On the militarization of space.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

Okay. So. Bush announces a plan to go to the moon. DU reacts in it's inimitable way, screaming and howling about the militarization of space, the inate evil of PNAC, etc.

Folks, we need to get something straight: the militarization of space is going to happen. Period. End of story. We're human, we live in nation-states and this ain't Star Trek. The military uses of space stretch back to the beginning of the space age, and manned military operations have already been conducted by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Most of this work has been experimental, which suits as most manned flight today is still experimental. However, once nations begin to expand into space in earnest, militaries will move along with them.


It will happen. It has already happened. Frankly, I don't think this is necessarily the worst thing that could happen. I know that I would much rather a shooting war between the US and, say, Brazil happen out in the asteroid belt than the Matto Grosso. But whining about it now is akin to running a firehose on a burned-out building. It's empty and it's pointless.

[pmbryant]

1. Several problems here

One: I know it's a general feeling here, but any Moon/Mars program has nothing to do with militarizing space. Instead, it has to do with political stunts and aerospace pork.

Two: To address your point, the militarization of space does not have to happen. Period. Look at Antarctica for an example of how nations can team up and not militarize an area.

Three: As for your scenario of a shooting war in the asteroid belt: that is not what people are worried about. As far as I can tell, they are worried about weapons in Earth orbit that can be used against people on the ground, or against vital communications satellites, etc.

--Peter

[billbuckhead]

6. China is forcing it because USA forcing them to fight us

We used to buy cheap Japanese goods before WW2 and they still fought us when we cut off their oil supply. The Chinese have figured out that whoever controls space controls the earth. China is forced to takeover space with brilliant scientists and cheap labor inorder top protect itself from the BFEE-PNAC crowd. Those pesky Russians will probably hook up with India, oh, they already did?. EU/Brasil anyone?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

7. Points

1) Oh, absolutely. More likely the former than the latter though, if I read the sketchy details right. This looks more like a retread of Bush the Elder's 1989 vision thing instead of something really groundbreaking.

2) At the same time, the Antarctica treaty has a lot of restrictions attached to it which make it less than worthwhile for the signatory nations to do much of anything there. Plus that treaty is due to expire in a decade or two.

3) That technology's been operational since the mid 1980s. It was outlawed by treaty by the superpowers, but that situation has kind of gone away in the period since then. The djinn's out of the bottle.

[thinkingwoman]

2. finally, somebody making sense about space

China has said they are going to go to the moon. Like it or not, that means a second space race is on unless we just GIVE UP.

If we give up and let China put a base on the moon before we do, we can kiss our superpower status goodbye.

Now I know, there are DU'ers who would argue that that would be a good thing. But I disagree. Just because we are abusing our superpower status under the present administration, doesn't mean we should give it up.

We have to go back to the moon and we have to take our rightful position as leader of this world and all others. If we don't, then every single life we have lost in space exploration has been for nothing.

[pmbryant]

4. No moon base == no superpower?

I don't see that. There is nothing valuable on the Moon at all. At least not valuable enough to be worth the extreme expense.

How in the universe would a tiny, yet hugely expensive, isolated base on the Moon, 250,000 miles out in space, have any impact on power struggles here on Earth?

If there is another 'race' to the Moon, it will be just like the one in the 1960s. In other words, it will be done just for bragging rights.

--Peter

[thinkingwoman]

21. nothing of value there?

How exactly would you know? Have you been there? Do you work for NASA?

Oh, and the Apollo 1 astronauts died for bragging rights? I'm sure their family members will be glad to hear that.

I'm sorry, but I can't take your post seriously. It's just too illogical. I'm going to leave you to your beliefs and be thankful that you aren't in any position to make the decision.

[Traje]

3. The only trouble is...

... I dont think people are mostly worried about a shooting war happening in the asteroid belt. I think people are concerned with the possibility of a weapons platform launching an orbital bombardment. Sure space has been militarised with missions and satalites, but as far as we know (from the government and corporate media), this has excluded the afforementioned weapons platforms. So space militarisation hasn't the extent which you imply.

I think it's a little naive to think that a skirmish on the other side of the solar system would be confined there. Battles would most probably continue on Earth between the combatant nations.

The militarisation of Space is horrific because it is yet another place in which humans want to blow each other up.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

9. Weapons platforms

It's already been done on a trial basis by the Soviets. Anyway, one of the fascinating things that people interested in this sort of thing have discovered about orbital weapons platforms is that that they're not really all that useful.

