Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
Just in case you want to catch up on the last time we discussed this:
0 9/1333248
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Wouldn't that be throwing out the Hubble Space Telescope and science programs for a fancy Moon/Mars mission that doesn't have to be budgeted until years after the Bush Administration is long gone?
Now taking bids on a laser satellite. Variance on casualties acceptable. Missile destroying capabilities a plus. Added bonus of it can pick out Osama.
Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012
'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
We were the dominant power in Pearl Harbor too. It doesn't take a lot to destroy a space station. That said, this is a pissing match I have no interest in having. I can see defending sites, systems, and transportation. By trying to claim ownership of a chunk of space is just retarded.
-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
90 percent of the replies to this posting will be ignorant anti-Bush rhetoric regarding his plans to weaponize space, or destroy nation X or capability Y. My sincere hope - my challenge - is that those 90 percent will, in hopes of foiling my prediction, actually /read/ the text of the statement, and not presume to know what it means by reading headlines.
President Bush is a scary sort of moron, but this particular issue isn't one for which he should be demonized. Read the text, consider it, /then/ reply. Please don't add to the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet.
Next news -- it's much safer to fly in Lockheed and Boeing's space planes than Virgin Galactic's because the US defense contractor's need to protect their revenue so they can keep building war toys to keep our country safe.
I wonder if this means they think they can shoot down space flights with democrats aboard - since I actually know a few republicans who think that sincerely and deeply believe that democrats (through their weak polices on homeland security) are a bigger threat to national security than north korea.
So
Satelites can be taken out by ground-based lasers. Any major power planning a war with the US would need to have that capability.
With vulnerable satelites, the next level would be a moon base. There's not much an Earth-based attack can do against a moon base. We're at the bottom of the gravity well.
And no one else. We're due for another Cold War anyway...
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Sorry, no elaborate arguments, witty remarks, or logic this time. Damn you all who voted for these idiots and made them a trouble for the entire world.
Read radical news here
International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.
Space Pearl Harbor will be the best Ben Affleck movie ever
Mod me as flamebait but this is one of the stupidest and beligerant announcements I've heard in quite sometime. Appearantly, the rest of the world aggrees. Allow me to quote the headlines I see right now on websites (foreign and US):
- US turns space into its colony - Asian Times Online
- Bush asserts right to deny space access - Boston Globe
- Bush issues doctrine for US control of space - Mail & Guardian Online, Guardian Unlimited
- US insists it has right to keep its enemies out of space - Scotsman
- US Says 'Keep Out of My Space' - ABC News
- Space: America's new war zone - Independent, UK
- America wants it all - life, the Universe and everything - Times Online, UK
- America aims to control the space - The Money Times
- United Space of America - Hamilton Spectator, Canada
- US Claims Monopoly on the Use of Space for Weapons - ShortNews.com, Germany
- Emperor Zurg Has A Tiny Tiny Wiener And Must Be Told - OpEdNews, PA
What kind of feelings do you think the rest of the world is going through based on that?Is this the new SDI? I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat or Independent, this isn't about keeping bad people out of space. This isn't about securing space. It's about doing what we want the rest of the world to do. It's childish colonial imperialism and it's complete bullshit.
My work here is dung.
Farmer: God Damn Space Bastards !
(Fires Shotgun)
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
as if they were able to defend u.s. against 9/11 with all the resources they had ...
Now they are going to waste shitload of taxpayer money for stuff in space - just to please their arms-industry backers.
Read radical news here
All your base are belong to us!
One day the toilets of the world will rise up... And I'm going to nuke them.
Sounds like we have a Death Star gap in the making!
Time to get busy constructing and training of personel. I got dibs on the planet destruction button.
Jupiter - you're going to be SO pwned!
Isn't this like the third time this article has found it's way onto slashdot? Are the slashdot crew even paying attention anymore?
According to ABC it's the "National Space Policy", not the space security policy. In other words, this is supposed ot cover our whole space program's direction. And it doesn't mention going to the moon.
I guess the Iranian/N.Korean/Venezualan space station's gonna be put on hold for a while.
http://kitties.b-log.ca
For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon."
Here's the reality check. The US Navy exists to do a few things:
- Project power ashore (i.e. shoot and bomb things that don't float or fly)
- Guarantee US access to sea lanes of control
- Deny access to SLoCs to US enemies
Both the US Air Force and US Navy have space commands and with good cause. Clearly access to orbit is as critical now as access to the seas were 100 years ago. It is in every nation's self-interest to guarantee its access to orbit. It's not much of a leap to get from there to seeing that having technologies to deny that access to enemies is a strategic advantage. How many lives (on either side of a conflict) might be saved by neutralizing an enemy's communications and recon satellites? It's a no-brainer policy. (Insert Bush joke here...)If you fuck with our space based assets or are openly hostile towards us, we will destroy your space based assets. That is like saying if you shoot at our costal positions, we will blow up what is shooting them and then blow the living hell out of your costal assets. Its common sense defensive posturing. For christ sake any country that has signifigant assets that doesn't take that position is stupid. It basically saying fuck with me and I will fuck you up in return.
You mad
You have to admit that'd be a much more interesting fantasy film than the other Pearl Harbor from a few years back.
brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
Asked about how the United States could own a vacuum, the Bush administration spokesman said that "the President had been associated with a vacuum for many years."
