Weapons in Space 939
SWG_Eddie submits this story about the U.S. military beginning the militarization of space. We've done a few previous stories on this, such as this one. Putting weapons in earth orbit is not forbidden by any treaty or law.
Space Beams (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with it (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly think about it for a bit.
Weapons in Space... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this what it's going to take to get a space elevator built? Maybe this is the push it needs..
We seem to move ahead pretty quickly when it involves destroying each other.
Re:not (Score:2, Insightful)
anyway, since when does America's word mean anything?
Privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll have a space weapons gap!
Why not negotiate a treaty to keep weapons out of space without a global threat, as determined by the UN? Well, that would just be UnAmerican. We should just put weapons up there. That'll show those commie bastards.
Even to the most hawkish, another cold war can't be that appealing. Why not nip it in the bud?
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Insightful)
You can always trust evil dictators!
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
Weren't these there already? (Score:3, Insightful)
When Orbital Weapons Platforms Are Outlawed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I remember correctly, one of the co-inventors of the first nuke was quoted as saying that it would mean the end of war, as noone would be crazy enough to use it.
Instead, it launched the first cold war, and cost the planet millions of lives and a lot of karma.
Re:Weapons in Space... (Score:2, Insightful)
Darwinism at its best?
Here's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pearl Harbor analogy is correct. Who loses space, loses any war.
Anti-Weapon Weapons anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's Because (Score:4, Insightful)
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
Re:Momentum (Score:4, Insightful)
Shoot two bullets in opposite directions.
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that china has an amicable relationship with the US is false. they crashed a jet into a radar plane of ours, and we had to do some real legwork to get the crew back.
Re:The States (Score:2, Insightful)
Sickening.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Bush: See above for deep dive in supposed "surplus". Though I disagree with many spending policies.
Clinton: UN backing? What are you smoking Go read news articles from back then.
Bush: 40 nation coalition just isn't enough? Only if France says go?
Clinton: Did nothing to keep the Reagan era policies that allowed such expansion to take place. Failed to enact policies to prevent overinflated corporate valuation leading to inevitable collapse of the market.
Bush: Present when Clinton-era corruption collapses, then post-9/11. Enacted tax cut policy that stimulated growth. Economy bounces back from terrible scandal and god-awful attack on home soil, a decade shorter than Roosevelt policy ever did for the Depression. Last 7 months, economy sees 765,000 new jobs created.
Clinton: Did nothing
Bush: Does everything.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is that if we were the only one with all this, it probably would be true. But the real problem is that as soon as we develop something, we sell it to our enemies. They have no real need to steal all this. They can just get cozy with the right politician and then get money or dollars. Consider that W gave the taliban 10 Millions dollars in april 2001. Where do you think that it went.
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Insightful)
whereas the USA has a history of invading or installing dictatorships anywhere in the world it pleases to.
Re:Not forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the breakdown of the Sovjet union, the world cheered for peace and everyone did their best to join as many international treaties as possible. The few who didn't was the US. The reason: to easier fight back on socalled "evil" societies.
I find this currious, and as an example of an use of this, can be seen in an incident, where a couple of Danish soldiers killed two civilians in Iraq. They payed compensation to the families and started a trial, but I haven't heard such trials from the socalled civilised US Army (maybe they are hiding it, but why would they do that?).
What I am really asking is, is there no direct democratic control of the armies in the US? Why do you give so much control to the president and his cabinet? are you in constant mode of war?
Probably I am too stupid to understand the USA
Militarization != weaponization (Score:3, Insightful)
Eisenhower's "open-skies" concept was specifically for military use of space, i.e. remote sensing and treaty verification. That is also the idea behind the "sanctuary" doctrine that guides a lot of US policy.
The idea of weaponization can mean many different things, depending on whom you ask. Everything from space-based weapons platforms to ground based ASATs could be considered space weapons.
As far as placing weapons in space, only WMD are prohibited. No one really wants nukes in space anyway. Nuke based ASAT weapons would be pretty indicriminate can would take out a lot of hardware.
Re:The States (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we have actually seen global warming, and there is good evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to this global climate temperature change. But more importantly, Kyoto is just a step towards sustainability and becoming less reliant on exhaustible resources.
Economic costs should be weighed, certainly, but that cost includes the future cost of cleanup, and the health toll on our lungs (and associated medical insurance/taxes).
Having said that, the specifics of Kyoto are not exactly endearing, such as the carbon sink offsets and emissions credit trading. Countries coud pump CO2 like crazy by buying emissions credits to countries that have large forests.
Re:weapons in space (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that the US has optical equipment in space that can read a license plate from orbit, it's not a far stretch to strap on a high powered laser and cut the car in half that the license plate is attached to...
Also, considering the huge advances the US has made in stealth technology, wrapping the whole thing up in a stealthy package that a foreign governments radar based space tracking equipment couldn't see seems very logical.
Here's something to think about as well. When the US retired the SR-71 from active service, did you really think they didn't have a replacement coming into active service? Space based sensing is nice but it has some inherent limitations.
I would take an uneducated guess that the US has a top secret spy plane that has eclipsed all of the short comings of the SR-71.
Also, why would the US need to put nuclear weapons into space when it has a state of the art fleet of nuclear missle submarines that are roaming all over the world with lots of ICBM's that can be launched from anywhere anytime and hit anything.
