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."
No Violations Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that space superiority does not necessarily mean the militarization of space. Already, the presence and testing of ICBMs skirts the issue, and so, too would many other technologies.
That's not that I agree that this should be a direction we want to go, I'm just pointing out that the treaty isn't worth much. To me the millitary objective of space is right in line with the "Star Wars" ideas.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
From the treaty;
Article IV
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.
I guess destroying some other nations satellite would not count as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's a crappy idea. I mean, sure we could use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate any nation that looks at us funny but we don't I don't think we need to start knocking other countries stuff out of the sky either.
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything dropped from space has kinetic energy equivalent to about 15 times its weight in TNT, at most.
Your 2-meter crowbar will weigh maybe 30 lbs.
Is 500 lbs of TNT enough to crack a buried bunker designed to be safe from tactical nuclear weapons?
I don't think so either.
Space-based weapons ar
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Funny)
It would be kind of expensive to set up "orbital artillery", but then you'll be able to reload them from the winning vehicle of the American Space Prize competition, so it might not be s
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Insightful)
While this would work, it re
Re:No Violations Here (Score:4, Interesting)
It likely is if it's a focused shaped charge to a single 1" circle....which is basically the entire idea of the crowbar-dropped-from-orbit idea.
I seriously doubt this, if the bunker is deep enough to resist conventional explosive attack (or tactical nuclear warheads). Remember, the 1/e velocity distance is the distance at which the penetrator has displaced an amount of material comparable to its own mass. That'd be at most 10-20 metres of earth for your crowbar. By comparison, the bunker would be on the order of 100 metres down.
The idea isn't to demolish the bunker, it's to kill a single person *despite* that person being in a bunker
This requires demolishing the bunker, as you don't know where they are inside it. If you have a spy in there, there are far cheaper ways of killing the target.
And I'm completely agreed with that idea- but NEITHER can fortified targets or conventional armies stop an attack from space. Multiply that crobar by thousands- even millions- of similar crowbars taking out *specific* ground based targets (of the command and communications variety) and your ground-based army gets one heck of a lot easier to defeat.
The problem is that it's ludicrously expensive to stock that much mass in space. You'd be better off carpet-bombing with napalm and raining down conventional missiles on hardened targets. Space weapons only make practical sense vs. missile-delivered weapons if they use very little mass per shot, as would be the case for anti-satellite weapons or perhaps very energetic particle beam weapons (which are too expensive to lift with chemical rockets).
A very cheap launch technology, like a space elevator, would change all of this, but as long as we're stuck with conventional launch techniques, space is only useful for surveillance and for anti-space weapons.
"Other Countries Stuff" Might Be Orbiting N-Weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
How would you feel about that if the "other countries stuff" included satellites carrying nuclear weapons or biowarfare payloads?
Without that capability, what would you do if a hostile nation launched placed such weapons in orbit?
Re:"Other Countries Stuff" Might Be Orbiting N-Wea (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and that explaines it all, right ? Such weapons shall be deployed just-in-case ? This just smells as the cold war.
To me this seems again the same story as when Uncle Sam objected on E.U.&co. deploying their own GPS system too, stating that would provide U.S.'s possible enemies with possible unwanted tactical advantage in case of war.
What if those bloody europeans suddenly got to their senses
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Militarization in it's most basic form just means using for military purposes, like intel satellites. Almost from the get-go, space has been militarized in this manner. In fact, one reason that we were slow in launching a satellite is to let the Soviets establish the practise of satellite overflights of other countries.
Weaponization means positioning weapons in space - something that is not forbidden eithe
Re:No Violations Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Its certainly not outside the reach of governments such as china, india or pakistan. What would these people be willing to do in order to protect themselves from American weapons?
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Violations Here (Score:4, Insightful)
This scenario has been well studied. You are overlooking a tactic that makes it a million times worse. That detonation you suggest really doesn't get the ball bearings moving very fast, and to the extent you do give them that random velocity you are putting them into almost useless elliptical orbits. Almost half will be kicked down into an orbit that burns them up in the atmosphere, with the other half get kicked up and then fall back down into the atmosphere.
