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."
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.
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."
While I agree with you, your analogy has a flaw. I do not believe that there are a lot of 'evil nations' out there just waiting to rob the US of everything they have or some such thing.
Most outside aggression the US faces today stems from past administrations' behaviour toward other nations. Right at this moment, the US cannot afford to let its guard down at all.
That's right because only bullies can bring peace. Just ask Stalin how killing people leads to stability.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You are an idiot. And the mantra that anytime you disagree with Obama you're a racist is infantile. Grow up, go to school, and quit mooching off your parents. There is absolutely no racism in that statement. And you have no idea if I'm Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. Stop taking sides and start being an American first.
No worries, we have a new line of defense - Bill Gates and his mosquitos.
The mere owning of a weapon doesn't make you a bully. Therein lies the the flaw in your thinking and, possibly, Obama's.
Wrong side of the equation. How do you reason with Stalin? Or Hamas or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Do you compromise, only let them build half a nuclear bomb, only kill half the jews?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
That's a naive view. American invervention in many countries has understandably stirred up a lot of discontent, but the problem of Islamic aggression has much deeper roots than US misdeeds. I'm from Finland, an obscure Nordic country with little foreign policy to speak of, and even I get hate. I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees. Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values. Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
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.
Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
I wouldn't know the answer to that. The only person I've ever known who almost got raped ended the attempted attack with three shots from her .38 special. Don't tell any of the liberals though, they'd probably get upset that she didn't try to reason with him and/or call the police. She could have gotten hurt, don't you know?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
I do not believe that there are a lot of 'evil nations' out there just waiting to rob the US of everything they have or some such thing.
There weren't a lot of 'evil nations' out there in the 20s either. Times can change and I see no reason we should leave ourselves vulnerable or needing to play catch up if one emerges.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Doesn't it worry you that the only reason the US don't get attacked is a superior army and that they can browbeat everyone into submission?
Oh, wait, I forgot about terrorism. Guess why they attack you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
says the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.
This guy is way out there
I agree. I've been trying to figure out how to tell people that Obama is a man who happens to be black, and because of this hysteria, he has arguably been given far more trust than any president should be given.
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. Other opinions are equal to the notions of what would have happened if the US had decided that we don't need automatic weapons.
In the end, you will have them. The only question is how much damage are you willing to sustain before deciding to build them.
There is another angle. Space based weapons can be built using civilian space travel/exploration technology and the other way around. I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing. Nobody is perfect, but this 180 degree shift doesn't make sense unless he is just pushing the program underground or plying for political favor somewhere. Neither of those options speak well of him, and neither explanation bodes well for the security and safety of the citizens of the USA.
Those who criticize him for it are quite right to do so, not to mention they are within their constitutional rights to do so. We need to think critically and criticize where it is appropriate. Letting the executive branch run around wildly is what happened over the last 8 years. Time for that to stop. If that means Obama has to explain himself in detail and quite often, so be it. We need transparency and wisdom in the Whitehouse.
Saying that any criticism of Obama is racism is exactly the kind of thinking that Bush used: Any criticism of the Executive branch is unamerican. This, my friends, is what fascism looks like.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Space weapons had been banned for a very long time.
The Outer Space Treaty was enacted in 1967. According to wikipedia, there are 99 countries on the treaty, and another 26 who have signed but not ratified.
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!
And just ask the Jews of WWII how being disarmed helped them. Ask Neville Chamberlain how diplomacy in the face of your enemies worked out.
This guy is way out there
Stop slamming liberals, I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment.
I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals, there is a defining line.
Any way back to the original topic, non-space based weapons currently have the ability to hit any target on Earth plus they are cheaper to maintain as they do not require a shuttle launch plus in the case of a nuclear sub they are very hard to hide.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
I wish I could mod this up. Well said.
Correction, I suppose it's only WMDs in space.
Stop slamming liberals, I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment.
So who did you vote for then?
I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals
Well, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Mind you, I live in a State where the Democratic party just freaked the fuck out because our Governor had the audacity to appoint someone to the Senate who is pro 2nd amendment even though that someone is a Democrat. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical about the Democratic Party when it comes to guns.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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!
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing
Here's something that worries the hell out of me. Apparently we shouldn't be keeping our nuclear deterrent reliable and having any sort of assurance that the weapons actually work as designed.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
We have more weapons on land, air, sea, even underwater than anyone else
...and you're still terrified.
How is arming yourselves even more going to solve the problem?
You have three potential threats:
1. Russia/China/etc: Have no interest in attacking the US, they have their own problems, they don't need yours.
2. Terrorism: The only successful counter to terrorism has been to make the underlying causes irrelevant.
3. Internal: Good luck with that...
On top of which there is a fourth real threat coming directly from the economic system that is collapsing around your ears and which is most certainly not going to be solved through wasting money on fantasy projects, isolationism, or "reds under beds" paranoia.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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.
Give them they're fucking country back?
Give them security by removing Isreals atomic option?
Why is MAD an ok tactic for the west but banned in the middle east?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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.
Possibly, of course. We can't prove the non-existence of something, after all.
The question is, where is the evidence that Obama thinks this way? Just because you can arrive at the conclusion "we oughtn't pursue space weapons" from the premise "owning a weapon makes you a bully" doesn't mean that the premise is logically necessary. A->B does not imply B->A.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And just ask the Jews of WWII how being disarmed helped them
<sarcasm>Everybody knows that if the Jews had been armed they would have been 12 times more likely to injure themselves than the SS officers. Imagine if their kids had found those guns or something? Think of the children!</sarcasm>
Ask Neville Chamberlain how diplomacy in the face of your enemies worked out.
Ask the Czechs.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your experience is very interesting and since I do not have any experience with muslims in the first place, I do not doubt yours.
I'll have to ask you, though, whether you are sure that the reasons you were given were the actual cause of this 'hate' against the west, or just a symptom.
I would imagine that, like a lot of people who yell 'think of the children', those reasons might have been presented to the population just to keep an already lit fire burning.
It is, after all, much harder to get humans to move their lazy asses against people who have been benevolent and civil than it is against people who rudely tried to push their agenda's, uncaring of whom they ran over.
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.
THL phish sticks
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
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.
Maybe you should be a little more worried about countries like Iran and North Korea having space weapons... you know, countries that might actually use them irresponsibly.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
FTFA you linked:
Nuclear weapons have tended to prevent or contain conflicts between those nations that possess them. Today's nuclear nightmare tends to focus less on a doomsday exchange with similarly armed rival states than on the nightmare of "loose nukes" falling into the hands of terrorists unaligned with any state and therefore beyond the reach of deterrence. A new batch of nuclear weapons, unfortunately, isn't going to change that.
I know this is a bad analogy, but knives and bows/arrows are still a threat. All the saber rattling with Iran was not about "...terrorists unaligned with any state and therefore beyond the reach of deterrence." It's about a state that they worry is trying to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Kim Jong Il is not a loose terrorist. It's easy to argue that the original reason of MAD is still valid, and that the nuclear deterrents are still needed.
Take this thread altogether and it appears that Obama is working to disarm the USA altogether. Whatever it means I think 'we the people' are owed an explanation that makes sense. When it _looks_ like our defenses are coming down, and troops are being deployed on home soil I think it's high time to be worried; high time to be asking the Executive "WTF are you doing?"
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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!
What books are those? Besides, do you really think that our puny space weapons are going to be any deterrent at all for visitations by an alien race sufficiently advanced to overcome the technical hurdles involved in interstellar travel? For the love of FSM, the nearest star is 4.2 light years away from our sun, and to the best of my knowledge Proxima Centauri does not have any planets in orbit.
It might even be helpful if we started applying some sense instead of just flexing our muscles and refusing to abide by the rules (i.e., the Geneva convention) that we expect others to follow. I believe that this is where President Obama is headed and IMHO it certainly beats the "bomb them back into the Stone Age" rhetoric.
lol, you do realize you just got trolled right?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing. Nobody is perfect, but this 180 degree shift doesn't make sense unless he is just pushing the program underground or plying for political favor somewhere. Neither of those options speak well of him, and neither explanation bodes well for the security and safety of the citizens of the USA.
Unless you believe that the fact that USA wants to have weapon everywhere and power over all is one of the reason it's so hated. Maybe, just maybe if we stopped being asshats and pick sides (the side that will in one way or another profit us) in every conflict we wouldn't need all those weapons? We could start being a nation among many, and like the rest of the world use UN.
