A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 05, 03:36 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space

[sci.astro removed from newsgroups]

In article . com,
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."


So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #2  
Old May 18th 05, 10:09 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
[sci.astro removed from newsgroups]

In article . com,
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."


So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.


Firstly, teh oceans are not really like the space. Secondly, there is no
"economic zone" in space and thirdly, US is not going to nearly the same
extents to deny others access to the oceans, unlike the space.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
  #4  
Old May 18th 05, 11:20 PM
Britt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Firstly, teh oceans are not really like the space. Secondly, there

is no
"economic zone" in space and thirdly, US is not going to nearly the

same
extents to deny others access to the oceans, unlike the space.


For a place that the US is supposedly "going to extremes to deny
others access to," there sure is a lot of non-US activity there. But
don't let us interrupt your fantasies, Sander.





Yeah to that. The ESA has incredibly cheap launch rates. For 20
million, a damn civilian can fly into space. Adding the new private
companies, and you can see space really is a lot like the sea. Its
vast, open, and full of mystery.

  #5  
Old May 19th 05, 12:36 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sander Vesik wrote:

So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.



Firstly, teh oceans are not really like the space.


I see. Space is different because it is 'not really like' the oceans.

What a wonderfully convincing argument.

Paul
  #6  
Old May 19th 05, 01:24 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 18 May 2005 21:09:09 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article . com,
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."


So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.


Firstly, teh oceans are not really like the space. Secondly, there is no
"economic zone" in space and thirdly, US is not going to nearly the same
extents to deny others access to the oceans, unlike the space.


For a place that the US is supposedly "going to extremes to deny
others access to," there sure is a lot of non-US activity there. But
don't let us interrupt your fantasies, Sander.
  #7  
Old May 19th 05, 03:45 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.
Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.


Firstly, teh oceans are not really like the space.


Why?

...and thirdly, US is not going to nearly the same
extents to deny others access to the oceans, unlike the space.


The purpose of attack submarines is to deny others access to the oceans
(by sinking ships and other submarines). Compute how much the US
attack-sub fleet has cost. Compare it to the budget for the "space
control" efforts. You will find the comparison instructive. Hint:
the first number has noticeably more digits than the second.

There are more than a few surface ships with similar functions too. Not
to mention aircraft and missile systems. Plus a whole bunch of support
functions, e.g. the SOSUS sonar network and an assortment of satellites.
All devoted to denying others access to the oceans, when required.

Of course, there's also that unpleasant-sounding part about attacking
ground targets from space. Now, if you thought the attack-sub fleet was
expensive, try pricing ballistic-missile subs, whose job is to attack
ground targets from the ocean. When you've gotten past your sticker
shock on them, try pricing supercarriers and their attack aircraft.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #8  
Old May 20th 05, 07:16 AM
steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:

[sci.astro removed from newsgroups]

In article . com,
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."


So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.


But some people do protest the existence of such a redundantly large and
useless navy.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is different.


It's not necessary and - at best - will start an arms race in space?




  #9  
Old May 20th 05, 01:38 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

steve wrote:


will start an arms race in space?


We can only hope.
  #10  
Old May 20th 05, 09:22 PM
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
MrPepper11 wrote:
They think that "the United States doesn't own space - nobody owns
space," said Teresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense
Information ... "Space is a global commons under
international treaty and international law."


So are the oceans, but few people protest the existence of the US Navy.


Well - countries can and do protest the presence of the U.S. Navy near or
in their waters - "In March 1996, the United States sent a task fleet
composing of two aircraft carriers towards areas close to the Taiwan
Straits...The Chinese Government made solemn representations and
struggled resolutely against the United States for its above wrong
doings."
(
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg...441/t17320.htm)

Few people protest the U.S. Navy if the ships are sailing out in deep
ocean, but if a U.S. carrier task group sailed uninvited into the
Murmansk seaport or the Bohai Sea, I'm sure that there would be a great
deal of diplomatic screaming - and hopefully not worse.

So yes, people do protest the US Navy - depending on where it's sailing.

Folks taking this line need to explain why they think space is
different.


Placing weapons in deep space is one thing, but placing them in near
earth orbit should be another matter. Putting conventional weapons in
orbit might be considered analogous to, say, having the Russian fleet
sailing its ships a half mile off the east coast and into the mouth of
the Potomac. That's too damn close for anyone's comfort, even neglecting
the issue of territorial waters. The fear of enemy weapons close at hand
(in Turkey and Cuba) yielding insufficient response time was probably
what nearly precipitated WWIII during the Cuban Missile crises. For these
reasons I think it exceedingly unwise to deploy even conventional weapons
in orbit, since the very characteristic that makes them appealing to the
military is the same characteristic the makes them outrageous
provocations to everyone they orbit over.

I don't consider warships a few hundred miles off a coast to be in the
equivalent strike position of war-satellites orbiting a few hundred miles
up, and I don't expect anyone else will either, if or when such things
are deployed.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space Herm Policy 70 May 26th 05 07:31 PM
New presidential directive calls for U.S. to deploy weapons in space [email protected] Space Shuttle 63 May 26th 05 07:31 PM
Listening to ISS: Window Shutter Open/Close Calls? JimO Space Station 0 February 13th 04 09:40 PM
ENTERPRISE CREW SPLIT OVER VIOLATING PRIME DIRECTIVE, INTERVENINGTO SAVE EARTH FROM ITSELF Rich SETI 10 November 14th 03 04:00 AM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.