No, the nasty way to do it is to boost it into orbit and keep going - you swing it around the moon. You then come back into earth orbit - but going in the OPPOSITE direction. And forget the ball bearings, just go with sand or small gravel. Now you gently scatter it. You now have all that shrapnal stable and parked in the target orbit, gently dispersing. They just sit there in that orbit going in the opposite direction. Any satallite in that orbit gets hit HEAD-ON at DOUBLE ORBITAL VELOCITY.
You could easily wipe out the crucial geostationary orbit belt this way. The whole region would be completely unsable for decades or centuries.
-
Re:No Violations Here (Score:3, Informative)
A Laser to shoot other WMD does not entail a WMD itself.
Military Welfare... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and destroying what satellites would have helped in the "War Against Terror" or the invasion of Iraq?
This is another example of the military trickle-down economy. Pump billions into defense, justify it with fear ("The enemy is everywhere"), then some of that cash will flow down to the national economy.
Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the difference between some space based platform that launches a missle from LEO and a huge spy glass that directs a stealth plane to fire a missle on an enemy target?
Nothing. Space got militerized years and years ago. The moment governments started lauching satelites with visual and sigint capability, space became militerized.
Do you really think Boeing / UT whove been spending billions developing heavy lift booster technology is so Hughes can put a couple more DirecTV
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...
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
What extraordinary events do you refer to?
As to the other treaties...did we agree to them, or not? Did we violate them, or not?
I'm sorry, but in my perception the current administration adheres to such treaties as it finds convenient, using them as an excuse to override inconvenient laws, and wantonly ignores such treaties as it finds inconvenient. Labelling the particu
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: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:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
It works the other way as well: treaties often come from the realization (usually after a horrible war) that war itself is not worth fighting. The problem is that we forget the lessons of past wars, and the consensus that made the treaty possible dissapears. And another generation gives war a try.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterterrorism efforts are certainly worthwhile, but to imagine that our best response to terrorist attacks was to launch a $6.7 billion a month war in a country that had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks is insanity. I'd rather have seen such funds thrown at rebuilding the WTC towers as an illustration that the terror tactics didn't work.
You do realize that by having a fearful -- nay, terrified -- reaction to these kinds of attacks, we are contributing to their success?
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure Zarquawi would be a pig farmer had we not done anything, but well, he is a full bloomed terrorist now, and we are fighting him THERE, not here.
Maybe your idea of "standing tall" includes doing nothing, or maybe sending a few tomahawk missiles as a response (that did nothing, but also "attacked innocents" according to the rest of the world), but real men's idea are linked directly with fighting for what is right.
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, we've violating at treaty! Heavens! (Score:3, Insightful)
And, back to the main point, while you may believe that "many of them are quite proud",
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.
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:4, Interesting)
Something else of note... this indicates that the celestial bodies are restricted in use to States Parties. Exactly where do "independent contractors" (today's political phrase for "mercenaries") fit into that? Could the US government just contract out the militarization of the moon to Haliburton and still be, legally, in the clear on this treaty?
Re:This does not violate the treaty (Score:3, Insightful)
He's *not* Darth Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Where in the mentioned article does it indicate that the new weapons will be nuclear (or WMDs)? This sounds (mostly) legal to me.
A very bad idea, possibly, but illegal?
Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and biological weapons do not destroy mass. Nuclear weapons generate their explosive energy from the destruction of mass due to nuclear fission. Thus, only nukes are truly weapons of mass destruction.
Re:Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Now go explain 'mass' to the American people, because I'm fairly sure the majority of my countrymen only think of 'massive' when they hear the word.
Re:Only nukes are true WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
meteor defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:meteor defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, they have nothing in common except shooting something upwards. ICBMs are on a parabola path - that is to say, they start on Earth, arch, and then come right back down. It is a very, very quick process - a full-blown nuclear war need only take half an hour.
