Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Jammer
kpwoodr writes "An interesting article at the Washington Times makes note of a recent satellite launch by the U.S. It seems we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will. From the article: 'The U.S. military is bracing for future attacks in space, and the Air Force has deployed an electronic-warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites, the general in charge of space defenses says. "You can't go to war and win without space."'"
Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
It's good to see that we're taking the initiative at ticking other spacefaring nations off right before we're about to suffer another financial blow, combined with a major hit to the Category-3 limited Johnson Space Center.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
i won't be able to get telemundo anymore?!?!?!
cmon he waaas tryiiing to jaaam..
But assume for one second that the United States were to go the way of the USSR, or at the very least, begin to decline in (financial) power. What happens when they decide that unless they are kept as "king of the world" no one else should be allowed to be either?
A FUDellite?
Seriously, though - Does it discriminate in what it jams? What about emergency services? What about leakage into non-war zones?
Argh.
You really think pointing weapons at others makes you safer, don't you?
And I just got back from vacation...
*sigh*
The attack won't come from space.
Space jamming, EMP, Echelon and other unknown stuff, US definitely put the accent on the information war. Are all theses hi-tech gadgets really effective in today's world, where terrorists are the biggest treat ? A good old steganography algorithm, a Hotmail address and all theses fancy gadget are defeated...
... and the radiation settles to acceptable levels; I will do a happy little dance. ;-)
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Good luck getting to the moon without comms, losers.
Does this mean the ISS won't be able to pick up those russian porn stations any more?
tcd004
This just feels like a waste, economically. I can see some benefits for the military, but won't other world powers want to have this ability, too? I don't mean to sound like a peace monger, but the US has to realize that even though we don't see ourselves as a threat (rather, we see ourselves as the ultimate force of good, it seems), once we develop some technology, other nations will want to match or better it. Overall... wasted resources, wasted time, wasted effort that could have been put toward something productive.
Seeing as Bushy is from the Lone Star state, I bet it's a rasberry jammer.
Who is the enemy they speak of defending us against at the expense of of billions spent and if it is Russia (which I can pretty much assume at this point) then how can we assume they dont have the same. So the real question is who gets to jam who first.. Real quagmire.
Three sets of quotes correctly nested, but can't spell "a". God, I love it here.
every time some European brags about how much better their cell phones are than American cell phones.
I read Usenet for the articles.
I thought there was some notion that we would not attempt to militarize
space. Given the problems we already have with "space junk", orbiting
materials left over from previous launches ranging in size from rivets and
nuts to whole satellites, encouraging a "space race" of orbiting weapon
systems (including weapons against communication) seems crazy and
deeply disappointing.
I can only hope that such a space-race doesn't clog the low-Earth-orbit
regions so legitimate, peaceful endeavors can continue without being
pelted by the space-borne mine-field of junk left over from this disaster.
It's a good thing Canada still has a coast-to-coast defence fiber network and mobile radio communications trucks. It's easy to knock out a satellite, deeply burried fiber is only slightly more difficult (if you know where it is, and I assume the US does). Hundreds of mobile trucks are harder to take out, especially if the transmitter's not actually on the truck and each truck has several spare transmiters (as I'm told they do by acquaintences in the Royal Communications Reserve).
General "Buck" Turgidson:" Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"
General "Buck" Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."
Memorable Quotes from Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
If their communication jamming technology is as up to date as the code on their website, we have nothing to fear.
Air Force Space Command
// no
"The U.S. military is bracing for future attacks in space." Makes you wonder what they know.
The Iraqui resistance seems to be doing just fine without space...
After all, insolence from the weak is historically frowned upon.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
At least this isnt as useless as some things the military decides to need, like a war. This way we can at least jam bad radio stations.
I'm sure everyone in New Orleans (...Houston) feels alot better knowing that they'll have enemy communication blocked in space... not to mention all those unemployed people who are too lazy to get a job.... Heard the unemployment rate is the highest it's been in 10 years in the US.
More importantly will it lower or raise the price of oil???
Man I'm crumpy this morning...
are the Criminals--In--Command.
The sad part is that they were selected, not elected.
From an undisclosed, secure ( as is used for President-Vice Cheney) location ( or spiderhole when discussing
Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq),
Kilgore Trout, M.D.
No one has said it yet: "A communication disruption can only mean one thing: invasion."
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Ghetto terrorists don't have satellites. That's why they win asymmetric battles against musclebound national armies. Because all the Qaeda have to do to get the US to spend $10,000 dealing with an "incident" in Afhanistan is send a guy to a rocky outcropping and plant a yellow flag with a Koran verse.
1 Qadea asshole: $1.75:day
1 Prayer flag: $0.13
1 US counteraction: $10,000
Victory: priceless
When the US invests money to increase peace with satellite deploying rivals, we get increased wealth in our global economy (of which the US has the leading share). Or we can invest the money preparing for war with them. Of course we have to invest some in warfare preparedness. And equally certain is the necessity of investing in peace. Or we won't get it. Who wants to be kinda safe in perpetual war?
--
make install -not war
I'm an American, but I didn't design the thing, build it, or launch it. Nor did I vote for any of the people that did. The breadth of that brush you're trying to tar all Americans with might come back and hit you in the ass. Not all of us are militaristic mouthbreathers.
Zonk, again you've blown it. If you read your summary, you've written " Washington Times makes note of aa recent satellite launch by the U.S..."
I don't get this -- what does "Alchoholics Anonymous" have to do with satellites?
Oh, I get it -- it is a spelling mistake. This is why the Jihad hates you, Zonk. You have stupid editing mistakes in your articles. Please try it again, this time with a spellchecker.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
aa recent satellite launch by the U.S.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
The General later apologized and blamed it on too much time in the desert, but not before raising his fist and screaming "Long live the Fighters!"
The Air Force has refused to comment further.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Sorry, i forgot to note it.
How many satellite communication networks does Osama Bin Laden have? I mean come on. I thought we had one enemy and I don't think they communicate by satellite. It is funny how neo-cons have taken a simple war and elevated it into the us vs them mentality in which them are just about everybody including the citizens of the United States of America.
IMO, this is a blatent offensive posturing move of a facsist regime. All it can do is futher de-stabilize the world. The Bush admin seems quite bent on driving the whole world into the ground and ignores any lessons learned in the last century. The US is doomed with this mentality.
It's correct. We can go to war and kill people and break things ... and if that's how you define "winning" then we will win (even without this satellite).
If your criteria are other than killing people and breaking things, then this won't be necessary.
We've gone through how many wars in the past 50 years without this tech and the people we'll be fighting in future wars will STILL be fighting with tech and tactics recognizable 50 years ago.
Ob. Simpsons reference
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!
No sig for you! Come back, one year!
Now we can block China, Iran, North Korea, and Iraq's communications, possibly their ability to use nukes, and then we can nuke them. YAY!!! :P
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
Read up on your history if you don't believe it. No major war has ever been won without a significant space presence.
it makes microwave popcorn at ~ 100 km
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In Soviet America, satellites jam YOU!
Heh, couldn't resist!
-Acercanto
Am I wrong or could you not just wrap a big piece of aluminum foil over an enemy satelite to jam it? If so, would that not be cheaper than the technology to "send a jamming signal".
This kind of thing has been possible/discussed for a long time. In the early 80s there were rumors the Soviets had wood-encased satellites which were harder to detect. They were to move close to comm satellites then blow themselves up, suicide satellites, if you will. There's no reason to think such things haven't been deployed for at least a generation. What's interesting here is the open public announcement of directed energy satellites for jamming. Most miltary systems have been deployed for quite a while before the public hears anything about them. There have probably been dual-use birds from a number of countries for quite a while. Nothing new here...
against "unauthorized" civilian communications. Especially wireless networking that can bypass the gatekeepers(corporate ISPs).
What?
What's the point of having this neato device, if we're just going to tell the world that we have one?!
But does it jam tornados? It seems that nature doesn't like you anymore too. :)
I can see it now.
General: Ok soldier, activate the communications jammer!
Soldier: Yes, Sir!
Soldier flips a switch.
Soldier: Jammer is activated. All communications are jammed, sir.
Static is heard coming from every communications device.
General: Ok, soldier. It works. You can turn it off now.
Soldier presses a few buttons and shakes his head.
General: I said you can turn it off now soldier.
Soldier: I'm trying sir. I sent the signal to the satelite but it seems the signal was jammed.
General: By who?
Soldier: By the satelite, sir.
D'oh!
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
It seems we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will.
Who's we?
Okay...
what would be the point of turning a Chinese satellite into 10 bzillion bits, creating 10 bzillion new items we'd have to track and avoid in the future, lest we crash into those bits with our expensive computers?
