USA develops space-based weapons

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 31 Oct 2006 15:21:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The U.S. forces are everywhere, but nowhere, the net
result being that they control nothing - like the British
during the Revolution, or the French and Americans
in Indochina. This is what losing a war looks like at
first, then it gets worse. The insurgents are on home
ground, supported by the local populace.

Really? The "populace" supports a movement that is murdering them
daily?

It is a civil war. Sunni versus Shia. After trying to fight
both sides for the first few years of the war, the U.S. has
more and more come to side with the Shia*, who are
in control of the U.S.-backed government. Most of the
coalition deaths have been in Sunni Anbar and Salah ad Din
Provinces and in Baghdad where millions of Sunni reside -
areas where the locals - the populace through which the
U.S. forces must patrol and transport and resupply - are
supportive of the anti-U.S. insurgency. See;
"http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx"

- Ed Kyle

* Which makes no sense in the grand scope of U.S.
strategy sense the Shia are also supported by
Hezbollah/Iran. But whatever. Bush must have a
really complicated secret plan that will all come
together and make perfect sense right before he
leaves office.

On 1 Nov 2006 16:03:35 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 31 Oct 2006 15:21:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The U.S. forces are everywhere, but nowhere, the net
result being that they control nothing - like the British
during the Revolution, or the French and Americans
in Indochina. This is what losing a war looks like at
first, then it gets worse. The insurgents are on home
ground, supported by the local populace.

Really? The "populace" supports a movement that is murdering them
daily?

It is a civil war. Sunni versus Shia.

That doesn't constitute a "movement." It constitutes at least *two*.

On 1 Nov 2006 19:05:55 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The U.S. forces are everywhere, but nowhere, the net
result being that they control nothing - like the British
during the Revolution, or the French and Americans
in Indochina. This is what losing a war looks like at
first, then it gets worse. The insurgents are on home
ground, supported by the local populace.

Really? The "populace" supports a movement that is murdering them
daily?

It is a civil war. Sunni versus Shia.

That doesn't constitute a "movement." It constitutes at least *two*.

"Movement" was your word.

You didn't object to it. It's nonsensical to say that "the populace"
supports a civil war, since that implies that there is a unitary
"populace."

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:45:29 -0500, "jonathan" wrote:

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
roups.com...
jonathan wrote:
My problem with the Bush policy is that we have little or no
competition when it comes to military capabilities.

Israel's recent experience against Hezbollah should give
pause to anyone who believes that the U.S. has no military
competition. Like the U.S. in its most recent wars, Israel
had complete control of the air, used precision munitions,
and had overwhelming artilliery and armor superiority, but
it got nowhere, losing 55 high-tech tanks and many soldiers
to what was little more than a well-organized militia armed
with the latest in mobile missile weaponry.

I wasn't very clear, the thread was about space based
weapons. Are you saying more high tech or space
based weapons are the answer? I was trying to
say more manpower, not technology, is the
answer.

What, exactly, is the question?


As we're seeing in Iraq, we can take any town or battlefield
we want.

Ah, so the question is, "how can we win the Iraq war?"

That's a really, really, really amazingly stupid question to ask,
if you're making military R&D and procurement decisions. It's
*too late* to win, or lose, the Iraq war by means of military
R&D and procurement. Aside from some niche opportunities, we're
going to have to muddle through, or cut and run, or perhaps do
something amazingly clever, with the gear we thought was worth
buying in the 1980s and 1990s.

The stuff we decide to develop now, is for whatever war we end
up fighting in the 2020s. That war, will not be in Iraq, and
it will not be Just Like Iraq Only Someplace Else.


Not sure when or where or what it *will* be, but "Hey, let's buy
a whole lot of the weapons that would have been really useful for
the last war we fought", is almost never a winning strategy, and
I for one oppose any attempt to follow it now.

Whether space control weaponry is an appropriate path to follow
is debatable, but the fact that it would be useless for fighting
the present war is a *good* sign.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 16:03:35 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 31 Oct 2006 15:21:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The U.S. forces are everywhere, but nowhere, the net
result being that they control nothing - like the British
during the Revolution, or the French and Americans
in Indochina. This is what losing a war looks like at
first, then it gets worse. The insurgents are on home
ground, supported by the local populace.

Really? The "populace" supports a movement that is murdering them
daily?

It is a civil war. Sunni versus Shia.

That doesn't constitute a "movement." It constitutes at least *two*.

"Movement" was your word.

- Ed Kyle

John Schilling wrote:

Whether space control weaponry is an appropriate path to follow
is debatable, but the fact that it would be useless for fighting
the present war is a *good* sign.

