U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy 475
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
Old News (Score:4, Informative)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/
Re:Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.
This isn't old news, this is NOW news. Just like Iraq, Afganistan - I know that a large portion of the US popuation doesn't consider those things on a daily basis, but news isn't a moment-in-time sort of thing. This declaration is still relevant, scary, extremely obtuse, and worthy of continued discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are misrepresenting the policy. I cheated and looked at page 2 [go.com] of the article:
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as that does not mean telling everyone else what they can and can't do..
You make it sound like it is something it is not. We are going to have a dominate presence, like our Navy has in space. Other Navys can exist, but like the sea or air, controlling it or more importantly the ability to control it, is vital. When shit hits the fan, I want to be the top dog controlling what we and what others are able to do either for or against us.
Just keep in mind that being the top dog also makes that you will ALWAYS be under attack.
The world is not a socialist utopia
That has nothing to do with this at all.
Trying to 'play nice' with everyone else who also tries to play nice is what is important. (please read that line VERY carefully and don't jump to conclusions about anyone not playing nice because that was not what I was talking about there)
and plans should be made for all situations, including space. We live in a world that fucked seven ways from Sunday and you must be ignorant to that fact?
I think you are being a bit ignorant yourself, and are feeling attacked beforehand. You are definitely right that plans need to be made for all situations, but it would be an extremely wise idea to get a lot more focus and publicity on things that are actually positive, instead of all this doom and gloom kind of thinking that the current US administration advocates.
I say we dominate space so we can secure that our lack of dominance wont be used against us.
I say you fell (again?) in the 'doom is everywhere, you MUST give us the power to do everything we need to fight this!!!!!!!!!!!' idiocy of the current USA administration.
The rise of the politics of fear. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you havn't already seen it, PLEASE check out "The Power of Nightmares":
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmar
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+o
from the wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They can be both, depending on the actual weapons. The issue is that striving for them is seen as 'pro-active' by its proponents, and agressive by almost everyone else.
Everyone understands this except the American public. Not unlike many other topics.
Lets get something straight here.
The USA is at the moment the most powerfull nation on the planet. Every nation in that position has ended their own rule once they fell into arrogance, thinking
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If were to lose our presence in space to a country at war with us, lets say China, then there would not be much of a war would there? That is all I
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Imperialism? (Score:3)
Do you think that needlessly provocative policies like this one are going to bring about more peace, or are you only interested in Pax Americana?
If another nation claims the same right, would you be cool with that?
If not, I would like to know
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other countries have the ability to do that already and what do we do? Nothing really... but in times of war where said country is involved... yea shoot it down or whatever. It is better to have the ability to choose how to handle situations like that then not be able to.
Also, if they are spying on the US and intend to use that information to hurt our country somehow... then you say let it be if we know about it? Maybe t
A Pearl Harbor in Space... (Score:2)
Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:4, Interesting)
We were the dominant power in Pearl Harbor too. It doesn't take a lot to destroy a space station. That said, this is a pissing match I have no interest in having. I can see defending sites, systems, and transportation. By trying to claim ownership of a chunk of space is just retarded.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm defending the move, but I can see where, in some ways, it makes sense to defend certain portions of space (say the parts above your country) where satelite based weapons could make easy targets of important sites.
Heck, they've been talking about it since the Regan administration at least, so this is nothing really all that new.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could manage with 2, actually.
No, it would be significantly more difficult. At a 45% angle, you're firing through something like 50% more atmosphere, and at a 50% longer distance to the target.
It is concievable that lasers on satellites will become powerful enough to do that in the future, but it's anything but "amazin
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:5, Informative)
While it's not impossible to put something in space in such a way that it always stays over a single point on the planet, there are very limited number orbits in which this can be achieved, and they are all directly above the equator.
Several satellites in a Molniya orbit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the many problems with this policy is that those "certain portions of space" are six dimensional and time-varying. What the U.S. is trying to "defend" amounts to certain orbits. This is not like defending your coastal waters, which have zero momentum relative to your nation's landmass. For one, it is possible to change from an orbit that does not overfly a given country to one that does with relatively trivial delta-v.
