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)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Funny)
On a more comic-book note, it's kinda fun that the United States Space Force is run by "General Lance Lord!" *cue dramatic music*
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:2)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:The state of War (Score:3)
Probably because there still are moderators with some good common sense to realise when they see something insightful or not.
"They've been able to adjust their thinking because, quite frankly, they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary."
Give me one example where two EU countries went to war (or let others wage war to another EU country) in the last 25 years. Note that I didn't say they don't support any wars anywhere in the world. But you can'
Re:The state of War (Score:3)
So, witless one liners is how you respond to a reasoned post about war. You're a real winner ther, aren't you.
I'm pretty sure I said war sucks. I'm pretty sure I meant it.
So apart from a pathetic attempt to slam someone you disagree with, what was the point of your post?
All you did was demonstrate what I was talking about. Given the opportunity and circumstances, people will choose to become confront
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 di
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:3, Insightful)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Funny)
He left out the word "yet".
I am glad they have the capability to strike al-quada from space though. I am sure this will mean the war on terror will be over any day now.
Re:I'm more worried about verbalizing space! (Score:3, Interesting)
When my enlistment ended that was the happiest day of my life.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what else is new?
KFG
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Funny)
ONE MILLION POUNDS STERLING!
Muahahaha*cough*... Ahahaha!
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, just kidding
I'm still waiting for Kinetic Energy weapons. Ya know... big spikes of metal being dropped into our gravity well in order to obliterate targets.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mu
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mu
"The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) is half the weight of the smallest bomb the Air Force uses today, the 500-pound Mark 82. It uses a 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. Utilizing a smaller weapon improves aircraft load-out and mission effectiveness. The size and accuracy of small diameter bombs allows aircraft to carry more munitions to more targets and strike them more effectively with less collateral damage. Because of its capabilities, the Small Diameter Bomb system is an important element of the Air Force's Global Strike Task Force."
"The Small Smart Bomb is a 250 pound weapon that has the same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb BLU-109, but with only 50 pounds of explosive. The 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. "
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:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Informative)
If only..... I think you mean the B-17 in WW2 (17,600lb bomb load), or maybe the B-52 in Vietnam (60,000lb bomb load); but the B52 was pretty accurate.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Informative)
But the worst was our use of cluster bombs over neighborhoods during "shock and awe."
Cite?
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.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:2)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:2, Interesting)
Europe was by far the bloodiest continent for hundreds and hundreds of years. What changed? Simple -- Democracy. It's extremely rare that stable democracies war on each other. Eventually, the rest of the world will join civilization and the entire world will be stable constitutional democracies. China, Korea, the Middle East -- Yeah, it seems far away from where
You just don't know where the battle is... (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens when less oil comes out of the ground than the year before? What happens when clean water gets more scarce? What happens when the gulf stream shuts down and Europe has to find new crop land or warmer/wetter weather?
Are we too civilized to have resource wars? How civilized were we to turn back food and water going to the victims of Katrina just last week in the US of A?
I have become much more cynical and worried about the future than ever. I have kids of my own now and I worry if they will be spared being drafted into a resource war. I'm sure they'll leave feeling like they are great heroes off to defeat some evil -- they will return with hollow looks in their eyes when they have killed too many of the hungry and desperate.
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
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...
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: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:Implicit racism and tyranny of low expectations (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Funny)
An Irishman is walking down the Falls Road when suddenly another man in a balaclava pull him into an alleyway and presses a gun to his head.
"Are you a catholic or a protestant" he demands.
"Oh Shit!" thinks the Irishman "I'm stuffed, how do I know which is right?"- then he has a moment of inspiration and answers "Actually I'm Jewish".
"No kidding!" says the man in the balaclava "I must be the luckiest arab in Belfast".
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:2)
I think that "expensive, cool, and/or more efficient ways to kill people" would be more correct.
Re:With apologies to Sid Meier... (Score:3, Interesting)
The shadowy shape of a bird spread its wings and rose into the air near him. Darkness engulfed the bridge. Dim lights danced briefly in the black eyes of the bird as, deep in its instructional address space, bracket after bracket was finally closing, if clauses were finally ending, repeat loops halting, recursive functions calling themselves for the last few times.
Re:The Biggest Jammers: +1, Informative (Score:4, Interesting)
What if its purpose is to just "buy time"? Meaning, it could be used as a fail safe to stop bad news from getting out.
Heres a scenario: actual treason charges that could bring down the house of cards that is BushCo are brought forth. The satellite is fired and stops all broadcasts getting out of Washington. The private mercenaries are used as a Pretorian Guard to secure Fitzpatrick and any witnesses. After the "cleanup", a suitable explanation along with a defrosted "insta-terrorist" is put in place, and then the media can fill the airwaves with a "human tragedy" or terrorist act. Something that makes enough sense that half the country can argue with the other half... like we have been dealing with for 5 years now.
This satellite may be no big deal and actually help our country. Normally, I wouldn't worry about it. But I am so paranoid about these fascists in office I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife--much less our country.
If we think BushCo can lie us into a war that doesn't benefit US interests--or anybody but a bunch of crooks. If we think BushCo would steal an election. What don't you think BushCo would do?
Not enough? Ok if torture were somehow legalized. If people could be imprisoned without their will? Oh, those are bad guys...
