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.'"

Comments

Old News

[AKAImBatman]

Just in case you want to catch up on the last time we discussed this:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/0 9/1333248

Re:Old News

[IAmTheDave]

Old News

This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.

This isn't old news, this is NOW news. Just like Iraq, Afganistan - I know that a large portion of the US popuation doesn't consider those things on a daily basis, but news isn't a moment-in-time sort of thing. This declaration is still relevant, scary, extremely obtuse, and worthy of continued discussion.

Re:Old News

[SillyNickName4me]

We should be proactive and dominate in space as to secure it for how we want to use it.

As long as that does not mean telling everyone else what they can and can't do..

You make it sound like it is something it is not. We are going to have a dominate presence, like our Navy has in space. Other Navys can exist, but like the sea or air, controlling it or more importantly the ability to control it, is vital. When shit hits the fan, I want to be the top dog controlling what we and what others are able to do either for or against us.

Just keep in mind that being the top dog also makes that you will ALWAYS be under attack.

The world is not a socialist utopia

That has nothing to do with this at all.

Trying to 'play nice' with everyone else who also tries to play nice is what is important. (please read that line VERY carefully and don't jump to conclusions about anyone not playing nice because that was not what I was talking about there)

and plans should be made for all situations, including space. We live in a world that fucked seven ways from Sunday and you must be ignorant to that fact?

I think you are being a bit ignorant yourself, and are feeling attacked beforehand. You are definitely right that plans need to be made for all situations, but it would be an extremely wise idea to get a lot more focus and publicity on things that are actually positive, instead of all this doom and gloom kind of thinking that the current US administration advocates.

I say we dominate space so we can secure that our lack of dominance wont be used against us.

I say you fell (again?) in the 'doom is everywhere, you MUST give us the power to do everything we need to fight this!!!!!!!!!!!' idiocy of the current USA administration.

Re:Old News

[moore.dustin]

No, more like the ability to destroy/render useless those satellites, should a conflict arise. In times of peace(We need more) then lets things happen, but have the ability and presence that when war breaks, we can be assured our use of space and its technology it offers. Likewise, we want to make sure those opposing us cannot have those same things if we can.

If were to lose our presence in space to a country at war with us, lets say China, then there would not be much of a war would there? That is all I am saying - if we are able to be knocked out of space, then we are very venerable. Sure being the top dog brings us unwanted hatred from others, but such is life. I would rather be the hated than the hater.

Re:Old News

[moore.dustin]

That is a decision to be made by our government and the answer would probably be "No"

Other countries have the ability to do that already and what do we do? Nothing really... but in times of war where said country is involved... yea shoot it down or whatever. It is better to have the ability to choose how to handle situations like that then not be able to.

Also, if they are spying on the US and intend to use that information to hurt our country somehow... then you say let it be if we know about it? Maybe the UN can send a strongly worded letter to them and if they dont stop then we can shoot it down?

Re:Old News

[aardvarkjoe]

That is all I am saying - if we are able to be knocked out of space, then we are very venerable.

Like I've always said, old people don't belong in space.

Re:Old News

[SillyNickName4me]

Space weaponry is an attack first weapon. Not a "defensive" weapon.

They can be both, depending on the actual weapons. The issue is that striving for them is seen as 'pro-active' by its proponents, and agressive by almost everyone else.

Everyone understands this except the American public. Not unlike many other topics.

Lets get something straight here.

The USA is at the moment the most powerfull nation on the planet. Every nation in that position has ended their own rule once they fell into arrogance, thinking they can do what they want. This is in no way specifically American, just like seeing that as aggresion is not bound to any specific nation, rather, those are merely dictated by the situation and the very few who have some control over it. Names change, 'tools' change, but the game stays basicly the same.

Yes, generally spoken the 'public' is arrogant, and due to that can be manipulated. Its not that many people are not capable of thinking about what their 'leaders' do, its more a matter of not wanting to. This again is nothing specifically American.

I happen to come from the Netherlands, and many of you here probably heard about the killing of a politician here, Pim Fortuyn. Now, I am not going to debate his views on things, I merely want to point at that many people in my country were following him more for his personality and presentation then for many of his ideas.

I could point at many people following facist movements in the 30s, to the idea of 'give the people bread and games' from Roman times, its all the same thing. People don't care about many things untill they start affecting their life directly.

That is, untill someone presents it in a way that raises emotions among people.

That all doesn't change that it is good to point out the wrongs of things that happen in part due to policies of the USA, but don't blame Joe Sixpack for behaving basicly in the same way as most humans throughout history have done.

Re:Old News

[cold fjord]

This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.

I think you are misrepresenting the policy. I cheated and looked at page 2 of the article:

"Nearly six years into his presidency, the Bush space policy has been long overdue," he says in an e-mail to ABC News. "Despite fears that it would mark a bold new initiative to weaponize space, it largely codifies previously announced changes from Clinton space policies of a decade ago."

I very much doubt that the policy will be to immediately shoot down anything that isn't US gear. I expect that it will be that they want to have the ability to shoot down hostile equipment, not unlike they have the ability to shoot down hostile planes today even though they don't make a habit of shooting down non-US planes when they see them in the air. If a war starts though, I wouldn't want to be aboard either a plane or satellite of the hostile power.

Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[RingDev]

'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

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[bladesjester]

No more strange than laying claim to a harbor or x miles of ocean from your shores, really.

Not that I'm defending the move, but I can see where, in some ways, it makes sense to defend certain portions of space (say the parts above your country) where satelite based weapons could make easy targets of important sites.

Heck, they've been talking about it since the Regan administration at least, so this is nothing really all that new.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[SteveAyre]

A: "I own this"
B: "Own what? There's nothing there!"

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[CRMeatball]

I would disagree that we were "the" dominant power before WWII. The US certainly was after. It is true however that we are the current power when speaking of aerospace research, but we are losing that dominance. I certainly applaud the efforts of ESA and so forth, but as an American, I think it dangerous to our national security to lose our power in this arena. In a recent address, Mike Griffin stated 25% of NASA's work force will retire in the next 5 years. 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.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[voice_of_all_reason]

I thought we could cover the earth's area with only 3 precisely-based sattelites? Wouldn't it be amazingly easy just to launch something above your country and angle the "laser" next door? Keeping the sky above your own land clear would be a futile gesture.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[Ender_Stonebender]

If you believe what you just said, you're not only not a rocket scientist, but you have no idea how orbital mechanics works.

While it's not impossible to put something in space in such a way that it always stays over a single point on the planet, there are very limited number orbits in which this can be achieved, and they are all directly above the equator.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[radtea]

Not that I'm defending the move, but I can see where, in some ways, it makes sense to defend certain portions of space (say the parts above your country) where satelite based weapons could make easy targets of important sites.

One of the many problems with this policy is that those "certain portions of space" are six dimensional and time-varying. What the U.S. is trying to "defend" amounts to certain orbits. This is not like defending your coastal waters, which have zero momentum relative to your nation's landmass. For one, it is possible to change from an orbit that does not overfly a given country to one that does with relatively trivial delta-v.

Because of this, there is little or no practical value in preventing others from accessing just some orbits. Now, the U.S. government, particularly the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld, has a long history of doing stuff that has no practical value (often at the cost of American lives.) So it is possible that this policy will be acted upon in an ineffectual but relatively harmless way. But given the grip of fear that still has a big hold in the U.S. it is a matter of some concern that those who would put security before all else might decide to deny everyone access to all orbits.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[ktakki]

We were the dominant power in Pearl Harbor too.

Actually, no. Prior to 1940, when the US began mobilizing its armed forces, we were pretty weak. Part of the reason was the Depression, which hit our industrial base hard, and partly because of isolationist sentiment.

There were three aircraft carriers in our entire Pacific fleet; the Japanese had 6 carriers in the Pearl Harbor strike force alone, with more protecting the Home Islands and raiding the Philippines and European colonies. Our standing Army was number 17 in numerical terms, behind Czechoslovakia, and a number of new recruits were being rejected because they had suffered from malnutrition growing up during the Depression. Modern aircraft were just beginning production but a large portion were being supplied to Great Britain and the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Agreement.

We were losing the Pacific War for the first six months, until the Battle of Midway. Even then, until Guadalcanal was secured (well into 1943), keeping lines-of-communication open to Australia wasn't a sure thing, much less victory in the PTO.

Atom bombs aside, the US defeated Japan and the Axis by out-producing them. During the period from 1941-45, the Japanese produced 13 aircraft carriers of all sizes. The US produced 137.

k.

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[evilviper]

I thought we could cover the earth's area with only 3 precisely-based sattelites?

You could manage with 2, actually.

Wouldn't it be amazingly easy just to launch something above your country and angle the "laser" next door?

No, it would be significantly more difficult. At a 45% angle, you're firing through something like 50% more atmosphere, and at a 50% longer distance to the target.

It is concievable that lasers on satellites will become powerful enough to do that in the future, but it's anything but "amazingly easy".

(Not that the GP's post makes a lot of sense, either)

Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but...

[glitchvern]

According to Wikipedia, not an entirely trustworthy source I know, the US built 22 aircraft carriers during WWII and converted 141 merchant vessels to carry airplanes. How many carriers the US built depends vary much on how you count. 137 sounds a reasonable number of aircraft carriers in WWII. These aircraft carriers were nothing like todays aircraft carriers obviously. The first suppercarrier, which is what we think of as aircraft carriers, was the Forrestal orderded on July 12, 1951 and launched on December 11, 1954 way after the war.

A Prediction

[3278]

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.

Re:A Prediction

[Threni]

I read it. Different rules for the US. The US and its allies can have nuclear power, but not other countries it chooses to put on a list. You can enforce that sort of mindset through force, but it doesn't make it morally right, and there are consequences to all acts of unfairness.

Re:A Prediction

[voice_of_all_reason]

The policy says that space access can be denied to groups "hostile to US interests."

The guy who wrote this policy believes in the idea that any group or country not with us is against us.

Therefore, it states that we can prevent neutral nations from spaceflight.

Re:A Prediction

[phalse phace]

My sincere hope - my challenge - is that those 90 percent will, in hopes of foiling my prediction, actually /read/ the text of the statement,.... Read the text, consider it, /then/ reply.

Heh heh, you're funny.... Read the text....

You do realize you're on Slashdot, right?

Re:A Prediction

[dorfmann]

Do you post the same comment in every politics.slashdot.org article? You didn't actually make any comment at all - you added about as much as the ACs who feel compelled to say 'obligatory - in soviet russia ...'