Because of this, there is little or no practical value in preventing others from accessing just some orbits. Now, the U.S. government, particularly the Defense Department under Donald Rumsfeld, has a long history of doing stuff that has no practical value (often at the cost of American lives.) So it is possible that this policy will be acted upon in an ineffectual but relatively harmless way. But given the grip of fear that still has a big hold in the U.S. it is a matter of some concern that those who would put security before all else might decide to deny everyone access to all orbits.
more likely to be launch interdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Iranians were to begin to launch satellites, or say they were, and there were sufficient evidence -- possibly some of it secret -- that their real intentions were to develop suborbital or quasi-orbital intercontinental ballistic missile technology, and the US decided it was possible to knock the test missiles down reasonably safely, then I'd have no problem with them doing so.
Where it gets tricky is if China wants to launch national technical means a.k.a. spy satellites that overfly US strategic assets, map out targets, et cetera, within the contintental US. Is this the kind of thing we'd want to knock down? It's hard to really say, for two reasons: (1) Experience in the Cold War showed that spy satellites were stabilizing technology, because they prevent hysteria and nasty surprises. When each side is well-informed about what the other has, and is up to, decisions tend to be calmer and better. (2) This business has been thrashed out before, in the 16th-17th centuries, with respect to navigation of the high seas. In addition to being a very expensive process, the end result was a general agreement that freedom to travel -- even for a warship -- peacefully anywhere in international waters is guaranteed, unless you are actually at war. Do we really need to repeat the bloody experiment in space to probably arrive at the same conclusion?
Re:more likely to be launch interdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
For actual space colonization and mining, I'd say no. For control of Earth's orbitals that could be used by Earth's various governments to control the entire Earth. Yes, we wouldn't fight WWIII with China over this, but we would fight "smaller" countries like Iran or NK that tried to get into space. I'd think China, Russia, EU, Japan, and India would be "safe" from any US actions. It's the smaller countries that can't be easily controlled by the big boys that the US really wants to keep Earth bound.
Let's be honest, the US doesn't control the Earth. We have our strings of control over various other governments, but they hold our strings as well. I'd say that the entire EU was more worried about our Iraq adventures mainly because there was a feeling that the US would try to liberate the entire region for its resources for our use. Those middle eastern countries with oil have strings that have a pretty tight hold on us. We are trying to break them, but we can't do it within 5 years though. We need to learn how to use our position to better control the rest of the globe. They are catching up far to quickly and they are just as smart as we are.
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:5, Funny)
B: "Own what? There's nothing there!"
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It'd be nice if warfare never reached space. Sadly that's rather idealistic and extremely unlikely to happen.
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd actually go a different route with this - it's not that education has gotten too expensive. (I mean, it has, but except for applying to a military academy & working your way up to O-5 or higher, decent pay isn't too be had without going to a co
Re: (Score:2)
then I think I should be able to claim ownership on Donald Rumsfeld.
If anyone finds my Rummy could they please top up his rabies shots and DHL him
to;
The cave,
Back Of Beyond
Afqganistan 1000
ThankingYou In Advance
Re:Not that I think this is a good idea but... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no. Prior to 1940, when the US began mobilizing its armed forces, we were pretty weak. Part of the reason was the Depression, which hit our industrial base hard, and partly because of isolationist sentiment.
There were three aircraft carriers in our entire Pacific fleet; the Japanese had 6 carriers in the Pearl Harbor strike force alone, with more protecting the Home Islands and raiding the Philippines and European colonies. Our standing Army was number 17 in numerical terms, behind Czechoslovakia, and a number of new recruits were being rejected because they had suffered from malnutrition growing up during the Depression. Modern aircraft were just beginning production but a large portion were being supplied to Great Britain and the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Agreement.
We were losing the Pacific War for the first six months, until the Battle of Midway. Even then, until Guadalcanal was secured (well into 1943), keeping lines-of-communication open to Australia wasn't a sure thing, much less victory in the PTO.