Re:Space Arms (Score:2, Insightful)
By Contrast, uniform laws would encourage commercial development in space. If all the rules are the same, investors can tell what they're getting into.
A balance is probably the best solution, but where do we draw such a line?
Good For Us (Score:3, Insightful)
P Why space should be untouchable to some strikes me as weird. The US has the most advanced space technology right now. Continuing research on using this lead in defending our country is a valid goal. There's plenty of legitimate applications here. China, North Korea, Iran would think twice if they knew they could get zapped as soon as they launched a missile at us or our friends.
This Slashdot crusade by michael against space weapons is getting tired. It seems to come up once a month.
This is invertanly good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Them: Shoots it down.
Us: Finds a way to protect a new one
Them: Finds a way around it.
Us: Send more Man Flights to Protect them.
Them: Sends more Man Flights to Protect them.
A small to mid size war.
After the war.
Both sides: Now have affordable, safe, and High Tech space equipment.
The sad part is that most innovation only occurs in conflict. If it wasn't for the cold war we probably have never been to the moon. If it wasn't for WWI And WWII we would not have Commonly used airplanes and Jet Plains. Or the electronic Computer. Many of our technology that we use today originally came from warfare.
Que Bono? (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking about insanely short-sighted... (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept was out there, we had to develop it and have it ready before anyone else. Who would you have preferred to develop the first nuke? Russia? Germany? China?
It was going to happen, with or without us. Sure, we could have stalled for another 50 years (maybe), but would that really have put the world in a better position for the long term? Not really.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't mean one should do it...
Neal Boortz says it best... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now it's that "destroy them from space" thing that is upsetting some on the left. The evil United States is going to (gasp!) "weaponize" space. We're actually going to place honest-to-goodness WEAPONS out there!
OK, my illogical, fact-challenged friends. Look at it this way. China is in space now. China isn't exactly what you would call a cuddly friend. Russia is in space also. So, that leaves three strong military powers with a presence in space. You can bet your bottom dollar that one of these countries is going to be the first to place weapons in orbit around the earth. Tell me
Ban on non-proliferation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well it damn well should be an quickly. We need a World moratorium on this to declare that the development of any form of weapons in space is illegal under international law and for it to take effect sooner rather than later. If not, we'll end up with the same situation as for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, where they've already proliferated an awful lot with or without any treaty, leaving us with a few countries, like the US, France, UK, Russia that all happily using nuclear complaining about other countries developing it or having it.
Weapons and war are not the answer, dialogue is the only way to peace. Or do we really believe that you can only bring reconciliation by pointing guns at people. Mr Bush and his cronies certainly seem to think so
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:2, Insightful)
All I know, is that I have respect for a guy that uses the position of the most poweful man on the planet to get an illicit blow job and also has the good sense to lie about it!
Re:This is necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with the notion that humans are antagonistic. Granted, they are self-serving, but what is good for me may also be good for you. The entire notion of service industry commerce is based on that.
Re:Weapons ARE banned from orbit (some of them any (Score:4, Insightful)
The wording of that paragraph indicates that WMDs are banned in space, and military activity is banned on the surface of planets and moons, but I don't see where applies to Weapons of Less Than Mass Destruction in free orbit. So we are free to put up a pinpoint weapon that can take out just The Terrorists (tm) from outer space, while leaving the surrounding area unharmed.
However, I think that this kind of "silver bullet" thinking is a waste of money until they figure out a better way to choose targets. It was clear from the latest Iraq war that when they used smart bombs and cruise missiles to precisely wipe out a target, they often had little clue as to what was actually inside the target, and they often had no idea where the people they really wanted to get were located.
I would prefer if they used the $Billions that they're sinking into these high-tech boondoggles to hire and train old-fashioned spies instead. If we had only had a few reliable high-level moles in Iraq, we could have avoided that whole war altogether. We would have known that WMDs weren't an issue, and the pissing match between Saddam and the Bush clan could have been handled by just killing Saddam & sons. (This could have been accomplished an off-the-shelf cruise missile if we had actual accurate information about where they were. There would have been some international protest about "illegal assasination", but that would have blown over much quicker than the current quagmire.) This would have saved thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush: 2 more UN Resolutions and a war that actually deposes Saddam as opposed to only blowing up buildings with smart bombs.
The Difference: Moveon.org approved of Clinton's war, but didn't approve of Bush's.
Integrity on Slashdot my ass.
No. Not wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but if you RTFA, you'll see that there are no nuclear or other WMDs involved. You see, at orbital velocities, you can just toss some ball bearings or other inert objects into a satellite/missile's path to destroy it. Sometimes low-tech can be pretty effective.
Re:Good For Us (Score:3, Insightful)
The simple reason is that its a new and final chance. There are no more new frontiers. Do we still have to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, or can we actually act on what we have learned time and again through costly experience, that weapons don't bring peace, and war is just self-destructive.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe not direct fighting, but there was certainly a lot of fighting "by proxy" on both sides of the Cold War. For some parts of the world, the Cold War was decidedly very, very hot.
Re:Talking about insanely short-sighted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Several such events were the destruction of a norwegian heavy water plant, a borked raid on a deuterium-oxide facility and the sinking of a heavy water shipment en route to Germany.