With all the talk of conspiracies and dirty dealings, I'm surprised no one has yet brought up the topic of alien coverups.
Speech from the near future:
"I am the Shrub. And, I see a whole army of my country men, here in defiance of tyranny in SPACE. You've come to fight as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom?! Will you fight?
Crowd of defeatist surrender monkeys: No . . . we will run . . . and we will live.
"Aye. Fight and you may die. Run and you'll live, at least a while. And, dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance -- just one chance -- to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom in SPACE!"
If it were any other country, the UN would probably be holding an emergency meeting to discuss possible actions, including sanctions. There's not much point doing that though, since the US could just veto any resolutions. It's a bit hypocritical to be opposing the spread of Nuclear weapons, while at the same time announcing your intentions to weaponize space.
"So .... if China tries to establish a moon base ... we'll attack it?"
Such a conflict would have a risk of igniting the nuclear waste dump on the moon, and sending our satellite away from us.
Where were you when the voynix came?
We are the top dog, the alpha male of the world
Uh no. You're the fat, ugly and lazy dog of the world. You're the equivalent of the roman empire - when it had already begun to fall. We're laughing at you, you're just to stupid to realise it.
Yeah, I remember being beat up. Funny thing is that I'm in a high paying job 1200 miles away now while the all star QB is bagging groceries in my hometown. Yep, sure was impossible for him to go to college with that kid on the way from fucking all the hot girls. I sure envy him.
Get it through your head that we're exhibiting the same complex that the Romans went through when they started to lose their empire.
richest and mightiest country in the history of the world
And this is where most Americans go wrong because they haven't set foot outside of their own little backwards state.
If USA is so powerful then why can't they even control Iraq or North Korea? They know how to flex their muscles but use them is a different story.
PS. I have lived in USA for some years now. It has it good things. But ignorance is bliss
"Oct. 18, 2006 -- The White House has quietly put out a new National Space Policy -- a document that, among other things, makes it clear that the Bush administration will not sign any treaty that limits America's ability to put weapons in orbit."
... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."
Apparently it is, at least in part, about weaponizing space.
"The document, much of which is classified,..."
Interesting that our own "policy" is a secret from the American people. Apparently we are not allowed to know our own position on this issue. Now that is retarded.
"Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space
This is a broad and bold statement that will certainly piss off a lot of people. Which "national interests" do we feel gives us the right to deny to someone else what we absolutely refuse to be denied? All to often we seem to confuse "national interests" with "corporate interests" now days.
What an arrogant, pig headed, bully position.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
As mentioned in the past on slashdot and elsewhere, what if some a rogue country launches like 30 tons of hexagonal high strengh steel ball berings into space? Then it would be hostile for long term missions of one year+ and low earth orbit satellites would be in danger. That is, imagine if there are millions of the zingers .. the life span of a satellite in low orbit would be reduced. Also, since the GEO orbit zone is limited it could virtually eliminate GEO sats.
So basically a rogue nation doesnt need much tech, whereas the defense would require a lot.
< Members of Earth, Galactic Nation of Urqatz sends greeting!
Please be aware we reserve the right to deny access to space you!
Any launches of potentially offensive technologies will be dealt accordingly with!
Have an orbit nice!
>
Even in the space, A human beeing needs to piss around his territory.
Anyway...
The sun is mine! I saw it first!
You assume that the people we have running the US Government are a bunch of power-mad fools, who have no inkling of The Big Picture.
But even the little picture, which you barely glimpse, is important: they're trying to stop North Korea or Iran from sending a nuke into space, or even a big chunk of potentially molten iron to target your roof.
As for the big picture, they know as well as you or I that space travel will be more common in the future. They also know how to negotiate, and it isn't by giving things away before you start. There will be future treaties and international accords on space exploration, and on the militarization of space. Now is not the time.
sigs, as if you care.
International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.
International financial and legal treaties are at work every day, managing everything from currency exchange to sale of goods to extradition. They're agreements. Sometimes agreements end swiftly, sometimes they last for a very long time.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Will they be implimenting WPA?
(well short of thermo-nuclear war ofcourse)
The Bush Jr. administration has already expressed interest in a Mars mission, and nuclear pulse propulsion might greatly simplify that project. The first step in achieving that capability is breaking the various treaties which prohibit the detonation of nuclear weapons in space.
Perhaps Bush finds it easier to sell the treaty breakage as a security measure than to sell it as a first step towards Mars.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
You are fuckin retarded. The US is the only developed nation whose population is growing significantly and whose economy still outpaces all others. If you consider that falling, you need some help.
'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
We were the dominant power in the Pacific in 1941 too. Didn't stop our enemies then, why should it stop them now?
The US declares all space (vacuum or otherwise) perpendicular to their borders a part of their territory.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
The US has discovered that bravery is multiplied if you are out of range. Unmanned forces (air and ground) will prosecute their wars, and do a large share of the killing. If they lost their space based relays then they lose the ability to fight a remote war. And it's not nearly as much fun...
Defend that advantage at all costs. Don't ever give it up! Canada, and other NATO allies must do their share to help too, that means we (Canada) must reverse our stance on Missle Defense.
www.jmagar.com
-
Why don't we just destroy everything that has the possibility to be used against us. You know those pesky satellites are just waiting for us to turn our heads and then they'll crash down on us!! Quick send up millions of steele marbles into orbit to make sure that nothing up there will survive to do harm to anyone ever again! Insert maniacal laugh here.
