U.S. Deploys Orbital Communications Jammer 619
kpwoodr writes "An interesting article at the Washington Times makes note of a recent satellite launch by the U.S. It seems we have put a jammer in space that will allow us to disrupt enemy communication systems at will. From the article: 'The U.S. military is bracing for future attacks in space, and the Air Force has deployed an electronic-warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites, the general in charge of space defenses says. "You can't go to war and win without space."'"
With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking the initiative! (Score:1, Insightful)
This will seem odd.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what else is new?
KFG
Can't win without space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasted Resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Money well spent (Score:2, Insightful)
More importantly will it lower or raise the price of oil???
Man I'm crumpy this morning...
Communications Disruption (Score:2, Insightful)
Charlie Don't Surf (Score:5, Insightful)
1 Qadea asshole: $1.75:day
1 Prayer flag: $0.13
1 US counteraction: $10,000
Victory: priceless
When the US invests money to increase peace with satellite deploying rivals, we get increased wealth in our global economy (of which the US has the leading share). Or we can invest the money preparing for war with them. Of course we have to invest some in warfare preparedness. And equally certain is the necessity of investing in peace. Or we won't get it. Who wants to be kinda safe in perpetual war?
Don't look at me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreso even than the items you're using to actively kill people, the support equipment will help determine how effectively you can fight. Body armor is a case-in-point, here: troops with effective personal body armor suffer less casualties, and are therefore more reliable in combat and less costly to support... meaning you can have a LOT more of them in the field. Also, effective armor allows soldiers to take risks in combat that they would otherwise shirk from: if one side is more willing to stick it's heads up and take shots than the other side is (because of a body armor disparity), the former can be more aggressive and tactically effective.
But communications, both in use and denial-of-use, are the REALLY important thing. You can be in command of Starship Troopers armed with nuclear warheads, and it's not going to win you any battles against horse-riding Indians with flintlocks if they're in communication and aware, and you're not.
Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings about cops: Police aren't effective because of their uniforms, badges, guns, or nightsticks, they're effective because of their radios.
Offensive or Defensive? (Score:1, Insightful)
IMO, this is a blatent offensive posturing move of a facsist regime. All it can do is futher de-stabilize the world. The Bush admin seems quite bent on driving the whole world into the ground and ignores any lessons learned in the last century. The US is doomed with this mentality.
Re:Fucking assholes. (Score:2, Insightful)
But as weapons go, this thing isn't much...
Re:Can't win without space? (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding. I think it is worth rereading Sun Tsu and noting that he had more timeless advoce-- that at least one reading of The Art of War indicates that victory is primarily political and secondarily military. This is the problem in Iraq (though it may turn out to be an unsoluable problem).
Note that in Iraq in Vietnam (against the US), in Afghanistan (against the USSR), and in many other places, you can see plenty of examples where individuals who felt that they were defending their homeland were able to take on technologically superior forces and eventually wear them down to the point where it was politically problematic to continue. The same may be happening in Iraq today.
This general's statement only works when everything else is equal. It might work in a situation like Kosovo where we were *helping* those who were defending their homeland. But had we gotten sucked into a land war in, say, Serbia, it would have been far different.
I don't think the parent was a troll. I think he should be modded up insightful.
Re:Don't look at me (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, to a first approximation, you are. After spending years trying to reconcile the fact that I've met many perfectly nice Americans versus the heavy boot that you collectively place on the neck of many other nations (and on your own downtrodden), I've given up. It's a democracy and yo're free to work hard to change it or, if you can't live with it, to leave. If you stay and don't work hard enough to change it, or are simply outnumbered by the mouthbreathers, don't bother crying me a river about how you're stereotyped.
Re:Can't win without space? (Score:3, Insightful)
All warfare is based on deception. -Sun Tzu
seems fitting during the Iraq "War".
it also seems to work for Gulf War 1, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Balkans, Korea, World war 2, World War 1, Spanish-American War, the "civil" war, etc etc.
not a single war in the history of the world is what it seems, especially since everyone agrees that the victor writes the history. you and your children will die so rich elites can grow richer and so that they can spread the reach of their iron fists.
"but i was only following orders". hopefully, god is gullible enough to believe that.
Attacks from whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, from whom, exactly? Al-Qaeda isn't known for its lethal space program as far as I know, and I got the impression that a large part of the US saber-rattling (and actual stabbing and hacking) of the last few years was to get the point across that 'If you mess with us, you'll regret it.'
So who's going to attack the US from space? Only a moron with nothing to lose who also happens to have spaceflight capabilities, and that's not exactly a large number of countries.
The Russians? Admittedly they currently pwn spaceflight, but on American dollars - they can barely finance their own operations right now. The Chinese? They don't need to attack militarily, because they're taking the long-term view and happily taking on the outsourcing of everything the US manufactures and buying up the trillion-dollar national debt as a bargaining tool. Iran? India? Pakistan? Don't be fucking ridiculous. Maybe the evil French are going to use an Ariane-5 to launch a Death Star over Washington...
Delusions (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe the reason the U.S. military has become so skilled at getting their asses handed to them by low-tech insurgent groups is because they still think the Wars of the Future will fought against the Soviet Union.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:4, Insightful)
What has China done in the last 50 years or so that would threaten world peace? Hmm, they're occupying Tibet. Certainly not good, but hey, you have started *two* wars under your current president alone already (and there most likely will be a third one in the next few years, too).
Of course, if I had to choose a place to live, I'd choose the USA over China any day - there's no doubt that China's a fascist dictatorship, while the USA are still a pseudo-democracy, at least (at least you can still choose your poison there - unless the elections are manipulated, of course). But when you're talking about *world peace*, these things don't really matter (sorry), and the USA are clearly the bigger threat, by far.