Seriously. They're big, they're bulky, they're maintenance-intensive and they're extremely vulnerable to ground assault. In the final analysis an ICBM farm is a much more effective way of delivering remote-controlled death to ground based targets than a space station.

Space-based weapons would be most effective against other space-based weapons.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. The US must impose its will on space and establish a dominant

presence in order to be ready to launch pre-emptive actions against rogue nations who might try to utilize US properties there for their own interests.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

8. That's... sarcasm, right?

I can't tell anymore in this place, as people here have the habit of saying the most outrageous things and expect them to be taken as holy writ.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. It is a summary of US policy

[Generic Other]

18. Since you are emperor, can't you issue some charters?

I'd like a lunar land grant, please.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

19. Sorry, keeping that to myself

Rank hath its privileges, after all.

[bobthedrummer]

10. It figures that out of all the candidates only Dennis Kucinich has

worked against the militarization of space.

As an interesting {and revealing IMO} sidenote is the disappearence of specific language concerning "exotic weapons", "mind control", "tectonic", "plasmas", "particle beam" and even "chemtrails" all these were referenced in the language of HR 2977 The Space Preservation Act of 2001, but the revision HR 3616 The Space Preservation Act of 2002 had lost this entire section.
http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm

[Emperor_Norton_II]

11. Perhaps the drafters of the bill decided not to look like utter nutbars?

Just a suggestion...

[bobthedrummer]

12. Did you know that DK is a member of the House Intelligence

Committee, are you suggesting that a Democratic Presidential candidate has some form of psychopathology or does the language of HR 2977 blow your little mind?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

13. Oh, I think it speaks well of Congressman Kucinich

that the language was dropped from HR2977. They had me right up to the point where it defined a weapon as utilizing "molecular energy." Call me wacky, but we get enough bad science coming out of the Bush administration as it is - the Democrats don't need to aid and abet.

[bobthedrummer]

15. This was in a proposed Act of Congress

I think it refered to black projects, some of them with space components.
Just a thought.

on edit:
STARWARS
http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/starwars.html

[Emperor_Norton_II]

16. Lots of things are proposed in Acts of Congress

The act of putting language into a bill does not automatically bestow legitamacy.

[bobthedrummer]

17. When the author has a security clearance and sits on an intelligence

committee it's nothing to sneeze at.
Plus I consider DK's altruistic patriotism, he was sending US a message about the kinds of specific things that many people are aware of say in the field of chemtrails.

But I don't want to stray off topic, Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate to oppose weapons in space.

[stevedeshazer]

20. Mr. Emperor, Sir

If I may,

I am one who screamed and howled thusly.

As your humble servant, I must say that I am aware that space will be militarized. It already has, as you've pointed out. That doesn't make it right.

My concern lies with the remainder of us who are and will continue to be bound to the earth for the rest of our lives. How shall we peasants live under such a new world order? Just roll over?

Perhaps you feel as though resistance is futile. You may well be right. It may well be over. But is it really over?

"What?! Over? Did you say over? NOTHING is over until WE
decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
HELL, NO!

It ain't over now! For when the goin' gets
tough,..............the tough get going! Who's with me!? LET'S GO!
C'MON! OOOOOOOOOOOO!"

-Blutarski, Animal House

[Emperor_Norton_II]

22. "Germans?"

No, skip it. National Lampoon movies are off subject.

Okay, first of all, your characterization of this as a "new world order" is incorrect and misleading. This is not a new world order any more than the current global situation constitutes a new world order. It's an extension of a very old world order, one that extends all the way back to when we were just figuring out this whole "civilization" deal.

You have people. People make nations. Sometimes nations fight each other. This happens. You may not think it's right, but unless you fundamentally change human nature the only way stop it from happening is to kill as many people as you can. As a man wiser than me once said, "show me a one-world goverment and I'll show you the mass graves."

Furthermore, I expect that the "peasants" will live with orbital military in the same way that they've lived with militaries through recorded history. Some will think it's useful, some will think it's a damned nuiscance, some will protest it and some will join it.

Moving the military into space is not a devestating shift in the balance of power. Frankly it's less of a shift than the development of the nuclear bomb or ICBM, or even the airplane.

[stevedeshazer]

23. I will protest it

Will you join it?

[bobthedrummer]

24. I'm with you. So is Dennis Kucinich.

eom

[Emperor_Norton_II]

25. I don't particularly -care- about it

I accept that it'll happen, and I move on. It is not likely to affect my life, and the few ways it could are beyond my power to change.

A military is a tool, nothing more. To protest its existence is a foolish as to protest the existence of screwdrivers.