Aren't satellites just computers really high up off the ground? Some have iSights built into them, and most all of them communicate with some kind of WiFi-like technology?
So - again.. why would you want to go and blow them up, causing massive amounts of trouble for not just them, but everyone else the day after? I don't get it.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Where does it say we launched a satellite? This sounds like ground based jamming. From the article:
"
The 76th Space Control Squadron, based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., last year deployed the first offensive countercommunications system that uses mobile teams that can fire electronic jamming gear capable of knocking out enemy satellite communications.
"
does it run Linux?
The thing I would like to know is...who exactly is the enemy this is ment to be used against? The russians? Iran? Who?
Next thing you know, Russians will launch a satellite to shut down this jammer in case it is activated. And they'll be right. :-)
Uh, from whom, exactly? Al-Qaeda isn't known for its lethal space program as far as I know, and I got the impression that a large part of the US saber-rattling (and actual stabbing and hacking) of the last few years was to get the point across that 'If you mess with us, you'll regret it.'
So who's going to attack the US from space? Only a moron with nothing to lose who also happens to have spaceflight capabilities, and that's not exactly a large number of countries.
The Russians? Admittedly they currently pwn spaceflight, but on American dollars - they can barely finance their own operations right now. The Chinese? They don't need to attack militarily, because they're taking the long-term view and happily taking on the outsourcing of everything the US manufactures and buying up the trillion-dollar national debt as a bargaining tool. Iran? India? Pakistan? Don't be fucking ridiculous. Maybe the evil French are going to use an Ariane-5 to launch a Death Star over Washington...
You must think in Russian.
...Cheney referred to as the President of Vice before, but it makes sense. Oh, and the President was elected. One man, one vote, with Jeb being the man.
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)
Poor, confused America.
Maybe the reason the U.S. military has become so skilled at getting their asses handed to them by low-tech insurgent groups is because they still think the Wars of the Future will fought against the Soviet Union.
Those who didn't understand the joke, the excerpt read "...makes note of aa recent satellite launch...", emph mine
^_^
I for one am ecstatic that the Americans are taking this bold step. We have suffered under the threat of extraterrestial communication interference far too long. As a godless Canadian, a citizen nonetheless of the pan-American empire, I will proudly point my cell phone toward the heavens in the direction of least reception, and prostrate myself in the name of his divine governance, whoever-it-is-who's-running-the-military-down-ther e, Jr.
Last week there was a hearing on Capitol Hill where a group of international partliamentarians listened to presentations and asked questions of various experts on this issue. Gen. Lord's deputy presented there. The rest of the world is aware that the US is trying to militarize space and many of them are not happy about it. There is an archive of the webcast at http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing.htm. This was organised by an international group called e-Parliament. Blurb from the website below:
"On September 14 the US Congress was the scene for a new departure in international politics. A group of democratically elected legislators from ten countries held a joint parliamentary hearing and dialogue about the possible deployment of weapons in space. The meeting was webcast live to enable participation from journalists and citizens worldwide.
The possible deployment of weapons in space as part of missile defense is under consideration by the US Air Force and is becoming controversial. Proponents see such weapons as essential for the defence of satellites and other space assets. Critics argue that space-based weapons could also be used offensively, and therefore could trigger a new arms race in space."
While it would be nice to live in a world where everyone just got along, but there are people and nations in the world who will only understand a good swift kick to the arse. I mean can we honestly say that some other nation (China) isn't already developing, or soon to be developing this capability? If they are, then why shouldn't the US develop it too? It would be conforting to know that if the s#!t ever hits the fan, we're prepared.
And yes, there are no winners in war, only losers. But sometimes, that's all there is. Can anyone imagine the world trying to negotiate with Hitler? Oh wait... I think they tried it. It's called appeasement. From what I remember it didn't work too well.
The rest of the world has more people than we do ... which means they have more troops than we do ... so our half of the world's military budget needs to be bigger than their half so we can offset their troop advantage.
Well, not until the British had lost most of its armed forces fighting alongside America against the infidels. After all, why waste ammunition on killing people who are quite happy to sacrifice themselves on your behalf?
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)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rods+from+god%22
Tungsten rods 20' long and 1' in diameters dropped from space onto various brown-skinned people. Ad astra per aspera...
What if the "enemy" used some kind of communications that didn't depend on satellite transmissions, a communication method that is relatively easy to make anonymous and communicate with great speed around the world. A network that cannot be simply switched off or blocked, with many redundant links that can be routed through any number of different points around the globe!
Surely this theoretical Interconnected Network would be a terrifying information weapon in the wars of the future!
C17H21NO4
I think hobby rocketry enthusiasts around the world should shoot loads of sand up in front of the orbit of this satellite to see if they can destroy it! If they can, then any enemy of the US could also have done so and the US will know the plan was flawed.
Jamming effectiveness decreases with distance. A satellite can jam another satellite, but it isn't much good on the ground (unless it takes out whole regions in which case everyone is without communications).
China's troops would switch to tactical FM and small unit operations. Sure, it would take longer and cost more, but the end result would be the same.
^^15si0N A(()mpli5HeD.
Say hello to my little sig.
That's their secret way of communicating with the Little Green Men who are telling them what to do by beaming into their heads.
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)
The Outer Space Treaty
It's not for jamming communications, that's just what they want you to think. It's for mind control. Better put on your tin foil hats now.
A couple days ago, I read about the Pentagon planning a first strike strategy using nukes; now I hear about this...
Man, I need to find a nice hard mountain to build a new home in....
.....that when the US signed that treaty that they intended to honor it?
If you did, you don't know very many Indians.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I think they forgot to mention that its orbiting over Scottsdale Arizona... at least, that or T-mobile SUCKS! grrr
They stopped being a problem back in the 20th century. Now we have their old satellite countries trying to join NATO.
China won't invade us. They're BUYING our bonds right now (lending us money).
Why would we use this against Russia and China?
As a godless Canadian, a citizen nonetheless of the pan-American empire, I will proudly point my cell phone toward the heavens in the direction of least reception, and prostrate myself in the name of his divine governance, darth whoever-it-is-who's-running-the-military-down-ther e.
Corrected. ^_-
Democracy is unlikely to spread like you think it will. Let me tell you a story about the only working democracy in the Middle-East ever: (there have been some attempts at non-working ones, of course)
About 2400 years ago, Xenophon and a bunch of Greeks hired on with Cyrus of Persia to do a bit of rape-and-pillaging for hire. Cyrus started a civil war with Artaxerxes and lost pretty quickly. The Greek officers all wind up getting murdered in a bit of treachery. So 10,000 Greeks find themselves stranded just outside Babylon without any leaders and a million miles from home. What do you think they do?
Well, they're Greeks. They elect new leaders and fight their way home.
The only working democracy in the Middle East, ever, was started by a bunch of desperate Greek murderers-for-hire.
Europeans start up democracies every chance they get. Given access to bamboo, sulphur, potassium nitrate, charcoal and diamonds, the first thing a European thinks is "how can I build a working Constiutional democracy with these materials." Nobody else on the planet is like that.
Here's the http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm (Space Treaty)
To me a jamming satellite can be superficially argued as as outside of the scope of the treaty. It is certainly outside of the spirit of the treaty as expressed in several clauses. Any legalistas out there think that there is an arguable case here?
It might be relatively passive but its intent is to be used as a weapon, both defensively and aggressively. Used as an indiscriminant public mass disruption tool would this qualify as a 'Weapon Of Mass Destruction'?
I presume that this can not only be used against ground targets but also against other satellites?
Bad precedent - are we about to witness a race for orbital supremecy? What would it take (theoretically) to hack or bring down a satellite? (Furiously gaffer-tapes laser pointers together)
What is it's location?
this is used against US Citizens voicing opinions according to their first am men d mm e
... NO CARRIER
nt
r
i
g
&!### t *
we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will.
Every once in a while I catch a story about someone breaking into a computer and taking control of a satellite. It seems to me that this satellite would be a prime target for terrorists. Just think what would happen if cell phones all over the US stopped working. Add to that, TV and Radio, and you would have a full-scale, country-wide panic.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
One World. One People.
Do not weaponize space. If you want to advance as a race. You need to stop all this infighting and start working together to solve global issues to ensure the survival of the species and its advancement.
Get it through your think fucking skulls already. Stop killing eachother. Stop hating. Living in fear will lead to death.
The ultra-slim one where we use satellite guided missles to destroy enemy strongholds, then immediately blanket the area with EMP so they won't know what or who's been hit and send in a dozen troops in copters to pick up any wounded and bring them back for interrogation.