Anabasis (Score:2, Insightful)
About 2400 years ago, Xenophon and a bunch of Greeks hired on with Cyrus of Persia to do a bit of rape-and-pillaging for hire. Cyrus started a civil war with Artaxerxes and lost pretty quickly. The Greek officers all wind up getting murdered in a bit of treachery. So 10,000 Greeks find themselves stranded just outside Babylon without any leaders and a million miles from home. What do you think they do?
Well, they're Greeks. They elect new leaders and fight their way home.
The only working democracy in the Middle East, ever, was started by a bunch of desperate Greek murderers-for-hire.
Europeans start up democracies every chance they get. Given access to bamboo, sulphur, potassium nitrate, charcoal and diamonds [amazon.com], the first thing a European thinks is "how can I build a working Constiutional democracy with these materials." Nobody else on the planet is like that.
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now not only are you stuck in a senseless war with no end in sight, you are deeply in debt, mainly to countries such as communist China and Saudi Arabia. On top of all this you are allowing your government to do so many things that are contrary to the traditional view of what it means to be American. America is supposed to stand for "liberty and freedom", but your government has taken away some of the most basic "liberties" in the name of "security". What I do not understand is these liberties were held dear for so long and defended with countless lives by generations past. I realize the need to fight terrorism, but why has this new dynamic changed the American way of life so easily? The majority of the US population seems to be paralyzed by this fear, unable to speak for themselves and thus allowing the government to do as it pleases. Enacting draconian laws, starting fights against the pleas of the international community, keeping prisoners without due legal process, and the behemoth of them all... torture in Iraq. And if you question any of this you are labeled "unpatriotic", as if questioning the government is a privilege.
What has happened to America, a country that once stood for so much good and fighting for what was right.
I realize this is not a political forum, but I feel the need to warn America and get the word out in any way possible. For we share a common way of life, and common values. And if the US goes down, the Western way of life will take a huge blow. Sorry for the off topic.
This opens the gate to space weapons. (Score:4, Insightful)
But our GPS guided bombs are a bit of the same thing
I have a feeling that this system will be used on a US broadcast before it will be used on an "enemy".
What is a weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally I (and, I think most other people, including your average dictionary editor) consider a weapon to be something used directly on or against an opponent to disuade, disrupt, disable, destroy, defeat or kill. Things like like canteens don't normally fit that definition.
That having been said, I would still define this satellite as a weapon because it is intended to be used directly against an opponont to disrupt and/or disable.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need to go to war, you go to war with the weapons you have not the weapons you'd like to have. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't also work on getting the weapons you want, but if you wait until all the ducks are in a row, the enemy will have long since sliped in behind you and snapped your neck already.
Implicit racism and tyranny of low expectations (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does this sound a lot like white planation owners in the 18th century, "the Negro is not as intelligent as the white man and therefore is not capable of living outside of slavery."
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:4, Insightful)
The smaller, more effective bombs, means more targets per sortie -- which means more attacks. As soon as you make it identifying military targets a quick and accurate job-- the military targets will quit looking like military. They will look like school playgrounds and churches (I know we accused Iraq of as much -- though I'm not so sure about our accusations on anything anymore).
A huge problem is making the administration conducting the war value the lives of innocent people. Before the start of the "official" Iraq war, the US was bombing the hell out of that country to try and provoke Saddam. But the worst was our use of cluster bombs over neighborhoods during "shock and awe."
If we are the "good guys" in a war... we will probably be fighting "bad guys". Bad guys are people without ethics who endanger their own people to meet narrow political ends. So the bad guys will hide their military as civilian targets and we will end up precision bombing picnics. Perhaps we need a non-lethal bomb to incapacitate an area so that we can search it?
I am all for the precision weapons and I would like to believe that most of our soldiers are honorable and would risk their own lives to protect innocents... but I also see emotionally immature leaders who don't share any empathy with friend or foe. No matter how good our weapons become, we can't build ethics into them. But personally, I think until we can guarantee that we are an ethical country again, we as citizens need to be against ANY war. We don't spend a tenth of this money doing good.
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, perhaps you're unaware of their involvement in the Korean conflict? Admittedly it is just outside your arbitrary 50-year limit, but to say they've been nothing but good little Chinese people is a gross exaggeration. Oh, and there's that little spat with Taiwan...you know, the island China is threatening to invade if they proclaim independence? Tibet isn't the only country China is putting under its thumb. And while we're on the subject, last I checked there were innumerable "work camps" for political dissidents scattered all throughout China where you just "disappear" to if you don't say the right things and think the right thoughts. And let's not forget the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. Just thought I'd jog your faulty memory for a bit since you seem to have an awful selective memory. You appear to only remember the bad things about America and the good things about everyone else. Typical socialist European viewpoint. Next time a Hitler storms the continent and you come screaming for help, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of the White House.
Furthermore, there's one thing here you and your kind seem unable to grasp: China doesn't have to go to war in order to get its way because other countries realize China will not bluff. If the Chinese say they'll invade if somebody doesn't do it the way China wants it done, China will invade. The U.S., on the other hand, has spent the last twenty years showing the world that we do not mean business, we do not back up our words with action, and we love placating dictators and madmen throughout the world just so long as the President doesn't get any bad press on the 6 o'clock news. The argument can be made -- quite convincingly, I might add -- that America's outward lack of resolve contributed to the situation we're now in. After all, how many countries would engage us in a war if they knew we'd nuke their country into a glowing, glassy parking lot? People don't start wars they know they're going to lose, they only start wars they think they can win. The whole "walk softly and carry a big stick" maxim only works if you're actually prepared to use the big stick. Otherwise, you're just making yourself a big, bluffing target.
Ronald Reagan said it best: "of all the wars in my lifetime, none of them came about because America was too strong."
But when you're talking about *world peace*, these things don't really matter (sorry), and the USA are clearly the bigger threat, by far.