Look, I'm just saying, we can't have runaway cosmic inflation tearing space to shreds. We need to secure space while we still... Wait... what?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why do I suddenly feel the urge to get the hell out of my own country? Could it be that our government has officialy fallen off of the I.Q. charts.
I hope America is ready for a true war on its' own soil, not just an outlying territory, cause if this kind of stupidity keeps up someones gonna finally get pissed enough to take us on.
Lemme help design the battlestars. Pleeeeeeaaaaase?
But we're still the dominant power there.
[johnwayne] And we aims to keep it that way, pilgrim! [/johnwayne]
> makes it clear that the Bush administration will not sign any treaty that limits America's ability to put weapons in orbit."
... the voting machines. Never mind.
This is a policy to ensure a space arms race. Depending on your line of work there's not really any money to be made with international cooperation.
That said, as a US citizen, we pay the military guys to think about this stuff (and they should) and we used to have the diplomatic core at least occasionally think about preventing this stuff. But don't worry, after the next election we'll get this current crowd nice cells with an occasional view of the moon. Oh wait
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
If this helps keep the Reavers at bay, I'm all for it.
...Welcome our new God-fearing, English-mangling, Imperialist, sanctimonious, fat, egocentric, autistic overlords!
...That way I could vote in the elections that generate the policy that influences all of our lives, instead of just watching it on TV. Because, let's face it, you genuine Americans have dropped the ball. I could vote in a better president with my brain tied up my ass.
Oh wait -- they're not new.
Let me rephrase: I, for one, welcome the continued hegemony of the richest bastards on Earth. I sure hope when the shit hits the fan their ATATs will deign to protect my meagre nation from Chinese Decepticons.
By the bye, for the purposes of data ming I would like to go on record as saying that I love the American people, America, American movies and bombs. Any suggestion to the contrary is probably just my jealousy showing through, since I, like everyone on Earth, wishes I was a real American.
Yes yes, don't even bother trying to detect the sardony -- just mod me flamebait or troll and let's be done with it.
These stories are free but worth money.
And you know what will happen when there's a scandal involving it? The media will call it Stargate.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
So if someone else puts up a spy satalite, space station or (heaven forbid) military space ship. The US will feel it has the right to destroy it. Do they not realize that if it is done often enough that will only increase the amount of debrise orbiting the earth. Do they not realise that they could very well lock us up on this planet because you will just not be able to leave the surface without space garbage shooting you down. This is a very dangerous attitude that hs the potential for trapping us in this planet for ever. Not to mention making satalite launches a crap shoot that would make the situation even worse. No weather salalites, not communications satalites, no spy satalites.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Paranoid these americans eh?
I think maybe the competitive types in the administration may not want to end up like Portugal did during the colonization of the new world. Much/most of the initial exploration and mapping of the Caribbean was done by the Portugese. Much more aggressive empires used that knowledge and work to expand their empires. Why couldn't portugal keep up? I can see the US doing all the initial space colonization/weaponization work on to have China duplicate the work and 1/1000th the cost. Being able to catch up with less resources gives you more to focus on jumping ahead. China = the New Spain. China will throw a 1000 people into space just to get 10 that actually survive much like spain throwing a hundred thousand conquistadors away to cleanse the way for its colonies. The US solution to this problem? Use their dominant position to keep competitors grounded.
The Japanese were already in play for power since the 1930s. They already had a well built navy, which actually was up and running since the turn of the 20th century. The Japanese navy didn't pop up over night. For you history buffs, you already know it was a large, modernized japanese navy which defeated the russians in the that little spat they had in the first decade.
I would have to provisionally disagree. Just because some launch profiles from certain countries in many circumstances are sufficiently ambiguous that there is no real value in taking action does not mean that all profiles from all countries are.
If the Iranians were to begin to launch satellites, or say they were, and there were sufficient evidence -- possibly some of it secret -- that their real intentions were to develop suborbital or quasi-orbital intercontinental ballistic missile technology, and the US decided it was possible to knock the test missiles down reasonably safely, then I'd have no problem with them doing so.
Where it gets tricky is if China wants to launch national technical means a.k.a. spy satellites that overfly US strategic assets, map out targets, et cetera, within the contintental US. Is this the kind of thing we'd want to knock down? It's hard to really say, for two reasons: (1) Experience in the Cold War showed that spy satellites were stabilizing technology, because they prevent hysteria and nasty surprises. When each side is well-informed about what the other has, and is up to, decisions tend to be calmer and better. (2) This business has been thrashed out before, in the 16th-17th centuries, with respect to navigation of the high seas. In addition to being a very expensive process, the end result was a general agreement that freedom to travel -- even for a warship -- peacefully anywhere in international waters is guaranteed, unless you are actually at war. Do we really need to repeat the bloody experiment in space to probably arrive at the same conclusion?
...in a few million years time the whole universe will be part of one big American empire. And all because of the incompetence of one slighly insane British king during the 18th century. He couldn't he have had any clue about the significance of what was to emerge from his mishandling of the colonies.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Tibet-like military expansion by China into smaller neighboring countries would be hindered, but not by the direct military involvement by the U.S. All the rules about getting into a "land war in Asia" with China still apply. But U.S. space assets, particularly spy satellites, could prove invaluable to countries on the rim of China. China couldn't act without having their every move exposed.