Assault in Norway: Sabotaging the Nazi Nuclear Bomb.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975
Blood and Water Dan Kurzman, 1997
It was going to happen far sooner than 50 more years down the line.
Part of a weapon system(s) is already there (Score:4, Insightful)
Those satellites are themselves a very important part of a weapon system that allows us to hit any position on the globe with a sub 4 meter accuracy in almost any weather. ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, etc etc ). IMHO that makes those GPS satellites weapons.
Also, what about near space? That scram jet test the other day would lead the way for a very impractical airliner. It would lead the way to an excellent strategic bomber. The ability for an agent/Special Forces troop, put a modified 2000lb JDAM on someones head anywhere on the globe within a few hours sounds mighty handy. Like calling out for pizza.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush: War in Iraq with NO international support Uh...can you count?
Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history Where are these figures? Bush: Most job losses since great depression Yeah, more people are in the job market. Very few women worked in the 20's and 30's compared to today. Oh, and the bad 5.7 unemployment rate? yeah, they called 5.6 "low" during the Clinton years.
Move along, folks, don't stare at the liberal idiot he's sensitive! Dork.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
But in reality, space does not clear after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets--all have already become tiny satellites, traveling at about 27,000 kilometers per hour, 10 times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. A marble traveling at such speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton safe dropped from a three-story building. Anything it strikes will be destroyed and only increase the debris.
With enough orbiting debris, pieces will begin to hit other pieces, fragmenting them into more pieces, which will in turn hit more pieces, setting off a chain reaction of destruction that will leave a lethal halo around the Earth. To operate a satellite within this cloud of millions of tiny missiles would be impossible: no more Hubble Space Telescopes or International Space Stations. Even communications and GPS satellites in higher orbits would be endangered. Every person who cares about the human future in space should also realize that weaponizing space will jeopardize the possibility of space exploration.
and
These satellites are already at increasing risk from space debris. At any moment, only about 200 kilograms of meteoroid mass are within 2,000 kilometers of the Earth's surface. But within this same altitude range are roughly 3 million kilograms of orbiting debris introduced by human activities, most from about 3,000 spent rocket stages and now-inactive satellites. Most of the approximately 4,000 additional objects several centimeters in size or larger resulted from the fragmentation of more than 120 satellites.
That's from Bullitin of the atomic scientists. link [thebulletin.org]
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
What, the five year old child? Yeah, what a bunch of freeloading bastards those 1st graders are!
Whats that, you believe the parents should pay directly for their childs education? O.K, sounds like a plan as long as you know how to take care of those children unfortunate enough to have only one parent through no fault of their own.
Libertarionism wouldn't be a bad idea if it didn't constantly ignore many of the realities of life.
Re:Space Beams (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's example, think how convenient it would be to have snuffed that new troublemaker in Iraq? The tin hats really will be in fashion. All the crazies will have all their followers parading around in them. Not with any fantasy of blocking the high energy beams. Just trying to confuse the spotters who would be able to direct the beam to the target.
The current violence-based situation in Iraq is that the country is dangling on the edge of total chaos. The Sunnis have been causing trouble all along, mostly because they had it relatively good under Saddam. Now the Shia are on the edge of general revolt. They're still the majority, and they've been sort of quiet on the theory that they would get control when "democracy" arrived. [Can't imagine how they got that idea if they were paying any attention to Florida 2000 and 5-4.] Since the Shia have apparently woken up and realized they're getting conned, it isn't likely to quiet down now. All that's left is for the Kurds to go nuts again. And why not? The Kurds know they're going to get screwed again no matter who wins, so they might as well get what they can while the getting's good.
The neocon fantasy of ruling by pure force just doesn't work. You can only stay awake so long, and when you blink, when you drop the barrel of the gun for the shortest moment, hell breaks loose. If they have nothing to lose, their ONLY remaining interest is how to take you with them.
The solution is sharing the toys. People that have something to lose have the tendency to want to keep it.
Nah, it will never work. The BushCo people got rich because they were greedy and wanted more. The kernel of greed is not to be satisfied, but always to want more, and more, and more. More guns. Less sleep.
Until the big thud.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Bush: 5 trillion dollar deficit (over 10 years)
>>Clinton: Longest growth/expansion in US history
>>Bush: Most job losses since great depression
These are one and the same. Umm... Bigest bubble since the great depresion. Linux.com having a greater value than SGI??? A lot of that expansion was pure bubble. The Clinton administration did nothing to control the bubble and in fact did everything to inflate it.
Lets not forget that what real growth was caused by a little thing called the Internet. Giving Clinton credit for the growth durning his term is kind of like giving the King of England credit for the Industral Revolution.
>>Clinton: War in Bosnia/Serbia WITH UN backing
>>Bush: War in Iraq with NO international suppor
What about Hati? What about the Cruise Missle attack on the Sudan? What about Somalia?
And as far as Terrorism what about the first World Trade Center Bombing? The Federal Building bombing?
What about no increase of funding for NASA even though there was a huge surplus?
As far as Gay rights what about don't ask don't tell and the defence of Marrage act?
It is just that simple????
Clinton Good? Sorry I just do not see it.
I am not all that thrilled with Bush but Clinton was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Re:I see nothing wrong with it (Score:2, Insightful)
No, since WW2, the US opposes fascist dictatorships
(1912) U.S. Marines invade Nicaragua and occupy the country almost continuously until 1933
This is before WW2....
