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."

6 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Scientific knowledge? by Trevin · · Score: 0, Troll

    This isn't about science...

    "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.'"

    This is about more war.

  2. Re:Take me to your Litre by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bush's entire career reminds me of Space Invaders.
    Da... Dum. ...
    Da.. Dum. ...
    Da.. Dum. ..
    Da. Dum. ..
    Da. Dum.
    .
    Da Dum.
    .
    Da Dum.
    Da Dum
    DaDum

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  3. Re:Brush up those reading comprehension skills by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0, Troll
    What part of "new legal regimes" and "proposed arms control agreements" don't you understand?

    That would be the part where I actually read the document and understood its meaning rather than getting my opinions from a Slashdot summary.

    What part of it don't you understand?
  4. Re:Nuclear Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Where's the Canadian aid? Explain to me why the hell we give a fuck? We're busy covering your ass in Afghanistan, you know, that country you bombed then forgot after you realized there was no oil there.

    Go fuck yourself, it's not our job to clean up your messes but we do it anyway because we're a good neighbor. And you think we owe you MORE. Go fuck yourself. And let us know when you're interested in giving us back some of what you owe to us.

  5. Re:You're a troll by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    I got up on the wrong side of North Korea detonated a nuke while Bush sends nukes into space, Anonymous denial Coward.

    Staying in bed might have worked for you Bush worshippers these past 6 years, but you've made the country sickening.

    Don't get over your denial. Just stay home on Election Day, safe in the delusion that "everything's OK".

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  6. I'll take "inevitable" for 100, Chuck. by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is a logical extension of US policy since the middle of the 19th Century.

    Since the beginnings of American diplomacy, the US has been committed to a 'freedom of action' policy just about everywhere in the world. Yes, yes, I know a lot of the /. crowd will jump in with examples of US hypocrisy but that's simply naive: NO COUNTRY ON EARTH PLACES THE WELFARE OF OTHERS AHEAD OF ITS OWN. (And if you think they do, you're stupid.)

    So the US stance is simply being extended to space - where the US is determined to maintain 'freedom of action' (for itself and its allies). No shock there.

    The 'neutralization' of space was only going to last as long as pretty much nobody needed/wanted it. I know that probably half or more of the readers here immediately see this policy as some sort of American effort to hegemonize space. So be it. I would simply point to the Hegemonic powers of the last, say, 200 years: Russia/Soviets, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain. Aside from Great Britain (of which the US is really just Great Britain 2.0), there's not a one of them I'd rather more trust as the hegemon. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Same with Antarctica - as long as its just some benighted frozen wilderness down there, all the nations of the world will 'play nice'. The moment it's exploitable for commercial or strategic advantage, this will play out again.

    --
    -Styopa