... useless. We won't be fighting an enemy that will collapse when their leader's bunker is destroyed. This is next generation weaponry for fighting the last generation's war.
Fast and "surgical".
And
It's the fantasy that is getting everyone's dick hard for this. The reality is that we will never use these and the money would be better spent on improving troop training and equipment.
Just to let you all know, the sattelite control dish is in Cuba. Now all you need to do is use the key copier to copy the GoldenEye key and leave the original. Remember: You are licensed to kill.
"They've jammed our radar sir"
"Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!"
Beta tested, Mother Approved
I say this must be the worst de..c... [NO CARRIER]
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
If we put up a device in space that has the sole purpose of being used to disrupt communications, then we open the door for space warfare. Why? Because how is an enemy going to defeat the jamming? Launch a missile into space to take out a satellite or aim a laser at it -- that's how.
... however, local GPS jamming is an alternative. If we did go to war with a more advanced country... taking out GPS satellites might be considered.
But our GPS guided bombs are a bit of the same thing
I have a feeling that this system will be used on a US broadcast before it will be used on an "enemy".
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The enemies sats are using a virgin XP minus SP2, and our stuff is running a DoS attack.
Do what I say, cuz I said it.
-Meatwad
Generally I (and, I think most other people, including your average dictionary editor) consider a weapon to be something used directly on or against an opponent to disuade, disrupt, disable, destroy, defeat or kill. Things like like canteens don't normally fit that definition.
That having been said, I would still define this satellite as a weapon because it is intended to be used directly against an opponont to disrupt and/or disable.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This so called space jammer is probarbly jamming a selected frequency band, or a bunch of frequency bands.
The more frequency bands it jams the more power it needs.
If someone uses CDMA over a very wide frequency band, this thing will have problems blocking it.
Since this thing is remotely controlled via RF, it needs to operate at a specific frequency band.
The signal will be almost impossible to jam if the enemy frequency band intersects the satellite control frequency band.
Also, whats stopping the enemy from using the same frequency band as the control unit. Or them jamming the satellite frequency band.
Sounds like like a silly idea to me.
Cool! I guess you could call this Death Star v0.001. In a couple of millenia we'll be ready to rule the galaxy!!!!!
Now someone explain to me how this helps us now with Iraq, North Korea, Iran, suicide bombers...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Darth Sidious: Begin landing your troops. Wipe them out... all of them.
Sio Bibble: A communications disruption can only mean one thing...invasion!
Jar Jar: Weesa gonna die!?
So, Arab society isn't capable of peaceful, secular, democratic governments?
Why does this sound a lot like white planation owners in the 18th century, "the Negro is not as intelligent as the white man and therefore is not capable of living outside of slavery."
Well, maybe they're thinking that they will use it to jam satellite communications, since that's what it is designed to do. You don't have to be a major world government to have access to satellite communications.
would dare to use raspberry jam. THE USA!
AC's who post such statements without backup are, well, C's.
The article is about the CounterCom system that was deployed months ago. This is just a ground based jammer: http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=461040
Afghanistan was started by the Taliban harboring Osama Bin Laden, who started that war with attacks directly on the US. You do remember what happened on September 11, 2001, don't you? How the hell can you be stupid enough to state that Bush started that?
And technically the "invasion" of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein from power was actually the final conclusion of the war Saddam Hussein started in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait, and then failed to live up to his cease-fire obligations - that cease-fire did not resolve the hostilities Saddam started, they merely halted them for a time, and that halt was conditional on Saddam's good behavoir.
Remember, it was also the official policy of the Clinton Administration to remove Saddam from power.
BTW, do you claim that Bill Clinton committed acts of war when he bombed Iraq after Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998?
"The Russians? Admittedly they currently pwn spaceflight, but on American dollars."
What American dollars? NASA was forbidden by law from buying Russian space technology, so US is getting a free ride for now. But that will so change and NASA will have to pay to get to ISS on Russian rockets.
You can download the Acorn RiscOS ROMS off the Internet and Ian Bell published the source code for Elite.
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)
...the wars in the 21st century will be almost exclusively natural resource wars. Preliminaries-clues to watch- will be the currency wars (close to that now). The numbers are hiding in plain sight. There is enough "stuff" planet-wide for one billion or so people to have something like the western notion of a middle class lifestyle. We are at that point now, and it is already starting to be strained. There is NOT enough stuff for six billion plus people. The wars will be fought over cheap and or available energy in all its forms (oil, natgas, hydro, uranium, coal, etc), fresh water supplies (terribly overlooked by most strategists), strategic minerals, arable farmland that doesn't require mass irrigation, and etc. Ya know,"stuff".
So, this should give enough to proceed with who the antagonists will be. Fairly obvious. We have the established large nations and cooperative blocs, then the up and coming nations who are making the advances in manufacturing and will be requiring all the energy the old established nations are using now. something will have to give, you can't get 5 gallons from a one gallon bucket, can't be done now matter how many laws passed, treaties signed or studies made. So, scratch off smaller nations with strategic resources but no military of note, they will be assimilated by one or the other of the major powers or blocs. They may retain some facade of independence, but we are speaking of realities over perceived realities, ie, look at Iraq now. Once that is sorted out (most likely by rougholy the end of this decade), then the major powers will form shifting alliances, leading to the grudge matches. None of them like, trust or actually wish to be aligned with the other, but necessity will force that to happen, temporarily as the medium nations get assimilated.
At that exact point it's a tossup to my way of thinking if the human species will survive, because of the timeline at that point and from one indisputable historical piece of data, all major weapons systems ever invented so far in our combined history have always been eventualy used extensively. We have current tech which hasn't been extensively used, but it *has* been used, there is precedent, and making it better/faster/cheaper is an ongoing processs in high tech weapons labs around the world.
This is not just for grins. Nowadays this will mean nukes, bioengineered weapons (even stealth plagues for silent clandestine wars, recombinant genomic research is by far the scariest potential weapons research), weather warfare, directed energy weapons, advanced psychological weapons that might use electronics and etc, along with the highest tech "conventional" or "normal" weapons, which are certainly advanced enough now and can be considered the most painful of actual bleeding edges tech that is having buckets of cash thrown at it by the second. There is NO shortage of money for weapons research.
Those with the most toys and the deepest bunkers will hold out the longest, but the end result will most likely really, really suck.
So to *directly* answer the question "which nations might get jammed" etc, the answer right this second is simple, ANY of them that have satellites or access to satellites capable of transmitting ANY sort of data which might be useful to ANYone else. Them nations there. Take yer pick, a few of them.
It should be noted that the Washington Times occupies the ground of journalistic integrity somewhere between Fox News and the National Enquirer.
It's not the Washington Post, or the New York Times, although it often attempts to confuse people that it's really a legitimate newspaper and not a Right Wing front.
Just check out their front page today:
"Coed's Web site eyed"
"Jordan's king reaches out to Jews, hits radical Islam"
"Katrina highlights Big Easy's violence"
"ACLU targets abstinence-only programs"
Yes, AC didn't back it up, no proof provided. And yes, anyone who posts anonymously on the internet are cowards's, which is almost all of Slashdot. What's your point?
oh well, I just want something that blows stuff up in space! I want my tax dollars to support something useful in the future.
"You can't go to war and win without space."
Drop the "without space", and you pretty much get it all right.
War destroys people that you could use to trade with; it's a waste of human resources, brought upon by a failure of politics. War is a lose/lose scenario.
Sure wasn't the slaves owned by those gosh-darned Greek democrats. Sure wasn't the metics (equivalent of H1-B visa holders) that couldn't vote. Greek "democracy" ain't all it's cracked up to be.
A communications disruption can mean only one thing.
Invasion.
I think the idea that we got more civilized has been ruined for me... Europe and America just moved the battle ground. The desperation and poverty in the third world is used to make us cheap tennis shoes. For now, we are all sipping tea and pleasantly competing on who owns more of the exploited.
What happens when less oil comes out of the ground than the year before? What happens when clean water gets more scarce? What happens when the gulf stream shuts down and Europe has to find new crop land or warmer/wetter weather?
Are we too civilized to have resource wars? How civilized were we to turn back food and water going to the victims of Katrina just last week in the US of A?
I have become much more cynical and worried about the future than ever. I have kids of my own now and I worry if they will be spared being drafted into a resource war. I'm sure they'll leave feeling like they are great heroes off to defeat some evil -- they will return with hollow looks in their eyes when they have killed too many of the hungry and desperate.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The military powers are always looking upwards, when in fact a couple of guys in a crowd with a molotov cocktail and a camera crew can still win strategically. You can't beat guerrilla warfare with satelites.