(1954) The CIA engineers the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala;
You forget the fact that the Guatemalan dictator by this time had outlawed democratic opposition, and had turned his country into a Soviet colony. The US overthrew a fascist.
(1961) The U.S. attempts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban government at the Bay of Pigs
You aren't making a good case there. Castro is the most enduring fascist dictator in the Western Hemisphere.
(1981) The Reagan Administration begins the contra war against Nicaraguan civilians
No, the Soviets waged the Sandinista war against Nicaraguan civilians. The US helped nationalists resist.
(1983) The U.S. invades Grenada to overthrow a popular government
You forget the fact that this government was not that popular (having been imposed by the USSR). The US restored Grenada to native control.
(1989) The U.S. invades Panama to arrest accused drug dealer Manual Noriega.
You need to make a better case. Except for the one pre-WW2 example, you came up with example after example of the US helping a country free itself from colonial domination.
Re:Related Star Wars Article (Score:5, Insightful)
When the US takes a step towards Star Wars, competitors will simply improve their missiles. It seems likely that those improvements are much less costly than the defensive technology. Let's face it, space is extremely expensive. Bombing or shooting rockets from space is incredibly costly because you must first lift the materials up there and then shoot them back down. Earth-based systems (such as nukes) will have the advantage until new lifting technologies are developed. The only option which doesn't require lifting materials to rearm are lasers, but they can be countered with a reflective layer, so they aren't likely to be the answer.
Finally, if war is brought to space, there is a serious risk of destroying both commercial and military sattelites and 'contaminating' geostationary orbit with debris, making it unusable. Is this a Pandora's box that the US wants to open?
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
Bloody typical (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it that makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to ignore a worldwide ban on weapons research / deployment? What makes you imagine that non-Americans would be any more likely than Americans to use weapons of mass destruction if they had them?
Let's just say no weapons in space, full stop.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the responsiblity of the state and federal government to make sure every child has access to at least elementary and high school education and the oppurtunity to further that education. That is why state and federal dollars go to public schools and universities.
Please help me understand why this is news? (Score:1, Insightful)
The U.S. Government is charged with "providing a common defense" in the Constitution. If a satellite can detect a missle attack and respond to it, how is this a bad thing?
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had had a low-orbital beam weapon like this, there would not have been a 9/11.
This is plain laughable.
First, US intelligence is obviously not accurate enough to serve as a basis for where terrorist leaders camp. (bombed civilian factory, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc.)
Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?
Military fighters were stationed within reach and could easily have shot down these planes if official reaction and decision time were as short as you suggest.
The only way of abolishing terror is by changing the policies that feed the responsible organizations.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:4, Insightful)
New revised Slashbot ideals:
#1. Republicans suck.
#2. Democrats suck.
Mix with reality:
#3. There is no alternative to the two.
The only problem with this is that it puts all of us into that category of people called 'radicals'. After all, even if both sides are total shit, you *have* to support one of them or else noone listens to a word you say.
Try to bash Bush and you get people attacking Clinton, saying he was no better.
Try to attack Clinton and you get the anti-Bush rhetoric that started this thread.
Try to say that the whole system sucks and you get people labelling you a tin-foil mad hatter.
Politics make me want to cry.
Re:Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
There never was a "pro-Saddam" side. Anti-war != pro-Saddam, just as those who oppose the pro-life movement on abortion are not "pro-death".
Those of us who opposed the war didn't do so because we loved Saddam, we did so because we felt that our tax dollars would be better spent on ending conflicts (Afghanistan, Palestine, possibly parts of Africa) than on starting new ones - that, to put it bluntly, while the invasion of Iraq certainly rescued a few hundred thousand Iraqis from an oppressive and evil regime, the money we spent on that, if we'd used it for other things, could have rescued millions of Asians and Africans from other equally nasty regimes.
Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I admit that I'm not a fan of the large-scale militarization of space...I think that would be a terrible thing, especially since we're finally getting close to a point where private citizens/enterprises can really blast into space exploration. I just would hate to see a rush on the other side of the coin from militarization that held us back as bad as the Outer Space Treaty did.
Everything not expressly forbidden (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:1, Insightful)
Some of it, perhaps.
Of course, you're starting from the premise that fighting drugs is a good thing. We aren't all convinced that an administration that takes huge contributions from the manufacturers of dangerous and highly addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol, while wasting millions of dollars fighting other addictive substances, is necessarily on the side of Good
Weapons in space are a given. (Score:2, Insightful)
IMO, weapons in space are a given. At a minimum, we want to be able to stop someone else from shooting down our own satellites.
A good example would be the GPS system. This system is responsible for not just military navigation, but civilian aircraft landings and navigation (w/ WAAS), and synchronizing both our communications networks and our power grid.
A loss of the GPS satellites above our country could be a VERY big problem:
blackouts, plane crashes, network and telephone outages (both wired and cellular), and probably some more issues I'm not aware of.
And that's never even considering the consequences it would have on our military.
Although it would have less shock value, losing a bunch of satellites could possibly disrupt this country MORE than 9/11.
Am I the only one who isn't yelling: "OMG weapons in space! We're all gonna get zapped by lasers like in Real Genius!"
