Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Proposed Space Weapon Ban
eldavojohn writes "Obama's proposed ban on space weapons is a complete 180 from George W. Bush's stance on them. Space.com looks at the two sides of the issue and quotes Michael Krepon explaining, 'The Bush administration rejected space diplomacy. We refused to negotiate on any subject that could limit US military options. We have a shift from an administration that was very dismissive of multilateral negotiations [as a whole], to an administration that is open to that possibility if it improves US national security.' You may recall discussing the necessity of space based weapons and Michael Krepon from 2005."
Obama has a child-like view of the world. The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
For the most part, agreements between one or two are effective (a bilateral agreement is like a contract), while agreements between many are simply meaningless gestures that only bind the honest.
Remember that governments aren't honest.
The United States have trampled or weaseled around so many treaties in the past decade that it's hard to believe they're not just trying to stall others while they prepare for another run around the rules (if not this administration then the next or the one after that). Thanks, but I don't think a proposed ban has a chance unless the USA are prepared to sign it without immediate reciprocation.
Obama: "Today I have signed an executive order banning all space weapons."
China: "Yay! We fully support this."
*China blows up all U.S. satellites*
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
Obama has a child-like view of the world. The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
Bravo, your analogy is flawless.
*clap*
*clap*
Iran puts a satellite in orbit... We take ourselves out of the space based weapons party? Makes sense to me. HopeNChange will get us through the day!
To generalise wildly, countries with large military R&D spending and manufacturing tend not to be good at consumer products. Military "GNP" is akin to making lots of expensive goods and then putting them all on a bonfire.
In the present case, Obama can achieve several things: reduce the cost of government, please the bluer segments of the US, and perhaps give Bill O'Reilly and co heart attacks. Potential triple win for the new Administration, and no-one gets hurt.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Were not the only nation with satellites in space. Whats to stop other countries from doing this first then the US is at a disadvantage. Were still here because other countries are afraid of the Military power we have. This would just make countries more reluctant to attack.
No worries, we have a new line of defense - Bill Gates and his mosquitos.
The only reason space diplomacy worked in the past was because of a confluence of interest between the Soviet Union and the United States. Namely, the USA wanted the Russians to slow down their space program, so they opened the space treaty negotations. Then, the Russians wanted the USA to slow down as they were increasingly concerned that the USA would succeed with the Saturn V program (it's really all about the boosters), and their own program was running into problems.
Nowadays, there's no confluence of interest. The USA MUST MAINTAIN communications and GPS to be effective.
We have weapons on land, air, sea, even underwater. Why is space so hallowed that people think there shouldn't be weapons there? ICBMs are space weapons, so are military spy satellites.
Some peaceniks are still in the anti-"star wars" mentality that they can't see that space is already militarized.
rape!=harm?
Why can't we deliver equivalent weapon systems from the ground, sea, air? Those have been well used in past conflicts. Is there some special benefit to having a weapons platform in space other than the fact we can pass it through enemy territory without a diplomatic incident? There has to be some major benefit that offsets the cost of launching and maintaining something that is extremely remote. I get surveilence satellites but not weapons platforms.
Actually, Obama is pursuing a very rational course here. In short, the US does not want to start an anti-satellite arms race, because we're already so far ahead in the satellite race - why reset the game board to zero? A couple of points to consider:
1)In current US military doctrine, superior satellite coverage is a key "force multiplier" by providing C4ISTAR advantages (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). US military planners are particularly keen on these so-called "force multipliers" because they field a comparatively small force numerically.
2)The US has a huge interest in maintaining the status quo in space. The US has a strategic advantage in satellite coverage, and that advantage is currently very difficult to assault in a wartime, short-time-horizon scenario.
3)For the US, declaring "space" a "neutral zone" would basically mean that a whole bunch of military equipment that makes our soldiers fight better is legally considered off-limits
4)Compliance with a space weapons ban is comparatively easy to monitor, because deployment of anti-satellite technology requires testing.
So for the US, a space weapons ban is a no-brainer. The trick will be getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on (at this point no one is suggesting a unilateral ban on space weapons and such a policy would obviously be inane from a national security standpoint.)
Because we all know that everyone else will uphold the same morals.
Sorry, but this is just political grandstanding for his base. If the does follow through he will simply gimp the US going forward
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
says the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.
This guy is way out there
So the only way to be safe is to keep building bigger weapons? I don't suppose youve ever looked into the 50 year immediately following WWII? Whats that meme round here "those that don't understand the mistakes of history bound to repeat them".
Not only is heading towards a cold war situation generally a bad idea, but given the current economic situation America doesn't stand a chance. China has a manufacturing capability much greater than America and given how china virtually owns America, you cant even hit china with trade sanctions.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
The reality is this is a strategic and political move, not a military one. Even if we signed a space weapon ban treaty, we will still have weapons in space. It will just be more expensive because we'll have to hide their existence, deployment, and use. Or we'll have to call it something else (GPS is a "space weapon" isn't it?) For that coin we'll gain things we don't currently have, like greater international support, and a greater capacity to prevent China from getting weapons in space.
When you outlaw space weapons, only outlaws will have space weapons.
But we can do it right. Stick some money into nuclear propulsion (not Orion, try a closed cycle gas core nuclear rocket). If we're not limited to chemical power we can lift a lot more weight. Make solar-power satellites, a real space station, and so forth. Open up whole new industries...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
You can get my Raygun when you pull it from my cold dead hands.
The only good human is a dead human!
You hit the nail right on the head. The US is in the middle of a total meltdown, and if anyone is sending up space weapons, it's going to be their rivals. America doesn't stand a chance. Therefore, they want competition outlawed.
