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.
tcd004
every time some European brags about how much better their cell phones are than American cell phones.
I read Usenet for the articles.
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
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
No. Why do I say that? Because even countries like China, as bad as its rights record is, is seen as more popular and less of a threat to world peace than America. (especially check out that second poll - it really drives home what the world thinks of uss)
We all like to think of ourselves as the good guys. Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
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
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.
Well, at the risk of getting modded down to oblivion, that's because China *is* less of a threat to world peace than the USA (which, on another note, is not the same as America - you're just one American nation among many).
What has China done in the last 50 years or so that would threaten world peace? Hmm, they're occupying Tibet. Certainly not good, but hey, you have started *two* wars under your current president alone already (and there most likely will be a third one in the next few years, too).
Of course, if I had to choose a place to live, I'd choose the USA over China any day - there's no doubt that China's a fascist dictatorship, while the USA are still a pseudo-democracy, at least (at least you can still choose your poison there - unless the elections are manipulated, of course). But when you're talking about *world peace*, these things don't really matter (sorry), and the USA are clearly the bigger threat, by far.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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....
The US has already started on a gradual decent from the top. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-American, I am a Canadian, I have many American friends, and our countries are very similar in many ways. But the US is on a path of self-destruction, electing Bush was the beginning.
Now not only are you stuck in a senseless war with no end in sight, you are deeply in debt, mainly to countries such as communist China and Saudi Arabia. On top of all this you are allowing your government to do so many things that are contrary to the traditional view of what it means to be American. America is supposed to stand for "liberty and freedom", but your government has taken away some of the most basic "liberties" in the name of "security". What I do not understand is these liberties were held dear for so long and defended with countless lives by generations past. I realize the need to fight terrorism, but why has this new dynamic changed the American way of life so easily? The majority of the US population seems to be paralyzed by this fear, unable to speak for themselves and thus allowing the government to do as it pleases. Enacting draconian laws, starting fights against the pleas of the international community, keeping prisoners without due legal process, and the behemoth of them all... torture in Iraq. And if you question any of this you are labeled "unpatriotic", as if questioning the government is a privilege.
What has happened to America, a country that once stood for so much good and fighting for what was right.
I realize this is not a political forum, but I feel the need to warn America and get the word out in any way possible. For we share a common way of life, and common values. And if the US goes down, the Western way of life will take a huge blow. Sorry for the off topic.
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!!!"
No, perhaps this is a "Bad News Weapon". It may be tough to stop a specific frequency ... more to kill all radio in an area.
4 -02-23-02.asprel=url2html-15268http://www.ens-news wire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-23-02.asp >0 219/letter.phprel=url2html-15268http://www.ewg.org /issues/humantesting/20040219/letter.php >t /article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701511.htmlrel=url2ht ml-15268http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte nt/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701511.html >b ruary/Day-08/t2371.htmrel=url2html-15268http://www .epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2005/February/Day-08/t23 71.htm >i dt.htmlrel=url2html-15268http://pubs.acs.org/hotar tcl/ci/00/may/schmidt.html >
What if its purpose is to just "buy time"? Meaning, it could be used as a fail safe to stop bad news from getting out.
Heres a scenario: actual treason charges that could bring down the house of cards that is BushCo are brought forth. The satellite is fired and stops all broadcasts getting out of Washington. The private mercenaries are used as a Pretorian Guard to secure Fitzpatrick and any witnesses. After the "cleanup", a suitable explanation along with a defrosted "insta-terrorist" is put in place, and then the media can fill the airwaves with a "human tragedy" or terrorist act. Something that makes enough sense that half the country can argue with the other half... like we have been dealing with for 5 years now.
This satellite may be no big deal and actually help our country. Normally, I wouldn't worry about it. But I am so paranoid about these fascists in office I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife--much less our country.
If we think BushCo can lie us into a war that doesn't benefit US interests--or anybody but a bunch of crooks. If we think BushCo would steal an election. What don't you think BushCo would do?
Not enough? Ok if torture were somehow legalized. If people could be imprisoned without their will? Oh, those are bad guys...