Indeed. Plan for the next war. or wars. And who will they be against?
Obvious candidates include NorK and Iran, against whom space weapons
may have minimal value... but then there's also China, against whom
space weapons probably will have value, and then there's Russia, which
is making every effort to show that they want to bring back the cold
war, and possibly make it hot.

wrote:
John Schilling wrote:

Whether space control weaponry is an appropriate path to follow
is debatable, but the fact that it would be useless for fighting
the present war is a *good* sign.

Indeed. Plan for the next war. or wars. And who will they be against?
Obvious candidates include NorK and Iran, against whom space weapons
may have minimal value... but then there's also China, against whom
space weapons probably will have value, and then there's Russia, which
is making every effort to show that they want to bring back the cold
war, and possibly make it hot.


And the evidence that China and Russia want war is what, other than
your right-wing paranoia?

Eric

wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:
wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:
wrote:
jonathan wrote:

So why expand our military into space? Will success in
the next Iraq, or this one, be helped ...at all...by space
based military capabilities?

Yes.

Why?

What, you've never heard of GPS? Comsats? Spy sats? And why do you
assume that the Next War will be just like the Last War?

All those sats can exist without war. Why imply it unless you intend to
start it?

Wow. Do you realize that that made no sense whatsoever?

Your lack of understanding doesn't equate to me making no sense. Let me
slow it down for you. Your desire to make new hardware does not
precipitate war based upon an attack from an enemy. More likely your
creation of new hardware will create a desire to use it, so you must
create an enemy in that regard. History has many examples of this.

Same mentality happened with Bush using 9/11 to invade Iraq, a desire
from a 1998 plan (see PNAC).





Your approach is: Militarize space and justify why later.

Wrong.

Militarize space now on the justification we've had for more than a
century: it's the last frontier available to us.

Why do it necessarily?

Because the military is the most efficient means of conquering the
universe.

And conquering the Universe is the goal?! You have been watching too
many Star Trek shows. I thought exploration was the goal? Why go in
with war on your mind unless you tend to start one?!? Back to the same
premise you didn't understand above!

Commercial ventures are good for some initial small-scale
efforts, and for supporting the military establishments once they are
in place... but a military effort to colonize Mars or the asteroids
would be the best way to get it done in a timely fashion.

I guess you completely missed the part where NASA was set up to NOT be
a branch of the military. And space exploration was for all mankind. I
suppose you really wanted Neil Armstrong's speech on the moon to say
something more to the effect of American dominence in space and claim
the moon as an American asset? Geez, you should have been a Roman...



Good. The more people getting filthy rich off space, the better. And
Halliburton, unlike Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or ELF, actually
*builds* things. Sounds like a goddamn good choice!

Yeah, trickle down economics in space.

Indeed. A rising tide lifts all starships, baby.

Yep, SF on the brain. Fascism in space led by Scott Lowther. Geez, I'm
glad you're just a pimple-faced teenager (or the equivalent) behind a
keyboard rather than a military leader. You'd fit in well in NK as you
act just like they do.

Eric

Still waiting for to reply,
but seems as if he's frenched off.



"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

"jacob navia" wrote
Yes, the space policy of the U.S. has taken a war oriented
course. This is no wonder coming from Mr Cheney, and Mr
Bush though.

Just curious, Jacob -- where were you and your friends
and your cynical objections when Soviet orbital weapons
were being launched and tested and deployed in the 1960's,
the 1970's, the 1980's, even to the final days of the USSR --
and all in the absence of any US orbital weapons?

Didn't notice? Or cheering them on? Or two terrifed to
make a peep for fear of ridicule from progessive friends
and relations?

Je suis curieux. Svp, je voudrais voir un explanation.

Eric Chomko wrote:
wrote:
John Schilling wrote:

Whether space control weaponry is an appropriate path to follow
is debatable, but the fact that it would be useless for fighting
the present war is a *good* sign.

Indeed. Plan for the next war. or wars. And who will they be against?
Obvious candidates include NorK and Iran, against whom space weapons
may have minimal value... but then there's also China, against whom
space weapons probably will have value, and then there's Russia, which
is making every effort to show that they want to bring back the cold
war, and possibly make it hot.


And the evidence that China and Russia want war is what, other than
your right-wing paranoia?

Try opening your eyes. Russia is the biggest arms dealer to the worst
parts of the world, including, what, $700 million in missiles to iran;
they are protecting Iran's nuke program; they have been caught
pre-positioning large stockpiles of weapons located such that the
obvious target is Israel; they have been making nice with the worst of
the Islamofascist governments; they have threatened military responses
to a missile defense system in Poland; Russia does not consider Hamas
or Hezbollah terrorist organizations, and instead sells them weapons;
Russia had started sending their bombers back into North American
airspace (and over Iceland); and Russia, which doesn't want the US to
have missile defenses, keeps cranking out new and better nuclear
missiles. Does it mean they *want* to go to war? Not necessarily. Does
it mean we'd better keep an eye on them and prepare for all
possibilities? You bet your ass.