Those intelligence assets are what China wants to be able to take out at will and what we're committing to defend. The administration is behaving quite sensibly and intelligently, and in this sort of thing the more sane Democrats are likely to agree.
And we should ignore the 'icky poo' pacifist crowd, which never seems to get anything right. It's trying to turn this into a childish silliness about "war in space," as if there were something wrong with that. Given the current population of space, there'd be no better place to fight a war. Empty the International Space Station of its 3 or 4 people, and it'd be a war between machines, one in which no one would die.
But again, the issue isn't war in space. It's being able to spot China's aggression before it happens or to be able to help the countries that are attacked to fight more effectively. It's our eyes in the sky that has China unhappy. And what they don't like is precisely what we need to defend with every bit of skill we can muster..
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
Editor of Dachau Liberated
This document is totally meaningless without the approval of the Galactic Senate. Nothing to see here.
This space reserved for administrative use.
Didn't that already happen about 7 years ago?
I thought that would be absolutism. What's wrong is wrong.
Moral relativism, I've always thought, was the idea that an action could be right or could be wrong depending on a variety of factors. The action's moral value is dependent upon a variety of factors, not the action in a vacuum.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
... the day Mars declares its independence.
Martian terrorists will fly dozens of shuttles into
the station and some of their passports and identity
papers will later be found among the debris. They
will also have spent the night before their suicide
attack in a table dance bar. Of course conspiracy
nuts will point out that passports don't survive
explosions like that and martian kamikaze terrorists
don't go to topless bars. Some will blame the
government, in effect of course then the United
Nations, which will deal harshly with these information terrorists.
Oil.
If they found oil reserves up there, that would explain it all. Never mind if they can extract it or not yet; they still want to grab it, just so that no one else gets it.
I believe the GP was riffing on Bush's quote about the Constitution where he said the exact same thing.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It's things like this that makes me wanna punch every american I see in the face.
You don't own space. You got your piece of the pie. Stick to it, and get the hell out of the countries you invaded!
Fuckers.
-m10
I don't think it's fair to criticise the parent's understanding of orbital mechanics as there are in fact several valid ways of defending a patch of land from space that is not on the equator.
The most obvious, as you allude to, is a geosynchronous orbit, which can easily have line-of-sight to most of the United States (I'm not sure about Alaska). Whether we can, say, aim a laser accurately at that distance may be questionable, though.
Another possibility is to have a number of weaponised satellites which take turns passing over the U.S., much like GPS satellites do now.
A third option is to attach weapons to long space-elevator-like tethers which could perhaps be attached to the earth somewhere (not necessarily the equator, though that is the most obvious choice). This is not possible with current technology, however.
The disadvantage of the first two approaches is that our weaponized satellites would be above other countries as well as our own much or all of the time. This is likely to make any nation we don't get along well with very uncomfortable, and may inspire them to put their own weapons platforms in orbit with the stated purpose of defending themselves from the U.S., but also with the capability of attacking the U.S. directly.
They launch bombs from a space station containing a neurotoxin from a rare Amazonian orchid. They're designed to wipe out humans only so we can re-populate their territory later. Brilliant!
And the only question we'll have to answer is, 'blonde, or brunette?'
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I see you drink long and deep from the globalist school of economics. You have utterly failed to take into account purposeful inflation (simply beyond humongous in the last 8 years), balance of trade deficits, governmental debt, corporate debt, household debt, the looming pension crisis, the housing balloon now starting to deflate, all the banks huge derivatives exposure, and so on. The DOW is not the greates indicator out there, not even close really. Stock traders trade stocks-they don't relate to reality because the cash they use is theoretical-those huge numbers in no way, manner or form couild all be translated into cash today, if you froze the closing levels at any point in time. Well, not without running the printing presses and adding 4 zeros to every bill.
Now, here is the real economic reality. You are living in a credit conjob driven economy, run by grifters, for grifters. There is an *illusion* of an overall good economy, but any little weird geopolitcal event will severely distort it, like the upcoming war in iran and syria, or do you think the largest and most powerful assembled naval force since ww2 now either in the middle east or arriving shortly to just be a "coincidence"? If you have any dot mil officers in your assorted real world circle, ask them off the record what's going down after the election, then quickly read their face, not what they say, what their face tells you, hit 'em up on it directly.
Some of us actually follow all the news, not just wallstreet stock shillers and skimmers astroturfing. That crap is published to keep the rubes dumping cash towards the skimmers, and for no other reason.
Then why are most castles and fortifications placed on the highest ground available?
With regards to the Earth, the Moon is "higher ground".
The US is the only developed nation whose population is growing significantly and whose economy still outpaces all others
Since you obviously believe that to be true, you just proved my point for me.
It's pretty easy to make absolutism sound indefensible as well.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
This has bothered me for a long time, because I've never heard a good answer. I mean, obviously not getting bombed is in our interest. But what about when our "interests" means things like, people won't give us oil that we "need" to keep our economy growing (when we won't consider alternatives like, I dunno, limiting our use)?
Why should anyone die to protect "US interests", when we have no reason whatsoever to believe that corporate profits and cheap goods at Walmart lie outside that category?