I guess this is a strange view for someone like you but there are many countries in the world who safeguard "freedom" and yet not see the need to arm space and have enough nukes to blow the world up.
I think a nice start would be to start checking if our previous leadership shouldn't be tried in Haag or similar, the attack on Iraq (and partially Afghanistan) where clearly unprovoked attacks on independent nations which breeches international law.
I don't see that happening but as an alternative, not trying to piss off more people by building more weapons (of mass destruction) would be nice.
Dude, I think we both agree completely. We let Bush do things that are bad, and we need now to NOT let Obama do them. I said he happens to be black because it doesn't matter to me what color he is. Color will not make him incapable of being the same kind of bad leader Bush was, or worse.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
Depends whether you live within the US borders.
Yeah, ever since the ban on the use of chemical and biological weapons, the US has been attacked over and over with them. Where as the US hasn't banned landmines and thus is able to use them on its own soil in self-defence. Phew!
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
As far as I remember from what I read about WW2 (and I could be wrong in this), Japan was in peace talks either before or after the first atomic strike.
There is debate if the nuclear attacks were necessary, and there are some strong arguments that if the first may have been justifiable, the second definitely wasn't.
What the second attack changed, was that Japan accepted an unconditional surrender, instead of peace negotiations.
What do you base your affirmation on, when you say that those weapons ended the war?
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
What about Al Qaeda and related groups who vowed to wipe the US off the map back in '90s, when we had a peaceful President? They don't care about our stance on Iraq, or how much we help the Palestinians, or whether we're in Saudi Arabia. They have promised to not stop fighting until "the flag of Islam flies over the White House." Granted, one can question the suitability of space-based weapons in this fight, but let's not forget we have a lot of determined and resourceful enemies, regardless of the last administration.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Admittedly, the authors of such books sound like they had tin foil permanently implanted in their scalps, but it is one argument for developing them. Other arguments are more prescient.
I personally do not believe that we (as a planet) should be cutting back on space technology of any kind. There are resources in our solar system that could be very useful in the near future. We need to get there and use them.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
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.
Dont forget the UN and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US, not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in. Iraq was not a sovereign nation, it was part of a ceasefire agreement where they promised to allow weapons inspectors in, and when they refused, they were then subject to the consequences.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
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.
Kim Jong Il is also reputedly not the most... stable of individuals. A nuclear deterrent is good against rational geographic opponents, but not quite so effective against either non-geographical or irrational enemies.
The Allies decided before the fall of Germany that they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. If the Japanese were not yet willing to accept unconditional surrender after the first bomb, then the war wasn't over yet.
That's not to say that the second bomb was justified, but politically, the Allies were not going to accept anything less than unconditional surrender.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
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 agree. I've been trying to figure out how to tell people that Obama is a man who happens to be black, and because of this hysteria, he has arguably been given far more trust than any president should be given.
I partially agree with you. I think that because of his charisma people want to believe what he says. I also think his actions have been far more scrutinised than previous presidents. I don't think the trust, but verify model is a bad model.
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. Other opinions are equal to the notions of what would have happened if the US had decided that we don't need automatic weapons.
In the end, you will have them. The only question is how much damage are you willing to sustain before deciding to build them.
Sorry, but space based weapons to repel aliens? I want to believe as much as the next /.er, but don't fool yourself. Normal Earth targets(humans) would be the goal of these weapons. They wouldn't stand a chance against any civilization who could travel here.
As for "automatic weapons," I see no reason why a spaced based warhead would be able to do any more damage than a "conventional" warhead now or in the future.
There is another angle. Space based weapons can be built using civilian space travel/exploration technology and the other way around. I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing. Nobody is perfect, but this 180 degree shift doesn't make sense unless he is just pushing the program underground or plying for political favor somewhere. Neither of those options speak well of him, and neither explanation bodes well for the security and safety of the citizens of the USA.
I'd say the opposite. Spend the "space money" on civilian projects instead of useless "space weapons".
Those who criticize him for it are quite right to do so, not to mention they are within their constitutional rights to do so. We need to think critically and criticize where it is appropriate. Letting the executive branch run around wildly is what happened over the last 8 years. Time for that to stop. If that means Obama has to explain himself in detail and quite often, so be it. We need transparency and wisdom in the Whitehouse.
Saying that any criticism of Obama is racism is exactly the kind of thinking that Bush used: Any criticism of the Executive branch is unamerican. This, my friends, is what fascism looks like.
I haven't heard anyone from this administration imply that criticism of his policies is racist. If you can point me to a quote I would like to see if that will be the tone of this administration. If you can't I'm going to assume you're building a strawman and inventing repression to explain why people aren't listening to you.
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 ;)
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 UN did not invade Iraq; it appears to have opposed the invasion but the hawks slipped through an ambiguity in the wording of the resolution. Iraq was a sovereign nation. Iraq did allow the weapons inspectors in. Other than that, you're pretty much on the ball.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
countries that might actually use them irresponsibly.
There's a responsible way?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
[...] repel alien visitations.
And there went my coffee ... directly to the screen.
Thanks!
Those who do not know the history are bound to repeat it's mistakes.
(not my words)
I agree completely with your belief that we should not be cutting back on space technology, and the reasons you give for that, however, how does a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. interfere with those goals in any way? It is in the first paragraph of the first article linked, but this is slashdot, I guess I expect too much sometimes.
Why is MAD an ok tactic for the west but banned in the middle east?
OIL.
It is much more difficult to get the oil when the area is irradiated or covered in a layer of glass.
(or when they can defend themselves from future actions by nuking our troops)
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
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!
Stop slamming hippies! Most of the real hippies that I know (grew up in the 60's, went to Woodstock) now own assault rifles & vote Republican.
Go figure.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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
Ahh okay, I misunderstood your intent. I agree though, we the people need to push Obama and not let him get away with this FISA crap or saving bankers who lost billions or dollars. If we don't, it'll just be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
There are plenty of arguments for why we should have space based weapons.
True, but you only need one argument: They're awesome.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
They wouldn't stand a chance against any civilization who could travel here.
They will after we unleash our secret weapon: A Jewish cable repairman armed with the latest in iBook technology ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Which is why they were invaded, and I could've sworn I saw many troops with the little UN blue flag in Iraq during the meaty part of the war.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Give them security by removing Isreals atomic option?
And just how do you suggest going about this?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Saying no to rape is not at all similar to diplomacy.
The analogous situation would be if someone is attacking you, you pull a gun on them and tell them to get the hell away from you.
That gun does not need to be in space. See, ridiculous analogies can go both ways!
You don't need more than 2 nukes to deal with both Iran and North Korea.
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.
What FISA crap? FISA has been around for decades. The problems came when the president decided he no longer needed FISA approval. Restoring FISA's oversight, even with loosened rules is a net positive for this country.
Dont forget the UN and every other country in the world that invaded Iraq with the US, not due to WMD's, but due to Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in.
Is that why the UN inspectors had to evacuate Iraq before we started bombing?
Just being in the country does not mean that they were able to complete their job of inspecting labs.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
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.
I think there might be a little bit of guilt by association there, finland is in europe, out of ignorance they lump europe with US actions (which is why they're mad, not because "we are free"), and therefore Finland has, in their eyes, been blamable for every percieved insult against islam.
Not unlike the dumb hicks here who lump all of Islam together as responsible for 9/11.
You're right though, I don't think the extremists will forgive us, they're still upset over petty squabbles from 1000 years ago.
Of course that goes both ways. If we try to make amends, muslim extremists are mad. If we take a hardline approach, muslim extremists are mad. But if we don't use diplomacy and just resort to force, Islam is going to get madder at us. Islam is also spreading rapidly, being bullheaded while that is going on is just going to increase the number of muslims angry at the west. And of course, abandoning diplomacy in favor of attacking based on our own righteousness has failed miserably. We seem to be doing not too shabby with one of the two countries we took over and tried to rebuild from the ground up, but we can't afford to do it to every fundamentalist islamic country in the world. Dealing with them is our only choice.
Diplomacy is ineffective, but less so than any of the realistic alternatives.
Something not clumsy or random, like a blaster.
