US Ready to put Weapons in Space 1023
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports "America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'."
If this goes ahead, it will be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which forbids the militarization of space."
This does not violate the treaty (Score:5, Informative)
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
Note: No nukes, no 'WMDs' in orbit, and no weapons on pre-existing celestial bodies. Sticking more conventional arms into orbit is A-OK by this agreement.
"weapons of mass destruction" (Score:2, Informative)
Summary == incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
The treaty does NOT forbid the militarization of space. It forbids placement of weapons on celestial bodies, and it forbids nuclear and other 'WMD's from being placed in space.
The Guardian? (Score:2, Informative)
For good information (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Informative)
The source is OpinionJournal's Political Diary. Thanks for helping George Bush. I'm sure he'll thank you.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, I don't know about that. Considering that Bush's margin of victory in 2004 was five times larger than Al Gore's in 2000, perhaps they heard you loud and clear. In which case, let me say thanks to all the readers of the Guardian, particularly those who took the time to write, for doing your part to insure W's re-election...
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Informative)
No kidding. Let's see...
Treaties revoked by George W. Bush.
The biodiversity Treaty
The Geneva Conventions
The Forest Protection Treaty
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty
The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
The 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination agains Women
The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Chemical Weapons Convention
The International Criminal Court (Nicaragua anyone?)
We rule by force, and screw anyone who tries to tell us differenet. It's the new American paradigm, and it's beyond ludicrous. PreVENTIVE war, screw treaties and international law, screw any moral high ground we may have had in the past. Welcome to our nightmare...
About USAF Space Command (Score:3, Informative)
Space forces support involves launching satellites and other high-value payloads into space using a variety of expendable launch vehicles and operating those satellites once in the medium of space.
Space control ensures friendly use of space through the conduct of counterspace operations encompassing surveillance, negation and protection.
Force enhancement provides weather, communications, intelligence, missile warning and navigation. Force enhancement is support to the warfighter.
Force application involves maintaining and operating a rapid response land-based ICBM force as the Air Force's only on-alert strategic deterrent.
More info here [abovetopsecret.com].
Re:It's hard to establish military superiority (Score:3, Informative)
That is an urban legend, as usual, see snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.as
There was a company however that manufactured a "space pen" and sold quite a few of them.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Informative)
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Informative)
A Laser to shoot other WMD does not entail a WMD itself.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:2, Informative)
The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! NOT! (Score:2, Informative)
I could be wrong (not usually when it comes to weapons terminology) but point weapons such as "kinetic kill vehicles" and lasers are not generally considered weapons of mass destruction. These are more than sufficient and actually prefered for attacking satelites, launch vehicles, etc. for a variety of reasons and are in no way prohibited by the treaty as long as they are not installed on the "moon or other celestial body."
This has long been on the table (or under it) (Score:4, Informative)
The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page [newamericancentury.org].
Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:2, Informative)
So it would do exactly as much damage as if it had been dropped from an airplane.
Crowbars ain't no spaceweapon.
Re:Cite an example of ignoring the Geneva Conventi (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Informative)
Since then, it has been signed by 98 states (the 95 figure was from 2001). It has been ratified in 1966 by the General Assembly in resolution 2222 [unvienna.org].
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Informative)
Because Taiwan is part of China and China is America's ally.
<JEDI HAND WAVE>
There is only One China.
</JEDI HAND WAVE>
Besides, the Taiwan military would seriously give the People's Liberation Army a run for their money.
Space-Based Missile Defense Banned by Treaty? No. (Score:3, Informative)
A quick, cursory reading of the treaty [state.gov] referenced by the poster will show that there is no banning of such a space-based missile defense system. In fact, the claim that the militarization of space is forbidden is not grounded in fact.
The treaty bans the following:
- Space-based nuclear weapons
- Space-based weapons of mass destruction
That's it. It does not ban a State that is a Party to the treaty (member state) from placing weaponry in orbit to shoot down incoming ICBMs. It does not ban a member state from proactively destroying the satellites of another state, esp. when the destroying state is under attack by the state owning the targeted material.Certainly, space-based systems designed to provide a member state with defense against incoming weapons of mass destruction do not themselves qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, as long as the weapons to not contain nuclear warheads, they are not in violation of this treaty.
Following are few places in the treaty where weapons are mentioned.
As can be plainly seen, none of these items ban the installation of conventional defensive weaponry in space. The treaty explicitly deals with installation of nuclear weapons and offensive weapons of mass destruction, as well as using the moon or other celestial bodies for military bases, installations, or fortifications, or for the conducting of military maneuvers.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:2, Informative)
> Only objective reporting of the facts.
Bollox! There is no such thing as true objectivity, how can you write an opinion piece with no bias, even a factual report is subject to unconscious bias of the observer.
For example a factual report might say "President Bush agrees to meet Arafat", another might say "President Arafat agrees to meet Bush". These both convey the same fact but also the bias of the author in using titles and emphasising who agreed to convey one figures importance over the other.
The best any reporter can do is aim toward objectivity and then clearly state their bias beside their name.
The information to mistrust is the info that claims to be unbiased or objective. This usually means that the author is masking their bias or completely unaware that they have one.
State your bias up front and let the reader decide, its much more honest that way.
Re:As a citizen of the good ol' days Mars (Score:1, Informative)
Something like 40% of Australias population wasn't even BORN here.
America started out as a British penal colony too.
Something like 2% of the Oz population have any links to convict ancestors.
Most of the "convicts" were people who got caught stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children, really bad guys yeah...
Fuck America, bunch of drug addicted murderers, and that's in 2004, not 1888.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Informative)
Are you refering to the KMD? They've been a lot of things but this is the first time I've encountered that they're being called faschist.
Taiwan has always been a subject of the rulers of Mainland China. Such was that after the Qing dynasty lost the sino-japanese war, they had to give the island to Japan. After WWII it was returned to China, which was by then ruled by the KMD. So, they've always been there. It was only after defeat by the Communists that the Bulk of the KMD arrived en-mass.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:4, Informative)
The president would have been in gross violation of his oath of office to have allowed US citizens to be prosecuted by a non-US court.
OK, please quote which section of the consitution, or the President's oath of office if you like, prohibits US citizens from being prosecuted by a non-US court. Again, sorry to disappoint you, but it happens all the time - it's a basic tenet of international law. Why else would the US have extradition treaties with other countries (for example, the US-UK Extradition Treaty [state.gov], which "Obligates each State to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses")?
If you don't like the ICC, fine. But at least get your facts straight before you criticise it. And, while you're at it, stop treating the US constitution like some sort of magic piece of paper that has universal powers. It doesn't.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:1, Informative)
I don't know what that crap is, but it certainly is NOT the documented history of East Asia. The only Japanese incursion into China was in 1937-1945 during the second sino-japanese war which was part of WWII in the East Asia theater, not "13s" whatever that means. Britain has never contributed to the positive integrity of China, in fact Britain was one of the imperial colonial powers that exploited China in the twilight of the Qing dynasty.
Before the Qing dynasty collapsed, it controlled more territory around China than the PRC now hold including Mongolia to the north, parts of Indo-China to the south and also Korea as a tributary state. Before that, the Ming dyanasty also presided over eastern China as a central government. Together, they represent more than half a millenium of centralized rule. Before that, the Mongols kept things in order During the Yuan dynasty for nearly a century more. The last epoch of fragmentation and widespread conflict was during the three kingdom period nearly eight centuries before the start of the Ming dynasty. Since then China had always maintained territorial integrity, especially in the East.