Seriously... who gives a shit what he thinks? He's the captain of a sinking ship.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
This is a misleading summary, albeit cribbed from the first story linked.
This is the basis of the story for both articles linked, it's a part of the Agenda found on Whitehouse.gov:
link
A ban on weapons that interfere with satellites is very different from a ban on space weapons. The former I could support, it's an agreement to protect the common good, mankind's access to space, from the possible disastrous consequences of ringing the planet with debris. The latter I would have deep reservations about.
Ah the saga continues ...
Republican Military Hawks will be starting the get those Dems out so get spending. Just look at the History and see how Dems reduce Military spending and then the Republicans ramp it back up.
Just wait till Midterm and re-election.
This is a game we can't afford to play. The cost of wrecking satellites is trivially low compared to the cost of replacing them. I would put space warfare on the same level as chemical warfare, if not in terms of human cost but damage done to the treasury. In WWII, both sides had the gas masks in case the other side used it first but neither did for fear of the chemical counter-attack. And this is in a war where carpet-bombing cities was considered an acceptable tactic.
Here's a question: years ago I read that a poor man's ASAT would be a booster capable of reaching a retrograde orbit on the same orbit as the target. It doesn't contain a guided kinetic kill video, just a big bucket of sand. The sand is released after the orbit is circularized and it becomes a giant, fine-grained shotgun blast that will destroy any satellite on the same plane. Is this one of those hoary chestnuts that just isn't true or is it very plausible?
The other question which I know is serious and yet unanswered: how much shrapnel would be left from an unrestricted space war? Would we be denying ourselves the use of certain orbits for hundreds of years? Low earth orbits will see the junk slowed by the atmosphere and burn up in time but high orbits would be free from the drag and could be there indefinitely. Would it even be possible to armor satellites sufficiently to survive the debris or would we have screwed ourselves but good?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Beam me down, Scotty. It's boring up here now.
America doesn't stand a chance
Oh really? In what regard? Is somebody going to nuke us into the stone age? Hmm, that might not end well for them. Is somebody going to invade us? Hmm, that might not end well for them either. You can hate us all you want but we'll be around for a long time. We might draw inwards a bit but most of us wouldn't consider that a bad thing. Either way we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
He's the captain of a sinking ship.
Be careful what you wish for, the suction from that sinking ship may pull you under too :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do you really think that should there be a next "world war" that China, or whomever our opponent is, is going to be so kind as to allow us that HUGE military advantage simply because they signed some silly piece of paper at some point? Don't be so naive.
You know, I really don't understand the whole concept of weakening the United States military simply to "make freinds." It is not going to work.
The ONLY reason that other countries want US to sign this thing is because they know that we ARE the leader in space and they would like a more fair playing field if anything happens. Well guess what! War is NOT fair. Get over it.
While weapons in space will come, the US shouldn't put weapons into space, or at least it shouldn't be the first to do so.
If the US does put weapons into space, you would possibly end up with an arms race with China, and given how China (or more to the point, the US) is at present, I very much doubt the US could win it.
However, should the US get this deal, there won't be an arms race with China, Iran is a long way off weapons in space. (Given that it is building weapons that we have had for 50 years), and the Islamic extremest are never going to get close.
Both the US and China have the capability to destroy space based satellites, so it isn't as if putting weapons up there is going to be the all destroying weapon. The cost of a weapon that takes down a satellite is very very low compared to putting a satellite up their.
If all countries have weapons that do this, how long do you thing the US is going to have GPS in the next war? About as long as it takes for the country you are invading to launch 20 missiles
I think the US should be putting its efforts into fixing its economy, rather than putting something pointless into space to make other nations feel threatened and have to expand their arsenal.
Next you're trying tell me that Kane will cancel his plans for the Temple of NOD?
I am convinced that I can always be convinced otherwise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's kill all space flight then. If you can get up there, and can get in the way of a satellite then you can kill it. The US has had four ASAT programs that I can remember off of the top of my head:
Modified NIKE-Hercules (Long range SAM/ABM)
Modified THOR (ICBM)
ASM-135 (F-15 Launched Missile)
RIM-161 "SM-3" (AEGIS Ship Launched Theater Anti-Ballistic Missile)
Note the common thread in these - most take a proven technology and then slightly tweak it to turn it into an ASAT weapon.
Realistically, it's still a promise any leader can make with no repercussions. (Technology still isn't advanced enough to make "space weapons" feasible.)
The things that we DO make use of in space are spy satellites, which don't really fall under the category of "weapons" - since they're passive devices.
And don't forget, just because a nation promises they're banning the USE of such devices doesn't mean they aren't still spending big R&D dollars on their development. Once a prototype emerges that really looks promising and affordable enough for the military to accept - you'll see a leader lift the ban.
So let's rewind history. What would have happened if we didn't build our military? Might the USSR have seen this as weakness and attacked us? We survived the Cold War precisely because of the arms race, not in spite of it.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Orbit space is already becoming rare, why waste it with bus sized objects that would never be used and be require continual maintenance and replacement? Space superiority is sort of moot and I think politicizing space on a military basis is a waste of humanity.
Also, what doe it gimp? Just making baseless statements doesn't mean your insightful. I just think you don't get it. (or your have a war perversion)
I'm not not a US resident, but the idea that in the next, say, 20 years any nation will be be better prepared than the US to launch space weapons is downright laughable.
In fact I did laugh.
For a more realistic view of why the US should prefer to avoid space militarization, try this post.