At the request of the Saudi Kingdom to deal with Iraq... and if you remember, our "expansionist policies" included NOT keeping Iraq and not staying in Saudi Arabia.
THL phish sticks
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.
And do you have any idea how much we spend on space defense weapons? Just because we spend a lot on something is no reason to get rid of another thing.
This guy is way out there
A space weapon ban would prevent This type of attack
How is proposing to abide by existing space treaties banning space based weapons "disarm the USA altogether". Obama isn't some hippy Dove. He wants to pull out of Iraq, and beef up the USA military presence in Afghanistan. Diplomancy isn't surrendering. Obama has made it clear that he will fight when it makes sense, but make diplomacy a higher priority.
Obama is pragmatic enough to change course if other nations activities in space were an actual threat.
Anarchists never rule
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.
Singapore and Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, probably?) is MUCH closer to Europe in law and freedoms, and culturally is Asian; it is NOT like the Middle East at all. Try visiting Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Yemen. You'll have a very different experience. Just start with the fact that possession of a Bible or book of Buddhist prayers is fine in Singapore, but can get you arrested in Saudi Arabia.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh gosh.
Oh fucking gosh ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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."
Precisely how do you equate these weapons with bullying? Seriously, I'm curious.
Stalin wasn't a bully. He was a mass murderer. You make no sense whatsoever.
This guy is way out there
Your possession and exercise of the Right to Free Speech must make you a slack jawed mouth breather, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Doesn't it worry you that the only reason the US don't get attacked is a superior army and that they can browbeat everyone into submission?
Oh, wait, I forgot about terrorism. Guess why they attack you.
Just thought I would note that to be fair, the United States' location kinda has something to do with why we're not attacked as well.
We share only 2 borders (for all intents and purposes, none of that Alaska counts as a third border crap). We happen to be really good allies with both of those countries. One of them, we buy their cheap crap, and get flooded with their immigrants, both legal and illegal. The other is basically America with a funny accent, colder weather, and whiny french-speakers. Guess which one is which!
That rules out land invasions, leaving 4 other options.
1. Tunneling through crust/mantle of the planet.
Yeah, don't see this happening anytime soon. Especially in numbers large enough to be significant.
2. Orbital drop force
See number 1. above.
3. Air drop
We kinda might notice that many cargo planes heading our way, not to mention the logistics of keeping a stream of supplies, troops, and armor going while we counterattack the air bases you're taking off from.
4. Naval incursion, followed by amphibious landing.
Great for tiny islands. However, we're gonna notice somebody building thousands of landing boats, assembling a navy, and the aerial coverage that will be necessary. Once we've determined you're heading our way, not many Americans will object to dropping a nuke on your fleet (probably launched from that Ohio class that's been tailing you for weeks)(if the Sea Wolves haven't sent all your significant ships to the bottom).
A significant physical attack is for all intents and purposes impossible on the continental United States. Even if you worked through the difficulties above, you'd never be able to occupy half a continent where at least 1 out of every 3 citizens is fighting tooth and nail to stop you and eject you back to whichever hellhole you crawled out of.
That's why we don't fear attack (except for the hysteria caused by the media reporting isolated terrorist attacks).
Semper fi!
Tell me exactly WHAT Bill Clinton did to earn us a 9-11?
Nothing. However, his predecessor stationed US troops in Saudi Arabia, a big PR mistake. Imagine that Iran stationed troops at the Vatican and count the ways in which THAT would rub you the wrong way.
"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
The united nations were far away from supporting the invasion of Iraq. This Guardian article explains the details.
While there were certain governments to support the invasions, the citizens of these countries did not.
Which is another apparent falsehood on your side. There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until few days before the invasion. The "coalition of the willing" regularly denounced any Iraqi efforts to follow agreements. I remember very well the day when Iraq gave thousands of pages of protocols and archive data to the United Nations. The coalition did not even read anything of it before condemning the material as untrustworthy.
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.
in one paragraph you tout the UN as the solution to the problems of the world and then two paragraphs later either through ignorance or blind devotion ignore the fact that both "unprovoked" invasions on two independent nations were UN approved, sanctioned and authorized. which is it? UN good or bad. Iraq regardless of who was president or who knew what about imaginary this or that, WAS in violation of UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement from the previous UN sanctioned and fully authorized war.
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!
Just being in the country doesn't mean that they were able to do any actual inspecting. And the agreement stated that weapon inspectors be able to inspect, not just get handed a bunch of paper work from Saddam that of course say he doesn't have anything hes not supposed to have. As far as the country's citizens not wanting the war, that is immaterial, Iraq broke an agreement and then must deal with its consequences. On top of that, how do you know the citizens didn't support it? There weren't elections held to let the people decide, and I have never known the media not to jump on an anti-war bandwagon. The polls were created to make news and shape opinion, not to report actual data.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
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
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.
Saying Obama has a child-like view of the world is a ridiculous claim. He obviously isn't going down the diplomacy route for every single situation. If that were true, he would be pulling troops from Afghanistan, but instead, he wants to reinforce efforts there with more troops. Like most intelligent and observational people, Obama realized that when we drop more bombs on a country, and we act more like an occupational military, it's more likely we will create enemies then destroy them. So he is truly taking the approach of "Military action only when necessary" instead of Bush's philosophy of "Convince the public that military action is necessary, even though it isn't."
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Hans Blix said himself, that "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well". Furthermore "access has been provided to all sites" and "with one exception it has been prompt." Source
These historical huge demonstrations of concerned citizens were a dead giveaway, weren't they?
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.
You're absolutely right. The only way to reason with these people is to completely wipe them off the face of the planet. We have the nuclear option, what the hell are we waiting for???
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
This is key, it doesn't take more than one location to hide bio weapons.
Probably going to get hit with the modstick for this one, but thats because the people who continue to support the war until the job is done are/were at work. /sarcasm
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
If you read the right books, we need them to be prepared to repel alien visitations.
Been off the medication too long have we?
Any aliens - if they exist at all, and if they consider our small rock in the vastness of the universe worth invading - would have such advanced tech (by virtue of the ability to travel insterstallar distances) that any weapons we could create would be like trying to defend against a nuclear attack with medieval armour.
The issue of sovereignty does not have to do with the definition, it has to do with the fact that they literally forfeited it after the first Gulf war. Once they fully complied with the terms of surrender, for which they never did, was Iraq to become a sovereign nation.
Japan was in peace talks with the USA before they attacked Pearl Harbour. But it was just a rouse by the Japanese to trick the USA.
And look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising... where barricaded Jews starting with a handful of rifles and pistols made asses of the Nazis for months.
You know, it never fails to amaze me how people can demand that "only the government should have guns".
First, there's plenty of evidence (see Nazi Germany) that governments often do very bad things to their populations, and that having no means to resist them just makes the government's job easier. You may still wind up dead resisting, but at least you will have died standing up for yourself instead of dying like cattle at the slaughter. Peaceful non-resistance against violence only works when those committting the violence have a conscience and a moral code against doing it. Otherwise, you just wind up dead like those cows.
Second, there's usually the implication that personal protection (particularly the use of force for it) is the government's responsibility. Legally speaking, the courts have consistently ruled otherwise--law enforcement has no obligation to protect individuals.
As a whole, I see this denial of responsibility, and the desire to foist it off on someone else, to be a form of cowardice. The same people who will deny any responsibility to protect themselves, or who refuse to do so with force because it's "bad" and they "don't want to hurt anyone" (or some other "moral" objection) seem to have no problem asking--nay, demanding--that somebody else, whom the demander has probably never met, risk his life and put his ass on the line to protect the demander's life and ass, using the same force that the demander refuses to use himself.
If you're going to be a damn pacifist, live what you preach. Don't use force to defend yourself. Back down any time someone confronts you and makes any kind of physical threat. And don't sit there demanding that someone else use force on your behalf and do things that you refuse to do for yourself.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Starting a war because someone did not give access promptly to one site for inspection sounds rather harsh, doesn't it? That sounds more like a rationale and not like a reason.
Would you care to explain how a space weapon ban, signed by all space-faring nations, makes Obama's view of the world childish? Seems like a decidedly grown-up approach to avoid an extremely expensive and dangerous space weapons race. We currently have surface nuclear test bans, biological weapons bans (which both the US and Russia are working hard to meet, by destroying stockpiles). Both of those bans make the world a notably safer place. There is far more risk of an accident happening killing huge numbers of people (either directly or as a indirect consequence of) then the US or Russia consciously deciding to use some form of WMD. Oh, and based on your signature alone I think its likely you are either a Republican ("Promote peace, kill more bad guys" -this is childish), or a Libertarian.
