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.""
Based on the fact that a 82-billion-dollar emergency budget for military operations has just been approved, this "Space Arm Race" might just be the only realistic hope for us to see any space ventures in our life time.
Is this a variant of how sticky-note Bill are attached (and passed) under another guaranteed Bill?
I'm sure in order to bring weapons into the space, a lot of technologies will have to be developed, which hopefully will benefit many other sectors.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
That's no moon that's a space station!!!!
__________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
It's to enable them to legally deploy them. From TFA:
With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.
I'm wondering if perhaps this isn't also the military wanting to show off a little and provide the public a glimpse of yesterday's technology, similar to what happened with the F-117 circa 1990. Maybe they want to show us what the Aurora really looks like.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
He's never going to sign this... right? Not Bush... Right. That guy is a conservative who hates spending our tax money on pie in the sky ideas, and loves life... right? He believes we've already got the best weapons in the world, and couldn't imagine us needing more...right? Besides, at his heart, Bush is a diplomat who understands that the US can't go it alone in the world and far be it for him to swing his cock around... right? Right?
DefenceTech.org Times' shaky spacewar story:
"[Global Strike] -- which we first looked at back in November 2003 -- is legit, with a hefty $91 million invested into it over the last two years. But, by making so little distinction between this effort and more pie-in-the-sky plans, the Times does its readers a bit of a disservice."
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
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
Yup...nuke 'em from orbit...that sure sounds like us.
Apparently they weren't listening a few years ago when Dubya called 'dibs'.
'Rods of God'? Just when I think that the neoconservatives can't get any more arrogant, they serve up this gem. Way to go, guys.
Sounds like those Air Force boys have been watching too much Real Genius.
Ahh, yes...the Death Star...just in time for the release of Revenge of the Sith. I wonder how much George paid George for that tie-in.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If you look at the upcoming global landscape, China looks to be number potential enemy. They are already working on a space program that will only getter better, and more advanced.
Right now, the US undisputablly has the technogical superiority over the rest of the world. It's high time we develop a space strategy while we still have the edge. Right now, there are no enemies that can attack from space, but you never know in 20 years or so.
It's time to get the ball rolling. Reagan had it right with Star Wars, and he only helped bankrupt the Soviet Union by funding it. I hope Bush follows in Reagan's footsteps.
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.
At least, that's what this admin thinks, IMO. It's a dangerous idea, one devoid of morals.
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
Oh they're closing Submarine and Bomber bases too.
I'm all for the military industrial complex and all. But there's not a whole lot here technology wise. A kinetic kill weapon just needs a ride up. And since I don't seem them reexamining nuclear rockets for those rides, it's just a sink for cash as opposed to an investment. It the want to get a high band gap semiconductor laser array going, woohoo, but I somehow doubt that's on the near term chistmas list.
I love how the republicans ran on a platform of strengthening Americas military, and all they're doing is cutting back, complicating logistics, DURING the invasion of two countries. Biggest. WTF. Evar.
Here Bush goes will go breaking international laws again...
a sp
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, prohibits military activities on celestial bodies, and details legally binding rules governing the peaceful exploration and use of space.
The treaty's key arms control provisions are in Article IV. States-parties commit not to:
* Place in orbit around the Earth or other celestial bodies any nuclear weapons or objects carrying WMD.
* Install WMD on celestial bodies or station WMD in outer space in any other manner.
* Establish military bases or installations, test "any type of weapons," or conduct military exercises on the moon and other celestial bodies.
The USA fully signed and ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
http://www.peaceinspace.com/sp_faq.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/outerspace.
(among others)
If the US of A is the strongest country in the world then it can get away with whatever it wants to do. When, however, other countries finally become strong, they will govern themselves by the current behavior of Uncle Sam. If China becomes the next super power, we will complain bitterly if they behave themselves the way we are behaving now.
Repudiating treaties will come back to haunt us and it will serve us right. We have a treaty that says space is not supposed to be weaponised. We should honor that treaty. While we're at it how about respecting the human and basic legal rights of the prisoners we are illegally holding without charge and without trial and torturing.
Me stops rant and goes looking for a stiff drink so I can hold off reality for a while.