And meltdown is silly. Speaking as someone who has an awful lot invested in Euros right now, the US will bounce back. They just won't retain their grossly-inflated stature and GDP. I see the Dow coming to rest somewhere between 9 and 10k in the next 5 years.
As for your knowledge of WW2 history - I'm sorry, it is utterly inadequate. Apart from the possibility that, had Britain defeated Hitler in the mid-30s the main language of Europe would be Russian, what makes you think the US, which was pretty pro-Hitler at the time, would have let us? Roosevelt had to overcome some pretty entrenched attitudes to give the UK the limited support that he did.
If you read the European history books, you will see that the 30s were pretty much a diplomatic failure. Had the West had the support instead of the fence-sitting attitude of the US, had Britain and France properly supported Austria, Poland and the Czechs, and had Weimar been supported instead of undermined, would Hitler have been allowed to form a Government? We will never know, but one thing is clear: despite its military buildup, Germany lost.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Teller was a persistent voice for space weaponry since before the space program started. He was probably the most influencial voice in convincing Reagan to start Star Wars. Teller based this on 3rd generation nuclear tests in the 1980s that created Xray lasers (they no longer need nuclear fuses).
I saw an interesting example of Teller's stubborness in the recent PBS documentary about Openheimer. From the beginning he promoted the H-bomb and distracted the los Alamos project. Even though 2/3rds of his ideas turned out to be wrong, the other third were very useful for bomb development.
So the only way to be safe is to keep building bigger weapons? I don't suppose youve ever looked into the 50 year immediately following WWII? Whats that meme round here "those that don't understand the mistakes of history bound to repeat them".
Not only is heading towards a cold war situation generally a bad idea, but given the current economic situation America doesn't stand a chance. China has a manufacturing capability much greater than America and given how china virtually owns America, you cant even hit china with trade sanctions.
Oh, I don't know. I figure that we turned out fairly well. I'd actually rather be in a cold war situation than most other war situations. I'm fascinated about how everyone assumes that China is our enemy or should be on the other side of the US. If anything, we'd be changing our social system to match their culture not the reverse. It's funny that folks want us to use damn near force to change their minds about how the world works.
My best advice to China on how to "conquer" the US is pay attention to Japanese Anime & Manga on the US cultural influence and thought. If China plays its cards right, it could have us begging to be made part of their country. Nah, wouldn't happen as we've been spending the last 200 years telling ourselves that we are the best country on the planet. Though they really should consider exporting daily sitcoms/soap operas/ just usual TV crap translated into English and sold abit cheaper than other sources to the US. They'd be utterly amazed at what they could get away with.
The whole space weapons ban was a farce when it was signed, why would that be any different now?
Aside from the FOBS system developed in 1966 and deployed in 1968 (the Space Weapons treaty was signed in 1967, I believe):
"...Nor were the anti-space-weapons treaty advocates anywhere to be seen in the face of other Russian orbital weapons: hardware built to go into space and operate there, not just merely fly up and down on earth-launched vertical sorties. The Russians built an orbital anti-satellite system that apologists pooh-poohed as "unreliable". The Russians put an air-to-air cannon on a manned spacecraft in order to kill astronauts who got too close--not a peep from the "weapons-free space" crowd. In 1987 the USSR launched the 80-ton Skif-DM, what was to be the first in a series of "space battle stations" to carry a 1-megawatt carbon-dioxide laser into orbit for anti-missile and anti-satellite tests, while preparing the Kaskad cruisers to be armed with space-to-space missiles tested on Progress missions--no objections ever recorded from keep-space-free-of-weapons advocates."
(http://www.thespacereview.com/article/744/1)
To suggest that space will NOT be a field of conflict is naive to the degree of the papal ban on crossbows in the middle ages, or the early calls to prevent the arming of aircraft. To claim unilaterally that the US *won't* do it will eventually be seen as the 21st century equivalent of "not reading other gentlemen's mail".
Pollyannas don't do geopolitics very well.
-Styopa
Um... You missed a news report - Iran launched a satellite of its own a few days ago.
Made possible by Russian technology. Read up on the history of Iranian satellite technology - they used Russian launch pads until last year.
Which actually brings up another good point - a nonproliferation agreement has the positive secondary effects of preventing technology transfer to potential rogue states. Again, nonproliferation only works to the extend that compliance is verifiable - which, with ASW, is possible at the testing phase. Note that the Iranians had to do dummy launches, which we detected, for a full year before getting a satellite into orbit. This wasn't some sudden bootstrap of Iranian technology that caught us flatfooted, though you wouldn't know it from reading the sensationalistic press reports.
Uh, what was the question?
Well for one Osama would never have got the power and guns he did, but thats not what im saying, I'm just saying that going into an arms race against china now will not end well (for the US)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
You have ONE job, Mr. President. Fix the economy. And you won't do it by ramrodding this current piece of crap down tax PAYERS throats. Fix it. If and ONLY if it's working properly in two years, then and ONLY then should you even THINK about stupid stuff like this.
No china will just become so powerful your irrelevant, a few Chinese trade sanctions and your economy could be made to collapse and America will turn into 1990s Russia.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
If you just blow up satellites with rockets, it will put debris into its orbit, drastically reducing the usability of the orbit for anyone.
If you build a weapon to simply disable the satellite, or better yet, cause it to drop out of orbit and burn up without hitting anything, then you would have an advantage. I hope that we are keeping tabs on anyone that plans to develop that kind of technology.
I cant imagine that China didn't learn their lesson from blowing up satellites.
Is somebody going to invade us? Hmm, that might not end well [wikipedia.org] for them either.
One of my ancestors invaded you. He helped set your White House on fire. That was the last attempt made, and it was successful.