Most jammers radiate lots of RF, how could a satellite have the power budget to make a strong enough signal to be a credible jammer? If they're trying to jam uplinks, geostationary satellites typically use directional antennas, pointed at the service area on the ground, the jammer would need to be in the beam to make it's signal louder than the bad guy at the satellite's receiver input. You can't hold position between the earth and a geostationary satellite. Ground based stations can make lots of power into very large antennas it would be difficult to generate a louder jamming signal at the satellite. If they're jamming the downlink, the same large antenna used at the ground station for uplink is also used for down link. Large antennas have narrow beam width, if the jammer isn't "in the beam" the jamming signal would be greatly attenuated. If the "bad guys" use spread spectrum modulation systems, the jammer has to spread it's energy over wide bandwidth it will eventually be weaker than background noise.
If they want to jam ground to ground communication systems, the satellite is a hell of a lot farther away than the next microwave station on the horizon. The inverse square law of radio propagation is a powerful foe for jammers.
It might work in a few special situations, but good luck jamming systems that are intended to be "jam resistant" from thousands of miles away. Even if the jammers were in low earth orbit, they'd go whizzing buy and only be effective for short periods, and you still have the power budget problem.
I'd bet they are up to something else, this is a cover story.
Career Sergeant Zim: Put your hand on that wall trooper. PUT YOUR HAND ON THAT WALL!
[Zim throws a knife and hits Ace's hand pinning it to the wall]
Career Sergeant Zim: The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!
If there's anything we need, it's more lawyers. Can you imagine a world WITHOUT lawyers?!?!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I doubt europeans really have it built into them to say "let's build constitutional democracy today". Although, I'll concede that, after rome and the european monarchies, there were a few experiments...
;^)
Let's see I'm not sure if I know too much about the "british constitution", and then there was a little bit of imperialism, and France went through a few "republics", and a couple world wars, and a Marshall plan, and you know what, I guess europeans came up with a few constitutional democracies afer all of that...
It takes some time, and the Middle East may or may-not get there, but I don't know if I'd go writing them off after such a short period of time. If the world wrote off europe in the aftermath of world war II, who know what would have happened...
As for your quaint story about an ancient greek general/philosopher, isn't it the case that most of what we know about Mr. Xenophon, is what he wrote in his own "history" book. I'm positively sure he was elected using a constitutional democratic principle, like is often done with field promotions of officers in war situations to backfill for their fallen comrades. Wasn't it true that Mr. Xenophon banned from Athens after he made it back to greece? To me, reading the Anabasis seems like reading an account of the early crusades... or maybe apocalypse now?
Yeah, I know the word democracy comes from greek, but I don't think the greeks even wrote their constitution until 1975...
Yes, attacks from China- perhaps you noticed that trial baloon they sent up a few months back when one of their generals threatened the US with a nuclear response to any US military support for Taiwan? Their "long term view" includes developing the ability to counter US technology (like all of our GPS-guided bombs) so that when they take any action in the pacific, we won't be able to intervene. Why are they building so many new submarines? Why are they developing an independent space program ("reinventing the wheel"), rather than cooperating with international efforts that are several decades more advanced. This is not the behavior of a peaceful state that hopes to gain some leverage over the US by holding up a few boatloads of cheap trinkets and consumer goods, or by waving a fistful of T-Bills at us. A whole lot of good that all did for the Japanese...
The only better news than this "orbital communications jammer" would be a renewed effort by the US to develop anti-satellite weapons, like those fighter-launched missiles we tested in the 80's. Our military superiority depends on maintaining an technological edge, protecting our C3I, and grabbing the higher ground, whether that be earth orbit or the moon. If we ever need to face a determined power like China, to protect our own or our allies in the region, it could easily expand into a really messy fight. Our only hope to stop the opposition early, before the body count (on either side) gets high, would be to render them blind and deaf before they do the same to us.
So let's hear it for Yankee ingenuity! Keep those jammers flying, and send up a few railguns and x-ray lasers to keep 'em company!
I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
Didn't anybody read? There ain't no Death Star. Where did "satellite launch from the US" come into things? Oh yeah, it's Slashdot, foolish jumping to conclusions for nerds.
This "unit" is a group of trained people, most likely on the ground or from the air, who shoot electronic jammy things at ground stations which link to enemy satellites, or enemy ground stations which themselves are jamming US satellites. The US wants to keep its satellites, and since it has more capable and more expensive satellites than competitors it would rather not get in a "you blow up mine, I blow up yours" competition since the endpoint negates US advantages. They want to "I blow up your jammers so my satellites work again."
I beg to differ about the definition of a weapon, here. Anything that you take to war, from your rifles and tanks to your canteens, first-aid kits, and radios, is a weapon.
Okay, dude, you're an idiot. In a combat situation are you to be considered hostile and fired upon for having a canteen? What if you merely have a radio, I mean c'mon; who doesn't like their extremely liberal talk-radio show? A metal tanket of water or a u/vhf 2-way does not a soldier make. And for the record, it's highly frowned upon to fire on those wearing the red cross intentionally; after all they treat YOUR wounded too despite their allignment. NATO alligned countrymen will not shoot you on the battlefield if you have no weapon. Best bet your ass the shooting of men only having canteens, first-aid kits or radios will result in a tribunal and incarceration. Are you so naive to apply the totalitarian view to the definition of weapon? That's like saying the Leatherman I carry on my belt which I use every single day at work is something that would garner gunshot wounds on my part if in my hand in the presence of a police officer. Or the map that a contractor carries that could possibly find its way into the hands of a soldier, is a weapon. Hell binoculars are a weapon now, I can see it now "Drop the optical device or you will be shot!"
Now stop and ask yourself, what would you do if someone shot at you? You'd shoot back. Threw a knife at you? Hope it misses and either pick it up and throw it back or shoot him. Came running at you flailing a canteen? Get whacked on the head once because of the moment of bewilderment maybe, or laugh, and then whoop his ass! Are you going to kill someone who smacks you with a radio? First Aid Kit? Bullet proof vest? Even more are you going to consider a VIP wearing a bullet proof vest yet not carrying a weapon, to be a threat? I'm thinking you're one of the last people I ever want walking around with a gun, you'd shoot me for having a walkman within 10 feet of you.
Now, I will agree with you that this sattelite is a weapon. But not because of it's purpose or potential to be used for evil. Even guns are tools, but only in the hands of someone who has intent to kill is it a weapon. It's not function the begets purpose, it is will that begets purpose. The only reason I view this sattelite as a weapon is because it's in the hands of a military organization, severe bias is established because it happens to be the U.S. military. My hands are not weapons, they are precision tools; when curled into fists with the intent of contact is when they become weapons. If a canteen's intent is to be drank from, it's far from a weapon. When a canteen is swung at you it's merely something to laugh at, not kill over.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
You've gotta be joking.
Nations aren't people. There's no such thing as national good or bad karma. Historians can judge, of course. The popular imagination is ever filled with prejudices, but looking back into history to characterise nations as persistent agents is sheer folly. We need to judge Governments based on the character of the individuals that make them up, and the people they lead. The US, let us not forget, is a state built on the genocide of natives, and the enslavement of Africans. Didn't stop them carrying the torch for democracy later on. China today has a foreign policy based on ruthless free-market cooperation, and internal policies that focus on stability over all else. It isn't terribly nice, certainly. But the fact they benefit from the status quo means that they are unlikely to change it by a silly little war, especially if it is likely to escalate into a global affair.
The US administration and US people like you, meanwhile, continues to show it's misunderstanding of the world. You are still on about nations attacking the US. You are still on about nuclear deterrents! The US has failed to realise that there is no longer a nation on the world for whom military deterrence is effective, because nations are either so large that they can only benefit from good relations, or so small that they cannot concieveably mount a conventional, traceable attack.
Oh, so you think the world owes 'America' a favour for WWII? Owes a favour to whom? Dubya certainly wasn't there on the beaches of Normandy. You probably weren't either. The machines that built the tanks that liberated France are rusted and gone. Is the America of today the same one which voted for FDR? Not really, is it? So isn't it slightly presumptious to say that living on the same patch of land, and sharing some genetics allows you to force down and ignore their disagreements?
Let's take the arguments to the logical conclusion. Why did China join in the Korean war? Because they thought the US participation would directly threaten them. Should the US have been stronger, then that would have lead to a world war there and then, probably involving the Russians as well. The Cuban missile crisis. Should the US have been stronger? Don't be silly. If Kennedy had gone through with the Hawks' plan, there would have been a nuclear war.