Atom bombs aside, the US defeated Japan and the Axis by out-producing them. During the period from 1941-45, the Japanese produced 13 aircraft carriers of all sizes. The US produced 137.
k.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it does. Why, other than while suffering from an acute case of moral relativity, should we consider it good to allow a country like Iran, that speaks in terms of wiping out other countries, to develop nukes? Why is it morally reasonable to support a country like North Korea, which runs a hideously repressive, retro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let he who has no sin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being periodically less than perfect in your pursuit of an objectively good body of ideals is not the same as being shrill, tantrum-having dictator in pursuit of an objectively evil agenda.
Red Herring.
The US is most often "less than perfect" in pursuit of evil ideals while waving a flag around and claiming to stand up for good ideals.
Occasionally, we accidentally end up doing a good thing here or there.
We regularly murder democratically elected leaders for the crime of trying to make a better freer life for
morality (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I am not suggesting that the US is morally equivalent to Iran or North Korea, but you are the one who argued in favour of absolute morality...
Being periodically less than perfect in your pursuit of an objectively good body of ideals is not the same as being shrill, tantrum-having dictator in pursuit of an objectively evil agenda.
Being less than perfect? Ha! The US has been considerably worse than just less than perfect throughout most of it's history. It has repeatly killed if not massacred the
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll recall Iraq under the government of Saddam Hussein launched two unprovoked aggressive wars of conquest, one against Iran in the 1980s and another against Kuwait in the 1990s. How these countries might have fared had Iraq won either might be demonstrated by how the Iraq government treated its own citizens (e.g. the Kurds and marsh Shia) who were out of favor with the government: mass graves and poison gassing of entire villages seems likely.
You may also recall that North Korea launched an aggressive war of conquest against South Korea in the 1950s. The way they would have treated an occupied South Korea is probably well demonstrated by conditions inside North Korea now. (Where, for example, the average citizen now reaches adulthood significantly stunted in his growth from lifelong malnutrition.)
I assume against that record you want to set that of the United States in Korea and Iraq. You can look at how the US treated (or would treat) conquered Korea by examining South Korea today. Prosperous, democratic, peaceful. Likewise, you can gain a glimpse into conquered Iraq now. While the US may or may not be doing its duty to prevent the Iraq from tearing itself apart from its age-old Sunni-Shia fratricidal hostility, and while the US may or may not be successfully restoring the Iraqi economy and democratic institutions fast enough, or even at all, no one can imagine the US is in the process of deliberately "wiping out" Iraq in any ordinary sense of those words.
"Moral relativism" often consists of making judgements of actions based on those actions alone, and neglecting to consider the reason for the actions, the consequences and side-effects of the actions, and so forth. If you think borrowing your friend's CD without asking is the same as stealing it, then you're guilty of a form of moral relativism. Likewise if you say all deliberate death -- executions, killings of soldiers in battle, self-defense against home intruders, and premeditated murder of innocents -- are morally the same, you are also guilty of a form of moral relativism. And if you say all warfare is equally evil, you are guilty of moral relativism. That I think was the point.
I'm totally confused (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that would be absolutism. What's wrong is wrong.
Moral relativism, I've always thought, was the idea that an action could be right or could be wrong depending on a variety of factors. The action's moral value is dependent upon a variety of factors, not the action in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is being "morally right" a good defense against nuclear attack?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the behaviour of the US likely to increase or decrease the number of nukes held by the "axis of evil"?
Would you be more likely or less likely to launch nukes at america if you were deemed to be an "axis of evil"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise the axis of evil would also include Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Israel and the United States!
Of course the governments/rulers of the "axis of evil" have done many things that I consider evil. But my list of top 10 evil-doers isn't in line with US fore
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And denying the your enemies nuclear weapons accomplishes that. FTW.
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are, you can take your cultural/moral superiority and shove it right up some detainee's ass.
I think americans should take a long hard look in a miror before they start calling other countries crazy.
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy who wrote this policy believes in the idea that any group or country not with us is against us.
Therefore, it states that we can prevent neutral nations from spaceflight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like the document merely says that space is as much of a potential battleground as the high seas, or any continent. That is, if the United States was at war (cold or hot) with country X, then there's no obvious reason not to express that hostility in space, if it is in US national interest.