I just don't see weapons in space as a big issue. They're only going to be used for very specfic applications because they're going to be really fucking expensive.
Weapons is space will be used for protecting valuable assets (satellites and space stations) and shooting down ICBMs.
If we want to rain death from above on some earth-based taget, we're going to use an airplane. The only real offensive use I see for space-based weapons would be to shoot down someone else's satellites.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you have documentation of that? Apart from some whacko from the Village Voice?
Why isn't John Kerry talking about this at nearly every single appearance!? Could it be because there's no truth to it? Or are you now going to claim Kerry as a co-conspirator?
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
To quote Doctor Evil: Educating children is an investment in the future and an absolute bargain by any standards.
Every dollar spent educating children pays huge dividends in the future. Having a well-educated workforce is THE best way to ensure a prosperous future for everyone. Even the neo-cons who only think in the immediate term should be able grok that one. Education is positively corelated to income, and a better education means having more options when the economy goes flat compared to someone who can just flip burgers. More people with larger incomes is surely in everyone's best interests!
Unless you deliberately want the masses to remain poor and ignorant...
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also known as surrender? Yeah I suppose that works. I'll get in my time machine and tell that to Churchill -- it would have been the most effective way to end the Battle of Britain after all.
But on a more serious note do you really think this would solve terrorism? Bin Ladin and his ilk desire a World dominated by an Islamic form of Government that would make the Taliban look like a champion of individual liberties and justice. I'm sorry but I'm not ready for my girlfriend/mother/sister to wear a Burka nor am I ready for my younger brother to have his hand cut off because he got caught shoplifting a few years ago.
Changing our policies might deny them a few followers (i.e: the common-man on the street in the Muslim World hating the US and our allies) but it's not going to stop or deter them. Unfortunately it seems like the only way to stop the true fanatics is to kill them.
China is a valid reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is, do you want to wait till it IS a problem or do something now?
Kind of like the questions asked about our lack of reaction to the bombing WTC in the 90s... we know how that turned out.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy the negative portrayals of either Kerry or Bush, though. Too many people get their information from the attack ads of opposing candidates, rather than actually bothering to learn about their real records.
As far as I'm concerned, either one would do a fairly good job as President for the upcoming term, and neither would be perfect.
Re:Ban on non-proliferation? (Score:2, Insightful)
The big problem with this thought process is that you do not understand that there are times where it just doesn't flippin work! Would words have stopped the Japanese from spreading in the Pacific or Hitlers move in Europe? Or the North Koreans in during the Korean Conflict? Or... (countless other world events)
There simply are just times force must be met with force.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space Beams (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for space based weapons to have the high ground. In the real world there are lots of people who hate Americans. Some hate us because as a country we are pushy and not always subtle. Many hate us because we have succeded and make them look bad. Unless we want to fall to thier level we must continue to develop viable defenses and offenses weapons
> Now the Shia are on the edge of general revolt. They're still the majority, and they've been sort of quiet on the theory that they would get >control when "democracy" arrived. [Can't imagine how they got that idea if they were paying any attention to Florida 2000 and 5-4.]
First off start paying attention to the news. The majority of Shia are not involved in the uprisings over the weekend. Even most of the Shittes admit that the cleric leading this uprising is a radical and has a small following. Now onto your crack about the 2000 election. Did you ever wonder why the media didn't bring up the recounts after the election was declared for Bush? That is because even under the most liberal counting system, Bush still won Florida.
>Since the Shia have apparently woken up and realized they're getting conned, it isn't likely to quiet down now. All that's left is for the Kurds >to go nuts again. And why not? The Kurds know they're going to get screwed again no matter who wins, so they might as well get what they >can while the getting's good.
Again the majority of Shia are still satisfied with the process in place. The Kurds are defintely happy with what is going on. While they won't get the country they want, they are getting enough power in the proposed government to avoid being squashed by Sunni's and Shia's who hate them.
Re:problems defending a weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
It is scarey to think about apathy though. I was watching some show about the early 1900's last night. It made me think, wow, my grandparents were alive during all this. And then i took another step back in time, their grandparents were possibly alive during the early 1800's. And another generation or two back and your at the American Revolution. How far we've fell from being accountable for our government, and our government being accountable to us.
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
I know I'm going to get slated for saying this, but in many countries in Europe the people are not violent by nature.
The original poster shows ingnorance both of European history (world history for that matter) and human nature. What militarily-strong countries throughout history have not been involved in war?
The original poster was referring to a human tendancy, not a tendancy of any specific country. Therefore, the cheap shot on the US was unwarranted.
Re:Space Beams (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as you don't worry about the thousands of people, mostly black men, who were "accidentally" labeled as felons and were turned away from the polls.
-B
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm, we would have won? Some things are worth fighting for -- freedom is one of them. Talk to a Korean War vet and ask them what they thought of the retreat from the Yulu River -- having to abandon villages and cities they had liberated to the communists. Villages that had welcomed them as heroes and liberators.
In hindsight McArthur was right. The Chinese didn't have nukes at this time and the Russians only had a few -- and they had been unwilling to directly involve themselves in the war. There would be a united Korea today and quite possibly a free China. But instead of using a few tactical nukes on the Chinese soldiers when they attacked us we let it turn into a stalemate along the lines of the Western Front in WW1. Millions of people died (mostly Chinese and North Koreans but that's small comfort -- a Human Being is a Human Being) for no gain.