The targets are very small (relative to an Earth-killing celestial object), intentionally spoofing your radar, and very, very close to the target (again, relatively). The good news is, they're packed with explosives, and since they're so close, a laser defense system could at least conceivably work. The Israelis supposedly have something working that could handle tasks somewhat like this (Arrow II?).
Compare this to a meteor. Meteors (that we would worry about) are very large compared to an ICBM. They're moving really fast, yes, but with an active detection system, we would probably have a couple years of notice. What's _best_ is that the meteor would be moving on a relatively stable and straight path, and we only need to deflect it - if we knock it off course a year out, it's a non-problem. Blowing the thing to meteor bits is overkill.
This is not quite as easy as it sounds, but I think it's doable with today's technology.
So, really, they are two separate problems. ICBM defense requires a highly accurate system that can engage many, many small targets at close range. Meteor defense requires a system which can engage a single, huge target at massive distances.
I knew that "Collisions in Space" course would be handy someday.
-Erwos
I'll repeat what I posted at Fark (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you don't have to have a weapon in space to disable a satelite. Hell, last week it was either here or on fark that there was an article about non-perminant disabling of satelites using RF energy.
And the MDA funding? 7.4million is NOTHING. They gave 8 million to fund a program to improve the software aquisition process. Thats not 8 mil to build software. its not 8 mil to improve building software. Its not even 8 mil to pay the people who buy the software. Its 8 mil to improve HOW we buy the software. 7.4 million at the MDA means they are paying to see if the current state of technology supports TRYING to build it. 7.4 million isn't even enough to start drawing concept designs.
And lets face it, if the US realizes this is important, we can assume Russia, China, India, etc do to.
And what the hell does the US putting interceptors at Fylingdales have to do with anything? They're ground based intercepters. I didn't realize the US had even picked a eastern basing site. The US does something nice like offer to cover your country from missile attacks, and the media twists it into some sort of "the US is making us put weapons in space" bs. Iran is working their ass off to get long range missiles. If you want to depend on the idea that they won't attack you because they don't want to be attacked, thats fine, but considering Iran's support of the war in Iraq, (and not our side of it), I wouldn't trust them not to 'lose' a shahab 3 and then lightly condemn the terrorists who launched it on some western base in europe.
Uh... guys... (Score:5, Interesting)
I call alarmist BS, nothing new here.
This is dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how will this stop a dirty bomb from going off on Manhattan?
Re:Who is the bigger enemy, China or the terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing can really stop a dirty bomb from going off in Manhattan. There are bigger threats out there though, a dirty bomb in Manhattan might wipe out a few buildings and throw some fallout around. The number of people that would be killed would be fairly low. A ICBM in the wrong hands however could kill millions.
Ohh Goodie (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if anyone tries to have a gay marriage, they'll be fired upon from the United Defense death star orbiting above.
Not exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
For good information (Score:5, Informative)
It does not ban ALL weapons. (Score:3, Insightful)
This may or may not be the right thing to do, but the fact is the treaty is NOT being broken.
...in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Thank goodness! (Score:3, Funny)
Now we're safe from aliens too. Take that, ET!
What? They're pointed back at Earth?It's hard to establish military superiority (Score:3, Funny)
This reminds me of that joke about NASA developing a ball pen that would function in the state of weightlessnes. Three years and a hundred million dollars later they've developed such a pen. In the meanwhile Russians used pencils.
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.asp [snopes.com]
There was a company however that manufactured a "space pen" and sold quite a few of them.
Question to President Bush: (Score:4, Funny)
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].
Sea Superiorirty? (Score:3, Funny)
This is hardly surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice fantasy, though.
Violation Schmiolation (Score:3, Insightful)
That treaty exists between the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me know if the political entity known as the USSR has any objections.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
In truth though, is attempting to influence the result of an election in another country wrong? If the Washington Post was to print a series of anti Blair articles in the run up to the UK elections, would that be wrong? I can't see how...