Whether the US should go to war against country X or Y or anybody at all is an entirely different question. But arbitrar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. That's exactly what he means. You are the one trying to twist it out of context. Bush means that if you don't support the methods that the US uses, then you are an enemy. So, a country that chooses a different approach against terrorism, is an enemy.
Beyond the words, that is exactly what Bush's actions have said too. And actions speak louder than words. Have you not also heard his diatribe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heh heh, you're funny.... Read the text....
You do realize you're on Slashdot, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want the moral high ground, why don't you read the full text of the new space policy (go here [bbc.co.uk]).
You do realize that Bush (walking through a door left open by Clinton) is declaring that the US will do whatever it feels is necessary to defend its interests in space - including developing and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*sigh*
Looks lik
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell do you know that? From the linked article "The document, much of which is classified..." Good chunks of the document are classified. People HAVE to read between the lines.
Not that I'm agreeing with the anti-Bush, knee-jerkers, but you are also making unsubstantiated claims.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the phrase 'hostile to US national interests' is an agenda and a policy that I would say anyon
Re:A Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, it says the USA can act in anyway it chooses in space, and others can't. It basically says no one can fuck with our space toys, but we can fuck with anyone else's space toys. It basically says that "Rules Don't Apply to Us".
It is, very simply, typical fascist horseshit that the Bush Junta has been coughing up for years, only this time it affects satellites. nice.
I'm not going to cough up line item to line item - /. It's not THAT much to read, and it's all there in black and white. DIY.
Now, I'll propose that 90% of the responses to THIS will be from pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy, and yes, Bush DOES deserve demonisation for this, as it is part and parcel of his evil Evil EVIL neocon agenda. And for that, the pink neocon dupes of the conspiracy will likely mod me "Flamebait" or "Overrated" and anyone with half an ounce of sense will mod me "Interesting" or "Insightful".
Imagine if the Bush Junta said "the laws of the sea no longer apply to us." Imagine what kind of a row that would make. It's just the same thing, only in orbit in the vacuum of space.
RS
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
90% of the people who have uttered the phrase "anti-Bush rhetoric" are fat balding guys who think feminism is the reason they can't get laid.
Are you a fat balding undersexed Republican? How can you not be? Then why should I listen to anything you say?
I'll get -1 Troll for this, but I haven't "framed" this "debate" any less than you have. Then content of your post is nothing more than "All cri
And that means ... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So
Satelites can be taken out by ground-based lasers. Any major power planning a war with the US would need to have that capability.
With vulnerable satelites, the next level would be a moon base. There's not much an Earth-based attack can do against a moon base. We're at the bottom of the gravity well.
dangerous (Score:2)
Such a conflict would have a risk of igniting the nuclear waste dump on the moon, and sending our satellite away from us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A moon base is about as useful for a terrestrial conflict, or for terrestrial commercial purposes as a bicyle is to a fish. Being on top of a mountain is pretty much useless if everything of interest is at the bottom.
Aimed squarely at China (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn the morons who voted for these idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn the morons who voted for these idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of a little something called imperialism? How can it be OK for the US claim one set of rights, and subsequently deny everyone else those rights?
Do as we say, and not as we do? And the justification for this dichotomy is that we have the biggest military, so we call the shots?
I suspect that if $ENEMY made the same claim, you would be outraged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pfft (Score:5, Funny)
Not always (Score:2)
International treaties are just goddamned pieces of paper.
International financial and legal treaties are at work every day, managing everything from currency exchange to sale of goods to extradition. They're agreements. Sometimes agreements end swiftly, sometimes they last for a very long time.