Not enough? OK, an administration that would use its own people as guinea pigs (especially abused children), how about that?
ahref=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/200
ahref=http://www.ewg.org/issues/humantesting/2004
ahref=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conten
ahref=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2005/Fe
ahref=http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ci/00/may/schm
The proposal was later dropped when the public got wind of it... but now it is back again (like the media consolidation bill). In fact, they pushed it through while people were drowning after Katrina. Our government, too busy to rescue citizens but not too busy to sneak in legislation. I've just heard the rumor but I can't find a link yet. I just hope that when we find a way to test roach killer on kids, it will be legal.
does this mean..... (Score:2, Funny)
This will seem odd.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't win without space? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that mod'ed "troll"? (Score:2)
If your criteria are other than killing people and breaking things, then this won't be necessary.
We've gone through how many wars in the past 50 years without this tech and the people we'll be fighting in future wars will STILL be fighting with tech and tactics recognizable 50 years ago.
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: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
Yes we NEED space weapons. (Score:5, Informative)
tcd004
Wasted Resources (Score:2, Insightful)
And we're gonna use it... (Score:3, Funny)
Militarization of Space (Score:2, Interesting)
space. Given the problems we already have with "space junk", orbiting
materials left over from previous launches ranging in size from rivets and
nuts to whole satellites, encouraging a "space race" of orbiting weapon
systems (including weapons against communication) seems crazy and
deeply disappointing.
I can only hope that such a space-race doesn't clog the low-Earth-orbit
regions so legitimate, peaceful endeavors can continue without being
pe
Military Intelligence (Score:4, Funny)
General "Buck" Turgidson:" Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"
General "Buck" Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."
Memorable Quotes from Dr. Strangelove [imdb.com] or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
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?
Re:Charlie Don't Surf (Score:2)
So what makes you think this will be used to target "ghetto terrorists?"
Re:Charlie Don't Surf (Score:2)
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.
The above quote was edited (Score:3, Funny)
The General later apologized and blamed it on too much time in the desert, but not before raising his fist and screaming "Long live the Fighters!"
The Air Force has refused to comment further.
I've been waiting for it... (Score:2, Funny)
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
It's true... (Score:2, Funny)
as an added bonus (Score:3, Funny)
Not a new idea, just a new public announcement (Score:3, Interesting)
And why are we telling the world? (Score:2)
Unjamming the Jammer? Failsafes? (Score:4, Funny)
General: Ok soldier, activate the communications jammer!
Soldier: Yes, Sir!
Soldier flips a switch.
Soldier: Jammer is activated. All communications are jammed, sir.
Static is heard coming from every communications device.
General: Ok, soldier. It works. You can turn it off now.
Soldier presses a few buttons and shakes his head.
General: I said you can turn it off now soldier.
Soldier: I'm trying sir. I sent the signal to the satelite but it seems the signal was jammed.
General: By who?
Soldier: By the satelite, sir.
D'oh!
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...
Re:Attacks from whom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Attacks from whom? (Score:3, Funny)
China is Barzini!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:China is Barzini!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Life is cruel, you don't get your BFG all for yourself. Live with it.
The Outer Space Treaty (Score:3, Informative)
Very Concerning... (Score:3, Informative)
A couple days ago, I read about the Pentagon planning a first strike strategy [nzherald.co.nz] using nukes; now I hear about this...
Man, I need to find a nice hard mountain to build a new home in....
RTFA: There is no orbital communications jammer! (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't anybody read? There ain't no Death Star. Where did "satellite launch from the US" come into things? Oh yeah, it's Slashdot, foolish jumping to conclusions for nerds.
This "unit" is a group of trained people, most likely on the ground or from the air, who shoot electronic jammy things at ground stations which link to enemy satellites, or enemy ground stations which themselves are jamming US satellites. The US wants to keep its satellites, and since it has more capable and more expensive satellites than competitors it would rather not get in a "you blow up mine, I blow up yours" competition since the endpoint negates US advantages. They want to "I blow up your jammers so my satellites work again."
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:2)
Do you supposed that the other spacefaring nations that we might be able to help with such a tool would feel the same way? Meaning, if, say, China were to start using one of their birds to interfere with communications satellites used by Taiwan or India or Japan... wouldn't our ability
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:4, Informative)
We all like to think of ourselves as the good guys. Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.
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.
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 forge
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 play
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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 be
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 Unit
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)
Re:Peace by force (Score:3, Insightful)
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 - ye
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3)
Separatism is an interesting question, but it's certainly not the Americans, who fought a bloody civil war over the right of the states to succeed, in which the secessionist party lost, who are in a position to raise it.
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 am
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 a
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 potl
Re:Taking the initiative! (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is one article that sums it up, surprisingly on cable news from Keith Obermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368819/#041119a [msn.com]
America is only 49% idiots.
Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (Score:2)
Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (Score:2)
Assuming you mean "threat" (not "treat", since they're definitely not).
But big a threat as terrorists are, countries like Iran that actively funnel money and resources to them are starting (slowly) to depend on information infrastructures just like we do. Sure as hell any Chinese movement on Taiwan, for example, would be a lot harder for them to pull off if they suddenly lost their command and cont
Re:Nothing worth a good old undercover agent (Score:3, Funny)
Don't look at me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't look at me (Score:2)
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 down
Re:Fucking assholes. (Score:2, Insightful)
But as weapons go, this thing isn't much...
Re:Space Command Website (Score:2)
Re:Space Command Website (Score:2)
Re:Also (Score:3, Informative)
Hundreds of mobile trucks are harder to take out, especially if the transmitter's not actually on the truck and each truck has several spare transmiters
As a trained 'communication guy' (wiremonkey) from Finnish Army I can tell you than on one of those trucks my expected life time in case of war will be 8min 32sec after antenna goes up.