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."
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."
Dear Finlander I don't agree your view of the Muslims hate Europe because they hate your freedom. I think the issue is more materialistic then cultural or emotional. The bottom line is they hate Europe because Europe is richer. By Europe I mean not only EU but also US. Actually I should even call it Christendom as oppose to Muslim world. Also there is the element of exploitation of Europe those countries. Maybe Finland as a country did not do that but England, France etc. those countries did their fair share of colonialism in Middle East. So this issue of Muslim aggression is not something that is started yesterday it has its roots all the way back to 1800.
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
The rest of your post I more or less agreed with, but I differ with you on this comment. Were you asleep during the last 8 years? Or did you just fail to notice that the majority of American people trusted George Bush Jr. to invade a country on completely false pretenses. Moreover, often those that questioned that line were denounced as traitors. Not just the government, we the people allowed this. I'd say the American people trusting Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it has to do with that the American people are gullible, they treat every president that way at first.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush gets so much criticism because of statements like this, but it is very true. They see our freedom as the antithesis to Sharia Law and responsible for our moral decay.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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."
Dear neighbour (I'm Swedish, also obscure and nordic). I spent a month in Singapore and Malaysia a while ago. Malaysia is an Islamic country, and Singapore has a lot of Muslim citizens.
My experience was the opposite. They where very friendly and helpful, and didn't hear any such complaints. They where curious how we made a living, why we're so much richer, how we solve energy prices living in such a cold place. They however never said they wanted me or any other European to be Muslim.
Of course are some of our customs things that make other cultures feel awkward or even disgusted. I guess alcohol to them is like coca is for us for instance.
Worth to mention as well maybe: In one place we met two Pakistani women who where out traveling with one of the womens' children. Both very interested in our culture, as well as sharing about theirs. They didn't even scream infidel! when landing with their parachutes when we paraglided at the beach ;)
There really are no existing bans on space weapons. Really the only legal limitations are a prohibition on placing nuclear weapons in orbit (hearkening back to the days of the Soviet's fractional bombardment system) and one concerning military bases on the moon.
Maybe you're talking about the ABM Treaty? If so, you realize that since Bush withdrew that it is null and void?
In so far as actual threat from space-based weapons - I'd say that the major developments in that area concern ASAT weapons and micro-satellites. Both areas where the US and China have demonstrated some capability.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
The problems in the Muslim world have very little to do with the West. They are same reasons that communism and just about every other evil form of politics takes hold, poverty and ignorance exploited by politicians. The Muslim world is so extrema because their poverty is so extrema. More exactly, the income gap is so extrema across the Muslim worlds. The west is a scapegoat for criminals to stay in power. It is not that much different from say Venezuela, Bolivia, or say the Nazi party and the Jews, Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians and Isreal. The enemy of my enemy is my friend principle is most useful in politics. Look what it did for the Bush administration.
Living in Chile
Actually the problems with the Muslim world - a.k.a the Middle East, is that they were once a actual "1st world level group" who were brought down to "3rd world levels" due to the actions of the 'West', first in the form of the British Empire, and afterwards in the form of the American 'empire' as we attempted to set up various puppet governments to prevent the spread of Communism.
And while some of it was due to their own arrogance (aka the Ottoman Empire in WWI) a large portion of it was due to the intentional efforts of the British empire and the inadvertent side effects of the CIA picking despots and fundamentalists to run countries rather than allowing democracy take hold (which they believed would be quickly subverted to communism).
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.