Space Pearl Harbor (Score:5, Funny)
Fear & Hatred (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me as flamebait but this is one of the stupidest and beligerant announcements I've heard in quite sometime. Appearantly, the rest of the world aggrees. Allow me to quote the headlines I see right now on websites (foreign and US):
- US turns space into its colony - Asian Times Online
- Bush asserts right to deny space access - Boston Globe
- Bush issues doctrine for US control of space - Mail & Guardian Online, Guardian Unlimited
- US insists it has right to keep its enemies out of space - Scotsman
- US Says 'Keep Out of My Space' - ABC News
- Space: America's new war zone - Independent, UK
- America wants it all - life, the Universe and everything - Times Online, UK
- America aims to control the space - The Money Times
- United Space of America - Hamilton Spectator, Canada
- US Claims Monopoly on the Use of Space for Weapons - ShortNews.com, Germany
- Emperor Zurg Has A Tiny Tiny Wiener And Must Be Told - OpEdNews, PA
What kind of feelings do you think the rest of the world is going through based on that?Is this the new SDI? I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat or Independent, this isn't about keeping bad people out of space. This isn't about securing space. It's about doing what we want the rest of the world to do. It's childish colonial imperialism and it's complete bullshit.
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Insightful)
Now lets not get ahead of ourselves, after all... (Score:2)
Speech from the near future:
"I am the Shrub. And, I see a whole army of my country men, here in defiance of tyranny in SPACE. You've come to fight as freemen, and freemen you are. What will you do without freedom?! Will you fight?
Crowd of defeatist surrender monkeys: No . . . we will run . . . and we will live.
"Aye. Fight and yo
Get over it. (Score:2)
But even the little picture, which you barely glimpse, is important: they're trying to stop North Korea or Iran from sending a nuke into space, or even a big chunk of potentially molten iron to target your roof.
As for the big picture, they know as well as you or I that space travel will be more common in the future. They also know how to negotiate, and it isn't by giving thing
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:5, Informative)
1. The USSR tested and deployed anti-satellite weapons.
2. The USSR armed manned space craft and I don't mean pistols for the crews for survival in case they came down outside the recovery zone.
3. The USSR tested a fractional orbital bombardment system for the SS-9.
So what the US is saying is simply this.
They intend to develop systems that can
a. take out anti-satellite systems that could be used to target US satellites.
b. take out other countries spy satellites.
Spreading fear of the US is a fun past time for many news services and government. They know that the US will not really harm them so they can try and act tough with no risk.
Truth is China is already stated that they are going to develop space based weapon systems. The USSR/Russia has already developed space based weapons systems and deployed them. Only their current lack of money is keeping them from deploying them right now. Of course they might be selling them.
The only big problem is making it public instead of keeping it a black program.
Space was militarized back in the early 60s. ROSATs, Elint satellites, and optical satellites are all deadly weapons and they have been in use for over 40 years.
So this is really worth about a yawn and a stretch as far as news. Makes nice scary headlines though.
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:4, Insightful)
Hamid Karzai
Jalal Talabani
José Rafael Carrera
Abel Pacheco
Andres Pastrana Arango
. . .
"Or the way that, rather than spending tons of cache on goods made overseas, that we're just marching in and taking over those economies."
Too easy. That's a 'gimmie'.
"Or the countries to which we used to supply enormous amounts of financial aid and have stopped because we now own those territories."
Aid? Since when does the US supply 'enormous' forgien aid? Since 2001, the amount of US aid that actually reached, for example, the poor in Africa, totaled 6 cents USD. Who gets rich off US aid? US consultants.
If you want a prime example of US Imperilaism, look at what the US did in Guatemala in the 1980's (remember Iran/Contra?). The US hasn't changed. It is now just under the guise of 'spreading democracy'.
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Informative)
1. Saddam Hussein, Iraq
2. The current government in Iraq
3. The current government in Afghanistan
4. Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic
5. The South Korean government
6. South Vietnam's Government (defunct)
7. The Shah of Iran, Iran
8. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua
9. Manuel Noriega, Panama
The list goes on and on, into the hundreds. But that should be enough to get you started.
Kind Regards
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Insightful)
Really! I'm sure they'd be shocked to know that we're running their country as a colony. Their routinely elected officials would probably also be surprised.
The thread is speaking in terms of the current administration's stated policy of being willing to defend our country's use of space-based assets from hostile threats. Someone else said that it's an imperialist posture (though they haven't said if they think that, say, Japan or France being willing to do the same would als
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Informative)
I'm curious what you have to say about this story stating that we did, in fact, sell those materials to Iraq. Just a quick Google but I'm sure there is more where it came from.