If you want the moral high ground, why don't you read the full text of the new space policy (go here).

You do realize that Bush (walking through a door left open by Clinton) is declaring that the US will do whatever it feels is necessary to defend its interests in space - including developing and deploying space weapons.

A direct quote from the policy paper reads:
"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 US national interests," (quoted in the BBC article)

I'm all for frickin' laser beams and photon torpedos on Star Trek, but in real life this sort of behavior is stupid. Space travel is difficult enough as it is; there is no need to complicate things by introducing the added costs and dangers of space missiles, anti-missile missiles, etc.

Re:A Prediction

[AKAImBatman]

Forget it. The last time we discussed this, the thread was overrun by DocRuby and his galant band of Bush haters. This thread has already devolved into the same sort of nonsense. Which is really too bad, because the document actually says is that Nuclear Power in Space is a Good Thing(TM) for space exploration. But too many people are busy making nonsensical claims about "reading between the lines" or it being evidence of the real agenda, which isn't actually contained in the document. (WTF?)

*sigh*

Looks like they already modded you down. And so it begins.

Re:A Prediction

[ScentCone]

The US and its allies can have nuclear power, but not other countries it chooses to put on a list. You can enforce that sort of mindset through force, but it doesn't make it morally right,

Sure it does. Why, other than while suffering from an acute case of moral relativity, should we consider it good to allow a country like Iran, that speaks in terms of wiping out other countries, to develop nukes? Why is it morally reasonable to support a country like North Korea, which runs a hideously repressive, retro-grade regime funded by illicit traffic in counterfeit foreign currency, drug trafficking, and weapons sales to places like Iran, in their pursuit of deployable nukes? If you can't see the very real, objective, philosophical shortcomings of regimes like those, then you are in no position to opine on morality in the first place.

Re:A Prediction

[Kjella]

I don't know how you can word it softly enough for a policy, but it's sort of like putting nukes on Cuba. Why it's a free^H^H^H^Hindependent country, it can do whatever it wants right? And if North Korea decides today is a good day to launch its orbital missile platform in low earth orbit, that's fine too right? Space is free more as a matter of practicality, you're bound to cross other nations orbiting the earth. That doesn't mean the military is going to let other nations put whatever it wants up there. Then again, neither should other nations let the US...

Re:A Prediction

[Kohath]

You can enforce that sort of mindset through force, but it doesn't make it morally right...

Is being "morally right" a good defense against nuclear attack?

Re:A Prediction

[Quadraginta]

Depends on what you mean by "wiping out."

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. How these countries might have fared had Iraq won either might be demonstrated by how the Iraq government treated its own citizens (e.g. the Kurds and marsh Shia) who were out of favor with the government: mass graves and poison gassing of entire villages seems likely.

You may also recall that North Korea launched an aggressive war of conquest against South Korea in the 1950s. The way they would have treated an occupied South Korea is probably well demonstrated by conditions inside North Korea now. (Where, for example, the average citizen now reaches adulthood significantly stunted in his growth from lifelong malnutrition.)

I assume against that record you want to set that of the United States in Korea and Iraq. You can look at how the US treated (or would treat) conquered Korea by examining South Korea today. Prosperous, democratic, peaceful. Likewise, you can gain a glimpse into conquered Iraq now. While the US may or may not be doing its duty to prevent the Iraq from tearing itself apart from its age-old Sunni-Shia fratricidal hostility, and while the US may or may not be successfully restoring the Iraqi economy and democratic institutions fast enough, or even at all, no one can imagine the US is in the process of deliberately "wiping out" Iraq in any ordinary sense of those words.

"Moral relativism" often consists of making judgements of actions based on those actions alone, and neglecting to consider the reason for the actions, the consequences and side-effects of the actions, and so forth. If you think borrowing your friend's CD without asking is the same as stealing it, then you're guilty of a form of moral relativism. Likewise if you say all deliberate death -- executions, killings of soldiers in battle, self-defense against home intruders, and premeditated murder of innocents -- are morally the same, you are also guilty of a form of moral relativism. And if you say all warfare is equally evil, you are guilty of moral relativism. That I think was the point.

Re:A Prediction

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Well, I did read it, and it is evil Evil EVIL.

Basically, it says the USA can act in anyway it chooses in space, and others can't. It basically says no one can fuck with our space toys, but we can fuck with anyone else's space toys. It basically says that "Rules Don't Apply to Us".

It is, very simply, typical fascist horseshit that the Bush Junta has been coughing up for years, only this time it affects satellites. nice.

I'm not going to cough up line item to line item - /. It's not THAT much to read, and it's all there in black and white. DIY.

Now, I'll propose that 90% of the responses to THIS will be from pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy, and yes, Bush DOES deserve demonisation for this, as it is part and parcel of his evil Evil EVIL neocon agenda. And for that, the pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy will likely mod me "Flamebait" or "Overrated" and anyone with half an ounce of sense will mod me "Interesting" or "Insightful".

Imagine if the Bush Junta said "the laws of the sea no longer apply to us." Imagine what kind of a row that would make. It's just the same thing, only in orbit in the vacuum of space.

RS

Re:A Prediction

[chill]

...which isn't actually contained in the document.

How the hell do you know that? From the linked article "The document, much of which is classified..." Good chunks of the document are classified. People HAVE to read between the lines.

Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-Bush, knee-jerkers, but you are also making unsubstantiated claims.

Re:A Prediction

[Quadraginta]

Er...how does a neutral nation fit into the category of "groups hostile to US interests"?

It sounds like the document merely says that space is as much of a potential battleground as the high seas, or any continent. That is, if the United States was at war (cold or hot) with country X, then there's no obvious reason not to express that hostility in space, if it is in US national interest.

Whether the US should go to war against country X or Y or anybody at all is an entirely different question. But arbitrarily ruling out one particular type of battleground seems a little suicidally bizarre. I can't imagine any other country doing so. Why would the US?

Re:A Prediction

[Kohath]

As it was said, the best way to win the game "thermonuclear war", is to not play it

And denying the your enemies nuclear weapons accomplishes that. FTW.

Re:A Prediction

[mpcooke3]

Is being "morally right" a good defense against nuclear attack?

Is the behaviour of the US likely to increase or decrease the number of nukes held by the "axis of evil"?

Would you be more likely or less likely to launch nukes at america if you were deemed to be an "axis of evil"?

Re:A Prediction

[crabpeople]

Are you likening the rest of the world to a urine soaked derelict?
If you are, you can take your cultural/moral superiority and shove it right up some detainee's ass.

I think americans should take a long hard look in a miror before they start calling other countries crazy.

Re:A Prediction

[crabpeople]

Thats a nice red herring there. I think people are more likely objecting and responding to what is in the summary (and i assume article, I didnt read it, this is /. after all) specifically; "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."

Now the phrase 'hostile to US national interests' is an agenda and a policy that I would say anyone who is NOT american, would find insulting and agressive. Furthermore, it is also unnessecary language to be using if their meaning was indeed something else, as you claim. Please forgive me if these quotes were made up by the submitter and are not reflected in the actual article.

Also feinging the opressed minority is getting pretty tiring. Please advise your "gallant band of bush lovers" to stop it immediately when you attend next weeks meeting.

Re:A Prediction

[0xdeadbeef]

90 percent of the replies to this posting will be ignorant anti-Bush rhetoric regarding his plans to weaponize space

90% of the people who have uttered the phrase "anti-Bush rhetoric" are fat balding guys who think feminism is the reason they can't get laid.

Are you a fat balding undersexed Republican? How can you not be? Then why should I listen to anything you say?

I'll get -1 Troll for this, but I haven't "framed" this "debate" any less than you have. Then content of your post is nothing more than "All criticism of Bush is uninformed, emotional, and therefore, wrong."

Please don't add to the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet.

Got it. Up with noise! Down with signal!

You don't even need to read the headline or understand anything about this to criticize. Every right asserted by Bush to militarize space becomes available to Russia and China. This is either impotent posturing (remember when he said we were going to Mars?) or preparation for a conflict.

And on that note, ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.

Re:A Prediction

[why-is-it]

Sure it does. Why, other than while suffering from an acute case of moral relativity, should we consider it good to allow a country like Iran, that speaks in terms of wiping out other countries, to develop nukes? Why is it morally reasonable to support a country like North Korea, which runs a hideously repressive, retro-grade regime funded by illicit traffic in counterfeit foreign currency, drug trafficking, and weapons sales to places like Iran, in their pursuit of deployable nukes?

Let he who has no sin cast the first stone...

In order to claim the moral high ground, you actually have to occupy the moral high ground. Otherwise you open yourself open to charges of hypocracy for holding others to a standard of behaviour that you yourself do not try to meet.

If you can't see the very real, objective, philosophical shortcomings of regimes like those, then you are in no position to opine on morality in the first place.

You see, this is where the charges of hypocracy come into play. It's not like your own government is a paragon of virtue. What right do you have to criticize Iran when your own government invaded a sovereign nation simply because it wanted to. How can you criticize North Korea when your leader has just authorized torture, kangaroo courts, and indefinite imprisonment of prisoners without being charged with any crime?

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...

Re:A Prediction

[dangitman]

This is hardly what you make it out to be, a strange general idea that nations can only be allies or enemies.

Nonsense. That's exactly what he means. You are the one trying to twist it out of context. Bush means that if you don't support the methods that the US uses, then you are an enemy. So, a country that chooses a different approach against terrorism, is an enemy.

Beyond the words, that is exactly what Bush's actions have said too. And actions speak louder than words. Have you not also heard his diatribes on how criticizing his policies is "giving comfort to the enemy"? Translation: if you criticize Republicans, you are a terrorist supporter.

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.

That's not what Bush is talking about. He doesn't support a "law enforcement" approach. He supports all out wars with countries he doesn't like. This is what he's referring to in being "with us." Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. You have to buy into the whole imperialist agenda, or you are considered an enemy.

Re:A Prediction

[mpcooke3]

You don't get declared as part of the axis of evil because you are evil, or for supporting terrorism, or commiting mass genocide, or de-stabilising the middle east or breaching UN resolutions or violating international law. (All things i consider to be evil)

Otherwise the axis of evil would also include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Israel and the United States!

Of course the governments/rulers of the "axis of evil" have done many things that I consider evil. But my list of top 10 evil-doers isn't in line with US foreign policy, for instance I think having troops in Darfur should be a priority over Iraq.