Assasination - fair enough - stupid thing to print - shoddy editorial staff for not picking it up before it went to press.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
> The Guardian is certainly a biased paper. Give it credit though, it doesn't hide it.
You give them credit for this why? Journalism should have NO BIAS. Only objective reporting of the facts. That is the expectation the public should have from journalists, unless they are specifically looking for opinion, in which case they can turn to the editorial section.
A newspaper with any credibility will have no bias whatsoever and will take pains to make sure that no subjective editorial opinion does not appea
Re:Biased or not the space arms race begins (Score:3, Interesting)
Just goes to show (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of the Serbs in Yugoslavia using microwave ovens as decoys for our missiles which home in on microwaves (targetting communications or anti-aircraft targetting systems).
This is because every complex system will have weaknesses which can be targetted by something simpler.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
I think the whole "if someone tries to advance it's economy / technology / society it's a danger to us"-thinking pretty dangerious and provoking which you imply relating to the subject. In that line of thinking, the world has the right to assume the US has as only motivation world-domination and should be controlled and sumitted - or it should be globally accepted and enforced to do so.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
No one needs to assume that, the historical record bears it out well. Maintaining hegemony is the #1 American priority, over all else.
Look, we have to militarize space damnit! (Score:5, Funny)
This is a must. We need nukes up there like yesterday. I shit you not my fellow christian white Americans. This is a matter of supreme national security.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Funny)
As a citizen of the good ol' days Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate FUD => Bad.
Political FUD => Insightful.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.
These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.
Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose [newamericancentury.org].
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that right now the militarization of space has been well on the way, in some sense with GPS (guiding precision weapon strikes) and spy satellites (target location/identification/tracking) and other such 'non WMD' uses of space.
Controlling the 'high ground' has always had advantages in intelligence and planning, and in this case, earth orbit has some profound advantages for seeing what other people are doing. And of course, if you can see what they are doing militarily, you can also spot annoying things they might not like brought up like mass graves, environmental catastrophes, prison camps, army buildups, etc. And you can take a good look at what kind of industrial facilities they are running or setting up. Even with a strictly corporate intelligence perspective, this knowledge is quite valuable (given some inherent ability to interpret the satellite photos with efficacy).
Space was destined to be weaponized the minute it became important to the resource bases or security of major countries. It now is starting to be, hence the trend. Any 'treaties' to block this were conveniences of the moment or dreams and naive ones I suspect. Of course, everyone who isn't in a position to either have a major world interest to defend or the power and technology and money to defend that interest can sit back and complain about how they don't want militarization (obviously they don't since they can't play) or how they'd never do it (unless of course they had the ability to do so, but that's never said).
Besides, on a humorous note, we'll need those weapons when the nasty landmark destroying aliens arrive and they prove resistant to country music, the common cold, and are not Mac-compatible.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, according to the very article you link to, it was a tasteless joke by one writer, in an article that appeared in the TV listings.
This is like saying that the National Review called on the United States to invade Arab countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity [nationalreview.com]. Allowing something to be printed in a publication isn't the same thing as endorsing it.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
* Unless you happen to be a member of the clergy, or anyone who can "convincingly" say Vote for Candidate X or you will go straight to hell.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
By an interesting coincidence, that is the same way one leads a pig.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you shouldn't have used this paragraph as your introduction:
=)
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:5, Interesting)
If anyone had to something with Bush winning, it was Bin Laden. He wants the American and the British to continue alienating the islamic world until all of it is at war against them. He got what he wanted. There was a lot of banter on Slashdot about him influencing the Spanish elections. Well... dunno about Spain, but he definitely got what he wanted in the US. That tape several days before the election was the most brilliant propaganda move in the Bush campaing. At the right time to make everyone scared and not giving enough time to get the White House to answer WTF is it doing in Iraq when enemy no 1 is still alive and kicking elsewhere. In fact if Bin Laden did not make the tape the Bush camp would have had to fake it. Or may be they did???
