Slashdot Mirror
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."
Can you say, "Nuclear Space Drive"?
Bush's policy effectively states that the usage of nuclear power as engines of exploration is considered to take priority over any over-reaching treaties that ban nuclear power for the purposes of weaponry. Which means that the United States would consider a treaty like the 1963 Test Ban Treaty (the one that effectively killed the Orion) to not apply to space propulsion. Which, IMHO, can only be a good thing in the modern day world.
Any concerns over the environmental effects of launch are much more effectively handled by environmental groups rather than treaties designed with weapons in mind rather than actual fall-out issues. If they have a realistic concern, then the public will have an opportunity to evaluate that concern, and either take action or reject it. (The latter happening with the Cassini-Huygens environmental protest.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It's an agreement between the major super-powers that no Earthly country will own celestial bodies, and that these places exist for the exploration of all mankind.
I expect that this treaty would be modified once space colonies become common (a country, corporation, or individual would obviously "own" the property on which its Space Habitats reside, as it "owns" those habitats), but that's a matter that will be worked out when that bridge is crossed.
FWIW, historical property laws do offer some guidance. The original property laws provided complete ownership for everything below a property, and all the sky above a property. These laws have been modified as new technologies like airplanes and spacecraft made the skies above open space, and subways, power, and gas made the areas below into necessary points of infrastructure.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Where do people get the idea that something like international laws actually exist? If a country decides to do something they'll just rewrite their own laws to allow it. If someone decides to ignore the UN or what not then it's not "illegal".
The only real question is whether or not they can actually back up such a claim in a way that will make other countries go along with it.
First - land war for control of territory resulting in nation-states
Second - Sea and Land war resulting in continental/regional trade blocks
Now - Space war resulting in what? Solar System trade blocks? Space nations?
This is just the first step in preparation for fighting the next big war.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Anyone truely interested in the exploration of space should be desperate to see NASA shut down. I don't like him either but it's hardly a useful dig to complain about closing down the orbiting money toilet known as ISS. The fact is every penny Nasa gets should be spent on research and engineering to replace the shuttle with something far cheaper to launch.
Maybe reaction to last month's laser incident with China?
Access to space is like access to international waters -- if anything there is greater need to secure space from territorial claims than international waters. By claiming sovereigny over space above the 100km mark, a nation in effect denies access to space to every other country, since every satellite not in geosynchronous orbit above yourland mass would violate your "territorial space".
What China did was in one sense just an aggressive extension of the usual spy/counter spy stuff; you fly close to my territorial waters with listening equipment, I try to jam the equipment. However it was extremely risky in my opinion. First, if the satellite had been damaged it would be tantamount to an act of war, like sinking a ship in international waters. Secondly, it invites US interference with Chinese space vehicles. If China wants to become a world superpower, it will need spy satellites. If you're playing standoff with another country, with both coutries with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, misunderstandings can get costly. You want to see what the other guy is doing and you want the other guy to see what you are doing.
Reading carefully, this parapgraph suggests that the US is planning to engage in a kind of "tit for tat" crippling of Chinese satellites. This is a bad thing for strategic stability.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The uber-narcissistic Bush administration is terrified of one of the most exciting potential benefits of space research, its potential of making human beings realize just how alike we are and how precious the Earth is for our species survival, and so they hope to militarize space research and exploration to prevent its powerful, unifying effect on humanity. This kind of thinking has the potential to hurt the US tremendously because the rest of the world will cooperate on space research despite us, setting us back still further both scientifically and economically. The US is coasting on past achievements now. It won't last.
That's pretty much what we'd expect from that source, but it doesn't make it any better.
Surely there should be some sort of Logic Advisor sitting next to the President's speech writers. I don't imagine that he wants to look evil and dishonest in front of a world audience well versed in elementary logic.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Since WW II, the U.S. has loomed as the most militarily and economically powerful nation in the world. Now China is making a bid to become a hegemony of its own. This is a Good Thing [tm].
Superior might through superior technology has always been the mantra of developed nations. Consequently, the U.S. experienced huge gains over the last few decades due to (perceived) competition with the Russians. Like it or not, most of the best technologies we have were originally purposed for military applications, financed through the Pentagon system, and then gradually re-purposed for civilian use (the Internet being a great example of this). This has always been the silver lining.
It would be melodramatic to claim that the U.S. is on the brink of another Cold War, this time with the Chinese. However, "friendly" competition with China will help the space program, it will help Silicon Valley--it will help the United States in any area in which there is a perceived technological deficiency.
We stand to gain so much if we're not all blown to bits first.
What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
a disease:
See Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) :
How to Recognize a Narcissist
at this URL
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html
We all have to deal with difficult people. Some days we can be pretty difficult ourselves. Recognizing the difference between normal difficulties and personality disorders can be crucial to decisions about entering new relationships and continuing existing relationships.