Not promptly providing access is proof they are trying to hide something.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Islam was at war with Christianity from the very start , and while Christians no longer have forced conversions, Muslims have no problem with coercion to force conversion. As outsiders, we are all enemies or future converts in the Islamic mindset, and any display of diplomacy on the part of Muslim leaders should be looked on as an attempt to further their goals of converting us all, or if not us, getting in position to convert our children in the future. Muslims have been at this for almost 1400, and they aren't going to stop just because they have a current (temporary) technological disadvantage.
You probably aren't aware, but individuals who publicly convert from Islam to Christianity (and maybe even renounce Islam to become atheist) are subject to the death penalty, and doing so in a western society invites death threats. Note that link to Google is about Muslim conversion to Christianity, and almost every link is about somebody being killed or threatened. The Islamic religion will only be peaceful when everybody is Muslim.
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.
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.
If the Vatican requested it as a self-defense measure and Iran left gobs of money and gear behind after the conflict was over...
I'm pretty sure you would see much in the way of terrorism and hate... probably just a lot of bitching about how a bunch of Italian girls now have half-Persian children.
I agree with you and I did not see any inkling of racism in either of your posts. Would using an analogy about altar boys asking a priest not to rape them be racist against whites because most Catholic priests in the US are whites? While I feel diplomacy should be used MORE in negating conflicts, I understand that force can be necessary. It is more important how you use your weapons than it is what weapons you have. Not allowing space weapons to be made will make us more vulnerable in the future. Iran recently launched a satellite into orbit. This means they are capable of space travel at some level. Do you think they, or any other nation with hostilities towards us will follow this ban? And what about the off-chance we do meet another intelligent species in space? It is possible that they will regard us with as much fear and panic as we would them. It is also possible that they might wish to conquer us.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
It is possible that a weapons bans can inhibit general space tech in a few ways.
One, most space tech is what arm-control folks call 'dual-use.' Meaning, of course, that the technology can be easily converted to military use.
Two, arms-control requires verification. So, since (as TFA says) verification of potential space weapons is fraught with difficulties, this could depress advancements in commercial and exploration technology by raising the bar for entry into the sector.
Three, definitions of what constitutes space weapons has, for whatever reason, been difficult for the major space powers to hammer out. Thus, if a space weapon ban is enacted with vague language, many commercial interests will be scared off by that uncertainty.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
Which is more effective, peace talks or unconditional surrender? How many times have we been attacked by Japan since WWII? We should ask Israel how effective their peace talks have been with their neighbors.
Stop slamming liberals, I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment. I think you are confusing god-damn hippies with liberals, there is a defining line. Any way back to the original topic, non-space based weapons currently have the ability to hit any target on Earth plus they are cheaper to maintain as they do not require a shuttle launch plus in the case of a nuclear sub they are very hard to hide.
The problem with non-space based weapons is that they are very susceptible to neutralization by space based weapons (at least in theory, as insufficient practical testing has been done to prove this). So, if China develops space based weapons and the U.S. does not, it is probable that the U.S. would be at a significant disadvantage.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And maybe the voters want to hear it because the UK and the US were behind the overthrow of the democratically elected president and replacement with a pro western dictator back in 1953.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
But if only one nation has space based weapons (US) it would be a huge threat to the national security of every other nation (the world). Sounds like bullying to me.
I know there will be weapons in space one day, but we just don't need them. They won't make ANYBODY safer.
Does an astronaut with a hammer count as a weapon, just float over to the satellite and hit it with the hammer.
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.
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
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
I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
I think there's something else that is a little more subtle, but with bigger implications. It's our endeavors to accomplish certain goals that expose problems and their accompanying solutions that have greater benefits to humanity than than was originally intended.
For example, the DARPA Urban Challenge exposes needs for better sensors in detecting objects and obstacles, has created better algorithms for best-path detection, etc.
A space weapons program would open other engineering opportunities that have great civilian benefits.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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
Now this sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy.
Maybe the factory director didn't get the memo? Maybe he was on a walk and the security guy at the front door wasn't authorized. Maybe there was absolutely no one there? Maybe the director was with a boy at the time and feared his fellow co-workers? Who knows? Hans Blix certainly wasn't too much worried about that little slip.
I also notice that you let go of all your initial arguments. Already convinced?
While I don't disagree that it is also a huge culture difference that they hold against us, it sounds like you are grouped in their minds as "European". "Europe" includes the countries that have long history of war and colonialism against the Middle East that dates back to the Crusades, and likely further.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Nobody doubts that the U.S. has enough financial, scientific and political resources to make new weapons whenever they please. Heck, the military comes up with some sci-fi technology all the time.
But actually developing and arming yourself with them is taking your guns to town.
No one with an understanding of space technology would find it particularly impressive that the military can shoot down a satellite, so when you do it's just being a showoff with your gun.
Obama clearly prefers negotiation to the military option, but he clearly recognizes that in some situations, force is necessary. The guy may make some flowery speeches, but he's nobody's fool. Take a look at the headlines. Two brigades- 30,000 troops- are headed to Afghanistan. And just days after taking office, a Predator was used to strike at targets in Pakistan. Other nations are going to be watching his actions closely, and the message he's sending is pretty simple: we're willing to work with you, but don't fuck with us.
History doesn't really back your views. When in history have nations ever managed to live in complete peace without a balance of power? What nation in history hasn't sought the greatest diplomatic advantage? The only reason countries that lack military options cry to the UN is because it gives them a diplomatic advantage. If those same countries had military supremacy you'd be hearing the very same leaders talking about the need to go it alone.
Look - I'm a big fan of the US taking a less active role in running every other country on the planet. I think that every dollar spent on the gulf war should be added as a tariff to oil imports. Then those who opposed the war don't have to pay a dime for it if they either avoid driving or buy certified non-middle-east gas. It would also help to reduce dependence on oil from the nations that seem to require an invasion every decade or two, and the oil barons will be lobbying less for invasions if they know their products will rise in price every time an invasion is launched. The US should be getting out of the intervention business.
However, the US absolutely should maintain a position of military supremacy. All those nations that get along just fine without big armies do so only because the country that is spending all that money on the military is a nice one. Sure, Europeans might like to hate the US, but they certainly would rather see US flags on aircraft carriers than Chinese ones (or the old Soviet ones). I trust the US government politicians about as far as I can throw them, but I don't see any better options around. For its part the US needs to do a better job of being a nice world policeman, and it wouldn't hurt if other nations realized that the US taxpayers are doing quite a bit to deter conflict in all those other nations that take the lack of a need to have an army for granted.
administrations'
is plural possessive. There was a US before Clinton. I know that's hard to believe. It's obvious he was referring to the history of Muslim policy in the US.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
If the cause is simply religion, then why don't they hate other non-Islamic nations like countries in South America and East Asia? We don't see them carrying out terrorist acts in those regions. They probably don't like (esp. Western) Europe due to past history in it's involvement in the Middle East (Crusades, Isreal, Iraq), and unfortunately, Finlind is assocated with Western Europe.
How many rape victims do you know spend 500 billion+ on defense??
But you're right, I'll feel so much better when we have missles in the sky pointed at the entire fucking planet.
No sig for you!!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
I suppose if we're all lambs, then it doesn't matter. But if just one wolf exists, then no, owning a weapon does not automatically make someone a "narrow minded, violent brute".
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing.
That is the most reassuring fact of all. Face it, NOBODY knows what to do with this situation. He's going to do much better by realizing that fact, and taking advice from everyone, and weighing it accordingly. We're grown-ups. We know that these are uncertain times. The fact that Barack Obama can express that uncertainty to us reveals maturity on his part, and a respect for the people he's governing.
The alternative is that he could pretend he knows exactly what to do, ignore the advice of others, and fuck everything up like Bush did.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
please stay with car analogies. sorry, but your comment makes you look like someone who hasn't a clue what diplomacy is about (hint: it doesn't mean "talking to people"), or what rape is about (hint: there are no options other than being raped in a rape), and finally, hell, it makes you look like a moron who does anything to get off a first post.
and the guy with the child like view is you.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
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?
yes, I am a Middle East/Islam historian Stop spreading lies.