International politics is not a game to be played by idiots with inflated egos who think that acting tough is going to win the day.
...zapping a Taliban target in Afghanistan with a Paveway II or III bomb (never mind a JDAM) dropped form an F-16 costs somewhat more than $10.000 if you factor the fuel costs, maintenance work done, aircraft losses, cost for support structure/logistics/spares etc. into the cost-per-strike the tag is pretty hight. Plus we haven't even begun to discuss intel assets involved such as the FAC bird/Drone/Satelite used to pin the target or any possible ground forces involved. Smart bombs sound very cool until you consider that this is often what it costs to knock out a few of Ghazis with Kalashnikovs, a squad machine gun and an RPG-7 or two. You can bet equpping, training and fielding that force cost alot less than even one of the air strikes needed to zap them.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
First of all, what as Al Qaeda "won" yet? A free democratic makeover of every country they try to control?
Second of all, your thought pattern is extremely short sighted as it ignores future threats that may arise from other real nations.
Posting anon since you obviously have your mind closed to any real discussion.
Space is supposed to be reserved for peaceful purposes only. Check out these treaties. Sounds like this satellite might be illegal.
And yet after only 50 years Japan is one of the strongest democracies in the world.
I'd say that this type of device is more likely to be used against us, or other technologically advanced groups of people. We all saw the chaos resulting from an information blackout in New Orleans. Laissez-faire policies have always resulted in revolution. How many times is the meritocracy going to have to kick the aristocracy's butts?
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
One would wonder if the US failed to notice the end of the cold war. Ever since World Word II the US has been in a constant arms race, currently spending 20 times as much money on the military as its closest competitors, China and Russia.
Maybe the reason is that while other countries take the military as a form of insurance, a last resort to be used in emergencies, the US constantly deploys its soldiers everytime it feels like it, being involved in literally hundreds of belic conflics in the last 50 years and having military bases spread around the whole planet. It's very hypocrite that the "champion of democracy" and "leader of the free world" relies so heavly on violence to influence every other country.
Most developed countries have understood by now that peace depends on having good relationships with your neighbors, not on arming yourself until you think you can beat them in a matter of days. If you want to determine which point of view is on the right track just think of these simple facts: Iran and North Korea became much more of a problem since the Bush's administration took over the negotiations, Al Qaeda declared war against US after the first Gulf War, and last time US was attacked in its territory was by a dozen men armed with knives.
Those are the frequencies they want to jam!
- Aren't you afraid you'll get caught?
- Nyet! I'm controllink it thru zombie box in Russia and used a Russian Girl's name as the password. They'l never be figurink out where I coming from.
- So what now?
-
I have changink the passwords and encryption. Now all I have to do is show off my new powers of
..... oops.
- What "oops?"
- [offscreen] Hey, how come the backbone's suddenly so congested? I can't even ping anything in Europe.
Now, I realize (read: hope) that they have all sorts of encryption and security protocols with serious backup control capabilities, but then again, you never know.... I mean, we are talking military intelligence here.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
The whole "walk softly and carry a big stick" maxim only works if you're actually prepared to use the big stick. Otherwise, you're just making yourself a big, bluffing target.
The neocon (see Project for New American Century) idea that you can create a global environment of peace by being many times more powerful than any other nation, and using that power to influence global affairs, can only work when you really are that much more powerful than everyone else. The problem is, the US is not; inflated egos aside, let's look at this realistically: the USA is struggling to hold down a relatively small resistance in a tiny and weak and already-battered country like Iraq, do you honestly think the US would have a snowball's chance in hell of asserting a position of dominance/control if it had to go to war with, say, China? Of course China's military is much smaller than the US's, but that's besides the point, compare it to the strength of the insurgency in Iraq - it's a thousand Iraqs, and with even more nationalist sentiment that will perpetuate a never-ending (and ever-increasing) resistance to the US if this ever happened. You only really have two options then: Either you figure out a way to win a few billion "hearts and minds" in the near future to get Chinese nationalism out of their culture, or you just nuke every other country on the planet out of existence (and maybe that's just OK with you, I've certainly seen Americans advocate that on slashdot numerous times, but with attitudes like that don't scratch your head wondering why the world thinks the US is the biggest threat to world peace currently!) The US is not Rome, and can't pull of what Rome did.
None of the paths you advocate make any sense. The key to a peaceful, prosperous future on Earth lies in looking at what the US did when they literally "united the states" --- get everyone working on the 'same side'. Seems the US has forgotten this though, but that is how the US became so prosperous in the first place.
.....Eurasia. Boys (and the hypothetical girls) - don't get sucked into the "Yes man" mentality that Washington is advocating. ... blah blah blah". What would happen?
... well, they can't use Freedom, since that means French, so how about ... Patriotism. The All You Can Eat Patriatism Buffet! The Lucky Star Patriot Restaurant. Chop sticks would now be Democracy sticks. The Department of Homeland Insecurity would have to go into the infra-red range to denote the danger levels. And some dumb hick from Bumfuck Alabama would get up in the Senate and say "We need to go git them Chinks fer good!", to be rewarded by a standing ovation from a bunch of political moral degenerates.
The Pentagon is promoting a unilateral space arms race - perhaps they believe no other country would do something like this. Please consider the hypothetical - "China launches a space jamming satellite to disable communications for
The US would have a fit! They'd be adding the Chinese wheel to the already overburdened Axle of Evil. Articles in the New York Times: "Chinese - they are among us". Senate committe on un-American activities: "Are you now, or have you ever been, Chinese?" No more Chinese resaurants - now they'd be
But instead, it's us that's launching something like that - just your friendly neighborhood bringers of peace and democracy. So there's nothing to worry about. Right?
Guys, in the 50's America went apeshit because they thought Sputnik was carrying nucular (hehe) missiles to kill Americans. Now, America is launching a weapon (it is something that is intended for offensive action against foreign states) and justifying it with "Well, we need it". I am beginning to think that getting away with things is simply a matter of chosing actions so blatantly hypocritical that no normal person could find the words to express the enormity of the arrogance such an action belies. And a normal person wouldn't use profanity either. So, dear politicos, since irony and subtlety are lost on you: "Fuck you. You *don't* need that weapon. Go shoot some crack and die of an overdose, you stupid Washington crotch-sniffers".
Seriously, though - perhaps the scariest thing about Orwell's 1984 is that he is describing a model whereby society can never break free of tyranny - effectively the endgame of humanity. And this is done with 1) altering the past, to prevent people from learning and 2) perpetual war to promote fear. Something like this satellite furthers the latter. Lack of good education and promotion of media control encourages the former. I am not suggesting that tomorrow we'll have Comrade Big Brother. But it's a safe bet that some media firm is doing preliminary sketch designs of a man with a mustache.
I see your point, but I'd really have to say that the main winner is the military-industrial complex. So far, we've spent about $200 billion on this war, but this money doesn't just turn into war. It's spent on war. It goes directly into the pockets of those owning, building, and maintaining the war apparatus. To a large extent, this is not a whole lot of people. It is a fact: wars make the wealthy (a subset of them anyway) much more wealthy. The longer this war drags on, the more of the public's money goes into the accounts of some already very wealthy people. And it's easy money, too. It's taken from the populous by force and we (sad, but true) have very little say in how it is spent.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
your MOM, b1tch. Your mom.
Countries like China need to be discouraged on a periodic basis.
This will only encourage other countries to set up their own satellite jammers. And guess what -- the US is more dependent on satellites than any other country, so America stands to lose more than anybody else in a satellite-jamming contest.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"You can't go to war and win without space."
Americans... always thinking of going to war with other countries.
You should be more worried of the hurricanes you're producing with your "I don't give a crap about global warming" policies.
Only one man would dare give me the raspberry... LONESTAR!!!
All the enemy has to do is explode a nuke bomb in space somewhere near that SAT jammer, and every sat near that explosion orbit will be useless. They dont even have to explode a nuke bomb even, just hurl a bunch of small screws - spreading all over the orbiting satellite
"Next time a Hitler storms the continent and you come screaming for help, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of the White House."
there was an attack on pearl harbor. US entered world war II.
did anybody come "screaming"? no. but it makes a good story for chest-thumping and for hanging around the neck of any european who criticizes the US.
to rephrase that: did anybody come "screaming"? yes. many jews were turned away and barred from immigration, and by the time of pearl harbor, poland, france, UK, china, egypt, indochina, were all already invaded/at-war at best or defeated/occupied at worst. US joined the war after it, itself, was attacked. not before. (there was merely some oil-market jockeying before that point.)
truman admired stalin, too.
those are the facts, jack.
i wonder if the truth will bring my mod-karma down even lower.