Not enough? OK, an administration that would use its own people as guinea pigs (especially abused children), how about that?
ahref=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/200
ahref=http://www.ewg.org/issues/humantesting/2004
ahref=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conten
ahref=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2005/Fe
ahref=http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ci/00/may/schm
The proposal was later dropped when the public got wind of it... but now it is back again (like the media consolidation bill). In fact, they pushed it through while people were drowning after Katrina. Our government, too busy to rescue citizens but not too busy to sneak in legislation. I've just heard the rumor but I can't find a link yet. I just hope that when we find a way to test roach killer on kids, it will be legal.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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!!!"
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.
Oh, yeah, your anonymity is really opening my mind. It really just shows you don't have the courage of your convictions even to be associated with them later in other discussions.
The Qaeda has #1: won the "hearts and minds" of millions of people around the world, a fucked-up "David" standing up to the (fucked up) Goliath of the USA. #2: they've enabled the USA to alienate our allies in all our other endeavors, and driven some of our enemies (China and Iran) into each others' arms, even more deeply. They've discredited us, sparked a malaise that's made our economy moribund, blown the magic enabler of our American image of success, strength, diplomatic prowess, judicious restraint, confidence... Oh, then there's the thousands of dead Americans. Here in NYC (and in the DC and PA), and the thousands in Iraq. Where they judo'ed us by attacking a wasteful, cynical, lying president who invaded the unrelated Iraq they themselves couldn't beat or join. Now our military and foreign policies are exposed as selfserving bait/switch operations, before our allies, enemies, and the billions of people who once gave us benefit of the doubt.
I remind you that the North Vietnamese were claimed to be losers throughout the war. In fact, we did usually win Vietnamese battles, though at unsupportable cost. And we lost that war. We've never recovered. And, as your Anonymous ignorant Coward post shows, many of us have never learned from our mistakes. You're certainly far from alone in counting your own victories as "democratic makeovers" in places like Afghanistan and Iraq before they've hatched.
--
make install -not war
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?
Your lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq is stunning to say the least. I have a much better perspective on this than you might imagine because unlike you, I've actually served a tour in Iraq and returned.
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. We have a military might that is unequaled anywhere on this planet at this time, and no single nation could oppose us should we choose to exercise our military might to the utmost.
But what has the U.S. done with this power? Have we engaged in wars of conquest across the globe? No, we have not. The United States hasn't conquered, occupied, and retained possession of a single piece of territory since the Spanish-American war! We left Europe after WWI, only to return to liberate it again during WWII. Then, having sacrificed the better portion of an entire generation of American young men, we left again without making any territorial claims. We left Germany after helping to rebuild. We left Japan after rebuilding. 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? Probably not because you don't want to, but I'm going to rub your nose in it anyway. To put it succinctly, no nation has every had so much force at its disposal yet used it so sparingly. We could've dominated the world in a way that would've made Hitler and Stalin look like angels, but instead we simply helped where needed then went back home.
The insurgency in Iraq is a direct result of American forces restraining themselves. I and Marines like me put our lives on the line daily during patrols, trying to keep the streets safe, trying to allow the people to see what it's like to be citizens under a democracy instead of subjects under a dictator. I've had friends wounded because we didn't shoot first when we had the chance, so don't you dare even hint that we are "struggling" here. We are not. We are willingly making our jobs more dangerous because our own morals do not allow us to be ruthless. The terrorists are ruthless and amoral, however, but that is the difference between a terrorist and a U.S. Marine. Personally I'd rather have taken a bullet myself than to have accidentally wounded a civilian.
So, please, take your lopsided reasoning elsewhere. You're speaking to someone who knows better that you. If you doubt me, get on a damned plane to Iraq. When you've set foot in the country you claim to know so much about, then you might be entitled to an opinion on things. Until then, you're just piling ignorance on top of ignorance.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Stupid fucking neo-con.
... not by a fucking long shot. Democracy isn't the act of turning out on voting day and putting a tick against one lowlife arsehole instead of another lowlife arsehole. The 2-party system that has permeated the so-called 'democratic' nations is a joke. And you're an idiot for criticising other people's state of affairs while living under such a 'democracy'.