Some of what your saying is true for a very small subset of the Islamic faith. On the whole however you are very wrong. Read up on the Islamic concept of People of the Book. In a nutshell it states that Jews and Christians, because they are sons of Abraham, like Muslims, are not as pure as Muslims, but that conversion ISNT necessary. You put a link to Muslim conquests but you made the mistake of assuming that meant conversion. If you read the wiki link you posted, you might have noticed this
"for example Jews and Christians in Persia and Monophysites in Syria, were disloyal and sometimes even welcomed the Arab invaders, largely because of religious conflict in both empires."
Islam did not become at all violent against Christians or Jews until after the crusades. Even then, it was an effort for the Islamic leaders of the time to get their people to fight against Christians, even through they were BEING INVADED. Modern hatred towards the west is based upon the actions of our countries during the past 100 years, especially the creation of a Jewish state on land that had been peacefully Arab for 1400 years. Thanks for playing, through.
What initial arguments have I let go of? Also, you speak of Iraqi weapons factories as they are ran like a Taco Bell. Claiming ignorance is a useless defense. Like the people working at and running the place were like "What? Inspectors? UN? There is an authority outside of Saddam? No you cant come in here, I don't believe you"
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees.
Do listen to what people in 'Europe and the West' say about Muslims and Islam? I constantly hear people say that their culture is backwards and ignorant, and that the only thing that will solve the problems in the middle east is for them to embrace Christiantity and our way of life... well... that or a 'nuke from orbit'.
How is that any different from what they say about us?
Or is the only difference that they have 'zealot terrorist organizations seeking to cause us harm'? I suppose that's a difference... we only have state sanctioned organizations seeking to alternately exploit them for resources and that only cause them harm if they don't fall in line.
Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values.
It would change everything.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
That's just idiocy. They don't "hate us because we are free". They disagree with us on religious issues. They hate us because we exploit them and interfere with them, and they (perhaps rightly) see our relative wealth as a direct result of that exploitation and interference.
And extremists use the religious differences to fan that hatred into self-damaging levels of action.
But if we didn't interfere and exploit them, sure, the religious disagreement wouldn't go away, but it would settle down to the same level of agreeability that all relgious factions reach when you have mutual respect.
I don't agree.
Your post shows ignorance on this subject and those modding you up '+5 Insightful' as well.
The US and USSR made a treaty many years ago to ban space based weapons for a very good reason. It's bad enough that we have enough nuclear warheads pointing @ each other to kill all life on the planet hundreds of times over. But to place nuclear warheads in space is purely irresponsible and a retarded idea. "Everything that goes up must and will come down, sooner or later".
Space was agreed upon to be neutral for peace and scientific exploration. The ISS is a great example where all nations can come together for peaceful exploration.
There are other nations such as China that may consider placing a military advantage in orbit, but they also will subject themselves to scrutiny and penalty by the 2 global super powers, the USA & USSR. In addition, the 2 global super powers are the ones that have thousands of ICBMs capable of dropping a thermonuclear device on any spot on the planet we choose. 3rd world nations are not any threat to either. Granted some whacked out militant group may eventually get their hands on a suit case bomb and set it off in a populated city somewhere. This is inevitable and the price we may have to pay eventually for developing the technology in the first place. The flip side is that if such suit case bomb turns out to be from some wanna-be super power such as Iran, we also have the option of lobbing a few onto them and turning their entire region into a slab of glass. And this is the price they may have to pay for swimming in the shark tank, so to speak.
"If you read the right books, we need them to be prepared to repel alien visitations."
Sorry, I don't have time to read comic books anymore, but if you fear alien invasion, I'm sure any advanced civilization with the technology for interstellar travel will easily dispatch the human race as they so choose. Bombs in space, pointed downward, will not be of any advantage to us. Someday we may even develop real laser "Ray gun" technology, but that is somewhere off in the future with practical fusion power, and cannot be considered in this discussion.
"Saying that any criticism of Obama is racism is exactly the kind of thinking that Bush used: Any criticism of the Executive branch is unamerican. This, my friends, is what fascism looks like."
So you think the bush administration was fascism defined? That I may agree to.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
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).
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
1) MAD only works if all sides want to continue living (I don't know how the middle east actually feels, just bringing up a point to indicate why it doesn't always work).
2) Going back to the cold war (which I can only guess is what you meant when you said that MAD is an ok tactic for the west), I don't think it was ever an intentional tactic in the west, merely a way of stating that being tied with the enemy is acceptable, just don't fall behind.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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
If he is even alive. There is some question about that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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
It goes back further than that to the times of the invasion of Europe by the followers of Islam. They hate Europe because they are the infidels: non Muslims and worse yet, ones that don't wish to be subjugated. Do yourself a favor, open your eyes, and read some history. Islam has always been spread by violence and oppression. The openness and freedoms enjoyed by Western nations are an abomination to hard core Islamists.
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.
UN-support, popular support, "Saddam not allowing UN weapons inspectors in". You mentioned some reasons for the war and they are all gone. What now?
Did Iraq look particularly well managed to you? And I just gave you some examples that you cannot go from one rather minor problem to full warfare.
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
Obama needs to make clear what is considered a space weapon. SM-3, ABL, lasers, THAAD, etc. can all be easily modified to acquire and successfully engage satellites because of their physical specifications which are necessary for the roles they are intended to fill. If it's only dedicated ASAT weapons, then that's fine. Weapons in space is bad for America because we dominate space. If it's all weapons that could be potentially used as ASAT, then we're talking a surprising volume of existing military hardware.
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.
Not only that, but Ahmadinejad couldn't attack the U.S. even if he ordered the military to do so. The Iranian military would simply laugh at him. The President of Iran, constitutionally, has no executive power over the military. Only the Supreme Ayatollah - currently Ali Khamenei - could order such an attack. The President is only in charge of economic policies. He is not allowed to declare war. If Ahmadinejad ever attempted to defy the word of Khamenei, he would be publicly executed.
We can both agree that while they may be assholes for the hell they're putting the Iranian population through, they're not stupid.
And the thing is, both America and Israel know this. They just need a boogey man to keep the war machine oiled. I see no other reason as to why they would continue to scare their own population into thinking that an attack is imminent when the guy they keep demonizing has no real power other than to be a figurehead, and a poor one at that. He's not even charismatic.
Best "String" Ever!
A nuclear deterrent probably won't be much use against the dead, either.
Unless you sanctify the uranium or something first. Might work then.
Imadinnerjacket is just a puppet of the Ayatollahs; he does what he's told. Just like Bush.
UN did nothing other than talk and send letters, when they obviously had the resources to exercise an actual action to stop the invasion if they were against it, not taking measures to stop it is the same as support on the world stage. Popular support existed before the war started and during much of the beginning. Once it started getting hairy, as war always does, then the media took a sharp turn and much of the quickly-forgetful everything-needs-to-be-perfect loudmouth part of the populace followed. There was never a majority against it in the US. Refer to my sig for the explanation on that.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
That is the biggest flaw with your argument sir. You can't blame just the previous administration for other nations wanting to attack the US. Attacks have been made on US embassies before the previous administration as well as the attempted bombing of the world trade center. China has been stealing military secrets and is continuing to try. You can not lay this totally on the Bush Administration. Yes they did stir up some trouble but some was in retaliation of 9/11 and rightfully so in a lot of peoples minds. Until the radical clerics are run out of the Mosques (mispell?) for preaching hatred this will never stop. What the US needs to do is stop trying to Police the rest of the world and take care of more business here at home. Doesn't look like that will happen even in this administration.
No they don't. They hate us because we are the haves and they are the have-nots. They hate us because we don't do anything to help them out. Their hatred has little to do with freedom and little to do with religion and everything to do with poverty.
If you keep a group of people in poverty, make it difficult for them to get an education, give them very little opportunity to pull themselves out, you make them ripe to be manipulated. Religion is a great manipulator. "God says the reason you can't feed your family is because the USA keeps screwing with us. Take them down and our lives will be better."
Give people an education, give them hope that they can make their lives better and the problem goes away. It's harder to get leverage on someone that has something to lose.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
There are not a lot of rapists out there either, but it doesn't take many to cause a great deal of damage if they are allowed to run rampant.
No.