Cooperation is the only way. Increasing aggression will make matters worse, not better. Self-serving, arrogant statements like the one just made will *not* make anything better.
It would be easy for any space-faring nation to knock out pretty much all satellites. Launch a "scientific mission" into lunar orbit. When the time comes, de-orbit, and insert it into a counter-orbit around the earth. Let loose your payload-- billions of BBs. Repeat for other regular orbital paths.
This would essentially knock out all satellite capabilities for all nations, and whatever saber-rattling Bush might do now doesn't mean a damned thing. All it does is make America look like a country of arrogant bastards.
And there's nothing in the rules about a land war in North America.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
As proven by Iraq, the US can, rightly or wrongly, put forward any claim about a country's intentions and capabilities, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, then proceed to cause massive amounts of damage, death and destruction to innocent life - and apparently get away with it. Until recently a majority of Americans still thought Saddam was behind 9/11. So it's understandable why people are wary and bothered by this sort of belligerent announcement claiming the right to pre-emptively attack others in space. And consider this, are there UN weapons inspectors in space? How then does one prove the hostile intent of some orbitting toaster? Merely the country of origin?
finding out who gave space to the USA? Just askin All the best Alie
http://chimpbox.us
Do you think that needlessly provocative policies like this one are going to bring about more peace, or are you only interested in Pax Americana?
If another nation claims the same right, would you be cool with that?
If not, I would like to know why.
It is more likely this policy is just a dicksize thing, but the potential is there for an entirely pointless arms race, unless of course you happen to be a shareholder of one of the defense contractors about to pig out at the government trough...
Is it possible that the policies your government implements (in your name BTW) could have something to do with inciting that hatred you speak of?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Provided that person (who's smell and demeanor you don't approve of) has the wherewithal to hold down a job, or run a machine shop, or is otherwise competent enough to attain a gun, then you have no right to prevent him from having one. You are correct to point out that simply handing a gun to a crazy person (or toddler, or anyone else who does not understand actions and consequences) would be irresponsible and dangerous. But that is a strawman argument as applied to this topic.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
We've already seen the precision of so-called "smart bombs" taking down hospitals and civil locations.
Who does assure that one of such weapons instead of hitting an WMD goes crazy and destroy a city somewhere else? Or just happily go down in the middle of North Korea as an happy present for their military research?
My point was I think your idea of a workable relativism is quite the opposite, and is an easily refutable straw man unrelated to a real morally relativistic worldview.
Relativism is a bit paradoxiacal - as it's not ABSOLUTELY relative, as all things, including relativism, are relative. ;)
IANA philosopher. Which is probably obvious.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
That's all well and good, but I think we need to start thinking about our mine shaft strategy. We don't want to wind up with a mine shaft gap.
Under this rule, the space race would never have happened. It was in the US national interest to get to the moon first. Should they have been allowed to destroy all the Soviet missions ? (oh yeah, they would have got a bloody nose for that) Is the ESA going to get their equipment shot down ? What about the new European GPS system ? After all, it's in the US national interest to be in total unopposed control of space.
And you wonder why the USA gets such bad press ...
Look, I realise that as a nation, you are pretty young and inexperienced, but surely you get enough respect from the outside world that you don't have to act like a fuckin 12 year old in a schoolyard. You're showing signs of a serious inferiority complex.
You've got one of the highest standards of living in the world, coupled with one of the lowest population densities in the world. And you're still not happy.
BTW, didn't you ever learn - what goes around, comes around.
As an aside, the town I grew up in was already 700 years old when the USA was founded. The place I live now was founded by the Romans. That gives one a sense of perspective.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Frank Herbert.
Several satellites (two would be good, three for optimal coverage if you need minimal angular divergence from the surface) in a Molniya orbit would provide coverage over a static point in space, not over the equator. For the vast majority of the orbit ( greater than 12 hours, 18 IIRC [it has been awhile since I've done orbital mechanics, I'm a missile guy]) the satellite is in clear view of the point. Russians have been using this technique for surveillance of American assets for decades. And yes, I am a Rocket Scientist.
As long as you continue to think in such terms, you will never understand Rumsfeld or the DoD.
They are acting on different horizons than you care to see from your current vantage point.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity...
Look at the horse's mouth: The Project for the New American Century explains it all -- and no, this is not a conspiracy theory, it's an US think tank which members got appointed to key positions in Bush's administration.
If you like it short and sweet: Barry explains it in two minutes.
What now? No liquids, knifes or nail clippers in space?
-- My Sig is a P228.
Two words "assassin's mace".
It is rumoured to be the name of mainland China's program to knock out the US GPS, reconnaissance, and communication satellites at the onset of any hostilities. They know that they would take heavey losses if they fought any engagement with those assets still active. The idea is to reduce our effectiveness to their level by taking away most of our high tech toys that we have come to depend on.
...my bullshitting friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_navy
1. There was no single "dominant" navy as you want to imply. There were three navies which had the largest influence however: American, British, and guess what Japanese!
2. Here's a line that sums it up very nicely from the wiki article I cite above: It was the third largest navy in the world by 1920 behind United States Navy and Royal Navy,[1] and perhaps the most modern at the brink of World War II.
3. I know you want to say the US was dominant, but the Japanese were the ones who attacked the US as it was in the Japanese's way of being the dominant power in the Pacific.