As for why you are no threat in the space race, it's because NASA is in a shambles and can't perform launches. You can't even meet your ISS obligations, you're relying on other nations to do it for you.
Your militia of rednecks with shotguns doesn't even enter into the equation. If another nation wants to put space weapons in the sky and drop shit on your heads like you guys did to the people of Iraq, there's not a damned thing that you can do to stop them. Look forward to receiving your just reward for being a bunch of immoral, vicious, selfish and evil bastards. I know I'm looking forward to it...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Why has nobody posted an obscure GoldenEye reference yet?
Come on /. - i'm losing faith in you
You said this:
"Obama has a child-like view of the world"
which is a typical rant used by white supremacists during the apartheid era in South Africa, an epithet that I have the misfortune to see used by first hand account.
It used to be said that black people were in a state of eternal childhood, which was what allowed for the morality of racism, slavery, colonialism and other wonderful pieces of Western cultural heritage.
I don't know if you are playing games or not, but be all aware that such an statement is very charged of racism in many parts of the world.
Now moving to the political field, if you want examples of a simplistic view of the world you can refer to GW Bush black and white view of world politics. Any person that has been involved in politics, even casually, knows that situation are normally full of tones of gray...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For bunnies sakes, the UN did not agree to the invasion of Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War (the one lead by GW Bush).
The security council never allowed such invasion, the US, UK and a few countries trying to ingratiate themselves with the US (Spain for example) went ahead an invaded in spite of not having a legal leg to stand on.
The inspectors were working in Iraq one week before the invasion, They had a mandate from the UN to investigate, which the US and the UK decided to ignore.
The UN secretary at the time, Koffi Annan, publicly acknowledged that the invasion was illegal.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
While you're at it take a look at the 10 years leading up to WWII. Walking around with their flies open didn't work out too well for France and Great Britain did it?
Look diplomacy should be the first line, absolutely, and the second line too if that's possible... but the weapons should be there as well as a deterrent from letting diplomacy break down. Hell, if nothing else be grateful that nuclear weapons kept the cold war from becoming WWIII. Do you really think something like the cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened just cause no bombs existed? No the Soviet Union would have started a troop build up there instead of a missile build up. Better yet imagine if we had far fewer Nukes than the USSR at the time because we had agreed to disarmament while they secretly built up.
And the UN? How are UN inspections going to work in space? Hmm?
I'm all for diplomacy... I'm not for sticking my head in shark's mouth and saying "let's be friends." That's just stupidity.
Reading the general consensus here, I'm extremely glad not to be born in the USA. Apparently its normal to be completely paranoid and self-obsessed. And probably I would be like this if I had grown up in this society. So glad I didn't!
Something not clumsy or random, like a blaster.
It is a matter of distrust, and thus inspection.
The arsenal of conventional nuclear weapons was substantially reduced by both sides using exactly this procedure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"I'm not not a US resident, but the idea that in the next, say, 20 years any nation will be be better prepared than the US to launch space weapons is downright laughable."
Perhaps you haven't noticed that other nations already have more extensive space programs than the US does, and are indeed better prepared to launch *anything* up there, to the point that USA is becoming dependent on the Russian Soyuz.
A space weapon ban would prevent This type of attack
I don't know, I really like our Bill of Rights. Yeah, Bush abused it, as can happen, but things are getting back into shape now (albeit slowly). Nothing else quite like it exists in the rest of the world. IMHO, the protections on personal privacy against government intrusion aren't as strong in other countries. For example, if we are so paranoid, than why does the UK have far more security cameras per capita? That said, I've really enjoyed traveling the world and experiencing other cultures firsthand. That is the best way of reducing paranoia and building trust, I think.
Oh gosh.
Oh fucking gosh ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think you're forgetting that the US stills spends nearly as much on "defense" as all other countries in the f#cking world combined. I'm sure you'll agree it's not right to label valid criticism of Obama as racist(not that I've actually seen that happen), but it's equally wrong to use national Defense as a shield to engage in partisan right-wing concern trolling.
In fact, military technology usually lags behind civilian technology, because things can be used in non-military environments while they are still too fragile for military ones. You won't find many bleeding edge processors in military equipment, because they aren't rad hard and can't run up to a case temperature of 100C and above, and rthe packaging may well before -65C. When I was working in this area, it was reckoned that military electronics were approximately 3 generations behind civil electronics.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If we ever do actually bother colonizing space in a useful way, then at the very least there will have to be a "space police" force. All the possible scenarios have already been thoroughly examined over the decades in science fiction novels. The result might be national or corporate militia or something resembling a United Nations peacekeeper force. If we do nothing to debate it at an international or species level, it's a sure bet that the form it takes will look a lot like the first or second scenarios.
At least on paper, the steps the Obama administration is taking are the right ones to achieve something resembling the latter choice. Regardless, space WILL have to be militarized at least to the same degree as our infrastructure here on the ground. Common interests and infrastructure must be guarded and defended, and sadly that often requires force to accomplish. Can't be helped.
Who knew 00 Gundam would be so relevant to modern day international affairs?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Until Iran launches a "weather satellite" containing a several kiloton nuke which is specially designed to boost it's EMP effect and it goes off over Washington D.C.
I suppose our commander in party chief will just get on his tube based HAM radio and tell ahmen-a-nut-job to apologize to us.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Bush: And what of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness and exploit it.
Obama: The plans you refer to will soon be back in our hands.
Bush: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it!
Obama: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Obama: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Obama. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...
Suddenly Bush chokes and starts to turn blue under Obama's spell.
