Do We Really Need Space Weapons? 938
tcd004 writes "The U.S. military is developing technology to disable, jam, and even destroy enemy satellites. But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race.
A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
Space is essentially worthless until it is militarized.
Nothing worthwhile is left unguarded.
A space race would be a good thing, in my opinion, because it focuses the much-maligned military-industrial complex on a worthy goal: human occupancy in space.
It may be more efficient to send up the sleek craft of the X-Prize and other private ventures, but heavy lift will probably only come with military ventures.
Getting to space en mass via the military will doubtless cause distress to many who feel that space should be kept pure, untouched by the dirty and unwholesome aspects of human existence.
Keep in mind that most successful ventures in space (and all the major ones) were driven by a space race with heavy military overtones. Such motivation worked once and will work again.
To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's up to the US taxpayer to put a stop to this insanity. I have a feeling that the US is gonna laugh at the Chinese & Russian efforts to legislate this, possibly causing a cold war in space. Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.
Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space? Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?
"that's no moon..." (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Weapons race loved by big business (Score:2, Insightful)
shoot own feet (Score:3, Insightful)
Having more capability than your enemy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever advantage you can give yourself could possibly turn the tide of a battle.
Imagine being able to blind an enemy in a war by knocking out its surveillance and communications capabilities. How is this a bad thing?
People make it sound like it's a bad thing by starting a space arms race, but there could be worse things- such as your enemy being able to knock out your satellites and you have no ability to do the same. If you're able to develop such technology, do it.
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Game theory on space weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
A little bit of game theory shows why developing space weapons makes sense from the point of view of any one country.
Certainly, a "conspiracy" of ALL countries agreeing NOT to develop space weapons would be in our collective best interests. But no one works in terms of collective best interests unless it also maximizes their own best interests.
Suppose for a moment that a "conspiracy" (or to make the terminology better for this case, a treaty) existed between all nations that "prevented" the development of space weapons.
Any one country who secretly deviates from that treaty has a LOT to gain.
Thus unless the United States can trust other major powers (China, Russia, EU, Japan) NOT to develop space weapons (which it cannot), the best way to leverage its position is to develop its own space weapons first.
Space weapons? We've got better things to do (Score:5, Insightful)
1) North Korea and Iran don't have space programs. Space weapons would be useful against only Russia and China.
2) The US is the world's most important rule maker or rule breaker. We should set an example and develop a code of conduct.
My response to (1) is that militarily, it sucks to get leapfrogged. You don't want to get passed because of complacency. As for (2), bad actors tend not to follow rules anyway, so will the conduct of the US really shape the behavior of the rest of the world? (I would guess that many outside the US would hope not.)
That said, the opportunity cost for space weapons is *huge*. It feeds into the whole asymmetrical warfare concept -- the US can disable satellites but can't stop an insurgency that everybody saw coming except the secretary of defense.
Furthermore, even within military spending there are better places to spend the money than space weapon deployment. More unmanned systems, better infantry-level support, or faster mobilization (so that the US doesn't build up a force and then claim it's so expensive to keep them there that we have to start the war *right now* -- there were people who said we couldn't wait through a summer
But the best place to spend money, in my opinion, is accelerated research that supports reduced reliance on oil. (Yes, I'm a Thomas Friedman fan.) I wouldn't mind a grant or two to a brilliant poli sci researcher who could figure out how to sell the public on a large gas tax. (and mitigate the effects on the poor?) I think most economists would say a gas tax (or more generally, a carbon tax) is the most efficient way to spur adoption of renewable energy sources. Otherwise, you're hoping the government can pick technological winners and losers. (While reps are getting nice contributions from the farm lobby.)
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:2, Insightful)
Irrelevant. Whether or not developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapons race does not answer the question as to whether or not space weapons are necessary.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bit of a stretch, isn't it? The US may be the most powerful country on the planet, and it may be to most arrogant country on the planet, and it may even be the most bullyish country on the planet, but it is hardly the most violent.
We don't, but the brass do (Score:5, Insightful)
Too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that space is weapons free is a myth. If you do not think that spy satellites are not weapons you are just nuts.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Insightful)
Other countries gain more by disabling satellites (Score:5, Insightful)
MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants.
So in short, you can reduce the efficiency of the US army by taking out their satellites. Since other countries are denied access to space, this would be a good tactic for such a country. They will be more dependent and more trained in a war without satellite information, and will be enabled by such a move to get the upperhand in a conflict.
I think the US better invest in protecting their own satellites since they are the softpoint.
