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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because launching a big freakin' rocket (big enough to put stuff in orbit) will go unnoticed. Especially when you already have satellites in orbit looking for events like that. Do you really think that the militaries all over the world aren't keeping track of the stuff the other side has put up there?
So if you target a countries known military bases/silos/leadership from space you can prevent them from retaliating.
Yes, if you can orchestrate that one, magnificent strike that will take out a few hundred targets in fifteen minutes or less (with weapons coming from satellites that are scattered over several orbits all around the globe). Oh, and don't forget bagging all those missile subs, too, because each one you missed will mean a dozen nukes coming your way.
Conventional methods could mean a missile will take an hours to get there.
If an ICBM (or any other ballistic missile, for that matter) takes longer than an hour, it's probably not going to come down at all anymore.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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!
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.
You don't need more than 2 nukes to deal with both Iran and North Korea.
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.
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
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
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!
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]
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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."
Does an astronaut with a hammer count as a weapon, just float over to the satellite and hit it with the hammer.
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
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.
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)-
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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!
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.