The material on Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is published for lay readers is not very informative, even though most people have had to cope with a narcissist at one time or another. If you were raised by a narcissistic parent, then you've been taught that the narcissist is always right and you're the one who's wrong. A lifetime of such mistreatment typically instills lack of confidence in your own judgment, along with habitual shame at never getting it right or being good enough to deserve the air that you breathe. The children of narcissists may not have realized that the quirks and oddities of their impossible-to-please parents are not in any way unique or special but are in fact the symptoms of a personality disorder.
The information on the Web is very repetitive and amounts to little more than the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV. Clinical descriptions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't describe the things that are most shocking and puzzling in everyday interaction with narcissists.
This material is offered for comfort and solace to people who've had bad (or merely weird) experiences with narcissists. If you're looking for ammunition to attack someone, please look elsewhere. If you're looking for a diagnosis, you'll need to consult a psychiatrist. If you're looking for help with your term paper, go here.I've written entirely from my own experience and personal interest; I'm not a therapist or counselor, have no relevant credentials, and can't refer you to lawyers.
-- Joanna Ashmun
"The study of human nature may be thought of as an art with many tools at its disposal, an art closely related to all the other arts, and relevant to them all. In literature and poetry, particularly, this is especially significant. Its primary aim must be to broaden our knowledge of human beings, that is to say, it must enable us all to become better, fuller, and finer people." -- Alfred Adler
The PNAC statement drawn up before Bush even took office says the US must dominate not only the surface of the Earth, but space and cyberspace too.
He's just following the script that Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others wrote up for him.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Your second amendment rights :P
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You have to keep in mind that a president is not just a civilian leader; he's a military one too. It is a military commander-in-chief's duty to do certain things, and funding ISS is not one of them. Securing the ability to do other things and deny them to adversaries, is. A military commander-in-chief should try to make sure he'll have satellite surveillance, GPS guidance, and other applications when he needs it.
Does ISS have military applications? Maybe so, but the letter "I" in the acronym makes me doubt. ;-)
The flip side is that a president is also a civilian leader, and lots of Americans think that federal taxation is the right way to fund science (and a lot of other things also not mentioned in the Constitution) because otherwise, people just don't value or care enough about science to fund it voluntarily. If a scientist asks you for $50 you will refuse to pay him, but if the taxman demands $5000, you will comply, and then the middleman can give $25 (don't ask where the rest goes) to the scientist, provided that the scientist will use it for something that doesn't offend religious literalists/fundamentalists. So when a president wants to shut down something like ISS, it's going to look as if he's being irresponsible there, since no voting block is complaining about observations on ISS contradicting any important religious texts, and therefore, ISS funding is obviously a wise use of our money.
I don't know what a president can do, except raise taxes and just try to fund everything -- any idea that comes along that anyone likes. If we would all just work together united in common cause to fund all good ideas, things would be so much more pleasant. We could proudly hold our red stars high in our hands. But nooooo .. some malcontents still resist. What we ought to do, is get rid of all these troublemakers!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Seems you could use the Advisor. Jet fighters and anti-aircraft missiles, guns and artillery are all means to deny an adversary freedom of movement in the air. Yet would you claim you do not have freedom of movement in the Terrestrial Atmosphere because of them and their potential use against you?
You have conflated the ability to take out enemy targets with the complete elimination of the ability for the targets to peacefully exist otherwise. You have conflated a temporary action with a full-time one. You have thus committed a logical fallacy - in the process of trying to impugne another's ability in logic. You have further assumed that the President wrote that document. A fallacious assumption I am certain.
Logic is not a form of universal truth, it is a means of confirming that a given conclusion is an accurate conclusion based on the premises presented, and nothing more. The premises can be false, but the conclusion could still be logical.
In the argument you failed to logically analyzed we have the following:
Argument 1:
Premise 1: Freedom of action in space is important
Premise 2: Freedom of action in space is important to the US and it's interests
Conclusion 1: The US should have freedom of action in space
Argument 2:
Premise 1: The US (and US interests') should have freedom of action in space
Premise 2: Other entities may strive to prevent or hinder US (and US interests') action in space
Premise 3: Threats to US freedom action in space will involve non-US utilization of action in space
Conclusion: The US needs to be able to deny such action in space in order to protect it's freedom of action in space
The above arugments, premises, and conclusions do not logically lead to the "There will be no freedom of action in space". Your argument that they do is unsupported and erroneous, not to mention fallacious. To demonstrate further, change the word space to the word sea, or to air, or to land.
Furthermore, you assertion that the speech writers need a logic advisor is also erroneous. This wasn't a speech, it was/is a document not designed to be read aloud by the President. Surely you should have a reality advisor as well as a logic advisor sitting next to you. I don't imagine you want to look dumb in front of the world of well-versed, informed, and logical slashdot readers.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Interesting..you seem to have read the President's Vision for Space Exploration but somehow only grabbed onto the "kill shuttle" part and missed the whole "build vehicles to explore the solar system part"... or was that inconvenient to your anti-Bush rant?