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?
The problem is our open southern border which guys like Osama and the like can exploit fully three yeras after 9/11 and with an elected president "fighting the war on terror".
The problem is out-sourcing which is eroding our industrial base to the extent that already, about one-third of our defense machinery is foreign made.
The problem is the lack of competitive leverage that is now known of American workers. This is helping out-sourcing.
The problem is big business. This is evidenced by the fact that all innovation in important fields is coming from Europe/Asia. Look around your living room and tell me what you see. Where were those electronics made?
The problem is hypocricy. Consider this: In year one, India and Pakistan must not have nuclear weapons and all efforts are taken to ensure this is the case. In year two, they are our best allies even after testing the same weapons. You know why? It's because we do not have an answer to a nuclear bomb. This bomb once on its way to its destination, it cannot be stopped. That's why we as USA do not want Iran to get this weapon.
More problems: Cuba/China and so many others. Have a good nite guys.
Cb..
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...
I'll bite. Why? As long as we have enough bases to serve or armed soldiers, why do we need a few extra in, say, South Dakota? To repel an invasion from the inner Canadian provinces? I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
It's a dangerous idea, one devoid of morals
As opposed to guided missiles? Supersonic bombers? Flamethrowers? Trebuchets? The tool/venue is, by definition not a moral issue. What you do is. So, if China starts taking out our satellites, and we've got no means by which to prevent it... that's a good thing?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
See, the truths we cling to depend greatly on one's point of view. We're not really closing bases - we're simply relocating them 200 miles up and phasing out the manpower in favor of automation. :)
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
they want their star wars plans back.
Meh.
...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.
Our agenda, successful to date, carries the invasion to Florida, Arizona and California; spearheaded by fat old people in white shoes and polyester.
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.
...both in Cinemas and in American Congress.
I guess that's the power of the dark side of the farce.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This is not to say I support Mr. Bush, but as parent clearly indicates in the rest of his post, the 1967 treaty concerns WMD -- not all weapons. Quoth TFA: "no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction."
Moreover, the pentagon isn't stupid. Using (or threatening to use) nuclear weapons is not a central aspect of US security at the moment. The main threats come either from dictatorships (think N. Korea) or terrorism. Neither kind of enemy can be deterred with nuclear weapons. They are probably trying to revive SDI (i.e. place energy/kinetic antimissile weapons in space), but they may have plans for space-to-ground weapons that are not WMD.
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...
We already have our hands full managing the debris cloud in low earth orbit from the operations we've got on-going. If we ever get stupid enough to blow things to bits en masse on *purpose*, getting into space will become very, very risky.
Well, that'd be one way to keep the rest of the universe safe from manifest destiny. ET can just listen to our broadcasts safely knowing we'll be blowing things up on the ground, as God intended.
I don't think the bases in the US are all that necessary. We aren't trying to protect ourselves from Canada, and the Feds really aren't trying to seal off the border with Mexico, which isn't a military problem.
As it is, it looks like states are fighting closures because they want the money they bring. It seems to be pretty rare that the Pentagon actually has liberties to determine what they need for the mandates they were given. It seems like they are often being told what to develop, what to buy, even if it doesn't align so well against their mission. I've heard of weapon systems, ships and other stuff gets chosen for them because a company in some particular congressman's district needs to build something.
Well, we need that to maintain the Stargate program.
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.
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.
There is much written about the effect that not having to fight a war face to face with the risk of great loss of life on your own part has on the way a society perceives war.
Additionally, are you okay with countries that perceive the US as the enemy sending suicide bombers or missles or biological weapons over to the US from a safe distance?
The old USSR already did deploy weapons in space.t icles/sovtion3.htm
The USSR deployed a network of anti Satellite weapons.
The USSR deployed a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
One of the Some of the Soviet manned missions where military missions.
The Soviets tried to launch a space battle station it failed to make it to orbit.
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/ar
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Now, it might not be nuclear, but "force of a small nuclear weapon" sounds to me like it qualifies for the full intent and meaning of a WMD.
You had me at, "U.S. should have space weapons."
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!
Yet didn't the US and USSR have agreements in place not to militarise space? Treaties that banned space-borne weapons?