Obama: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
What about kinetic rods? I would have thought that those would be feasible by now. From my simplistic perspective the only real barrier to entry is having sufficient orbital payload capacity.
Obama Is a figurehead for the Illinois Political Machine, and not an unwitting but "dim witted" pawn of the liberal elite. His "Forrest Gump" view of the world is both disappointing and dangerous. We as Americans must be more aware of the potential danger in electing a person like Barrack Hussein Obama, and frankly need to take our lumps and learn from our collective mistakes. If this surprises you, I hope you like surprises. This man is a Marxist, and publicly admitted he admires the ChiCom government.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
I'm not a Dem but I agree and support most of our new President's ideas/policies, with two exceptions.
Wars used to be won by the nation with the most powerful Navy. Then Air Superiority became the dominating tactic. Space is the next step and banning these will only put the "honest" nations at a disadvantage here.
The tech may not be here yet to make it apparent just how space will dominate air, sea and land, but it's only a matter of time and hamstringing our military in this area is the last thing we should do.
I'd suggest the most obvious is the ability to disable or even confiscate enemy nation's spy satellites but future tech will increase the importance of orbital superiority.
The other unrelated exception is the stimulus. This money should be used to repair and improve current US infrastructure (bridges, fiber, etc). This approach eventually worked to lift us out of our first depression and I believe is much better than giving it to the CEO's who put us in this position in the first place.
Obama has a child-like view of the world. The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
You're right, build a deathstar and blow up Earth to get rid of all the nay sayers.
You're the child if your view of the world is so black-and-white that you only see either negotiating always no matter how futile, or never negotiating at all. Choosing when to do one or the other is called discernment. Don't deliberately ignore it. Obama has never said he thinks you can reason with everyone, that's coloring you added based on your own view.
Here's a clue for you: Obama didn't try to negotiate with the Talaban when he authorized a cross-border strike into Pakistan, now did he? Clearly he believes that sometimes negotiation is pointless, and the only ambassador you should send is a laser guided bomb. So much for your childish view of his view.
He's not an idiot. He knows sometimes you can negotiate, and sometimes you can't. He wisely thinks that negotiation should be preferred, and writing off anyone who doesn't immediately cave in to your demands as incapable of being negotiated with is detrimental.
The enemies of Democracy are
I remember hearing a quote about the most cost effective tool of diplomacy is a battle ship sitting off the coast.
I have no problem with diplomacy but I do think that we shouldn't limit ourselves to purely talking with out some at least idle threat.
Look where its gotten us so far, Iran wants concessions before they'll talk to us now.
Does an astronaut with a hammer count as a weapon, just float over to the satellite and hit it with the hammer.
The trouble with this ban is that it's hard to discern the intent of a satellite. Communications lasers and blinding/targeting lasers are hard to distinguish until they are used. Someone in this thread suggested a satellite with a bucket of sand. Or, send up an satellite that can survive reentry (there are legit reasons for this), and have it reenter over a major city.
Shut up you naive twit, nothing but a bunch of gibberish you just wrote. Thankfully you and the rest of the yahoo's who hate America so much have no credibility.
Good than I guess everybody will be better off with China as the world leader, although to be truthful I would like to see the Chinese way to approach the Middle East. It is gonna be a blood bath over there when the Chinese set foot.
Personally I cannot wait till China gets into it with another country, they will literally slaughter everyone in sight. The world will cry foul and run crying to the U.S..
Either way, the U.S. has the relations and foreign military bases in place around the world.
NASA in shambles? Just because Slashdot loves to hate NASA/America and kiss the EU's ass when they do something real small, doesn't mean NASA is collapsing. In fact there is more development going on than there ever has before, of course you will not see those articles on Slashdot.
But hey go ahead and drool over some pictures of the dark side of the moon or a cheap ass probe sent by the EU but the main instrument developed by Americans which did the discovery was added onto the unit.
Make perfect sense from the US POV: No other country has more space assets to lose and less foreign space targets to shoot down than the US. Also, no other military is more dependent on an operational space infrastructure to wage war. And of course: reconnaissance favors the attacker - and the US has been the agressor in all military conflicts since Pearl Harbour.
If Obama gets away with this proposal, it would be a major strategic coup - if Russia, China, etc. are stupid enough to fall for the trap (the EU probably is). Otherwise it still makes for a good diplomacy stunt.
Right, letting the Chinese develop their weapons with no attempt to stay ahead will end so much better for the U.S.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's already been pointed out that the technology needed for anti-satellite weapons is available to many nations adversarial to the US. It's only reasonable that they pursue such weapons. I don't begrudge a nation the position of "if you attack us or our allies, we'll blow up your satellites". In fact, I expect a nation involved in armed conflict to attack vulnerable, high value, military targets.
Anti-satellite weapons are a marvelous deterrent because they can actually be used first. Unlike WMD, they do not carry the guarantee of catastrophic counter attack and the world will not likely react in horror at the atrocity of blowing up a military imaging satellite. After all, if you're at war with the US, the US is already blowing up every transmitter, radar, surveillance or command and control facility we can find, attacking the same sort of asset in space is spectacular, but not an atrocity (baring a chain reaction that makes orbit inaccessible). Any policy should operate under the assumption that our adversaries will attempt to acquire any technology that is accessible to them which would cause us pain if used.