I also think that by picking out a list of evil countries with such obvious bias towards US foreign interests it has actually helped stir up anti-western feelings in many of those countries.

Re:A Prediction

[scuba0]

Short note: Who supplied the Talibans and Iraqs with weapons that did those horrible things? Who supported their actions until they wasn't needed any more?

Re:A Prediction

[Darby]

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.

Red Herring.

The US is most often "less than perfect" in pursuit of evil ideals while waving a flag around and claiming to stand up for good ideals.
Occasionally, we accidentally end up doing a good thing here or there.

We regularly murder democratically elected leaders for the crime of trying to make a better freer life for their people and install brutal murderous thugs in order to please US business interests.

We put Saddam in power, egged on the war with Iran and supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds.

Ho Chi Minh was the biggest fan the US ever had and after repeatedly begging us to help him liberate his people from colonial slavery and being told to fuck off he then as a last resort turned to the commies and then we jumped in to go murder hids already oppressed people.

We installed and propped up the Shah of Iran against the wishes and best interests of the Iranian people which make any animosity they have toward us *entirely* justified. In fact they would be fools to trust us in any way.

Seriously, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and pay attention once in a while instead of continuing to bleat that idiotic crap you keep spewing.

Have you actually been correct about anything in the last 6 years?

WMD: you constantly spouted the party line like a fool.
Plame gate: You absolutely denied any possibility of administration involvement claiming it was all common knowledge to those "in the know" Again, you look like a fool.

Iraq involvement with al Queda: Wrong again.

Dude, seriously, sane people when they are constantly wrong stop look around and realise that they need to adjust their attitudes.

You just keep barreling along repeating idiotic nonsense even though it's the same liars saying it.
You really are completely laughable at this point.

Blind idiotic jingoism is the problem, more of it ain't the solution.

Re:A Prediction

[Threni]

> And Iran is the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism

By any sensible criteria the US occupies that position.

And that means ... what?

[khasim]

"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."

So .... if China tries to establish a moon base ... we'll attack it?

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.

Re:And that means ... what?

[AKAImBatman]

So .... if China tries to establish a moon base ... we'll attack it?

if(chineseMoonBase.isArmed() && chineseMoonBase.getWeapons().getTarget() == "US")
{
    blowThemToHellAndBack(chineseMoonBase);
}
else
    {
    monitorForHostileActivities(chineseMoonBase);
    media.initTalkingHeads(chineseMoonBase, media.IS_IT_GOOD_OR_IS_IT_WHACK);
    media.broadcast();
}

Re:And that means ... what?

[DerekLyons]

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.

A moon base is about as useful for a terrestrial conflict, or for terrestrial commercial purposes as a bicyle is to a fish. Being on top of a mountain is pretty much useless if everything of interest is at the bottom.

Aimed squarely at China

[dedazo]

And no one else. We're due for another Cold War anyway...

Damn the morons who voted for these idiots

[unity100]

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.

Re:Damn the morons who voted for these idiots

[why-is-it]

It's all about the fact that we want to, for example, use things like nuke-powered spacecraft, and we're not going to allow someone else (China? doesn't matter) to dictate or act in a way contrary to that. How is "trouble for the entire world" to say that?

Have you ever heard of a little something called imperialism? How can it be OK for the US claim one set of rights, and subsequently deny everyone else those rights?

Do as we say, and not as we do? And the justification for this dichotomy is that we have the biggest military, so we call the shots?

I suspect that if $ENEMY made the same claim, you would be outraged.

Re:Damn the morons who voted for these idiots

[Damvan]

Because to get those nuclear powered spacecraft into space, they must be launched from earth. A mishap during launch (nahh, couldn't happen, oh wait...) could then spread that nuclear material, in a very small, breathable form, across the whole planet. I would call that "trouble for the entire world."

Pfft

[voice_of_all_reason]

International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.

Space Pearl Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

Space Pearl Harbor will be the best Ben Affleck movie ever

Fear & Hatred

[eldavojohn]

Once again, the leader of my country has managed to create hate and fear for the United States and its power.

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.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[halivar]

A couple of those headlines are accurate, but the majority of them are just sensational. Am I supposed to measure the rightness/wrongness of my government by the words foreign press uses to sell newspapers?

Re:Fear & Hatred

[ianmh]

So let me get this straight. When its the US being imperialistic, its not imperialistic? Oh yeah, its to stop the "other" imperialistic countries. Wow, the arrogance. Just say what it really is, we could all at least respect that a little more.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[ScentCone]

So let me get this straight. When its the US being imperialistic, its not imperialistic? Oh yeah, its to stop the "other" imperialistic countries. Wow, the arrogance. Just say what it really is, we could all at least respect that a little more.

Please actually make the case for your characterization of the US as "imperialistic." You know, like naming the governors of the colonies we've been establishing around the world. Or the way that, rather than spending tons of cache on goods made overseas, that we're just marching in and taking over those economies. Or the countries to which we used to supply enormous amounts of financial aid and have stopped because we now own those territories. You know, actual imperialistic type stuff.

Note: saying that you'll defend your assets in space, or on the open seas, is not "imperialism."

Re:Fear & Hatred

[LWATCDR]

I am afraid have drunk the koolaid yet again.
1. The USSR tested and deployed anti-satellite weapons.
2. The USSR armed manned space craft and I don't mean pistols for the crews for survival in case they came down outside the recovery zone.
3. The USSR tested a fractional orbital bombardment system for the SS-9.

