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."

6 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Childish by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    You needn't reason with Stalin. He's dead.
    You needn't reason with Hamas. They can't attack you (provided you're not in Israel).

    So what's left is Ahmi. And he's if anything a loudmouth. He has to be. He's a politician after all, and he's saying what his voters want to hear. Do you think he's stupid? Attacking the US would mean immediate retaliation and the Iran, while anything but a backwater country, can't hold out much longer than the Iraq did, when facing a military machinery like the US army. He would lose. And he knows that.

    Ahmi wants to stay in power. That alone is enough reason for him not to attack any place the US could consider important enough to launch a retaliation strike.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Re:Saves money, too by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then we'd have seen terrorism emerge way earlier. Learn your history, but learn it well.

    Germany was economically crippled and, worse, humiliated after WW1. A swift retaliation after Hitler decided to occupy some of the countries, wiping him off the map and forcing Germany to surrender yet again would not have solved this problem. What led to WW2 wasn't simply the emerge of Hitler. The core reason was the humiliation of Germany at the peace treaties of WW1 and the ensuing thirst for revenge, and the extreme fear on the French side with a doctrine that dictated that Germany has to be crippled to the point where it could never pose a threat to France ever again.

    The solution was only found after both sides found that it's better for peace to accept the mutual right to exist.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Misleading Summary by manekineko2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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:

    Ensure Freedom of Space: The Obama-Biden Administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. They will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.

    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.

  4. Re:Childish by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    from past administrations' behaviour

    This again, eh? Tell me exactly WHAT Bill Clinton did to earn us a 9-11? In 1992, AQ attacked 2 hotels in Yemen, targeting US troops. What did Bill Clinton do to anger them? In 1993, AQ tried to blow up the WTC...again, what did Clinton do? He wasn't known as a war hawk or anything. How did his policies earn this? In 1994, AQ set off a bomb in Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing one person. This was a test for a bomb attack on US planes, later. Again, under Clinton. How did he anger AQ? 1998, two US embassies (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed. Then, the USS Cole in 2000. I'm sure this was because of Clinton's policies.

    Bush really hadn't done anything with foreign policy before 9-11.

    Is it possible that violence and war will always be simply be a fact of life? You can't always ascribe it as someones fault. Like your bullshit attempt to say the US just got what it deserved.

  5. Yes you're childish by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. Re:Childish by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Informative
    What is your area of expertise? Because I am an intelligence analyst and quite well-read in this area. I've been to Iraq a few times as an analyst. I've read their newspapers, listened to their phone calls, analyzed detainee reporting, etc etc etc. I think I know a thing or two here.

    The well-educated and well-off among them hate us just as much. UBL was a billionaire engineer. The 9/11 conspirators initially met in coffee houses in Europe; these were not poverty-stricken desperate people. They also hate us for being successful when they "know" they are Allah's chosen. I've heard this described as cognitive dissonance, which is one of the better explanations out there I think. Part of their brain knows they are destined for greatness, the other sees how far behind the West they are. The result is a violent backlash against reality.

    Poverty is a problem, yes. But they say with great frequency that they hate our freedom. It has made us loose, it has corrupted our women, it has made our children fat and indolent, etc. The appreciation of individual freedom we take for granted in America and Europe is not part of their culture.

    Give people an education, give them hope that they can make their lives better and the problem goes away.

    Not quite. Morocco has the biggest problem in all of Africa in human trafficking, despite having one of the highest standards of living. The relative difference in standards of living between Morocco and nearby Europe has apparently prompted many people to sneak into Europe for a better chance at life. As long as we are better off than they are, it doesn't matter if they get an education or hope.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.