A cult linked to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon committed mass suicide through use of weaponized satellites. Friends of the recently deceased told Moon's own newspaper that they were unaware of the use of the satellites and that they believed that God was lifting them from the earth for the lifelong service against the rampant homosexuals and individualists.
the chinese and Al Qaeda will be happy if it is running Windows.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
we're covering our asses against China.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
You must have missed the news over the past couple of days. Some UK forces were caught red-handed shooting up the place while dressed as locals. They were caught and imprisoned by Iraqi security forces. The UK knew exactly what they'd been doing ( because it was official policy ), so to avoid the horrible embarrasement of the UK soldiers admitting to the world what they were doing, the UK broke in and rescued the soldiers ( showing no respect for the local authorities ).
And yet after only 50 years Japan is one of the strongest democracies in the world.
Yeah, they were profoundly alien. But we nuked 'em, destroyed their government and theology, and gave them a new government. They took the government we gave them, because they were broken by the nuke. That's shock and awe, if you like.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
They may have or they may not have.
How can you be sure?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Absoloute nonsense. There are plenty of homosexuals in the military. Anyone who has ever been in knows that. What they are not allowed to do is openly proclaim their sexuality. There's no bar to actually serving.
Every time that blinking light passes over you at night, you wonder: was it an Iridium satellite, or one of those Chinese killer satellites with mini-nukes, ready to burn you into ashes.
And that's just because you wanted to be the biggest bully in the lot.
But they're really to be controlled by RIAA, MPAA, Verizon, and other large wireless providers. Their purpose? To shoot down wireless computer networks which are used for piracy or VoIP to evade paying for wireless minutes.
I'm not sure this cost is justified unless they can point to an enemy we are actually fighting that can put a satilite into order.
Peace, or Not?
Really, you know, if all you have to offer is bleats of simply "that's not true" in the face of overwhelming and easily retrieved evidence, perhaps it would be best all round if you stopped the fuck being so stupid, read a little, opened your eyes and actually took notice of what's going on in the world. It won't make any difference to the rest of us, but you really owe it to yourself to take your head out of your arse.
You're welcome
They will just not learn, do they? Or rather, this must be deliberately starting another arms race as there is *TONNES* of money to be made from it.
That it has the unfortunate side effect of lumping more things into the sky that will eventually have to drop out somewhere again (after damage) appears to be not that important until it lands in, say, the US.
A crater from something with that sort of kinetic energy is going to make whoever put it up there hugely unpopular with what is left of the electorate. It'll put Katrinagate in the shade.
I look forward to all the excuses - not.
Sigh
As I said, your mind cannot by opened - anon or not. There's simply no point in using a real identity to explain things to someone who chooses to live in a fantasy (others: witness the comparisons to Vietnam that shows complete detachment from reality [and attachment to groupthink] as pointed out by countless milblogs [run by real people actually there. Where are you?]). Not to mention that your sort tends to be fairly vindictive and who needs a stalker?
Why post then? To point out to other people where your reality diverges into fantasy so they too are not drawn away from reality to go live forever in your grim alternate world. Eventually history will sort your opinion off to the margins where it belongs, but there's no need for more needless pain and angst in the world than exists already. Or at least misdirected versions of such.
Choose truth, people. Open your eyes and read both sides. Block out the Doc.
duh...if you have not realized it yet, we are at war with the entire world.
we will perfect our military and our excuses for conquest. Iraq is an excellent training ground for supressing uprisings. We will slowly take over the earth. Hail the empire...
Iraq and afganistan are our austria...the first step on our quest for world domination...er I mean terrorist (anyone who disagrees with out policies and tries to stick up for themselves) agression!!!
"Human beings have taken war to every other realm we've ever explored[...]"
Well, ermm...maybe it's time we changed with this attitude?
This reasoning is pretty self-fulfilling, after all: why should one resist war, if it's deemed to be 'normal' and a great way of doing 'meta-science'? The acceptance of the unavoidability of war, makes war more likely.
Ultimately, the world is what you make it, nothing more, nothing less. And sure, agression is part of human nature, but that doesn't mean we should not limit it's effects, nor that we have to accept all it's expressions (we don't do that in our society neither, after all).
Is this naive and doomed? I wonder. Part of me seems to agree with you: it's so well entrenched in us humans, it will be difficult to actually abolish it completely. Another part thinks that maybe it's not all that bleak after all. Our societies, at least in the West, have increasingly become 'soft' in this respect. Where people used to be not much bothered by killing anymals for pleasure, now we do. Let alone we would still condone mass-murder on civilians (ok, the usa still does it in some sense, but it's rather 'collateral damage'; they don't go out of their way to actually shoot civilians.) In the middle ages, they had no problems killing out whole villages, including all children, and being proud of that. These days, at least in western societies, that would be deemed unacceptable.
And, look at Europe. for gods' sake, this has been the battleground for the most vicious battles and wars during ages and ages. every goddamn king and country has fought numerous times with eachother, and there wasn't a year without some war being waged somewhere in europe - sometimes lasting decennia. And we've got two worldwars too. But...things seem to have changed; we don't subscribe to the idea that war is inevitable, anymore. We actually unify peacefully, instead of emperialistically. No wars are fought (well, within the EU, at least), and political and economical ties make it increasingly unlikely there ever will be another major war in Europe. (Well, you never know what the future might bring, but it DOES become increasingly unlikely if one extrapolates the currenjt trend). In short, diplomacy replaced warmongering. And if that succeeds here, in such a formerly war-prone continent, then it can succeed everywhere.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Did they tell that to the insurgents in Iraq ?
"Everything is a weapon." he said, and then he went on to declare some empty metal barrels were Weapons of Mass Destruction.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done. Do you see a pattern here?"
Yes, I see the pattern that you got there in the first place. Since WW2, no other nation, heck, not even any whole continent, has started as many wars.
Even the USSR was a lot tamer by comparison. Yes, they tried to beat up Afghanistan and set up their own puppet government there, and had a brief tour through Hungary to the same end. The USA did that to two countries during the current president alone.
Defining it as being the good guys just because you just got there, shot a bunch of people, secured a puppet government and some fat concessions to USA-based corporations, and left, is like saying that the school bully is really the good guy there because he just beat people up and took their lunch money. Didn't take them into slavery or anything, right?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
See homosexuals in the US for example who do not have the right to marry or serve in the military.
Actually, they do have a right to get married... but only to someone of the opposite sex.
Similarly, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual people in the US do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex (except in Massachusetts).
This is why it's more accurate to say "same sex marriage" rather than "gay marriage".
As an amateur radio operator, ARES (emergency services) comm worker, and a future (18 days) USAF 1N2x1 (SIGINT) trainee I can assuredly confirm a couple things:
:D
:D it's a REUSABLE weapon!!)
(1) Most radios can kill if dropped off an overpass. Especially Icoms
(2) Communications are very much a weapon, dating back to ancient times. How many wars were won or lost by knowing where the enemy was, what they were saying, and who they were talking to? Enigma, for instance...
Anyways, that's it.
73 de KI4IIB. (oh, and my Kenwood is milspec grade, so it won't break if I bash someone's head in with it
"And yet after only 50 years Japan is one of the strongest democracies in the world."
Japan is a special case. They've been trying to emulate the West to outperform us since their rude awakening in 1853, and their government by the beginning of the Twentieth Century resembled any of the major nations of Europe.
China, on the other hand, never really "got it."
A weapon is an item of which it's primary purpose (atm of use) is to cause damage (either physical, mental or emotional).
Using this definition, even a loaf of bread could be used as a weapon - although its damage potential is very low.
One of the cheapest and most efficient ways to kill other people is terrorism ("The weapons of the poor"). Think 9/11: Thousands killed, billions of dollars damage, a traumatized nation. All that was needed were some determined men and a few planes (but no need to buy them)
Biological weapons are also pretty efficient. And all the Pentagon's high-tech stuff is quite useless.
I don't need a signature.
With respect, your political analysis of the situation is about what I would expect from someone trained to solve a problem by shooting at it. I was born and brought up in Northen Ireland and have seen this stuff up close, and I can tell you that you are talking rubbish.
The insurgency in Iraq is a direct result of American forces restraining themselves.
No it isn't. The insurgency is a direct result of a bunch of people who want to seize political control for themselves, and is a direct result of the US failing to put enough troops on the ground after kicking the Baathists out.