I operate under the assumption that anti-satellite weapons are going to be developed, and possibly exported, by our adversaries. The question then becomes how best to protect that advantage. To my mind a real, physical, protection is worth far more than a political agreement with adversarial nations, and that appears to mean a assent stage intercept of some sort or the ability to maneuver satellites to avoid KKVs. Nearly all the technology in these options is under a missile defense or space weapons umbrella. If we assume that our adversaries will acquire anti-satellite weapons anyway, which I do, it is unwise to forego the technologies necessary to defend those assets simply because they are multi-purpose.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
..I'll be joining PLANT!
the USA has the most to lose from any anti-satellite efforts. A general attack on our space assets (.mil and civ) would be terrible. This is what Obama's policy aims to prevent. He probably personally opposes things like "Rods from God" (orbital kinetic bombardment) or orbital storage of nuclear weapons (illegal under... START2, IIRC) but preventing ASAT development and hardening our fleet is just a common sense plan. The goal is to preserve our edge in space.
Current policy seems to be about ASATs and maintaining leadership in space. Both commendable but let's expand the discussion some.
What is a space weapon? At root, anything moving @ orbital velocities is a weapon if used as such. What about dedicated systems? Nukes-on-orbit are out for political & treaty reasons (and common sense). What about laser, particle, EMP or kinetic? Dropping Marines from suborbitals? (Roughnecks!) Should any or all of these be prevented from being developed despite their obvious tactical and strategic advantages?
Beyond preserving the satellite fleet and space environment, what place does space operations have in modern conflict? It may be impossible from preventing the High Frontier from being a conflict zone, in which case it is suicide to hobble ourselves. Maintaining a zone of relative freedom-from-conflict should also be important - civilian surface ships are unarmed for a reason - it encourages peaceful development instead of a bunker mentality.
We need a first generation of pioneers.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
the UK and the US were behind the overthrow of the democratically elected president and replacement with a pro western dictator
That's what I respect about countries with freedom of speech - in particular, the freedom to highlight government's past mistakes without fear.
I've read a little about the Kent State shootings (1970), and all I could think was, the newspapers were allowed to print such news, and I'm allowed to read such history as of 2008. That's freedom.
When will I be reading the wrong things my own government have done?
I've gone through most posts and it seems too many people are driven by fear.
I don't understand why so many keeps speculating about wars between countries and pointing at China as the potential aggressor. There is no benefit for China to start a war with the US. In fact, no country benefit from attacking the US because they are a huge market.
The space militarization was another FEAR project from the Bush administration, to further increase the US citizens debts for more profit in the pockets of his friends in the weapon industry.
Remember the color-coded alert system following 9/11? It kept all Americans under a stupidly unnecessary constant stress, but most important of all, under fear. It became so strong that Americans never question the aggression on Irak under false premise.
What I am getting to is the only reason space militarization advocates have is to "defend" against "potential" attacks. Just like why Americans can carry firearms... Thus the highest crime and death by firearm rate in the world, by far.
Arming the space and the people only lead to more violence and war, it never did nor never will prevent them to happen.
Justy because other countries are more draconian then us in enforcing security, doesn't mean we're doing a good job.
"That said, I've really enjoyed traveling the world and experiencing other cultures firsthand. That is the best way of reducing paranoia and building trust, I think"
Absolutely. Just knowledge about the every day lives of people in other countries can help.
Once people realize that all most all people everywhere want the exact same thing.
To live there lives, provide for their families and enjoy the time they ahve on this planet.
The more the ordinary citizens of countries realize this, the harder it becomes to create war. Well I suppose you could create war, but if no one shows up it is still war?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The naiveté here is the assumption that everyone who signs on will follow through. The history of such high-minded arms agreements suggests otherwise. The Kellogg-Briand Pact didn't work. After signing the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the Soviets continued their programs. There was also evidence that they violated the 1972 ABM treaty.
An international weapons ban is just like gun control: the people most likely to obey the law are the law-abiding citizens you usually don't have to worry about, while the people you most want to disarm are the criminals who are least likely to obey the law.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Um, no. Slashdot brings out a certain kind of ignorant loud mouth.
It doesn't reflect the US anymore then a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan orginizing an attack on the US is an accurate portrayal of Saudi Arabia citizens.
full quote for my reference here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1293323/quotes
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Attila Dimedici beat me to it, but I'll say it too. China is building their military anyway. Do you think not keeping up is a winning strategy?
And Osama didn't use the guns we provided him against us in 9/11. High-tech stuff we gave them, like MANPADS, were designed to become non-operable in a few years at most specifically so they couldn't be used against us in another conflict. He used commonly available items, ingenuity, determination, and money he made in construction. Without a Cold War, we would likely still have highly capable enemies, and probably more. There would be no reason for people not to attack us if we had no means to defend ourselves.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I agree. But this is likely the direction we are headed. We need India to counterbalance.
Thank you non-local Indian outsourced coder today.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I'm sorry to say this but Obama is quite right to do such a thing. While we are all screaming "terrorists or the middle east might destroy us", bear in mind that they are not using anything near to space age weaponry. And while you think that their first priority is to slay all of the west, bear in mind that every/any head of an aggressive religion has one priority: power. There is no exception (please tell me one). So wouldn't it make sense that the second we put the Taliban out of power that they stopped giving a shit about us? As easy as it would be to set off a car bomb in a completely unguarded crowded building (too many to name), the leaders would much more prefer to get their old power back (hence it makes sense to stay in Afghanistan). Any other leader of any other country isn't going to nuke us because they know we well pummel them into oblivion. The only reason their government incite hate against us is because they need a scapegoat as to why they live like shit. We would win the "war on terror" if the right information got to the citizens and they found out their government is the reason they live like shit. Imagine that, a victory without space age weaponry. Guess diplomacy is actually worth a shot huh?