If my mother told me to do as I was told or else she was going to smack me. And yet I would keep doing the opposite of what I was told I should expect to be slapped. And I would.
The problem was the previous 8 years the UN / US would till Iraq what they had to do only to follow it up with little to no teeth. So Saddam didn't expect Bush to follow through with his threat.
But he did. Something that should have been done well prior to Bush showing up in office.
> 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
Not necessarily. You're anthropomorphizing these potential aliens by assuming that they are as prone to violence as we are. What if these aliens evolved from some herbivorous herd animal? They might just not have the inclination or basic nature to turn all of their technology to war purposes.
:)-
Of course, given that scenario, we probably wouldn't have to blow the fuck out of 'em
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
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.
Actually you don't need any nukes to deal with those two...
So, couldn't you have saved yourself some bother and said "Don't tell that to the extreme anti-gun nuts" then? Being a liberal doesn't equate to being anti-gun, and neither does being a Democrat (as you pointed out yourself above).
Just crying "Liberal!" sets you against a whole wide group of people, many of whom don't necessarily disagree with you (at least on this subject).
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
We're talking about nation's and military spending/research/deployment. Where the heck did personal gun ownership even factor into the discussion?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Those who do know history are doomed to watch those who don't know history repeat it.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
...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.
Where were you 2nd amendment warriors during the Bush years when FEMA did a gun grab in New Orleans after they botched the relief effort after Katrina?
Hum... In regards to the analogy of rape to negotiations on weapons proliferation: There is something missing with this statement and much of the conversation around it. Is this a useful analogy? Does it really speak to any critical point of space based weapons proliferation? Why not just actually speak to the issue at hand? The linking of these two subjects does not seem obvious to me. As well I feel like you are taking the experience of rape victims as your own in order to attack a political figure. I find that manipulative and disrespectful.
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
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
Are religions and faith that don't fall into the 'sons of Abraham' category fair game for forced conversion?
But if only one nation has space based weapons (US) it would be a huge threat to the national security of every other nation (the world). Sounds like bullying to me.
You want to know why you shouldn't run into just any store with a Bat'leth demanding money? Because some store managers (apparently not 7-11's) have shotguns or handguns. Does the fact that those store employees have shotguns or handguns when almost all of their patrons don't (at least not visibly) mean the stores are bullying their patrons? A reminder that you can defend yourself against attack is not a threat.
We have more weapons on land, air, sea, even underwater than anyone else
It's even funnier if you count NATO as a single military block. In that case, it's responsible for 2/3 of the world military spending - twice as much as all other countries (yes, including Russia AND Chind AND Iran) combined.
Where were you 2nd amendment warriors during the Bush years when FEMA did a gun grab in New Orleans after they botched the relief effort after Katrina?
My understanding is that didn't originate with FEMA, it originated with Mayor Nagin. Anyway, the NRA was all over it and legislation was eventually passed on a Federal level to prohibit Federal resources from being used to seize lawfully possessed firearms. I'm pretty sure the state of Louisiana passed similiar legislation although you'd have to check with someone who follows their politics to get specifics.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't think it makes much sense to say that Muslims hate the western world. I'm sure some do, I'm sure some don't, and I'm sure many feel somewhere in between. Maybe them complaining about how we haven't embraced Islam is the same as people here complaining about how they haven't embraced democracy. There may be cultural norms fueled by the kinds of colonialism and exploitation you talk about, but I don't think the majority of people have some overarching hate. The only Islam-majority country I've ever been to is Morocco, so maybe I'm naive/wrong/whatever, but it just doesn't seem realistic to say an entire group of people hates another, for any reason.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
Personal gun ownership was brought in by the poster who said that owning a gun doesn't make one a bully. My comment was an extension of the analogy pointing out that owning a personal gun increases the chances of your family getting shot. In this case, the analogy is that by building the weapons we put ourselves in danger of having those same weapons used against us (terrorism, accident, whatever) or another country feeling the need to build those weapons where they'll subsequently get used. The last arms race brought us close to nuclear war several times. Another course should be thoughtfully considered before we decide to start another arms race.
In order for the countries of the Middle East to reach the Western levels of technology they would need to offer Western levels of education. Good education would encourage progressively larger degree of independent thought, subversive to the very values the current incarnation of fundamentalists hold so dear. I am talking especially about sciences such as physics and biology, which happen to have direct military applicability.
To make the long story short, in order for the Muslim world to overtake the West, they will have to liberalize, and once they liberalize they are unlikely to see our culture as abhorrent.
They also prevent their own people from getting an education. Women/girls having acid thrown in their faces because they went to school?! That is is just wrong. Having an education and being able to make informed decisions is a good thing. Certain leaders around the world know this and want to stop it. Less informed people are easier to control, and they know it.
Not being religious, I wouldn't give a damn ;) However, I can see how religious people would think that was the worst thing that could ever happen, so your point is well made.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
Saying that any criticism of Obama is racism is exactly the kind of thinking that Bush used: Any criticism of the Executive branch is unamerican. This, my friends, is what fascism looks like.
Not that I disagree with the gist of your post, but when did Bush ever say or imply that?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Too bad you are also driven by fear, dear anonymous coward, because others should really mod up your insightful comment.
I'll do something I rarely do -- I'll admit that I was wrong ;) You actually have a valid point that not all liberals are in favor of gun-control -- I was kind of stereotyping, particularly with the "she might get hurt" remark. That does seem to be a stereotypical leftist response though. I still remain skeptical about the Democrats and gun control. There are a fair number of Democrats that don't believe in it (Tester, Webb, Gillibrand) but the party as a whole seems hell bent on bringing it back. The outage over Gillibrand's selection among the downstate democrats here in New York really irked me too.
We'll see what happens when the assault weapons ban v2.0 comes up. Will the pro 2nd amendment Democratic Senators vote to sustain a filibuster on the subject? Time will tell I suppose. I think they are signing their political death warrants if they don't. Bill Clinton blamed the original assault weapons ban for the Republican landslide in 1994 -- and all those rural districts that they won this time around seem likely to turn bright red if they try it again.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
More or less when the Whitehouse press secretary gave the MSM their news stories for the day. This has been shown to be a fact, though exactly what they were encouraged to mislead the world with is not fully clear. The Whitehouse never had to say it, only imply it subtly and have the MSM rally the public to that idea. You might recall the controversy surrounding the 'support the troops' government meme?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
...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)
But the rise of fundamentalist Islam in an area that was quite liberal up until about 50 years ago is a result of the west's and particularly the United States intervention in the area. Three things in particular have contributed to this rise:
1. The creation and support of the state of Israel: when Israel was created in 1947 it was done with no regard or consultation of the indigineous population of the region. And the fact is that Israel has been quite belligerent with its neighbours knowing that it can depend on the U.S. to protect it no matter what.
2. The imposition and support of oppressive regimes in the rest of the region: the house of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iran, the Muhammad Ali dynasty in Egypt, etc.
3. The direct support of fundamentalist groups during the cold war in the (possibly mistaken) belief that they were required to ensure that the region did not become communist.
Some of them hate us becasue we are free. Most of them hate us becasue we won't leave them alone.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
No, the poster didn't say owning a gun. He said owning a WEAPON. As in nation's owning weapons. In this specific case, space based weapons.
IE, spelled completely out:
The United States owning space based weapons does not make us bullies.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Thus the highest crime and death by firearm rate in the world, by far.
And space has the highest rate of death by vacuum.
We don't have the highest murder rate (by far), and while it's up there, firearms are clearly not the underlying cause, otherwise we should rank first in both categories. That guns may be used to commit a majority of murders in the US means only that they were the most convenient/effective method available, not that the murders would not have taken place in the absence of firearms. Personally, I blame the "gangsta" culture, pussies who can't deal with the fact that a girl doesn't like them, and spoiled bitches who don't realize how good their lives actually are compared to everyone else in the world. Actually, the first 2 are just a subset of the 3rd.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Seriously, how dumb can Obama and the liberals be? The guy just does not live in our reality.
It's not the west that exploits them, for the most part anymore, it's their own leaders who do that - kings, presidents, nobles, whomever. The west imposes no stipulations on those leaders that mandates that they not share their wealth with their people, or that they must starve and deprive them and treat them like less than cattle.