That's because killing the shuttle is real, whereas the rest is just talk. Talk is cheap.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
I would rather have the treaties. I actually do trust the experts more than people the environmental groups.
We have treaties. They say that Bush shouldn't do what he is doing. They have one problem: they are international, and, of course, Bush feels under no obligation to observe international treaties since, after all, those people didn't elect him and he can drum up enough xenophobia to support breaking the treaties. So, treaties don't control Bush or what the US is doing.
We have a law to state he is not a WAR CRIMINAL.
Does any (other) sane person wonder why we need a law that specifies Bush is not a war criminal?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Honestly, most of what you said went above my head. I was speaking from my gut and my gut tells me uneqivocably that we are far less secure under a neocon government than a non-neocon one. This has been my feeling since the day I heard that George II was running. My first thought then was 'oh no, in six months we will be in a war'. I guess I was wrong..
(It was actually nine months)
The most distressing aspect of the current administration is their jettisoning of the "no first use' doctrine that had served us and the rest of the world well for so very long. Even Saint Ronald Reagan felt strongly about no first use. (he supported it, at least in theory)
We also are strongly fighting universal standards of law and human rights - a prime example is our opposition to the International Criminal Court - a court that could be used to try the leaders of nations that commit genocide. (and first use of nuclear weapons is inevitably genocide because civilians are always the bulk of the casualties of nuclear war.)
Perhaps we oppose the ICC so strongly because members of our own government and/or their advisors fear prosecution under it. (A prime example is Henry Kissinger, who ordered such obscenities as the secret bombing of Cambodia against US law, initiating a chain of events that led to the breakdown of civil law in that country. And many other US-sponsored, still largely unknown CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
Look at it this way. If the US did not reject no-first-use and fight organizations like the ICC we would have a FAR STRONGER PLATFORM from which to argue against countries like North Korea gaining nuclear weapons.
Why? Because of North Korea's terrible, terrible record on human rights.. their huge gulag of prison camps with the worst conditions one could ever imagine. Because they are guilty of a level of amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of world events that makes this imperative (that a nation like that should NOT have nuclear weapons) obvious.
The only problem? We have now lied so much and postured so much and yes, even killed so much, that many people who *should* know better now naiively equate us with North Korea in terms of evil.
Without a moral United States, human rights in the rest of the world suffer greatly.
That is why I do NOT trust this regime to make peaceful use of space. They politicize everything they touch. They do not understand science except as another tool of warfare. They suffer from a scarcity-driven mentality that pushes us back into the Dark Ages in our interpersonal relations with the rest of the world.
The United States needs to 'stop terrorism' not by fighting so many mindless wars that we create a whole new world of new terrorists.. (even the CIA admits this) but by ENDING THE KINDS OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITIES THAT CREATE TERRORISTS.
Until we realize that we will be our own worst enemy... Until we realize that we should not go into space, because we can't even handle or our own planet..or our own future..
In 50 years technology will do almost everything workers do now.. That means most of the kinds of people who would be people working today won't have jobs.. You will work not because you need to.. (obviously, that argument doesnt hold water) but because you love to..
If we keep the current mentality going into that future (which is inherently apolitical and non-denominational) our leaders will soon be panicking about the huge numbers of 'useless' people and another world war.. a genocide... will be the only possible result..
Thats why it is imperative that people realize that we can change our future.. War is not inevitable.. It is not the natural fate of man..
If there is one message the Jesuses, the Buddhas, the other enlightened people who could see ahead were telling us it is that..
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..
It is within our power now to eliminate poverty and make terrorism irrelevant.. We are not doing that because we are ADDICTED TO WAR..
the stakes are huge.. all of our survival..
There will not be a World War IV...
What you want is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It's an agreement between the major super-powers that no Earthly country will own celestial bodies, and that these places exist for the exploration of all mankind.
Such a treaty will be a dead letter the moment there is something worth owning in space that someone also has the ability to "own" in the meaningful sense of being able to physically possess, exploit to their advantage and, possibly, defend against anyone else's interference. We'll work out some treaties that will simply codify the simple reality that "possession is 9/10ths of the law". Those nations (or "that nation") capable of obtaining actual physical possession of something of real value will do so, and treaties will be written that legitimize their possessions. I hope this doesn't come across as implying any immorality to such a situation & I don't mean it to sound cynical. Possession is where the concept of "ownership" comes from in the first place and in a region previously under no legal authority the laws legitimizing (and going into the future, regulating) ownership will start with the raw fact of physical possession. A legal structure containing an idealistic sounding fiction like "these places exist for the exploration of all mankind." is liable to cause as much or more injustice as it's actual implementation reflects the reality of the situation while it's idealistic wording (pretends to) deny it.