PS Disabling satellites by large lasers might work since you could fry just a few components like a photo optic chip, the rest of the satellite is packed in a heat blanket to reflect sunlight and thus a laser will just reflect of that too (at least most of it, rendering it pretty useless, if the atmosphere didn't do that yet)
Weapons don't help secure space (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, let's turn our backs on space weapons. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first attempt I can remember was when the Pope tried to prohibit crossbows. The most recent is the Japanese ban on firearms - which worked quite well until Admiral Perry showed up.
Cold Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
"In space, all wars are cold."
-Michael Scovetta, Slashdot, 8/8/2005.
Haven't you heard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you heard? There is no USSR.
'He has stated that the treaties are too limimting and therefore aren't in the best interest of our country, a fact I wholeheartedly disagree with'
At least you admit it is a fact. Too bad you do not like it. Treaties which ban entirely-defensive efforts are certainly not in our interest.
All spacecraft are essentially weapons (Score:1, Insightful)
Slam a basic comm satellite into the ISS and it's done for. A nuke can be a warhead; it can also be used to propel a spacecraft (google "Orion") or mine an asteroid. A cutting laser makes a great long-distance comm device. At short ranges, some mapping radars will fry an unprotected human being.
So excuse me if I'm not too worried about "weapons in space."
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta be honest, as a U.S. tax payer I this. The ability to take out other satellites helps us in the event of a major military conflicts with other technologically advanced nations. Since I personally feel that a hostile take over of Taiwan by China is inevitable, I look at this as something that could help us to protect Taiwan. No one ever thinks a strong military is worth keeping around until they're on the receiving end of an invasion. Then everyone stands around wondering why their military didn't do anything to prevent it. There's a lot to be said for having a military powerful enough to deter attack.
Hell, the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to some serious strike capabilities in space with a far greater range than some archaic missiles on a carribean island.
Maybe someone else on here can contribute more but the last I checked missile range is not a big issue anymore, atleast not for Russia or the United States. What this adds is another area of launching attacks from. Hell, it might even add another dimension to efficiency. wouldn't take much for something falling from that height to reach a pretty extreme speed I'd imagine. Besides, who appointed the USA to be the supreme ruler of space?
Beg your pardon but who said we were? Creating defenses for investments in space and our nation is entirely different from us stating "We own space, piss off." I mean, last I checked we didn't declare ownership of the moon even though we planted our flag on it.
Surely disabling a satellite orbiting some other nation's (high) air space could be construed as an act of war similar to say, spyplanes in a foreign country's airspace?
How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to, I'm hoping someone else does. And at what point do you think it's fair to say airspace ends?
And I think "Most violent nation in the world" might be bit of an extreme statement. We might be the only nation currently involved in conflicts in two separate countries but it's not exactly like we showed up to fill a bloodlust. Hell, how many conflicts has Europe started by in other country's affairs that it refuses to fix *cough*Africa*cough*.
After the first strike, debris all over the place (Score:1, Insightful)
Basically, after the first "space war", low earth orbit becomes unusable for a few years, even for the victor.
TDz.
I'm gonna subscribe to this guy's newsletter (Score:3, Insightful)
Natural progression (Score:4, Insightful)
100 years ago wars were fought as ground wars.
When planes first appeared in warfare, they were used simply for data gathering -- They would fly over the enemy position and the pilot would report his observations.
The military soon realized that if they could knock out their enemy's use of aerial surveylance they would realize a huge tactical advantage and Air combat was born.
The same thing holds true with satellites. The launch of the first communcations / spy satellite ensured that one day someone would develop the ability to neutralize enemy satellites.
We don't have to like it, but it is inevitable.
If space is the final frontier (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it - fighting is human nature and it gets things done. It may be ugly, but people won't move until someone moves them. For instance, my neighbor has a tree that drops berries on my porch and my other neighbors porch (brand new). These berries are staining our porches, attracting bugs, etc. I asked him to remove it and he refused saying that it is *MY* responsibility. Now I have to go hire a lawyer. Now the reason this guy will listen to the lawyer, is because he will have to spend money in court and if he goes to court he will lose. If he does not pay then, he will have to deal with the police.
To link it to places like Iraq: Unfortunately, you could throw all the lawyers that you want at people like Saddam and it wouldn't matter. They would laugh at you, so then you resort to our police force (read: military).
The US is not appointed as ruler (self or otherwise), but that does not mean the US is not allowed to put up equipment to disable others in the case of war. Lets face it, unchecked (hell even checked) countries will create weapons and some of these countries are a bit too trigger happy. At least we are trigger happy when we feel threatened (and yes we did feel threatened) - but some countries will blow you up because you are an "American Infidel"
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, you have to do research or your grand children will be poor farmers.