Nice one America (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, if you can't find them now to shoot at them (OBL still at large IIRC), what makes you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to change this? And do you think that having a bunch of shooters in space is going to make anti-American sentiment (a) weaker or (b) stronger, particularly when (NOT if) they misfire and zap some perfectly innocent soul. (Clue: the answer isn't (a).)
Maginot Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Missile defense is also very lucrative to the big aerospace companies who want to get the multibillion dollar contracts. You can be sure they are lobbying hard and spreading around campaign contributions to make it happen. A sympathetic Republican administration and big defense companies lobbying for them is an assurance these programs will continue for the forseeable future and will expand.
The only attack this system might prevent is a rogue state, with a few primitive missiles, like North Korea launching a missile at the U.S. If they know the missile defense is there they can just put their nukes on tramp steamers and sail them in to the harbors of major U.S. cities. They only way to deal with states like North Korea is to disarm them, one way or another. If there is any state that deserves to be taken down for WMD's and repressive dictatorship its North Korea, not Iraq. Only prolbem is if we try they will probably devastate Seoul and may retaliate with nukes against South Korea and the U.S., if they have them. The Bush administration will never be able to explain the rational for leaving North Korea in tact, taking down Iraq, and letting Pakistan get away with proliferating nuclear weapons technology to anyone with a few million dollars. We took down Iraq for a vague suspicion of developing nuclear weapons. North Korean has them and Pakistan has been really proliferating them, wholesale, and we haven't done much since we caught on.
If you turn to Russia, they had largely stopped developing strategic weapons. Thanks to the Bush administrations saber rattling they are now going to resume the arms race. They've already announced plans to develop warheads with manuevering capability to defeat ABM's, massive decoy strategies are also inevitable, and they are resuming work on their own missile defense. Another way to beat missile defense is to deploy massive numbers of new missiles. One reason the U.S. and U.S.S.R signed a treaty banning ABM's is because they had the foresight to look ahead and see the consequence of deploying them. Both countries would have dramaticly escalated missile production in order to be sure they could overwhelm the new defense. As bad as the arms race was Mutual Assured Destruction kept it in check. When you start deploying defenses and start planning to try to win a nuclear war it leads to two things:
A. A greater risk of a war happening if one side thinks they can win without significant damage thanks to defenses.
B. The arms race spirals out of control, as countries build massive numbers of new missiles to overwhelm the others defenses, and then massive new defense to counter the huge numbers of new missiles.
All in all the world would have been a better place without restarting the arms race. Thank you again, little George.
What will Aliens think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Must be answerable to a commander;
2. Must have a distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance on their uniform;
3. Must openly carry arms (weapons);
4. Must conduct their operations in line with the laws of war.
Here is the text of the treaty if you care to actually read it instead of just spewing anti-US rhetoric.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b08868538c2c
These distinctions like uniforms are what help protect civilians in times of war. They are the slim incentive to soldiers who otherwise may have none at all to act with what human decency is possible during a war. It's really pretty simple, follow the rules of war, and you are garaunteed certain rights in event of capture. Don't follow those rules and you have no rights, got it?
From A US Space Command officer (Score:4, Insightful)
Weapons in space have been in existence for some time. If you call a duck a duck, then a satellite with a sole response of killing another satellite is a weapon. The Soviets demonstrated their capabilities quite some time ago to perform this maneuver. To be honest, Star Wars scared the beejeesus out of the Soviets and they tried every measure possible to stop us from developing it. When we "won" the cold war, there wasn't a reason to keep the measure alive since no other country was so capable of putting a nuke on our doorstep in minutes.
This is why Cuba was such a huge issue for us. No time to counter a first strike. If you'll note, we always strike with a heavy first blow, because it's strategically important to do so.
Getting back on-topic. Given the facts above, I really question the credility or motives of the "Expert" cited in the article. Anyone involved in Space, and most certainly any Air Force related personnel, would know about the previous weapons. I've got a copy of the USAF Space Handbook (issued to AF Officers in Space Command), dated over 10 years ago, which outline the Soviet's program in good detail.
The rest of the posts on here seem to really stray off topic, but I'll entertain a few. The problem the US has had is that we see things differently than a good number out there. Conversely, they each see things differently than every one else as well. So there's two foreign policies you can follow:
1. Isolationism
2. Work with the other governments to further your agenda
I'd say anyone even remotely familiar with history would agree that option 1 is no option at all. We tried ignoring Osama Bin Laden, the Japanese and German agression in WWIII and others, yet we eventually get sucked in anyway. We can engage in the "chicken and egg", or cause and effect conversation until we're each sleepy or bored, yet neither of us will ever have the definitive correct answer. The key to courage is to make the best of what you have today and move forward.
This is why we've changed our posture. Is it aggressive? Sure. But so have our enemies...
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's known as "knowing thy enemy."
The best way to end any war is to convince your enemy not to fight it. If you can do so by taking actions that do not compromise your position, you should do so.
Since the terrorist's main real claim is our abhorrent treatment of other nations, the best way to stop the terrorists is to stop mistreating the various nations they come from.
As for the other significant causes of terrorism--How about we just leave Israel alone for a few years, and let that problem sort itself out?