Help fight spam
> The US wasn't the aggressor in the Korean or Vietnam Wars
There are exceptions, but generally, in my book, unless having been directly attacked first, whoever is fighting farther away from home is the aggressor by default.
ignatius
...china virtually owns America, you cant even hit china with trade sanctions.
While its true that pretty much everything we have comes from China, that doesn't exactly give them the upper hand. What U.S. and China have right now is kind of like mutually assured destruction in and economic sense..
I'm not sacred of space weapons. People are not going to put their doomsday weapons far away from themselves (fear of losing control). Space weapons would likely be just lasers aim at world leaders. Obama is just looking out for himself.
What we really need is a space littering laws. We don't want companies forgetting about their old nuclear powered satellites siting up in space just waiting to fall on us.
We have a shift from an administration that was very dismissive of multilateral negotiations [as a whole], to an administration that is open to that possibility if it improves U.S. national security.'
I know he may not have been the best, but to add words that almost read "aswhole"...
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Personally I cannot wait till China gets into it with another country, they will literally slaughter everyone in sight. The world will cry foul and run crying to the U.S..
Hopefully it will be Israel... please, please, please let it happen to Israel...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Shit, I clicked overrated instead of underrated as I had wanted.
...they didn't reason themselves into.
So, I'm not going to try to convince anyone.
I'm just going to add my vote: Build Space Weapons +1.
(insert analogy about jungles or frontiers here)
Seriously, how dumb can Obama and the liberals be? The guy just does not live in our reality.
Did we learn NOTHING from the last 8 years? Any student of history should know that when the administration changes (which it does every 4-8 years), treaties with things such as weapons bans or admonitions on prisoner (oh, I'm sorry, the word is detainee this week) treatment (such as torture) are often summarily ignored or otherwise completely undermined by new administrations who will justify to themselves the national need to do whatever the hell they want.
If Bush/Cheney did ANYTHING for international relations, it's the clear demonstration that US treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Just exactly how clueless is this guy? We sign and abide by it and China laughs while it continues its development and manufacture. We already know they have the capability when they recklessly blew their own satellite up. So as for those comments of "we are so far ahead", ahead of who? Now we have Iran that just put a satellite up. All they have to do is get into some orbit with other satellites and detonate a payload full of any kind of fragmentary crap and there go billions and billions of dollars worth of satellites. That's what we need to worry about. Does one honestly thing a treaty would stop them if that's what they decided to do?
The ban would be on "space based" weapons. That means thing the stay in space until you use them. Like bombs in orbit. Other things like big lasers the stay on the ground are not covered.
Notice that no one has "space based" weapons currently so no one is "dis arming"
When it comes to space the contry with the most to loose would be the one most motivated to keep weopons out of space. That would be the US. The US has by far the most "stuff" up there. Banning space based weopons is in the US' self interrest and I doubt anyone who feels threatened by the US' overhead assests would want such a ban.
There are plenty of arguments for why we should have space based weapons. If you read the right books, we need them to be prepared to repel alien visitations.
Are you for real? Alien visitations? We have real life problems here on earth that deserve a higher priority in the budget than planning for wars against alien civilizations that we have no evidence even exist.
If you can't win in an arms race, why bother wasting resources on it? You can't lose if you don't play.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I don't think the US could destroy china, it would defiantly hurt china (and so is unlikely to happen) but given that even Tibetan protesters rely on Chinese manufacturing, china could survive without the US but i doubt that the US could without china.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
That has been a general theme of the limited career of Obama so far.
He still believes if we just ask our enemies politely not to kill us we don't need any way to defend ourselves.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do you really think something like the cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened just cause no bombs existed?
Actually the Cuban missile crisis was an act of retaliation for the Turkish missiles, which was turned into a clever PR move, so short of the US massing troops in Turkey, no i doubt the USSR would have built up troops in Cuba.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Far too often in these discussion I encounter ideologues that, instead of approaching each potential negotiation and evaluating it on its merits, apply ideological assumptions and assert that we shouldn't "appease" our enemies. The fact of the matter is, all negotiations have a winner and a loser - and as a global hegemon, the US is in a position to make sure we win. Reflexively spurning negotiation for ideological reasons takes one potential tool out of our hands. Part of the problem is the practical difficulty in selling a hard-nosed analysis of a potential treaty to the public: policymakers can't exactly tell the electorate "Don't worry, we're totally taking Ivan to the cleaners on this one" and then turn around and say "Please sign on the dotted line, Mr. Putin." With that in mind, I present some historical examples of successful applications of "soft" power in order to advance a nation's interests.
(1) England and anti-slavery: By the mid 19th century, there was a Western European consensus that slavery was evil. England successfully argued that since it was so evil, nations should have broad authority to investigate and disrupt the slave trade, and secured agreements to that effect. England happened to have the world's largest navy and command of the sea. Obviously, it was incumbent upon them to take their warships and investigate and disrupt your merchant shipping, dock in and poke around the coastal cities of your client states, etc. etc. to defeat the evil practice of slavery. All it all it was a great excuse to give Her Majesty's Navy an excuse to poke their noses into other people's business and ignore traditional maritime borders. (Not that there wasn't genuine abolitionist sentiment behind these agreements as well. That was the beautiful thing: the abolitionist sentiment could be exploited to emphasize England's existing strategic advantages.)
(2)Petraeus and Iraqi Nationalists. Concurrent with the troop surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus reached out to Sunni insurgents who previously were hostile to American forces and started paying their salaries while encouraging them to oppose foreign fighters and join the political process. I suppose appeasement is OK when it comes from a 4-star general. Consequently, the "Anbar Awakening" occurred and former insurgents became the "Sons of Iraq." It may be premature to describe this as a success, as Petraeus himself readily acknowledges that our gains are tenuous unless we build on them, but for now no one - and certainly no one on the right - has stepped up to argue against the all-but-sainted Petraeus' strategy.