Personally, I'm not counting on NASA to feed my eventual grand-children. Call me crazy, but I don't expect much more out of them than the occasional pretty picture of Jupiter or something.
Oh, and here's a news flash kids: Space is already militarized. Those GPS toys you like playing with? Yeah, those satelites are there to guide are tanks and target our bombs. The fact that you can use them to mark nav points at your favorite fishing holes and/or WiFi hotspots is just a bonus.
Laws of Gravity need not apply (Score:4, Insightful)
So we develop space weapons. They develop space weapons. We all develop space weapons. We decide to blow the 1,800 satellites out of the sky in some sort of stellar turf war.
What nobody has considered, is the gravity of the situation (literally, or lack thereof). Now you have billions of little pieces of satellite material flying around in all directions without any gravity to stop them.
You think some foam sticking out of the bottom of the shuttle has problems now, try plucking it out of there with billions of pieces of metal, plastic, glass, wire and other satellite debris flying around you in all directions at 16,000 miles per-hour.
Sure, some of it will orbitally degrade into the atmosphere, but much of it will not, and it will continue to fly in all directions at full-speed, until it either collides with something to slow it down, or it deflects off of something (such as the other billion pieces of debris) to change its path.
Forget going to the moon, other shuttle launches, Mars missions, all of it. Not without some major retrofit to the hull and other materials used in the manufacturing of them (i.e. adding weight, potentially).
Yes, lets all just blow ourselves out of the sky too, and keep our upper orbital atmosphere a nice fence of shrapnel traveling at thousands of miles per-hour.
Re:"that's no moon..." (Score:1, Insightful)
Not very often. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not very often. Saddam attacked Kuwait with no expectations, or claims of expectations, than Kuwait was threatening to wage war against Iraq. Hitler invaded Poland without a reason of "stopping a Polish war". Etc etc etc.
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading this horrible idea when I was growing up, that during times of war, people have to get inventive to survive, and this inventiveness translates into technology that has civilian applications after the war. This sounds plausible but ignores the huge economic forces that shift during wartime, as well as the PAIN and DEATH of innocent adults and CHILDREN that war brings.
Be aware that pre-1930, the US government was very, very small. The depression and world war II changed that by decoupling the gold standard, vastly changing dynamics of monetary policy, credit creation, and other factors that combined to stimulate massive economic and thus technological growth at the time (DESPITE the war's wasting of the fruits of this growth).
However, the growth didn't come from the war. In fact, GDP can easily be shown to decline when population decreases (look at malaria- and AIDS-torn Africa). Perhaps the redistribution of wealth in war can in some small circumstances be good (where oligarchs are preventing growth) but this is a stretch. MOSTLY:
* War is very destructive of capital goods and prevents spending newer, more productive capital goods;
* War production is WASTED from an economic perspective (tanks are not useful for plowing fields for farming, for instance, and produce further economic good);
* War consumes vast amounts of resources that could be used for productive ends like technological development.
The thought that war is good because it stimulates development is just not true. War redirects some funds towards development in novel areas, but wastes vast amounts of money/capital elsewhere. If you want tech development, fund it. Don't confuse the US's conversion from an agrarian economy to industrial giant at the time of a war with the war causing the shift.
This isn't to say that war isn't occassionally necesary to right a wrong. In my view, a large-scale fight can sometimes save lives by halting a low-scale conflict that would have continued for many years. But, technological advancement or economic growth should never be used as justification for actual warmaking because these arguments are specious and come from a small view of the overall economic effects.
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
How will cutting NASA funding pay down the debt?
Re:A dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
The interstate highway system?
Space weapons race unavoidable. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Promoting space technology (Score:3, Insightful)
In the middle ages, the Christians built cathedrals that are works of art and Muslims preserved and expanded mathematical knowledge.
Science and religion are not incompatible - unless one's religion is science.
Re:Laws of Gravity need not apply (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't. Spy satellites are intelligence-gathering devices that allow you to know where to point your weapons. They're no more a weapon themselves than your lungs are a weapon - hey, without lungs you'd have no oxygen to power your muscles to move your finger to press the button that fires the nuke that actually is a weapon...
Ok, I'm being slightly facetious, but you get the point. You can gather all the information you like up there, but keep weapons here on earth.