So what the US is saying is simply this.
They intend to develop systems that can
a. take out anti-satellite systems that could be used to target US satellites.
b. take out other countries spy satellites.

Spreading fear of the US is a fun past time for many news services and government. They know that the US will not really harm them so they can try and act tough with no risk.

Truth is China is already stated that they are going to develop space based weapon systems. The USSR/Russia has already developed space based weapons systems and deployed them. Only their current lack of money is keeping them from deploying them right now. Of course they might be selling them.

The only big problem is making it public instead of keeping it a black program.

Space was militarized back in the early 60s. ROSATs, Elint satellites, and optical satellites are all deadly weapons and they have been in use for over 40 years.
So this is really worth about a yawn and a stretch as far as news. Makes nice scary headlines though.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[Dr Caleb]

"You know, like naming the governors of the colonies we've been establishing around the world."

Hamid Karzai
Jalal Talabani
José Rafael Carrera
Abel Pacheco
Andres Pastrana Arango
  . . .

"Or the way that, rather than spending tons of cache on goods made overseas, that we're just marching in and taking over those economies."

Too easy. That's a 'gimmie'.

"Or the countries to which we used to supply enormous amounts of financial aid and have stopped because we now own those territories."

Aid? Since when does the US supply 'enormous' forgien aid? Since 2001, the amount of US aid that actually reached, for example, the poor in Africa, totaled 6 cents USD. Who gets rich off US aid? US consultants.

If you want a prime example of US Imperilaism, look at what the US did in Guatemala in the 1980's (remember Iran/Contra?). The US hasn't changed. It is now just under the guise of 'spreading democracy'.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[xeno-cat]

Lets kick the list off with one your sure to recognise:

1. Saddam Hussein, Iraq
2. The current government in Iraq
3. The current government in Afghanistan
4. Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic
5. The South Korean government
6. South Vietnam's Government (defunct)
7. The Shah of Iran, Iran
8. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua
9. Manuel Noriega, Panama

The list goes on and on, into the hundreds. But that should be enough to get you started.

Kind Regards

Re:Fear & Hatred

[ScentCone]

The South Korean government

Really! I'm sure they'd be shocked to know that we're running their country as a colony. Their routinely elected officials would probably also be surprised.

The thread is speaking in terms of the current administration's stated policy of being willing to defend our country's use of space-based assets from hostile threats. Someone else said that it's an imperialist posture (though they haven't said if they think that, say, Japan or France being willing to do the same would also be "imperialistic"). They said that this is in keeping with our imperialist activities. And to prove that person right you're (out of context!) focusing on past events. Aiding governments that were rejecting Soviet imperialism isn't freakin' imperialism! It's the opposite! *sigh*

Re:Fear & Hatred

[querist]

Please, not again.

I have friends in many other countries, and every time the US does this I am ashamed to be an American. While these countries have their own faults, and some have been ridiculed here on Slashdot many times, I still feel very strongly that they are much more concerned about true peace than the current US administration.

At least my friends in Asia can see why I want to move there before it is too late. The big question for me is only which country... the one that cooperates with the US on most things but has a very high cost of living, or the one that is powerful enough not to be afraid of the US but has a much lower standard of living. Decisions, decisions...

p.s. I also find it hard to believe that the "Emperor Zurg" headline is real. In true Slashdot fashion, I'll comment first on it and _then_ check. :-)

Re:Fear & Hatred

[ScentCone]

USA sure does seem to have a military presence in a lot of countries.

Yup! Now, ask the Germans if they'd really like to see the US actually pull up stakes and vacate those military bases. Or ask the people in Kuwait. Hell, there are plenty of noisy protests in South Korea about the US presence, but when you actually poll the citizens (especially now that their crazy northern neighbor is in the middle of a new and more exciting tantrum) on whether they'd like to see the US presence (and the large boost to the local security and economy that it provides) go away, and you get a very quick negative response.

Do you think that the Jordanians, or the Egyptians, would really like to see the US leave the area? Not a chance, not while the crazies are still trying to set the calendar back a thousand years.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[why-is-it]

Ah, well. I can see that you'd much rather we offer our diplomatic support to someone who doesn't think the Taliban's methods are such a bad way to run a country or your daughter's marriage.

The Taliban (under Musharraf's watch) were Pakistan's only foreign policy success. Pakistan bankrolled and openly supported the Taliban until Colin Powell threatened to bomb his nation back to the stone age. Even now, he keeps 500K troops on the border with Kasmir in a pissing contest with India, but he hasn't got the troops to monitor Afghan boarder. As a result, the Taliban and Al Queda can freely travel between the two nations...

Please get your facts straight. Musharraf is an ally of convenience who has shown no signs of stepping down and allowing free and democratic elections, even though he has promised to do so multiple times.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[Vitriol Angst]

Read the Book; "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."

>> We don't need to "control" the country -- we OWN the leader of that country. Guatemala is a clear example. Our organizations have been assasinating politicians in oil-rich and latin American nations for years to allow our banking and corporate interests access. Then the country goes into debt and becomes dependent on the World Bank. Right now, this World Bank is strong-arming debtor nations to support Guatemala at the UN rather than Venezuela. All so that South Korea can put their man in charge of the UN who is backed by the Moonies. Convoluted stuff, eh?