As stated by someone several posts up, the west are the scapegoats. Unfortunately, the poor and uninformed have little choice but to believe their so-called leaders.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
I'm not sure about this - imo the Iranian Revolutionary Guards seems to be more familiar and friendly than those strange guys from the Swiss Guard...
(don't trust anyone wearing puffs)
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?
More or less when the Whitehouse press secretary gave the MSM their news stories for the day. This has been shown to be a fact, though exactly what they were encouraged to mislead the world with is not fully clear.
That sounds more to me like the discrete dissemination of facts during a time of war, than any unspoken challenge or thwarting of criticism, per se.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
You really need to either educate yourself (go and visit the countries, even - I have) or stop trying to willingly mislead people about the realities of life in Saudi Arabia.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Most outside aggression the US faces today stems from past administrations' behaviour toward other nations.
Or lack thereof. If Clinton had done the right thing when he had the chance, it is very unlikely 911 would have ever happened. And of course that means it is very unlikely Bush would have received a second term and even more unlikely we would be in three wars right now; as opposed to one.
Its crazy how one bad decision can be a catalyst and change the direction of an entire nation so many years later.
Morocco may have problems, but it is not trying to bring the West to its knees. Nor is any Arab government, nor even any Islamic one, including Iran. The only people actively trying to do that are an infinitesimal minority of the some 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The only reason anyone gives them any respect at all is because of US military intervention in the middle east. You're right its not as simple as "haves" and "have nots," but that doesn't mean that it's about "culture" -- the idea that they hate our freedoms is sheer hysterical nonsense. Oh sure, they don't particularly like our freedoms or our culture, but that's not what causes them to declare war on us. It's the very real evidence they see around them that the US (and Israel) is engaged in a war on Islam. Of course, that's not particularly true, but it's easy for the extremists to point to evidence that exists when Iraqis or Palestinians are being slaughtered by weapons made in the US. And the established governments and religious organizations in the region may not particularly like these extremists but they tolerate them and often encourage them because it provides a convenient distraction from their own corruption and crappy leadership.
Go to Gaza, stand in the middle of the square, and shout out that Allah is a devil and Jedaism is the only true religion. You'll find out just how bad your words will kill you.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And yes, those weapons did end the war.
Actually they didn't. They did end the war only slightly faster. And very likely it saved the world from nuclear nightmares down the road.
Imagine that Iran stationed troops at the Vatican and count the ways in which THAT would rub you the wrong way.
Honestly? I'm not Iranian, and I'm not Vatican(ese?), so I absolutely honestly wouldn't care in the least.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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!
Those who do not know the history are bound to repeat it's mistakes.
Those that know history, *and* the difference between it's and its are bound not to repeat its mistakes.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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!
How very magnanimous! Not.
So you're willing to give a "pass" to some people of certain specific religions, even though they're not "pure" like you. And any non-Abrahamic religions get substantially shabbier treatment, right?
Although as I'm about to point out, even the "people of the book" don't get such a great deal...
No, you made the mistake of assuming that someone was too stupid to make such a distinction. But there are some fates far worse than forced conversion, including living as a second-class citizen -- which in the real world is how most Muslim nations treat "people of the book" within their borders.
Our history books say otherwise. There are documented military campaigns during the lifetime of Mohammed, well before the Crusades, which resulted in the deaths of many non-Muslims. You must have a pretty twisted view of history to ignore everything that happened prior to the Crusades. Not every tale of conversion in the time of Mohammed is a happy one, and those who refused to convert... well, many died. It's not as rosy a picture as you would like to paint for us.
Oh, you think our history books are a pack of lies? Right back atcha. But if you're a truly courageous individual, maybe you'll be interested in the historical accounts written by non-Westerners which clearly back me up.
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.
A reminder that you can defend yourself against attack is not a threat.
Sure it is. Absolutely it is. Even when it's the right thing to do, a threat is a threat.
Suicide bombings are a daily occurrence in the middle east. There's a sizable percentage of people who consider destruction, mutually assured or not, a good thing.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
What? UN decided to invade Iraq? I've never heard something such.
US allies = UN?
Other countries = UN?
Also why would Iraq listen to UN? UN is a useless parody, with all the veto countries it's useless and no-one trust that shit.
If USA, russia, china and so on did anything or didn't wanted something to happen UN couldn't do shit about it. Why care for such an organisation?
What does MAD stand for? Mutual Ass Destruction?
So your telling us, that the US's ability to turn the whole fucking planet into a nuclear waste land is not sufficient a deterrent that US arms manufactures need that extra few hundred billion dollars to develop space based weapons. Fucking hell, the next arms race, as countries all over the world develop larger and larger mirror arrays to reflect and focus light on 'ALL' orbiting satellites that cross their country.
One sunny day and all the sats go dark, after of course brightening up for just a few seconds. When the technology to take down satellites is so simple don't force the issue ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
http://davidjarvis.ca/warfare.pdf
Although I snail mailed it, I doubt he actually read it.
Can I please be the first to mention that Obama might be going for a Diplomatic Victory(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_IV#Victory_conditions)? I mean seriously, relations take a -8 penalty if you nuke someone?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
I hope many foreign readers of Slashdot read the GP and parent. You'll better understand the mind of a good 40% or more of us. This is the problem with how the US thinks about war. It's been 200 years since we had soldiers marching in our streets and burning cities (besides Sherman). War for us means our soldiers going somewhere ELSE to fight valiantly, while we at home deal with inconvenient shortages at worst.
We spend as much on war as the rest of the planet COMBINED! No one stops to think what all that money gets us. They just rant and rave at the thought that someone might want to spend any less.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Religion is the most effective manipulator of the masses.
Fixed it fer ya. ;)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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!
Cognitive dissonance is another way to describe religious fanaticism...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
And extremists use the religious differences to fan that hatred into self-damaging levels of action.
On both sides...
But if we didn't interfere and exploit them, sure, the religious disagreement wouldn't go away, but it would settle down to the same level of agreeability that all relgious factions reach when you have mutual respect.
This is pure fantasy when applied to the human race as a whole.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
I live out on the SD/WY border, and the arguments out here about gun control are pretty hilarious - christian conservatives (think of the childern!) and liberal progressives (guns are bad!) arguing pro, everyone else (which is most everyone, out here) wondering wtf all these idiots are talking about ;)
The problem is a lot deeper than party affiliation. Many people out here think both sides are full of it...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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.
And George W. Bush had a view of the World analogous to Karl Childers from Sling Blade.
What Conservatives have NEVER understood is what made the United States such a terrific force in the World, mainly the fact that we were HUMBLE.
Everyone and their brother knew that eventually the United States and the Empire of Japan were going to fight, it was simply unavoidable. You can't have two big kids on the block and not eventually have a fight to the finish.
But, knowing that, we STILL DID NOT ATTACK JAPAN FIRST. We played FAIR AND SQUARE. The Japanese attacked and that was a tragic loss of life (speaking of Pearl Harbor), however it was COMPLETELY APPARENT who the attackers were and THAT is why the United States was (and this IS something the Conservatives have correct) COMPLETELY justified in utterly crushing the Japanese Adversaries.
Barack Obama is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing. Talking nice and soft to countries like Iran. Iran isn't stupid, they are *well* aware that regardless of what we say, we are more than capable of destroying them utterly. This will *never* be in doubt, do not worry.
An example would be that *one* of our Ballistic Missile Submarines, ONE, is more than capable of turning Iran into the World's largest self-illuminating, glass floored parking lot.
If Iran (and, again, I cannot fathom that they would be this stupid, but for sake of argument...) were to attack Israel, a very well known and supported U.S. Ally (I would go so far as too say Israel is as strong an Ally in the Middle East as Great Britain, Germany, or France is in Europe), I am COMPLETELY confident that under President Obama's current administration, it would take him less than the five minute flight time (which is about how long a long-range missile would take to travel from Iran to Israel) to make the decision to strike Iran *decisively*.
By decisively, read with a limited Nuclear Weapons strike aimed at effectively *shattering* Iran's agility to make war for a great period of time.
Now, let's look back. What's the difference between George W. Bush's attitude toward World Diplomacy and Barack Obama's?
The difference is George W. Bush (this will be ironic, considering you have prescribed this attribute to Barack Obama) was VERY naive in the ways of Governing. I believe the United States to be a force of good in the World. That DOES NOT mean the United States hasn't made tragic mistakes in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, but I truly feel we have proceeded with the very best of intentions even if the end result has sometimes been less than perfect.