Kind Regards
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:4, Insightful)
>> We don't need to "control" the country -- we OWN the leader of that country. Guatemala is a clear example. Our organizations have been assasinating politicians in oil-rich and latin American nations for years to allow our banking and corporate interests access. Then the country goes into debt and becomes dependent on the World Bank. Right now, this World Bank is strong-arming debtor nations to support Guatemala at the UN rather than Venezuela. All so that South Korea can put their man in charge of the UN who is backed by the Moonies. Convoluted stuff, eh?
But it's also what happened when we rigged elections in the Ukraine and Mexico -- perhaps even the Conservative (NeoCon) leader in Candada. And who can forget the NeoCon leader in Israel? Didn't a man get shot and then he got the position? Yeah, read the current news; He's suspected for pedophilia, embezzling, and physically abusing a woman. Seems to fit right in with the rest who seem connected in this ring of exploiting nations for their resources and screwing the common man in those countries.
It's all about profit and it all seems to head to offshore banks. So America can expect the same results from Globalization as the third-world. We will all be in debt, and working off debts we never incurred.
We already support the MEK in our country, which is backed by the Hezbollah (Iran) and ALSO the CIA. Go figure.
Jeb Bush is best friends with the man who blew up a Cuban airliner.
>> So when you say "imperialistic" that is a quaint notion from when we had decliared kings and nations. I couldn't even tell you the Trustees holding the cards here, because it would be in a holding company somewhere. You could start with Bernanke and Carlysle, however.
Sorry to sound like a nut -- but I'm just telling you the exact truth, no matter how much it might veer from your view of the world.
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Informative)
Yup! Now, ask the Germans if they'd really like to see the US actually pull up stakes and vacate those military bases. Or ask the people in Kuwait. Hell, there are plenty of noisy protests in South Korea about the US presence, but when you actually poll the citizens (especially now that their crazy northern neighbor is in the middle of a new and more exciting tantrum) on whether they'd like to see the US presence (and the large boost to
Re:Fear & Hatred (Score:3, Insightful)
The Taliban (under Musharraf's watch) were Pakistan's only foreign policy success. Pakistan bankrolled and openly supported the Taliban until Colin Powell threatened to bomb his nation back to the stone age. Even now, he keeps 500K troops on the border with Kasmir in a pissing contest with India, but he hasn't got the t
AS IF !!!!! (Score:2, Redundant)
Now they are going to waste shitload of taxpayer money for stuff in space - just to please their arms-industry backers.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are going to waste shitload of taxpayer money for stuff in space - just to please their arms-industry backers
Right, because the area of intel and defensive weapons and technology that would be focused on not having our communications and surveilance birds taken out by the Chinese on the same day they decide to physically take over Taiwan would be the same as what we should have used to stop suicidal religious
Anything that brings me closer to lifelong dream (Score:2)
(well short of thermo-nuclear war ofcourse)
Bush says to the galaxy... (Score:5, Funny)
Whee HA! (Score:3, Funny)
Time to get busy constructing and training of personel. I got dibs on the planet destruction button.
Jupiter - you're going to be SO pwned!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I did tell google they spelled their name
wrong, I think that lead to the listing of
"google" in the dictionary, to prove me
"wrong". Ha, I said to them. Revisionists.
Notice the title of the document (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for the Iranian space program... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a predictable policy (Score:5, Informative)
For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon."
Here's the reality check. The US Navy exists to do a few things:
- Project power ashore (i.e. shoot and bomb things that don't float or fly)
- Guarantee US access to sea lanes of control
- Deny access to SLoCs to US enemies
Both the US Air Force and US Navy have space commands and with good cause. Clearly access to orbit is as critical now as access to the seas were 100 years ago. It is in every nation's self-interest to guarantee its access to orbit. It's not much of a leap to get from there to seeing that having technologies to deny that access to enemies is a strategic advantage. How many lives (on either side of a conflict) might be saved by neutralizing an enemy's communications and recon satellites? It's a no-brainer policy. (Insert Bush joke here...)Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon."
"
>> We couldn't trust it so we went ahead and broke it before anyone else?