Are you speaking Russian today? Or German (unless you're a native German)? No? Then you have the "bigger threat" to world peace to thank for it. No, don't say thank you, you've said quite enough already.
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, this is what should be expected. The two sides of an arms race usually BOTH lose big. We were just fortunate that Russia and the US decided on a potlatch contest rather than anything more viscious. And for this I must thank the Russian government, as they had clear reason to know that they would lose a potlatch contest, whereas the more militant version could just have ended up as a tie with everyone dead. But perhaps Russia decided to play "I'll beat you the second game!" (as they may), which only works if you survive for there to BE a second game. (Top Dog countries usually go downhill pretty quickly. The reason isn't totally obvious, but they tend to get insane governments.)
This isn't just the US vs. Russia. Look at Rome, look at Athens vs. Sparta. (Macedonia doesn't really count, because that fell apart too quickly.) Look at Persia, Assyria,
OTOH, Chinese dynastys tended to last for several generations. 200 years comes to mind for some reason. And in each dynasty, the government became a combination of lunatic and corrupt, until it became to weak and apalling that there was a revolution (or occasionally a foreign conquest).
India avoided this problem on a large scale by not having a large scale, just lots and lots of relatively local Raj-istrates.
Communication has done wonders for us, though, and it's possible that we will become a world civilization...just in time to simultaneously collapse.
(OTOH, I tend to put the singularity at around 2030, so we may hold on until then.)
was rome was a constitutional democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see I'm not sure if I know too much about the "british constitution", and then there was a little bit of imperialism, and France went through a few "republics", and a couple world wars, and a Marshall plan, and you know what, I guess europeans came up with a few constitutional democracies afer all of that...
It takes some time, and the Middle East may or may-not get there, but I don't know if I'd go writing them off after such a short period of time. If the world wrote off europe in the aftermath of world war II, who know what would have happened...
As for your quaint story about an ancient greek general/philosopher, isn't it the case that most of what we know about Mr. Xenophon, is what he wrote in his own "history" book. I'm positively sure he was elected using a constitutional democratic principle, like is often done with field promotions of officers in war situations to backfill for their fallen comrades. Wasn't it true that Mr. Xenophon banned from Athens after he made it back to greece? To me, reading the Anabasis seems like reading an account of the early crusades... or maybe apocalypse now?
Yeah, I know the word democracy comes from greek, but I don't think the greeks even wrote their constitution until 1975...
China is Barzini!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The only better news than this "orbital communications jammer" would be a renewed effort by the US to develop anti-satellite weapons, like those fighter-launched missiles we tested in the 80's. Our military superiority depends on maintaining an technological edge, protecting our C3I, and grabbing the higher ground, whether that be earth orbit or the moon. If we ever need to face a determined power like China, to protect our own or our allies in the region, it could easily expand into a really messy fight. Our only hope to stop the opposition early, before the body count (on either side) gets high, would be to render them blind and deaf before they do the same to us.
So let's hear it for Yankee ingenuity! Keep those jammers flying, and send up a few railguns and x-ray lasers to keep 'em company!
You're not too bright, are ya? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, dude, you're an idiot. In a combat situation are you to be considered hostile and fired upon for having a canteen? What if you merely have a radio, I mean c'mon; who doesn't like their extremely liberal talk-radio show? A metal tanket of water or a u/vhf 2-way does not a soldier make. And for the record, it's highly frowned upon to fire on those wearing the red cross intentionally; after all they treat YOUR wounded too despite their allignment. NATO alligned countrymen will not shoot you on the battlefield if you have no weapon. Best bet your ass the shooting of men only having canteens, first-aid kits or radios will result in a tribunal and incarceration. Are you so naive to apply the totalitarian view to the definition of weapon? That's like saying the Leatherman I carry on my belt which I use every single day at work is something that would garner gunshot wounds on my part if in my hand in the presence of a police officer. Or the map that a contractor carries that could possibly find its way into the hands of a soldier, is a weapon. Hell binoculars are a weapon now, I can see it now "Drop the optical device or you will be shot!"
Now stop and ask yourself, what would you do if someone shot at you? You'd shoot back. Threw a knife at you? Hope it misses and either pick it up and throw it back or shoot him. Came running at you flailing a canteen? Get whacked on the head once because of the moment of bewilderment maybe, or laugh, and then whoop his ass! Are you going to kill someone who smacks you with a radio? First Aid Kit? Bullet proof vest? Even more are you going to consider a VIP wearing a bullet proof vest yet not carrying a weapon, to be a threat? I'm thinking you're one of the last people I ever want walking around with a gun, you'd shoot me for having a walkman within 10 feet of you.
Now, I will agree with you that this sattelite is a weapon. But not because of it's purpose or potential to be used for evil. Even guns are tools, but only in the hands of someone who has intent to kill is it a weapon. It's not function the begets purpose, it is will that begets purpose. The only reason I view this sattelite as a weapon is because it's in the hands of a military organization, severe bias is established because it happens to be the U.S. military. My hands are not weapons, they are precision tools; when curled into fists with the intent of contact is when they become weapons. If a canteen's intent is to be drank from, it's far from a weapon. When a canteen is swung at you it's merely something to laugh at, not kill over.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:1, Insightful)
Most serial rapists and serial killers never see themselves as the aggressors. Sometimes, after being caught, the realization breaks through. Its simply a phsychological phenomena...
Unfortunately, I doubt that most americans will ever really feel the pain of the rest of the world... feel how it is to lose a brother or mother to a 'smart' bomb. Until that can happen to the americans(not just 3000 or 1000, but every other family like it is in Iraq and Palestine), chances are that nothing will ever change...
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we use that broad a definition of 'weapon,' then it's ridiculous to attempt to bar them from space (or any other realm), unless we want to competely de-orbit everything we've ever put up there.
