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.'"

12 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. Damn the morons who voted for these idiots by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Space Pearl Harbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Space Pearl Harbor will be the best Ben Affleck movie ever

  3. Fear & Hatred by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Fear & Hatred by ianmh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      www.ianhoar.com My blog about geeking out.
    2. Re:Fear & Hatred by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. Re:A Prediction by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Bush says to the galaxy... by x-vere · · Score: 5, Funny

    All your base are belong to us!

    --
    One day the toilets of the world will rise up... And I'm going to nuke them.
  6. Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... by CRMeatball · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:A Prediction by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  8. US the new Portugal by Kirgin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Old News by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. What are "US interests"? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?