The Space Race was about winning headlines, and proving the superiority of capitalism/democracy over communism (and vice versa), not military advantages.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Parent sounds like a hippie to me...
You however, say the military is just part of a natural evolution of technology. You are only half right. Some new technologies have been developed by the military first, like the internet. There are also many other inventions/technologies that were the product of a small group of inventors researchers...like powered human flight.
The military's track record with developing new technologies is mixed at best.
As far as the best way to explore space? It has to be a partnership of industry (not necessarily corporations per se), national space agencies (NASA, etc.), private investors, and the military if absolutely necessary. Just like America was "developed". It might not be perfect but it's the best idea yet.
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
Funny were seeing this happen just as the new Star Wars movie comes out.
1) Dubya sees advance screening of SW6
2) Dubya demands urgent funding to develop space weapons to protect against Sith invasion.
3) George Lucas is sent to Guantanamo.
4) Dubya blows up the moon, certain that it holds enough WMD to wipe out planets in a single burst.
5) Barbra calls Dubya and tells him it's just a movie.
The tool/venue is, by definition not a moral issue. What you do is.
Right, actions are moral or immoral. Placing weapons in space is an action.
Moral arguements aside, (although I do believe they are relevant when people are dying of hunger, et cetera,) space simply cannot be controlled. It is not a teritory that can be occupied like a country can, and there are several basic reasons for this.
First off, weapons placed in space cannot be hidden, so they sit in plain view of everyone. As an extension of this, they can also be tracked easily because they follow simple orbits, and thinking forward, this makes the weapons themselves vulnerable to attack. The United States and Russia have both already demonstrated effective precision anti-satellite capabilities, but a simpler approach would be to simply explode a nuclear weapon relatively nearby - something any major nuclear power could already do. Of course, a nuclear blast would damage other satellites as well, and not only directly. The destruction of satellites would create a huge amount of space debris, already a significant problem. In fact, intentionally launching debris would be another basic anti-satellite technique.
The United States has the most to lose - it already has the largest world share of satellite-based commerce, its military relies on satellites to function more than any other military. By shifting battle into outer space, the U.S. is effectively threatening its own interests.
Also, anti-satellite weapons cost orders of magnitude less than outer space weapons in terms of cost to develop or deploy, meaning there is no strategic advantage to being the first country to deploy space weapons. In fact, by deploying such weapons first, the United States may end up committing itself to an asymmetrical arms race in an attempt to protect its space assets - especially asymmetrical because of the prohibitive cost of space launches. Finally, you have to examine the motivation for space weaponization. The U.S. military is already by far the dominant world force. No other country in the world is currently undertaking serious research to weaponize space. Russia has unilaterally pledged not to be the first country to weaponize space and China is considering such a declaration itself. The allocation of money is not neutral, it must come from somewhere. This means either a decrease in other military forces or in domestic programs. Space weaponization is a waste of money, does nothing to solve current problems, and may very well create new international tensions, something that both the Russian and Chinese ambassadors have made quite clear.
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.
A great advantage of having lots of little bases everywhere is that it means that there is less of a civilian/military divide and that the military is a part of the community. Put all the bases in the southern states and this divide will grow significantly greater as people in northern states see military personel as "different". They may already - but at least having members of the military visible in the community makes people see them as part of their community. Take the bases away and they won't. If people don't view military personel as a part of their community, they won't care so much when they are deployed - and might be willing to vote for deployments that they would otherwise vote against.
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.
Because the entire senate obviously reads every single bill all the way through. Because that would get things done faster. End sarcasm. Did the homeland security (or whatever) committie read it? I bet they did. Also, it takes two chambers of congrss to pass a law. How come nobody ever screams about how the House didn't read it? Because asking 435 lawmakers to each read a several hundred page document and understand it in depth might be too much? Considering their rationale was "Get this passed now, we need this today."? How come the Senate (or the house) read and understand that recent bill including RealID?
Disclaimer: I dispise the patriot act and the rationale behind it. I also think our system of lawmaking is broken.
Agreed. How about fixing the mistake we made in Iraq before investing in future mistakes.