Re:The bad side of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Launched the first cold war? Nukes, kept the cold war cold. Without nukes, it's pretty fair to say there would have been much more violence in the 20th century.
Further, the only two nukes ever used militarily (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) took ~200,000 lives directly. Not millions. (Yes, obviously increased radiation for a period of time took some more).
It's also relatively certain that a traditional invasion of Japan would have cost many more lives than that.
Re:Bush in Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
Cause sure like hell I never seen any of this being discussed anywhere and , unlike you, I can read Polish newspapers.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't miss this point, I chose not to respond to it because it wasn't a part of the original discussion. That was, artemis67 claiming (rightly so) that had a beam weapon been available several years ago, Clinton would have killed Bin Laden. Instead, the time it took our cruise missiles to reach him gave him time to leave.
You missed this point when you said, "Second, do you really think the military would have had time to react, decide they were a real threat and not a "regular" hijack, and annihilate these airplanes before they reached their targets?" Nobody was talking about shooting down hijacked airplanes.
This side point that you brought up ("How are you going to kill Osama with beam weapons when you don't know where he is?") is a red herring and is counter to the discussion at hand. You're trying to discredit the idea of a space based laser weapon by bringing up a (false) lack of U.S. intelligence. The fact is we did know where Bin Laden was several years back, and occasionally know where he is even today, though we can't reach him before he moves again. A beam weapon that could hit it's target in minute instead of hours would solve this problem.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. If I have a policy to go piss on your rose garden every morning, and you respond by threats and occasionally assaulting me, my proper response would be for me to go on an all out war on you (or in this analogy, on your neighbour who has nothing to do with it)??? If instead I simply re-evaluated my policy of pissing on your rose garden and determined that perhaps I shouldn't be doing that, you would call that surrendering?
Curious. So it's better to stand your ground or up the ante regardless of whether what you were doing was wrong in the first place or not. That seems to be what you are saying.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
And we all know that method has been really successful as well. For every terrorist you strke down, you create at least 100 more. It's like the monster that grows 3 more heads for every one you cut off.
I do think that Osama and Saddam are bad men, and need to be stopped, but killing everyone connected to them does not seem to be helping very much.
Do you honestly believe that we are any safer now, than we were pre-2001? I am sure the people in Spain don't think so.
The Birthday Card Coalition (Score:4, Insightful)
It's less of a coalition and more like paying for the boss' birthday present. Even if they think he is a jackass, most people put in a few bucks and write a phony greeting on the card. Especially, as in this case, if the boss has made it clear that anyone who doesn't contribute will face problems in the work place.
Some governments decided that good relations with the US was more important than other considerations, and ponyed up some troops. But the population of every single country in the "alliance" is/was strongly against the war, including the UK. All in all, a pretty funny way of fighting for democracy, IMHO...
Some of those countries received quite substantial monetary favors in exchange for their support, which is why it's been called "The coalition of the billing'.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry pal but after the past 4 years is an example of USA administration and if trust is anything to go by the Chinese are looking pretty good!, i trust them to tell the truth only marginally less than i do USA and thats quite an achievement for such a young country as USA.
if USA put weapons in space it could be seen as an act of war by some nations which wont really get us anywhere (not to mention ringing the planet in a shroud of impassable destroyed satellite debris travelling at 27,000 mph = end of getting off this planet for a while)
i wouldnt have to be a genius to work out thats rather a high price to pay, fuck up space exploration for mankind for the next 10^8yrs and turn this planet into a radioactive rubble filled shithole because of some minority paranoid neocon cults ideals ?
who really are the "rogue nations" here ?
Re:Space Beams (Score:1, Insightful)
what a classic US comment.
Succeded in what exactly?, pissing off a large part of the world by abusing your power and pillaging resources etc etc etc - when will you guys wake up?!?!?!
Re:Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton was not involved in that (I think he was humpin Monica at the time). It was the intelligence community and border police we have to thank for that. The 93 WTC bombing did kill people, on Clinton's watch. Why wasn't he more proactive? Was he distracted ? Where is the congressional hearing on that, huh? Oh, it's OK because he's a liberal.
I wonder how Bushes God will look on him for killing thousands of people for nonexistent WMD.
Clinton and his cabinet were absolutley convinced that Iraq had WMD's. There are lots of quotes to prove that if you look a bit.
You liberals are all about compassion, as long as it's for the classes and races of people you approve of. You have shown zero compassion for the Kurds (who were in fact the victims of WMD's) or the Shites (brutally massacred after the 91 Gulf War), but your heart bleeds for the enemy soldiers at Gitmo. Give me a break! This isn't about being right or compassionate, it's about getting power back from the Republicans, any way you can. For liberals, the ends justify the means, and if that means you have to wish for a bad economy to get back in power, that's what you do. So wish away, but the economy looks like its coming back quite well, good news for the average American, but bad news for you liberals who have positioned yourselves to only benefit from the misfortune of America. No wonder you're so incensed that Bush is doing a great job, it makes your gloom and doom stories so much less believable. Sad really.
Who's pathetic and racist? You and your egostistical cronies. If you don't like the way America is, why don't you emigrate to France? They will welcome you with open arms since you think like their politicians (If it makes us rich and powerful, it must be OK).
Re:Space Beams (Score:2, Insightful)
When Americans define themselves as 'successful' and others as envious, I always chuckle to myself. You see, this 'success' is an illusion. The the modern USofA was founded on a virgin territory (minus those pesky indigenous peoples..but thats another matter) -- it is a young country.