Communications, navigation, even weather satellites have huge military uses. They're force multipliers: they don't change the actual balance of troops on the ground, but they might make one side a lot more effective than the other.
In fact there probably isn't any major technological development in recent history -- perhaps in all history -- that was without a military application, directly or indirectly.
The ban on 'space based weapons' makes little sense given a broad definition and understanding of what weapons are. It only applies, and IMO was designed to be applied, to those weapons which actually exert some sort of force directly on an enemy. Given that we've had imaging satellites in orbit for nearly as long as the capability has been available in order to spy on other countries for military and strategic political gain, and nobody has really expressed a large problem with this (at least no one who's opinion, on the global stage, matters), I think it's safe to say that the queasiness with space-based weapons refers only to a narrow subset of war-fighting technologies. After all, the GPS system was undeniably a military technology to begin with, and it is more a weapon than a spy satellite is (after all, the GPS system is used to automatically guide cruise missiles to their targets), but it has a host of legitimate uses and is rapidly becoming an essential component of global commerce.
Personally, I think the ban on space-based weapons is sort of a noble though, but ultimately naive and doomed. Human beings have taken war to every other realm we've ever explored, from the upper atmosphere to the deep sea; war is not so much a science in itself as a sort of 'meta science,' a combination of all other areas of endeavor. To arbitrarily say that such a vast frontier is off-limits to what is perhaps our oldest past time and obsession -- killing each other -- is laughable. When we progress off this planet, there is no doubt in my mind at all that we will bring our weapons, in physical form or as knowledge, with us.
The anti-space weapons people appear to me like a parent trying to shelter their child from the realities of the world. Noble, perhaps, but ultimately doomed. Still, that's not to say that they should give up, but they also need to realize that they have in large part already lost, and that their fight is hopeless in the long run.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Nation Myth (Score:3, Insightful)
You've gotta be joking.
Nations aren't people. There's no such thing as national good or bad karma. Historians can judge, of course. The popular imagination is ever filled with prejudices, but looking back into history to characterise nations as persistent agents is sheer folly. We need to judge Governments based on the character of the individuals that make them up, and the people they lead. The US, let us not forget, is a state built on the genocide of natives, and the enslavement of Africans. Didn't stop them carrying the torch for democracy later on. China today has a foreign policy based on ruthless free-market cooperation, and internal policies that focus on stability over all else. It isn't terribly nice, certainly. But the fact they benefit from the status quo means that they are unlikely to change it by a silly little war, especially if it is likely to escalate into a global affair.
The US administration and US people like you, meanwhile, continues to show it's misunderstanding of the world. You are still on about nations attacking the US. You are still on about nuclear deterrents! The US has failed to realise that there is no longer a nation on the world for whom military deterrence is effective, because nations are either so large that they can only benefit from good relations, or so small that they cannot concieveably mount a conventional, traceable attack.
Oh, so you think the world owes 'America' a favour for WWII? Owes a favour to whom? Dubya certainly wasn't there on the beaches of Normandy. You probably weren't either. The machines that built the tanks that liberated France are rusted and gone. Is the America of today the same one which voted for FDR? Not really, is it? So isn't it slightly presumptious to say that living on the same patch of land, and sharing some genetics allows you to force down and ignore their disagreements?
Let's take the arguments to the logical conclusion. Why did China join in the Korean war? Because they thought the US participation would directly threaten them. Should the US have been stronger, then that would have lead to a world war there and then, probably involving the Russians as well. The Cuban missile crisis. Should the US have been stronger? Don't be silly. If Kennedy had gone through with the Hawks' plan, there would have been a nuclear war.
International politics is not a game to be played by idiots with inflated egos who think that acting tough is going to win the day.
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you speaking Russian today? Or German (unless you're a native German)? No? Then you have the "bigger threat" to world peace to thank for it. No, don't say thank you, you've said quite enough already.
Wow, you are really playing the WWII/Cold War card. I try not to take responsibility for things that I did not do. If you feel so personally responsible for the results of WWII then should you not take personal responisbility for slavery and the other crappy things this country has done over the years?
Re:What is a weapon (Score:2, Insightful)
See, its a stupid argument. When a definition is that ambiguous, it becomes worthless.
Re:You just don't know where the battle is... (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when less oil comes out of the ground than the year before?
It gets more expensive. Once the price gets higher than something else, then we use the something else, which brings down the price of that thing.
No, we invade Venezuela. Next question.
The economy adjusts based on supply and demand.
"Supply and Demand" -- what a microeconomic 101 clueless statement. Someone comes out of college and chirps "Supply and Demand" and they are a smug economic conservative forever. There is a desperate need for people to re-examine that "Fact"... 1/3 or our economy is service based. Only 20% is manufacturing. Intellectual Property is going to be the number one source of revenue in this country in the coming decade. Where is the supply limit on that? To most economists, there isn't a difference to a country making a potato chip factory to one building airplanes. I'm talking about resource wars and you talk about an equilibrium curve. That baby shit you learned in college is stone age platitudes. Some things like diamonds have an artificially created supply shortage and the demand is created with marketing. How much of the money you spend is on stuff you need? You don't NEED Microsoft Office until everyone else has Microsoft Office. That's a Network Effect. The utility is based upon the ubiquity... totally turning the traditional idea of demand on its head. Also, there is no supply curve with software... again, where is supply and demand? If you didn't here that you needed to know this program, you would never have bought it. It is a need based on information... so demand curves are created with information. Other than the roof over your head, central air, and food in your tummy, there is no supply and demand without media.