Before you give me some malformed advice, take my advice to not be so fast to say the US as the dominant power.
So bullshit is all over your face!
Here is a novel idea: How about winnings the ones on earth first? Then, perhaps, it will be a good idea to piss the world of... again...
They will out bid you all!
If history is any indicator, most probably. Humanity isn't exactly known for its ability to learn from previous mistakes.
I like your point though, I just don't have a lot of faith in my fellow man.
Since 1990, the number of people employed in the aerospace community has dropped by 43%! According to various reports I have read, one of the primary causes of this is because the workforce is getting old and retiring, without new, young people to replace them. If the US doesn't step up and put some effort into developing new engineers to enter the aerospace workforce, we will fall behind other nations that are.
That can pretty much be said in most if not all professional fields whether it be eningeering, medicine,or science. Many countries are gaining in these areas yet the US is going to see many baby boomers retiring. With more retiring and fewer young adults going in this fields because of cuts in financial aid and increasing tuition costs, the US is in for a rude awakening.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Who cares why castles and fortifications are placed on high ground? The two situations (castles and space installations) are not in any way analogous.
No, with regards to operations in Earth's orbit, the Moon is a distant and difficult to reach mountaintop miles distant from the battlefield and seperated from it by a burning desert and a wide and storm tossed ocean. Sure, its 'higher' - but that's not the only measure of military effectiveness and usefulness, not by a long shot.
who can be stupid enough to beleive this mans doomsday forecasts anymore?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
You'll recall Iraq under the government of Saddam Hussein launched two unprovoked aggressive wars of conquest, one against Iran in the 1980s and another against Kuwait in the 1990s.
And who supported Saddam and Iraq in the 1980s when he attacked Iran and was massacring Kurds, March Arabs, and others in Iraq? Reagan and Bush Sr! Throughout the '80s Saddam could do no wrong, it was only after invading Kuwait, a sheikdom not a democracy, that he could do bad.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I fail to see anything in the new space policy to justify the torrent of vitriol spewing forth from my fellow Slashdotters. My reading of this policy can be distilled down to two main points:
1. The United States reserves the right to do basically anything it likes in space.
2. The United States reserves the right to vaporize any space assets that are hostile to it.
Nowhere in it do I see anything about the U.S. proclaiming that has either a monopoly on the use of space or that it has a problem with other countries merely going about their business in space. I don't know about anyone else, but if North Korea ever placed a nuclear launch platform in synchronous orbit over New York, I'd sure as heckfire want our boys to take it out, pronto.
You can look at how the US treated (or would treat) conquered Korea by examining South Korea today.
You can also look at how the US treated those who were native to the Americas. The US massacred many Native American Indians, stole land from many more, and stuck what was left onto small reservations that had poor growing conditions. Take a trip through Wounded Knee or along the Trail of Tears.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I hope this is just posturing to negotiate some compromises with emerging space capable nations. The US can set its policy to be that it will shoot everything down that could possibly interfere with the US's security. Then work individually with nations to negotiate some agreement.
I would very much like the US and China to get together and say they won't shoot each other's spy satellites down. Because honestly the US and China uses those satellites to observe more than each other, they watch the entire world with them. (China has spy satellites, right? I assume they do)
Who knows, maybe India will want a few spy satellites. I'm sure some countries of the EU has snuck a few up into space by now.
What the US doesn't want are things like jamming equipment (to jam "undesirable" broadcast, or jam GPS). Many countries try to make the argument that GPS somehow jeopardized their national security. And there have been attempts to create localized GPS jamming. I think Europe probably agrees that equipment designed to interfer with other satellites is not something that can be tolerated.
Space based weapons are a big waste of money, and the US should not pursue them on that basis alone. But it is an arms race, and unavoidable, if someone else puts up some satellite-zapper or communications blackout device, there needs to be in place some what to forcefully disable it.
The US likely has had unofficial space based weapons already, but satellites don't stay operational forever. I would be willing to bet that any weapons the US had up there, have long since burned up. (if they became obsolete or disabled, it would make the most sense to drive them into atmosphere to destroy the evidence)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I see space colonies becoming independent as the US became independent from England. Main reason is distance. It is impossible to control something that is far away because the locals have the time advantage.
It is even more true with space colonies. For example it would take at least 15 minutes to relay an instruction to Mars from an earth-bound home base.
You could argue that the colonies were established by the government of different countries so they are morally obligated to let themselves be controlled by those countries but you must realize that that is unreasonable as history has proved.
I'm breaking a personal rule here, I've already posted above, but I felt this deserved a response. Why is it that you automatically equate Nuclear Power with Nuclear Weapons?
Didn't Japan enter WWII because they were desperate for oil? Haven't they learned from this blunder?
I guess this is a good policy that may stand until the
intergalactic bypass construction begins
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Since the "wiped off the map" phrase is used so often I think it should be noted that the phrase appears to be mistranslated, yet is being repeated over and over. Rhethoric like this is not that unusual in such a volatile region. Just have a look at Israel's chief of staff Dan Halutz, who said "if the [two] soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" or Richard Armitage stating the US would bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if it didn't comply.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
sex in the middle of mayhem, eh ?