Nuclear non-proliferation worked well, until Bush exited the system in 2003. Now there is no incentive to NOT go
Why is it so wrong to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is it so wrong to say (Score:5, Insightful)
There are currently no Hitlers taking over space. There are no weapons in space, either aimed in space, or aimed at us from space. There is nothing going on up there that Bush needs to react to.
Its like youre in a bar, and the guy next to you says "If you ever sneak into my house, I will shoot you and then beat the shit out of you. Do you understand me? Fuck with me and I will seriously fuck you up!" Meanwhile, youre just sitting there, having a beer, minding your own business. Why is this guy talking about beating you up? Why is he afraid of you breaking in? Why is he imagining you fucking with him? Its a beligerent, hostile action. He is over-reacting to a situation that is totally in his mind.
Same with the Bush administration. They literally made shit up as a pretext to invade Iraq, which is now a de facto clusterfuck. The whole world saw this and understands it. Now Bush is getting all high and mighty about blowing shit up in space. Not only has he foolishly over-reacted to a situation that *was not a threat*, he just hasnt learned his lesson -- he wants to also invade Iran.
Re:Why is it so wrong to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Every country knows that the US has the most powerful military in the world. They are all well aware that US has a contingency plan for every conceivable military incident -- occupying Canada, fighting North Korea etc. The world governments don't need to be told this by Bush.
When you get up in front of the public and start talking about war and defending yourself. When you come out and say things in a public forum, to the media, instead of privately, through diplomatic channels, that has a meaning all in itself in international politics. It's beligerent and aggressive. The purpose of this message isn't to inform -- Bush isn't saying anything that everybody doesn't already know. It's to threaten an intimidate. It's an escalation of hostility. It's saying that we are abandoning the peaceful use of space, unilaterally, and starting to arm up. We're not doing this in response to any nation or any event; we are doing this because we damn well want to. And I'm doing it in public; no one can stop me.
It is just like when you're in a bar and the guy next to you starts talking about beating the shit out of you. It's inappropriate and uncalled for. There's no reason for him to start saying that. There's a problem when someone starts talking like that, when there isn't any reason for them to do so.
Space isn't new to the Bush admin (Score:4, Funny)
Space Arms Race (Score:2)
Being a bit of a bully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently it is, at least in part, about weaponizing space.
"The document, much of which is classified,..."
Interesting that our own "policy" is a secret from the American people. Apparently we are not allowed to know our own position on this issue. Now that is retarded.
"Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space
This is a broad and bold statement that will certainly piss off a lot of people. Which "national interests" do we feel gives us the right to deny to someone else what we absolutely refuse to be denied? All to often we seem to confuse "national interests" with "corporate interests" now days.
What an arrogant, pig headed, bully position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really time that we tossed out the people with the "cowboy mentality" and brought in an era of reason.
Plus ça change...Plus c'est la même chos (Score:2)
Anyway...
The sun is mine! I saw it first!
A step toward nuclear space flight? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Bush finds it easier to sell the treaty breakage as a security measure than to sell it as a first step towards Mars.
US the new Portugal (Score:5, Insightful)
What are "US interests"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should anyone die to protect "US interests", when we have no reason whatsoever to believe that corporate profits and cheap goods at Walmart lie outside that category?
Hostility (Score:5, Insightful)
Under this rule, the space race would never have happened. It was in the US national interest to get to the moon first. Should they have been allowed to destroy all the Soviet missions ? (oh yeah, they would have got a bloody nose for that) Is the ESA going to get their equipment shot down ? What about the new European GPS system ? After all, it's in the US national interest to be in total unopposed control of space.
And you wonder why the USA gets such bad press ...
Look, I realise that as a nation, you are pretty young and inexperienced, but surely you get enough respect from the outside world that you don't have to act like a fuckin 12 year old in a schoolyard. You're showing signs of a serious inferiority complex.
You've got one of the highest standards of living in the world, coupled with one of the lowest population densities in the world. And you're still not happy.
BTW, didn't you ever learn - what goes around, comes around.
As an aside, the town I grew up in was already 700 years old when the USA was founded. The place I live now was founded by the Romans. That gives one a sense of perspective.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Frank Herbert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And more importantly, can it pop a military-sized tin of jiffypop?