I would say your Community is very ill-prepared for long term success. In reality, I would say you are dangerous to the well being of us all. Playing fast and loose with your Army, rampant consumerism, environmental denial, Selfishness is practically a Religion, Religion, Violent Crime and a myriad of other, serious 'character flaws' will condemn your culture to doom.
Other nations and cultures have different mesaures of success, places where the USA would do well by investigating. The USA does have some VERY super rich people, but really, this doesnt A) make you successfull or B) make you *ALL* rich (the USA has serious rich/poor issues (prisons full of inner-city people, for-profit health care unevenly supplied).
Unless we want to fall to thier level we must continue to develop viable defenses and offenses weapons
Are you saying that you think it is honourable/right/acceptable that the USA intends to Conquer The World by force? If yes, please, lets not beat around the Bush, please let everyone hear you say so. Shouldnt the Goal of such an accomplished culture be Peace?
Hawkish jingoist Americans amuse me. Can hubris know no bounds?
Re:Space Beams (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, you want recent? What about the White House supporting the people who tried to orchestrate a Coup d'etat against the democracy in Venezuela? When the coup failed, President Chavez said that the CIA had involvement, with video.
Or how about when New Zealand said they didn't support war against Iraq, so the US shut them out of Free Trade talks, leaving Australia in instead?
Or what about the US' long laundry list of vetoes [informatio...house.info] in the UN? What's the count, 35 resolutions concerning Israel vetoed [everything2.com] by the US? Even being the sole dissenting vote in many cases. Of course this is abuse of the US' power, to please the Jewish and Christian Zionist voters back home. These weren't all binding, and some of them were common sense "S/17769/Rev. 1: Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places." Why should the US, the supposed "peace broker" of the Middle East, block that, and stand as the sole vote againt?
Want more?
Re:Space Beams (Score:1, Insightful)
Give it a rest. The Bush hating media all went into Florida after the issue was settled, and found (guess what?) Bush won (though by a slim margin). Do you serious think that if Gore had won that they would have been so quiet about the result?
You can argue that the "Electoral College" has problems (hence, Bush lost the "Popular Vote"). But that is a constitutional issue, not a problem with our Representitive Republic (we are not a democracy, and Iraq won't be either- consider the of Tyrany of the majority? Suni's, Californians, etc)
As to weaponization of space. Go for it. America wasn't always the superpower that it is now (WWI, WWII). The weapons will be made, and I personally sleep better at night knowing we have them, rather than other ambitious countries (China, Russia, etc).
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. So since the U.S. has been "pissing on their roses" in the Middle East for years via U.S. foreign policy and activities, what police should they have called on the U.S.? What jail should the U.S. government been put in?
The response of the terrorists is obviously very wrong, no question, just as you threatening and attacking me in my analogy is wrong (which you agreed with, since your response would be to call the police). But that doesn't make the U.S. right, just as me pissing on your roses isn't right.
Digging in our heels and not budging an inch when somebody wrongs us is not a useful solution. Recognizing when you've made mistakes and correcting them is the right thing to do, regardless of what the other side does. It is incredibly stupid to continue to do wrong things because somebody got pissed off at you doing them, so you continue so as not to appear as "backing down". That's just dumb. It's why accidently bumping ends up in bar fights and sometime death. It's machismo gone overboard, where neither side is willing to admit it has done anything wrong.
It also annoys me when people perpetuate the myth that doing something that might appear to comply with the desires of the terrorists would just invite more terrorism. Show me some examples. The opposite is, in fact, the case right now, where "digging in our heels" and refusing to make any changes has invited more terrorism.
Do you honestly think it's a good thing to be in a country where the terrorists are setting the foreign policy?
You don't seem able to differentiate between "caving" to demands and "correcting" mistakes. The former means you are doing something wrong for the purpose of complying with their demands so they'll stop. The latter is doing something right because you recognized you were doing something wrong, regardless of what they're demands are.
Re:Spain elected far left fascists. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Spanish people lived under Franco for decades. I think they know a lot more about totalitarian fascism than you could ever claim to.
The previous Spanish Government went to war with opinion polls 90% against it, and the reasons for the war were later found to be completely spurious. They were then seen to be covering up the causes of the terrorist bombing. Is this the sort of behaviour you want to reward?
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Insightful)
That reminds me of a joke I heard once. I googled, but couldn't find a copy, so here it is from memory:
A man is in a bar during WWII when the radio in the bar announces that China has started fighting Japan. The first day, the radio says 100 Chinese were killed, and 1 Japanese. The man looks in the corner of the bar and sees an old Chinese man sitting there, nodding slightly to the news.
The second day, the radio says 1000 Chinese were killed, and 10 Japanese. The man looks in the corner of the bar and sees the old Chinese man sitting there, grinning and nodding.
The third day, the radio says 10000 Chinese were killed, and 100 Japanese. The man looks in the corner of the bar and sees the old Chinese man sitting there, smiling and nodding as he hears the news. The man goes over to the old Chinese man and says 'Why are you smiling? The radio said 10000(!) Chinese died, and 100 Japanese. And the numbers keep going up each day.'
The grinning Chinese man replies "Yes- Plitty soon, no more Japanese."