Read radical news here
Similarly, I see nothing strange about saying that nations should be expected to help international law enforcement if they reasonably can. Refusing to assist in the apprehension of mass murderers seems like a pretty hostile action to me. I don't see much wrong with saying so.
If a contry should be expected to help another country's law enforcement then why isn't the US helping out nd handing over Orlando Bosch who blewup an airplane killing many people in Venzuela? Law enforcement there have repeatly requested he be turned over to be help accountable.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you havn't already seen it, PLEASE check out "The Power of Nightmares":
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmar
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+o
from the wikipedia page:
fear is the mind killer
This is the reason have failed to make (at least that we are aware of.), contact with other races in space. We are acting like spoiled children yelling this is mine, that is mine.. it's not ours.. we'll be long dead and forgotten as a species and the universe and space will still exist.. we cannot own something we cannot outlive.
. .)
Its one of our downfalls as humans to want to control and own things.. don't get me wrong I have my fair share of junk I have paid for and don't feel like sharing but the planets and space around them is not ours to own, destroy or lay claim to.. I can see defending it.. from an outside race of other beings but that does not mean that the control should be by the U.S.A.. the biggest bully on the planet. I think a branch of the UN or something like that should control the off world issues..
We need an organization that's not afraid to tell any country who gets too zealous, to pipe down and chill out.. (Take a hint US..) (No I'm not anti-american.. I'm anti-overproud-soeveryoneelsesucks-zealous-idiots
It's not mine.. it's not yours.. it won't belong to what/who ever evolves on this rock after we fade away.. so we should learn to share.. the universe and space etc.. is like love.. the more you try to capture, conquer, and claim it, the more you destroy the beauty of it..
Ok so you may think I'm a wacko.. so be it.. you'll not see me gearing up to wag war over something that's not mine, now who looks wacko..
RevMark.
No, I am not suggesting that the US is morally equivalent to Iran or North Korea, but you are the one who argued in favour of absolute morality...
Being periodically less than perfect in your pursuit of an objectively good body of ideals is not the same as being shrill, tantrum-having dictator in pursuit of an objectively evil agenda.
Being less than perfect? Ha! The US has been considerably worse than just less than perfect throughout most of it's history. It has repeatly killed if not massacred the native inhabitants, Native American Indians. It has also supported repressive regimes that have massacred many. Nixon and Kissinger supported Indonesian president Soharto's invasion of East Timor. With a population of 600,000 one third of them, 200,000 were massacred between the invasion in 1975/76 and the East Timorese vote for independence in 1999. Again Nixon and Kissinger supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of a democratically elected government after which thousands were simply murdered with tens of thousands more being rounded up and stuck in prisons where they were tortured. Then in the 1980s both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam, even while he was massacring March Arabs, Kurds, and others in Iraq.
Fact is is the US has a very bloody past.
FalconShould there be a Law?
.. To protect us against them space terrorists.
God Be Gone
I wonder if this means they think they can shoot down space flights with democrats aboard - since I actually know a few republicans who think that sincerely and deeply believe that democrats (through their weak polices on homeland security) are a bigger threat to national security than north korea.
Sounds like those people are the real danger to freedom and democracy seeing as how they think those who disagree should be lined up and shot. That's neither free nor democratic, more like it's fascist.
FalconShould there be a Law?
International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.
That should read any treaty the US signs is only good enough to use for tp.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The USA would be absolutely foolish not to do something with regard to space to protect it's own national interests. Naturally, those on the left by and large never will understand this.
What about the national interest in the natonal debt. Guess who's buying many of those IOUs Bush is issuing... China. What do you think will happen if and when China decides it's not going to buy anymore US Treasury bonds or notes? The economy of the US would go down the toilet or be seriously impaired I bet.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, who wants to sit on the moon with me and lob rocks at Bush? :)
"Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there."
Sounds just like in 1942, before December 7th. The US was the dominant power in the Pacific. Sounds like Eisendrath wants us to be able to repeat that. Ive seen the call to just leave ourselves vulnerable for a long time. Chamberlain tried that in the 1930's to deal with Hitler. Didn't work then. I don't know of any time in history that it has worked.
Historicly, the only way to ever have peace is to be armed to the teeth, and make sure that every one knows you will hit them harder than they have ever been hit if they start anything. that's the way the old Pax Romana worked, that's how it still works today. Hitler left Sweden and Switzerland alone while occupying every other country in continental Europe because in those two countries everyone was armed. Planned weakness as a policy will never give anything but defeat. Why does Mr. Eisendrath want to be defeated?
'Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security, and in the end will lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Where are you from? Where I live, there are only 3 dimensions that people use.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
In that if you call them violent they kill you. Or anyone else they can get their hands on.
... Space. Only an idiot would give up a critical advantage to bet on the non-existent goodwill of over 30 nations]
The reality is the nightmare is real. There are nine nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea). Now that NK and Iran have joined the nuclear club, there will be about 30-40 nuclear powers and the reality is major US and Western cities will get nuked. Period. Pope calls Islam violent and Muslims murder an elderly nun, behead a priest, and crucify a little boy. Nightmare is real.
Brazil is thought to have a nuke program, Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey and Oman are all starting one in reaction to Iran. Japan, Singapore, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and of course Taiwan will also likely start nukes up if they havent already in reaction to either NK or their neighbors. South Africa was supposed to get rid of their nukes post-Apartheid but no one really believes them.