But it's also what happened when we rigged elections in the Ukraine and Mexico -- perhaps even the Conservative (NeoCon) leader in Candada. And who can forget the NeoCon leader in Israel? Didn't a man get shot and then he got the position? Yeah, read the current news; He's suspected for pedophilia, embezzling, and physically abusing a woman. Seems to fit right in with the rest who seem connected in this ring of exploiting nations for their resources and screwing the common man in those countries.

It's all about profit and it all seems to head to offshore banks. So America can expect the same results from Globalization as the third-world. We will all be in debt, and working off debts we never incurred.

We already support the MEK in our country, which is backed by the Hezbollah (Iran) and ALSO the CIA. Go figure.

Jeb Bush is best friends with the man who blew up a Cuban airliner.

>> So when you say "imperialistic" that is a quaint notion from when we had decliared kings and nations. I couldn't even tell you the Trustees holding the cards here, because it would be in a holding company somewhere. You could start with Bernanke and Carlysle, however.

Sorry to sound like a nut -- but I'm just telling you the exact truth, no matter how much it might veer from your view of the world.

Re:Fear & Hatred

[xeno-cat]

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

I'm curious what you have to say about this story stating that we did, in fact, sell those materials to Iraq. Just a quick Google but I'm sure there is more where it came from.

Kind Regards

Bush says to the galaxy...

[x-vere]

All your base are belong to us!

Whee HA!

[mgabrys_sf]

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!

Re:Whee HA!

[Duhavid]

Of course I am kidding you.

I did tell google they spelled their name
wrong, I think that lead to the listing of
"google" in the dictionary, to prove me
"wrong". Ha, I said to them. Revisionists.

Notice the title of the document

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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.

So much for the Iranian space program...

[b-l4ke]

I guess the Iranian/N.Korean/Venezualan space station's gonna be put on hold for a while.

It's a predictable policy

[shogarth]

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...)

Re:It's a predictable policy

[Vitriol Angst]

"
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."
"
>> We couldn't trust it so we went ahead and broke it before anyone else?

Nuclear non-proliferation worked well, until Bush exited the system in 2003. Now there is no incentive to NOT go nuclear.

The same can be said of weaponizing space ... if the country with the most power to abuse the system can refrain and set up a system to police abuse, then there is a great incentive for lesser powers to NOT abuse the system. But, by breaking trust ahead of time, there is NO incentive to NOT weaponize.

That sort of logic is doomed to failure.

Also, look at past discussions on this topic -- it would be relatively easy to blow up a few tons of shratnel in space and make it impossible for any satellites to exist for years. -- Denying space to everyone seems like a good option for nations who are totally out-classed by a US weaponized space system, and pretty easy to accomplish.

Create a very powerful cannon, and it doesn't matter if we have total pre-emption of all "space lanes" -- the rail-gun could just launch junk into space. Game over. You don't need to have a space program. Even North Korea without a super gun (AFAIK), could use a nuclear-powered rocket and blast junk into space. A few 1kiloton timed explosions can achieve orbit if you don't care about the mess.

This idea, like so many from the NeoCons, seems morally bankrupt and poorly thought-out. People like this could never make a living in the private sector. You might as well waste another half-trillion $ on a failed anti-missile, missile system.

Why is it so wrong to say

[Broken scope]

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.

Re:Why is it so wrong to say

[lawpoop]

Because its a hostile, threatening act.

There are currently no Hitlers taking over space. There are no weapons in space, either aimed in space, or aimed at us from space. There is nothing going on up there that Bush needs to react to.

Its like youre in a bar, and the guy next to you says "If you ever sneak into my house, I will shoot you and then beat the shit out of you. Do you understand me? Fuck with me and I will seriously fuck you up!" Meanwhile, youre just sitting there, having a beer, minding your own business. Why is this guy talking about beating you up? Why is he afraid of you breaking in? Why is he imagining you fucking with him? Its a beligerent, hostile action. He is over-reacting to a situation that is totally in his mind.

Same with the Bush administration. They literally made shit up as a pretext to invade Iraq, which is now a de facto clusterfuck. The whole world saw this and understands it. Now Bush is getting all high and mighty about blowing shit up in space. Not only has he foolishly over-reacted to a situation that *was not a threat*, he just hasnt learned his lesson -- he wants to also invade Iran.

Re:Why is it so wrong to say

[Broken scope]

Grr.. got distracted The world isn't a bar. That is not a proper comparison.

Most countries with an advanced military have plans they can enact if attacked by any country or likely grouping of countries. The have plans depending on the method of the attack as well. The Canadians have one if we invade them and we have one incase they invade us. These are frequently looked at changed and updated. Military planning cannot afford to be shortsighted, it has to look at even the most unlikely situations, otherwise you end up with places like Iraq.

Do you walk into a bar and think about how you would defend yourself against everyone of those people, if they attacked one at a time, 2 at a time, 3 at a time, the short guy and that fat guy in the corner?

No, but i expect my country to asses every possible threat, and be ready for the reasonable ones.

Once again I'm not talking about the person who said it, I am talking about the overall idea and the meaning of the statement.