Re:Talk about short sighted! (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't have to be done by NASA or any new agency. IMO the idea behind NASA was that it was (theoretically) a non-military driven space exploration agency. Give it a military agenda, and the Air Force is ready and willing to take over.
stupid argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space weapons? We've got better things to do (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as renewable energy is concerned, that's really an area where we need to improve the efficiency of the equipment we're currently using so that the military itself is not so dependent on fossil fuels. HMMWV's and BFV's use a huge amount of fuel to do their job. We need lighter, faster, more efficient vehicles to get our troops where they need to be.
Military power is maximized by putting the most amount of power in the smallest, most efficient package you can. For this reason, it is likely that we will not find a suitable replacement for fossil fuels in our military vehicles.
Aah, what the hell do I know, I'm just a systems designer...
Re:Another idiotarian (Score:5, Insightful)
"People like you (Liberal Democrats) have made defense contracting a hard place to break even, much less make a profit! I suggest you go learn a little something about a field you obviously do not know a single thing about, other than the name."
And how is that a bad thing?
You seem to be implying that it's something they've done wrong, but I can't see a much more progressive step for the world than making it economically unviable to get rich by enabling the deaths or maiming of millions...
Let's be honest - the US is never (at least, not before the Big Post-Bush Economic Collapse) going to be unable to afford weapons to defend itself.
Given your country's always going to be safe and well-supplied, what's wrong with making it damn hard for people to acquire wealth and influence by profiting from human misery and suffering?
Frankly, it'd be a better world if weapons were totally unnecessary, but I'll settle for now for them being merely prohibitively expensive.
Re:A dissent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A dissent (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll grant you NASA is pretty inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, but the manned space program has just become so damn good at spending money and having nothing to show for it, that they are like shooting fish in a barrel.
Reality is when the Republicans are in charge they squander lots of the money on military/intelligence spending and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them. When the Democrats are in charge they squander it on social programs and subsidies for big corporations who don't need them.
Neither party can seem to resist the temptation to dish out large helpings of pork that accomplish very little of real value which would be the first obvious place to start reining in spending. Until there is a third party that is fiscally responsible, and has a chance of winning politicians know they can waste money and get away with it as long as they both do it. They can get away with it that is, until the U.S. debt burden leads to an economic calamity, but at that point its to late.
Re:When space access becomes cheap and ubiquitous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blah Blah blah PATRIOT ACT Blah Blah PATRIOT AC (Score:2, Insightful)
Lakoff commented that the better the title of a given bill sounds, the more we need to hold onto our wallets. Anyone remember the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005"? Who, after all, could possibly be against abuse and protecting consumers? Or adding another $9 billion or so to the creditor's and lender's bottom lines?
Or the "Class Action Fairness Act"? Everyone wants to be fair, right?
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be careful here. If you want to define "violent" as the number of casualties inflicted or force brought to bear, you're going to have to sync that with Willeh's general statement of unhappiness with "the most violent" nation controlling space based weaponry. He's making "violent" equivalent to "dangerous, and very willing to use power in a way to suit it's own aims" while you are simply pointing out body count without discussing reasons behind it.
In other words, if a gang beats on my friends, ignoring all requests to stop until I am forced to end the fight by very squarely knocking the offenders on their asses (because I am very large and can do that), then by your generalized criteria, I am the most violent, because I created the most casualties in the fight to end it. Even though I had nothing to do with the cause of the fight and tried other methods to stop the fight, I must be the most violent. If "violence" simply equates to the raw number of black eyes, then okay. But "violent" has a connotation that implies that the generator of the casualties is dangerous and unstable, so to be fair, you must include intentions in the discussion.
This is the big issue with people cutting on the US for being "most violent" The US has the most "military power" and has used it on occasion. However, power itself is a neutral concept. It can be used for a variety of moral and ethical justifications, some good and some really bad. Or it may not be used at all. As for "most violence", I think we're also blinding ourselves to history here. Most violent covers what time period? Last 100 years? I'd think Germany, Japan, and Russia beat us out there. Remember those little things called World Wars that the US managed to get into late, each time? Last 200? Last 3,000? Because in any one period, there are a lot of places that would win that hands down that are not the US.
The question is really is, is the US most likely to use space-based weaponry unethically? Well, look at the nuclear weapons that we have had for well over 60 years. We've used them twice, both to end a long war of aggression, and then we've built tens of thousands more and done nothing with them, even when we could have nuked the Soviet Union before the Russians got them in the early 1950s. Just because we *have* powerful weaponry that no one else has, does not mean that we will necessarily use it, even when we hate the enemy like we hated the "Commies". You may not like that it was used on the Japanese, but you can't dismiss that it was used in a situation vastly different than anything we face today. That demonstrates that there are some rules involved that don't mean the US holding the world for ransom just because we can.