I'm no Muslim, but I know enough about the Muslim world to know that you're full of shit. The Prophet Mohammad taught and practiced democractic principles his whole life. The Muslum world had democracy until they fractured into a number of branches and started bickering amongst themselves.
Shit happens. Look at the US. You call that a democracy? I don't think so
You proabably would like to score some points off the fact that there hasn't been democracy recently in the Muslim world. But in fact that's due to imperial interference in the area. If the west would fuck off out of there for long enough for the people to kick out the US stooges and warlords, then perhaps a democratic process could begin.
No. The neo-cons aren't interested in democracy, apart from using it as an excuse for war. As for overthrowing despots, that's not really their goal either, as they are US-backed despots.
Thanks for the link. It didn't undermine anything I claimed, and the point remains that Mohammad taught and practiced democracy. Deal with it. Linking to wikopedia may be the current fad, but it doesn't automatically prove you're right, unless it actually supports your argument.
There are places better than where I live. New Zealand has a much better system, and a much better foreign policy as well. Venezuela is starting to look interesting too, even if Chavez came from the military. I'm not claiming there is a perfect democracy for us to all study. I'm just pointing out that your attacks on Muslims are completely unfounded and hypocritical. That quip about utopia oozes immaturity, by the way.
Good. If you're so interested, research it. I've already given you some starting points: Mohammed. There are other examples. Palestine is trying ( despite extreme external pressure ), Iran, Turkey ( though they're heading in the wrong direction ). Do some reading of your own. Don't just go to wikopedia. Do some real research. Try a book or 2. And don't be so fucking arrogant. It's very off-putting.
Ack,
Typical mindless American flag waving drek.
NOBODY HAS STARTED A WAR WITH YOU IN OVER 50 YEARS.
Vietnam did not declare war on you, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Brazil, they didn't ask you to get involved in their affairs, yet YOU DID ANYWAY and as usual royally screwed their countries in the process. Because when America gets involved it does so only when it benefits America. That's OK, if you've been asked, but don't come to us screaming how altruistic you are when your unwanted meddling causes vast amounts of suffering.
Posts like the parent typically get modded up on this site, the yanks don't like anybody else criticising their countries actions. It's perfectly A-OK for them to sit around discussing which countries elected leader they should murder next, which country, that has *never* done a single THING to them, they should invade next. But the moment someone in the world dares to raise a single criticism of the USs past actions, oh the world is just-so-mean, how dare we forget the good deed that America performed over sixty years ago, by a generation that is nearly dead. Forgetting that If everyone had of just layed down arms America would have been SCREWED. Lets just forgot the millions of dead russians, tens of thousands of Poms, Aussies and every other nationality that shed their blood (you know the WORLD part in WORLD WAR), the americans did it all! That absolves the current and future generations of every atrocity (yes turning reasonably stable countries into savage thirdworld dictatorships IS an atrocity) that they ever commit from then on.
You want to extend the 'GPs arbitrary limit' Lets extend it, 100 years ago in the Phillipines, what you fuckers did there is as bad as anything any other shitty country has country has done, so don't play the oh we the poor martyrs of the world just try to do good and nobody loves us. AMERICA PEACEFUL? SITUATION YOUR NOW IN, THE SITUATION THAT YOU CREATED WHEN YOU INVADED ANOTHER COUNTRY?? fuck me i just can't even go on, its FUCKING CRAZY reading shit like this, do you actually believe it or do you just suspend reality to be mindlessly nationalistic.
You, America, have *well and truly* cashed in the reputation that your involvement in WWII gained for your country.
One last thing, we all know it's a good thing that Americans have finally started to acknowledge that there is one other land mass in the universe besides America, but it's time to graduate first grade and move to second grade where you will be taught that there is *many* land masses and that not everyone is European or North American. In fact you are in the minority, so before you call someone a "European socialist" (apparently an insult?) make sure that they are actually from Europe yeah?
(See other people can be smug and sarcastic too, nice isn't it?)
"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." ---
"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.