All it is saying is that we will respond if you interfere with our usage, or damage out space based assets. It is a staement pure and simple, it is not a threat it is a promise. In warfare you damage your enemies ability to fight, if they rely on space based assets then you destroy said assets. You also defend your because if an enemy has spaced based assets then more than likely they can hit yours.

I apologize for the other post it was rude, malformed, and i missed the preview button.

Re:Why is it so wrong to say

[lawpoop]

You have to look at this in the context of diplomacy and international politics.

Every country knows that the US has the most powerful military in the world. They are all well aware that US has a contingency plan for every conceivable military incident -- occupying Canada, fighting North Korea etc. The world governments don't need to be told this by Bush.

When you get up in front of the public and start talking about war and defending yourself. When you come out and say things in a public forum, to the media, instead of privately, through diplomatic channels, that has a meaning all in itself in international politics. It's beligerent and aggressive. The purpose of this message isn't to inform -- Bush isn't saying anything that everybody doesn't already know. It's to threaten an intimidate. It's an escalation of hostility. It's saying that we are abandoning the peaceful use of space, unilaterally, and starting to arm up. We're not doing this in response to any nation or any event; we are doing this because we damn well want to. And I'm doing it in public; no one can stop me.

It is just like when you're in a bar and the guy next to you starts talking about beating the shit out of you. It's inappropriate and uncalled for. There's no reason for him to start saying that. There's a problem when someone starts talking like that, when there isn't any reason for them to do so.

Space isn't new to the Bush admin

[LM741N]

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."

Being a bit of a bully...

[Eric Damron]

"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."
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 ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

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.

Re:Being a bit of a bully...

[Eric Damron]

This is not one of those "top secret" types of things. This is a "policy" of which we and other countries need to be aware. It's like making a "secret policy" that if anyone crosses some invisible line we'll punch them in the mouth but being a secret we refuse to tell anyone of the risk of crossing that line. Not exactly the best way to live in a global community.

It's really time that we tossed out the people with the "cowboy mentality" and brought in an era of reason.

A step toward nuclear space flight?

[Peter Trepan]

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.

US the new Portugal

[Kirgin]

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.

more likely to be launch interdiction

[Quadraginta]

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?

Re:more likely to be launch interdiction

[kabocox]

(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?

For actual space colonization and mining, I'd say no. For control of Earth's orbitals that could be used by Earth's various governments to control the entire Earth. Yes, we wouldn't fight WWIII with China over this, but we would fight "smaller" countries like Iran or NK that tried to get into space. I'd think China, Russia, EU, Japan, and India would be "safe" from any US actions. It's the smaller countries that can't be easily controlled by the big boys that the US really wants to keep Earth bound.

Let's be honest, the US doesn't control the Earth. We have our strings of control over various other governments, but they hold our strings as well. I'd say that the entire EU was more worried about our Iraq adventures mainly because there was a feeling that the US would try to liberate the entire region for its resources for our use. Those middle eastern countries with oil have strings that have a pretty tight hold on us. We are trying to break them, but we can't do it within 5 years though. We need to learn how to use our position to better control the rest of the globe. They are catching up far to quickly and they are just as smart as we are.

I'm totally confused

[BitterAndDrunk]

And if you say all warfare is equally evil, you are guilty of moral relativism. That I think was the point.

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.

Re:nghnghnghngh

[inviolet]

But can [the space-based laser] scratch your butt from space?

And more importantly, can it pop a military-sized tin of jiffypop?

What are "US interests"?

[DoofusOfDeath]

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?

Imperialism?

[why-is-it]

In times of peace(We need more) then lets things happen,

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?

but have the ability and presence that when war breaks, we can be assured our use of space and its technology it offers. Likewise, we want to make sure those opposing us cannot have those same things if we can.

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...

Sure being the top dog brings us unwanted hatred from others, but such is life. I would rather be the hated than the hater.

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?

Hostility

[smoker2]

'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.'

Unfortunately, adversaries include anybody who disagrees with American policy, and U.S. national interests include unfettered access to world oil supplies, total IP domination, the right to all information regarding any person on the planet, a significant cut of all profits made by any company anywhere, and, oh yeah, lebensraum.

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 in a Molniya orbit

[everphilski]

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.

The rise of the politics of fear.

[gotih]

All the money we are going to spend on militarizing space could have been spent exploring space. But we're afraid that somebody else (who exactly?) will go and militarize space first, leaving us vulnerable.

If you havn't already seen it, PLEASE check out "The Power of Nightmares":
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+of +nightmares&btnG=Search+Video

from the wikipedia page:

The film asserts that politicians consequently sought a new role that would restore their power and authority. Writer Adam Curtis, who also narrates the series, declares in the film's introduction that "Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares".

morality

[falconwolf]

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.

Falcon

Re:decline of number of professionals working

[Chmcginn]

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.

I'd actually go a different route with this - it's not that education has gotten too expensive. (I mean, it has, but except for applying to a military academy & working your way up to O-5 or higher, decent pay isn't too be had without going to a college.) It's the job security aspect.

A few years ago, when I had a select a major, I looked at my older brother, and brothers-in-law... most of them with some kind of engineering degree. Do you know what I saw? I saw men in their early 30's, with kids, and not knowing if the next round of layoffs would hit them.

But other relatives, in the accounting, actuarial, and medical fields, all seemed unworried about layoffs.

So being that I was thinking mostly about the future, which would you choose?