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarke got in the game a little late. But yes, Clarke would have stood a better chance than Kerry I'd imagine. Clarke had some baggage but they could be handled.
If I ran the Democrat party I would have put Clarke and Lieberman on a ticket and beaten Bush silly. Clarke had the military background and be able to hammer Bush on Vietnam service and his experience with Kosovo. Lieberman would have appealed to the religiou
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:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Funny)
Yup, Europeans like me. I wrote to three persons in Clark county, Ohio and explained them who this election affects much, much more than themselves and why Bush is a bad republican. There are good republicans and bad ones, you know. I included my adress to them, but no answer. I guess I was ignored. Oh well.
I'm going to guess that despite your intentions, you actually inspired them to vote for Bush.
Think about it: a bunch of people already wary of terrorism get letters from another country urging them
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how well you stated your case, the fact that it was a non-American saying it would cause most people here to summarily dismiss it. The fact that it was a
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.
The nation doing a huge military buildup is the US, not China. China's forces just scream defensive, from their tiny number of nuclear weapons (20 DF-6's) and deployment strategies, to their overall budget.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Not US, just Taiwan -- over 600 missiles are pointed at the island from China, plus lots of other weaponry.
And Taiwan is America's ally. So, there...
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.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Insightful)
-Graham
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it would be even more instructive to look to China's own history. For thousands of years, the Dynastic cycle has gone as follows: A new, strong government comes to power after defeating the previous incumbents, due to the ineptitude and corruption in the previous government, and also the strategic genius and perhaps popular support of the leaders of the new one. Then time passes, and the inheritors of that power become complacent and lazy, until a new force comes along to repeat the cycle.
The revolution that threw out the last official Emperor was one such event; the Communist revolution was the next.
Taiwan just hasn't caught up with the times yet. :)
Though seriously, it makes sense for Taiwan to eventually reunify with China, for both their benefits. But it's also definitely in Taiwan's interest to delay this, until China's government becomes sufficiently democratic, or at least can be trusted not to dick around with them too much. Both such processes -- democratization and renunification -- must be allowed to happen in their own good time. And it's best for the U.S. to stay out of it, except to use its influence on Taiwan to keep the situation calm.
If you're wondering about why, even though I maintain it's inevitable, China shouldn't be in any special hurry for democratization -- just look at the recent U.S. election results, and remember a few things about China: (1) They have 800 million "country folk", with little awareness of the outside world, who would easily be swayed by a charismatic leader, no matter the agenda; and (2) they have a demonstrated capability of succumbing to nationwide madness (i.e. the Cultural Revolution). The Communist Party aren't the only ones in China who are afraid to rock the boat.
Re:Ah yes, the Guardian (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Movie reference alert! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Reason? (Score:3, Funny)
General: Not quite, but we have a new problem, Mr. President. Our recon team on the ladder just found new evidence of threats... from Saddam Hussein.
Bush: Saddam Hussein? But... we killed him! We secretly took him out months ago!
General: Yes sir. And now we believe he's building weapons of mass destruction... in heaven.
- South Park, "Ladder to Heaven"
Re:Dear USA and/or the Administration, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sneaking In (Score:5, Funny)
Here you go (Score:4, Interesting)
"THE TEST OF a weaponized UAV took place only after the US State Department lifted its objections because of concerns that a "weaponized" Predator could breach the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Officials were concerned a Predator carrying a laser-guided Hellfire could be classified as a ground-launch cruise missile, which is restricted by the treaty. The State Department official was also worried that demonstrating Predator's ability to launch a Hellfire would worry the governments of Russia and European allies, which could host the platform in the future. Inside The Air Force first reported on the issue Dec. 8, 2000."
I said I'm "pretty" sure because multiple high level organazations were concerned about the legality but proceeded anyway. What changed to ease their concerns? It is not that the Predator became less deadly. I would suggest the War on Terror gave them additional leeway.