Most of the money made in America is based on no Product at all. I work for a Financial Services company. I know that most of the "money" made in America is on a Financial Service. Insurance, Credit Cards, Banking, Mortgages... the list goes on. You spend more to invest and service debt (whether embedded in the product you buy or not) than you do to eat or stay in a home. The financial cost of the home is 5 to 10 times the value of the home. A $100k home will cost you $600k before you "own" it. Did you pay cash on your car?
When you go to a school or hospital, you are using a service. This gets tricky with the old "supply and demand" curve. This and roads and prisons has just represented most of the rest of your economy.
So you are left with about 20% (totally rough estimate) of anything that is actually dependent on "Ye Olde Supply Curve". Has it escaped you that Reagan's and Bush II's use of Supply-side economics have been totally failures and achieved all success based on piling up huge debts? If I use my credit card with abandon, I can be rich for a little while too. The problem is, that wealth does not stay inside any borders. Did you know that most of our trade deficit is paid by anonymous "offshore accounts" now? Who exactly owns this country?
Resource wars are for influence, power and things you need. I don't want to wait for smug snots coming out of Business school to get a clue. Ever since the gas company was privatized, the price has quadrupled. I'm waiting for water to get privatized... in fact, I think water will get privatized everywhere and there will be severe restrictions on drilling your own water well.
What happens when the gulf stream shuts down and Europe has to find new crop land or warmer/wetter weather?
We do what our ancestors did when the environment changes: adapt. Move our farmland, or irrigate.
Yes we adapt. But at what rate? What happens if the Gulf Stream shuts down in One Year. Click... it's off. What does Europe do when all their farming stops and they must suddenly import a lot of oil to heat homes? I think that is going to destabilize things a bit.
You mean those exploited people who are desperately happy to have any sort of job?
I don't have time
Re:was rome was a constitutional democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that Turkey, Israel, and Iran are all genuine democracies and arguably middle eastern.
Re:That's pretty short sighted (Score:4, Insightful)
The Qaeda has #1: won the "hearts and minds" of millions of people around the world, a fucked-up "David" standing up to the (fucked up) Goliath of the USA. #2: they've enabled the USA to alienate our allies in all our other endeavors, and driven some of our enemies (China and Iran) into each others' arms, even more deeply. They've discredited us, sparked a malaise that's made our economy moribund, blown the magic enabler of our American image of success, strength, diplomatic prowess, judicious restraint, confidence... Oh, then there's the thousands of dead Americans. Here in NYC (and in the DC and PA), and the thousands in Iraq. Where they judo'ed us by attacking a wasteful, cynical, lying president who invaded the unrelated Iraq they themselves couldn't beat or join. Now our military and foreign policies are exposed as selfserving bait/switch operations, before our allies, enemies, and the billions of people who once gave us benefit of the doubt.
I remind you that the North Vietnamese were claimed to be losers throughout the war. In fact, we did usually win Vietnamese battles, though at unsupportable cost. And we lost that war. We've never recovered. And, as your Anonymous ignorant Coward post shows, many of us have never learned from our mistakes. You're certainly far from alone in counting your own victories as "democratic makeovers" in places like Afghanistan and Iraq before they've hatched.
Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole "walk softly and carry a big stick" maxim only works if you're actually prepared to use the big stick. Otherwise, you're just making yourself a big, bluffing target.
The neocon (see Project for New American Century) idea that you can create a global environment of peace by being many times more powerful than any other nation, and using that power to influence global affairs, can only work when you really are that much more powerful than everyone else. The problem is, the US is not; inflated egos aside, let's look at this realistically: the USA is struggling to hold down a relatively small resistance in a tiny and weak and already-battered country like Iraq, do you honestly think the US would have a snowball's chance in hell of asserting a position of dominance/control if it had to go to war with, say, China? Of course China's military is much smaller than the US's, but that's besides the point, compare it to the strength of the insurgency in Iraq - it's a thousand Iraqs, and with even more nationalist sentiment that will perpetuate a never-ending (and ever-increasing) resistance to the US if this ever happened. You only really have two options then: Either you figure out a way to win a few billion "hearts and minds" in the near future to get Chinese nationalism out of their culture, or you just nuke every other country on the planet out of existence (and maybe that's just OK with you, I've certainly seen Americans advocate that on slashdot numerous times, but with attitudes like that don't scratch your head wondering why the world thinks the US is the biggest threat to world peace currently!) The US is not Rome, and can't pull of what Rome did.
None of the paths you advocate make any sense. The key to a peaceful, prosperous future on Earth lies in looking at what the US did when they literally "united the states" --- get everyone working on the 'same side'. Seems the US has forgotten this though, but that is how the US became so prosperous in the first place.
Re:You're not too bright, are ya? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, just 'cause I like quibbling... If I'm a soldier on the field, and I see someone in the enemy's uniform carrying a radio? Damn skippy, he's the first person I'm gunning for. Because odds are that radio is controlling much larger guns than I'm carrying. Canteens and med kits, sure, those alone do not a reasonable target make.
We have always been at war with..... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Pentagon is promoting a unilateral space arms race - perhaps they believe no other country would do something like this. Please consider the hypothetical - "China launches a space jamming satellite to disable communications for
The US would have a fit! They'd be adding the Chinese wheel to the already overburdened Axle of Evil. Articles in the New York Times: "Chinese - they are among us". Senate committe on un-American activities: "Are you now, or have you ever been, Chinese?" No more Chinese resaurants - now they'd be
But instead, it's us that's launching something like that - just your friendly neighborhood bringers of peace and democracy. So there's nothing to worry about. Right?
Guys, in the 50's America went apeshit because they thought Sputnik was carrying nucular (hehe) missiles to kill Americans. Now, America is launching a weapon (it is something that is intended for offensive action against foreign states) and justifying it with "Well, we need it". I am beginning to think that getting away with things is simply a matter of chosing actions so blatantly hypocritical that no normal person could find the words to express the enormity of the arrogance such an action belies. And a normal person wouldn't use profanity either. So, dear politicos, since irony and subtlety are lost on you: "Fuck you. You *don't* need that weapon. Go shoot some crack and die of an overdose, you stupid Washington crotch-sniffers".