[Creating nukes is not that hard to do. Oppenheimer did not even test "Little Boy" because the gun-type uranium bomb is dead simple (though fragile and inefficient). Implosion bombs require precision manufacturing, plutonium undergoes about 17 state changes after smelting, and precision timing of the implosive charges. However the West does not have a monopoly of talented technical people and the tech is over 60 years old. Ballistic missiles are even older, the V2 was a ballistic missile that entered
What Space does is allow whatever nation that commands it first (China, India, Iran, whoever) to have absolute dominance over the world. China controlling space does not mean peace and holding hands singing kumbayah. It means surrender to Muslim fanatics in exchange for China getting cheap oil. Because China could nuke us and suffer zero retaliation.
Control of Space = nearly foolproof Ballistic Missile Defense.
SOME nation will control Space. That's a given. It's either the US, or China, India, possibly Japan. Choose which nation you want to control it, or be damned. Either way don't be a fool. There is no agreement, no negotiation, no "deal" to be made to stop the militarization of space. Unless you believe in Unicorns and Santa Claus.
Sorry guy, you're 45 years too late. The UN never did anything about it. space has had weapons up there at least that long. (For the record, the UN has never really done ANYTHING about agression of one nation against another. The US pushed it into Korea, kinda sorta. that is the most they have done, other than a few troops that watch people massacred all the time and don't get involved. See any number of missions to Africa, or the observers in Lebanon who help the Hezbollah people set up thier rockets, then complain if Israel shoots back and hits them. Why should the UN change now?)
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
It seems there is only one nation today that wants to control the world and in recent history that hasn't been a healthy mission. But you might be safe, most of the others were smarter :).
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
Many people were confused or surprised by the Bush Administration's seemingly forward-thinking announcements of plans to revisit the Moon and ultimately Mars... such thinking seemed incongruous for a President better known for his lack of curiosity. This latest security policy simply reveals the true intent of the earlier plans:
It wasn't for the sake of actually doing those things, it was for creating a credible excuse and justification to revive plans for militarizing space.
Militarizing space is a goal much more in keeping with the attitudes and outlook of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the Administration as a whole. This new policy is the Administration finally coming clean, in a manner of speaking.
Who the hell do they think they are by saying that they will stop people from attempting to go to space.. Space isn't US property, everybody has the right to enter space. The US is really out of it's mind by doing stuff like this, no wonder there are more and more people thinking about the US as the biggest thread to the world, and they also are the biggest terrorists in the world. I hope the UN will do something about this. And then people find it offensive that countries like North korea are building Nukes. They have to, because they have to defend themselves to bullies like the US. I hope that the normal thinking american also finds such things unacceptable, because the US is a beautifull country which is lead by utter and complete morrons.. This has got nothing to do with trying to defend yourself, this got everything to do with trying to control the world..
In USA, product develops the engineer!
You really are a muppet, the British Empire until relatively recently controlled a third of the globe, America doesn't even come close to this level of might and if you are an indication of the quality of its populace it never will.
Sorry, it just had to be said.
Sure, Another Pearl Harbour...
The Prez at the time will send away most of the space fleet,
Some space admirals will resign..
The Prez will ignore new "space age" radars and reports that a fleet of ships were downed just around the moon previously while obviously doing recon...
and, oh yeah and that strange communique from the other fleet's admirals saying they are on their way...
Seriously though, thinking about space war at this point is ridiculus...You have to get the hardware and troops up there in mass quantities first, then it's who shoots first...the one with the most "smart rock" cannons wins !
This is just more saber rustling IMHO
End of Line.
Does the U.S. government use fear as it's tactic to get everything done? Where's the "We're going to go further into space to explore it for the advancement of science and knowledge about our universe."? Everything has to be about war. Ridiculously immature. I thought the nations of the world were going to work together and put all the childish power-grabbing in the past, but apparently not..
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Slashdot, the 'web' mouthpiece of the DNC, er, 'independent media'.
... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of the high seas in ways hostile to U.S. national interests.'
WHY IS THIS NEWS?
Let me rephrase the announcement, see if you get the point:
'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in on the high seas
This formulation has been effective US policy for what, 227 years?
And been the policy of any other national governmment with a navy FOREVER?
While I understand that it's deeply satisfying to the Hate Bush crowd to protray the administration as bloody-fanged warmongers desperate to stomp the jackboot of American imperialism across the benign and peaceful peoples of the Earth, this is PRECISELY the same stance the US and every other state in history has had toward the open ocean. Is it so surprising we'd have the same policy toward space, when it became better-traveled?
The fact is that previously, we and the Soviets were the only states with any sort of expectation of BEING in space on any regular basis and thus had an understanding - it simply wasn't announced publically as policy.
Now that the franchise of space operations seems to be spreading (namely to the Chinese) this administration has seen fit to make this stance abundantly clear to all.
You can freely dispute that the US should have instead come to another sort of 'private understanding' with China instead of making it public. I'd argue that was more a tactic applicable to the static bipolar Cold War era, but it's arguable.
But to wring your hands, rend your garments, and weep piteously that this is some sort of uniquely fascist behavior by the Bush administration? That's just idiotic.
-Styopa
I thought when the US landed on the moon and put up their flag that they claimed it in the name of the U.S. of A? Oh wait, the mooning landing was all staged, wasn't it?