It is not a result of the failure of the US to nuke Iraq, as you imply. You sound like every member of the military I have ever met who have been in caught in a terrorist war - 'if only the politicans took the shackles off, we'd solve this'. No you wouldn't. You would merely manufacture more terrorists (which it appears you are successfully doing in Iraq).
Terror is a political tactic that you defeat with political means. Armies can contain, but they cannot win these type of battles as Northen Irelannd proves beyond doubt.
You claim you could have dominated the world if you wanted. No you couldn't. You have the armies to impose your writ but you have never had the political will, and one without the other is meaningless.
"If we wanted to end the resistance tomorrow, we could bomb every house to rubble, kill every camel, torch every tree, and machine gun anything that moves."
You would:
1. Destroy the Iraqi oil
2. Fail to kill the insurgency, it would simply spring up in other muslim contries.
3. It would cause war with Iran and every other Arab nation, they would stop shipping you oil.
4. Your oil dependant economy would collapse.
So, no you can't do that because its not a winning scenario. If it was that simple I have no doubt that Bush would nuke them, or more likely use conventional bombs (because it has less of a stigma and you have enough to achieve the same level of destruction). You just bomb a northern Iraqi city in an attempt to quell insurgents, so you are trying that on a mini-scale. Did the bombing work - did the insurgency stop or even reduce? No? If you bombed the whole of Iraq would it work? But you say the insurgency comes from Syria, so you bomb Syria too would that work? No? You'd have to bomb Iran and then Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Yemen, Turkey, Serbia, Albania, Croatia, Germany, France, Netherlands, UK.
"weaponizing"??? .... for goodness sake man stop this trend of verbalizing nouns! That's what *really* worries me, semi-literate monkeys in charge of all these weapons. Couldn't he have have written something more eloquent, I don't know, even "We're not talking about turning space into a theatre of war"? Sigh.
Can someone please get these warmongering neo-cons OUT of the White House?
It's like termites - eating away the structures that have maintained relative peace in the world for decades.......
These idiots should be in prison somewhere - based on the numbers of people they have already killed - not power.
Their body count makes Bin Laden look like a wannabe.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Are you a republican, or what? That deserved a +1 funny! Where *is* your sense of humor?
Suddenly, when it's a political joke about bush, some dudes become all tight-assed.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Seems a microsatellite, or a crappy clapped out satellite could be programmed to automatically crash into something 'in its space' should it loose contact with base or whatever, or at a pinch direct a TV or phone sat to 'nudge' probable aliens. Most 3rd world nations have at least one or two sats available for repositioning. There is even a movie plot for this with Bruce, coupled with a very stern letter of complaint to the FCC.
yeah blow it up, blow that tin can to smithereens!
and all their other damn spycrap
just need to get a ship up there with weapon capacities or send a missle.
easy peasy
While it is true that the US has not occupied, and retained possession of any countries, it has, as a rule, used those conflicts to expand it's influence.
The US has maintained a military presence in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia, Cuba and more countries you didn't mention, but lets not bring that up).
In fact, the only countries you mention that the US has completely pulled out of is Vietnam, Somalia and Kosovo.
And two of those pullouts only happened because the US failed to reach their objectives (lost, one might say).
Needless to say, having permanent military bases (manned by the worlds most powerful military, no less) gives a certain amount of influence over the host nation.
Also, I am willing to bet you that the US will not pull out of Iraq anytime soon (if it manages to stabilize it).
Having permanent bases in a stable Iraq would maintain US influence in the region at the current level, but free the US from it's current dependence on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (The Saudis aren't exactly the ideal allies for the US, I'm sure you'll agree.).
Personally I think that was one of the biggest reason for the current war.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
If
Country looses economic superiority
Then
Ensure country has all military superiority options covered for the next 100 years.
Military options over the next 100 years will involve space superiority. This is required to ensure the status quo (peace). Space is the next non conventional warzone that will be developed. Any madman at the head of a country (eg:hitler, in a country which has the economy to fight war) could escelate issues beyond belief with serious consequences.
I for one do not welcome the envasion of Taiwan by Chinese idiots. China would be a stronger country with Taiwan as a seperate independant friendly state than it as an incorporated state. UK + US, Spain + Brazil, China + Taiwan - I'd say that the Chinese are idiots for not embracing Taiwan as friends as opposed to trying to force some form of nationalism on them. The challenges are anti missle, control over communication (satailite) social issues.
Better to develop these technologies now than not have the ability to develop them later on. (look at the soviet union - sudden changes without planning broke the SU/russia, not the fall of the SU.)
-Tim
We are not "struggling" to hold down a small resistance in Iraq, you fool. If the U.S. wanted to, we could completely obliterate the entire country, sterilizing it to the point that no human being could inhabit it again for 1,000 years. If we wanted to end the resistance tomorrow, we could bomb every house to rubble, kill every camel, torch every tree, and machine gun anything that moves.
Funny, I just knew someone was going to reply with this argument. And it may be true 'in theory', but guess what, it's a completely bogus argument. Because you can't do that. You can't. Technically, it may be possible, sure, but politically, it just isn't an option. Do you honestly think the US could do something like that and NOT be committing political suicide on the world stage? What do you think would happen? That the entire rest of the world would fall in line and cower in awe of the US, and either love the US forever or never commit another terrorist act against the US? Do you think that even the American public themselves would support doing something so insanely ridiculously savage and barbaric and unjust? GET REAL.
It doesn't help being militarily able to kill everyone on the planet if it's politically not an option. And I don't mean it's not an option because it would 'upset the doves", as you will predictably think I mean. Just think about it for a mome nt, honestly, what would happen to the global economy and political environment if the US decided to slaughter millions of innocent people?
Sorry, but "if we wanted to kill all of you we could but we're too nice" is a helluva stupid argument. It may be true in theory, but such it's an incredibly simplistic view because it totally fails to take into account anything of the "real world".
Choose your "truth", Anonymous projecting Coward? Over the "groupthink" from "my type"? From someone who won't be accountable even with a Slashdot ID? Gutless coward. Lying fool.
Rightwing denier of not only your boys' catastrophe in Iraq, but also exactly how you did it in Vietnam, too. Our last endless corporate war rationalized by lies about "imminent threat". Perverted invasions of countries to get a Republican reelected. Fake "democratic" elections in 1968, with "huge turnout". "Stay the course" in 1967. Lies about "finishing the job" in 1972, with secret Nixon meetings planning to cut & run once reelected in November. Giant armies with tactical superiority and no strategy to win the war. Forcing young Americans to fight a war against a manufactured ideological threat. Branding critics "traitors", hiding behind the troops when Pentagon failures become undeniable. And a zombie army of deniers like you, with nothing to back you up except "everyone knows I'm right, and you're wrong".
You really make it easy to tear you apart in a post. There's no need to hunt you down elsewhere, though of course you harbor that desire yourself, reprehensible coward. I mean, really, "read both sides... block out the Doc"? What kind of depraved freak writes schizo gibberish like that? The kind who says "I post anonymously because the Doc is scary". You're trapped in some hideous living death. Keep your slime far from me. Why don't you sign up and go to Iraq to fight your "noble cause" for your shining president? Stop wasting our time with your contentfree posts, and at least take a bullet for your country. You could be human shielding an American who at least knows what a farce they're forced to play out.
--
make install -not war
I guess the whole hierarchy of comments is lost on you, huh? Here's a tip: it makes you look like an ass when you defend yourself against a post that wasn't responding to yours. Try reading the comment he actually was responding to, dipshit.
Moron. You're completely wrong about China.
Europeans start up democracies every chance they get.
Pardon me while I choke on that. Way to compress 2000 years worth of history.
Europeans do *not* start democracies every chance they get. It took a long time, with many fits and starts to get Europe where it is today.
The orbital profile for ANY satellite in orbit around earth can be found on the internet. The US doesn't have to build some huge secret weapon in space to take out other satellites. If you do some reasearch, you can find a picture of what a paint chip can do to a space shuttle windshield in orbit (almost shattered it). All we have to do is move one of our HUNDREDS of decommisioned, but still maneuverable satellites into the path of, say, a chinese satellite, and BAM, its gone. No fancy weapon, no need for another space lauch, just one less old satellite in orbit.
Second, you don't need a weapon in space to take out a satellite. The Air Born Laser being developed to shoot down missiles could also hit satellites and take them out.
Weaponizing space is completely trivial.
Is america dumb? Do they think they can antagonize the world forever? It seems they're doing everything in their power to start another war.
there was an attack on pearl harbor. US entered world war II.
Congratulations on your first "Duh!" Award of the Day!
did anybody come "screaming"? no. but it makes a good story for chest-thumping and for hanging around the neck of any european who criticizes the US.