Seriously, though - perhaps the scariest thing about Orwell's 1984 is that he is describing a model whereby society can never break free of tyranny - effectively the endgame of humanity. And this is done with 1) altering the past, to prevent people from learning and 2) perpetual war to promote fear. Something like this satellite furthers the latter. Lack of good education and promotion of media control encourages the former. I am not suggesting that tomorrow we'll have Comrade Big Brother. But it's a safe bet that some media firm is doing preliminary sketch designs of a man with a mustache.
Re:Anabasis (Score:1, Insightful)
It is amazing how you got an Insightful, instead of Troll or Flamebait.
Your assertion that Eurpoeans have a somehow innate trait for voting is as credible as the assertion that "Negros" cannot be fighter pilots because of the brain structure, or that the savages have to be civilized.
In other words: it smells racism ...
Re:China is Barzini!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Life is cruel, you don't get your BFG all for yourself. Live with it.
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
Your lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq is stunning to say the least. I have a much better perspective on this than you might imagine because unlike you, I've actually served a tour in Iraq and returned.
We are not "struggling" to hold down a small resistance in Iraq, you fool. If the U.S. wanted to, we could completely obliterate the entire country, sterilizing it to the point that no human being could inhabit it again for 1,000 years. If we wanted to end the resistance tomorrow, we could bomb every house to rubble, kill every camel, torch every tree, and machine gun anything that moves. We have a military might that is unequaled anywhere on this planet at this time, and no single nation could oppose us should we choose to exercise our military might to the utmost.
But what has the U.S. done with this power? Have we engaged in wars of conquest across the globe? No, we have not. The United States hasn't conquered, occupied, and retained possession of a single piece of territory since the Spanish-American war! We left Europe after WWI, only to return to liberate it again during WWII. Then, having sacrificed the better portion of an entire generation of American young men, we left again without making any territorial claims. We left Germany after helping to rebuild. We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
Do you see a pattern here? Probably not because you don't want to, but I'm going to rub your nose in it anyway. To put it succinctly, no nation has every had so much force at its disposal yet used it so sparingly. We could've dominated the world in a way that would've made Hitler and Stalin look like angels, but instead we simply helped where needed then went back home.
The insurgency in Iraq is a direct result of American forces restraining themselves. I and Marines like me put our lives on the line daily during patrols, trying to keep the streets safe, trying to allow the people to see what it's like to be citizens under a democracy instead of subjects under a dictator. I've had friends wounded because we didn't shoot first when we had the chance, so don't you dare even hint that we are "struggling" here. We are not. We are willingly making our jobs more dangerous because our own morals do not allow us to be ruthless. The terrorists are ruthless and amoral, however, but that is the difference between a terrorist and a U.S. Marine. Personally I'd rather have taken a bullet myself than to have accidentally wounded a civilian.
So, please, take your lopsided reasoning elsewhere. You're speaking to someone who knows better that you. If you doubt me, get on a damned plane to Iraq. When you've set foot in the country you claim to know so much about, then you might be entitled to an opinion on things. Until then, you're just piling ignorance on top of ignorance.
Re:What is a weapon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anabasis (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no Muslim, but I know enough about the Muslim world to know that you're full of shit. The Prophet Mohammad taught and practiced democractic principles his whole life. The Muslum world had democracy until they fractured into a number of branches and started bickering amongst themselves.
Shit happens. Look at the US. You call that a democracy? I don't think so
You proabably would like to score some points off the fact that there hasn't been democracy recently in the Muslim world. But in fact that's due to imperial interference in the area. If the west would fuck off out of there for long enough for the people to kick out the US stooges and warlords, then perhaps a democratic process could begin.
Re:China is Barzini!! (Score:2, Insightful)
You must be European. The 20th century stands as testimony to the inadequacy of diplomacy and "peaceful" means. Remember the Washington Naval Accords, Munich, the Korean ceasefire, "detente," and the former Yugoslavia?
Grow up. Force works. Victory ends conflicts. It's an ugly truth. If you doubt me, ask the Czechs, South Vietnamese (if you can find any alive), and millions of forgotten others what good diplomacy did for them the day after the civilized, peaceful types signed their accords and turned away.
Re:Anabasis (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The neo-cons aren't interested in democracy, apart from using it as an excuse for war. As for overthrowing despots, that's not really their goal either, as they are US-backed despots.
Thanks for the link. It didn't undermine anything I claimed, and the point remains that Mohammad taught and practiced democracy. Deal with it. Linking to wikopedia may be the current fad, but it doesn't automatically prove you're right, unless it actually supports your argument.
There are places better than where I live. New Zealand has a much better system, and a much better foreign policy as well. Venezuela is starting to look interesting too, even if Chavez came from the military. I'm not claiming there is a perfect democracy for us to all study. I'm just pointing out that your attacks on Muslims are completely unfounded and hypocritical. That quip about utopia oozes immaturity, by the way.
Good. If you're so interested, research it. I've already given you some starting points: Mohammed. There are other examples. Palestine is trying ( despite extreme external pressure ), Iran, Turkey ( though they're heading in the wrong direction ). Do some reading of your own. Don't just go to wikopedia. Do some real research. Try a book or 2. And don't be so fucking arrogant. It's very off-putting.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical mindless American flag waving drek.
NOBODY HAS STARTED A WAR WITH YOU IN OVER 50 YEARS.
Vietnam did not declare war on you, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Brazil, they didn't ask you to get involved in their affairs, yet YOU DID ANYWAY and as usual royally screwed their countries in the process. Because when America gets involved it does so only when it benefits America. That's OK, if you've been asked, but don't come to us screaming how altruistic you are when your unwanted meddling causes vast amounts of suffering.
