I can get a monopoly on X, protected by patents, and make some cash before my boon doggle goes pop." It's the way we do things.
The system seems to work, don't knock it.
Time for a reality check!
I can't speak for the other continents, but as for Europe, we don't hate you for reinventing the republic (do you, honestly, think that the people of Europe actually enjoyed being opressed by their governments? Do you think the French revolution was just for fun?).
What we do hate you for is, that when we did learn from your example and introduced proper parliamentary democracy, freedom of speach etc., you turned the tables on us and became an endlessly more arrogant colonial opressor than we ever were! That is what pisses us off.
We don't envy your success - we are inspired by it. But if, when we try to emulate your success, you attempt to force Coca-Cola down our throat, we will revolt! You see, it all boils down to each individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (does any of those words ring any bells with you..?).
And finally, has it ever occured to you that, if everyone didn't hate you (for, more or less, well founded reasons), things like 9-11, USS Cole, ebassy bombings, etc. wouldn't happen in the first place..?
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.