Don't allow the Iraq war to blind you to larger considerations. The US has spaced based assets that need protection. Having defenses for them is a legitimate goal. And, honestly, any country with a significant space based program is going to want to do the same thing. I mean, if North Korea can build a nuclear bomb, it can certainly figure out how to target a satellite eventually. That doesn't even require uranium, just some metal, rocket fuel and precision electronics. Forget China and consider the threat from smaller rogue states against satellites. And someday, even non-governmental bodies will have access to space. When do we start realizing that eventually someone is going to have the power to cause unanswered havoc in space completely out of sync with their real support base because we simply couldn't bring ourselves to put into place basic protections?
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.
Quoth Scott Ritter:
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.
one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.
Re:To put it in scientific terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Go watch Fahrenheit 911.
Funny how no one ever asks why the terrorists knocked down the WTC. I read somewhere it was because of our meddling in their affairs. (sorry I can't cite, don't recall) Of course I don't think blowing up the towers was the answer, but did it ever cross your mind that if we just stayed out of their business they'd stop blowing our shit up? They can't kill more of our troops if our troops aren't on that side of the globe either! The events on 911 were in reaction to US foreign policy. You'll never see CNN/Fox say WHY the attack took place, just how horrible it was and how bad the terrorists are.
Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
Re:A dissent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.
Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.
Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.
Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.
Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.
I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.
A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.
Re:Who benefits from $63/barrel oil? (Score:4, Insightful)
To question any part of this belief system induces a state of acute anxiety in these people. They have based their whole ego structure around a belief that they are good people who are part of a good country. To call that into question is to call their very concept of self into question. This explains the ferocity with which they defend their beliefs, and the difficulty in comprehending something even so simple as the idea that our leaders may be acting selfishly in regard to oil.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hope that helps!
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:1, Insightful)
So it must be okay for other countries to target US leaders.
What goes around, comes around.
Re:Perhaps space is where Iraq keeps the WMDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Prior to the invasion, when did "Saddam's terrorists" attack the US? If you're going to say 9/11, your so dellusional, but it wouldn't be your fault. You would have just been taken by a orchestrated, and immediately discredited, lie.
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this. Iraq refused to document such destruction of the weapons. They were still blocking inspections up until the US large-scale retaliation. If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections. [...] There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
The irony of course is that in the end he did in fact comply.
I attended a forum with UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He said that Saddam's regime was a bunch of liars, but even a liar can eventually tell the truth. He told of the story about the search for some sort of proscribed ballistic missles, which he said was typical of his dealings with Iraq.
The inspectors would first ask the Iraqis to prove they were in compliance. The Iraqis would say they were, and then drive the inspectors out into the desert to show them the destroyed missles. The inspectors would then take an inventory of all the identifyable parts and take notes of the part and serial numbers. These parts would then me matched to specific shipments.
This investigation would show that these parts came in lots of 100, but there were only enough parts at the site for 10 missles. The Iraqis would then be confronted with this. After some stalling, the Iraqis would eventually state that they "honestly thought" they destroyed all the missles, but were mistaken, but have since destroyed the remaining 90 missles. The inspectors would go out to the desert, examine the remains, and positively 85 missles. There would be a pile of parts that could make 5 missles, but they couldn't be positively identified with any particular missle. He said that if the Iraqis weren't lying so much, the inspectors would have listed these parts as 5 missles, and sign off. But the Iraqis were liars. They lied all the time. Given their track record, they could have been lying then. So the inspectors wouldn't sign off. And so begins one of the many tragedies in the lead up to the invasion. The intellegence services believed that the Iraqis had 5 missles, but they actually didn't, and there was no way the Iraqis to prove otherwise.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
First, he didn't "try to exterminate the Jews." He was thug, dictator, and a murder, but didn't do that. There's plenty of attrocities to attribute to him, without make some up.
In keeping with "tell any lie in order to prop up Saddam and make Bush look bad", [...]This is quite typical. None of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
Listen jackass. No one supports/supported Saddam Hussein. Many, and now a majority [cnn.com], believe it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong people, executed without a plan, and on slim-to-no rationale.
Try and wrap your mind around this: [quotationspage.com] Someone can say, "That guy is a son-of-a-bitch, but he's not the son-of-a-bitch we're looking for. Remember what you said before? [telegraph.co.uk] We want to get him! We are at war, but not with guy! You let the most wanted men in the world escape [cnn.com] not just once but