Iraq is the biggest clusterfuck since Vietnam. More than 100,000 dead (1,600 US Soldiers) and there isn't any modicum of hope for that place within sight.
Considering that it was going to pay for itself, and we've only sunk $300 Billion into it, why not put another $82 Billion into space weapons.
Why would we need to replenish our depleted Military disposables?
God help us, and we have 3.5 more years of G.W. still to come.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7896613/
Article describes how they want to simply protect Satellites, while also revealing the counter-point regarding how this could turn into a Space Weapon race.
Concerns such as:
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, "This is a military system that is unnecessary and provocative. It will lead other states to pursue military systems to knock out our space-based assets. The rationale of this program is to defend those assets. But this will have the reverse effect." Kimball said any move by the United States to start developing and testing space-based weapons will be met with very strong international condemnation, from foes and allies alike.
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.
I've got guns in my house. I use most of them for fetching various things to eat. I keep a couple of them around because I am morally in tune with the prospect of using them to defend my family. From your perspective, owning anything lethal makes you equal to a murderer.
That's incredibly simple-minded, and a *huge* bugaboo of the right. Any call for peace boils down to you can't protect your family!
How disgusting.
Do you not see a difference between owning a gun, and placing WMDs in space? Hmm?
Keep your gun, I really don't care. I think you live in a fantasy world if you think you need it to protect your family (that, or you live in a strangely dangerous place where home invasions are the norm--I mean, really! If someone stormed your house with a gun, do you think you'd reach your gun in time? lol).
On the other hand, do you think you ought to be able to keep a nuke in your house?
Right now, space is relatively unarmed. *If* China, Russia, whoever, started putting weapons up there, then we can give it a go. It's disturbing to hear Americans demand that *we* be first. Once we do it, the rest of the world will follow more quickly.
What's the fascination of the right with rushing to armageddon?
Placing weapons in space, I'm sure, is something a lot of Chinese and Russians would like to do. But it's quite expensive, and they've got other priorities right now. But if *we* do it, they'll be "forced" to follow suit.
If we found out that China, for example, was going to launch a nuclear space station, we would just go to the UN and demand a resolution to stop them, with the provision that we can shoot it down.
As it stands, the US (and *maybe* Russia--with our consent) is the only nation that could begin to seriously begin to militarize space. That day might be inevitable, but there's no reason to rush into the prospect!
the very nature of working in that environment (not to mention orbital mechanics and whatnot) means you have to be pro-active, not re-active.
*If* we wanted to militarize space, we could do it in two years without breaking a sweat. There's no hurry.
I don't think that confrontation is coming anytime soon.
Muahaha! That's what's so brilliant! We've just been biding our time until the right moment to strike presents itself! But soon, sooooon, we will rush down like the proverbial Mongol hoard we are and destroy you with our... our... our submarine and, err, carribou! And then, just when you think you've had enough, we'll apologize profusely and go home. He he he, the perfect plan!
What I'm more interested in, is, how many of them are already planted thorough major cities of the US, sealed under a layer of concrete in basements of skyscrappers, plugged into phone lines, just waiting for a call and detonation code. Paranoia? But that's very probable. Why smuggle them in during unrest, when all transports are carefully monitored, if you can do so during peace - instead of planting them in the orbit or in bunkers and have them delivered during the last minutes, deliver them now, then just detonate. Cheap, easy, reliable. In case of unrest and risk of having the lines cut off, start "dead hand" trigger - call in once a day with unique code to -prevent- detonation.
Think about it - every phone booth can be your military headquarters from which you can destroy whole country. And sure, they can detect the origin of the radioactives. Say, Soviet Union, some of the lost warheads. Or one of reactors in the US.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
That's ((7200*5280/3600)^2 * 100 / 2) ft lbs * 1.356 joules/ft lb = 7560622080 joules
A megaton bomb releases 4.185 x 10^15 joules I'm not sure why they would use the comparison of a nuclear weapon for this unless they're using a really big rod. When one compares a weapon to a nuclear bomb, most people think of a substantial weapon, at least a kiloton yield. For comparison, a 20 lb rod travelling at 7200 mph delivers about the explosive force of a substantial carbomb.
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.