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.
In exchange for being allowed to use your hardware, software, IT department and bandwidth at no cost,
You provide use with notice of when you will discontinue that permission, and maintain our ability to do so until X months after notice, regardless of your desire to spend your energy, time, money elsewhere.
That we have been notified in advance through the EULA (or other agreement) that the service might discontinue at any time should be no barrier to this requirement.
Further, it should be a crime for you to fail in this obligation.
It does beg the question...What is the obligation of the user/consumer of these services, or are the only obligations on the behalf of those who are providing things? File it under 10-289 and call it good!
1. We recognize that the genius and effort of many people have created something useful, profitable, and powerful.
2. We recognize that we cannot replace it with something of our own creation.
3. We desire control over use, profits and power, either for their own sake or because we fear the individual's use of such.
4. Therefore we will use the power of laws, and the use of force implied for thier enforcement, to sieze the control we desire over what others have created.
My Grandfather recently passed away. He served as a Marine, police officer, fireman and an engineer for the TVA. He left me several firearms, from a modern pistol to a Civil War cap and ball revolver, and a few thousand rouds of ammunition. Outside of WWII, he never shot anyone. At the end of his life he lived alone at home, and was physically weak. If there were a firearm available for him to use properly, I'm sure he would have wanted it, and I'm certain it would have been unjust to deny him that right.
For myself, I'm physically handicapped. While I've got no problem firing any of my guns, I do know that I've got zero chance of fleeing in a fight or flight situation. For me, a firearm is nothing more than "a fighting chance". If my difficulties were in my hands rather than my legs, I'd consider it cruel to deny me that fighting chance.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
So, we demand that:
In exchange for being allowed to use your hardware, software, IT department and bandwidth at no cost,
You provide use with notice of when you will discontinue that permission, and maintain our ability to do so until X months after notice, regardless of your desire to spend your energy, time, money elsewhere.
That we have been notified in advance through the EULA (or other agreement) that the service might discontinue at any time should be no barrier to this requirement.
Further, it should be a crime for you to fail in this obligation.
It does beg the question...What is the obligation of the user/consumer of these services, or are the only obligations on the behalf of those who are providing things? File it under 10-289 and call it good!
It means
1. We recognize that the genius and effort of many people have created something useful, profitable, and powerful.
2. We recognize that we cannot replace it with something of our own creation.
3. We desire control over use, profits and power, either for their own sake or because we fear the individual's use of such.
4. Therefore we will use the power of laws, and the use of force implied for thier enforcement, to sieze the control we desire over what others have created.
My Grandfather recently passed away. He served as a Marine, police officer, fireman and an engineer for the TVA. He left me several firearms, from a modern pistol to a Civil War cap and ball revolver, and a few thousand rouds of ammunition. Outside of WWII, he never shot anyone. At the end of his life he lived alone at home, and was physically weak. If there were a firearm available for him to use properly, I'm sure he would have wanted it, and I'm certain it would have been unjust to deny him that right.
For myself, I'm physically handicapped. While I've got no problem firing any of my guns, I do know that I've got zero chance of fleeing in a fight or flight situation. For me, a firearm is nothing more than "a fighting chance". If my difficulties were in my hands rather than my legs, I'd consider it cruel to deny me that fighting chance.