Arming Outer Space

wrote in message ...

Look up at the heavens. Do we really want to leave future generations
with a legacy of space-based warfare?

Sure, why not? I'd prefer to have tin pot dictators scared of being
zapped at home by US laser satellites than to let them think they're
safe from US air strikes because they bought the latest air defenses
from Russian, EU, and American companies.

If not, let's pressure every
presidential candidate, as well as President Bush, to keep the heavens
free of weapons of mass destruction.

You're misusing the term "weapons of mass destruction." No nukes,
chemical, or biological weapons are being proposed for space
deployment (except maybe to deflect asteroids).

And, y'know, I'd like to have anti-asteroid nukes in space, or
where ever it's most advantageous (sp) to place them.

wrote in message ...
Arming outer space

Rumsfeld's dream is dangerous. It not only violates the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty, which wisely prohibited the militarization of space, but
also threatens to reignite the arms race, this time in space. It is
also hugely expensive, costing hundreds of billions of dollars that
could be used to care for people who live right here on Earth.

The Outer Space treaty of 1967 accomplished absolutely nothing useful.

The argument that funds spent on space are better spent 'to care for
people who live right here on Earth' is belied by the four decades of
money spent on space being a drop in the bucket compared to that spent
on social programs. No, another $16 billion is not going to solve the
homeless, medicare prescription drugs, or health care problems of
people right here on earth. NASA currently has a little less than half
the money spent on space, and that comes to $16 billion, a little less
than 1% of the federal budget. Social spending, on the other hand, is
well over 56% of the federal budget, and you cannot tell me that if
social spending was 57% of the budget that would make a significant
difference.


Look up at the heavens. Do we really want to leave future generations
with a legacy of space-based warfare? If not, let's pressure every
presidential candidate, as well as President Bush, to keep the heavens
free of weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, I want future generations related to me to have a chance of
defending themselves against future generations of others who may not
be friendly.

It's time for realistic people to give up the childish 90's notion
that the world will grow ever safer as long as the US unilaterally
disarms. Baseless optimism leads to complacency, which eventually
leads to defeat ala Sept 11, 2001.

Tom Merkle

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:46:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Arming outer space

By Ruth Rosen

Thursday, November 13, 2003

San Francisco Chronicle

sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/13/EDG11308KV1.DTL

LOOK UP at the sky. Imagine space-based weapons orbiting the globe,
ready to zap or nuke any country declared an imminent threat to the
United States.


Lets hear it for unbiased journalism...

All military writing uses buzzwords like "superiority" and
"domination" much the same way the business world uses "networking"
and "win win sitiuation". Its no suprise that the uninformed lefty
press started twitching.

In a sense the idea/fear is sound. Besides the obvious threat to
civilian targets.. A single reasonably hardened orbital platform with
an energy weapon or even just overgrown lawn darts could render every
surface naval vessel obsolete and vulnerable.

If you think space hasn't already been militarized, you are kidding
yourself.

James

Rumsfeld's dream is dangerous. It not only violates the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty, which wisely prohibited the militarization of space...

Incorrect. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits most military activities on
the surfaces of "celestial bodies", and forbids stationing of weapons of
mass destruction in space, but says nothing about military activities in
general in space.

Thanks. Very interesting all around. It's clear what side the article
was on. But still very interesting.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:
Rumsfeld's dream is dangerous. It not only violates the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty, which wisely prohibited the militarization of space...

Incorrect. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits most military activities on
the surfaces of "celestial bodies", and forbids stationing of weapons of
mass destruction in space, but says nothing about military activities in
general in space.


I am not a proponent of military motives behind space exploration, so
this article is a bit of negative news.
On the plus side, a space arms race will do wonders for rapidly
accelerating space technology. We may get to the Moon and Mars much
more quickly than we think!

.. A single reasonably hardened orbital platform with
an energy weapon or even just overgrown lawn darts could render every
surface naval vessel obsolete and vulnerable.

How do you "reasonably harden" a space craft? You can not hide it.
Couldn't it be shot down by an energy weapon on earth, which could be
hidden until fired?

Tom Merkle ) wrote:
[...]
: Yes, I want future generations related to me to have a chance of
: defending themselves against future generations of others who may not
: be friendly.

: It's time for realistic people to give up the childish 90's notion
: that the world will grow ever safer as long as the US unilaterally
: disarms. Baseless optimism leads to complacency, which eventually
: leads to defeat ala Sept 11, 2001.

We were defeated on 9-11? I thought we were attacked by 19 radical suicide
bombers that took advantage of our system and used our own commercial
airplanes against us as flying missiles?

I fail to see how arms or the military could have prevented the attacks.

Eric

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
We were defeated on 9-11? I thought we were attacked by 19 radical suicide
bombers that took advantage of our system and used our own commercial
airplanes against us as flying missiles?

Actually, the defeat came just afterward. The attacks themselves could
not reasonably have been prevented, and *by the standards of warfare* took
a relatively small toll. The defeat was the massive over-reaction of
hysterical, poorly-thought-out, useless, intrusive "security" measures --
many of which we're still living with -- which was *exactly* what the
terrorists wanted. The goal of terrorism is not to kill people, but to
disrupt their society. The West in general and the US in particular did
(and are still doing) the terrorists' work for them, due to poor leadership.

Which is all the more striking when you consider that the *same* leaders
did exactly the *right* thing, resulting in a major *victory*, on the
external front: attacking Al-Queda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and its
despicable government, and stomping them flat.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

I fail to see how arms or the military could have prevented the attacks.

Eric

Two stinger missiles launched from the towers could have shot down both planes.
The Pentagon should have been bristling with weapons as the headquarters of the
US military, I don't know why it was treated as just an office building.

Tom

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
We were defeated on 9-11? I thought we were attacked by 19 radical suicide
bombers that took advantage of our system and used our own commercial
airplanes against us as flying missiles?

Actually, the defeat came just afterward. The attacks themselves could
not reasonably have been prevented, and *by the standards of warfare* took
a relatively small toll. The defeat was the massive over-reaction of
hysterical, poorly-thought-out, useless, intrusive "security" measures --
many of which we're still living with -- which was *exactly* what the
terrorists wanted.

The terrorists wanted airline travel to be slightly more annoying? They
wanted to take away our plastic sporks and in-flight "meals?" They
wanted paperwork for foreign nationals who want to travel to the US to
be a little bit more complex?

That's pretty much the effective limit to the "intrusive 'security'
measures" that we're still living with. I hear lots of people screaming
about how horrible the Patriot Act is, but I never see any specifics.
Just vague hyperbole.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address