(3)1790s America and the Barbary Pirates:In the 1790s the US had no navy to speak of. For about a decade we paid tribute to the Barbary pirates, because it was more cost-effective than letting them sink our ships. Tribute payments accounted for up to 20% of the federal budget at that time. A full fifth of the budget: imagine the neocon howls of outrage at this indignity. Both Washington and Adams were opposed to tribute in principle and understood that tribute would eventually lead to more piracy, but saw that it was the practical solution for the short-term: transatlantic shipping was essential in growing the young nation's tax base, as there was no income tax then and tariffs were a substantial source of federal revenue. By 1800 America had a brand-spanking-new Navy built just in time for the more hawkish Jefferson to suspend tribute payments, send in the Marines, and kick some pirate butt. Many people are familiar with the butt-kicking "Shores of Tripoli" part, but tend to overlook the decade of swallowing our pride and paying up that made it possible.
http://davidjarvis.ca/warfare.pdf
Although I snail mailed it, I doubt he actually read it.
Eternal vigilance, and I don't mean watching Soviet missile silos. I mean watching OUR silos. The cost of maintaining and securing our nuclear stockpile, nuclear materials, the people who watch our materials (and the people who watch THEM) at a Zero Fail level is killing us. To paraphrase that dirtbag Robert McNamara "the combination of nuclear weapons and human fallibility will inevitably lead to nuclear war." It's almost happened at least twice.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Muslim society is filled with hate and violence because a few men have most of the women.
It's the polygamy stupid!
Example: Mohammed bin Laden, Osama's father, had 22 wives and 57 kids. He'd "divorce" one when he got bored and marry another. Depending on how the woman pleased him, he'd give her to bigger or lesser man in his company.
This happened to Osama at age 9, his stepfather naturally had what amounted to Mohammed bin Laden's used sex toy, and spawn of the Big Man he both hated and feared.
A man with four wives means three men without, and as you can see the actual result can be around 18 men without "real" wives (rather discarded sex toys and spawn of the big man).
Let's get real: the way Muslims form their families, and the polygamy, accounts for their need to go out and conquer the West. All your PC rationalizing and feminized nonsense won't fix that problem.
And Teleprompter Mohammed, Obama, is from a polygamous family (his old man had several wives at the same time, including his mom). A polygamous Muslim family. He's also canceled the trial of the Cole Bomber (prepatory to "trying" him in civilian court or releasing him, since the guy was not Mirandized by CIA officers upon seizure). 9/11 families and Cole families are outraged, but what can you expect from Obama the Muslim President. He's retreating on Afghanistan too, deep-sixing his plan of two weeks ago to send 30K troops there. Considering instead withdrawal.
The guy hates America. He's a Muslim. It's the polygamy. Simple as that.
Read Obama's book.
He's filled with racial hatred towards Whites ("Dreams from My Father: A Story of RACE and INHERITANCE") that comes across in his first book: hatred of an interviewer because he was White, wanting to symbolically Kill a White Guy to "purge his White Blood" just like Malcolm X wrote about, remarkable when his mother MARRIED his Father, even if she did abandon him to go off and write her 300 page thesis on Peasant Blacksmithing in Indonesia! Then there was his dumping of a girl he loved, because he did not want any more White relatives (she was White), his deal with his White Granny getting hassled by a Black bum on the bus, and so on. Not to mention his pastor, Rev. Hate Whitey, and his long association with anti-American radicals: Ayers, Khalidi, his college room-mate in Columbia, his travels to Pakistan during the Summer, and so on.
Guy could not even put his hand on his heart during the National Anthem. He's always hated America. And the Military. He thinks he can give a big speech and make everyone impressed.
Whoever talks to this guy last seems to set policy, until his anti-American, anti-military, and anti-White Farrakhan-type attitudes float up.
Reality: IRAN, North Korea, and Pakistan have the ability to put up ICBMs which means anti-Satellite capability.
Now, what Obama (Muslim President) proposes to do is say, no anti-satellite weapons for US, so we cannot take out THEIR satellites. But we'll sign a piece of paper that will GUARANTEE that the nice fellows in Iran (who are constantly denying the Holocaust ever happened then saying they will out-do it), those fine fellows in Pakistan (home of AQ and the Taliban and Jihad) and North Korea (because Kim Jong-Il is so trustworthy) will never, EVER bring down our satellites.
In reality, this allows them a first strike on our satellites so we have NO IDEA what they are doing, even or up to a nuclear first strike.
Now, there is no chance they can totally destroy us, but there is a huge chance they can kill a few cities, and deny it. Without satellites we can't even use missile defense.
Obama's not stupid -- he knows all this. HE WANTS the enemies of the US to hit us, because he HATES the US as much as they do. Heck his first message was to Al-Aribiya praising the Saudis and saying America sucked. A giant apology to Muslims worldwide. Putting a giant kick-me sign on the US.
A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand. As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it! I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one. Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract? I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss. I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech! Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom. I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process. I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.
This is perfectly reasonable as escalation of any type of conflict in earth orbit is a MAD-type situation. If anti-satellite weaponry or space-based weaponry proliferate, it could very well render earth orbit unusable due to debris if conflict were to break out. No amount of military superiority in space can stop such a scenario from happening. Peace is a requirement for the space race to continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome
obama for peace on the earth..
http://www.gorontalo-online.com