(sigh) How quickly you forget. Churchill was practically begging the U.S. to step in, as were the French before they did what they did best and surrendered to the Nazi's. The President wanted to step in but was held back by the isolationists in Congress. Instead, we sent military aid in the form of tanks, destroyers, guns, ammunition, and fuel. It was a relatively brazen violation of our neutrality but we got away with it. Only when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did the isolationists finally wake up and realize that the U.S. must stay involved regularly in world events lest world events forcibly involve us. You obviously are incapable of learning from such recent history.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Well, I for one welcome our new... no wait, these are the same overlords as before. Never mind.
Let's google for George Papadopoulos and Dimitrios Ioannides...
Hmm, George Papandopolulus was a general that lead a coup in 1967...
Strange that Dimitrios Ioannides was also a general dictator around 1973 that reignited that whole cyprus-turkey-greece thing... Also modern greece has historically been more of a groomed sucessor type of system where your last name is very important...
And don't get me started on the attempted military coup in spain in 1981 to restore the monarchy. Also, somehow the king of spain and some princess in greece are related...
Those seems like pretty significantly flawed european democracies to me (and these events didn't happen too long ago)...
Sometimes I wonder if what we really need in the world to better get along is better world history lessons (not that I claim to know much, but the more you know, the more that you know that you don't really know anything)...
gah, stupid brain. where->were, ensure->insure
Your post has got to be the best example of European Leftist sanctimony I've seen on slashdot, right up to the liberal use of personal attacks and ugly language. Allow me to rebut your point of view:
You claim that the Muslim world "had a democracy". (I'll ignore for now that your use of the word "democracy" is rhetoric.) This is incorrect. The Muslim world, before its breakup, was the Caliphate, which was a Theocracy, ruled by Islamic law called Shari'a.
You claim that the prophet Muhammad practiced Democratic principles. In reality, he waged ethnic cleansing of the Jews (I know that hating Jews is in vogue in the Left nowadays), religious persecution, religious war, and coerced marriage with young girls.
You claim that the lack of a "democracy" in the Muslim world is due to "imperial influence". Not only is this false since I've already established that the Caliphate was a theocracy, but you ignore the fact that Muslims exerted a little imperialism of their own. Perhaps you remember that Spain used to be ruled by Muslims, and that the Muslim armies (who were conquering land by force in the name of religion) extended into France before they were defeated.
You ignore the fact that the countries which deny women the right to vote are Muslim-ruled countries, since woman's suffrage is contrary to Shari'a.
You ignore the fact that Shari'a also prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals. (As a gay man, I regard that as important.)
You ignore the fact that adoption rights do not exist under Shari'a. (As an adoptive parent, I regard that as important.)
You ignore the fact that offensive jihad had been pracised many, many times by muslim armies in the past (remember Spain?).
You ignore the fact that the belief that Islam will dominate the world is a mainstream view among muslims -- not an extreme view, a mainstream view.
You ignore the fact that many muslim countries voted against the UN declaration of human rights (not all of which I support, but you probably regard as important), arguing that Islam (Shari'a) was the only solution for all humanity.
You ignore the fact that muslims see the world in two and only two camps: dar al-Islam (the world of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the world of war), and you, in their point of view, are in the dar al-Harb and, therefore, at war with all Muslims.
I understand that you hate America and hate George Bush. I didn't vote for Bush, nor do I like his policies, nor do I support him. You have to let go of that hatred and recognize that all of us who value individual rights and freedoms, not to mention women's rights and gay rights, have a huge problem facing us regarding Islam. Please take your head out of the sand and learn about what Islam really *is* instead of what you merely want it to be.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
|| disrupt enemy communication systems ||
"communications systems" = radio and television systems
"enemy" = any nation that hasn't surrendered theirs to the U.S.
This post raises some interesting questions and entertaining discussion, but I think kpwoodr made a leap of reasoning that goes beyond the focus of the source article. (Something which I see many people are eager to punce upon for their pro-war or anti-war agendas.) The word launch is actually only mentioned once in source article, by Bill Gertz, and that refers to Chinese space launches. I fail to see the "recent satellite launch" mentioned in the article that kpwoodr alludes to as a "jammer in space." I think what has happened is a common assumption (conspiracy theory) that any major effort by Air Force Space Command must logically involve some new super-secret space vehicle. However, what many observers fail to appreciate is that Air Force Space Command considers multiple segments (i.e. the ground facilities, communications links, and space vehicles) to make up a complete space system. Thus when General Lord talks about protecting space and deploying an electronic warfare unit he may be talking about any one of those segments. In this case, the article (and General Lord) are refering to the Counter Communications System which was deployed last year. It is a ground based jammer, not space based. The ground-based Counter Communications System (CCS) is transportable, and intended to disrupt adversary satellite-based communications in a temporary and reversible manner. It is a rather routine technology in terms of what other nations are capable of and have been doing
I was trying to make a point that our weapons are TOO good right now, and don't allow for Americans to know what sacrifice is.
You seem to take it for granted that war is really-really-bad, and see it as a problem when war is made less-bad, because war is really-really-bad. There's a sort of internally-inconsistent logic there. Better weapons, for this particular meaning of better, mean decreasing the human cost of war for both civilians and combatants. This is obvious when you compare the total lives lost in WW I or WW II to the lives lost in Afghanistan or Iraq. Yes, these new wars were smaller in scope, but they were orders of magnitude smaller in human cost.
This is a good thing.
Yes, it may make the people less reluctant to engage in wars, but you shouldn't pre-suppose that that is a bad thing. If those wars are "less-bad" than the previous wars, then we should be less-reluctant to engage in them. Your hesitance to do something should be determined by how bad that thing is.
We are doomed. We have children who vote who know more about planes than policy.
You now represent the 1,000th consecutive generation of human beings to declare that "we are doomed" because "[scoff], kids today!" I think you overestimate the intelligence and education and knowledge of past generations. The average person never knew national policy in depth. Some people always do, and many people always don't. 49% of people will be below average. Always.
For objective metrics like "percentage of population starving", "percentage of population dying in wars", "percentage of population homeless", the world just keeps getting better every year. Yes, I know, we're all doomed because the President can't pronounce "nuclear", but really we've been "doomed" ever since we were first living.
i suppose the thread is over and done with, but i happened to be scanning my posts for karma-effects, and your post is so absurd that it really demands a response right now. if you'd been paying attention you'd realize that the "duh" award should go to the author of what i was responding to. they described the following scenario: europe came screaming to the US, the US stepped in and kicked ass. which isn't what happened. the US joined the war when it was attacked. i wasn't making a soliloquy, or stating that fact out of nowhere; it said it in response to the previous characterization given in the thread.
secondly, you seem to have confused or collapsed the distinctions between "america", "the president", and "congress." you said the president "wanted" to step in, you said congress didn't want to step in, and of course the pre-existing topic under discussion was what led "america" to join the war. to review: it wasn't screaming europeans that led to a war declaration. it was a direct attack against america. at some point you have to accept that. you can talk about the president all you want, but it's irrelevant. america at large wasn't in the mood to go to war for europe or the jews or anybody else. now if you want to put aside "congress" for a moment-- who are elected officials supposedly representing the popular sentiment, in case you've forgotten-- and talk about the actual american popular sentiment about the war in europe, we can do that.
anyway, you said flat-out that "the isolationists [woke up]", which implies they were asleep, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T RESPOND UNTIL ATTACKED THEMSELVES. let's say this again: america and congress didn't join the war until a direct attack against america.
you even pointed out that america or the isolationists "realized" something. so, before they realized XYZ, what state of mind were they in?
because you see, i thought that's exactly what i was describing in my post. (admittedly, to make a point, i oversimplified when i said "nobody came screaming." obviously the point is that the warfare in europe didn't incite an american war effort.
it's a simple point.
you've also convoluted it by slandering the french, who were blitzkriegged, invaded on the ground and suffered a massive deaths, being much less geographically lucky than britain. british forces were in france, but couldn't stop the germans. churchill himself feared a land war in britain, which would have been devestating like anywhere else. you don't seem to have anything more than a board-game mentality-- you can criticize the french war machine if you want to do that, but i think it's a disgusting meme to suggest that the french simply "did what they do best" by surrendering.
and you see, i do take lessons from history (i'm an american by the way, not french), which is why it disturbs me when these revisionists accounts of the war appear, with europe coming screaming and america jumping in to save the day, and when conventional wisdom uses that [revised] history as proof of our courage and foresight, for all time. (not just as proof of our courage and foresight, but proof of the cowardice or weakness of france/europe, and so on ad nauseum.)