Posts like the parent typically get modded up on this site, the yanks don't like anybody else criticising their countries actions. It's perfectly A-OK for them to sit around discussing which countries elected leader they should murder next, which country, that has *never* done a single THING to them, they should invade next. But the moment someone in the world dares to raise a single criticism of the USs past actions, oh the world is just-so-mean, how dare we forget the good deed that America performed over sixty years ago, by a generation that is nearly dead. Forgetting that If everyone had of just layed down arms America would have been SCREWED. Lets just forgot the millions of dead russians, tens of thousands of Poms, Aussies and every other nationality that shed their blood (you know the WORLD part in WORLD WAR), the americans did it all! That absolves the current and future generations of every atrocity (yes turning reasonably stable countries into savage thirdworld dictatorships IS an atrocity) that they ever commit from then on.
You want to extend the 'GPs arbitrary limit' Lets extend it, 100 years ago in the Phillipines, what you fuckers did there is as bad as anything any other shitty country has country has done, so don't play the oh we the poor martyrs of the world just try to do good and nobody loves us. AMERICA PEACEFUL? SITUATION YOUR NOW IN, THE SITUATION THAT YOU CREATED WHEN YOU INVADED ANOTHER COUNTRY?? fuck me i just can't even go on, its FUCKING CRAZY reading shit like this, do you actually believe it or do you just suspend reality to be mindlessly nationalistic.
You, America, have *well and truly* cashed in the reputation that your involvement in WWII gained for your country.
One last thing, we all know it's a good thing that Americans have finally started to acknowledge that there is one other land mass in the universe besides America, but it's time to graduate first grade and move to second grade where you will be taught that there is *many* land masses and that not everyone is European or North American. In fact you are in the minority, so before you call someone a "European socialist" (apparently an insult?) make sure that they are actually from Europe yeah?
(See other people can be smug and sarcastic too, nice isn't it?)
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
what has the U.S. done with this power? Have we engaged in wars of conquest across the globe? No, we have not. The United States hasn't conquered, occupied, and retained possession of a single piece of territory since the Spanish-American war! We left Europe after WWI, only to return to liberate it again during WWII. Then, having sacrificed the better portion of an entire generation of American young men, we left again without making any territorial claims. We left Germany after helping to rebuild. We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
First, Americans are not 100% philanthropic with the military. Nearly every use of American force has been motivated primarily by US national interests. That's not to say that these uses were bad or that there weren't also humanitarian motivations. Let's take WWII for an example. Had the US not joined the Allies, the war may well have been lost and we'd all be living under Nazi rule today. However, the US did not join the fight because it believed it would benefit the world. Americans only began fighting after the Japanese brought them into it with Pearl Harbor. Was American involvement a good thing? Yes, very much so. Did the Americans join to save the world? No, they joined to save themselves (and in the process everyone else).
Second, though this is minor nitpicking, we haven't left Germany, Korea, Kuwait or the Balkans. In fact, we only left the countries in which we effectively lost the fight (Vietnam and Somalia). This doesn't conflict with your general argument, that we didn't stay in these places and form an empire out of them; I'm just saying we haven't left. There are valid reasons for the US to have troops in these places that have nothing to do with imperialism.
Re:Obligatory "Starship Troopers" quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I just cut and pasted from imdb.com and put in a little HTML to spice it up. Didn't even notice the misspellings.
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the Iraqi insurgency isn't the number of insurgents. It's that the conflict isn't a conventional war. The insurgency could never defeat coalition forces militarily. They can however defeat them politically by wearing down public support for the war. If the US invaded China like it did Iraq, the conventional war would be much more costly (mostly because they have nuclear weapons), but once the dust settled, what would make a Chinese insurgency (if one even arose) more difficult would be that there are so many more *civilians* for them to hide amongst; the size of the Chinese army wouldn't matter in the occupation.
None of the paths you advocate make any sense. The key to a peaceful, prosperous future on Earth lies in looking at what the US did when they literally "united the states" --- get everyone working on the 'same side'. Seems the US has forgotten this though, but that is how the US became so prosperous in the first place.
Actually, the way the US became prosperous was by throwing off the shackles of monarchy by military means and subsequently setting up a democratic government. The United States weren't too "united" during the conflict either. Only one third of the American public supported the revolution. Looking with hindsight now, we realize that choosing democracy was the right decision, even though it bore both a human and economic cost.
Anyway, I think we actually do agree to a certain extent. The US must and should talk with the rest of the world; but it does. The US did go to the UN and everyone recognizes that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions. The question was whether or not the world was going to actually enforce the resolutions, and the US finally decided it would. I'm all for the world getting together decide the rules through diplomacy, but that also means deciding to enforce them. Americans are by no means angels, and they went to war primarily because they believed it was in their interest. But my point is that the UN makes itself irrelevant if it refuses to enforce its own rules, even though those rules were made through international consensus. (Note: I know that some will argue the sanctions placed on Iraq were the enforcement mechanism, but we all know that it was the Iraqi people, not Saddam, who primarily suffered under them. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions; I don't think such a costly and still ineffective punishment is worth it.)
Re:Peace by force (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you can honestly argue that the USA uses its power sparingly. Moreover, are you really serious that the USA should get praise for not taking over the world? So what if we have the military might to force any country to do our bidding..that doesn't mean we should.
I am truly sorry that you have to risk your life in Iraq, because the situation there will invariably disintegrate into civil war. You, and hundreds of other American servicemen are being sent to the slaughter by your Commander In Chief, and in the end, we will have nothing to show for it but dead Iraqis and Americans.
Did it ever occur to you that as an invading force, we in the USA just might be on the wrong end of this? Who told us to be the world's policeman? What ethical right do we have to invade sovereign nations, no matter how good our intentions? Only the United States could be so arrogant.