But that doesn't automatically mean the rest of the World is going to see it that way. To quote Ray Liotta's character in the movie "Cop Land", "BEING RIGHT ISN'T A BULLETPROOF VEST!" Just being right isn't enough and this is what Barack Obama understands and George W. Bush does not.
It's not enough to just be right, you have to convince the World that you are right AND THE BEST WAY to convince the World is through superior action.
In 1962, the United States faced off against the Soviet Union over the island of Cuba. The Soviets installed Nuclear Missiles in Cuba as a way of (in their own minds, at least) counter balancing our stationing of Nuclear Missiles in Turkey. In the mind of the Soviets, this was a completely proper tit-for-that maneuver, they didn't understand why the World reacted with almost universal solidarity (taking into account, of course, the division of the World at that time between East and West) with the United States, considering that the United States had placed missiles in Turkey first.
Would you like me to tell you why, it is really very simple. Because the United States DID NOT attempt to hide the fact that we were placing missiles in Turkey. Now I'm no
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
The only question is how much damage are you willing to sustain before deciding to build them.
There's also the option of not laying all your cards on the table before the other players have even been dealt to.
Fnord.
Ballistic missile defense is a much better bet against an unstable opponent with a small number of low tech nukes. No US president would be able to justify using nukes against those countries and killing millions of civilians, but I'd fully expect them to shoot down the incoming missiles.
Of course you wonder in Iran's case how that will be possible, given that Obama seems to be willing to abandon the interceptors in Eastern Europe to appease Russia and now sign away space based interceptors in return for a guarantee that other countries that don't have the capability to do it will not do it too. And now it seems like he will not develop any new nukes for deterrence against Russia/China.
Still I'm sure his apologists will now tell me that Russia/Iran/China/North Korea etc only want peace, it is only the evil US that wants war. Maybe, but what if you're wrong? Seems like the US is dependent on the goodwill of governments that seem to care little for the welfare of their own citizens, let alone US ones.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Both liberals and conservatives can tell you to go fuck yourself, only conservatives are well armed enough to compel you to not fuck other people and have the sigint to monitor your compliance.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I supposed the sovereignty is arguable depending on your definition. Per Merriam-Webster:
"sovereign: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere."
I guess Saddam was the supreme authority in Iraq being a dictator and all, but at the same time he did not have supreme authority because of the UN resolution that forced him to accept UN weapons inspectors. He did allow them in for a while, but eventually stopped. That is why on:
Which is why they were invaded, and I could've sworn I saw many troops with the little UN blue flag in Iraq during the meaty part of the war.
They could have just killed some UN guys and took the flag away from them.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Someone needs to realise that science is the most efficient road to victory.
I'm hoping Obama sets his Civilisation to 100% research for a while, and aims for the Space Race victory condition.
Alpha Centauri - here we come.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
A well-armed lamb is just as frightening and dangerous as a wolf.
I suppose if we're all lambs, then it doesn't matter. But if just one wolf exists, then no, owning a weapon does not automatically make someone a "narrow minded, violent brute".
If just one exists?
Your previous sentence is based on the wolves outnumbering the sheep. Make up your mind.
I lost my sig.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
And certainly liberty means that the wolves are well-armed as well, right? Anything else wouldn't be liberty.
Unless the lamb is the only well-armed party (a.k.a. the tyrant), it is dinner.
The only person I've ever known who almost got raped ended the attempted attack with three shots from her .38 special.
As the risk of being assaulted unless you have a gun increases, more people need guns.
Adding more guns is the easy fix.
I lost my sig.
The military isn't the only force a country can employ against an opponent. After all, the US have waged a war against Cuba for about half a century now.
The weapon is called economy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hi! Pakistani here, here to explain why we hate the West. 1-You support every freaking military dictator general that pops up. Can't you be honest and NOT support them (for once!) and show that you actually support democracy? 2-You ate the F-16 money, and didn't even give us the F-16, and then gave a few long after they were the top stuff 3-You were bound to help us, you signed a freaking treaty with us(many in fact, SEATO, CENTO, Baghdad pact etc), its not that we put a gun on your head and told you to... 4-The whole Afghan war thing...you poured a lot of money in to Afghanistan without accountability, and left us with filthy rich Taliban and opium warlords, and now we have whole bunch of crazy AK-47 wielding drug-pushers loose all over the country, burning schools and blowing up innocent people. 5-Oh yeah, and the whole colonization thing, 60 years is too little to forget that... 6-Many other tiny things, like unfair tariff on our exports, too many high intesert loans, and not enough aid, weird sanctions, stuff like that. These are some of the "non-religion" based grievances we have with the west. Not all of them are totally your fault, however, you majorly facilitated them, or stayed silent despite the need for you input. And we hate you all the more, because we don't have a say in our govt, but you do, and yet your policies are strange! Add the religious factor, and then yes, there many people who wish you to burn in hell. But there wouldn't be so many people, if those non-religious factors weren't there to begin with.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Not true.
The indigenous population were consulted and were quite happy to talk about creating the state of Israel. Unfortunately, for all the discussion that went on, the west simply walked away from the problems caused by each Arab leader wanting their own slice of the pie. The infighting in the Arab league allowed Israel to consolidate and essentially deprive the real Palestinians of any hope of a national state. More reading here.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the point Ben Franklin was making with that quote was that the wolves are already well-armed (teeth and claws), we're just leveling the playing field by arming the lamb.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
A well-armed lamb is just as frightening and dangerous as a wolf.
And I believe that's exactly the point, to get everyone on equal ground.
If just one exists?
Your previous sentence is based on the wolves outnumbering the sheep. Make up your mind.
The ratio of wolves to lambs is irrelevant, but if you've any further complaints against the quote, I suggest you take them up with one Mr Benjamin Franklin. :P
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
This is pure fantasy when applied to the human race as a whole.
Not at all. I said the "same level of agreeability" not "eternal blissful peace".
I would have to agree with this, I just refer to UN resolutions that back up my stance since some people see themselves as citizens of the world or citizens of the UN, rather than their respective countries.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
You have a plan to defeat the millions of troops each country has at it's disposal hiding in jungles and mountainous terrain?
My take is that asian cultures tend to be reserved with strangers, volatile when it comes to disagreements (quick blow-up but quickly cooled), permissive of most things (comes from being so densely packed), and pretty individualistic. The influence of Islam has the most impact on that last part; conformity is required, and that is NOT something endemic to mainland Asia (Japan notwithstanding).
FWIW, I live half my life in China (with significant time spent in KL, Singapore, Taipei, Seoul, Yokohama; a fair amount of time spent in Thailand and Vietnam) and the rest in the US. Been doing the whole laowai/gaijin/farang thing for 6 years now and love it!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They were given much more access and much better equipment than the previous round of inspections. The previous round actually found WMD despite this. If the previous inspectors could do their job effectively despite worse access and worse equipment, so could the second round.
Everyone knows Fox delivers only slanted and skewed opinions on current head lines.
Where were they when Bush, Cheney, etc, leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative working undercover on infiltrating Al-Queda to Robert Novak. This was an act of high treason as stated by G.H.W. Bush, and probably led to executions of operatives overseas that were deep undercover at the time. Why didn't Fox report on that as well?
"WTF has this childish ad hominem attack on Fox news got to do with anything?"
If this is too hard for you to understand, maybe you should ask an adult what this is all about. In the mean time, grow some nuts and post as a real person and not 'AC' ie: A-nutless-Coward.
I don't even know why I am responding to a fucking republican douche bag like you anyway. You'll just mod me as troll to make your self feel better instead of attempting an intelligent exchange of ideas. fuck you back
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
To make the long story short, in order for the Muslim world to overtake the West, they will have to liberalize, and once they liberalize they are unlikely to see our culture as abhorrent.
Actually, they just have to immigrate to europe and america and have lots of babies until they can institute shariah law.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
anyone who believes that americans don't have more freedom than people living in saudi arabia need to educate themselves.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
"but this 180 degree shift doesn't make sense unless he is just pushing the program underground or plying for political favor somewhere."
Just to clarify, when conservatives eliminate programs when it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, does that become "plying for political favor" just because many of their supporters are more interested in that than the average person?
Does a deterrent plan ultimately require an invasion?