Bush Reveals New Space Policy

Josh Fink writes "Space.com is reporting that President Bush has unveiled his new space policy. From the article: 'U.S. assets must be unhindered in carrying out their space duties,' the Bush space policy says, stressing that 'freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.'... As a civil space guideline, the policy calls upon NASA to 'execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.' While this policy does seem to push for more civil involvement in space for exploration and research, the article does go on to say, 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."' So it will push into the intelligence community, and will supercede a similar policy from 1996. You can read the entire policy."

Comments

Maybe there is oil

[WindBourne]

republicans have several theories for oil

1. Oil was put on this planet by God for our use. If so, then God may have placed s***-loads on Mars to encourage Americans to get there quickly and own it all.
2. that oil is created deep in the earth and has absolutely nothing to do with a limited supply. In fact, a few wells in Texas that were thought to be dry via 70's tech, showed up alive again in the late 90's as a means to prove that.

:)

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Tekzel]

Can you say wild overreaction? Can you say schizophrenia? Can you say lift the tin foil full face helmet so you can breathe?

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Doc Ruby]

Can you say "DENIAL"? I knew you couldn't.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[Doc Ruby]

After all the gibberish you've spewed over the years, you've got nothing worth hearing to say about "Bush Hating".

You're a Bush worshipping troll.

But for the benefit of those fortunate not to have slipped in your slime before, I'll just point out what a sicko you are.

1. Bush is putting nukes in space, after proving he can't do anything right, which makes him do more. All dangerous. Now upping the ante to space nukes. Insane.

2. Bush specifically said in that policy that we should use nukes to put weapons in space. Of course that's his #1 priority. Everyone knows he hates science, that he put a Republican flack to work censoring "big bang" science because it reinforced evolution science rather than Creationism.

3. "We" are only a long way from worrying about space combat because you are in denial of the apocalyptic dreams Bush pursues at every chance.

4. The Rumsfeld "issue"? That berzerk loser is unfit to command a garbage scow, and you're calling him an "issue"? Rumsfeld has been putting nukes on US missiles for years, changing our policy to "preemptive strike" even while bathing in the blood of that strategy's Iraq failure. The solution is for the Senate to force Bush to fire Rumsfeld, which a Democratic Senate will probably do next year. The Constitution is "still in effect" while Bush has the right to torture anyone he wants to secretly kidnap, prosecute and execute them with secret evidence they never even see? He can wiretap anyone he wants? Which constitution are you talking about?

And finally, you show just how useless is your advice with your final words. Americans should arm ourselves to the teeth to oppose a nuke military space program? Right, because every armed insurrection has always been a stabilizing effect on a warmonger government with world-destroying power. Yeah, the reasonable Constitutionalists will surely carry the day when armed revolt fills the streets and countryside, with gun fetishists practicing their survival skills the past few generations.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? I know: the one that worships Bush, and fills the air with meaningless drivel that preoccupies us while Bush throws peace and prosperity into the pit of hell.

Re:So, you'd start -three- wars?

[Doc Ruby]

You idiot, America's defeat of the Spanish and conquest of the Phillipines demonstrated the power vacuum I mentioned.

All you've got now is strawman fallacies. I'm done schooling your stupid ass.

Re:Nuclear Propulsion

[ncc74656]

Speaking of straw men... yes, the official line was "weapons of mass destruction", not just nuclear weapons. The problem is, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction of any type. Nor did we find any facilities for making same.

So you're saying all of the following are figments of the Iraq Survey Group's imaginations? These are some of what they found:

• A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
• A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
• Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
• New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
• Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
• A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
• Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
• Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
• Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

It's better to go in and mitigate a possibly overstated risk than to hand some reactors and nuclear fuel over to a little pot-bellied, dog-eating dictator and wake up ~10 years later to a nuclear-armed North Korea. I'll put the Bush record of mitigating world threats up against the Clinton record any time, anywhere. Maybe you won't, but clear-thinking people will compare the two and realize that in times of consequence such as these, it's not safe to vote Democrat.