And if we do want to use our might as the only Ultrapower left on Earth, then let's use it to stop Hitlers, not these petty little tyrants who want to spill the blood of their own citizens. If the citizens want to rebel, they can do it themselves.
The United States can afford neither the lives nor the money for discretionary wars. Real wars are not optional, and threaten the planet: WWI and WWII.
In the end, you cannot "give" democracy to a people any more than you can force it upon them. They have to want it, and be willing to fight for it. Iraq may never be ready for a USA-style republic.
The state of War (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, ermm...maybe it's time we changed with this attitude?
This reasoning is pretty self-fulfilling, after all: why should one resist war, if it's deemed to be 'normal' and a great way of doing 'meta-science'? The acceptance of the unavoidability of war, makes war more likely.
Ultimately, the world is what you make it, nothing more, nothing less. And sure, agression is part of human nature, but that doesn't mean we should not limit it's effects, nor that we have to accept all it's expressions (we don't do that in our society neither, after all).
Is this naive and doomed? I wonder. Part of me seems to agree with you: it's so well entrenched in us humans, it will be difficult to actually abolish it completely. Another part thinks that maybe it's not all that bleak after all. Our societies, at least in the West, have increasingly become 'soft' in this respect. Where people used to be not much bothered by killing anymals for pleasure, now we do. Let alone we would still condone mass-murder on civilians (ok, the usa still does it in some sense, but it's rather 'collateral damage'; they don't go out of their way to actually shoot civilians.) In the middle ages, they had no problems killing out whole villages, including all children, and being proud of that. These days, at least in western societies, that would be deemed unacceptable.
And, look at Europe. for gods' sake, this has been the battleground for the most vicious battles and wars during ages and ages. every goddamn king and country has fought numerous times with eachother, and there wasn't a year without some war being waged somewhere in europe - sometimes lasting decennia. And we've got two worldwars too. But...things seem to have changed; we don't subscribe to the idea that war is inevitable, anymore. We actually unify peacefully, instead of emperialistically. No wars are fought (well, within the EU, at least), and political and economical ties make it increasingly unlikely there ever will be another major war in Europe. (Well, you never know what the future might bring, but it DOES become increasingly unlikely if one extrapolates the currenjt trend). In short, diplomacy replaced warmongering. And if that succeeds here, in such a formerly war-prone continent, then it can succeed everywhere.
Yes, I see a pattern of bullying and aggression (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I see the pattern that you got there in the first place. Since WW2, no other nation, heck, not even any whole continent, has started as many wars.
Even the USSR was a lot tamer by comparison. Yes, they tried to beat up Afghanistan and set up their own puppet government there, and had a brief tour through Hungary to the same end. The USA did that to two countries during the current president alone.
Defining it as being the good guys just because you just got there, shot a bunch of people, secured a puppet government and some fat concessions to USA-based corporations, and left, is like saying that the school bully is really the good guy there because he just beat people up and took their lunch money. Didn't take them into slavery or anything, right?
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is not Rome, and can't pull of what Rome did.
Yes, we're not Rome. We're what Rome would have been had they been several thousand times more powerful. For some reason that still escapes me, despite many efforts to figure it out, people continue fail to understand that, whether or not you like it, the United States is, in fact, the single most powerful entity in the history of the known Universe. The fact that we are allowing the insurgency in Iraq to go on is proof of that. I think most other nations would just as soon blast the country and be done with it, but we don't even need to. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a die hard Patriot (that's always a bad mentality to have, no matter your country), and I think there's a lot of shit going on in the US right now that is seriously fucked up and threatens our long term future viability, but I also call it as I see it. And what I'm calling is horse shit whenever anyone goes on a tangent about how the Iraqi insurgency is proof our military is weak or that China would smoke our asses. Iraq is nothing. Iraq is Vietnam (somewhere else that we should have just glassed...) with the strong military backing of Russia and a then newly communist China and good (for the defenders) terrain replaced with rabble from Syria and Saudi heading in with their family AKs and a little bit of cash and dense jungle replaced by buildings and sand. As for China, let them do what they're doing for another 20-30 years, and then maybe they'll be a real threat.
Though, that's why we're even talking about this in the first place, the initial story of the US gaining the ability to jam comm. systems from space. In regards to fighting a more modernized foe, this is a necessary step to take. China (who, outside of European nations, would probably be our best match at this point in time) wouldn't be a push over, but I'd imagine head to head, our ground forces would likely take theirs, and we still have naval (I think the carrier matchup is the US with ~20, China with 1 under construction) and (even more so) air superiority over them, and now that we are pushing into space, I don't think we'd have much of a problem at all. But, then again, they're also a nuke nation, so that could make for some interesting times...
Though, like I said, 20-30 years. We're taking bigger military steps into space right now, but China is catching its space program and military up rather quickly (proof that democracy holds countries back, as they are flying up in the world right now under a dictatorship) and might just pass us by then. And the best part? China is a Dragon of our own creation. Just keep the stat in mind that if Wal-Mart was a nation, they would be China's 6th largest trading partner, and I'll let you guess where the US as a whole sits in the remaining top 5. They've built their country as they've seen fit, and have done a very good job of it so far. We've just been giving them the money to do it.
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway.. the particular part of your diatribe that I was going to criticise was this:
"I think most other nations would just as soon blast the country and be done with it".
Considering that there was barely any international support for the invasion anyway (if you exclude politicians who have their collective tongues wedged in Bush's anus - yes, I'm aware than includes my own 'leader'), we never would have been IN Iraq without the US. Subsequently, there would not be any insurgents.
But anyway, this will never get through your bubble of self-delusion, so don't let me interrupt your flag waving. I await downward moderation for daring to criticise the infallible US.